Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What does an Irish person look like?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,325 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59252
Have to say the UNESCO info is massively out of date. Hell its plain wrong and would have been for at least 20 years. There were homo erectus in europe at least 1.5 million years ago. 200,000 yrs, even 400,000 yrs is a madly late date for human occupation of eurpe. I have in my possession two flint tools, one from the UK and one from France, both over the the 400,000 yr milestone.fontanalis wrote: »I actually just read a book that mentioned Mount Sandel and the 9,000 year date so sloppy posting on my part.
Would a barrier to obtaining evidence of early irish settlers be the fact that sea levels were alot lower and evidence may be underwater?
Regarding the time it took for settlement to move from Spain to Ireland, isn't the current understanding that after the ice age Ireland was basically a "blank slate" human occupation wise, as it was uninhabitable during the ice age.
Incidentally there is now evidence of possible human inhabitation of Britain going back over 750,000 years ago.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100707/ap_on_sc/eu_sci_first_northern_europeans
As for Ireland chances are high that there were earlier settlements than the Mount Sandel date, we just havent found them yet. There were probably earlier hominids here too, but the various ice ages obliterated the evidence(southern england escaped the ice sheets hence the evidence there).
The thing that strikes me about the basque connection is maybe we're related to them because they're the last remnants of the earlier hunter gatherers. We may have come from northern france or the UK, but those early genes were absorbed by later populations and we only find them in northern spain now? I would defo agree with you that we're not "Celts" though. Certainly not genetically. It seems the celtic invasion was much more cultural than physical. Our viking ancestry is pretty dilute too, especially compared to the lineages you find in places like the shetland which have very clear viking lines. Ditto with the normans and the later english. The english lines, unless from eastern regions are very like ours anyway so would be hard enough to spot differences, especially when the english would have generally bred with their own over here. The relative lack of norman stock is more puzzling as their own lot the vikings were here already and the normans did get jiggy with the locals almost immediately. In stark contrast to the normans in england where they avoided the locals like the very plague. Clearly we had better looking womenIrish ancestry is very interesting; the first people to arrive on the islands came from the Basque region/North Spain about 12,000 years ago, then during the bronze age onwards there was alot of interaction with North Spain again (trading etc, there was also some mines around Cork and Kerry that was supposed to be important in the whole atalantic coast trading route extending to Portugal), of course then there are the Vikings and the Normans (more or less recylcled Vikings) and English settlement.
It was a few 100 years before an "english" king could even speak the language. Richard the lionheart could barely speak a word of it.
One interesting one I read was that in Iceland the female line is very Irish. It looks like the viking boyos grabbed the women here. Icelandic women have won more beauty pageants than anyone else save for the columbians(or brazilians?). They would be Irish women genetically. So much for being munters in our DNA
Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
Have to say the UNESCO info is massively out of date. Hell its plain wrong and would have been for at least 20 years. There were homo erectus in europe at least 1.5 million years ago. 200,000 yrs, even 400,000 yrs is a madly late date for human occupation of eurpe. I have in my possession two flint tools, one from the UK and one from France, both over the the 400,000 yr milestone.
As for Ireland chances are high that there were earlier settlements than the Mount Sandel date, we just havent found them yet. There were probably earlier hominids here too, but the various ice ages obliterated the evidence(southern england escaped the ice sheets hence the evidence there).
The thing that strikes me about the basque connection is maybe we're related to them because they're the last remnants of the earlier hunter gatherers. We may have come from northern france or the UK, but those early genes were absorbed by later populations and we only find them in northern spain now? I would defo agree with you that we're not "Celts" though. Certainly not genetically. It seems the celtic invasion was much more cultural than physical. Our viking ancestry is pretty dilute too, especially compared to the lineages you find in places like the shetland which have very clear viking lines. Ditto with the normans and the later english. The english lines, unless from eastern regions are very like ours anyway so would be hard enough to spot differences, especially when the english would have generally bred with their own over here. The relative lack of norman stock is more puzzling as their own lot the vikings were here already and the normans did get jiggy with the locals almost immediately. In stark contrast to the normans in england where they avoided the locals like the very plague. Clearly we had better looking women It was a few 100 years before an "english" king could even speak the language. Richard the lionheart could barely speak a word of it.
One interesting one I read was that in Iceland the female line is very Irish. It looks like the viking boyos grabbed the women here. Icelandic women have won more beauty pageants than anyone else save for the columbians(or brazilians?). They would be Irish women genetically. So much for being munters in our DNA
My understanding of the basque region connection is that the area was like a "genetc hub", as in it was a region that could sustain a population during the ice age and as the ice age retreated the people moved north, also at this time the areas of Normandy, Cornwall and Southern ireland were connected due to low sea levels so the idea of ancestors of people from that ice age refuge making it to ireland very early is very likely.
Also there is the fact that these people mightn't necessarily been in the Basque region, they may just have retreated to what later became the Basque region so it's a case of common ancestry not descending from them, although with their unique language they make a fascinating group.
I think the R1b haplogroup is still undergoing study as it's thought the North Sea area/Dogegrland may be understated in the make up.
What would you base your Northern France/UK ancestry on? My reading has just been Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes, is there anything else that covers this? I think Barry Cunliffe has a good book that focuses more on archaelogical/cultural connections.
Maybe the Vikings had good taste . . . .0 -
Mostly brunettes or blonds with blue eyes and green,slim for the most part and small,then you have some who have red hair,some with freckles some without.Then we have brown eyes also,pale skin sallow skin dark skin.
We have a great variety height weight eye colour hair colour for everyone,just so happens you hate yourselves so hate yourself and call your self ugly and fat and what ever dont include the whole nation in your self hate :rolleyes:
Self hate is so unattractive lol 0
Advertisement