|
Post by captainusa1 on Jul 26, 2004 7:29:14 GMT -5
I've often heard that the first inhabitants of the British Isles were from what is now Spain. They supposedly had dark eyes and dark hair. They were followed by the Beaker People. Did the Beaker People resemble the first inhabitants?
My *guess* is that they did resemble each other because they *probably* were from the same ethnic strains. I haven't read anything to confirm or deny that, though. How do you think that the Picts fit into the picture? It's a pretty fuzzy picture before the arrival of the Celtic tribes (supposing that the Picts weren't Celtic).
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Jul 26, 2004 8:46:45 GMT -5
the first ones who entered into what is now the british islands are the majority of today present population. Don't know if the Iberians of those days were darker...you see there was an Ice Age, and the Iberian haitants of those days probably were adapted to that dificult climate. they did ventured outside this "refugee" but only after the Ice age. more than 75% of today british island habitants have the same male ancestor as most iberians do... not too long ago! (10 000-20 000 ? ) someone please give the right figures...but I think they are close to what I said! Regards! Vitor
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Jul 26, 2004 21:05:15 GMT -5
the first ones who entered into what is now the british islands are the majority of today present population. Don't know if the Iberians of those days were darker...you see there was an Ice Age, and the Iberian haitants of those days probably were adapted to that dificult climate. they did ventured outside this "refugee" but only after the Ice age. more than 75% of today british island habitants have the same male ancestor as most iberians do... not too long ago! (10 000-20 000 ? ) someone please give the right figures...but I think they are close to what I said! Regards! Vitor Thanks, Vitor. I've read conflicting articles about the genes of people in the British Isles. One said that the people are clearly divided between Celtic and Germanic ancestry. Another said that those two groups play a minor role compared to the role of the first inhabitants.
|
|
|
Post by Cerdic on Jul 27, 2004 11:41:45 GMT -5
There is some pretty ropey logic behind the idea rife in old books that the Neolithic inhabitants were "small and dark." After all there is no remaining hair to tell what colour it was.
The logic went something like this, duh! the Celts were tall and blond, the Romans - well there weren't many of them so we can ignore them, the Anglo-Saxons were tall and blond, the Danes were tall and blond and the Normans (well weren't they vikings anyway) well, perhaps most of them were tall and blond, so that all the people in the British isles who aren't tall and blond (the majority) they must be descended from the Neolithic peoples therefore the Neolithic people must have been dark.
This ignores the fact that there are many people in Britain who are tall and dark, and many (though a smaller proportion) who are short and blond. It also ignores the various indications that none of the later invaders of Britain were from particularly homogeneous populations and none were monochromatic in regards to hair colouring.
What is known is that the Neolithic inhabitants were fairly slightly built in general, and had long skulls. The Beaker associated peoples seem to have been more robustly built with rounder skulls.
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Jul 28, 2004 1:14:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the info, Cerdic. I didn't know that the Beaker People looked different than the first inhabitants. I once read that the Celtic tribes had red hair and the Germanic tribes had blonde hair. It would be nice if everything was that simple!
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jul 28, 2004 11:09:34 GMT -5
What is safe to say is that the Kelts, Germans or whatever tribe, ethnic group, language group had brown hair of varying from light to dark with a minority of black haired people and a conspicuous blond group. I thought the mummies in Europe, the ones found in oak coffins, were the honchos and they were blond. The bog people, those ritually killed and buried in peat bogs, were too tanned by tannins to know what their hair or eye colours were. Those caucasoids in western China seemed to be fair haired. It would be hard to tell as hair does get bleached and affected by chemicals.
|
|
|
Post by Requiem on Jul 28, 2004 11:59:30 GMT -5
Those caucasoids in western China seemed to be fair haired. It would be hard to tell as hair does get bleached and affected by chemicals. Those mummies appeared to have Red Hair.
|
|
|
Post by chairface on Jul 29, 2004 19:24:01 GMT -5
Maybe the Phoenicians were the first inhabitants.
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Jul 30, 2004 6:23:51 GMT -5
What is safe to say is that the Kelts, Germans or whatever tribe, ethnic group, language group had brown hair of varying from light to dark with a minority of black haired people and a conspicuous blond group. I thought the mummies in Europe, the ones found in oak coffins, were the honchos and they were blond. The bog people, those ritually killed and buried in peat bogs, were too tanned by tannins to know what their hair or eye colours were. Those caucasoids in western China seemed to be fair haired. It would be hard to tell as hair does get bleached and affected by chemicals. I read that the Celtic people didn't look much different than the Germanic people. I'm referring to the people in mainland Europe. It's possible that the Celtic people in the British Isles had darker hair after mating with the aborigines. My guess is that there wasn't a huge difference in appearances.
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Jul 30, 2004 6:28:28 GMT -5
Maybe the Phoenicians were the first inhabitants. That's an interesting theory. They might have settled and/or traded in the British Isles. Tin was a big commodity there. I doubt that they were the first inhabitants, though.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jul 30, 2004 11:52:54 GMT -5
Cap'n if you want to believe that the Keltic people were similar to the Germanic people, go ahead and believe it. I would say that belief or hypothesis is one strongly held by Anglos in Britain and the USA. It is a case of ethnocentrism on those Anglos part. Just like the changing of Jesus from some Middle Eastern man to a Nordic man.
The fact is the Keltic languages split off from the IE languages early and headed west as did the Italic languages. The Italic and Keltic languages are much closer to each other than they are to Helenic or Germanic. The Keltic speakers occupied most of Central Europe from west to Anatolia. At the time the Germanic speakers were located further north in Europe. So why would they Keltic speakers look like Germanic speakers?
As for the UK there have been sapien remains found there going much further back in time than the Keltic speakers. Long before the Phoenicians. I am talking of pre historic not history touched by the ancients like the Egyptians, Minoans... I can tell you that when I was at school in Ireland I was told that the original UK inhabitants were from what is now Spain/Portugal aka Iberians. It is likely that they, not Phoenician prospectors, were the first, large scale inhabitants after the sapiens of the Stone Age. I would guess these Iberians had dark hair, but who really knows.
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Jul 31, 2004 2:23:48 GMT -5
As for the UK there have been sapien remains found there going much further back in time than the Keltic speakers. Long before the Phoenicians. I am talking of pre historic not history touched by the ancients like the Egyptians, Minoans... I can tell you that when I was at school in Ireland I was told that the original UK inhabitants were from what is now Spain/Portugal aka Iberians. It is likely that they, not Phoenician prospectors, were the first, large scale inhabitants after the sapiens of the Stone Age. I would guess these Iberians had dark hair, but who really knows. I know. Read the first sentence in the first post in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jul 31, 2004 9:25:54 GMT -5
I was not talking about the Neolithic farmers, those small and supposedly dark people from the Middle East. I was talking about the people who lived in Iberia before those people came. The people who spoke unrelated languages like Basque or Etruscan.
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Aug 1, 2004 10:38:39 GMT -5
If genetics prove anything, then most britains are descendents of those first habitants...
that makes a lot of sense... only if there is a complete mass murder in giant scale, can a group of people displace other group.
I believe that only happened in the XVI-XX century... (in the America continent)
In ancient times, there was no central power, and populations usually fight with each other (small fights), but intermixed a lot as well, so the "new comers" will get diluted and lose the genetic impact to the previous population.
Of course in larger scale of time that diluting (and invasions) makes an impact...
|
|
|
Post by Cerdic on Aug 3, 2004 2:31:39 GMT -5
If the people of the "Mesolithic" cultures of Britain were not displaced by incoming farmers (as some genetic studies indicate) there is a discrepancy as the Mesolithic types were a good deal more robust than the Neolithic average.
This may have been due to the change in diet, going from a small population eating a diet rich in fish, shellfish and meat to a large population reliant on cereals may have resulted in smaller statures.
A similar effect, in reverse, is seen in the British Dark Ages, the Roman urban cemetaries have remains on average a couple of centimetres shorter than those found in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in nearby rural contexts. Importantly the remains are metrically similar indicating no sizable influx of outsiders. This suggests that in returning to the land diets actually improved.
|
|