Race, Genetics and Intelligence

[jah]

I just wanted to present my theory regarding race, genetics and intelligence because I may be party to some rare knowledge which I came about as a result of getting my genetics mapped by 23andMe a few years ago.

 

I was rather astonished when I got my results back to discover that my maternal haplogroup, i.e. based on my mitochondrial DNA this was the population from I was descended via my mother, turned out to be M1a which I discovered was possibly Ancient Israelite.  I am of Scots/Irish descent and so this was a huge surprise.  Indeed, according to 23andMe, my DNA is more than 95% British and Irish which would tend to suggest that my maternal haplogroup wasn't an outlier and must be relatively common among various populations of the UK.

 

A little while later, while attempting to make sense of my maternal haplogroup, I learned about the 12 tribes of Israel.  Despite being brought up Catholic, this was news to me.  It seems that 10 of the twelve tribes were missing in action from around the 7th century BC.

 

I waded through a lot of strange stuff on YouTube but I became fairly convinced that there must be something in the story that the descendents of the missing 10 tribes had populated Europe, many of them coming to the British Isles.  There are even sources which state that the Celts actually called themselves Hebrews.

 

Now, why do I think this is related to race, genetics and intelligence specifically?  Well, it seems that M1a is one of the common maternal haplogroups of the Ashkenazi Jews.  Now, I don't have the Ashkenazi genetic marker although I've just realised that I don't know if that marker is present on the paternal Y or maternal X chromosome so there might be a little issue with my theory.  However, what I had previous thought was that my maternal ancestor split from the root Ancient Israelite population that gave birth to the Ashkenazis before they acquired their particular Ashkenazi marker.

 

When I was six I scored highly on a Weschler IQ test (WISC).  So, essentially, my theory is that the Ashkenazi Jews are actually a subpopulation of a larger group, some of whom are actually descendants of the Celts and live in the British Isles.  This would also to my mind explain the huge contribution of the Scots, Irish, Welsh and English to science, literature, philosophy, etc., etc., over the centuries.  This is actually the result of our descent from a base population with shared roots with the Ashkenazi Jews who are acknowledged to have the highest IQs.  If the kinship of British or European Ancient Israelite to the Ashkenazis were studied I suspect that together we would jointly be top of the IQ scale.

 

There's a lot of interesting stuff out there which supports my theory, e.g. search for The Scottish Declaration of Independence 1320, which refers to them being "the people of Israel".  There are many other sources too which link the Scots, Welsh and Irish to the Hebrews.

 

It would be interesting to know if anyone else with a similar background has discovered similar unexpected ancestral roots after doing a genetic test and what people think of my theory.

 

[luxfelix]

I came across a similar theory that Denmark has origins (at least etymological) in the Tribe of Dan, as well as a theory that variation between humans could be based partially in the inter-marrying of Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens (and/or other humanoid species).

 

As it is a taboo subject, it is not easy to find conclusive evidence.

[jah]

I came across a similar theory that Denmark has origins (at least etymological) in the Tribe of Dan, as well as a theory that variation between humans could be based partially in the inter-marrying of Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens (and/or other humanoid species).

 

As it is a taboo subject, it is not easy to find conclusive evidence.

 

Yes.  Theoretically, the Irish are also supposed to be descended from the tribe of Dan.  There are a lot of theories tracing the etymology of various names, e.g. the Scythians became the Cymru or the Welsh.  There are so many contradictory stories too that it's easy to dismiss them all as rubbish.  However, when something concrete like genetics seems to support some of the stories at least in part then I think there may be something to them after all.

 

I'm getting the impression that some of this history has been suppressed and there is actually a lot of information in dusty archives around Europe and elsewhere confirming it.

[Eh Steve]

My ancestry is largely scot-irish, but I hadn't considered this to be a possibility.  I'll be able to update you sometime in the future when I have $200 bucks to spend on 23andme and we can see if my scot-irish has an M haplogroup or not.  I have only a cursory knowledge of haplogroups/types and genetic ancestry.

 

My problem with your theory so far is that I haven't heard of it.  If M haplogroups were common for Europeans or Scot/Irish/Welsh/English, I think we would have heard more about this.  So it seems most likely to me you may be different fundamentally from your average UK heritage and are actually descendant from a different group than the average population.  To my knowledge the M1 haplotype is exceedingly rare in Europe. 

 

My hunch for an M to be in Ireland/Scotland might have more to do with Barbary pirates or the crusades/colonialism.  But it would be neat if they did a specific study of IQ / philosophers and did find a consistent unexpected haplogroup showing up in european populations.  I did find this article/study you might like in your exploration http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/07/origin-of-haplogroup-m1.html

 

At the bottom:  Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.

[rosencrantz]

Until the Assyrians show up, there is no evidence for any historical claim the Old Testament makes. The Assyrians conquer the Northern Part of Israel, where the 10 tribes supposedly live. These are still around. They are called Palestinians or Samaritans.

[jah]

My ancestry is largely scot-irish, but I hadn't considered this to be a possibility.  I'll be able to update you sometime in the future when I have $200 bucks to spend on 23andme and we can see if my scot-irish has an M haplogroup or not.  I have only a cursory knowledge of haplogroups/types and genetic ancestry.

 

My problem with your theory so far is that I haven't heard of it.  If M haplogroups were common for Europeans or Scot/Irish/Welsh/English, I think we would have heard more about this.  So it seems most likely to me you may be different fundamentally from your average UK heritage and are actually descendant from a different group than the average population.  To my knowledge the M1 haplotype is exceedingly rare in Europe. 

 

My hunch for an M to be in Ireland/Scotland might have more to do with Barbary pirates or the crusades/colonialism.  But it would be neat if they did a specific study of IQ / philosophers and did find a consistent unexpected haplogroup showing up in european populations.  I did find this article/study you might like in your exploration http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/07/origin-of-haplogroup-m1.html

 

At the bottom:  Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.

 

M1a is just one of the haplogroups associated with the Ancient Israelites.  There are others but I've not paid them any attention as they don't apply to me.

 

As I said above, my reasoning for my mtDNA not being an outlier is that 23andMe gives my ancestry as more than 95% British Irish.  Given that, I would say that there must be substantial evidence of a significant distribution of my mtDNA in the British/Irish population.  Obviously, I don't know the magnitude of this distribution.  I did read an interesting book Blood of the Isles by Bryan Sykes in which he identifies the main ancestral lineages in the UK.  Unfortunately, he doesn't relate these lineages to the now accepted haplogroup designations.  I've considered getting my DNA tested by his company but it's quite a bit more expensive than 23andMe.

 

Interestingly, there is evidence that the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians ended up in Ireland and they were related to the Ancient Israelites too.  My maternal ancestry derives from one of the small islands off Ireland which is considered to be part of the Celtic fringe stretching from Spain up the west coast of France to the UK.

 

Thanks for the article.  I've seen it before.  It's all very interesting.

Until the Assyrians show up, there is no evidence for any historical claim the Old Testament makes. The Assyrians conquer the Northern Part of Israel, where the 10 tribes supposedly live. These are still around. They are called Palestinians or Samaritans.

 

I think there is rather a lot of evidence in fact and my own DNA evidence points to the history. albeit far from mainstream, being correct.  The Old Testament is in large part a huge family tree.  Whether you think there's anything in it, it's rather detailed for it to be complete nonsense.  There is historical evidence for the paths taken by some of the tribes after they left their ancestral homeland so I don't think it's a complete fairy story.

[jah]

P.S. It seems that the Assyrians have been found to be genetically homogenous with the other peoples of the region:

 

A 2008 study on the genetics of "old ethnic groups in Mesopotamia," including 340 subjects from seven ethnic communities ("Assyrian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Armenian, Turkmen, the Arab peoples in Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait") found that Assyrians were homogeneous with respect to all other ethnic groups sampled in the study, regardless of religious affiliation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_people

 

So it's not really possible to say where they went.  They are, effectively, still there in the mix of similar populations.

[rosencrantz]

Whether you think there's anything in it, it's rather detailed for it to be complete nonsense.

 

Tolkien's Silmarillion or the Upanishads are even more detailed, still they are made up. 

 

There is historical evidence for the paths taken by some of the tribes after they left their ancestral homeland so I don't think it's a complete fairy story.

 

The tribes didn't leave, their land was conquered. A part of them was moved to another region of Assyria, new people came in and mixed with the remaining Northern Israelites. 

[jah]

Tolkien's Silmarillion or the Upanishads are even more detailed, still they are made up. 

 

The tribes didn't leave, their land was conquered. A part of them was moved to another region of Assyria, new people came in and mixed with the remaining Northern Israelites. 

 

Ok, so the bible is complete fiction.  Fine.

 

The genetics is complete fiction?

 

 

 

The tribes didn't leave, their land was conquered. A part of them was moved to another region of Assyria, new people came in and mixed with the remaining Northern Israelites. 

 

Well, two of the tribes went to Babylon.  The whole point is where the other ten tribes went.  I'm not going to cut and paste stuff that people can find for themselves but there's very interesting historical evidence for where the missing ten tribes went.  There is a fair amount of conflicting theories but if the genetics lines up with some of them then there's something worth considering.

[rosencrantz]

The genetics is complete fiction?

 

 

What is more likely: a) You descend from a jewish mother somewhere in your past b) The ten lost tribes somehow got to Denmark, without leaving any evidence. Decide for yourself. 

 

Well, two of the tribes went to Babylon.  The whole point is where the other ten tribes went. 

 

 

There were two events. Northern Israel got devasted by the Assyrians in 722. The elite was either killed or relocated. The common people stayed where they were. New people were settled in Northern Israel. The populations mixed. Their descendants are now either Palestinian or Samaritan.

Jerusalm was conquered by the Babylonians. The elite was relocated to Babylon. After they returned from the exile, they made a purge to restore the 'Jewishness' and instituted strict marriage laws. 

 

but there's very interesting historical evidence for where the missing ten tribes went.

 

 

No there's not. Stories aren't evidence. If you have evidence present it.

[Eh Steve]

my DNA is more than 95% British and Irish which would tend to suggest that my maternal haplogroup wasn't an outlier and must be relatively common among various populations of the UK.

 

 

This would be a good place to start.  You getting 95% UK DNA but haplogroup M1 genuinely confuses me on how to interpret it.  Nothing I have seen indicates that the UK has any significant percentage of M1 within it.  And I believe they have done quite a bit of samples to be able to reach that conclusion.  http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml  (chart at the bottom here)

 

I've been googling quite a bit and haven't been able to find much of an M1a population in the UK at all.  So this would be my only point of contention in terms of the rest of the population.  It has no bearing on what your lineage is, which for all I know could be friggen fascinating

[jah]

 

 

What is more likely: a) You descend from a jewish mother somewhere in your past b) The ten lost tribes somehow got to Denmark, without leaving any evidence. Decide for yourself. 

 

Well, no, I don't think so.  As I said, M1a is apparently one of the less common Ashkenazi maternal haplogroups.  However, I don't have the Ashkenazi markers so I don't think my M1a derives from a Jewish ancestor.  For some reason, M1a is considered to be Ancient Israelite.  I've not found the research from which this is derived.  I think the ten tribes seem to have spread across the whole of Northern Europe.

 

 

 

There were two events. Northern Israel got devasted by the Assyrians in 722. The elite was either killed or relocated. The common people stayed where they were. New people were settled in Northern Israel. The populations mixed. Their descendants are now either Palestinian or Samaritan.

Jerusalm was conquered by the Babylonians. The elite was relocated to Babylon. After they returned from the exile, they made a purge to restore the 'Jewishness' and instituted strict marriage laws. 

 

I have read a fair bit on this.  So much that I can't remember what I read where.  However, one thing that I recall is that the numbers of people left in Northern Israel plus those relocated to Babylon added together meant that there were hundreds of thousands unaccounted for who had gone elsewhere.  One theory is that they became the Scythians.

 

 

No there's not. Stories aren't evidence. If you have evidence present it.

 

 

There is.  I mentioned the Scottish Declaration of Independence.  Another interesting little factoid is that there were bowls found in the Sutton Hoo boat burial featuring the Star of David.  You can google that.  This could mean that these boats burials weren't Saxon or English either.  I think they may well have been Celtic or, in other words, Hebrew.

 

I'm more interested in the genetic side of things and where that leads as it's more concrete.  However, there are lots of interesting historical clues if you want to look for them.  I've found loads but they're dotted around all over the place and in books I've bought.

 

 

This would be a good place to start.  You getting 95% UK DNA but haplogroup M1 genuinely confuses me on how to interpret it.  Nothing I have seen indicates that the UK has any significant percentage of M1 within it.  And I believe they have done quite a bit of samples to be able to reach that conclusion.  http://www.eupedia.c...and_dna.shtml  (chart at the bottom here)

 

 

Yes, it's really interesting and very frustrating that I don't have much more information.

 

It may be that it's relatively common in Ireland in some areas but not enough to have made it into the national stats.  If the 95% is correct, that's pretty weird I would say.

 

My grandmother was born on a very small island off the north of Ireland.  Literally on the Celtic fringe.  There is some interesting stuff about the Phoenicians escaping from Carthage and seeking refuge with their Irish "brothers", i.e. they saw the Irish as their Hebrew or Celtic brothers.  The Phoenicians emerged from the Levant which is definitely in the ten tribes vicinity.

 

Are you knowledgeable on the genetics side?  I really need to do more reading and perhaps even head off to the British Library to try and dig some stuff up.

[Eh Steve]

I have a very limited knowledge of genetics and ancestry.  I google the word haplotypes and haplogroups and see what comes up

 

It is funny to want to instinctively combat your interest in this theory.  I know very little about the Celts, nor much at all about ancient Israelis.  When I google "celts ancient israelis" I do get search results, but for what it is worth the results certainly aren't mainstream.  So honestly I have no friggen idea what the answer is.

 

I think genetic testing will give a more concrete answer as to the validity of questions.  My suspicion is that sure, some ancient israeli's may have traveled to the UK, you are an example of an M1a of Irish origin and the Ashkenazi certainly kinda went everywhere as well.  But.  I do not believe there is evidence to indicate the all of the celts were of this origin, nor the majority of them.

 

The problem remains this sentence:  Indeed, according to 23andMe, my DNA is more than 95% British and Irish which would tend to suggest that my maternal haplogroup wasn't an outlier and must be relatively common among various populations of the UK.

 

This is not necessarily nor likely to be what the data suggests.  It seems to me the data suggests you are unusual as the rest of the population has largely R1b.  The story of your particular lineage is certainly a mystery and from what I can tell there isn't a solid answer.  But the genetic evidence points towards the population of Ireland and Celts to not be of Middle Eastern origin.  The evidence is to you indeed being an outlier.  A mysterious outlier, but an outlier.

 

So I don't wish to discourage your mystery seeking.  I would only recommend you rely on empiricism when falling down the rabbit hole of potential theories.  For example the Celts = Hebrews theory simply isn't holding water to genetic testing.  That doesn't say anything about your particular origins, but I would recommend dropping it as a theory for all Celts rather than just your specific lineage.  I was referred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognateas a good way to understand why gaelic and judaic language appearing similar does not mean anything in terms of origins.

 

Normally I'm much more about self knowledge and push it a bit more.  I have been interested in theories a lot in my life and they weren't always the most useful way to spend my time.  But it isn't the worst thing in the world and I can understand the motivation to question everything, it isn't inherently wrong.  But I spent years and years with different conspiracies.  That isn't to question the validity of them or that we are lied to a lot, but that I had some significant underlying emotional issues I could have been dealing with as well.  If you find you may have emotional issues behind this search for knowledge, I'd encourage you to examine them.  That isn't to say stop examining this issue, but be aware of any potential emotional things going on for you.

[jah]

 

 

It is funny to want to instinctively combat your interest in this theory.  I know very little about the Celts, nor much at all about ancient Israelis.  When I google "celts ancient israelis" I do get search results, but for what it is worth the results certainly aren't mainstream.  So honestly I have no friggen idea what the answer is.

 

There's a lot more to my theory than what I've said here.  I've done a lot of reading, a lot of which sounds pretty fanciful but otherwise things which make a lot of sense.  From my experience, not being mainstream is a positive recommendation;).

 

 

 

 

 

I think genetic testing will give a more concrete answer as to the validity of questions.  My suspicion is that sure, some ancient israeli's may have traveled to the UK, you are an example of an M1a of Irish origin and the Ashkenazi certainly kinda went everywhere as well.  But.  I do not believe there is evidence to indicate the all of the celts were of this origin, nor the majority of them.

 

Sure.  The thing is that there will potentially have been several dozen haplogroups involved and many may not have been identified yet.  Haplogroups have things called subclads which are further refinements of the haplogroups indicating closer kinship.  Other things will muddy the waters such as unrelated groups merging, creating their own joint culture and effectively erasing their origins so there could be Assyrians who got together with Ancient Israelites and formed new cultures.  There is even a theory, based on ancient documents, that the Spartans were Hebrews.  I can't remember the precise details but I'm sure you can look them up.

 

 

 

The problem remains this sentence:  Indeed, according to 23andMe, my DNA is more than 95% British and Irish which would tend to suggest that my maternal haplogroup wasn't an outlier and must be relatively common among various populations of the UK.

 

I acknowledge that I have no idea what relatively common means in this context but it suggests that, within the databases used by 23andMe, M1a is present at sufficient frequency to imply that maternal origins are there and have been for a long time.

 

 

 

 

This is not necessarily nor likely to be what the data suggests.  It seems to me the data suggests you are unusual as the rest of the population has largely R1b.  The story of your particular lineage is certainly a mystery and from what I can tell there isn't a solid answer.  But the genetic evidence points towards the population of Ireland and Celts to not be of Middle Eastern origin.  The evidence is to you indeed being an outlier.  A mysterious outlier, but an outlier.

 

Rb1 is actually a paternal haplogroup and, it just so happens, is mine;).  My subclad actually connects me to the Bourbons of France which is pretty interesting but I've not had a chance to chase it up.  I do have a percent or two of French but that must be from a long time ago.  Curiously enough, there's a bit of controversy over King Tut's paternal DNA.  This was tested some time ago but, for some strange reason, the Egyptian authorities did not release the results.  A commercial DNA testing company, extracted information from the documentary about the testing and says that it showed that King Tut was Rb1!  That is actually very interesting too because there are clues leading from Egypt via Ancient Israel to the UK and the royal family.  Not to mention the fact that a lot of Freemasonry traditions incorporate aspects of both ancient origins.  Some might think that all of this stuff is pretty wild but it has its proponents out there and I think they're on to something.  YMMV;).

 

 

 

So I don't wish to discourage your mystery seeking.  I would only recommend you rely on empiricism when falling down the rabbit hole of potential theories.  For example the Celts = Hebrews theory simply isn't holding water to genetic testing.  That doesn't say anything about your particular origins, but I would recommend dropping it as a theory for all Celts rather than just your specific lineage.  I was referred to https://en.wikipedia...i/False_cognateas a good way to understand why gaelic and judaic language appearing similar does not mean anything in terms of origins.

 

No problem.  I think the jury is still out on the Celts/Hebrews hypothesis and it'll be a long before there's any resolution.  There's a lot of stuff we don't know and the fact of the matter is that relatively few people have been tested and the databases are pretty small.  I've read about the Hebrew/Gaelic connection and I'm aware of those who say that this is some kind of false cognate but it's easy to poo poo any theory like that.  I'd be more impressed if they actually had a theory of their own but they don't appear to;).

 

 

 

Normally I'm much more about self knowledge and push it a bit more.  I have been interested in theories a lot in my life and they weren't always the most useful way to spend my time.  But it isn't the worst thing in the world and I can understand the motivation to question everything, it isn't inherently wrong.  But I spent years and years with different conspiracies.  That isn't to question the validity of them or that we are lied to a lot, but that I had some significant underlying emotional issues I could have been dealing with as well.  If you find you may have emotional issues behind this search for knowledge, I'd encourage you to examine them.  That isn't to say stop examining this issue, but be aware of any potential emotional things going on for you.

 

I'm a long way down the self-knowledge path.  I have some earlier posts which didn't get a lot of traction describing how my supposed mental health issues were actually the result of a common blood disorder, i.e. anaemia.  Have a search for them or it.  I'm now at the point where I can muse about other things like my ancient origins;).  I came pretty close to death about 5 years ago but was lucky enough to discover the real root cause of my life long ill-health just in the nick of time to save myself.  I think an awful lot of people have similar issues resulting from similar root causes: the vast majority of us are nutritionally deficient but it affects some people mentally far more than others.  I think most people are a little nuts mind you;).

 

I know that a lot of people around here are into therapy but it won't cure a blood disorder or nutritional deficiency.  I think that people really need to look into their physical health and nutrition.  For me it was my route to self-knowledge and at the very least, we could all use being a little healthier so it's got to be worth a try.

[Jaeger]

I can think of another reason you have ancient Israelite ancestry.  Roman slavery of the Jews after the fall of Jerusalem.  They were scattered through out the Roman Empire.  It could even be from before the fall of Jerusalem.  She could have been a wife of a Roman soldier stationed in England and chose to stay after Roman rule.  Who knows?   

[jah]

Hi Jaegar,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Of course, there are many possibilities.  I've considered the possibility of my ancestor leaving Jerusalem when the 2nd temple was destroyed and ending up in Spain as I have a tiny bit of Spanish and French DNA.  However, I don't think that, whoever my ancestor was, they were an isolated arrival on British/Irish shores.  The confidence with which 23andMe assigns me 95% plus British/Irish ancestry mitigates against that I think.

 

It's just a theory, of course, but I've read a lot of interesting sources which suggest that there really is some truth in the ten tribes story.

[Susana]

Don't give your DNA to 23andMe, they want it to sell, just look at this article

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/23andme-is-terrifying-but-not-for-the-reasons-the-fda-thinks/

 

If you want to research M1 then read the books cited on Wikipedia and studies and papers that have been done and look for different sites to get a big picture and migration pattern like 

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/12/mitochondrial-haplogroups-m1-and-u6.html

 

And when it comes to having a country based on your genetic lineage there will be a huge hullabaloo if your genetic lineage... is somewhat different. You can look into haplogroup K and research books and papers written to see what I mean.  Must be a "genetic bottleneck"

[aviet]

My ancestry is largely scot-irish, but I hadn't considered this to be a possibility.  I'll be able to update you sometime in the future when I have $200 bucks to spend on 23andme and we can see if my scot-irish has an M haplogroup or not.  I have only a cursory knowledge of haplogroups/types and genetic ancestry.

 

As someone who works in the field I would recommend using FamilyTreeDNA. You can get discounts here:

 

http://bit.ly/1Y3OHDl

 

If you just want it for details of your origin, go for the autosomal (Family Finder) and y-37 and mtDNA+. I would not bother getting anything more precise than y-37 if you are not European as those who have tested are overwhelmingly European. If you want to potentially locate relatives on your paternal line, get y-67 and then if needed upgrade it. Not many have taken MT full sequence so it not worth getting if you haven't much money to spend.

 

I took the mt full sequence on my mother's line, which is Marathi-Indian and I didn't get a single relative match.

 

Alternatively, you can take the autosomal on ancestry.com and then transfer it for free to FamilyTreeDNA. That way you get the relative matching on Ancestry and FTDNA. You can also upload the data to gedmatch.com, which is a matching site for tests by all the companies.

 

My y test has put me as R-M269. This is mostly found in Wales - I am Welsh. The relation matching shows that I am a direct paternal relative of Woody Harrleson in the window 1000 AD. From the data I can presume I my paternal ancestor:

 

c   1000 invaded Britain from Denmark

c   1110 had settled in Tatham, Lancashire, where they were lords of the manor

c   1300 has assumed the surname Proctor via practacing that profession

by 1670 ended up in Wales with a Welsh surname

 

My autosomal test has me (with a little interpretation) as:

 

62% Welsh

10% English

9% Scottish

8% Armenian with some Persian

6% Marathi-Indian

4% Ashkenazi Jewish

1% Irish

 

My mt test has me as M35a, which is found in Maharashtra, India and Sri Lanka. Its neighbour, M35b, is the Roma/gypsy (who came from India) haplogroup.

 

I'd highly recommend testing, particularly if you are a European American.

[rosencrantz]

I mentioned the Scottish Declaration of Independence.  Another interesting little factoid is that there were bowls found in the Sutton Hoo boat burial featuring the Star of David.  You can google that.  This could mean that these boats burials weren't Saxon or English either.  I think they may well have been Celtic or, in other words, Hebrew.

 

Since Christians see themselves as the new Israelites, it's of little surprise that you find it in a document. Also, writing something down, doesn't make it so. In addition, the Star of David isn't an exclusive Jewish symbol. It gained prominence among the Jews in the early Medieval ages though, after Sutton Hoo. Plus, how can an Anglo-Saxon boat be evidence for anything Celtic?

[Eh Steve]

As someone who works in the field I would recommend using FamilyTreeDNA. You can get discounts here:

 

http://bit.ly/1Y3OHDl

 

If you just want it for details of your origin, go for the autosomal (Family Finder) and y-37 and mtDNA+. I would not bother getting anything more precise than y-37 if you are not European as those who have tested are overwhelmingly European. If you want to potentially locate relatives on your paternal line, get y-67 and then if needed upgrade it. Not many have taken MT full sequence so it not worth getting if you haven't much money to spend.

 

Thanks dude, I totally forgot you were a geneticist or I would have gotten your attention for this thread earlier

 

With my ancestry I know there is some Scot-Irish, normal Irish, and then some pinches of German and French tossed in.

 

The advice I've seen when looking around mirrors yours, go with y-37 and then only get y-67 if necessary.

 

I'm planning on looking into it.  My family has some family trees mapped out I'm planning on hunting down, I'd like to know specifically if the clan was from Belfast etc. or if they kind of bounced around.  It'd be cool to find a town full of people who looked like me, but I figure I've got enough admixtures going on that isn't going happen

 

I've wondered if I went to Belfast or something I'd immediately feel like "I'm home"

 

I heard with the Welsh there is really cool stuff in terms of how specific their profiles can be along with the Cornish.  Very distinctive from what I recall reading about.

[aviet]

I'm planning on looking into it.  My family has some family trees mapped out I'm planning on hunting down, I'd like to know specifically if the clan was from Belfast etc. or if they kind of bounced around.  It'd be cool to find a town full of people who looked like me, but I figure I've got enough admixtures going on that isn't going happen

 

I've wondered if I went to Belfast or something I'd immediately feel like "I'm home"

 

I heard with the Welsh there is really cool stuff in terms of how specific their profiles can be along with the Cornish.  Very distinctive from what I recall reading about.

I've got about 70 million photos of people bound up to data like, name, surname, gender, income, where they live and sometimes data like height, weight and sexual orientation. Probably next year I'm going to create facial composites (averages of multiple faces) based on all the data points I have. Hopefully it will be possible for people to upload photos of themselves to see which they match the most, e.g. you look most like

 

Males

Someone from Belfast

Someone fro Co. Limerick

Someone from Northern Ireland

Hetrosexual

With the surname Murphy

With the name Paul

Who makes $50,000 pa

No college education

Who work in engineering

Are Republican

From R haplogroup

182cm tall

120lb in weight

Non-smoker

Drinker

 

and probably some other points. I'm fairly sure that is possible, though my image programming knowledge is fairly basic.

 

-----

 

What you say about feeling home is interesting. A lot of people romance about this. I am not what would be the driver of that if there is any truth to it though.

 

I think there is probably a genetic component to people not moving far.

 

------

 

If you look up your surname, you may find there is a fund which will pay for your test:

 

https://www.familytreedna.com/projects.aspx

 

-------

 

Yes. Welsh are the most unique group in Europe at 82% R; then Ireland at 80% R; England is 69% R and the nearest in Europe is Poland at 52% R. At least that is from the data I was looking at here. Some different data here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_European_populations

 

The most undiverse country is Ghana.

 

 

[AccuTron]

"It'd be cool to find a town full of people who looked like me,"

---

What's that saying, "Be careful what you wish for?"

 

What if they turned out to be loons, goons, and buffoons?  Then how would you see yourself in the mirror?

 

I am reminded of this:

A few years ago, I passed a stranger in an office hallway that had a lower face the image of my father's.  I mentioned it, and his folks were from Poland I think he said.  (Given that borders have moved around a lot over the centuries.)  My father's line was from parts of Germany, maybe eastern, so it's not a stretch to see how the resemblance could be.  Someone said I should have followed it up to see if there were distant relatives someplace.  I didn't care; it's just a face, says nothing about what the people were like or the effort to maintain anything meaningful.  My own family tree, where it got near me, wasn't very well behaved.

[jah]

Hey Guys,

 

Sorry it's taken so long for me to look back in.

 

 

Don't give your DNA to 23andMe, they want it to sell, just look at this article

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/23andme-is-terrifying-but-not-for-the-reasons-the-fda-thinks/

 

If you want to research M1 then read the books cited on Wikipedia and studies and papers that have been done and look for different sites to get a big picture and migration pattern like 

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/12/mitochondrial-haplogroups-m1-and-u6.html

 

And when it comes to having a country based on your genetic lineage there will be a huge hullabaloo if your genetic lineage... is somewhat different. You can look into haplogroup K and research books and papers written to see what I mean.  Must be a "genetic bottleneck"

 

Yeah, I'm sure they do.  I think they should do the decent thing and pay back something.  It's not as though they test for free.

 

 

As someone who works in the field I would recommend using FamilyTreeDNA. You can get discounts here:

http://bit.ly/1Y3OHDl

If you just want it for details of your origin, go for the autosomal (Family Finder) and y-37 and mtDNA+. I would not bother getting anything more precise than y-37 if you are not European as those who have tested are overwhelmingly European. If you want to potentially locate relatives on your paternal line, get y-67 and then if needed upgrade it. Not many have taken MT full sequence so it not worth getting if you haven't much money to spend.

I took the mt full sequence on my mother's line, which is Marathi-Indian and I didn't get a single relative match.

Alternatively, you can take the autosomal on ancestry.com and then transfer it for free to FamilyTreeDNA. That way you get the relative matching on Ancestry and FTDNA. You can also upload the data to gedmatch.com, which is a matching site for tests by all the companies.

My y test has put me as R-M269. This is mostly found in Wales - I am Welsh. The relation matching shows that I am a direct paternal relative of Woody Harrleson in the window 1000 AD. From the data I can presume I my paternal ancestor:

c   1000 invaded Britain from Denmark
c   1110 had settled in Tatham, Lancashire, where they were lords of the manor
c   1300 has assumed the surname Proctor via practacing that profession
by 1670 ended up in Wales with a Welsh surname

My autosomal test has me (with a little interpretation) as:

62% Welsh
10% English
9% Scottish
8% Armenian with some Persian
6% Marathi-Indian

4% Ashkenazi Jewish
1% Irish

My mt test has me as M35a, which is found in Maharashtra, India and Sri Lanka. Its neighbour, M35b, is the Roma/gypsy (who came from India) haplogroup.

I'd highly recommend testing, particularly if you are a European American.

 

Thanks for that.  Very interesting.  I've been hoping to bump into someone with some knowledge of the field;).

 

Funnily enough, I have just bought a test from FamilyTreeDNA for my paternal ancestry.  My paternal haplogroup is apparently the same as the House of Bourbon so I thought I'd join the French ancestry group and get a discount.  They told me just to get a 25 marker test (Y-DNA25).  I've got the pack and am planning to scrape my cheeks in the next few days;).

 

As I said, my overall ancestry is British/Irish at 95.3% but there's a few percent of French and Spanish and mongrel Western European too.

 

I think there might be a little family secret on my father's side so I'm pretty intrigued at the prospect of finding out more there.

 

At a later date I will probably do my maternal haplogroup too so thanks for the ancestry.com tip.

 

I would like to do some more detailed analysis of my 23andMe data and started to look into it but gave up.  I understand the basics of the paternal and maternal DNA analysis (I read Bryan Sykes' Blood of the Isles).

 

I got a bit confused because the paternal haplogroup seems to have changed from R1b1b2a1a1* to R1b1a2a1a1*.  I gather that this is marker R1b-U106 but I'm not really up to speed on the specifics.

 

I initially thought my ancestry composition looked a bit boring but once I started to look into it the Ancient Israelite bit blew me away and suddenly it became rather interesting;).

 

 

Since Christians see themselves as the new Israelites, it's of little surprise that you find it in a document. Also, writing something down, doesn't make it so. In addition, the Star of David isn't an exclusive Jewish symbol. It gained prominence among the Jews in the early Medieval ages though, after Sutton Hoo. Plus, how can an Anglo-Saxon boat be evidence for anything Celtic?

 

Archaeologists say it's an Anglo-Saxon boat.  Is it?  Even if it is, who were the Anglo-Saxons.  Some say the derivation of Saxon is from Isaac's Sons so it seems to me that there's a strong possibility that they were just one of the other ten tribes.

 

If you're looking for accepted history forget it.  Those who control the history, control the people.  From some other reading I've done I've seen evidence that some genuine British (Welsh actually) history was suppressed some time in the 18th century and has now been relegated to myth.  I'm not an academic with a reputation riding on this stuff, I'm just a curious amateur going where the information takes me.  Whether the evidence would satisfy an academic or not, I don't really care.  I'm finding it all very intriguing.

 

I'll post back when I know a bit more about my paternal DNA test.

 

BTW, my maternal ancestry actually comes from a very small island of the coast of Ireland called Tory.  It doesn't really get much more Irish than that;).  I'd like to know how long my paternal ancestry has been in Scotland.  I think there's possibly an English/Anglo Saxon connection there so we'll see.

[Eh Steve]

"It'd be cool to find a town full of people who looked like me,"

---

What's that saying, "Be careful what you wish for?"

 

What if they turned out to be loons, goons, and buffoons?  Then how would you see yourself in the mirror?

 

I am reminded of this:

A few years ago, I passed a stranger in an office hallway that had a lower face the image of my father's.  I mentioned it, and his folks were from Poland I think he said.  (Given that borders have moved around a lot over the centuries.)  My father's line was from parts of Germany, maybe eastern, so it's not a stretch to see how the resemblance could be.  Someone said I should have followed it up to see if there were distant relatives someplace.  I didn't care; it's just a face, says nothing about what the people were like or the effort to maintain anything meaningful.  My own family tree, where it got near me, wasn't very well behaved.

 

My family also wasn't what I would have liked them to be.

 

I'd need to ask some older people from before the western world was diversified, but I wonder what it is like being surrounded with ethnic homogeneity.

 

Faces may not have meaning or virtue, but I believe at least for me similar genetics brings me a greater sense of empathy / bonding / and comfort with people.  I'm a bit of an oddball anyways, we might as well look similar

 

I haven't looked too far into the subject, I am familiar with the statistics on racial mixing "diversity" being garbage chaos for society but haven't looked into ethno-homogeneity vs. racial-homogeneity.

http://www.livescience.com/45674-genetic-match-marriage.html

 

I can't cite much at the moment outside of relationship stuff and a tiny bit about friendships.  But I do wonder what it is like to be a town full of genetic cousins.  I think genetically similar tribalism is likely still our most comfortable state of living on some levels.

[luxfelix]

My family also wasn't what I would have liked them to be.

 

I'd need to ask some older people from before the western world was diversified, but I wonder what it is like being surrounded with ethnic homogeneity.

 

Faces may not have meaning or virtue, but I believe at least for me similar genetics brings me a greater sense of empathy / bonding / and comfort with people.  I'm a bit of an oddball anyways, we might as well look similar

 

I haven't looked too far into the subject, I am familiar with the statistics on racial mixing "diversity" being garbage chaos for society but haven't looked into ethno-homogeneity vs. racial-homogeneity.

http://www.livescience.com/45674-genetic-match-marriage.html

 

I can't cite much at the moment outside of relationship stuff and a tiny bit about friendships.  But I do wonder what it is like to be a town full of genetic cousins.  I think genetically similar tribalism is likely still our most comfortable state of living on some levels.

 

I'm guessing like-mindedness has a significant role to play in how comfortable you would feel? 

[rosencrantz]

Archaeologists say it's an Anglo-Saxon boat.  Is it?

 

 

Yes.

 

 

Even if it is, who were the Anglo-Saxons.  Some say the derivation of Saxon is from Isaac's Sons so it seems to me that there's a strong possibility that they were just one of the other ten tribes.

 

 

Some also say that Superman would win in a fight with Batman. That makes me want to bet on that fight.

 

 

Those who control the history, control the people.

 

 

In other words, Israelites moved to a place they didn't know existed, gave up their architecture, their alphabet, the way they made pots and knives, their agriculture and all the rest and finally changed the way they looked to become Celts. Seems legit.

[jah]

Yes.

 

 

 

Some also say that Superman would win in a fight with Batman. That makes me want to bet on that fight.

 

 

 

In other words, Israelites moved to a place they didn't know existed, gave up their architecture, their alphabet, the way they made pots and knives, their agriculture and all the rest and finally changed the way they looked to become Celts. Seems legit.

 

So the person buried at Sutton Hoo considered himself an Anglo Saxon or was he aware of a more ancient history?  Our modern understanding is obviously very far removed from his.

 

Societies were regularly torn apart and reformed.  People literally did forget who they were.  The modern example is what happened in Britain during the industrial revolution: millions moved from their ancestral villages to the industrial towns losing their sense of themselves and their history.  That's why there's such great interest in genetics and genealogy.  People are trying to rediscover their own lost histories.

 

From other reading, it seems to me that even the Israelites may well be some kind of invention and they were really descendents of other equally well-known cultures who reinvented themselves transforming their ancient religion and culture into something completely new.  It could be less a case of forgetting who they were than reinventing who they were for a multiplicity of reasons.

 

We've turned over the study of our history to historians and archaeologists but these disciplines clearly have their own agendas.  Personally, I'd rather investigate my own history than take what I'm given as fact.  Your mileage may vary.

[jah]

There are a lot of references to this sort of thing all over the web: http://www.hope-of-israel.org/saxonorigins.html

 

You may consider it to be nonsense and I haven't followed up the references but it seems rather interesting to me that the genetics seem to point to some of this stuff being true assuming, of course, that the genetics are correct.

 

It seems to me that this indicates that the silver bowls with the Star of David in the Sutton Hoo burial were ancient artifacts of the people and not some kind of imported bling.

[aviet]

For those interested, there is now 30% off the FamilyFinder test from FamilyTreeDNA:

http://bit.ly/2alqCVA

The main things you get with this are showing where your ancestry originates from, e.g.:



And people who are related to you via all lines (not just maternal or paternal), e.g.:

[rosencrantz]

This is undoubtedly what has happened in regard to the Isaac-sons (Sax­ons). The "i" has been dropped and the basic part of the word "sak" or "sac" has been retained. "Son" simply means son of. So the word "Saxons" means "sons of (I)SAC" or "sons of Isaac. Later, we shall see quotations from reliable historical sources proving that "Saxon" derives from "sons of Sac" or "sons of Sak" (meaning "sons of Isaac").

 

The problem with this 'thesis' is that the name of Isaac in Hebrew is not Isaac, but Jizchak. Also, Jiz- doesn't start with a vowel, but with a consonant, the Jod. You cannot drop a consonant in a closed syllable in Hebrew. Also, the last syllable is not sak, but chak. 

 

 

In the days of the Judges, the Ephraimites could not sound the "h" in the word "Shibboleth."

 

 

Another proof that the author doesn't understand Hebrew. There is no h sound in Shibboleth. There are two different consonants in Hebrew, Sin and Schin. Sin in pronounced as S, Schin as Sh. There is no h in them. 

 

Many Hebrew-speaking Jews have difficulty pronouncing their "h's" to this day.

 

If this was true, it would be most peculiar, because h is the most consonant in Hebrew. That is because the article is ha+word. In addition, Hebrew and Yiddish are guttural languages. Why should Jews have problems pronouncing a guttural sound?

 

If you make hypotheses about Hebrew, you should at least speak some. 

[jah]

The problem with this 'thesis' is that the name of Isaac in Hebrew is not Isaac, but Jizchak. Also, Jiz- doesn't start with a vowel, but with a consonant, the Jod. You cannot drop a consonant in a closed syllable in Hebrew. Also, the last syllable is not sak, but chak. 

 

 

Another proof that the author doesn't understand Hebrew. There is no h sound in Shibboleth. There are two different consonants in Hebrew, Sin and Schin. Sin in pronounced as S, Schin as Sh. There is no h in them. 

 

If this was true, it would be most peculiar, because h is the most consonant in Hebrew. That is because the article is ha+word. In addition, Hebrew and Yiddish are guttural languages. Why should Jews have problems pronouncing a guttural sound?

 

If you make hypotheses about Hebrew, you should at least speak some. 

 

Uhuh?  Ok, I bow to your superior knowledge of Hebrew.

 

However, if you pronounce Issac and Jizchak you still get a sound bearing an uncanny resemblance to sac depending on who is making it.  Chak/sak?  Who cares?  Perhaps you're overanalysing things?

 

Similar points are made elsewhere regarding the origins of other famous names from history.  Names are mispronounced and evolve over time.  Foreigners don't have precise grammatical understanding of Hebrew, etc. and so people become known by many different variations of the same name but are still recognisably based on the original.

 

As I've already said, it seems to me that there is and will be solid science based on genetics to show what the truth of the matter is so splitting dipthongs is probably irrelevant.

P.S. Your complaint regarding the Ephraimites seems somewhat of a stretch.  It seems to me he could easily be saying that they had difficulty pronouncing Schin too.  As I said, perhaps you're overanalysing things?

[rosencrantz]

However, if you pronounce Issac and Jizchak you still get a sound bearing an uncanny resemblance to sac depending on who is making it.  Chak/sak?

 

No. Sound change has been studied for a long time. There are laws to it. You can't make up stuff to fit your theory. 

 

Furthermore, Semitic languages are based on roots that make up the nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. *ktb turns into miktab (writer), katab (to write), and katabah (something written). Changes to the roots are regular and nowhere can you find a change from *ch to s*. 

 

 

Names are mispronounced and evolve over time. 

 

Sure. But the change from *Sac (Ur) -> to *Chak is very unlikely, because tend to become easier when misunderstood. Guttural sounds are harder to make. Likelier Changes are s -> t or s -> d. Then *chak would have had to change to *sac again for no apparent reason. Furthermore, where does *jiz go?

 

Names are mispronounced and evolve over time.

 

Hebrew names remain the same in the West because the Septuagint and Vulgate give a phonetical translation of Hebrew names. 

 

dipthongs is probably irrelevant

 

A diphtong is a vowel following another vowel, like ae, oi, ue... You meant to write apheresis and metathesis. 

[jah]

No. Sound change has been studied for a long time. There are laws to it. You can't make up stuff to fit your theory. 

 

Furthermore, Semitic languages are based on roots that make up the nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. *ktb turns into miktab (writer), katab (to write), and katabah (something written). Changes to the roots are regular and nowhere can you find a change from *ch to s*. 

 

 

Sure. But the change from *Sac (Ur) -> to *Chak is very unlikely, because tend to become easier when misunderstood. Guttural sounds are harder to make. Likelier Changes are s -> t or s -> d. Then *chak would have had to change to *sac again for no apparent reason. Furthermore, where does *jiz go?

 

Hebrew names remain the same in the West because the Septuagint and Vulgate give a phonetical translation of Hebrew names. 

 

A diphtong is a vowel following another vowel, like ae, oi, ue... You meant to write apheresis and metathesis. 

 

You're missing the point.  This isn't a debate about the precise grammar and pronunciation of language and how it changes over time for native speakers.  It is about how they are transmitted by non-speakers and so the transformations of sounds aren't going to be regular and follow laws as you seem to think.

 

Nope.  I meant to write diphthong because it was a joke.

[rosencrantz]

 It is about how they are transmitted by non-speakers

 

I thought the Celts were the lost tribes? How can they be non-speakers?

[jah]

I thought the Celts were the lost tribes? How can they be non-speakers?

 

You're not paying attention.  The names evolved because they were what non-native speakers called the people.  So, they would hear the name the people called themselves and "translate it" into their language often very approximately.

 

Anyway, final word on this:

 

 

 

Professor Amtul Carmichael writes, "The conclusion from the genetic information presented above suggests that there are at least some ethnic groups in the East whose founders had originally migrated from the Middle East, many centuries ago and were of Jewish heritage. Therefore, the historical evidence for the “Lost Tribes of the House of Israel” is indeed supported by the science of genetics."^[7]

 

Which is where I came in.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes