The Irish are Not Celts

[oudysseos]

the ancient Irish were telling us very clearly, that they were indeed not Celts

In a celtic language. Can we agree that they were a celtic-speaking peoples? Or do you think that q-celtic is misidentified and not related to continental celtic languages? And if I may ask, what do you think is an appropriate term for the Irish in the EB time period?

I'd also like to know what cmacq and elmetiacos (and anyone else) think of the descriptions of the Irish units on the EB web-site (about the statements concerning ethnicity, not the names of units).

Historically, early Ibero-Celtic Ireland was populated by numerous tribes with an overking, from which spawned the seat of the high king that fell into constant contest by the time Rome fell, and the sub-kingdoms of Ireland were rendered into warring splinters. However, despite the varying periods of relative stability with a kind of warring states period, the Goidils always relied on a tribal model, with each family being headed by an elected chief, who acted as the tribe's spokesman to the mounting tiers of officials.

Historically, the Goidils were not a single group of Celts, but intermingled blood of Gauls, Britons, Belgae, and even Iberians.

I'm asking about this because my (lay-man's) interpretation of the genetic evidence that we have been discussing is that the ethnic heritage common to Ireland and Iberia dates to the meso- or neo-lithic, thousands of years before q-celtic language and culture became part of Irish life. The McEvoy study says explicitly that two to three thousand year old Iberian haplogroups are not found in Ireland. To put it another way, the people who built Newgrange were not Celts/Gaels/Goidels/whateveryouwantotcallthem. So does a stone-age connexion between the Irish and Iberian populations warrant identifying an Ibero-Celtic culture? I'd say not, but there may be other information that those with more expertise have knowledge of.

Elmetiacos- re the punic-gaelic connexion: I'll defer to your superior knowledge, but I did want to point out that the quote from Empires of the Word does not seem to be a rehash of some 18th century chestnut, but rather recent research from Orin David Gensler, A Typological Evaluation of Celtic/Hamito-Semitic Syntactic Parallels, PhD Dissertation, UC Berkley, 1993.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=f899...sult#PPA890,M1

There is also a very interesting article in Archaeology and Language IV, Blench and Spriggs ed., Celts and Others, Maritime Contacts and Linguistic Change, by John Waddell and Jane Conroy.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=NemX...over#PPA125,M1

[Celtic_Punk]

Cmaq... You also gotta think that perhaps they were looking for their own identity? To them there were only gauls and britons as foreigners. Sure they'd get the odd tale from a bard of places distant, but the people whom they'd have contact with would be (for the lack of a proper inoffensive word) other celts.

Even now the surviving Celtic peoples have very different identities, you really can't compare an Irishman and a Breton or a Scotsman or a Corn(on the cob).

Lets just take a step into a hypothetical world. In a widespread culture (Celt) it would be of utmost importance to me to be different to my neighbours, to have my own identity. Such as Adeui Averni, they'd most likely consider themselves Celts, but they wouldn't say they were the same as the other. In their bid to distance themselves from old enemies, or just to gain their own identity in the world, you might just be confusing it with them telling you who they really are.

Of course this is just theoretical. Still food for thought.
No matter I will still hang on to my Celtic identity. A culture that brought the world soap, fine long swords, good helms, one of the first to have semi-equal rights for women (see Queen Bodicca) and an all round bad ass rep on the battlefield.


oh and did I forget Guiness? "A Pint of the black stuff, guv"

[Riastradh]

Oudysseos, first I neither stated that the Irish definately came from Iberia, nor did I say that the culture of iron age Ireland was not celtic in any way. I never stated that my argument was 100% fact and that there is no other way. I was simply trying to point out the use of the term "Celt or Celtic" for the ethnic Irish is not a proper term. I also never said that Gael was the best term, I simply stated that it was more appropriate and it is. Gael refers to people of Irish, Scottish and Manx ethnicity or peoples who speak Gaelic(Irish,Scottish,Manx). Celt, while now is being used very generally, was and is a term used to denote the ethnic people of Gaul and theirs that expanded outward.

In my descriptions of Celt and Gael I did include as much info which is accurate. In my description of Gael, I also included that fact that the Irish were called the Scoti/Scotti by the Romans, though admittedly didn't make that clear enough. In my response to Blitz I also said that they could be called Scotti, Cruithne, Hibernian w/e as they are all more proper designations for the Irish people. Celtic Punk may be right about the different tribes of Gaul trying to distinguish themselves from one another, but I think he overlooks the fact that it is very likely that the would have all refered to themselves as Gauls/Celtae/Gaulish. Especially considering they united to fight Gaius Julius Caesar and the Roman conquest of Gaul.

My whole reason for this thread is that I believe Celtic/Celt or anything thereof is not the right term when refering to Irish units. I have stated this, backed it up with a real description of what a Celt was and is, and given some alternatives. You don't have to necessarily choose from those alternatives as there could be a more accurate term. Just because some people use Celt/Celtic as general terms about any peoples who spoke a celtic language or had some celtic parts of their culture doesn't mean that's what Celt/Celtic actually mean. Those are modern usages nothing more and would definately not have been used for such in the Iron Age. In the Roman empire, a great many people would have spoken latin. However, a great many of those people were not Romans, nor did they consider themselves to be.

Lastly, concerning myself saying that Blitz's post was an attack, that may have been a little over the top. However, telling someone that they don't know what they're talking about, or that you don't think/believe they know what they're talking about, is really just a more polite way of saying you think/believe someone is stupid and/or ignorant. It was a rude thing to say and I believe it was quite uncalled for.

[oudysseos]

I descended into pedantry long ago, I suppose. I still have some problems with some of the things you write, Riastradh, but I think that we are splitting increasingly microscopic hairs, here.

I neither stated that the Irish definately came from Iberia

post 86

they descended from a pre-indo-european people that were inhabiting Iberia and moved into Ireland between 9,000-15,000 years ago.

post 46

nor did I say that the culture of iron age Ireland was not celtic in any way

post 86

The Irish are not celts and their warrior culture had nothing to do with celtic tribes

post 1

It is perfectly o.k. to nuance your position as you become aware of information that is new to you, but you ought to acknowledge that you have done so.

I'll try to get to the kernel of the argument. Please correct me if I misrepresent you in any way. Throughout, you seem to use terms like 'Gael' and 'Celt' ethnically and/or racially. You have never denied or addressed the linguistic use of these terms: Whatever you call them, everyone seems to agree that the people living in Ireland spoke a Celtic Language by the latter half of the first millenium BCE. I'll get back to this in a minute.

You object to Celt because
1. Genetic evidence suggests that the Irish are not descended from Central European La Tene"Celts".
2. "Celt" is a modern term that the Irish people of 272 BCE would not have applied to themselves.

But a Cmacq pointed out, 'Gael' is as much, if not more, of a modern construct as 'Celt'. If you object to Celt because they didn't call themselves that, then you have to reject all other terms that aren't indigenous to the people in question. That leaves out Roman terms like Scotti or Attacoti and modern English terms like Gael and Celt. It seems like Goideleg (not synonymous with Gael) is all we're left with. I'd go along with describing the Irish as a 'Celtic-speaking peoples who may have referred to themselves as Goidelegs'.

However, I don't think that, in the context of EB at least if not generally, a strictly ethnic or racial definition of Celt is appropriate.

Q Celtic is not related to invasion by Celts / mainland or P-Celtic speakers who have been coined as 'THE CELTS' of antiquity, thus everyone is confused because nobody ever claimed this to be so. Now, if you disagree on what defines 'Celt' that is another discussion entirely and one that doesn't have much bearing on the origin of Ireland because it spans a much wider issue. When we speak of Celts game-wise and in descriptions, it means Celtic-speakers, and we can discuss if the description should or should not mention that aspect.

Blitzkriegs formulation cannot be improved upon. The truth is that all of the terms that exist to describe these people are words that were applied to them by foreigners, and in the absence of contemporary indigenous names, a term that is base on linguistic affiliation and that has universal acceptance seems to be appropriate. Welcome back, Atlantic Celt.

I still don't see where Blitz said that you don't know what you're talking about. What he did say (and I concur) is that you are wrong about some things. It's not rude to disagree with you. And you have demonstrated a predilection for making statements as if they were recognized universal truths and only presenting evidence and arguments for them after you have been challenged. For example,

Just because some people use Celt/Celtic as general terms about any peoples who spoke a celtic language or had some celtic parts of their culture doesn't mean that's what Celt/Celtic actually mean.

Actually, just because academics, scholars and archaeologists (like the many that I have referenced) use Celt/Celtic as general terms about any peoples who spoke a Celtic language or had some Celtic parts of their culture does in fact absolutely mean that's what Celt/Celtic actually means to the people using the term. I have yet to see one case of a scholar objecting to the use of 'Celtic' to describe Irish culture, even though everyone knows how problematic it is.
I don't think that you'll find much support for defining Celt as meaning only someone who was born in La Tene Switzerland. If I'm wrong, and you do have someone who can support your mega-restrictive use of Celt, then by all means quote, link or cite them. At the very least you need to admit that your position on nomenclature is contrary to standard usage.

Ultimately, disagreement seems to stem from usage: Riastradh, you assert that Celt means only Gauls.

Celt, while now is being used very generally, was and is a term used to denote the ethnic people of Gaul and theirs that expanded outward.

By this standard of course the Irish are not Celts. But your usage is so out of step with what is now commonly accepted that you will have to make a serious case for your position, which I am afraid you have not done. Why are Cunliffe, Ellis, Harding, Waddell, O'Rahilly and on and on wrong when they use Celt to mean 1. Celtic speakers, 2. Celtic material culture and/or 3. Celtic belief system. The Irish are in on all 3 counts.

[Elmetiacos]

I'd also like to know what cmacq and elmetiacos (and anyone else) think of the descriptions of the Irish units on the EB web-site (about the statements concerning ethnicity, not the names of units).

The unit notes on the EB website seem to take O'Rahilly's model of Irish history as the absolute truth. While that isn't quite completely discredited, it isn't a very popular view anymore.

[Elmetiacos]

Elmetiacos- re the punic-gaelic connexion: I'll defer to your superior knowledge,

A very dangerous thing to do!

but I did want to point out that the quote from Empires of the Word does not seem to be a rehash of some 18th century chestnut, but rather recent research from Orin David Gensler, A Typological Evaluation of Celtic/Hamito-Semitic Syntactic Parallels, PhD Dissertation, UC Berkley, 1993.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=f899...sult#PPA890,M1

There is also a very interesting article in Archaeology and Language IV, Blench and Spriggs ed., Celts and Others, Maritime Contacts and Linguistic Change, by John Waddell and Jane Conroy.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=NemX...over#PPA125,M1

The link to the dissertation doesn't work, alas. The problem with it is what I said; it relies on backdating grammatical quirks of Irish and Welsh to a period where we don't have them documented, assuming that Brythonic wasn't grammatically similar to Gaulish (although the signs are the languages were mutually intelligible) then supposing these quirks couldn't have come from any source but Afro-Asiatic languages and then supposing that there was never a native form of Afro-Asiatic spoken in the Islands (which Alex Kondratiev and me, some years ago speculated there might have been... that's something for another time)

[blitzkrieg80]

I'd also like to know what cmacq and elmetiacos (and anyone else) think of the descriptions of the Irish units on the EB web-site (about the statements concerning ethnicity, not the names of units)
[...]
I'm asking about this because my (lay-man's) interpretation of the genetic evidence that we have been discussing is that the ethnic heritage common to Ireland and Iberia dates to the meso- or neo-lithic, thousands of years before q-celtic language and culture became part of Irish life. The McEvoy study says explicitly that two to three thousand year old Iberian haplogroups are not found in Ireland. To put it another way, the people who built Newgrange were not Celts/Gaels/Goidels/whateveryouwantotcallthem. So does a stone-age connexion between the Irish and Iberian populations warrant identifying an Ibero-Celtic culture? I'd say not, but there may be other information that those with more expertise have knowledge of.

Oudysseos, I actually think this correct, besides a very good point! as mentioned by Elmetiacos, much of it seems based on O'Rahilly's model... but I would go further to suggest the rub is in assumed truthiness of Iberian/Ivasion legend from Irish oral tradition. As you make good points, there is not so much evidence to point to a truely late Iberian invasion of Ibero-Celts or whatnot, but there is some late Iberian material culture that doesn't dispel the entire notion and which leaves it on the menu as 'theory,' but the descriptions don't say this. I actually mentioned this as the head of my argument (sorry I don't mean to take away from your poignant argument- just showing some how I have made efforts on the issue) with other EB members in our own discussion to why the Goidelic and Brythonic British Isles stuff in the future needs some tweaks, imo - my own studies have shown this all the be theoretical and should be treated as such, but that doesn't mean we have to un-do everything but it does mean we need to take out those extra bits that spout as if fact and replace them with 'it is thought' and extra tidbits of comparative knowledge. The whole wiki thing in the future should also greatly help this by listing sources and showing the base openly which we've used- the only drawback is all the time it will take for us to log entries into it.

PS - we're not patting each other on the back... I was going to type this before he made a nice post defending the attempt at truth in my words. much thanks for not assuming the worst. i do admit i am rubbed by 'the rub' far too often

PROOF I am an annoying person, sometimes rabble-rouser... AND PROOF, EB is not close-minded:

I must say that I myself question some of the theoretical assertions made as fact such as the Iverni/Milesians being Iberian, based solely on these unorthodox 'Cycles' as has recently come up, and concerning the Iverni/Milesians, Irish people may SAY it is true but it has just as much historical reality as Wessex being ruled by Odin's descendants. I thought it was based on Megalithic [or Atlantic Bronze] culture (which is theoretical but much more convincing than a specific family story) but it seems to be a folk legend made fact in our game.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100255 (thread questioning Celtic invasion which I have helped answer with one of my not so great for Celtic but good IE summation sources)

some of it seems to be in relation to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels and Míl Espáine, Fir Bolg, as well as T. F. O'Rahilly's model?
[...]
Maybe this kind of stuff is more appropriate for the building descriptions (such as temples- it's mythology after all) rather than ethnicities and units? If Anthony can help us with this there might be a way to preserve Ranika's great work without leaving somewhat mythological/nationalistic (no offense intended at all- I am Irish myself. it's no suprise that Germans want to have a rich history or Irish either- but it can lead to bias) information in places it really should not be? we don't have to touch it either- i'm not assuming my way is best or will be agreed with... might we all agree though that very theoretical history, esp. based in mythology shouldn't be in the faction histories? i dont mind synthesizing and having information not commonly known, esp. concerning oral cultures / barbarians, but that doesn't seem to be the case from the little i have looked into this.
Last edited by blitzkrieg80; 03-13-2008 at 14:34.

[oudysseos]

I'd be happy to help typing entries into a Wiki database, or indeed any other clerical scut-work you've got going.

[cmacq]

I'd also like to know what cmacq and elmetiacos (and anyone else) think of the descriptions of the Irish units on the EB web-site (about the statements concerning ethnicity, not the names of units).

Good question, although to tell the truth, I've never actually thought about it. At least in this venue, when I research something, its not with the ultimate goal of changing a given application per se, rather its to provide evidence that either supports, rejects, or defines a given argument. Now, about this genetic evidence; my gut tells me, its not what it appears, although I must say, I've yet to read your post on it. This I'll do today, and will get back to ya, on it, most licitly-split. Yes indeed prejudged, as I know the ways of my kind. This serves not to prejudice my investigation against, rather it will be more critical.




CmacQ

[cmacq]

The Longue Durée of Genetic Ancestry: Multiple Genetic Marker Systems and Celtic Origins on the Atlantic Facade of Europe


Brian McEvoy, Martin Richards, Peter Forster, and Daniel G. Bradley

The American Journal of Human Genetics; Published online 2004 August 12.


Right, the McEvoy study sample consisted of 200 analyzed mtDNA sequences from maternally unrelated subjects from Ireland. To this 100 mtDNA sequences from previous Irish studies were added. The study also reanalyzed the published European and Near Eastern mtDNA hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) sequences from 8,533 individuals from 45 discrete populations. Now, this is very strange; samples from some small and/or isolated populations were excluded from the analysis. These included all samlpes from the Western and Northern Isles of Scotland. I believe the paper states that collectively, these were compared with the Y-chromosome and autosomal markers of the same individuals to determine the extent to which genetic markers within this group shared or differed from the demographic histories that have been reconstructed for the Atlantic zone of Europe.

Basically, what the first stage of their analysis demonstrated was that from the sample of 300 Irish, 155 discrete haploid genotypes were identified, with only one sample that could be classified as within the western Eurasian haploid genogroup. There also was no significant difference between samples from eastern vs western Ireland, which stands in stark contrast to the Y-chromosome pattern. Apparently, the significant difference in the Y-chromosome data among individuals from eastern and western Ireland is a well established pattern.

The second stage analysis compared different mtDNA lineages by examining the levels of nucleotide diversity accumulated around haplotypes matched to dominate examples found in the Near East. The study states that haplogroups J, T1, and U3, are proposed to represent this category, and of European samples on average 20% of these haplogroups have been documented. Of the Irish sample about 13% was noted, which is comparable to Scandinavia and the western Mediterranean samples. This appears to be consistent with the dilution of the genetic impact based on the distance from the source area. Moreover, these haplogroups did not reflect the east/west pattern noted above and were rather evenly distribution throughout Ireland. Now, to me this relationship with the Near East together with the even distribution pattern actually suggests that these haplogroups represent founding population, and I believe the study makes the same observation.

The third stage analysis plotted the supplemental sample of the 8,533 individuals as per the 45 discrete populations, using the weight value of distance form source and I believe sample composition. This data is displayed below. One may note that the BA, or Basque Country sample is situated at what would be the far western extreme of the graph. In contrast, although the Irish sample is found on the western edge of the main cluster, it is more similar to the samples from Scotland, France, Switzerland, and England than to the Basque.


MDS plot of interpopulation ΦST values calculated from mtDNA control-region sequence data. The matrix has been condensed to two dimensions, which account for 82% of the original variation. Population labels are as follows: AL = Albania; AR = Armenia; AU = Austria; AZ = Azerbaijan; BA = Basque Country; BE = Belgium; BR = Brittany; BU = Bulgaria; CZ = Czech Republic; CO = Cornwall; DE = Denmark; EN = England; ES = Estonia; FI = Finland; FR = France; GA = Galicia; GE = Germany; GR = Greece; HU = Hungary; IC = Iceland; IQ = Iraq; IR = Ireland; IT = Italy; JO = Jordan; KA = Karelia; KU = Kurdistan; NO = Northern Ossetia; NY = Norway; PA = Palestine; PC = Portugal Central; PN = Portugal North; PO = Poland; PS = Portugal South; RO = Romania; RU = Russia; SA = Sardinia; SC = Scotland; SE = Sweden; SI = Sicily; SN = Spain North; SS = Spain South-Central; SW = Switzerland; SY = Syria; TU = Turkey; and WA = Wales.


So far the claims of a Basque affinity do not appear to be supported by the data. I’m not at all sure were this study is headed? Again, I’ll have to reread as well as finish reading the entire article. I still find their claims strange, as the data seems to demonstrate that the dispersal points for the majority of 146 Irish mtDNA haplotypes (positions 16093–16362) are centered in Austria/Hungry. More to follow.





CmacQ

[Shylence]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread so far.

[Sumskilz]

I’ve a few things to get done right now, and as their second stage analysis is a bit confusing, I’ll have to review it again. However, I find their claims strange, as they seem to demonstrate that the dispersal points for the majority of 146 Irish mtDNA haplotypes (positions 16093–16362) are centered in Austria.

You mean right between Hallstat and La Tène? Hmmm....

[oudysseos]

You mean we might be....[drumroll]....CELTS?

Who'd a thunk it?

[Berg-i-dum]

[B]One may note that the BA, or Basque Country sample is situated at what would be the far western extreme of the graph. In contrast, although the Irish sample is found on the western edge of the main cluster, it is more similar to the samples from Scotland, France, Switzerland, and England than to the Basque.

Hey but they are pretty close to Galicia (NW region of Spain, That it is known by his "celtic" heritage in Spain) (and where I live ). It is interesting to see as Wales and Scotland are close to Galicia too. Well I think we must think in megalith age or better in Late Bronze Atlantic to understand these connections and explain the celtic concept itself in these regions (proto-celts long way, more than Iron Age invasions). If somebody understand spanish this study about Galician genetic can be useful: http://archivo.50megs.com/genetica1/..._caboverde.htm

After all basque people it is an ancient preindoeuropean people but in Spain we dont think we can call them Iberians -well there are some theories but the ones wich indetify them as the "last" live iberians are almost forgotten (vascoiberismo)-, they arent the same people and they probably are even more ancient than them ( if they dont came with Hannibal as a strange theory I tried to explain supra -I dontk think so-). May be the iberians you shall search are those galicians or people from the north shore of Spain that went to British Islands, not the basque, they arent the same people and I think that this study about Ireland and the other famous one about England are actually referring to Iberians not "Basques". But it is easy to confuse them.

To explain a bit more this if my english works: the Ancient Iberian language and the nowadays Basque language arent the same, and even the basque cant help to translate iberian. There are some theories about the origin of Iberians: they are the megalithic mediterranean people and probably the first settlers in Neolithic in the same way as ancient Picts (here it is where they can be confused with basques depending on the theories). Or they came from North Africa later, or they are as Etruscians and came from east mediterranean.

[Ibrahim]

@ cmaq: of the Basque sample, how many were there? were there equal numbers of each?


@ everyone else: either way, Its still too early to call this conclusive for sure, but one thing is clear: if the results are accurate, then we're dealing with an indo european (or Cletic to be exact), substrate.

[cmacq]

Right,



I've read this article five times now and I can not understand how the data supports their claims? I've looked the data over, looked at the graphs, and collectively this supports an entirely different conclusion. It's possible that the pertinent part of the paper is missing? I'm going to post the forth stage analysis below, and if anyone can figure out how this data supports a Basque affinity for the Irish sample, please let me know how.

________________________________________
[4th Stage Analysis]
Focusing on the relationships between Ireland and its neighbors, we investigated the geographical provenance of matches to Irish mtDNA haplotypes. This was implemented by comparing each haplotype found in Ireland (positions 16093–16362) with a world database of mtDNA HVS-I sequences assembled from previous studies (Röhl et al. 2001). By use of the geographical information system “mtradius” (Forster et al. 2002), which uses information on the location and frequency of the closest matching haplotypes, we calculated a center of gravity (or center of distribution), with an SD in kilometers (km) as an indication of the dispersal range of the haplotypes. Higher SDs tend to occur with common ancestral haplotypes that have widespread distributions, which are phylogeographically rather uninformative. The less widely and more recently dispersed haplotypes were identified here as point estimates, with an SD of <500 km and an intermediate category of 500–1,000 km.

The results are displayed on a map of Europe in figure 3. The most frequent Irish haplotypes, represented by larger circle size, also have high SDs, indicating that they are widespread throughout Europe. Haplotypes with intermediate SDs are more common in western Europe, whereas haplotypes with low SDs are concentrated almost exclusively in Atlantic and (to a much lesser extent) Mediterranean Europe. The concentration of center-of-gravity estimates with low and intermediate SDs within or adjacent to the Atlantic zone (seen in fig. 2A) is notable. However, the most striking result is the very strong sharing of localized haplotypes with Britain, particularly Scotland. These are widely distributed throughout Ireland and are not concentrated in particular areas. A lesser degree of sharing is also apparent between Ireland and Pyrenean Spain. It is also noteworthy that particular mtDNAs that are characteristic of central Europe, such as J1a (Richards et al. 1998), are virtually absent from the Atlantic facade.


Figure 3
Estimated “dispersal points” (centers of gravity) for the 146 mtDNA haplotypes (positions 16093–16362) found in Ireland. Each circle represents a distinct haplotype. Circle size indicates the frequency of that type in Ireland, with the largest representing the CRS (n=56) and the smallest indicating a frequency of 1; intermediate frequencies are proportional to circle area. SDs are indicated as follows: black = <500 km, gray = 500–1,000 km, and white = >1,000 km. Eleven centers (ten in Asia and one in Africa) are outside the range of this map.

Previous studies of Y-chromosome variation demonstrated strong levels of differentiation within Europe (Rosser et al. 2000), and variation in autosomal loci often exhibits a similar structure (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). However, a detailed portrait of mtDNA structure in Europe has hitherto remained elusive. Yet concordance between different marker systems is an important means of demonstrating that geographical patterns are the result of demographic history and not (for example) of selection. These results strongly suggest—for the first time, to our knowledge—that the demographic histories of Europe, in general, and Ireland, in particular, are similarly recorded in loci with different inheritance patterns. The use of a very large data set that was checked for quality, analyzed at the level of individual lineages, and subdivided into fine population units appears to have been a key factor in the identification of the hitherto-undetected mtDNA patterns seen here.

[Conclusion]
Previous studies indicated particular affinities within the Atlantic zone of Europe on the basis of the distribution of both the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b (which reaches frequencies approaching 100% in some parts of western Europe) and the mtDNA haplogroup V (which, however, amounts to <5% of European mtDNAs) (Torroni et al. 1998, 2001; Hill et al. 2000; Semino et al. 2000; Wilson et al. 2001). During the last glaciation, human habitation is thought to have been largely restricted to refugial areas in southern Europe; one of the most important of these is likely to have been in southwestern France and the Iberian Peninsula (Dolukhanov 1993; Housley et al. 1997; Gamble et al. 2004). The recolonization of western Europe from an Iberian refugium after the retreat of the ice sheets ~15,000 years ago could explain the common genetic legacy in the area. An alternative but not mutually exclusive model would place Atlantic fringe populations at the “Mesolithic” extreme of a Neolithic demic expansion into Europe from the Near East.

In any event, the preservation of this signal within the Atlantic arc suggests that this region was relatively undisturbed by subsequent migrations across the continent. The identification of likely dispersal points for some Irish haplotypes in northern Spain and western France is further evidence for links between Atlantic populations. Cunliffe (2001) has used Braudel’s term, the “longuedurée,” to describe the long-term sedimentation of traditions on the Atlantic facade, which he suggests may stem from the late Mesolithic period, perhaps even predating the arrival of agriculture in the region. Our results support the view that the genetic legacy, at least, of the region may trace back this far and perhaps even to the earliest settlements following recolonization after the Last Glacial Maximum.

An alternative explanation might simply be restricted patterns of long-term gene flow within these two major ecogeographical zones in Europe, facilitated by the Atlantic and Mediterranean seaways. It is difficult to distinguish genetically between a common Paleolithic origin and more recent contacts. However, haplogroup R1b3f Y chromosomes, which have a recent origin in Iberia (Hurles et al. 1999), have not been found in Ireland (Hill et al. 2000), arguing against the migration of very large numbers of men by this route, at least, in the past 2,000–3,000 years. This would be consistent with the suggestion that most contacts over this period would have been small scale, rather in the manner of the Kula ring in the western Pacific (Cunliffe 2001). On the female side, the presence of putatively Neolithic mtDNA haplogroups in Ireland does indicate some gene flow from the continent after the initial peopling of the island (~9,000 years before the present) following the postglacial reexpansion (see Wilson et al. 2001), although this could have been at any time in the past 6,000 years or so.

A degree of genetic heterogeneity in the British Isles is apparent, at least on the Y chromosome and much more tentatively on the mtDNA, with southeastern England tending to show a greater affinity to neighboring areas of continental Europe. Anglo-Saxon mass migration has been proposed as the explanation for this pattern in Y-chromosome variation (Weale et al. 2002; Capelli et al. 2003). Such explanations may seem feasible for the Y chromosome, given the high levels of drift that might be associated with disproportionately high numbers of offspring among conquering elite males. However, the weight of archaeological evidence is against population replacement associated with the Anglo-Saxon conquest (Esmonde-Cleary 1989), suggesting that alternative explanations should be considered. It may be that the genetic landscape of southeastern Britain has been shaped by older links with the continent, perhaps during the Neolithic period or even before the filling of the North Sea, when Britain was still connected to the continent via the Doggerland plain (Coles 1998).

The multiple mtDNA links between Ireland and Britain, particularly Scotland, are especially striking (see O’Donnell et al. 2002). Archaeological evidence supports contacts during prehistory, and early historical accounts describe the establishment of Irish colonies in Scotland from at least a.d. ~500 (indeed, the name “Scotland” derives from the Latin word for “Ireland” at this time). Linguistically, modern Scottish Gaelic is a clear derivative of the Irish language. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the plantation of Ulster led to the arrival of substantial numbers of settlers moving in the opposite direction. However, the widespread distribution of these mtDNA haplotypes within Ireland suggests they may be largely the result of earlier contacts.

What seems clear is that neither the mtDNA pattern nor that of the Y-chromosome markers supports a substantially central European Iron Age origin for most Celtic speakers—or former Celtic speakers—of the Atlantic facade. The affinities of the areas where Celtic languages are spoken, or were formerly spoken, are generally with other regions in the Atlantic zone, from northern Spain to northern Britain. Although some level of Iron Age immigration into Britain and Ireland could probably never be ruled out by the use of modern genetic data, these results point toward a distinctive Atlantic genetic heritage with roots in the processes at the end of the last Ice Age.


______________________________________________________

Thanks in advance for any help,

CmacQ

[Sumskilz]

Their conclusion makes sense until the last paragraph which just seems irrational when referenced against the evidence as illustrated in figure 3. Am I missing something?