How genetically different are the populations of North West Europe?

garrixfan

I'm trying to figure out the ethnic makeup of Europe here and reading about migrations of Europeans to this island. What I'm trying to figure out is how legit the idea that Ireland was some multi-ethnic hub is. I've watched a few documentaries and read a few articles which seems to try to present a new light of Irish history, one in which we are not an isolated landmass off the coast of Europe but very much a player.
What I want to know is how much of this is actually true?
Are we the same people basically as the French, the English, the Belgians etc.
On an appearance basis, to me at least, it seems we don't look like Germans or Dutch, but what confuses me is the English do, but others will say the Irish and the English are basically the same people. Its all so confusing.

Fascinating stuff though, but hard to get my head around.

Ipso

The big difference in Europe is between North and South. Most North Western Europeans cluster together.
In general genes mirror geography (Finland seems to be an exception though).
Did the articles you read deal with Y DNA or autosomnal DNA?

Ipso

Have a dig around on this site, the more recent articles deal more with ancient DNA findings.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-fateful-triangle.html?m=1

garrixfan

Thanks for the link.

I have another question, take a person in South East Ireland, will they have in some cases a closer genetic lineage to someone in England, Holland, Germany, than they would with someone from Gweedore.

garrixfan

Thanks for the link.

I have another question, take a person in South East Ireland, will they have in some cases a closer genetic lineage to someone in England, Holland, Germany, than they would with someone from Gweedore.

robp

garrixfan wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

I have another question, take a person in South East Ireland, will they have in some cases a closer genetic lineage to someone in England, Holland, Germany, than they would with someone from Gweedore.

I would suggest more closely related to someone from Gweedore, usually.

garrixfan wrote: »

how legit the idea that Ireland was some multi-ethnic hub is. I've watched a few documentaries and read a few articles which seems to try to present a new light of Irish history, one in which we are not an isolated landmass off the coast of Europe but very much a player.
On an appearance basis, to me at least, it seems we don't look like Germans or Dutch, but what confuses me is the English do, but others will say the Irish and the English are basically the same people. Its all so confusing.

Relatively speaking the Irish population is rather isolated for a European population but its only relative to Europe. I say that as there is extremely little evidence of invading colonising populations here before the Vikings. There probably were none since the Neolithic.
if Irish people are closely related to English population much of it may be due to the plantations. All European are closely related and differences much relate to geography. See here how the variation mirrors a map of Europe. Its important to remember that this genetic variation represents only the tiniest part of genome. Mostly we are the same.

tac foley

There is still the little matter of human population of Ireland before the invasive flood that cut off the British Isles from the rest of mainland Europe. What evidence has come to light regarding that period of Westward migration that had to come to a halt at the edge of the Atlantic Ocean?

tac

Qualitymark

It seems to me that despite the plantations, there's still a regional 'look' in many parts of Ireland - like the high-cheekboned Connemara people, the broad-faced Laois and Offaly folk (even John Derricke's woodcut of Rory Og O'More has that), the fine-featured Limerick people, the dark McCarthys of Cork, the long-eyed Vikings of Waterford and Ringsend, the appropriately raven-like O'Byrnes and Byrnes of Wicklow and south Dublin (Fiach, or Raven, was a common family name), and so on.

Ipso

tac foley wrote: »

There is still the little matter of human population of Ireland before the invasive flood that cut off the British Isles from the rest of mainland Europe. What evidence has come to light regarding that period of Westward migration that had to come to a halt at the edge of the Atlantic Ocean?

tac

The people there around the time of the Doggerland flood probably were descendants of the hunter gatherers.
Modern Europeans in general are descended from three main groups. These hunter gatherers, near eastern farmers and abgroup called Ancestral North Eurasians.
A lot if the differences is just fine tuning, different areas just got different inputs in different quantities at different times.

JP Mallory had a good book recently on Irish archaeology.

dubhthach

In general the level of difference between close geographic populations is gonna be minimum. Most of differenation has only occurred in the last 4,000 years (since the Bronze age) which is a minute time. Razib Khan had good blog post where he talks about this in context of recent study looking at modern British population through lens of ancient DNA (10 samples from Iron age and Anglo-Saxon period)

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/between-the-millennia-and-generations/?highlight=anglo+saxon

dubhthach

What's evident of course is that all European populations are made up of various admixed levels of at least three ancient "Meta-populations", in this case going off evidence from ancient DNA, these populations could be simplistically called:
1. Mesolithic Hunter Gathers
2. Neolithic Farmers
3. Copper/Bronze age Steepe origin

The last one has been argued to be signal of Indo-European admixture into Europe:


Nature version of paper behind paywall, full paper can be read on site of Harvard Reich Lab:
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2014_Nature_Lazaridis_EuropeThreeAncestries.pdf

Differation thus between various European populations can thus be seen by the various ratio's that these "ancestral components" make up in population group. Interesting the one group lacking significant ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) admixture in modern Europe are the Basques.

Another good blog post by Razib (talks bit about above Nature paper)
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/allowing-the-dead-to-speak/

Victor

robp wrote: »

I say that as there is extremely little evidence of invading colonising populations here before the Vikings. There probably were none since the Neolithic.

Perhaps not wholesale invasions, but there was movement between here and Britain on a regular basis.

Qualitymark

Victor wrote: »

Perhaps not wholesale invasions, but there was movement between here and Britain on a regular basis.

The Annals - writing down an oral tradition thousands of years old - has a series of invasions from various places, north, east and south. I would take a small but valuable bet that this will turn out to be true - the Firbolg coming from Spain, for instance, as the Annals say, with bags of earth and seeds on their backs; our first backpackers.

Which reminds me, is there anywhere you can watch the Prix de l'Art de Triomphe? Put my annual bet on yesterday.

tac foley

That is 'Prix de l'Arc', BTW.

tac

dubhthach

To be honest the annals and general "pseudo-histories" were subject to massive rewriting by what modern historians call the "Syncretic historians" in period 700-800AD. Out of which an agreed standard history came that reflected the political situation at time. Thence the writing of Coirpre mac Néill and his conquest of Meath from Leinstermen out of standard history etc. likewise for his brother Fiachu, this was to reflect the political situation within the "Southern Uí Néill" during the 8th century by which time the kingship was dominated by Clann Cholmáin (the descendants of Colmán Mór d. 587, the son of Diarmait mac Cerbaill)

Pre-Christian names/terms such as "Firbolg" etc. were fitted into agreed history, in general lot of historians point out that Bolg is cognate to Belgae, eg that perhaps the "Fir Bolg" actually are a reflection of the Belgae (from whom modern Belgium is named)

tac foley

So what you are saying is that basically all the stories of the population of Ireland are hogwash, cobbled together from picturesque and highly imaginative myths and legends and fairy stories invented to justify the actions of the rulers of the time. That the likes of Cuchulain and his ilk are no more than Arthur and the Round Table knights or Robin Hood, and the great cattle raids were nothing more than the exaggeration of the sneaky thieving of a couple of cows from a neighbour?

Which begs the question - is there ANY hard evidence for the manner in which Ireland became populated, from which populations and in what timescale?

tac

dubhthach

Well I thought it was obvious that Cú Chulainn was "high saga", what's interesting of course is that the earliest stratum of Ulster cycle tales are quite distinct from the later ones, for example the poem Conailla Medb míchuru (‘Medb enjoined bad/illegal/evil contracts’) by the poet Luccreth moccu Chiara (moccu == "tribe", in this case the Ciarraí who give their name to modern Kerry) writing in early 7th century tells a somewhat different story than what we know in classic Táin text.

For example Fergus was tempted into exile by Medb instead of going into exile after killing of Clann Uisneaigh (Deidre of sorrows story) because to put it bluntly "because he (Fergus) preferred the buttocks of a woman to his own people".

The exile is in Tara as oppose to Connacht and there's no Cú Chulainn, Ulster been defended by Fergus son Fiacc "who turned back his father's battalions"
https://books.google.ie/books?id=-0tcQr3WzqsC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=%22preferred+the+buttocks+of+a+woman%22&source=web&ots=LO6rSxi-GZ&sig=bOmAfI5Wvh3bw07Z-5Pa1pd1Rk0&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22preferred%20the%20buttocks%20of%20a%20woman%22&f=false

Luccreth at time regarded what he was writing as "sen-eolas" (sen = "sean" in modern irish) eg. "Old Knowlege" and that was him writing in the early 7th century.

What's interesting of course about idea of story been set in Tara, is that soverignity goddess associated with Tara is also called Medb (eg. Meadhbh -- Maeve). So it's been argued that the later shaping of story with a queen called Medb reflects the secularisation of a goddess and adaption to "literary fiction", the same process happens with Tutha Dé Danann. Lugh for example is clearly an irish reflex of common Proto-Celtic god *Lugos.

As for hard evidence, we have archaelogical evidence of when men first appear in Ireland after the LGM (Last Glacier Maximum), specifically mesolithic man, along with all relevant archaelogy of subsequent periods (eg. Neolithic, Copper/Bronze age, Iron age etc.)

dubhthach

Cattle raiding was probably a key part of warfare, after all the Leinstermen were subject to historic Bóroma Laigen (cattle tribute of Laighen) by the Uí Néill, something that Brian Boru (Brian Bóruma) would levy on the leinstermen as part of his claiming of rights of been high king.

Contuined to be important right up until the Tudor conquest, for example the following plate from:

The Image of Irelande, with a Discoverie of Woodkarne by John Derricke from 1581

Ipso

tac foley wrote: »

So what you are saying is that basically all the stories of the population of Ireland are hogwash, cobbled together from picturesque and highly imaginative myths and legends and fairy stories invented to justify the actions of the rulers of the time. That the likes of Cuchulain and his ilk are no more than Arthur and the Round Table knights or Robin Hood, and the great cattle raids were nothing more than the exaggeration of the sneaky thieving of a couple of cows from a neighbour?

Which begs the question - is there ANY hard evidence for the manner in which Ireland became populated, from which populations and in what timescale?

tac

In fairness you would have to be skeptical of oral stories claiming to be accurate representations of events thousands of years before hand.
I read that at one point Iron Age hill forts were thought to be the work of Danes.

Qualitymark

It should be mentioned that John Derricke's woodcuts are part of a hagiographical book, an attempt to rescue the reputation of the genocidal Sir Henry Sidney.

Cattle raiding and vendetta were of course much more a part of the life of mediaeval Europe than they are of modern life (in most places). But Ireland seems to have been less violent than most places until the Plantations.

tac foley

Ipso wrote: »

In fairness you would have to be skeptical of oral stories claiming to be accurate representations of events thousands of years before hand.
I read that at one point Iron Age hill forts were thought to be the work of Danes.

I beg to disagree. We are not talking here about 'thousands' of years of history in recorded form, but substantially less than two thousand years.

Is there any agreed, or even generally accepted timescale to the epicIrish stories? In UK it is now generally accepted that although Arthur may not have actually existed as a historical figure, nevertheless a person or persons may have actually fought the invaders of mainland GB after the Romans quit, leaving a resonance that went into myth and legend as the knights of the round table et al. In other words, a reasonably acceptable timescale has been established to give some credence to the stories. Is there any such evidence in the case of Ireland?

tac

Qualitymark

The hill forts may indeed have been built by Danes, in the sense that the larger castles were mostly built by Normans. We were invaded, invaders settled and built… Some of these prehistoric invaders may well have come from the north.

dubhthach

Given widespread rewriting of history, there's probably some nuggests of truth in there. What's evident is that for example St. Patrick's story was moved earlier by about 50 years. Palladian was completely redacted out of the history due to influence of Armagh.

It's quite probable that Níall Noígiallach (Hint Niall doesn't rhyme with Nile) was a real individual but the stories around him are high saga, akin to those attached to say Ragnarr Loðbrók in Norse/Viking history/saga (who like bould Niall would be father of multiple kings/dynasts).

Irish history is quite fixed from about 500AD onwards, eg. it's almost certain that individuals mentioned in annals/histories actually existed.

If we go back to cycle of the Kings, the story of Conn Cétchathach (Conn of the hundred battles) and his grandfather Túathal Techtmar (Túathal the legitimate) might perserve a sliver of truth with regards to contact from Northern Britain into the northern half of Ireland from 300BC onwards eg. Leath Cuinn (Conn's half -- area north of line stretching Galway to Dublin).

In case of Túathal, the saga tradition has it that his father was overthrown by a rebellion of the "province kings" and that his mother who was daughter of king of Alba (Alba mean's scotland, but in oldest strata it means Britain and thus cognate with Albion) fled back to her father while pregnant with Túathal. He would thus return was a young man with an army to claim his rightful throne. He is the common ancestor of the Dál Cuinn (Uí Néill and the three Connachta) through his grandson Conn Cétchathach (who has at least two saga's connected to him involving the god Lugh and the reciting of lists of Kings).

What's interesting about all this is in period after 300BC we seen renewed contact between Northern half of Ireland and Britain, so for example La Tene influence materials, we also see that in historic period that there appears to be differences in economy and Legal system between Leath Cuinn (Conn's half) and Leath Mugh (half of Mug Nuadat -- "slave of god Nuadha) eg. Munster.

One could argue that legal tradition in Leath Cuinn seems to be based around conquest and sword land with emphasis on a pastoral economy where as in Leath Mug we see emphasis on productive economy, and almost "priest like" kingship (so for example later "King-Bishop's" of Cashel)

What's intersting of course is that Munster also has the highest concentration of Ogham stones (the oldest written stratum of Irish language) and the least amount of signs of La Tene material influence/contact.

If I recall Wagner's article about the excavation of Clogher Hillfort in Tyrone (which was capital of later Kingdom of Airgialla) was that it appear like a Romano-Brythonic island in a "native Iron age sea".

Anyways this bilateral divison of Ireland is reflected in earliest strata of the Milesian myth (which doesn't date to much before 700-800 with heavy influence from Isidore of Seville (d. 636AD)) which has only the Dál Cuinn and the Eoghanachta as descendants of mythical Míl (whose name is clearly a calque from Latin). Some have argue this reflects earlier alliance of the Dál Cuinn and Eoghanachta back in 5th century which basically overthrew the "old order" during upheaval of change that occurred in first century or two of Christianity. (TM Charles-Edwards in "Early Christian Ireland" from University of Cambridge Press for example)

steddyeddy

There's no mystery without myth and no myth without history as the expression goes among history academics.

Ipso

tac foley wrote: »

I beg to disagree. We are not talking here about 'thousands' of years of history in recorded form, but substantially less than two thousand years.

Is there any agreed, or even generally accepted timescale to the epicIrish stories? In UK it is now generally accepted that although Arthur may not have actually existed as a historical figure, nevertheless a person or persons may have actually fought the invaders of mainland GB after the Romans quit, leaving a resonance that went into myth and legend as the knights of the round table et al. In other words, a reasonably acceptable timescale has been established to give some credence to the stories. Is there any such evidence in the case of Ireland?

tac

But the book if invasions claim to be a record of the very first people who came to Ireland. And coincidentally a lot of these people who came to Ireland are linked to biblical figures (which is to be expected when the stories are written by christian monks).

tac foley

Ipso wrote: »

But the book if invasions claim to be a record of the very first people who came to Ireland. And coincidentally a lot of these people who came to Ireland are linked to biblical figures (which is to be expected when the stories are written by christian monks).

Sir, you have just proved my point - 'Christian monks' did the writing some time after 500AD or thereabouts - before that we have to rely on 'myth and legend', as there is nothing else except what can be discerned by digging.

It would be truly wondrous if somewhere there was a 'Pliny' who recorded the Roman connection with Ireland, or some other physical historical documentation from before CE as there is with trade between the Phoenicians and the island of Britain. However, there does not seem to be anything of the sort.

tac

dubhthach

tac foley wrote: »

Sir, you have just proved my point - 'Christian monks' did the writing some time after 500AD or thereabouts - before that we have to rely on 'myth and legend', as there is nothing else except what can be discerned by digging.

It would be truly wondrous if somewhere there was a 'Pliny' who recorded the Roman connection with Ireland, or some other physical historical documentation from before CE as there is with trade between the Phoenicians and the island of Britain. However, there does not seem to be anything of the sort.

tac

Well we obviously have Greek accounts such for example Pytheas of Massilia calling Ireland -- Ἰέρνη (Ierne) in the third century BC

This appears to be borrowing of Proto-Goidelic Īweriū which as you guessed it is root name for Éire (via Old Irish Ériu)

Obviously we have Ptolmey's map from the 2nd century which contains tribal names that are most of Celtic linguistic origin.

Supposedly Tacitus has it that Agricola the Roman governor of Britain in period 79-84AD entertained an exiled Irish prince (and consider going on expedition to conquer the island).

In general the only bits of writing we have in pre-Christian context are various Ogham stones scattered around the country which at best give us personal names and names of local dynastical/tribal groupings.

steddyeddy

tac foley wrote: »

Sir, you have just proved my point - 'Christian monks' did the writing some time after 500AD or thereabouts - before that we have to rely on 'myth and legend', as there is nothing else except what can be discerned by digging.

It would be truly wondrous if somewhere there was a 'Pliny' who recorded the Roman connection with Ireland, or some other physical historical documentation from before CE as there is with trade between the Phoenicians and the island of Britain. However, there does not seem to be anything of the sort.

tac

Tac tell me you're not holding the Arthurian legend (who may or may not have been real or English) as the standard or recording oral folklore?

tac foley

Of course not, simply pointing out that he is as 'real' as Cuchulain. Or Robin Hood.

I'm simply ignorant, not stupid. Ignorance can be replaced by knowledge, but stupidity is a whole lot harder to fix.

tac

CelticRambler

There are older written texts that describe supposed voyages of the Phoenicians to South America (some of which contributed to Thor Heyerdal's reconstructions) which include references to "ships lost". If these people were making attempts to explore the Atlantic, it is conceivable that some of their wrecks, with survivors, washed up on the west coast of Ireland.

Bob Quinn's "Atlantean" documentary suggested some possible, relatively recent, cultural parallels with the North Africans, but there are elements of the Tuatha Dé Dannan stories that align with the tales and superpowers attributed to middle-eastern deities too. I've often wondered if the Boyne Valley tombs were the best "pyramids" a bunch of stranded Phoenicians could manage to build with local materials and labour.

Similarly, what's the real story behind the Céide Fields? A bunch of lads tramped across Europe till they ran out of road and then decided they had nothing better to do than invent a new farming system ... or a more advanced community who imposed their knowledge of geometry on an existing landscape?

steddyeddy

tac foley wrote: »

So what you are saying is that basically all the stories of the population of Ireland are hogwash, cobbled together from picturesque and highly imaginative myths and legends and fairy stories invented to justify the actions of the rulers of the time. That the likes of Cuchulain and his ilk are no more than Arthur and the Round Table knights or Robin Hood, and the great cattle raids were nothing more than the exaggeration of the sneaky thieving of a couple of cows from a neighbour?

Which begs the question - is there ANY hard evidence for the manner in which Ireland became populated, from which populations and in what timescale?

tac

Tac I hope you don't mind me saying but some of your posts here display more venom than curiosity.

Anyway there's genetic evidence backing up some of the invasions.

One of the oldest texts composed in Ireland is the Leabhar Gabhla, the Book of Invasions. It tells a semi-mythical history of the waves of people who settled in Ireland in earliest time. It says the first settlers to arrive in Ireland were a small dark race called the Fir Bolg, followed by a magical super-race called the Tuatha de Danaan (the people of the goddess Dana).

Most interestingly, the book says that the group which then came to Ireland and fully established itself as rulers of the island were the Milesians - the sons of Mil, the soldier from Spain. Modern DNA research has actually confirmed that the Irish are close genetic relatives of the people of northern Spain.

While it might seem strange that Ireland was populated from Spain rather than Britain or France, it is worth remembering that in ancient times the sea was one of the fastest and easiest ways to travel. When the land was covered in thick forest, coastal settlements were common and people travelled around the seaboard of Europe quite freely.


The main difference is the degree to which later migrations of people to the islands affected the population's DNA. Parts of Ireland (most notably the western seaboard) have been almost untouched by outside genetic influence since hunter-gatherer times. Men there with traditional Irish surnames have the highest incidence of the Haplogroup 1 gene - over 99%.

At the same time London, for example, has been a mutli-ethnic city for hundreds of years. Furthermore, England has seen more arrivals of new people from Europe - Anglo-Saxons and Normans - than Ireland. Therefore while the earliest English ancestors were very similar in DNA and culture to the tribes of Ireland, later arrivals to England have created more diversity between the two groups.

Irish and Scottish people share very similar DNA. The obvious similarities of culture, pale skin, tendancy to red hair have historically been prescribed to the two people's sharing a common celtic ancestry. Actually it now seems much more likely that the similarity results from the movement of people from the north of Ireland into Scotland in the centuries 400 - 800 AD. At this time the kingdom of Dalriada, based near Ballymoney in County Antrim extended far into Scotland. The Irish invaders brought Gaelic language and culture, and they also brought their genes.