Are the Irish related to an Atlantic seaboard people

BabyE

Stretching from Spain and Portugal up the coast of France, to Brittany, onto Cornwall, to Wales and finally Scotland.

Has it been established or is too ambiguous?

I know the first inhabitants came here 10,000 years ago but there seems to be a gap of about 5000 years, what happened to these original people? Did they just die out and get replaced with their distant ancestors coming from the continent.

Was there a few different wave of migrations which would form the basis of Irish genetics, which would not be added to until centuries later with the eventual arrival of Vikings, Normans and British

pinkypinky

I think this is beyond the bounds of genealogy discussion.

However, there's a full program of DNA lectures at Back to Our Past next weekend in the RDS, which might have some good answers for you.

tac foley

Just about anybody who had a yen to go West back in the good ol' migratory days would have ended up in Ireland.

Apart from Iceland, that's about as far as you can get without drowning.

It has always amazed me that overall, the population of the island is pretty uniform right now, but around four thousand years ago it must have been a bit like Ellis Island...

tac

BabyE

tac foley wrote: »

Just about anybody who had a yen to go West back in the good ol' migratory days would have ended up in Ireland.

Apart from Iceland, that's about as far as you can get without drowning.

It has always amazed me that overall, the population of the island is pretty uniform right now, but around four thousand years ago it must have been a bit like Ellis Island...

tac

I heard before that back then currents were different and while long voyages from Britain and france to Ireland would have been a lot more navigable than today.
did anyone watch blood of the irish? seemed like a desperate attempt to differ ourselves from other British isles nations,showing slightly tanned old lads in galway and some similar looking olds in the basque region. this was meant to show we werent the same as the "saxon" brits but in fact Spanish. it was a bit of a mess of a show that seemed to be viewing the past while maintaining our modern interpretation of identity and nations

pinkypinky

This is more suited to the history forum.

Ipso

I think you're being a bit broad with the term Atlantic seaboard people, but there is a term used for a part of the Bronze Age which is called Atlantic Bronze Age. This implies a lot of trading contact along the Atlantic seaboard, I think in Irelands case it would be more applicable to areas further North of Spain.
There is an English author called Barry Cunliffe who places a lot of emphasis on contact along seaboards., I haven't read any of his books but he is a well respected archaeologist.
I think you're being a bit unfair towards Blood of the Irish, it is completely out of date now but they were just presenting what was a popular idea at the time. The idea that Basques were some Paleolithic reservoir that was a population source for much of Europe got a boost from DNA research which was in it's infancy back then, subsequent research and advanced technology (particularly with ancient DNA) has shown that the male lineage shared by Irish and the Basques arose on the Eurasian Steppe and moved West, most likely with the Yamnaya culture. I do think you're right that Irish people really want to differentiate themselves from the English.

tac foley

Ipso wrote: »

I do think you're right that Irish people really want to differentiate themselves from the English.

Surely that can't be THAT difficult to do. After all, the 'English' were Germanic - Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Sorbs, Swedes, Norwegians and Danes et al, all speaking a Germanic language that they brought along with them when they invaded, or whatever it was that they did that ended up with ca. 70% of the island speaking the mishmash language that it became - Anglo-Saxon/Old English.

There is totally NO Goidelic/Brythonic input whatsoever apart from the surviving Welsh language on mainland GB.

Add to that that the Norman British invaded the island of Ireland, and not the other way around, all within the time of written records being kept.

tac

BabyE

tac foley wrote: »

Surely that can't be THAT difficult to do. After all, the 'English' were Germanic - Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Sorbs, Swedes, Norwegians and Danes et al, all speaking a Germanic language that they brought along with them when they invaded, or whatever it was that they did that ended up with ca. 70% of the island speaking the mishmash language that it became - Anglo-Saxon/Old English.

There is totally NO Goidelic/Brythonic input whatsoever apart from the surviving Welsh language on mainland GB.

Add to that that the Norman British invaded the island of Ireland, and not the other way around, all within the time of written records being kept.

tac

as fa as ive heard the general british population has remained constant, those groups were elites and influenced culture way more than the genetic makeup of the population

BabyE

ie been reading about how britsin is not nearly as diverseas weve been led to bekieve. ariund brexit could hear stories about how brits are a melting pot of romans, celts, pics etc. reality is that most brits live within the kingdoms that their ancient ancestors lived in. More diverse than ireland though but not exactly austria or france

Harvey Normal

BabyE wrote: »

as fa as ive heard the general british population has remained constant, those groups were elites and influenced culture way more than the genetic makeup of the population

Not true. They contribute about 30% of English DNA and most of its culture.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry?0p19G=c

Badly Drunk Boy

BabyE wrote: »

Stretching from Spain and Portugal up the coast of France, to Brittany, onto Cornwall, to Wales and finally Scotland.

Has it been established or is too ambiguous?

Have you seen the documentary The Atlantean? It probably refers to Atlantic coastal visits a bit more recent than you are talking about but it's an interesting watch (and previously discussed here). There are clips online (here's the first episode) but you can buy the DVD (the original 3 episodes and then the 4th which was made years later) but it's not cheap (€34.50).

dubhthach

All modern Europeans can be modelled as a four way admixture of following groups:

1. Western Hunter Gather -- modal in mesolithic ancient DNA (aDNA) samples
2. Early European Farmer -- modal in Neolithic aDNA remains
3. Caucasian Hunter Gather -- modal in mesolithic remains from Caucus appears in Europe during Bronze age
4. Ancient North Eurasian -- modal in Siberian Paleothic aDNA sample -- appears mixed in "Eastern Hunter Gather" -- arrives in Europe with CHG during Bronze age

Blood of the Irish and other such tv shows (Blood of the Travellers) are terribly outdated mainly as they used low coverage DNA as well as fact that they predate the usage of ancient DNA samples which have blown away most of their assumptions.

One primary assumption they have is that Y-DNA lineage R1b expanded out of the Iberian "refugee" after the Ice age. This idea was promoted by Sykes and Oppenheimer in early 2000's based on than known coverage of R1b which peaks in Western Eurasia.

However their testing coverage was very low (eg. they only had idea about 3-4 branches of R1b) as testing prices plummet we have discovered that R1b diversity increases as you go eastwards.

That and ancient DNA has found no R1b in Europe before the Bronze age where it appears to arrive due to admixture event from Eurasian Steppe (Yamnaya material culture -> Corded Ware -> Bell Beaker)

A rather simplified chart which is from 2013 lecture (already outdated as it proposed expansion of R1b from Anatolia) shows general gist of it:



With regards to the British, well the British are clearly an admixed popualtion, with western British populations showing more affinity to modern Irish, whereas the English (in particular the eastern English) show higher levels of admixture from Northern Europe. This admixture appears (going off initial aDNA results) to arrive into what is now England with arrival of Anglo-Saxon language.

If we take the data from the People of British Isles study and add in data from the let to be published "Irish DNA atlas" we see something like following:



Unsurprisingly the Scots are intermediate between modern Irish and modern English populations.

After our neighbours in Britain we are closest to the French, which makes sense as it reflects geographic reality.

From an Irish context the first 4 (of potentially 50) full genomes have been published from Ireland, one was Neolithic woman from Co. Down (who has higher affinity with modern Sardinians than modern Irish) and the other three were Bronze age from Rathlin Island, the Rathlin Island men show higher affinity with modern Irish/Scots/Welsh as well as large amount of Steppe like admixture.

dubhthach

Here's one of the PCA charts from 2009 study looking at various European populations, as can be seen genetic variation/affinity mirrors geographic reality.



Again this is looking at modern population samples, ancient DNA is showing us that assumptions that the past was stationary with continuity from Mesolithic to present were clearly wrong.

Abhoth

The archaeology shows a number of periods of migration or strong contact that could plausibly have had a substantial genetic impact in pre-historic times.

The post Ice age settlement of Ireland by mesolithic people, probably from Britain.

The start of the neolithic, which spread from northern France to Britain and Ireland c4000 BCE over a period of a few generations. As the first neolithic settlements are in Britain, it seems plausible that the neolithic arrived in Ireland via Britain, but that those who brought it were mainly of recent northern French ancestry.

Subsequent to the early neolithic, there seems to have been significant neolithic contact along the Atlantic, North Sea and Western Mediterranean coasts, as demonstrated by the shared cultural feature of megalithic structures.

There is a lot of evidence of strong contact from Britain and Ireland, through much of France, and through Spain and Portugal during the Bronze Age. The genetics quoted by dubhthach seem to reflect a significant replacement of at least male DNA in Ireland (and in Western Europe generally) associated with the arrival of the Bronze Age. Strong trading links seem to have continued in this area through the Bronze Age, probably at least partly reflecting trade in copper (some of which was mined in Ireland) and tin (for which Cornwall was an important source, not just for Western Europe but also for the Mediterranean - via Carthage and its outposts).

There is not much evidence of the "arrival of the Celts in Ireland" circa 600BCE as taught in Irish schools actually being a real and significant event. The date approximately reflects the start of the Irish Iron Age, but there's not much evidence that it was associated with significant population movements, or even of any displacement of existing Irish elites by newcomers. Estimates of the date when Goidelic and Brythonic languages started to diverge tend towards much earlier, Bronze Age, dates.

dubhthach

From ancient DNA published last year there appears to be significant turn over in Population between Neolithic and Bronze age in Ireland. Though of course it's only based on one high status Neolithic full genome (sequenced to 10x).

This genome however seems to reflect a wider theme across western Europe. All Neolithic remains so far sequenced are more akin to modern Sardinians than to any other currently living European population. Even than Sardinians are "shifted" somewhat due to fact that they've had 2,000+ years of ongoing admixture from Italy. (There was a non-Indo European language spoken on island when the Roman's conquered it)

What we have to remember is that modern Europeans are admixed, just as modern Latin American populations are (usually three way between Native American, European and African), though in case of Europeans the admixture and recombination has been going on for guts of 4-5,000+ years (as oppose to 400-500 years for modern Latin American's)

One working theory at the moment is that the significant genetic change that appears to occur with onset of Bronze age, is reflective of spread of Proto-Indo-European into western Eurasia. It's at this stage that we see "Steppe ancestry" become a significant component in European populations genetic makeup. This component matches what was sequenced in Yamnaya remains from Russia (Kurgan burials near the Volga etc.)

Thus it's proposed by some that the Rathlin island men might have spoken some form of Proto-Indo-European. The Celtic languages form a distinct branch of Proto-IE, basically making up it's western wing with Italic branch (Latin and thus Romance) and Germanic branch. It's quite possible thus that Proto-Celtic developed with a region that was already Indo-European speaking and over time spread due to language diffusion/elite status without much in way of actual population movement.

Of course given evidence we have from other IE languages such as Anatolian (Hittite) and Hellenic (Greek) it's probable that Proto-Celtic would have potentially existed in the late Bronze age (1500-1000BC)

tabbey

BabyE wrote: »

Stretching from Spain and Portugal up the coast of France, to Brittany, onto Cornwall, to Wales and finally Scotland.

Has it been established or is too ambiguous?

I know the first inhabitants came here 10,000 years ago but there seems to be a gap of about 5000 years, what happened to these original people? Did they just die out and get replaced with their distant ancestors coming from the continent.

Was there a few different wave of migrations which would form the basis of Irish genetics, which would not be added to until centuries later with the eventual arrival of Vikings, Normans and British

There is a body of opinion that the celtic people of Britain (Scotland, Wales & West of England) arrived from Iberia / Brittany via Ireland, rather than the more common assumption.
I am not in a position to argue the validity of either hypothesis, or offer an opinion, just put it on the table for discussion.

Manach

Using cultural affinities then we are also closely related to areas of Breton and Northern England. This would have been part of the conclusions of the book "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English " by John McWhorter. This linguist makes a credible case that the odd structure of English is due in large part due to an interaction of the Germanic speaking invaders, post fall of Roman power, and the existing Celtic speakers: the latter being subsumed as a peasant class rather than driven out as former theories had proposed.

tac foley

Manach wrote: »

...and the existing Celtic speakers: the latter being subsumed as a peasant class rather than driven out as former theories had proposed.

To me, as a Welsh speaker - THE Brythonic language that has lasted probably from before the Romans and their strange ways ever existed as we know it, Jim, your comment is patronising almost beyond belief. If I, as much a foreigner on this site where Ireland is concerned as you are where the Welsh are concerned, had written that about the Irish I'd be getting flamed from all sides, and rightly so.

'Peasant class' people did not have kings and princes, nor did they deal with foreign kings and popes, nor did they build fortresses that survive to the present day.

The natives of mainland Britain spoke the Brythonic Celtic language that we now call Welsh - a corruption of the Anglo-Saxon word 'waelsc' - foreigner, in all of what is now called England, and a large proportion of what is now the lowlands of Scotland. With a little effort, most present-day Welsh speakers can read and comprehend the words written by the Welsh poet and mystic, Taliesin - written over 1400 years ago. Ask any present-day English speaker to read and understand 'Beowulf' in its original form and see how far you get with that.

tac

dubhthach

So here's summary I found online of Ed Gilbert's talk at RDS on Sunday (wasn't present myself)

17.00 - The Irish DNA Atlas Project – update 23rd Oct 2016
(Edmund Gilbert, RCSI, IRL)
Subject: Autosomal DNA
Ed returns to give us an update on this milestone project for Irish genealogy. Over 200 people have been recruited, each with 8 great grandparents from the same geographic area (c.50km radius). This gives us a snapshot of Irish autosomal DNA from about 1850, prior to the major emigration of later years. Already the project has identified distinct genetic groups within the Irish population, many of them quite clearly geographically defined. But what else have they recently discovered?

Ireland clusters with
Scotland
Wales
NW France

Low Genetic Diversity
No recent large scale turnover

Bronze Age represent modern Irish DNA
Not Neolithic. Population replacement.

North South divide
230 samples collected
194 sequenced to date
One in ten samples accepted
Compared with POBI samples
fineStructure used
Very high computational resources

North/South/East Cluster
Planter Cluster
Nine regional clusters
Correspond to historic territories

GlobeTrotter Analysis (Migrations)
High Matches Ireland, Scotland, Wales, NW France - Historic Celtic countries
Low Matches Germany - Historic Anglo Saxon
Trace of Norwegian - Historic Viking Migration

Irish Travellers DNA
22K Travellers in Ireland
0.6% population
50 Samples collected

Group A Mixed Traveller/Settled
Group B Traveller Drifted/Isolated

Rathkeale (Town) Cluster
Cant (Language) Cluster
Gammon (Language) Cluster

Start Publication Process end 2016 start 2017

It's interesting they included a NW France panel, so basically we are seeing affinities across Insular Celtic speaking populations. As their criteria was stricter than the "People of the British Isles" (PoBI) project by requiring 8 great-grandparents in same region (PoBI was 4 x grandparents) it should give us an interesting insight into Irish population sub-structure during the mid 19th century. Obviously since than there's been lot more mixing around (one only has to look at Dublin)

tac foley

It's very interesting to me to see that there is very little evidence of Scandinavian input into the gene pool in spite of the comparatively important Viking incomers. Having settled mostly around the estuary of the Liffey and south, giving Nordic names to two counties and building the important trading centre of Dublin, most of the evidence of their presence seems to be tied in to the people with the name Foley and its variants in that lower quarter of South Eastern Ireland.

tac

dubhthach

tac foley wrote: »

seems to be tied in to the people with the name Foley and its variants in that lower quarter of South Eastern Ireland.

tac

Don't be modest now Tac

tabbey

dubhthach wrote: »

So here's summary I found online of Ed Gilbert's talk at RDS on Sunday (wasn't present myself)



It's interesting they included a NW France panel, so basically we are seeing affinities across Insular Celtic speaking populations. As their criteria was stricter than the "People of the British Isles" (PoBI) project by requiring 8 great-grandparents in same region (PoBI was 4 x grandparents) it should give us an interesting insight into Irish population sub-structure during the mid 19th century. Obviously since than there's been lot more mixing around (one only has to look at Dublin)

Ed made clear a number of times that photography and recording was not permitted, as the results were as yet unpublished, and releasing data publically, prematurely, could jeopardise the status of the study when officially launched.
I am surprised therefore that people would abuse this on this forum.

tac foley

dubhthach wrote: »

Don't be modest now Tac

Ah, now, as you know, I have much to be modest about...;)

tac

Donalde

Could placename evidence be relevant?
Corca Baiscin (West Clare) = Tribe of Basque
Paróiste Modhrach (West of Dingle) = Moors
Finn/Fianna have similar stereotype to Phoenicians.
I am sure there are many more.
The oldest dateable archaeological remains are now from the west (Ennis) rather than the north east.
Should not the Viking genes have been reinforced by the Normans? Is it not reasonable to assume that all the present Norman/Irish (Fitzgerald, Roche, etc) are descended from a group who were somewhere around 10th generation Scandanavian at the time of the invasion?

Ipso

The Basques never called themselves Basques, I think they use the term Euskaldun.

Manach

tac foley wrote: »

To me, as a Welsh speaker - THE Brythonic language that has lasted probably from before the Romans and their strange ways ever existed as we know it, Jim, your comment is patronising almost beyond belief. If I, as much a foreigner on this site where Ireland is concerned as you are where the Welsh are concerned, had written that about the Irish I'd be getting flamed from all sides, and rightly so.

'Peasant class' people did not have kings and princes, nor did they deal with foreign kings and popes, nor did they build fortresses that survive to the present day.

The book (AFAIR) quoted where I drew the phrase and the source used that phrase (in the mention context of Northern England). Hence, please feel free to contact said author to express your disapproval of an term that has been used in almost every historical book that deals with pre-modern times to denote non noble / clerical classes.

tac foley

Manach wrote: »

The book (AFAIR) quoted where I drew the phrase and the source used that phrase (in the mention context of Northern England). Hence, please feel free to contact said author to express your disapproval of an term that has been used in almost every historical book that deals with pre-modern times to denote non noble / clerical classes.

Problem is, Sir, that you wrote this -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manach View Post
...and the existing Celtic speakers: the latter being subsumed as a peasant class rather than driven out as former theories had proposed.

You made no differentiation of any form of class divide. More accuracy in your quote would have led to less ire on my part.

Now we move on.

tac

Manach

tac foley wrote: »

Problem is, Sir, that you wrote this -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manach View Post
...and the existing Celtic speakers: the latter being subsumed as a peasant class rather than driven out as former theories had proposed.

You made no differentiation of any form of class divide. More accuracy in your quote would have led to less ire on my part.

Now we move on.

tac

One question before we moved on as I am honestly puzzled. What terms should have been used instead? My meaning was the Celtic peoples in those regions were not driven out but instead remained but as a lower social class as part of the post invasion society before being melded into it but still leaving distinct linguistic traces of their presence.
I did not see any issue with giving a quick précis of the source or using the terms in question as the author is well known in his field ( and I'd previously read other works of his on creole language development - this was what he was attempting to prove the English language was). As well, to reiterate the terms are commonplace in wider academic historical related work.

tac foley

Sir, I am neither well enough informed, nor clever enough to argue what is plainly a subject of which you know far more than I ever will. I was simply peeved that you lumped ALL Celtic speakers as peasants, without regard to the fact that many were plainly not. You disregarded, or rather, the source you say that you were quoting disregarded the fact that the vast majority of the population of the British Isles spoke a Celtic language of one form or another, before the Romans arrived, during their occupation, and after they left for good. The fact that that Celtic language has only survived on the British mainland in the form of Welsh, and to a miniscule degree, Cornish, is not moot in your argument.

Basically, you stated that ALL Celtic-speakers were peasants, and by inference, ignorant lower orders. It was THAT that got right up my nose.

Now, please let's move on, else this thread will be stuck by an increasingly senseless contretemps.

tac

Manach

Agreed on the moving on, as my initial thread was unclear as that was not my intent. I would say that the book in question is an excellent one and I'd recommend it to you Tac.

dubhthach

What should be remember is that the modern English, including those up in Cumbria are an admixed population who contain ancestry from both a population more akin to modern Irish (Brythonic speakers in-situ at the collaspe of Roman empire) and a population more akin to modern Dutch (anglo-saxon's), you take a random Englishman off the street and he'll show descent from both groups. (along with probably other groups).

One way to think of it is to look at modern Latin American populations where you got people speaking Spanish who when tested show both Native American and European ancestry (and in lot of cases also West African), this is very evident somewhere like Puerto Rico (Taino ancestry often shows up in range of 10-20%) and of course in Mexico.

"Cumbric" survived as a spoken language in Cumbria probably up until the 12-13th century, after all it was language of the Kingdom of Strathclyde which consisted of both Cumbria and western Lowlands of Scotland.

A more familiar comparison of course is the effect of the Irish language on Hiberno-English. Of course as Hiberno-English gradually converges with American-English/Global-English many of distinct features inherited from Irish are been lost (as they are seen as non-standard)