DNA shows Scots and Irish should look to Spain for their ancestry

[Ferran]

DNA shows Scots and Irish should look to Spain for their ancestry

JOHN INNES

The Irish and Scots may be as closely related to the people of Spain and Portugal as the Celts of central Europe.

Historians have long believed the British Isles were invaded by Iron Age Celts from central Europe in about 500 BC. But geneticists at Dublin’s Trinity College now claim the Scots and Irish have as much, if not more, in common with the people of north-western Spain.

Dr Daniel Bradley, genetics lecturer at Trinity College Dublin, said a study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics into Celtic origins revealed close affinities with the people of Galicia.

"It’s well known that there are cultural relations between the areas but now this shows there is much more," Dr Bradley said.

Historians believed that the Celts, who were originally from the Alpine regions of central Europe, invaded the Atlantic islands in a massive migration 2,500 years ago. But Dr Bradley said that it was possible migrants moved from the Iberian peninsula as far back as 6,000 years ago and up until 3,000 years ago.

The study, using DNA samples from people living in Celtic nations and other parts of Europe, found

there are also close links between Scotland and Ireland dating back much further than the Plantations of the 1600s, when many Scots moved to northern Ireland in search of fertile farming land.


Source: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scot...?id=1064152004

We are not Celts at all but Galicians

Brian Donnelly

Celtic nations such as Scotland and Ireland have more in common with the Portuguese and Spanish than with the Celts of central Europe, according to a new academic report.

Historians have long believed that the British Isles were swamped by a massive invasion of Iron Age Celts from central Europe around 500BC.

However, geneticists at Trinity College in Dublin now claim that the Scots and Irish have more in common with the people of north-western Spain.

Dr Daniel Bradley, genetics lecturer at Trinity College, said a new study into Celtic origins revealed close affinities with the people of Galicia.

He said: "It's well-known that there are cultural relations between the areas but now this shows there is much more. We think the links are much older than that of the Iron Age because it also shows affinities with the Basque region, which isn't a Celtic region."

He added: "The links point towards other Celtic nations, in particular Scotland, but they also point to Spain."

Historians believed the Celts, originally Indo-European, invaded the Atlantic islands in a massive migration 2500 years ago.

But using DNA samples from people living in Celtic nations and other parts of Europe, geneticists at the university have drawn new parallels.

Dr Bradley said it was possible migrants moved from the Iberian peninsula to Ireland as far back as 6000 years ago up until 3000 years ago.

"I don't agree with the idea of a massive Iron Age invasion that took over the Atlantic islands. You can regard the ocean, rather than a barrier, as a communication route," Dr Bradley said.

Archaeologists have also been questioning the links between the Celts of eastern France and southern Germany and the people of the British Isles and the new research appears to prove their theories.

The Dublin study found that people in areas traditionally known as Celtic, such as Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Brittany and Cornwall, had strong links with each other and had more in common with people from the Iberian peninsula.

It also found people in Ireland have more in common with Scots than any other nation.

"What we would propose is that this commonality among the Atlantic facade is much older, 6000 years ago or earlier," Dr Bradley added.

There are also close links between Scotland and Ireland dating back much further than the plantations of the 1600s when many Scots moved to Northern Ireland in search of fertile farming lands, the research showed.

However, the researchers could not determine whether fair skin, freckles, red hair and fiery tempers truly are Celtic traits.

Stephen Oppenheimer, professor of clinical socio-medical sciences at Oxford, said that the Celts of western Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Cornwall were descended from an ancient people living on the Atlantic coast when Britain was still attached to mainland Europe, while the English were more closely related to the Germanic peoples of the interior.

He said: "The English are the odd ones out because they are the ones more linked to continental Europe. The Scots, the Irish, the Welsh and the Cornish are all very similar in their genetic pattern to the Basque."


Source: http://moderntribalist.blogspot.com/...galicians.html

[Señor Malo]

Interesting, very interesting, a matter to ffollow up too.
It has been suggested that the Bell beakers culture spread out of hte iberian Peninsula. It must not be forgotten neither the megalithic cultures that preceded them on the atlantic facade. These two factors has may be influenced on the genetic proximity between basques, iberians and scott and gaelic celts ...
Yet, I'd dare to make an objection; they insist quite enough on the similarity between Cornwall, Wales, french Brittany and spanish Galicia ... We must bear in mind the (?) massive migration of Britain's kelts to Brittany, Galicia and even Asturias during the V-Vi's centuries AS invasions ....

[Milesian]

Historians have long believed that the British Isles were swamped by a massive invasion of Iron Age Celts from central Europe around 500BC.

However, geneticists at Trinity College in Dublin now claim that the Scots and Irish have more in common with the people of north-western Spain.

Celtic and Iberian are not mutually exclusive terms. I think the interpretations are seriously skewed and presumptive.
This has been discussed in further detail here - http://irish-nationalism.net/forum/s...ead.php?t=1215

The first problem is the inference that, if the Irish, Welsh, and Basque Y chromosome haplotype frequencies are closely similar today and may have been so in Upper Palaeolithic times, then no significant gene flow into Ireland and Wales in the male line occurred at the onset of the neolithic. As noted above, very significant gene flow could have occurred at that time without notable impact on haplotype frequencies if the donor and receptor populations were themselves not distinguishable in that respect. Such may well have been the case. The second problem lies with the mitochondrial data and with the conclusion that the female-mediated gene flow inferred must have occurred "since the Upper Palaeolithic." This conclusion rests on the implicit assumption that much of the variability now seen in mtDNA haplogroup distributions entered Europe since the Upper Paleolithic, an assumption developed in the original "wave of advance" model (4, 5) but one contested in subsequent mtDNA studies

[Agrippa]

I think we can assume constant migrations from the South West to the British Isles. Obviously many connections are older than Celtic expansions since its quite likely that at the time of the crucial migrations Celts dont even existed.

[Milesian]

I think the important point is that Celt is a cultural term. Simply because people show paleolithic markers doesn't preclude them being Celts in any way.
Similarly, I don't know of any specifically "Celtic markers", so I don't know how one can dismiss a Celtic heritage based on genetics

[Breogan]

Originally Posted by searcher of truth

Yet, I'd dare to make an objection; they insist quite enough on the similarity between Cornwall, Wales, french Brittany and spanish Galicia ... We must bear in mind the (?) massive migration of Britain's kelts to Brittany, Galicia and even Asturias during the V-Vi's centuries AS invasions ....

Nope, we are talking about very old relationships and the V migration was not massive at all, just anecdotic, local in fact-in Bretoña, Lugo-, and without genetic impact on population like the ones that are being discussed here.

[Breogan]

Originally Posted by Milesian

I think the important point is that Celt is a cultural term.

Just like Germanic, Slavic and so on.

Simply because people show paleolithic markers doesn't preclude them being Celts in any way.

In fact a genetic relationship between two different culture peoples: Celts belonging to a flexive indoeuropean language and Basques belonging to an aglutinant non-indoeuropean one has been found.

Similarly, I don't know of any specifically "Celtic markers", so I don't know how one can dismiss a Celtic heritage based on genetics

Right.

[Agrippa]

For European ethnic groups the only crucial racial border is if they are racially predominantely European Europids - absolutely MINIMUM Europid. Someone who is not even racially pred. European-Europid can't be considered Germanic, Celtic, Slavic etc. in my opinion. Though I know that certain admixture took place in the past in practically all groups, it was very limited and predominantely makes this point clear.
But at least limited migration inside of Europe took always place.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

For European ethnic groups the only crucial racial border is if they are racially predominantely European Europids - absolutely MINIMUM Europid. Someone who is not even racially pred. European-Europid can't be considered Germanic, Celtic, Slavic etc. in my opinion.

Agreed. Can a Nationalit think otherwise?

[Breogan]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

For European ethnic groups the only crucial racial border is if they are racially predominantely European Europids - absolutely MINIMUM Europid. Someone who is not even racially pred. European-Europid can't be considered Germanic, Celtic, Slavic etc. in my opinion.

The "Ethnic" term implies culture, language, religion and GENETIC relationships from your point of view. I agree of course. Anthropologists (except marxist ones ) agree as well.

Originally Posted by Duchemin

Agreed. Can a Nationalit think otherwise?

Anthropologists (except marxist ones ) agree as well.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Duchemin

Agreed. Can a Nationalit think otherwise?

Hope not

Finally all human culture has to work or at least be neutral from the biological perspective, otherwise it doesnt fulfil the minimal functions of culture to bridge the gap between human instinctive insecurity and changing demands and the right behaviour for long term survival and higher development of the biological-genetic unity.

Nationalism without a racial base is as worthless as a race without higher and biologically useful culture is helpless.

[Menydh]

I have to agree with Agrippa too. However notice that he speaks of racial border. The true border limits in Europe are ethno-cultural in my opinion.

I'm sure that many will have experienced seeing a person and not noticing anything abnormal in that person, just as familiar as any other around you. Then, realizing that the said person is a foreigner, and your perception changes almost immediately, and this change in perception increases as you go having more contact with this person. This is, of course, assuming both of the individuals don't belong to two different extreme poles within the European spectrum.

This doesn't automatically imply a total icompatibility. It is perfectly possible that the differences can be made complementary and even suplementary, and to come to points of closeness. Though this will depend absolutely on a number of agents as varied as personality, nationality, upbringing, etc.

[Agrippa]

The great problem - and small chance - of the current situation in Europe is that we live in Liberal-pluralistic-individualistic societies, so the differences in mentality between groups partly decreased and those between individuals increased.

This doesn't automatically imply a total icompatibility. It is perfectly possible that the differences can be made complementary and even suplementary, and to come to points of closeness. Though this will depend absolutely on a number of agents as varied as personality, nationality, upbringing, etc.

My personal view is that I value those agents more than the exact origin of an individual, but others might disagree. As I said, cultural units have to work biologically and for the individuals, thats why humans developed them. If its not the case there is a problem if you have sympathy for a group - and I have obviously feelings for my own ethnocultural group and other Europeans, finally even all humans to some degree. Its just a priority if you want so, but I want avoid unnecessary conflicts at every level IF POSSIBLE, because I like to be constructive.
Mass immigration is always problematic because of the "cultural clash", which must happen, even if the groups are closely related - partly even if they are of the same greater ethnocultural unity (f.e. Northern-Southern Germans, Eastern-Western etc.) but if we would have French, Spanish or other Europeans in our country, I would have not the same problems with that as with those non-integrable, non-European people which are flooding my nation obviously and not just change but destroy it.

There is the internal problem of our own groups which had negative developments, f.e. the low birth rates and disintegrating group structure and the external ones of foreign political, economic and immigration etc. A solution without a biological base is on a higher intellectual level impossible and if it would be possible worthless if looking at the bigger picture.

I might try to further explain my point made above in this thread:
http://forum.stirpes.net/showthread....8483#post68483