PDA

View Full Version : Myth busting - the origins of the Irish



alan
10-06-2013, 04:05 PM
Even today you can still read posts on forums where people keep thinking the Irish R1b is pre-farming or down to some Iberian invasions. So for those who dont know a lot about this I will give a summary. It pretty in line with the findings in Mallory's recent 'Origins of the Irish' book which all those who are interested in truth rather than Myth about the Irish should read.

1. The earliest Irish arrived c. 8000BC according to the earliest dates. They possessed a narrow blade type flint traditions and a tradition of rather substantial round houses. The only close parallel at the right date are from Britain. The earliest date for this culture so far found is dated from some hazlenuts at a camp found at Cramond in south-east Scotland. The best surviving houses of this culture have been found at Mount Sandel in the extreme north of Ireland and another on the Northumbrian coast in the extreme north-east of England. It is probably that their ancestral areas are partly now under the north sea. It is likely that they had some very distant link to the SW refugia but they had left it some 7000 years earlier and probably arrived in Britain via the dry north sea and crossed to Ireland from the narrow crossing that existed c. 8000BC around the Isle of Man and Scotland.


2. The first Irish farmers to settle permanently have recently been accurately dated to c. 3750BC. This also was almost certainly down to groups from the stretch of coast from the Rhine to NW France by the short crossings to southern Britain and they only made it to Ireland a couple of centuries later after a slow spread across Britain. The house, burial and artefact types in Ireland are very similar to those of western Britain and much less like any continental ones. The ultimate origins of the Neolithic farmers was probably part of the northern middle Neolithic stream that spread across from north-central Europe. Before that the Balkans are probably the location.

3. During the Neolithic there was interaction between the continent and western Britain and western Britian and Ireland. This saw the spread of ideas but apparently not many new people other than some wife trading. Despite similar ideas on tombs they kept very different burial traditions, settlement types, pottery etc. In general Ireland and Britain remained infinately closer in all these aspects than either island did with the continent. This climaxed in the mid-late Neolithic with very closely shared ideas in tombs, henges, grooved ware pot, timber circles etc which was a phenomenon of the two islands and quite different to what was going on in the continent - a time of inward looking insularity.

4. In the beaker period Ireland experienced a peculiar localised culture with a crucial early mine at Ross Island that supplied early beaker people in Ireland, Britain and northern France but remained peculiar in that a new type of megalithic tomb, the Wedge Tomb, appeared c. 500 years after megalithic tomb building and use had died out - replaced by pit cremations, henges etc. Ireland's beaker culture is actually rrather later, daring to about 2400BC and the pottery was most like the British-Rhinish group and possibly also NW France. The early trade network of Irish copper and gold in the beaker period seems to have largely been to Britain and northern France with a few strays further east. That may be the best indicator we have of origins and close cousins.

5. After the beaker period Ireland and Britain, especially northern and western Britain, were very closely linked in terms of trade, pottery in burials and most cultural aspects throughout the Bronze Age. In the later Bronze Age c. 13000BC-700bc or so Ireland had a bit of a golden age with a huge amount of impressive bronze and gold objects, hillforts etc. Ireland remained close in its cultures to Britain.

6. The coming of Iron and the consequent loss of importance of Bronze appears to have badly hit the Atlantic elites in places like Ireland. Ireland was especially badly hit and after Hallstatt C it seems to have slipped into isolation and a dark age. New metal types made after 650BC and known on the continent in the Hallstatt D and early La Tene phases are not known in Ireland. This period of isolation is probably why Ireland did not experience the Q to P shift that affected Britain and Gaul. Iberia was also isolated and also did not experience the shift. This does not imply any contact between Ireland and Iberia - not a single Iberian Iron Age object has been found in Ireland - the connection is a myth. This collapse in Ireland was not just at the elite end. The number of domestic sites also collapses in this era, indications of farming through seeds and pollen in bog cores drops away dramatically etc - there was a genuine serious systems collapse and population collapse in Ireland at this time.

7. Something of a minor revival in terms of both external influences in metalwork, occupation sites etc occurs in the later La Tene period although this is much better represented in the northern two thirds of the island. The material is similar to Britian and Gaulish metalwork of c. 300-0bc and domestic sites also resume around 350BC. In this period Ireland has a peculiar culture combining new elite La Tene objects with what look like old revived Bronze Age burial traditions (rare cremations in barrows) and unique royal regional massive sites that look very like the henges of late Neolithic times. Other features are huge linear tribal defensive ditches. Domestic sites are rare and insubstantial indicating perhaps troubled times or very mobile populations. Some British and Gaulish tribes may have entered the island at this time judging by Ptolemy;s map.

8. After a lull during the early Roman occupation of Britain pollen cores indicate a massive expansion of the Irish population despite the fact almost no domestic sites are known. Shortly after Irish raids commenced on Roman Britain and some settlement probably occurred as the Romans left.

9. Christianity came to Ireland through Roman Britons like St. Patrick at the end of the Roman period although Patrick is known to actually have not been the first to come to convert the Irish. It is possible some British immigration to Ireland also occured in this period as so much of the Early Christian material culture is descended from Romano-British types. However the situation is not at all clear. The succeeding period is known as the Early Christian period when the raths and monasteries were built. Isolated from Germanic intrusions Celtic culture survived into the literate period in Ireland, as it also did in Scotland, Wales and western England. This is often seen as Ireland's golden age.

10. The first Germanics to appear in Ireland, assuming the Cauci of Ptolemy's map were not related to the Germanic Chauci, was a couple of raids by the Northumbrian Angles in the later 600s. Howeve, other than monks, the Anglo-Saxons did not settle in Ireland. The Vikings arrived just before 800AS and settled in the decades after. In Ireland the main types of Viking settlements were trading towns and raiding bases - always on the coast or inland bodies of water. They didnt make large rural settlements except in the close vicinity of their towns. They founded the first nucleated fully secular settlements in historic Ireland including the cities of Cork, Dublin, Waterford, Wexford and Limerick and stuck the first coinage in Ireland. They didnt have towns in the northern half of Ireland although they did have a number of military raiding bases there. In the long run after a great shock and much raiding these towns came under the power of the increasingly powerful Irish kings.

11. The Normans took control of much of Ireland except most of Ulster and north Connaught. They went into decline and the area under their control shrank to what was known as the Pale in eastern Ireland. Nevertheless they probably had more of a genetic impact than the Vikings with many Irish surnames having Norman origins.

12. In the plantation of Ulster shortly after 1600, the most native part of Ireland and least effected by the Normans was parceled out to planters who came mostly from lowland Scotland and western England. However only the noble classes were actually removed completely and most ordinary Ulster Irish remained nearby albeit on the poorer lands. Being unnaffected by Viking and Norman settlement followed by sectarian division after the Ulster Plantation probably means that the Ulster native largely Roman Catholic population are probably the least mixed descendants of the pre-Norman Irish.

Anglecynn
10-06-2013, 04:27 PM
A very good summary post!

I've got something to add (i'm not sure how relevant it is in the grand scheme of things) that i found out fairly recently. During the Viking period in Ireland, swords made in those areas of Ireland were relatively unusual because they were not quenched, this made them much harder than many contemporary swords from the British Isles and NW Europe, although much more brittle. This method is apparently an ancient Irish smithing tradition - So that's an interesting piece of evidence that suggests the continuation of an Irish tradition in the heart of Viking Ireland.

I can't remember all the details but i took a course on archaeometallurgy a couple of months ago, and the course leader found this in her own academic research (I think for a PHD, can't remember).

alan
10-06-2013, 04:51 PM
What I outlined is pretty much exactly the same as in Mallory's book of earlier this year. I really recommend people read a book out this year by the greatest living archaeologist rather than crackpots on blogs. I was inspired to do this post because there is right up to this very day still all sorts of guff being talked about ice age caves and R1b and people sailing to Ireland and of course the dreaded Book of Invasions nonsense. A lot of people seem to prefer to listed to crackpots on the web if it suits what they want to hear rather than read a book by a titan of archaeology who has been based in Ireland for about 40 years or so and is an expert on archaeology, linguistics etc.

Totally counter-factual stuff like Moffat about an Iberian genocide and population replacement came out just this year. How could Atlantic Iberian copper or bronze age people, nearly all DF27 in terms of the R1b element, wipe out the Irish population and result in it being almost all L21. L21 is rare in Iberia except among Basques and an invasion by Basques into Ireland is total fantasy. I couldnt type what I think of Moffat was for writing that totally absurd article or I would have to use the asterisk until the button was broken. Between that and the out of date western refugia nonsense on the recent TV series about the origins of the Irish the public are being badly misled and its reinforcing a myth.

As a result the general public in Ireland and those of Irish descent are going to banging on about this theory for years. They need weened off this myth not misled into thinking the evidence fits it when it actually utterly refutes it. Its totally frustrating. What is the point in archaeology, linguistics, historical research done by top scholars if its all undermined by publicity seeking disinformation, out of date TV programs and crackpot bloggers.

MacEochaidh
10-06-2013, 05:50 PM
When did the first Q-Celtic speaking people arrive in Ireland, and from where?

alan
10-06-2013, 06:14 PM
When did the first Q-Celtic speaking people arrive in Ireland, and from where?

Noone knows or will probably ever be able to say for sure. All you can do is look at the archaeological and DNA evidence and make a best guess. It may have never really arrived in the sense of a substantial invasion with ready-made Celtic language in their mouths. I may have started off with the beaker copper age trading groups who had to be able to make themselves understood across Europe and it may have slowly developed through constant contact between these beaker and post-beaker trading elites and slowly morphed from west IE to Italo-Celtic to early Celtic in a Q form. The P form probably spread by similar trading elite interaction in dialect fashions with the only difference that Ireland became isolated from this interaction for three centuries from c. 650-350BC, the very time when the Q to P shift is through to have spread. So it all fits.


Even today we see people trying to assuming modes of speaking associated with wealth - posh accents and diction if they have made some money or aspire to be thought of that way. The P-Q shift is really nothing. Its kind of like the way Spanish is Spain developed a lisp apparently due to the way the king spoke, emulation by the hangers on at the court and spread of this to nobles in the rural areas. It became the dialect associated with being important and people copied it. The Spanish who had already moved to South America did not recieve this 'shift'. Even today the middle classes, especially those sent to private schools, have an accent that doesnt bear any resemblance to the local accent of the area they live in. I am sure what happened was the elites in contact copied each other, not to mention traded wives only within their own class who in turn brought up their kids so its easy to imagine insignificant changes like q-p.

What is an infinatly more major thing is the profound structural aspects including word order that bind the Irish and British Celtic languages together and separate them from all the continental ones. The structure is so unusual that it clearly sets the isles Celtic speakers apart. So, I am 100% convinced that the real division among the Celtic languages is between the isles on one hand and the continent on the other. The P-Q shift in really zilch in comparison and really just a dialect change that Britain received but Ireland did not. Its pure insanity to group languages by one minor shift and ignore the huge structural aspects that instead split Celtic into an isles and a continental group.

rms2
10-06-2013, 06:57 PM
I think the important thing is that Q-Celtic probably got to the Isles very early, at least relative to the old idea that it accompanied Iron Age Celtic invaders from the Continent. Now it's not considered crazy to believe the Beaker Folk brought an early form of Celtic with them to the Isles in the Bronze Age. That wasn't always the case.

alan
10-06-2013, 07:46 PM
I dont like the Q-P terminology much simply because it gives the impression that they were two separate parallel branches for a long period in prehistory when in reality Q Celtic is just default archaic Celtic prior to the sound shift and all Celts would have spoken it. It also temps people to see a divide into Gaulish-British and Goidelic-Celt-Iberian when in fact other than the P shift the really major division is isles vs continental.

My guess is that the isles being occupied by a small beaker intrusion then not much else for another 2000 years meant there was a significant substrate effect on the structure of isles Celtic from the Neolithic people. It was presumably common in offshore islands that the beaker people would marry locals rather than wives from mainland Europe. Perhaps a small amount of wives came on boats to the nearer shores of the channel but it doesnt seem probable that that would be an option if you were in parts of Britain well away from the channel or in Ireland. Perhaps on the continent it was easier for beaker daughters to marry other beaker males -- perhaps demonstrated by the increase in H in the beaker period in central Europe. That could be the origin of the isles oddball syntax contrasting with continentals. It may have been that the elite did retain a more continental form initially but the general population created the strangely structured isles Celtic form through having to speak an alien language. Its hard to say how long it took for the form of the lower orders to eclipse the original syntax of Celtic. It could have happened fast if most of their wives were locals or it could have been delayed for a long time if the elite remained aloof like a caste. There was something of a collapse of the old Bronze Age elites and restructuring of society at the start of the Iron Age which could have led to an end of that hypothetical division and the triumph of the pigeon Celtic of the common folk. Celtic kept most of its IE vocab but also in the isles it had its structure radically altered. I have heard that explained before as typical where indigenous peoples of lower status are ruled by a small but high status elite. There are other scenarios such as the removal or Romanisation of the elite element in Britain leaving the Celtic speakers, other than in the west and north, as the ordinary sons of the soils.

Whatever happened and when, the structure of Irish and British Celtic as it survived in the north and west had very similar usual features compared to continental Celtic.




I think the important thing is that Q-Celtic probably got to the Isles very early, at least relative to the old idea that it accompanied Iron Age Celtic invaders from the Continent. Now it's not considered crazy to believe the Beaker Folk brought an early form of Celtic with them to the Isles in the Bronze Age. That wasn't always the case.

rms2
10-06-2013, 08:01 PM
I don't think people who are at least somewhat knowledgeable use the Q-P Celtic terminology in the way you described. Rather, they know that Q just refers to the earlier, original form and that P was an innovation that occurred behind it, on the Continent (outside Iberia, anyway). Later, the P innovation traveled to Britain, probably through contact with the Continent (trade, etc.). So, using Q and P terminology does not preclude the scenario that you advance for the evolution of Celtic in the Isles, and it does reflect a very real division within the Celtic subfamily of languages.

alan
10-06-2013, 09:03 PM
True although it is a very late aerial shift rather than a true branching. The aerial shift actually cuts across the substantial isles v continent lingustic-structural divide in Celtic. That is the reason why its been played down by linguists today. Unfortunately its often cited as important by non-linguists in other fields like archaeology who do not really understand Celtic linguistics. Its not really a true branching as its such a superficial change. I realise that most informed people do understand this but you still get people overegging this as if it is the major deep division in Celtic when it isnt. Its just a single aerial change and peanuts compared with the structural aspects that link isles Celtic in post-Roman times and divide it from the continental norm. Interestingly the Picts were P Celtic speakers despite almost zero La Tene metalwork other than very late AD period stuff which does seem to show it could spread without migration.



I don't think people who are at least somewhat knowledgeable use the Q-P Celtic terminology in the way you described. Rather, they know that Q just refers to the earlier, original form and that P was an innovation that occurred behind it, on the Continent (outside Iberia, anyway). Later, the P innovation traveled to Britain, probably through contact with the Continent (trade, etc.). So, using Q and P terminology does not preclude the scenario that you advance for the evolution of Celtic in the Isles, and it does reflect a very real division within the Celtic subfamily of languages.

alan
10-07-2013, 12:34 AM
To put my opening post into more genetic terms, it does not appear that very much in the way of Irish male lineages date to any earlier than the beaker period. R1b is simply nowhere near old enough even at the greatest stretch of doubt to be associated with the pre-farming hunters that probably arrived in Ireland by short crossings from Britain. If anything of them remains today then haplgroup I western clades seems most likely. Ireland was not the most attractive area for hunters as it lacked wild cattle, deer etc leaving the only pre-Neolithic target for hunters wild boar. Fishing seems to have been the main thing that made Ireland viable. However, despite a lack of y lines that likely date to this era there is a large northern European component, more than half of the total, in Ireland and this most likely dates to input from these early hunters. I dont think their male lines survived though.

Until very recently it would have been assumed that the Neolithic would have been the first and greatest genetic input in Ireland and indeed Europe as a whole. However, it is becoming increasingly clear they hit the skids after a couple of centuries and had to drop many aspects of their culture that they brought from the continent that didnt work out in Ireland. Settlements became progressively more and more ephemeral as the Neolithic progressed with a lot of the effort given to ritual. Nonetheless it is surprising that there are few male lines in Ireland old enough to date to this period. I assume that the c.20% Med. autosomal component largely derives from these farmers.

The big surprise is that relatively recent R1b copper age beaker using newcomers seem to have come to strongly dominate the genepool in Ireland. However we know from M222 that a line established by one man only perhaps 1600-2000 years ago has become a substantial chunk of the Irish yDNA. So we have no reason to not believe this happened several other times and that Ireland's high L21 count probably half derives from just a handful of early Medieval chiefly lineages. Male lineages seem to tell us more about who were powerful in the last few thousand years rather than much about the Neolithic or the pre-farming era, both of which seem to have left little yDNA imprint in Ireland although probably leaving substantial mt DNA and autosomal imprints.

TigerMW
10-07-2013, 05:46 PM
... The big surprise is that relatively recent R1b copper age beaker using newcomers seem to have come to strongly dominate the genepool in Ireland. However we know from M222 that a line established by one man only perhaps 1600-2000 years ago has become a substantial chunk of the Irish yDNA. So we have no reason to not believe this happened several other times and that Ireland's high L21 count probably half derives from just a handful of early Medieval chiefly lineages. Male lineages seem to tell us more about who were powerful in the last few thousand years rather than much about the Neolithic or the pre-farming era, both of which seem to have left little yDNA imprint in Ireland although probably leaving substantial mt DNA and autosomal imprints.

The ScotlandDNA folks are reportedly further defining the M222 phylogeny. See the DF49 thread under L21 for more details. One quote has been passed out today is that Wilson has theorized that M222 might come from Britain, rather than Ireland.

On the L21 category DF49 thread, David reported Jim Wilson as saying,
"All the Irish are derived for S661, whereas British examples are found in both S661, S568 and in the M222* paragroup, as yet ancestral at all subgroup markers. This could be takenas evidence for a British origin of the marker, as some have claimed."
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?833-DF49-(L21-gt-DF13-gt-DF49)-amp-Subclades-DF23-Z2961-M222&p=15379&viewfull=1#post15379

We need clarification on that, but I think this generally matches with my interpretations of DF49+ DF23-, DF23+ Z2961-, Z2691+ M222- findings and high variance for M222 in England.

Another relevant point that I'm posting on in the DF27 category is that the DF27 in Ireland is not filled with Irish surnames. It looks very English oriented. In some cases there are English (surname) clusters with a French connection as well. One interpretation could be that we are not seeing the DF27 types in Ireland that we might expect if they were Early and Maritime Bell Beaker types from Iberia. The corollary is the DF27 in Ireland didn't get there until recent times or that Maritime Beakers didn't leave a big, long-lasting Y DNA impact on Ireland.

razyn
10-07-2013, 07:51 PM
the DF27 in Ireland is not filled with Irish surnames. It looks very English oriented. In some cases there are English (surname) clusters with a French connection as well. One interpretation could be that we are not seeing the DF27 types in Ireland that we might expect if they were Early and Maritime Bell Beaker types from Iberia. The corollary is the DF27 in Ireland didn't get there until recent times or that Maritime Beakers didn't leave a big, long-lasting Y DNA impact on Ireland.

I'm not clear on what you are actually talking about, the Beaker archaeological stuff (there) is about 3x older than surnames (there); but anyway one shouldn't expect a DF27 signature of early Iberian migration if DF27 hadn't (a) been born, or (b) gotten to Iberia quite yet, in the Maritime Beaker era. And either still seems pretty possible, to me. But I think I'd be agreeing with you on the point that the DF27 subclades that do show up in Ireland (and, eventually, get tagged with surnames from somewhere) tend not to look very Iberian, so far. Some DF27 clades do, and some don't.

TigerMW
10-07-2013, 08:56 PM
I'm not clear on what you are actually talking about, the Beaker archaeological stuff (there) is about 3x older than surnames (there); but anyway one shouldn't expect a DF27 signature of early Iberian migration if DF27 hadn't (a) been born, or (b) gotten to Iberia quite yet, in the Maritime Beaker era. And either still seems pretty possible, to me. But I think I'd be agreeing with you on the point that the DF27 subclades that do show up in Ireland (and, eventually, get tagged with surnames from somewhere) tend not to look very Iberian, so far. Some DF27 clades do, and some don't.

DF27 folks who made it to Ireland with the Maritime Bell Beakers would have been there a long, long time.. That means they would have been around for all of the gyrations related to Celtics and everybody else... I'd expect a lot of Gaelic surnames... not really so much English. There are Gaelic names, but perhaps I'm just so use to looking at L21 that this looks less Irish to me. That's why I think it'd be a good idea for Paul look at them. Probably should look at the DF27+ Z220- and SRY2627- folks.

alan
10-07-2013, 09:00 PM
I think the point Mike is making is the surnames of most DF27 in Ireland are of types known to have come into Ireland as settlers from Britain in the late Medieval and plantations. Therefore the Irish DF 27 people are telling us more about Britain than Ireland. I havent looked for a while but I came to exactly the same conclusion as Mike that the Irish DF27 appears to have largely arrived from Britain in the last 800 years. How it got to Britain is another question.


I'm not clear on what you are actually talking about, the Beaker archaeological stuff (there) is about 3x older than surnames (there); but anyway one shouldn't expect a DF27 signature of early Iberian migration if DF27 hadn't (a) been born, or (b) gotten to Iberia quite yet, in the Maritime Beaker era. And either still seems pretty possible, to me. But I think I'd be agreeing with you on the point that the DF27 subclades that do show up in Ireland (and, eventually, get tagged with surnames from somewhere) tend not to look very Iberian, so far. Some DF27 clades do, and some don't.

alan
10-07-2013, 09:16 PM
That matches the archaeology. Maritime sherds are incredibly rare in Ireland. You could probably put all the maritime beaker sherds found in Ireland into a trouser pocket.


DF27 folks who made it to Ireland with the Maritime Bell Beakers would have been there a long, long time. That means they would have been around for all of the gyrations related to Celtics and everybody else... I'd expect a lot of Gaelic surnames... not really so much English. What I'm saying is I don't think DF27 came to Ireland with the Maritime folks to any significant degree. That's my guess, anyway. I'm not seeing the patterns I was expecting. Paul D knows surnames really well so I hope he can help. I'm just speculating.

rms2
10-07-2013, 11:56 PM
That matches the archaeology. Maritime sherds are incredibly rare in Ireland. You could probably put all the maritime beaker sherds found in Ireland into a trouser pocket.

I seem to remember the topic of DF27 in Ireland came up awhile back, and there was a small group of them with Gaelic surnames around Limerick or Tipperary - I recall that there were some with the surname Dwyer among them. Maybe Paul remembers more clearly than I do, if he happens to see these posts.

razyn
10-08-2013, 12:20 AM
If the Maritime Beakers are Iberian, and if that style of Portuguese pottery dates from circa 2900 BC, I believe that suggests those early Beaker-folk weren't DF27 -- because the mutation probably hadn't occurred, yet (and when it did, it wasn't in Iberia, yet).

I don't mind being wrong about these things, but I think they are wildly inconsistent -- due in large part to some old theories about Ice Age refugia and whatnot in which very few of us believe any more (if we ever did).

rms2
10-08-2013, 12:36 AM
I agree, and besides that there certainly must be a lot of DF27 in France. I know I remember a relatively small but not inconsequential DF27 group with Gaelic surnames in either the Limerick or Tipperary area (I think it was the latter, but I'm not sure).

Now that I have seen both of those places I can't write their names without a certain wistful longing to be back there and the beginnings of a tear in my eye. Beautiful. Sigh . . . best vacation trip ever.

Webb
10-08-2013, 01:17 AM
I agree, and besides that there certainly must be a lot of DF27 in France. I know I remember a relatively small but not inconsequential DF27 group with Gaelic surnames in either the Limerick or Tipperary area (I think it was the latter, but I'm not sure).

Now that I have seen both of those places I can't write their names without a certain wistful longing to be back there and the beginnings of a tear in my eye. Beautiful. Sigh . . . best vacation trip ever.

You are correct. It's the ROXX cluster it does include a number of Gaelic surnames including the O'Niell's of Tyrone. This has lead some to believe there might possibly have been a NPE. Note that they are of a Z196- variety. To me this is important because it might very well have been there a while.

Webb
10-08-2013, 01:19 AM
If the Maritime Beakers are Iberian, and if that style of Portuguese pottery dates from circa 2900 BC, I believe that suggests those early Beaker-folk weren't DF27 -- because the mutation probably hadn't occurred, yet (and when it did, it wasn't in Iberia, yet).

I don't mind being wrong about these things, but I think they are wildly inconsistent -- due in large part to some old theories about Ice Age refugia and whatnot in which very few of us believe any more (if we ever did).

Mike, these are my thoughts as well. I didn't articulate the gist of my post very well on the DF27 thread.

corner
10-08-2013, 10:38 AM
You are correct. It's the ROXX cluster it does include a number of Gaelic surnames including the O'Niell's of Tyrone. This has lead some to believe there might possibly have been a NPE. Note that they are of a Z196- variety. To me this is important because it might very well have been there a while.
No, I think rms2 might be thinking of the Dwyer/Ryan group? Also, there is no recent link between Rox2 and the Tyrone O'Neills, NPE etc, interesting though that would be. Rox2 looks to be a relatively recent founding event that happened possibly around 1200 years ago. There is no STR match between the 'O'Neill Variety'/Tyrone O'Neills and Rox2 subclades' off-modal markers over 111 markers, although some were slightly similar over 67. The only possible connection between the two subclades might be an early shared, as yet unknown, DF27 SNP way back in the history of DF27. Both look to be Z196- at the moment but it's too early to read too much into it. FG tests might shed some light on it. These DF27* in appearance subclades look to be relatively young. Rox2 is mainly Scottish/northern British Isles in frequency, in the Isles and Ireland heavy databases, but with almost one third present in England (mainly north) and almost one third in Ireland (mainly north). Many Northern Ireland Rox2 matches look to have earlier origins in Scotland. Two new 111 marker Rox2 matches have recently turned up, one from Sweden and one from north west France, in the Normandy FTDNA project.

rms2
10-08-2013, 11:09 AM
No, I think rms2 might be thinking of the Dwyer/Ryan group? . . .

I think that's right, although my memory on it is a little hazy.

alan
10-08-2013, 12:19 PM
There is definately a chance you are right. I lean towards an into Iberia movement about 2700BC for P312 or DF27 during the period of connectivity across the west Med. shown by the maritime beakers. The beakers and genes may have moved in opposite directions as its the women who made them and that is what would happen if alliances were being sealed by wives etc. I should not too that people often quote the 2900BC date but that is just the maximum end of the range of the oldest dates and its probably safer to say something like 2800-2700BC for the earliest beakers IMO. That slightly later date IMO makes more sense too s prototypes for bell beaker in the Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures were getting closer to the early beaker zone. Yamnaya didnt enter even the Balkans until 2900BC and corded ware reached the Alps about or just before 2750BC. So, it just becomes a lot easier to see the prototype of the earliest bell beakers reaching the west Med. and Portugal around 2800BC at the very earliest. Beakers clearly are based on an east or central European prototype even if the first true bell beakers were made in Iberia. By far the easiest way to envisage this prototype entering the west Med. is via the Alps and then into the west Med. IMO. I really wonder about the AOO or AOC beakers which have a restricted and coastal distribution in Iberia. They are thought to be early too. The current chronology of the earliest beakers in Iberia seems to be poorly understood. I will have a dig into this.


If the Maritime Beakers are Iberian, and if that style of Portuguese pottery dates from circa 2900 BC, I believe that suggests those early Beaker-folk weren't DF27 -- because the mutation probably hadn't occurred, yet (and when it did, it wasn't in Iberia, yet).

I don't mind being wrong about these things, but I think they are wildly inconsistent -- due in large part to some old theories about Ice Age refugia and whatnot in which very few of us believe any more (if we ever did).

razyn
10-08-2013, 01:08 PM
I didn't intend to hijack the thread, from the Irish myth-busting topic to a DF27-origins topic. But if the alleged Iberian colonizers of that island were that early (Maritime beaker phase), and DF27 wasn't, there is no known reason (apart from force of habit) to make one dependent on the other. Or specifically, to wonder why we don't see present day genetic evidence of something that couldn't have happened.

Jean Manco's new book has a lot of relevant discussion, particularly about Stelae People, but not stopping with them.

Elizabethod
10-08-2013, 01:29 PM
Hello, Alan. I've finally joined the forum and am delighted to see you here. I'm not quite done with Mallory's book yet, but I thought it would be worth pointing out to those who have not yet read it that he has an obvious bias towards Conn's half of the island, which is understandable, with his academic connection to Belfast. While he does not hide evidence that makes it clear that the south of the island had different influences than the north (for instance he does show a map indicating the lack of beehive querns and La Tene metalwork in the south) he generally postulates no explanation for it, or dismisses possible continental influences lest it may appear that Spain/southern France may have been a source of material culture and/or colonization as well as Britain.

As it happens, beehive querns are far more sophisticated than the saddle querns found in the south, so for the south to have developed into the civilized province it did (the respected Scottish historian Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk wrote that the Eóganachta of Munster was by far the most sophisticated and cultured royal dynasty in all of Ireland) there must have been contact of a different sort to explain this. Pottery shards found at Garranes, the ring-fort stronghold of the early Eóganacht Raithlind (perhaps as early as the 2nd to the 6th century AD) points to extensive trade with the Byzantine empire and it was an intense manufacturing centre, producing of fine bronze casting- adornments for the elite - enamel work and delicate millefiori glass which had first developed in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Mallory also neglects to point out that it was early Coptic Christian monks that settled in the South-West before either Palladius or Patrick arrived on the island further north.

I’m not suggesting that the Irish myths you so vigorously discount are true – completely. But to deny Spanish/Mediterranean/Byzantine influences altogether is, in my opinion, unwise. Where there is smoke, there is usually a bit of fire.

Elizabeth

razyn
10-08-2013, 01:40 PM
3,000 years later than what Alan, Mike and I are tentatively discounting (DF27 Iberians bearing Maritime bell beaker culture to Ireland), nobody here has suggested that there hasn't been a vast accumulation of influence on Ireland from that part of the world.

TigerMW
10-08-2013, 01:51 PM
3,000 years later than what Alan, Mike and I are tentatively discounting (DF27 Iberians bearing Maritime bell beaker culture to Ireland), nobody here has suggested that there hasn't been a vast accumulation of influence on Ireland from that part of the world.

I'm not sure what you are saying matches what I think so I want to be clear. I think DF27 could have been in the Maritime Beaker groups. That would given a way for them to traverse up and down the coasts and into the larger rivers throughout western Europe reaching into central Europe. Instead, DF27 could have moved overland from the Alpine area/upper Danube into western Europe. I'm not sure which is the case but I lean towards overland just because that supports better logistics for population expansion, has a better tie to proposed Yamnaya Pre/Proto-Italo-Celtic routes, and fits nicely with brothers and cousins like U106 and U152.

What I was thinking about Ireland is that either 1) DF27 wasn't in the Maritime Beakers to any degree or 2) the Maritime Beakers had little input in Ireland. Alan is said there was only a handful of Maritime Beaker sherds in Ireland so that could be the case or it could be both were the case.

razyn
10-08-2013, 01:56 PM
What I was thinking about Ireland is that either 1) DF27 wasn't in the Maritime Beakers to any degree or 2) the Maritime Beakers had little input in Ireland.

I agree with that, as stated. And the "3,000 years later" phrase had to do with the clearly Mediterranean Christian religion, prominently included in Elizabeth's caveats to Alan.

alan
12-31-2013, 04:38 AM
Noone would deny that Ireland once it became Christian had links to the sub-Roman world including some goods coming ultimately from the Med. However, this sort of exotica is rarely indicated in the prehistoric record and nearly always the best parallels for Irish material culture lies much closer in Britain and to a lesser extent NW France.

In terms of the Iron Age, a lack of much La Tene material in the southern third of Ireland does not mean that some other external culture or source has to found as a substitute. A lack is just that - a lack. That is what the archaeological record shows. It doesnt show something else exotic in its place filing the La Tene vacuum in the southern third of Ireland. There was decades ago some strange idea that an 'Iberian' iron age simply must have existed instead where La Tene material was scarce. However Celt-Iberian material is distinctive and none of it has ever been found in Ireland. Ireland just seems to be an island where a lot of population and cultural continuity happened from the Bronze to Iron Age and was only effected slightly by La Tene influences - mainly north of the Dublin-Galway line (although La Tene material is known from as far south as Cork).


Hello, Alan. I've finally joined the forum and am delighted to see you here. I'm not quite done with Mallory's book yet, but I thought it would be worth pointing out to those who have not yet read it that he has an obvious bias towards Conn's half of the island, which is understandable, with his academic connection to Belfast. While he does not hide evidence that makes it clear that the south of the island had different influences than the north (for instance he does show a map indicating the lack of beehive querns and La Tene metalwork in the south) he generally postulates no explanation for it, or dismisses possible continental influences lest it may appear that Spain/southern France may have been a source of material culture and/or colonization as well as Britain.

As it happens, beehive querns are far more sophisticated than the saddle querns found in the south, so for the south to have developed into the civilized province it did (the respected Scottish historian Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk wrote that the Eóganachta of Munster was by far the most sophisticated and cultured royal dynasty in all of Ireland) there must have been contact of a different sort to explain this. Pottery shards found at Garranes, the ring-fort stronghold of the early Eóganacht Raithlind (perhaps as early as the 2nd to the 6th century AD) points to extensive trade with the Byzantine empire and it was an intense manufacturing centre, producing of fine bronze casting- adornments for the elite - enamel work and delicate millefiori glass which had first developed in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Mallory also neglects to point out that it was early Coptic Christian monks that settled in the South-West before either Palladius or Patrick arrived on the island further north.

I’m not suggesting that the Irish myths you so vigorously discount are true – completely. But to deny Spanish/Mediterranean/Byzantine influences altogether is, in my opinion, unwise. Where there is smoke, there is usually a bit of fire.

Elizabeth

CillKenny
12-09-2017, 10:14 AM
I came upon this dormant but interesting thread. Have we made any progress to answering this debate especially in light of the ancient dna discoveries and the publication of the Irish DNA Atlas paper. I see Mallory is presenting at GGI in Belfast in February. It would be interesting to see what conclusions he now draws. Ed Gilbert is presenting on the Irish DNA Atlas on the same day.

rms2
12-09-2017, 12:52 PM
I came upon this dormant but interesting thread. Have we made any progress to answering this debate especially in light of the ancient dna discoveries and the publication of the Irish DNA Atlas paper. I see Mallory is presenting at GGI in Belfast in February. It would be interesting to see what conclusions he now draws. Ed Gilbert is presenting on the Irish DNA Atlas on the same day.

The ancient dna test results of the Rathlin Island men from Cassidy et al in 2015, and the subsequent Bell Beaker results from Olalde et al, even though the latter did not include any from Ireland (more's the pity), have completely revolutionized what we know of Irish prehistory, IMHO. Apparently the arrival of the Bell Beaker people marked the last significant change in the genomes of the Irish and British.

razyn
12-09-2017, 02:12 PM
The Dwyer/Ryan group may be found on the Big Tree (http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=29) under several subclades of A641, Y5058 or some other equivalent SNP (there are currently about 25 or so, at that level). The FTDNA project that focuses on it is https://www.familytreedna.com/public/BreassalBreac/ Peter Biggins still seems to be the point man, my correspondence with him was in mid-2014.

The Rox2 Cluster, as a project researching SNPs, is most usefully managed off the FTDNA server -- by Chris Corner (who regularly posts here). https://sites.google.com/site/rox2cluster/home

As we hinted in the early posts on this thread, both of those groups belong to the Z196- subset of DF27+. In some circles we have been calling that the ZZ12+ branch (and Z196 has been replaced by its equivalent Z195, because that's easier to test on a chip). That problem was addressed in this thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4938-The-Great-Divide-below-DF27

But there are versions of the phylogeny below P312 that don't recognize Alex's ZZ SNPs (or perhaps recognize some, but not others). Particularly in academic literature, one is (thus far) somewhat unlikely to see any mention of ZZ12. Or of the fact that DF27 and U152 are brother clades, sons of Mr. ZZ11 (and L21 is a considerably more distant relative of either). I don't want to spend the morning citing myself, or others, but these are some good places to look if one has been so intensively focusing on Ireland that DF27 has been off one's radar for the last four years.

Bollox79
12-09-2017, 04:27 PM
The Dwyer/Ryan group may be found on the Big Tree (http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=29) under several subclades of A641, Y5058 or some other equivalent SNP (there are currently about 25 or so, at that level). The FTDNA project that focuses on it is https://www.familytreedna.com/public/BreassalBreac/ Peter Biggins still seems to be the point man, my correspondence with him was in mid-2014.

The Rox2 Cluster, as a project researching SNPs, is most usefully managed off the FTDNA server -- by Chris Corner (who regularly posts here). https://sites.google.com/site/rox2cluster/home

As we hinted in the early posts on this thread, both of those groups belong to the Z196- subset of DF27+. In some circles we have been calling that the ZZ12+ branch (and Z196 has been replaced by its equivalent Z195, because that's easier to test on a chip). That problem was addressed in this thread: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4938-The-Great-Divide-below-DF27

But there are versions of the phylogeny below P312 that don't recognize Alex's ZZ SNPs (or perhaps recognize some, but not others). Particularly in academic literature, one is (thus far) somewhat unlikely to see any mention of ZZ12. Or of the fact that DF27 and U152 are brother clades, sons of Mr. ZZ11 (and L21 is a considerably more distant relative of either). I don't want to spend the morning citing myself, or others, but these are some good places to look if one has been so intensively focusing on Ireland that DF27 has been off one's radar for the last four years.

I have a keen interest in O'Dwyers in Ireland (particularly from Kilnamanagh and there abouts) as my maternal Grandfather was an O'Dwyer who's line comes from Clare, and I suspect previously from Kilnamanagh. My third GGparents were even named after the last Chief (Philip O'Dwyer) and a common forename among Butler women (Leonara). Philip O'Dwyer and Leonara owned some land (not much after the tiff with Cromwell - I can find two Philip O'Dwyers in the records around the time my ancestors lived in Clare - one in Moyglassmore in West Clare and one near Killaloe near the border with Tipperary) and had enough money to send their children to America to live with relatives who had already gone over. I get distant Bulter and O'Ryan matches in my Irish autosomal matches and also Foley from New South Wales who is a direct descendant of the rebel Michael Dwyer of Wicklow.

Therefore I am not surprised to see a Butler and Foley among those Dwyers in the Dwyer/Ryan section of that Big Tree area. Certainly some clues there... if you read to old books the O'Dwyers and O'Ryans were thick as thieves ;-). Cousins etc. I am pretty sure my Uncle and male cousin Dwyer would fall in the Ryan/Dwyer group - I'm willing to bet that's the group the Chieftains of the O'Dwyers of Kilnamanagh fall in or close to it...

So DF27 isn't as common in Ireland as L21... is what I'm getting from this post... it's more common in Spain? Interesting as the O'Dwyers and O'Ryans are supposed to be (by oral tradition/Irish annals) descended from septs of the Laigin tribe/group... supposedly coming from Gaul and/or Britain in the B.C. times to Ireland...

mud of aluvion
01-09-2018, 06:23 AM
Spot on Alan great post! im wondering though what are your thoughts on an irish paleolithic with the recent discovery of the paleo butchered bear bone that has been made.a shame imo paleo ireland is generally ignored if not dismissed , what other paleo ornaments could potentially give us a better insight into the possible paleolithic people in ireland ,ill post a paragraph from the paper by Dr Ruth Carden .

One of the obstacles facing the identication of an Irish Palae-olithic (or a much earlier Mesolithic than has hitherto been rec-ognised)has been an assumption of what sites oft this period should look like, and specically an expectation of encountering lithic assemblages resembling those from contemporaneous sites in Britain and Europe. However, modied animal bones and undiag-nostic material such as charcoal may be all that survived
material that probably exists unrecognised in museum collections or as-semblages from recent excavations., For instance,a giant deer antler fragment with multiple chopmarks and polishing was recently discovered in Ballyoran Bog, Co. Cork associated with an Early Mesolithic brushwood platform (Tierney et al., 2013). As giant deer had become extirpated in Ireland by circa
12,600 cal BP (Lister,1994), the modied fragment was interpreted as evidence for the reuse of an ancient antler in the Mesolithic (McCormick, 2013;Tierney et al., 2013). However, because the cutmarks were not subjected to specialist analysis, this could potentially be further evidence for Palaeolithic or very early Mesolithic activities on the island. Direct dating of worked bone and antler fragments, such as that from Ballyoran Bog,is a crucial step in identifying other new early sites, or at least dismissing possible sites from consideration.

if it is comtempary it could ether confirm without a shadow of a doubt of a irish paleothic some 12,800 years ago or it could date way futher back in the younger dwyers , maybe some 14,000-15,000 years ago? and if this is the case what are the implications of paleo peoples in ireland and the genetics of those people on the irish populations genes . .personally ive always found it odd how Britian at least England has neanderthals going back hundreds of thousands of years but not ireland ? ireland is sourrended by them with france and britian so close it seems inconvincible that they were not here, we had the right climiate for them and no shortage of game we were attached to mainland europe . but the glaicational scraping did a number on this island so most of the evidence maybe lost forever.