Talk:Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article bias

The user who created this page appears unqualified. His primary sources, Sykes and Oppenheimer, have both received mixed reviews, their conclusions about the origins of the Insular Celtic peoples being based on the Iberian Refugium hypothesis (Semino +~), which remains unconfirmed, and is highly speculative:

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/18/10244.pdf

The creator further has not bothered to research the various subclades of R1b, or else he would have come across literature on R1b1c10 (s28), which was the marker of the Continental Celts, and is very similar to the Atlantic Modal haplotype of the Insular Celts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1b

In addition, the creator includes no summary or discussion of the debate regarding the date of the arrival of the Celtic languages in Western Europe, which is of utmost relevance here. See especially:

Lehmann, Winfred P., 1997. 'Early Celtic among the Indo-European Dialects'. Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 49-50. 440-454.

Finally, the creator's English is very poor, and his writing pedestrian patchwork at best. If he's had any college, then I am Mickey Mouse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.178.53.70 (talk • contribs).

Be that as it may, blanking the page probably isn't the best way forward; not knowing much on the subject, myself, I'd encourage you to use your own expertise to cite some reliable sources and improve the article. If you feel the article cannot be saved, you're free to begin either proposed deletion or deletion debate proceedings on the article. Luna Santin 09:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi User 71.178.53.70. Some of your comments are quite correct. This article does lack ballance, it does need to include all points of view. It does need to decide what it wants to be. Is it an article about genetics, archaeology, linguistics or the origins of British people? There are certainly many more sources that can and should be used. I think personally that the article should be about the various theories regarding the origins of the population(s) of the British Isles. This should obviously include all major theories. We are not looking for "facts" here. Obviously it should include invasionist theories, including theories regarding "Neolithic"/"Bronze Age"/"Iron Age"/"Anglo-Saxon" etc. invasions/mass murders etc. Although these theories are now somewhat less accepted academically, popular perceptions have not as yet caught up with academia as to what represents mainstream thinking and these points of view should be presented. I do think there are several problems with your analysis however. Alun 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The "reviews" of Oppenheimer and Sykes are irrelevant. These are reliable sources from a Wikipedia point of view. Of course some people will not like these sources or their conclusions, this is irrelevant. Go and find sources that draw different conclusions and add them to the article, this will help to generate ballance. Alun 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Likewise with the hypotheses about Ice Age refugia, this is a citable theory, whether they actually existed or not is somewhat irrelevant, the comment which remains unconfirmed, and is highly speculative: is surely true of all theories regarding our ancient ancestors. We are always guessing, you just seem not to like these conclusions, if you have a different point of view that you can cite from a reliable source, then I urge you to do so, this would improve the article and make it more ballanced. Alun 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
3. he would have come across literature on R1b1c10 (s28), which was the marker of the Continental Celts I don't think this is true. Anyway as you yourself say, Celt is a linguistic term. There is absolutely no way of knowing if the founder of this haplogroup was a speaker of a Celtic or a Germanic language. This marker seems to be associated with German and Scandinavian people, according the the R1b article it is associated with the Danelaw, Orkney and Shetland in the British Isles, this would rather support Oppenheimer's thesis that the east coast of the British Isles are closer to the continent (especially Scandinavia and the northern European coast, ie regions where germanic languages are spoken) than the west coast (Ireland, Wales, Cornwall and western Scotland) which is more associated with the western coast of Europe. Alun 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
4. There is a long discussion of the date of the arrival of Indo-European languages in the British Isles in Oppenheimer, and both Barry Cunliffe (Iron Age Britain) and Francis Pryor (Britain BC) mention this as well, these three seem to agree that the Neolithic is about right, they seem to think that Insular Celtic languages developed indigenously. I'm sure there are others who disagree. Alun 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
5. the creator's English is very poor This is just subjective opinion. If you think it can be improved, then please feel free to copy edit the article. Wikipedia is a proactive project, if you don't like something, improve it yourself in any way you can. Alun 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
6. his writing pedestrian patchwork at best. If he's had any college, then I am Mickey Mouse Now you are just being offensive. There's no reason to insult people. Alun 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Theres nothing wrong with this article, please if you can find some sources that oppose common veiws add them to the article, if you cant then stop whinging.

I cant understand why you would want to delete this article. please, you seem to be a celtic enthusiast so if you can find reliable sources supporting your celtic enthusiasm please add them , else dont add them. --Globe01 10:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

this article is about the genetics of the british isles anyway, you linguistic source is of total irrelevance and nless you can cite a reliable source tieing together genetic evidence with celtic invasion claims then there is no reason to add any of your celtic claims to the article as they would be purely your own opinion.

You can add as many genetic sources as you want, but you can only add historical/linguistic sources if they are tied into a source that includes genetic information. --Globe01 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Both authors are among the leading experts at the moment in their fields.

2. This is about genetics, not linguistics.

3. Both authors have published books about origins of the British, taking into account the latest in population genetics.

4. Both books should be analysed better indeed.

5. both books represent mainstream thinking at the moment in relation to population genetics and biological origins of the British.

6. The article is very interesting and reflects very updated information. It should be improved, though. Right now it looks like some kind of draft. No way should it be deleted.

7. Anyone with a minimum knowledge in population genetics knows that what Sykes and Oppenheimer are advancing was already known by a lot of population geneticists. The news is that they are the first two experts on the field that have published entire books on the subject.

8. Anyway I am not going to edit myself anymore. I am tired of people with BIG agendas who constantly delete verified and updated information on this subject. It is just proof of the kind of people who frequent people's related articles and race related articles in Wiki. In short, an embarrassment and a shame for Wiki, that is turning all these articles more into propaganda than anything else.

Veritas et Severitas 15:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

..............

1. Both authors are among the leading experts at the moment in their fields.

Can you confirm that? You may for Sykes, but not for Oppenheimer, who is not a geneticist.

Also, are either qualified historians? Archaeologists?

2. This is about genetics, not linguistics.

I suggest you contact some of your colleagues here to find out if this is true. I count six uses of "Celtic", among them one of Insular Celtic. These are linguistic terms, so I also suggest you read JP Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, to find out what he, an archaeologist, has to say regarding the precedence of historical linguistic evidence.

5. both books represent mainstream thinking at the moment in relation to population genetics and biological origins of the British.

Can you confirm this as well? Or do you just "think" it's true? And further, can you provide proof that the majority of archaeologists, linguists and historians accept the conclusions of Sykes and Oppenheimer (and their recent predecessors)? When someone uses evidence from other disciplines, . . . ? I hope you folks can figure that out. If not, then I'm wasting my time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Oppenheimer It's good to check these things.

If you were responsible users, you would not so much appeal to "authority". I will give you a few days to properly write this article, after which, if you haven't, I will speak with the higher administrators. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.178.53.70 (talk • contribs).

Whatever problems there are with this article, there seems little point in bringing JP Mallory into the discussion. I appreciate that there seem to be many JPM fans on Wikipedia, but his ideas are very much of the old-fashioned "migrating pottery" variety. There are plenty of alternatives on offer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• User 71.178.53.70, it's good that you are interested in improving the article. I would suggest that instead of making baseless threats and ultimata such as I will give you a few days to properly write this article, after which, if you haven't, I will speak with the higher administrators, you seek to improve the article by cooperating with other editors. This article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. It can only be deleted by a vote during an AfD. It is unlikely to be deleted. This article just needs some work. I am on a break from Wikipedia (or thought I was), but this article is quite important and I want to help to make it a good article. I think I need to do a bit of research first though. I am awaiting Chris Stringer's book Homo Britanicus, there are also a plethora of research papers that can be used here. I think this article could be about human habitation of the British Isles, so we could include a section on pre-AMH habitation, I believe that the first evidence of hominin activity in the British Isles is at Boxgrove from about 500,000 years ago, we could start there. I'd also point out that Oppenheimer's work seems to support both Barry Cunliffe's Atlantic Celt ideas (eminently citable) and Catherine Hills's ideas about the relationship between sub-Roman "English" people and Scandinavian people in her book "The Origins of the English". So this guy is not some sort of maveric, there are plenty of archaeological, historical and linguistic academics to support these sorts of ideas. Alun 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

List of sources

The human Y chromosome: an evolutionary marker comes of age

Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language

Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe

Observed R1b Y-DNA Allele Frequencies of Iberian and Non-Iberian Origins

The Molecular Dissection of mtDNA Haplogroup H Confirms That the Franco-Cantabrian Glacial Refuge Was a Major Source for the European Gene Pool

High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow Among Slavic Populations

The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations

Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool

A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles [1]

Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration

Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England]

Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans

mtDNA Analysis Reveals a Major Late Paleolithic Population Expansion from Southwestern to Northeastern Europe

Y-chromosome variation and Irish origins

The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective

Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa?

Study Finds Evidence for Recent African Origin for All Humans

The Origin of the Europeans; Combining Genetics and Archaeology, Scientists Rough Out Continent's 50,000-Year-Old Story

Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500-year-old Neolithic sites.

A genome-wide approach to identify genetic loci with a signature of natural selection in the Irish population.

The Allele Frequency Spectrum in Genome-Wide Human Variation Data Reveals Signals of Differential Demographic History in Three Large World Populations

mtDNA and the Islands of the North Atlantic: Estimating the Proportions of Norse and Gaelic Ancestry

Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool

Paleolithic and neolithic lineages in the European mitochondrial gene pool.

Y chromosome haplotypes

UCL Centre for Genetic Anthropology

The Distribution of Human Genetic Diversity: A Comparison of Mitochondrial, Autosomal, and Y-Chromosome Data

The Peopling of Europe from the Maternal and Paternal Perspectives

Europeans Trace Ancestry to Paleolithic People

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

Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans Alun 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent recent forum threads

Here are probably the two most comprehensive on the web. The first was started by a young philologist, using a paper he wrote for a class. That is a survey of the evidence, linguistic and genetic, for the creation of the Proto-Germanic language and people.

The thread, over the course of its nearly 200 posts, ends up dealing with an enormous amount, including Celtic origins, linguistic and genetic. Its dynamic appears to be the philologist's education in genetics by those at the forum who know better, and/or support his tentative conclusions (It does get trolled at certain points, by try to ignore that.). And it is still active. > [2]

The second was started by an historian, on much the same topic, and while his linguistic knowledge is not so great as the above's, his command of the other material is considerably greater. > [3]

Though the whole thread should be read closely, an illuminating point (pg. 3), regarding the Basques, deserves quoting:

Says Stevo - "The reason some geneticists believe R1b is the aboriginal W. Euro y-haplogroup comes down to a single people: the Basques.

Historians in the 18th and 19th centuries were proposing that the Basques represented the remnants of the original native Western European population. That thinking has persisted. So, when it was discovered that the Basques are mostly (although not entirely) R1b, geneticists leapt to the conclusion that R1b is the aboriginal Western European y-haplogroup. It seems they did not stop to consider whether or not the original premise concerning the Basques was correct in the first place. They also apparently did not stop to consider whether or not the Basques have always been mostly R1b.

As Ellen Levy Coffman has pointed out on the Rootsweb DNA List (her soon-to-be published paper deals with this topic) the Basques are not the pristine, isolated, aboriginal European population some consider them to be. Studies of ancient mtDNA from an old Basque cemetery revealed the presence of a mixture of mtDNA haplogroups and a connection to the Middle East. That connection does not exist for y-haplogroup R1b, however.

The old Basque marriage custom of the groom coming to live with the bride's family is tailor-made for the introduction of outsider y-dna and the simultaneous preservation of the bride's language and culture.

If Basque R1b represents the aboriginal W. Euro y-dna, it seems incredible that nowhere else in Western Europe, with its overwhleming level of R1b, was any similar non-Indo-European speech preserved. How odd.

Not in insular Ireland or even the fastnesses of the Scottish Highlands or the Swiss or Bavarian Alps.

Weird, huh?"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.53.70 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not accept blogs or web forums as reliable sources. These may well represent good places to find additional sources. The quote about Basques seems a bit odd. I think it is quite wrong. The reason why geneticists think that R1b represents an aboriginal W. Euro y-haplogroup is because it is far and away the most common haplogroup in western Europe. Just look at any hapmap, R1b represents in excess of 85% of male lineages on the western facade of Europe. This is a fact, it is indisputable, these people must have come from somewhere, and they are absolutely descended from people from the R1b haplogroup. Now these people are also descended from other men who may or may not have been part of the R1b haplogroup, there is a natural wastage of haplotypes, some men are reproductively more successful than others, some men may only have daughters. One of the problems with following lineages is that they only represent one ancestor per generation, so they ignore the vast bulk of the ancestors of an individual (if 10,000 years ago represents about 400 generations, then the number of ancestors each of us had then would be 2⁴⁰⁰, an absurdly high figure which demonstrates how we are really multiply descended from the same people over and over again, but only one of these people represents the donor of a Y chromosome and only one the donor of mtDNA) so it may be that R1b represented merely a small proportion of the haplotypes of ancient people living in the Basque country, or indeed anywhere on the west coast of Europe, but it still represents the most reproductively successful haplogroup. Basques are often considered a putative source population, it is not an established "fact", but it is a working hypothesis, it also seems to be one of the main assumptions that geneticists use in their papers. There is a bit of confusion in your post. I am unclear what your problem is. The consensus, from a genetic point of view, is that the European population as it stands is descended primarily from the paleolithic population of Europe, with some lesser neolithic contributions later on. This is a "common sense" point of view, once a place has been inhabited by humans it's difficult, if not impossible to displace them, especially given similar levels of technology. Tis is also supported by what is oserved from a genetic point of view. I do not like your attempts to link language/culture with genetic haplogroups, indeed you complain of this in the article, but do it on the talk page yourself. You should read Oppenheimer's book, which you appear not to have read. Oppenheimer thinks that Celtic languages might be as old as the neolithic in the western British Isles, and that Germanic languages might be equally as old in the east of the British Isles, he even goes on to say that we just don't know, and that any attempts to date languages are at best guesses and that the neolithic dates could even be older, that is he implies that there is no evidence to discount a paleolithic origin for Indo-European languages in the British Isles. He does provide dating for Y chromosome haplotype clusters and gives a detailed account of when these various haplotype clusters were founded in the British Isles, given the relatively uncontroversial methods used for dating genetic founding events I think we can accept that R1b haplotype clusters are primarily from paleolithic and mesolithic founding events in the British Isles. Those haplogroups associated with "Germanic" peoples are a little later, R1a and I form founding clusters from the mesolithic in northern Europe and the eastern British Isles, at this time the British Isles were not in fact islands, so these founding events probably ocured on the plain that later became the North Sea. When the people on the east coast of the British Isles started speaking Germanic languages, and whether these languages were carried by mesolithic or neolithic people to northern Europe is open to debate, the same applies to the west coast, we do not know when people here started to speak Celtic languages, maybe they always did, maybe Germanic languages were introduced during the mesolithic-neolithic founding events for haplogroup I1a and I1c (which seems to be far and away the best candidates for a "Germanic line"). As far as I can tell the main idea is that paleolithic people from western Europe settled the land that later became the west coast of the British Isles when it became accessible after the last major deglaciation. These people lived on the coast, they were scavengers and probably relied on the sea for much of their food, they probably didn't move inland much. There were several population founding events, by various R1b lineages over several millenia. At about the time of the mesolithic, while population founding events were ongoing on the west coast, other people were travelling up the major river waterways of central Europe, these peple were probably from the central and Eastern European refugia, they carried different genetic markers, were linguistically and culturally different, and founded populations o the plains that are now under the North Sea, but which stretched to the coasts of what is now the North Sea, these are the ancestors of the people who now speak Germanic languages. This region also appears to be where "East met West", in the sense that people in this whole region, Scandinavians, Germans, Dutch and English all seem to have a high R1b "west" and I (to a lesser extent R1a) "east" haplogroup representation. One can think of this "west" group as being "celtic" and this east group as being "germanic", but it is unclear, and probably unknowable, as to whether the founders of these populations spoke these languages. What is clear is that these represent very ancient founding events, and that the modern population is probably overwhelmingly descended from these ancient founders and not from recent "invasions". Oppenheimer thinks that Celtic languages traveled with farming up the western coast of Europe (not with R1b founders), and that Germanic languages probably traveled up the central European waterways (Danube, vistula etc.) with farming as well, making the origin of Celtic in the West about concurrent with the origin of Germanic in the East in the British Isles. this is all citable, and much of the genetic material supports this sort of scenario. Of course we need to include all points of view, I suggest we work chronologically and include all relevant material. Alun 07:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Alun, I question whether you're suited to govern this article. You know very well I've made no claims, from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age. Further, the threads above feature an abundance of sources, some of which appear to contradict the only one you appear capable of paraphrasing. You have also not provided a single linguistic source, which I have. The Lehmann article above, and the ones cited by the philologist in his thread, are all very important works, which you would do well to find and carefully study. I will this evening collect and post a list of linguistic references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.53.70 (talk • contribs)

• Alun, I question whether you're suited to govern this article.

No one "governs" articles on Wikipedia. Alun 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• You know very well I've made no claims, from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age.

I don't know what you mean by this, how am I supposed to respond? Did I say you had made such claims? This article is exactly about this period of time, it is almost exclusively about this period of time. If you have nothing to say about this then what are you doing here exactly? Alun 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• the threads above feature an abundance of sources, some of which appear to contradict the only one you appear capable of paraphrasing

Which is a point I actually made above about these threads isn't it, that they could provide additional sources for use here? What do you mean "the only one", I have paraphrased Oppenheimer, this is because this is the one you appear to have not actually read, but also appear to have strong opinions about. I find it odd that someone can be so convinced a source is "wrong" when they have not actually read it. I did also actually mention Catherine Hills and Barry Cunliffe, and have provided a plethora of other research papers above. As for "appear to contradict", so what? No one has claimed that we should not include all points of view. If some papers and researchers contradict others then we include all points of view. We do not cherry pick our favourite ones. Alun 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• You have also not provided a single linguistic source, which I have.

So what? I am not a linguist, I am a geneticist, I am not particularly interested in linguistics, I fail to see how linguistics can possibly tell us where people come from, languages leave no concrete evidence, unlike material artefacts, genetics and history. Language may have a small amount to contribute here, but it can only ever be a small part of the equation, we are concerned with the origins of people here, the origins of the languages they speak may be very different. Alun 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• which you would do well to find and carefully study.

You would do well not to treat other editors as if they are children. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, I urge you to work with other editors rather than treating them as if they are either stupid or wrong. You might start by reading some of the genetic research papers, reading "threads" is all very well, but you are getting the opinions of non-experts who may well either not have undertood the research in question, or even be misrepresenting it to promote their own point of view. Here we cite reputable academic sources, and we do not draw conclusions that those sources themselves do not draw. That is we state the conclusions of the researchers themselves, and not our opinion of what their results mean, this would constitute original research. Alun 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I will this evening collect and post a list of linguistic references.

I suggest this is an excellent idea. But please do not exagerate the importance of this to the article, it can only represent a relatively small part of the evidence. We need evidence from at least four different disciplines I think, genetics, archaeology, history and linguistics, and I think they come in that order of importance. Alun 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest that you get yourself a user account, editors always respond better to users with accounts rather than just an IP address. You should also learn to sign your posts by using four tildes like this ~~~~. All the best. Alun 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article

I suggest we rename the article something like "Prehistoric migration to the British Isles". here is an article Immigration to the United Kingdom (until 1922), we can use some of the information from that article in this article, and crop that article to Immigration to the United Kingdom (1066-1922). Any thoughts? Alun 07:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic and other references

Ball, Martin J. and James Fife, eds., 1993. The Celtic Languages. London.

Coon, C.S., 1939. The Races of Europe. New York: MacMillan.

Evans, D. Simon, 1964. A Grammar of Middle Welsh. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov, 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gimbutas, M., 'The Beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and the Indo-Europeans: 3500-2500 BC', JIES I (1973): 163-214.

Givón, Talmy, 1977. 'The Drift from VSO to SVO in Biblical Hebrew: The Pragmatics of Tense-Aspect'. in Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. ed. Charles N. Li. Texas: Texas.

Häusler, A., 'Kulturbeziehungen zwischen Ost- und Mitteleuropa in Neolithikum?', Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 68 (1985): 21-74.

Herity, Michael and George Eogan, 1977. Ireland in Prehistory. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Klimov, Georgij A., 1983. 'On Contentive Typology'. Lingua e Stile 18. 327-41.

Lehmann, R.P.M. and W.P., 1975. An Introduction to Old Irish. New York: MLA.

Lehmann, Winfred P., 1992. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Routledge.

Lehmann, Winfred P., 1993. Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. Routledge.

Lehmann, Winfred P., 1997. 'Early Celtic among the Indo-European Dialects'. Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 49-50. 440-454.

Lehmann, Winfred P., 2002. Pre-Indo-European (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, Volume 41). Institute for the Study of Man.

Lewis, Henry and Holger Pedersen, 1989. A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Mallory, JP, 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames & Hudson.

Mallory, JP, General Editor (current). The Journal of Indo-European Studies: 1973-2007.

McCone, Kim, 1996. Towards a Relative Chronology of Ancient and Medieval Celtic Sound Change. Maynooth.

McCone, Kim, 1997. The Early Irish Verb. 2nd Edition Revised with Index. Maynooth.

Menk, R., 'A Synopsis of the Physical Anthropology of the Corded Ware Complex on the Background of the Expansion of the Kurgan Cultures', JIES 8 (1980): 361-392.

Schwidetzky, I., 'The Influence of the Steppe People Based on the Physical Anthropological Data in Special Connection to the Corded Ware-Battle Axe Culture', JIES 8 (1980): 345-360.

Stifter, David., 2006. Sengoídelc. New York: Syracuse.

Russell, Paul, 1995. An Introduction to the Celtic Languages. London: Longman.

Telegin, D.Ya. and I.D. Potekhina, 1987. Neolithic Cemeteries and Populations in the Dnieper Basin. BAR International Series 383: Oxford.

Thurneysen, Rudolf, 1949. A Grammar of Old Irish. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

Tilley, Christopher, 1996. An ethnography of the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge.

Van Coetsem, Frans and Herbert L. Kufner, eds. 1972. Toward a Grammar of Proto-Germanic. Niemeyer: Tübingen.

Watkins, Calvert, 1962. The Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb: I the Sigmatic Aorist. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.

Watkins, Calvert, 1963a. 'Preliminaries to the Historical and Comparative Analysis of the Syntax of the Old Irish Verb'. Celtica 6: 11-49

Watkins, Calvert, 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford: Oxford.

I will add more shortly. Also, if the community wishes, I can provide an as yet unreviewed draft paper of my own, which discusses the typological shift to VSO in Insular Celtic. It only requires expansion, the thesis being uncompromising, and requires the removal of a discussion on generative (transformational) approaches to the problem, which are too incompetent to be worthy of mention.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.178.53.70 (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

This article is completely changing from one being based purely on genetics of modern day britons to one of linguistics, paloeanthroplogy, pre homo spaien history, archeoligy and other subjects. In which case i suggest we re-add all the genetics info to the people articles of the different British Isles countries. --Globe01 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I think you are correct, but I don't think the article should completely change. After some thought I think this article should be called Settlement of the British Isles (before 1066). It should include the genetic, archaeological and historical sources. I am less convinced about linguistics. I had a look at the web forums 71.178.53.70 linked to above, and none of them seem to have anything to say whatsoever regarding the settlement of the British Isles. They are also very confused, for example they try to determine which languages are associated with which haplogroups. I think this is just daft, people change their language, there is no reason to assume that specific languages are associated with single or specific lineages, be those lineages Y chromosome or mtDNA lineages. Someone wants to associate R1a with proto-Germanic for example, I wonder just exactly what they hope to achieve? Most people with R1a in the modern world speak Slavic languages unless I am very much mistaken. There is also a lot of guff talked about eastern R1b haplogroups, but the R1b haplogroups identified in the British Isles are overwhelmingly western European R1b. These forums seem to be irrelevant to any discussion regarding the settlement of the British Isles. I suggest the appropriate place for this material in in an article associated about the history of Indo-European and Uralic languages. This article is not about that subject. So personally I think it should include more than just genetic data, but it should concentrate on human settlement and not too much on culture and language, this is the whole point of the move isn't it? To separate ethnicity (culture, language, religion, politics, society) from the actual people we descended from, who after all have probably changed their ethnicity, religion, language etc. many times. Alun 06:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

...............

Your opinions are extreme and borderline uneducated, Alun, but yet you claim to be a geneticist, and therefore a scholar. Please prove it by showing us a paper you have written, on any subject relating to what we're discussing. Also, tell us which university you attend or are associated with. I am at the University of Maryland, College Park, and am the writer of that paper on Proto-Germanic, posted at the forum. 71.178.53.70 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Your opinions are extreme and borderline uneducated, Alun

Excuse me, but if anyone is being "extreme" here it is you by being extremely rude. Please refrain from ad hominen comments, provide evidence that these sources are relevant. I do not have to justify myself to you or to anyone else. I suggest that you read Wikipedia policies and guidelines before you start to throw your weight around and lord it over everyone else. You make demands of good faith and long standing editors when all you appear as is an IP address. Here on wikipedia all input is accepted, but you also need to learn to adhere to certain policies and guidelines. I suggest you start with Help:Contents/Getting started and move on to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research while taking Wikipedia:Reliable sources into account. Given your hostile and dismissive attitude (I have asked you not to patronise other editors or to treat them like children) I also suggest you read Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You should also be aware that this article is not about linguistics, this article is about settlement of the British Isles, in this regard it seems to me that it is you who have somewhat missed the point. I shall not stoop to your level and insult you, but posting a paper on a web forum hardly constitutes peer review, it looked more like a very short undergraduate essay to me, although when I was un undergraduate our essays were expected to be significantly longer and more detailed than that. When you post here, try to be civil and polite, and try not to insult people just because you disagree with them, comment on content not editors. None of us is perfect, and I'm sure most of us have written things we wish we hadn't in the heat of a debate, but we are not even having a debate here, nor an argument, you have not even made any constructive suggestions about what ytou would like to see included in the article. This article is not about the origins of Indo-European languages, or Germanic languages. Think about how you would like to constructively contribute to the article and post your ideas here. It is not constructive to start by criticising the article as it stands, then insulting all of the diitors here, especially when you seem to have no clear idea as to what you would like to include. So far the evidence you have provided has absolutely zero relevance to the peopling of the British Isles as far as I can see, please enlighten me rather than dismissing me. Alun 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your dismissing of the linguistic evidence is unscholarly. That is the bottom line. In doing so, you are not only dismissing the opinions of several of the authors of your sources, but are also dismissing those of the absolute majority of archaeologists and historians, whose work you do consider worthy. You should simply know the linguistic evidence is of the greatest importance - beyond that, I can't help you. Do some reading (I again suggest Mallory as an introduction to interdisciplinary methods, and of course the subject in general), and stop posting unscholarly opinions. Also see Lehmann 1993, and then 2002, for linguistic introductions.

Furthermore, your anger appears to have replaced your answers to my requests - and you are lording it over this discussion like one who needs a captive audience, making excessively long posts, with little content, that are interrupting the process. This discussion is about content and sources, not about you. I only defend my discipline, in as few words as I can, and reserve the right to question the qualifications of anyone not in any way acquainted with it, but who uses its terminology. Posters have suffered such questioning, as they should.

Signing with a different IP. 129.2.18.83 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is about genetics, not linguistics or anything else. Read the name of the article well. I will not respond to any of your comments again because they make no sense in this article. In fact, all linguistic references in the article could be erased. Veritas et Severitas 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, since the main concern of the article this was created from is the Celtic or non-Celtic identity of the Irish People, all of the genetic references could be erased, and the article renamed. Or, to reflect the distribution of sources in this discussion, it could be divided into two sections, one Traditional (linguistic-archaeological-anthropological-historical-mythological), and the other New & Unconfirmed (population genetics). It does seem to me that your group of editors here is rather innovative in trying to divorce archaeology and history from linguistics, which they have grown up with - and I attribute this to the lack of linguistic (and anthropological-archaeological) material on the web. But academic libraries are also worth browsing.

However, I'm willing to let the matter drop, on four conditions:

1. You allow me or anyone to remove or modify all uses of linguistic terminology in the article.

2. You allow me or anyone to remove or modify all mythological and other pointless items.

3. You allow me or anyone to correct your "grammar" when you get a bit too carried away with conclusions 10 years old or less.

4. You allow the above list of linguistic and other references to remain on this discussion page, as well as my key points (which I would prefer to edit), just in case someone else should come along and be willing to attempt the massive project of integration.

Agreed? 71.178.53.70 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Your dismissing of the linguistic evidence is unscholarly. That is the bottom line......

Who has dismissed the linguistic "evidence"? I certainly haven't, and I certainly haven't dismissed archaeological evidence either. Do you actually read what I post? It seems that you don't, please do not accuse me of making comments I clearly have not made. I have stated that the discussions you linked to above seem to have absolutely nothing to say whatsoever with regard to the origins of the people of the British Isles. This is not a dismissal of linguistic evidence, it is simply stating that the evidence you have provided does not seem relevant to this particular article. I also asked you to explain just why you think it is relevant to the article. Something you seem to be unable to do, prefering to resort to ad hominen attacks instead. Indeed the "bottom line" (if I understand this parochialism correctly) is that this article is about the origins of the people of the British Isles, something you have not actually seem fit to mention once. Alun 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• You should simply know the linguistic evidence is of the greatest importance - beyond that, I can't help you.

Linguistic evidence is the most important for determining the origins of people? I don't think so. This is clearly your opinion, thought I suspect it is an extremely biased and unfounded point of view. Alun 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• and stop posting unscholarly opinions.

Ummm. What is your problem? Are you just incapable of civility? Alun 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, your anger appears to have replaced your answers to my requests - and you are lording it over this discussion like one who needs a captive audience, making excessively long posts, with little content,

I'm angry that you have been so offensive. Resorting to namecalling, which is what you did, is never going to get a pleasant response. I told you sxplicitly why I did not answer you "demands" (they certainly weren't requests), as far as I can tell you appear to have no credential whatsoever to make the sort of claims that you have. Indeed I see no evidence that you are any sort of "expert" above and beyond the fact that you happen to be an undergraduate university student. You seem to ahve some opinion that this classifies you as an academic, dream on. You also seem to thik that studying languages seems to make you an expert on genetics, but have displayed a limited and deeply flawed understanding of genetics. As far as I can tell you are simply an editor like the rest of us, the main difference being that you have a POV to push and do not appear to be interested in neutrality. I make long posts because I want to get consensus and would like to understand just what your point of view is and how you would like to include it. As for the claim that my posts have no content, this is absurd. It is your posts that contain no content. I still do not understant just what it is you would like to include in the article because you have not told us. I have tried to give an overview about how I see the article progressing. You have actually made no comment on this at all, except your continued ad hominem attacks. And I'm "lording it", this is the most hypocritical thing I have heared all year!!!! Alun 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I only defend my discipline, in as few words as I can, and reserve the right to question the qualifications of anyone not in any way acquainted with it, but who uses its terminology. Posters have suffered such questioning, as they should.

Please defend your discipline, I do not have a problem with linguistics as long as it is relevant. Defending your discipline is not the same as attacking or maligning another editor. Comment on content not editors. You do not have the right to question the qualifications of anyone, but just for your information, I have never used the terminology of your discipline. Indeed I have stated several times that I am not a linguist. Again please do not claim that I have said things I clearly have not. I am not interested in this subject, but I admit that there is a place for it in this article as long as it is relevant. What I ahve said is that the short essay you linked to did not appear to be relevant to this article, it did not even mention the British Isles as far as I could see. I have not maligned you for discussing genetics, though it is clearly not "your discipline", you seem to feel free to use it's terminology. Another example of hypocricy. Alun 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Alternatively, since the main concern of the article this was created from is the Celtic or non-Celtic identity of the Irish People,

No it wasn't. You don not appear to even understand the reason for the creation fot his article. The creation of this article at no point had any relevance to the Irish people article at all. The creation of this article was in response to the inclusion of genetic data into articles regarding English people, Welsh people and Scottish people. Thers was much concern that these articles should be about ethnicity, and that ethnic identity is different to ancient origins. For example the concept of Englishness developed gradually over the course of about two hundred years between about 850-1050, this is recent, and we do not know if the people who identify as English represent a homogeneous group with a common descent. It seems clear now that they don't, but the English people article was becoming primarily about genetics and origins of the population rather than about English people as an ethnic group. The main reasons for this article were certainly nothing to do with Irish people and their origins. Alun 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• one Traditional (linguistic-archaeological-anthropological-historical-mythological), and the other New & Unconfirmed (population genetics).

You display your bias. In actual fact all ideas about the origins of people are "theories" and therefore unconfirmed. It is quite simply wrong to claim that archaeology supports what you have been saying. This is how research works, at least in science. We take a look at the evidence, then we develope models (or theories if you like) to try to explain what we observe. Then we test these theories, theories that survive testing are considered robust, but no theory is ever considered "proven". There's no such thing as scientific proof, scientists only ever try to disprove theories. This seems to be how archaeologists work as well, they construct theories based on their observatons of the archaeological evidence, then try support these theories by investigation. Here's the rub, presently genetics and archaeology seem to support each other's points of view rather well. For example the concept of an Atlantic Long Duree is supported by the existence of similar archaeological evidence along the Atlantic facade of Europe, and by the fact that genetic evidence shows that people living along this facade seem to share many mtDNA and Y chromosome markers, and of course we should not forget that this is also the region where we find Celtic languages. Alun 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• However, I'm willing to let the matter drop, on four conditions:

You are in no position to make "demands". Editors decide what to include or remove by consensus. You are free to make any edits you wish, if they are reasonable then no one will change them. If they are contentious then they may be removed untill such time as a consensus is reached. But please read Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and try to treatr other editors with respect. Alun 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• You allow me or anyone to correct your "grammar" when you get a bit too carried away with conclusions 10 years old or less.

Please don't be so offensive and condesending. Alun 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving article

I'm going to move this article to Settlement of the British Isles (before 1066) in a week or so. It will fit in with the other immigration articles. There seems to be no opinion against this move, so I'm taking that as tacit consent. Alun 07:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Far too Anglocentric. If you want to move it, you are going to have to build a consensus, and a far better title. --Mais oui! 08:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How can it be Anglocentric? I'd love to know. Where does it mention England? How is anglocentricism even relevant 20,000 years ago? This article cannot be about "population genetics" if it is going to claim that the people of the British Isles are mainly descended from Iberia, this would constitute a POV-fork, that is, an article created to give only a single point of view. It must be about settlement and about migrationist versus cultural diffusionist theories, with genetics included as well. If you do not like the title then please suggest a differewnt one, but it cannot be about population genetics. If it is simply the year (1066) that offends you (which is a bit precious IMHO) then simply remove the year, call the article "Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles" if you prefer. If you do not like British Isles (and I am not a big fan either), then we could go for "Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland". It's all the same to me, it's just a title. There's no need to get your knickers in a twist. Alun 14:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this just based on two books?

Because that's how it reads. What are these books anyway - pop science or something with more credibility? Aren't there more than two sources?? "Recent" needs changing as we have no idea when that was written. It doesn't explain what was thought of *before* these two books were published. Generally this doesn't read very well - I'm not convinced you know what you are talking about to be honest.. Secretlondon 06:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There are at least four books, and many published scientific papers into this field, but at the moment this article needs a lot of work. We need to include other points of view, cite other sources and most importantly give a more comprehensive description of the various theories regarding the origins of British people. If you take a look above there is a long list of scientific papers that have been published regarding this sort of work. The subject is being refined all the time, and the same data can be used to draw more detailed conclusions as the molecular biology of the lineages becomes better understood. I'd also like to expand the scope of the article to include archaeology at least. But yes, this article needs a lot of work, currently there seems to be a bit of apathy here, when I get time I may well add some info regarding the original habitation of the islands. Alun 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why I started this discussion

Dear Administrators and Editors,

I started this discussion after receiving the following message from Globe01, after I removed some questionable passages from Irish People. He then removed his message, after I quoted it, from the discussion page here (10:24, 4 February 2007). Now, again:

"you removed some info on r1b and theorires about irish people coming from the basque country.

You are completely wrong to do that.

You have not cited any alternative evidence or cited evidence saying the irish descned from celts.

Just because you say that the people of la tene or the celtic homeland themselves are r1b this doesnt mean that not all scientists agree with the basque theory or that that contradicts the current basque theory.

r1b is only around 50% in the celtic homeland where as its about 88% in ireland and up to 98.5% in parts of ireland and never falls below 70% anywhere in ireland hence its impossible that the irish descend entirely from the celtic homeland and in the areas where r1b is 70% the remaining y chromosomes are norwiegen indicating some viking ancestry.

So you reasoning for making the changes was a joke and you did not even consult anyone about this on the talk page.

I wonder what yur personal motivation for removing paragraphs of cited information from scientific journals to books publishedby geneticists linking the irish people to northern spain?

I will not express what i actually think your political status may be bu ti warn you, if you make such vast changes without even conjsultation again I will report you to admin. --Globe01 13:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)"

--- Now, perhaps, you'll see my motivation. Read his points carefully. My original edit summary in Irish People reads:

At 01:17, 2 February 2007 "Not all recent genetic studies. The Central European Celts were R1b themselves, specifically R1b1c10 (s28), which is virtually identical to the AMH. Look it up."

71.178.53.70 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But you have not actually provided any evidence that what you say is correct. Are you talking about a specific study? If so why can't you cite it? I have looked and I cannot find any evidence for any study of published research that supports what you say. Where has anyone except you claimed that "central European Celts" were R1b1c10? Which journal published this study? Which research group is it from? Please provide details of this study, it could be very important for this article. Alun 14:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Let everyone judge Oppenheimer

'Myths of British Ancestry', by Stephen Oppenheimer > [4]

If anyone really thinks the man knows his archaeology or his linguistics, or his population genetics, then I can only remark that you find Oppenheimer's confidence too impressing. The article is simply incredible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.178.53.70 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

We are not here to judge. If it's a reliable source then it can be cited and included. I find it odd that you insist on disparaging sources that don't agree with your opinion rather than including sources that might support an alternative point of view. It's a bit sad that you think that ad hominem attacks are the correct way to make progress on Wikipedia. Why don't you concentrate on including an alternative point of view that is supported by other sources? Alun 06:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have provided sources (Mallory, etc.) which support a Central Asian then Central European origin for the Celts, even though I do disagree with the dating in some. These, as a whole, are a great deal more reliable than Oppenheimer, who is currently being laughed at by every Indo-Europeanist who has deigned to read his work.

Further, you may have missed that reviews of inferior work normally don't appear at all - but when they do, it can take some time for them to appear. Including Oppenheimer in this article, and in several other related articles here, is against Wikipedia policy. The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story, with its funny title, was published not six months ago.

Please don't respond with a series of essays this time. 71.178.53.70 12:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have provided sources, Alun, which support a Central Asian then Central European origin for the Celts,

So? I didn't ask you to provide sources, I asked you to cite sources. Make the relevant edits and cite the relevant sources. No one will do this work for you. There is little point in complaining that a point of view has been overlooked if you cannot even be bothered to include it yourself. Alun 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• are a great deal more reliable than Oppenheimer, who is currently being laughed at by every Indo-Europeanist who has deigned to read his work.

Yeah right! You really do have a problem with accepting that other disciplines and theories are as valid as your personal opinions don't you? Well your opinions of Oppenheimer, are not relevant. If you want to contribute, then please do it constructively. If you do not agree with Cunliffe's opinion (and why you think this is just Oppenheimer I have no idea, there is a great deal of archaeological and genetic evidence for Atlantic Europe) that is your prerogative, but it is a reasonable and well known hypothesis. Anyone who "laughs" at another academic's work is obviously not to be taken seriously, do you think this the way we are supposed to behave? Your comment has the flavour of the school playground about it. Alun 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• reviews of inferior work

???? Who do you think you are? You have some sort of massive superiority complex going on here mate. Alun 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Including Oppenheimer in this article, and in several other related articles here, is against Wikipedia policy.

You fail to specify which policy. Indeed you seem not to have even the slightest clue about Wikipedia policies. I suggest you point out the policy that states that the opinion of an anonymous editor, who appears to be some sort of troll is considered more important than the published work of a recognised academic. Alun 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

---

To all but yourself and your little club of computer chair prehistorians here, it's very clear that you know next to nothing about the subject, as you should be able to discuss Mallory and others with ease. Just go away, Alun, and let this process go forward, or this time I will write the administration, to have you barred from this discussion and its article. That is a promise. You don't know where you are.

Also, you appear to have lied about being a geneticist, something the administration should know. I, an actual (though admittedly young) linguist, shouldn't have known about R1b1c10 (s28) before you, and you should have been able to discover in a moment, if you really are a geneticist, that no one now appears to contest its obvious association with the Celts of the La Tene. Look it up! > Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) - and then, Google it!

71.178.53.70 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• To all but yourself and your little club of computer chair prehistorians here, it's very clear that you know next to nothing about the subject

You are such a charmer. Alun 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just go away, Alun, and let this process go forward, or this time I will write the administration, to have you barred from this discussion and its article. That is a promise.

Please do. I do not know what you think you are threatening me with. Are you so insecure that you need to resort to namecalling and bullying? I mean please. Alun 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Also, you appear to have lied about being a geneticist, something the administration should know.

Wow, you really are a nasty piece of work aren't you. Mister I'm so honest I'm anonymous. Alun 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• shouldn't have known about R1b1c10 (s28) before you, and you should have been able to discover in a moment

Why should I have known this before you? You seem to be obsessed about it because you think it supports a theory that for some reason you hold dear. I find this lack of objectivity disturbing. You clearly find it difficult to remain impartial and get agressive with people who can give a different point of view. You claim that there have been studies regarding this haplogroup and it's importance, but there are none. You have linked to a few genealogical websites below, but these are highly speculative, and none are published reports in peer reviewed journals. Indeed all of these sites claim that not much work has been done on this subclade. Come back when you can show a published peer reviewed paper (that is a proper paper) in a respectable journal that claims that this haplogroup is i) important for the British Isles ii) shows that most people in the British Isles are geneticall closer to central Europeans than to Basque people. And by the way, the PDF document you link to shows clearly that this haplogroup is rather uncommon in the British Isles and Iberia, so I wonder how you reconcile this with your claim that British people are mainly derived from this lineage. Alun 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• that no one now appears to contest its obvious association with the Celts of the La Tene.

How is this relevant to this article? No one here is at all interested about the relevance of this haplogroup and the La Tene culture. This is only relevant if this haplogroup is in fact evidence of a mass immigration of La Tene people into the British Isles. This does not appear to be the case, none of the evidence you have provided actually contradicts anything that has been said here or in the article. Alun 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that some user here does not get it: This is about genetics:

1. Oppenheimer is considered the leading expert in the field of using DNA for tracking migrations.

2. When he talks about linguistics he leaves it clear that he is just speculating. Linguistics is in any case for other articles, not for this one.

3. It seems that Sykes comes to similar conclusions in his book "Blood of the Isles): He just thinks that most Iberians arrived in Britain during the Neolithic instead of during the Paleolithic, which is Oppenheimer's position. Here you have some quotes from his book that I will introduce in the body of the article when I have time:

Caveat: When he speaks of Celts he leaves it clear that he is just talking of the people who where in Britain before the Romans arrived and who spoke by then a Celtic language. He does not go into linguistics, he just sticks to genetics.

Page 280.

...the presence of large numbers of Jasmines’s Oceanic clan, says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic see board north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. The number of exact and close matches between the maternal clans of western and northern Iberia and the western half of the Isles is very impressive, much more so than the much poorer matches with continental Europe.

Pages 281-82.

The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or the same time as farming reached the Isles.

The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus………. This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland.

Picts….. They are from the same mixture of Iberian and European Mesolithic (The Iberian Mesolithic people of Oppenheimer) ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructure of the Isles.

Page 283.

Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantic chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes. The sea routes of the atlantic fringe conveyed both men and women to the Isles.

So, believe me, what you think about the books is not relevant for Wiki. If you know of an authority in the field that says that Bryan Sykes' and Oppenheimer's books and conclusions are not valid, cite them, otherwise, you should refrain from posting more personal opinions.

By the way, these two books are the only ones that have been published about the origins of the British people since the emergence of population genetics, and no expert has refuted them yet AND THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE POPULATION GENETICS OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

P.S: This anonimous user please stop making personal attacks. Veritas et Severitas 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Veritas et Severitas 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

article

I have introduced information that belongs to Britain as a whole. This information is repeated some times in the other sections: Scotland, Ireland, etc. Those sections should be cleaned and be left only with more specific information. I will rename Britain "The British Isles and Ireland" I have also introduced "genetics" because this article is about genetics, not history, although the history introduction is OK in my opinion. Veritas et Severitas 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am making some changes, trying to make the article look organized, but I do not have so much time as I would like to. I hope others can help too. I think the history section could be left as a link to that article. Veritas et Severitas 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Foster on R1b in Europe

http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm 71.178.53.70 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Read it. It's a bit speculative, and his analysis is on a single locus, so it's imediately suspect. Alun 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

R1b and its subclades

1. Dal Riadic Migration Y Chromosome DNA Genealogy Page
2. R1b1c-clades
3. Y-DNA Haplogroup R and its Subclades - 2007

The following blog provided the links. It also features an excellent discussion:

http://italydna.blogspot.com/2007/01/r1b-in-italy.html

And yes, I'm quite aware that blog posts don't count as sources.

71.178.53.70 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. He states

   In brief he ascribes S28+ to have appeared sometime during the LGM and was located in the Balkan Refugia. After the retreat of the ice, S28+ individuals traveled north to Germany via the Danube and into Poland. At a much later date they were associated with the La Tene culture and later still the Cimbri celts. Further work is required to clarify its exact origin and movement.

   So not really relevant to this article is it? Alun 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
2. The maps indicate that this haplogroup R1b1c10 is not associated with the British Isles, even if it is associated with central Europe. It's association with the La Tene culture is not relevant to this article, it does not appear to contradict the evidence for genetic similariy between the peoples of the western facade of Europe. If you were to take a look at the map for R1b1c9 you would see that this actually supports one of Oppenheimer's ideas, that the south eastof Englans has a close relationship with the adjacent region of Europe across the Cannel. You are inadvertantly providing evidence to support Oppenheimer's conclusions. But then you don't actually know what his conclusions were do you? Alun 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
3. This is just a map of subclades. Alun 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why you think a blog about the genetics of Italy is relevant I do not understand. Alun 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources, as we all know. Anyway, if you are interested in "Celtic" blogs in conjunction with genetics, here you have this one:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Nordic%2DCeltic/

It is just a example of how fast it is spreading the habit of using the terms Celt and Iberian together, after the persistent findings of Population Genetics over the last decades. Veritas et Severitas 01:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

If I recall correctly, we can see in the archaeological record that Ireland's contacts with Central Europe halt at around 600BC, but this is during the Hallstatt period, and before the La Tène. Taking into account the evidence that Celtic was already spoken in Ireland at that time, and the great archaisms later observed in Goidelic, we can only come to one conclusion, namely that the ancestor of Goidelic must have come to Ireland during the Hallstatt period or before.

Now no one really challenges that. But, we have to remember that the Hallstatt was later buried under the La Tène, and that the R1b1c10 of the latter was only a single marker, when there may have been several more - among them one, originally associated with the Hallstatt, which might have been the source for the Insular Celtic R1b.

I'm only saying it's a possibility. I equally like the proposition of Cunliffe and others that an "Atlantic Celtic" may have arrived during the Neolithic - but Central Europe would again have been the most likely region of origin. 71.178.53.70 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Special archaisms and peculiarities of Insular Celtic

I plan to post as much as I can here that is both understandable and relevant. Here are some links to start you off:

Old Irish Online - University of Texas

Proto-Indo-European to Insular Celtic (but beware here the unsupportable yet persistent Afro-Asiatic substratum hypothesis, which has been struck down by historical linguistics and by linguistic typology - and notice the date for PIE, which is far too late)

71.178.53.70 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Newest genetic research (genome-wide studies)

BS, this isnt new its at least 4 years old and out of date, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globe01 (talk • contribs)

How is a study from September 2006 and another from 2007 that hasn't been published yet, "4 years old and out of date"?Opie 05:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Whereas most genetic research on British Isles populations has focused on only one or two (Y chromosome, mtDNA), or very few, loci, the American Journal of Human Genetics website has just made available a preprint of a study of European population stratification based on 10,000 markers from across the whole genome (link, subscription required). Contrary to the Iberocentric theory of British origins, the results of Bauchet et al. show a rather conspicuous lack of Iberian elements in the Irish and English samples. See Figure 2b from the study.

The authors state, "[D]espite their insular origin, Irish and English individuals cluster with the continental Germans and Poles."

(The other European samples are Greeks, Spanish, Basques, French, Italians, and Finns.)

Seldin et al., Sep 2006

The above agrees with Seldin et al's recent genome-wide study of European population substructure, in which the Irish fell unambiguously (97%) into the North/Central European cluster -- separate from the Southern European cluster that includes most Spanish and Portuguese. See also the factor correspondence analysis graph at right.

Commercial ancestry tests that similarly use a very large set of loci also show no particular connection between British Isles folk and Iberians. See the charts and graphs at AncestryByDNA and a chart from DNA Tribes Genetic Ancestry Analysis. (in the latter, the margin of error is a few percentage points, so if there appears to be 5% (say) of some exotic component in a population where you wouldn't expect it, that may be just statistical noise.)

Finally, I will quote Zhivotovsky et al.[5] on the shortcomings of single-locus markers such as the Y chromosome:

“ Although recombination introduces additional uncertainty regarding the history of any individual autosomal locus, consideration of a large collection of polymorphic loci spread across the genome enables more general inference about demographic history and population relationships than does study of the Y chromosome and mtDNA, loci whose histories may be anomalous when compared with that of an “average” locus in the genome. ”

[my emphasis]

--Opie 08:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all good stuff, one of the inherant strengths and weaknesses of Y-chromosome and mtDNA analysis is that they form lineages. It is a strength because these markers are inherited from a specific individual linearly in each generation. It is a weakness for the same reason, it means that we are really ignoring the vast majority of our ancestors in favour of a single one from each generation. The mtDNA and Y chromosome markers were used mainly because of the lack of resolution from autosomal markers that recombination produces, maybe we are seeing autosomal markers finally comming into their own. I not that the Basque peope are not represented on the figures, this is a shame because they may be significantly different to other Spanish people, and may also cluster with the northern group. It's also important not to put too much emphasis on the clustering, it's very diffuse, the clusters do not represent anything approaching discrete groups. Still it should certainly be included in the article, no doubt. Alun 11:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one observation, you state The above agrees with Seldin et al's recent genome-wide study of European population substructure, in which the Irish fell unambiguously (97%) into the North/Central European cluster -- separate from the Southern European cluster that includes most Spanish and Portuguese. See also the factor correspondence analysis graph at right. but I have read Seldin's paper a couple of times and they do not actually have any samples from Ireland. Can you state specifically where they make this claim. The only samples I can find from the British Isles are actually from North America. This is what they say are their samples in the paper

European Americans of different regional European origins (681 participants), East Asian Americans (13), African Americans (22), South Asian Americans (48), Amerindians (48), and Swedish (92), Finnish (13), Italian (91), Portuguese (3), southern France (1), and Spanish participants (82) were included in this study.......For the European Americans, grandparental information was available for the majority of the participants. These included the following self-identifier classifications of grandparents: western European (United Kingdom, northern France, Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland), eastern European (Russia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Czech Republic), central European (Germany, Austria, and Hungary), southern European (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and southern France), Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland), and eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and Albania), Sephardic Jewish American, and White French Canadian.......This sample set included 1,164 self-identified European American participants that were recruited as part of the New York Cancer Project, a prospective longitudinal study [33]. For a substantial portion of this set, European country of origin was available as was a record of the four-grandparental country of origin.....This sample set included 40 participants of Jewish ancestry who are part of a larger Ashkenazi Jewish control population recruited by Dr. Ann E. Pulver (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine). Both the country of origin and the Jewish ethnic information for each grandparent were available for each participant.

were there Irish people in the second sample set? Irrespective of this, all samples were actually from North America and not from the British Isles. This observation might be quite important. Alun 11:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also important to note that the autosomal data do not actually contradict the Y chromosoms and mtDNA data. These data are measuring different things. The Y chromosome and mtDNA data form lineages, we can show that certain haplogroups are descended from certain other haplogroups. So R is the ancestor of R1, which is the ancestor of R1b etc. We cannot do this with autosomal data. The Y chromosome and mtDNA data therefore allow us to track migrations. Autosomal data do not allow us to do this, they cannot be used to track migrations or lineages due to recombination. The autosomal data are therefore rather crude, for example these data cannot be used to show which populations are founders. It is also worth noting that the autosomal data and Y-chromosomal data are not contradictory. I suspect that the autosomal data are simply displaying evidence of Neolithic movement. There have been other studies that seem to indicate that neolithic migrations into south and eastern Europe were more significant than the Y-chromosome and mtDNA data predict. The paper Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans is a good case in point, and is listed above and should be used in the article, especially this figure and this table seem to support a large neolithic component to the south east of Europe, with a decreasing cline towards the north west, that is about an 80% neolithic (near east) contribution to the Balkans, with about a 20% near east contribution to the British Isles. This is the sort of result that people were getting with traditional markers over ten years ago. This is how I see it. The Paleolithic people of europe are always going to be genetically more similar to each other than they are to neolithic people from the near east. If there were three Ice Age refugia, one would expect the bulk of their autosomal genes to be very similar even after some 15,000 years separation (if it was even for that long). So if people migrated northwards from the refugia Y chromosome and mtDNA lineages may show this as an east west cline. When neolithic people came into Europe from the south-east it is reasonable to expect that this region would show the strongest genetic imprint. This may well produce the sort of pattern we see, with a greater neolithic contribution to southern and eastern Europe producing a discernible north south cline. I would be prepared to bet that an east west cline can also be discerned from the autosomal data, if they were to take the "northern population" and examone it for structure. In fact the paper I have read European Population Substructure: Clustering of Northern and Southern Populations more or less says the same thing

Some studies of specific mitochondrial and Y haplogroups [53] are consistent with the demic diffusion hypothesis suggested by Cavali-Sforza et al. [22], and the work of Sokal et al. [54] and others have provided evidence of different patterns of repopulation from glacial refuges or have suggested a later influence from North Africa in both Italy and Spain [14,15,18].

None of this invalidates the assumption that modern British people are descended from the inhabitants of an ancient western European population, nor does it invalidate the assumption that Iberian people are also descended from the same population, it's just that Iberian people also have some extra from the near east, some of which got to the British Isles, but not as much as got to Iberia. I'd very much like to see the other paper you mention, but I'm at home today and so do not have access to it. I may be able to get access to it at work though. It sounds interesting. I'd just point out that the paper European Population Substructure: Clustering of Northern and Southern Populations makes absolutelly no claims whatsoever for the origins of the population of the British Isles, neither does it claim that the population fot he British ISles is more likely descended from central Europe than from western Europe, it simply claims that there is a greater neolithic genetic component to southern Europe than to northern Europe, and that this can be detected. Alun 13:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

More here. Alun 14:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they also say exactly what I just said, The results reveal the presence of several significant axes of stratification, most prominently in a North-Southeastern trend, but also along an East-West axis. [6] Alun 14:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, there is also some roughly east-west stratification, but the British/Irish do not cluster with the Iberians on that axis either! To detect population structure, Bauchet et al. use two methods: principal components, and the STRUCTURE algorithm that assigns individuals to K populations. Regarding principal components, they write "PC2 reflects mainly East-West geographic separation and particularly identifies the two Iberian populations in our analysis (Spanish and Basques) as distinct (Figure 2A)." This does not include the Irish/English. Instead, we have the Basques/Spanish at one extreme, the Finns at the other, and Germans, Irish, English clustering together in the middle, with Poles also intermediate but skewed somewhat toward the Finns. There is no "special connection" evident here among the populations bordering the Atlantic, as the Irish/English (unlike Iberians) are on neither side of the cline.

Use of the other method, STRUCTURE analysis, shows a similar result (again, please see this figure, which I think you missed last time). The objective here was to separate the individuals into K groups. When K=2, there are two clusters, and as we would expect, the result is what has before been interpreted as a Neolithic/Paleolithic differentiation: N Europeans (including Irish and English) at one end; SE Europeans at the other; Iberians and Italians intermediate, though Basques are skewed toward the Northern (or perhaps Paleolithic-origin) populations. The more interesting observation occurs at the K=3 level, where a clear Iberian element shows up in addition to northern and southeastern. Here is where you might expect the "Iberian" component to differentiate English/Irish from, say, Germans. But whereas the Spanish and Basques appear very distinctly Iberian at this level, the English/Irish remain "northern", showing slightly less "Iberian" than even the Germans, and barely more than the Poles. Even at K=5 where the Spanish are distinguished from the Basques, only a small amount of either shows up in the Irish/British, who again remain very similar to the Germans and to a lesser extent the Poles. In short, the Irish/British are close to the north-central Europeans, and distinct from Iberians, not just the K=2 that differentiates south from north, but at *all* levels of analysis.

Regarding the second study (Seldin et al.), I posted the graph of Factor Correspondence Analysis, which, as the authors say, is a special case of principal components analysis. Looking at the plot, we can see the following:

• Factor 1 separates north/central Europeans from Mediterraneans
• Factor 2 shows clinal separation between east and west Mediterraneans
• Factor 3 shows some indication of a cline from northwest to northeast

But again there is no "Atlantic connection". Where some would expect Irish (or more accurately, people with 4 grandparents of Irish origin) to align with Iberians after the northern/southern difference was teased out, there is no evidence of this in any of the factors. Looking at the overall picture, seeing all the factors in combination, we see that the Irish align with the northern and central populations and are quite distant from Iberians and all other Mediterraneans.

As you say, the Y chromosome (non-recombining portion) has its advantages, but it's still only one locus. Strictly, it allows one to trace gene movement as distinct from population movement. The two of course may be related, but then again the history of a single locus may be anomalous. I certainly see evidence of an inconsistency between what autosomes say and what the uniparental markers say (the latter can hardly even distinguish the British "Celtic" populations from the Iberians of today!). Surely there will be much research relating to this issue in the near future, but for now this article should not give the impression that the issue is anywhere close to being settled.

--Opie 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here, you say Where some would expect Irish (or more accurately, people with 4 grandparents of Irish origin) to align with Iberians after the northern/southern difference was teased out, there is no evidence of this in any of the factors., but this study makes no reference to Irish people at all, nor people of Irish descent living in the USA. It does not have an Irish source population, it does not mention Irish people or Ireland. Why have you twicw claimed that this study makes reference to Ireland? It's not there. The fact that there is no apparent "Atlantic connection" when looking at autosomal genes is irrelevant. As I stated, no one is claiming that the paleolithic communities of Europe were anything other than very closely related, any divergence during time spent in Ice Age refugia would be more evident in regions of the genome such as Y chromosomes. As for the north-south cline (andit is a cline, these are not discrete populations), this is simply a measure of neolithic migration. Autosomes are all very well, but what they can tell us is very limited. These studies are not necessarily showing us that no western connection exists, these data are are not incompattible, autosomal data cannot track migrations. These data do not prove or necessarily indicate a more recent connection between northern groups, they simply show that neolithic genes are not so well represented in the north of Europe. Autosomal data are notoriously difficult to interpret. The last person I had dealings with who harped on about the Seldin paper as if it disproved the Atlantic connection (it certainly does not) and seemed to think it proved that all northern Europeans have a more recent common ancestor than they do with southern Europeans (it doesn't do this either, autosomal genes do not form lineages) seemed to have some sort of Nordicist agenda. Alun 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Seldin study does indeed make reference to people of Irish origin. Specifically:

In particular, most of the participants with four grandparents with origin in the same European country showed clear membership in the corresponding “northern” or “southern” clusters: German, 22 participants, mean 0.86 “northern”; Irish, 86 participants, mean 0.97 “northern”;Scandinavian, six participants, mean 0.98 “northern”; Italian, 16 participants, mean 0.75 “southern”; and Greek, 7 participants, mean 0.83 “southern” (Figure 3B).

It's also in the colored graph posted above, also from Seldin et al.

--Opie 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So which sample set do these people come from? Theyare not mentioned in the materials and methods section at all

Populations studied: First sample set. European Americans of different regional European origins (681 participants), East Asian Americans (13), African Americans (22), South Asian Americans (48), Amerindians (48), and Swedish (92), Finnish (13), Italian (91), Portuguese (3), southern France (1), and Spanish participants (82) were included in this study. None of the individuals were first-degree relatives of other participants in the study. These populations were based on self-identified ethnic affiliation. The European Americans, African Americans, and East Asian Americans were recruited from across the United States, and the majority of the participants, including all of the European Americans, were RA probands identified as part of the North American Rheumatoid Arthritis Consortium (NARAC) as previously described [61]. The South Asian American participants were recruited from Houston, Texas, and Amerindian participants were self-identified as Mayan (Kachiquel language group) and were recruited in Chimaltenango, Guatemala, as previously described [11]. The Italian participants were normal healthy volunteers recruited from throughout Italy: 38 from northern Italy, 23 from central Italy, and 30 from southern Italy. The Swedish and Finnish participants were healthy normal controls collected in these countries. The other participants recruited in southwestern Europe included 86 from Spain, three from Portugal, and one from southern France. Of the Spanish participants, there were 43 from northern Spain, 12 from central Spain, and 19 from southern Spain. Of these participants from Spain and Portugal, 61 were probands for a multiple sclerosis study. Blood cell samples were obtained from all individuals, according to protocols and informed-consent procedures approved by institutional review boards, and were labeled with an anonymous code number linked only to demographic information. For the European Americans, grandparental information was available for the majority of the participants. These included the following self-identifier classifications of grandparents: western European (United Kingdom, northern France, Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland), eastern European (Russia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Czech Republic), central European (Germany, Austria, and Hungary), southern European (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and southern France), Scandinavian (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland), and eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, and Albania), Sephardic Jewish American, and White French Canadian. All participants with any reported mixed-continental origins (e.g., African) were excluded. Populations studied: Second sample set. This sample set included 1,164 self-identified European American participants that were recruited as part of the New York Cancer Project, a prospective longitudinal study [33]. For a substantial portion of this set, European country of origin was available as was a record of the four-grandparental country of origin. Jewish ancestry was indicated for a subset of these participants, but specific information for each grandparent was not available for this aspect of the study. Populations studied: Third sample set.This sample set included 40 participants of Jewish ancestry who are part of a larger Ashkenazi Jewish control population recruited by Dr. Ann E. Pulver (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine). Both the country of origin and the Jewish ethnic information for each grandparent were available for each participant. The participants included 38 individuals with four grandparents identified as Ashkenazi Jewish and two with Sephardic Jewish grandparents. In addition, 19 non-Jewish participants of eastern European ancestry were specifically recruited for the current study, based on self-reported information on the origin and ethnicity of all four grandparents.

I wonder how a big mistake like this got past the reviewers? Alun 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've just noticed it is the second sample set, they do not give the composition of the population here, but they do state For a substantial portion of this set, European country of origin was available as was a record of the four-grandparental country of origin. So I think that is cleared up.

I think there are several important points to make here.

1. Wikipedia does not publish original thought. The papers describing the SNP data are not intended, nor are studies designed, to infer ancestry. These papers do not address the origins of the populations mentioned. These are involved in biomedical research, they are looking for structure within populations. Indeed the Seldin paper makes no claims whatsoever regarding the oigins of populations, it has a somewhat vague reference to neolithic contributions to southern Europe. We cannot make reference to what we think the papers imply, only to what the papers own conclusions are.
2. We would not necessarily expect to see a strong specific correlation between Iberian people and Irish people per se, even if we accept that the Irish/British population is descended primarily from a south western Ice Age refuge. We need to put it into perspective. If we assume that there were indeed three refugia, we must assume that the populations of these were only seperated from each other for about 10,000 years (say 23,000 ya to about 13,000 ya), and we do not know the degree of population exchange between these refugia during this time, were they completely independent? So this is a relatively short period of time, certainly not enough for major changes to be discernable between the various populations. We see the difference in Y-chromosome (and indeed in mtDNA) data simply because these markers are more prone to suffer from bottleneck and genetic drift. They exagerate the difference, but if they didn't we would not be able to detect it at all.
3. The north south structure seen by Seldin, Dupanloup and Bauchet may due to a larger neolithic component in the south of Europe relative to the north of Europe. If we assume that this is the case, then we would certainly expect to se a big difference between south and north. Let's look at it logically. The paleolithic population of Europe was probably very homogeneous during the mesolithic, probably being descended in totality (or at least in the main) from a small(ish) founding population about 40,000 years ago. If we assume that the European population was relatively genetically homogeneous during the mesolithic, then their average TMRCA is recent, then we get an influx of farmers from the near east during the neolithic, these new people are introducing genes for which the average TMRCA is at least 30,000 years before. That is, we get a new admixed mediteranian population, but it has a much older average TMRCA because it now contains European paleolithic genes (recent TMRCA) and Near Eastern neolithic genes (old TMRCA). Actually what probably happens is we get an admixed population all over Europe, but in the south we get a >50% Near Eastern component and in the north we get a <50% Near Eastern component. This may all be speculation, but this is a well know model for the observed genetic diversity in Europe. It is not inconsistent with a western Ice Age refuge source for the people of the British Isles.
4. The papers using the SNP data are not designed to produce usable data here, they are not intended to suggest ancient population movements or relationships. the Dupanloup paper produces similar results and is more applicable to the article. The analysis of the 10,000 SNP data is arse-backwards, in order for it to produce meaningfull results for the sort of article we have here, the data need to be manipulated differently. Instead of looking for structure in populations, they should be looking for structure in the distribution of the SNPs. For example they should identify several sets of SNPs:
   1. The set of SNPs that occurs only in Europe.
   2. The set of SNPs that occurs only in northern Europe.
   3. The set of SNPs that occurs only in southern Europe.
   4. The set of SNPs that occurs in the Near East and in Europe.

If the geographical distribution of these SNPs were plotted on a map, they might reveal something about migrations and relationships between peoples. I would bet good money (and I am not a betting man) that their results would be similar to Dupalon's. That is I suspect that they would find that the real difference between north and south Europe is the neolithic expansion. These data could then be used to model certain hypotheses. Unfortunately at the moment researchers seem to be more interested in finding genetic differences between so called "populations" (that is they seem to be obsessed with "race"), rather than actually doing anything uselfull with the data.

1. I see no problem with the Atlantic connection, this is an archaeological observation, some genetic data support it, if it is invisible using autosomal data it does not mean that it is not real. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as they say. I would not necessarily expect to see it, Iberia has a very different recent history to Great Britain and Ireland, a large part of it was in the Caliphate for 800 years for a start!!!! If the paper explicitly discusses this point, and says that they believe their data invalidate or contradict the theory, then we can include it in the article. If the paper makes no mention of this, then that would be equivalent to including original research. Wikipedia does not publish original research, or the opinions of it's editors. It only publishes the opinions and research of published reliable sources.
2. It is certasinly true that we should not present any research as if it is conclusive. We need to somewhat discuss the inadequacies of Y-chromosome and mtDNA data. Y chromosomes are usefull, but they more prone to serious distortion than say mtDNA. This probably has something to do with reproductively successful men having the ability to leave hundreds of coppies of their Y chromosomes behind, whereas even the most successful woman in unlikely to have left more than say ten copies. It's worth mentioning that the rate of loss of Y chromosome lineages is rather high, so that modern Y chromosomes probably represent a significantly distorted sample of our continental ancestry. We are probably a lot more diverse than they would imply. Alun 13:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

All points of view are interesting, but I see two big problems with these data:

1. I think we all know that autosomal DNA is no match for Y-chromosome and Mtda DNA to track ancestry. That is the simple reason why the leading genetic population anthropologists discussed here do not even make use of it.

2. The populations discussed in the paper are Americans! Who on earth here believes that Americans are now "pure" English, Irish, or whatever.

3. Sorry but I have to add. The sample size is ridiculous. 74 Spaniards ad 3 Portuguese! The books discussed here used thousands of samples. Sykes 10.000 only of his own. The article below also a couple of thousands.

The last thing that we had to see here is to speak about the genetic structure of Europeans taking American samples!

Americans are Americans, and they have been interbreeding with one another for generations in one of the most diverse societies in the world, it does not matter how they self-identify or whether they like to call themselves this or that because they have a dear memory of this or that ancestor.

If we want to speak of British people we need British samples. That is easy to understand.

Here you have an article with European samples that speaks of Europeans, not hyphenated Americans that are supposed to be Europeans of this or that "pure ancestry".

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

IberiaP is Portugal and IberiaS Spain. Compare to the other areas in the Atlantic facade of Europe, including the British Isles.

And this article takes into account Y-Chrom, Mtdna and also autosomal and more loci.

Still my personal opinion is also that something must be missing here. I still cannot believe that, let us say, Irish or even English people are genetically closer to an Iberian than a Greek. There must be some stronger Mediterranean connection and some stronger central or Northern European connection. Still, the mainstream opinions are being published by experts in books that deal with the issues at length, experts that have taken into account many possibilities. Maybe they are missing something, but I am afraid, and I am tired of seeing this in these types of articles, that some people want to play here the expert, take one article here and another there, draw their own conclusions, and write their own mini-book and publish it in Wiki. Veritas et Severitas 23:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Veritas et Severitas 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Alun, just a last question, since I know that your knowledge of genetics is great and without any doubt greater than mine: Why do you think that the Near Eastern and North African elements are so low in Spain (IberiaS) according to this article, in comparison not only to Eastern and Southern Europe, but also even to Central and Northern Europe? As you know this piece of research does not only take into account Y and MT DNA, but also autosomal and other loci:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

It keeps me scratching my head and it seems to correlate also to the Macdonald hapmap. In the Hapmap they seem a bit higher though, but still too small:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

Also, as you know, the Romans occupied Britain for about 400 years. These authors also state that they have identified very little Roman DNA. What do you think of that? I have to admit that one of the biggest doubts that I have is when I confront recorded history with all these results.

Also, what do you think of this study taking into account 10.000 loci, if I read well:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_Ish7688voT0/RcuktisjfVI/AAAAAAAAAAk/szDKFqYapMs/s1600-h/structure.jpg

This type of studies seem very broad to me. In fact I cannot see much difference going all the way down between North Africans and Fins, going through most Europeans.

I hope it was not too many questions. Cheers.

Veritas et Severitas 04:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why do you think that the Near Eastern and North African elements are so low in Spain (IberiaS) according to this article?

I try not ot have firm "convictions" about things, it's good to keep an open mind. Of course we all have our favourite theories and hypothesies, the trick is to try not to give undue weight to our favourites. This result could simply be true. It may be true that there has been little gene flow between the current populations of Spain and North Africa. The important proviso is current populations. If we couls sample the populations of these regions at the time they were both part of the Roman Empire we might get different results. Alternatively maybe there is a problem with sampling, possibly historical events caused a difference in population structure. I'm thinking of the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquisition. Maybe the use of mtDNA and Y chromosomes have distorted the data, these markers may well distort the overall picture, even if it is true that they represent very real lineages, they may not be representative of all lineages. Alun 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• they have identified very little Roman DNA

I don't know how easy it would be to identify "Roman" DNA. I don't know enough about it. The garrisons may have been very genetically similar to the indigenous population. I would make this observation, even if there were a lot of Roman garrison soldiers all having it off with native British women and spreading their Y chromosomes around liberally, it may well be that these Y chromosomes have been swamped by indigenous ones, the relatively small population of "Roman" Y chromosome lineages could easily have been lost through natural causes, they would have been more subject to genetic drift. This is one reason why the analysis of the autosomal DNA is so poor, there is no reason, given the amount of SNPs available for this sort of study, (1.42 million in 2001 [7]) that they cannot start to look for clusters of SNPs associated with specific geographical regions (rather than clusters associated with human "populations"). Alun 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• This type of studies seem very broad to me.

Yes they are, they don't really have a great deal to say, they do not contradict the Y chromosome data, and they do not really tell us very much about population movements or origins. They are really for biomedical research, at the moment lots of so called "researchers" think it's important to see if there are differences between "populations" (an euphamism for "race") for so called medical reasons. I would think that they would discover more to the advantage of humanity if they concentrated on the similarities between humans, that is, what actually makes us all human. But there you are, North American society seems always to have been obsessed with "race", I didn't know this untill recently, and it has come as a shock to me. Alun 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have to admit that one of the biggest doubts that I have is when I confront recorded history with all these results.

I think things will get clearer. It's still early days, theories and techniques will imporve and be modified. There's a lot out genetics can still tell us, and there will be a lot of shocks still in store for us I'm sure. Possibly the Atlantic genetic connection will not stand the test of time, who can say? Does it matter? We have good evidence that the Atlantic connection is real from an archaeological point of view, even if it was mor socio-cultural rather than biological. One thin I do know, all theories still have to explain all of the genetic data, these data just need to be interpreted correctly. Alun 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that someone above thought I wanted to put stuff in the Wikipedia article that isn't suggested by the authors, but that is not the case. I would include (in the "Population Genetics" section) only actual data and actual conclusions, such as:

• that Seldin (2006) found "a consistent and reproducible distinction between “northern” and “southern” European population groups," with people of Irish origin (i.e., 4 Irish grandparents) showing 97% membership in the northern group. The Spanish/Portuguese, Italians and Greeks fell predominantly into the southern group.
• Bauchet (2007) found that "despite their insular origin, Irish [from Ireland] and English [from England] individuals cluster with the continental Germans and Poles."
• when the Bauchet group sorted the European individuals into three groups instead of two, they found that "the major divisions correspond to the Northern, Southeastern and Iberian [including Basque] populations." The English and Irish fell mostly into the Northern group (fig. 2b at K=3).

To Alun and the two Spaniards: Is it your position that the Bauchet and Seldin research shouldn't even be mentioned, even in the "Population Genetics" section? Do you think that the readers of this article would have no interest in knowing how the British and Irish compare to other Europeans in terms of overall allele frequencies? Is population structure is unrelated to population history? What do Bauchet's "axes of ancestry" measure, if not...ancestry?

Seldin's university's press release about his study said,

"In addition to future medical applications, the data are also of interest to anthropologists who study historical human migrations... These groups correspond to those historically divided by the Pyrenees and Alps mountain ranges."

So I think the new research should be mentioned, but I don't expect to be involved much more with either this article or this discussion in the near future, as the surely the inevitable "edit wars" and other unpleasantries will be largely a waste of time considering the rather incomplete state of research at this point. Maybe in a year or so, when more data are in. Cheers. --Opie 05:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• someone above thought I wanted to put stuff in the Wikipedia article that isn't suggested by the authors,

Suggested by the authors? What does that mean? This is exactly what you should not do. You should state what the authors state, not what you think they suggest. What the authors suggest to you may be different to what they suggest to others. Stick to their specific conclusions. Alun 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• that Seldin (2006) found "a consistent and reproducible distinction between “northern” and “southern” European population groups," with people of Irish origin (i.e., 4 Irish grandparents) showing 97% membership in the northern group. The Spanish/Portuguese, Italians and Greeks fell predominantly into the southern group....In addition to future medical applications, the data are also of interest to anthropologists who study historical human migrations... These groups correspond to those historically divided by the Pyrenees and Alps mountain ranges."

But what are their conclusions regarding population migrations? As far as I can see this paper makes no claims regarding the origins of the Irish, nor of the settlement of Ireland, isn't that what this article is about? It seems a bit disingeneous to make statements in their results section without addressing them in their discussion. Clearly they see this as a neolithic event, as they specifically discuss the neolithic, this is in agreement with Dupanloup et al. I don't see your point, as I said before several times, these results do not contradict any other results. If they show anything important, it is that the wave of diffusion theory is alive and well. Autosomal markers have been indicating a large neolithic expansion for well over 10 years, mtDNA and Y chromosome markers give a different story. These reaults are not mutually incompatible, neither do they dramatically change our understanding of European population history, these data simply support something that was postulated as long ago as the early 1990s. Alun 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bauchet (2007) found that "despite their insular origin, Irish [from Ireland] and English [from England] individuals cluster with the continental Germans and Poles."
• when the Bauchet group sorted the European individuals into three groups instead of two, they found that "the major divisions correspond to the Northern, Southeastern and Iberian [including Basque] populations." The English and Irish fell mostly into the Northern group (fig. 2b at K=3).

Again you give results and not conclusions. I fail to see the relevance if the authors do not specifically address the subject of this article. I cannot help but feel that to include information from the results section of a research paper without giving the actual discussion that the researchers themselves give, is original research. We say what the authors of the study say, we do not simply reproduce their results, we are not in the business of simply providing results from research papers without providing context. I would suggest that you provide material from the discussion section of the paper to support it's inclusion here. If the paper does not make any reference to the settlement of Great Britain and Ireland or Europe, then what is there to include? Alun 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• To Alun and the two Spaniards: Is it your position that the Bauchet and Seldin research shouldn't even be mentioned, even in the "Population Genetics" section?

Certainly this is not my position, but we mention what is relevant, we include their conclusions regarding the settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Who are the "two Spaniards"? I don't know if we have any Spanish people here, possibly we have one, so what? Is it important to you to proclaim this? Alun 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think that the readers of this article would have no interest in knowing how the British and Irish compare to other Europeans in terms of overall allele frequencies? Is population structure is unrelated to population history? What do Bauchet's "axes of ancestry" measure, if not...ancestry?

Depends how relevant they are to settlement. We are concerned with settlement here, not with how closely or otherwise different populations are to each other. Bauchet's "axes of ancestry" probably measure how similar different population are to each other, but I have dealt with this observation above. Either you have not read it, or have not understood it, or have ignored it because you cannot accept that this observation does not necessarily support the conclusion that southern and northern Europeans have different origins. I note that neither publication makes the clam that southern and northern Europeans derive from different populations. Alun 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You also seem to be under the impression that these papers somehow "disprove" something about the paleolithic Europe. None of these papers are relevant to the paleolithic as far as I can see. I can find no evidence that southern Europeans are derived from different source populations to northern Europeans, the only difference is that southern Europeans seem to have a majority neolithic ancestry, but with a minority paleolithic ancestry, whereas northern Europeans seem to have a majority paleolithic ancestry, with only a minority neolithic ancestry. This is not new and does not indicate different origins for the two populations. Effectively all Europe has an admixed population, with a cline of admixture running south-east/north-west. Alun 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

About Opie's comments: The two Spaniards? both Sykes and Oppenheimer are Britons and most of this research is being carried out in Britain, they address the issue of the Origins of Britons directly and have taken British samples. They are not Americans, who have taken American samples and who do not address the issue of the origins of Britons directly. Still I agree that more information is to come in the future. In fact Professor Sykes, states at the end of his book:

Page 283.

Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantic chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes. The sea routes of the atlantic fringe conveyed both men and women to the Isles.

He seems convinced, but he of course may be wrong and also Oppenheimer. We will see if other population anthropologists address the issue directly and make such clear and direct statements as Sykes and Oppenheimer in the time to come. I would also like to see if other experts (population geneticists or anthropologists) refute said authors. As to the studies that you mention, they do not say anything about the Origins of the British and they are pretty confusing. It is the first time that I see populations form Eastern and Western Europe clustering so closely together: Ukranians, Poles, Irish, etc. Well, I say again, in fact the samples are not from Europe, they are from Americans who say that they are pure representatives of those populations (Knowing the US and the way they handle ancestry I have my doubts) But who knows? It may also be correct. My personal opinion is that genetic connections probably shoot out in all directions. But I am not allowed to publish my own theories here. We will see what more interesting things come in the near future addressing this issue directly. Veritas et Severitas 19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bauchet's paper

Having finally had a look at Bauchet's paper, Í find that Opie has significantly misrepresented it. Indeed the second author is Brian McEvoy, who is main author of the paper The Longue Durée of Genetic Ancestry: Multiple Genetic Marker Systems and Celtic Origins on the Atlantic Facade of Europe, a paper that supports the Atlantic connection. Indeed Bauchet cites this paper and specifically states that their results support the findings of McEvoy's mtDNA paper. Indeed Bauchet states that their work supports the results of Y chromosome and mtDNA papers, they also stste that their results support the demic diffusion model for neolithic expansion, rather than the cultural diffusion model. I wonder now if Opie has actually read the Bauchet paper at all. Alun 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Levy-Coffman

I've been waiting for this one, though it's apparently been available for some time. She has alot to say regarding the Basques:

We Are Not Our Ancestors

In PDF

71.178.53.70 21:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

____________

Has no one anything to say about this article? It appears to show that there really does exist a party of geneticists who don't agree with the most fundamental premise of the "mainstream" view of the genetic history of the Atlantic facade. They appear to strongly contest whether the Basques are actually what others claim them to be.

Mention of this should certainly be made in the article. 71.178.53.16 13:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a good paper, I haven't had time to read it all, there's nothing here that is not mentioned by other authors. It is incorrect to claim that geneticists that study mtDNA and Y chromosomes are unaware that these markers suffer from genetic drift, for example in both Oppenheimer's and Sykes's books they stress the importance of being aware that lineages become extinct. This should clearly be mentioned, but it should also be born in mind that these represent real lineages derived from real ancestors. If a person from Wales has a Y chromosome haplotype associated with Iberia, then they must share an ancestor with people from Iberia that have the same haplotype. What is less certain is that just because say 85% of modern Irish Y chromosomes appear to be of Iberian origin, that it automatically follows that the same proportion of male founders were of Iberian origin. It means that the proportion of non-Iberian genes in Ireland may be very much underestimated. The important thing is to give accurate and non biased information. Alun 19:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

--- Well said. But at the same time, this opposition is probably setting the stage for what we should expect to see soon, that being the claim that Iberia may have been a refuge, but not for R1b, which may have come during the Neolithic. The Basques, perhaps Hg I to begin with, would then have acquired R1b matrilocally.

Naturally, the article should not include any such claims until they've actually been made. 71.178.53.16 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I am sure there will be surprises in stall for all of us in the future!!!! Alun 06:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Another User

This user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.13.98.41

Look at his arbitrary contributions in this article (which I reverted) and then his contribution in the Race and Intelligence article. He is also around in many other articles. See one sample of his contributions:

"It should also be noted that many critics point out that "whites" brains (containing neurons) are the actual largest, even when adjusted to body size/brain ratio.And white's originated in N.Western Russia and Finland (which was the coldest and harshist climate in the last ice age, and also currently).Forcing them to develope ways to build shelter and traps for game more than any other race (essentially using and needing more brain to do so)"

This is the constant pattern that I find over and over again in these genetic or race related articles. I am fed up. I leave you here with this pest of Nazis that are infesting Wiki. It is impossible to work seriously in these articles with people of this ilk. Goodbye and good luck. Veritas et Severitas 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

---

He may or may not be a problem, but this is not the place to discuss Race and Intelligence. Furthermore, you shouldn't yourself be making reverts so unnecessarily, as I observed in Basques, where you replaced my correct language, from a very minor edit, with the original misleading language, and even went so far as to add the Black Irish nonsense again, which very much needed to be removed.

I'll also add that you haven't contributed enough to this discussion, or yet demonstrated any particular expertise. And since Alun now has (much to my surprise), this brings your role into question - What exactly are you doing here?

71.178.53.70 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If I added it back it was a mistake. I am tired of correcting crap here and there. What am I doing here? Who do you think I am? Who do you think you are? I will tell you, from your comments "that person maybe or not a problem" you are another of his ilk. But as said. Good luck. Never in my entire life have I sat at the same table with disgusting Nazis, and for some time I have the feeling that that is what I am doing in these articles all the time. These places are becoming what everyone can see. I will let some people bury their head in sand, because mainstream genetic anthropology is going in one clear direction and no ignorant Nazi Nordicist can change that. So, I leave you people alone with these petty articles where some people here think they can bury their head in sand and pretend that other people do not see their fat asses sticking out. This is my last word here. Goodbye and good luck to good-faith editors. Veritas.

Requested move (2007)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move.--Húsönd 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland → Settlement_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland — Title is inaccurate —Nebulousity 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I'm proposing this move because the title is somewhat inaccurate, as this article deals with with both prehistoric and historic migration/settlement.

• Support (qualified) for the reasons given by Nebulousity. However the new title implies that it deals with settlement only since these countries came into existence which in the case of Great Britain was a mere three centuries ago. The title I'd prefer is Settlement in the British Isles but I know that that name, even though correct, would probably raise a few hackles. --Bill Reid | Talk 16:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support the general idea: prehistoric should go. As for the exact name and scope, perhaps leave Ireland out? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well, the article covers Ireland as well so I think that should be left in. (RexImperium 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
• Oppose Surely it would be simpler to trim the article, moving "Roman Empire" and the two following sections out of here? If it is moved, I would suggest Ancient settlements..; the British Isles are still being settled, as DeFoe would point out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• How is ancient an improvement on prehistoric? The Viking age is only ancient history in the colloquial sense. If limited to prehistoric/ancient matters only, this would simply be an article about wandering mtDNA and R1b haplotypes. Not a good thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • From my point of view, "ancient" ends with the aftermath of the Roman Empire. Why are we discussing the Vikings (and not, say, the Huguenots) in this article anyway? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Because the article is discussing those groups who made a significant change in the genetic footprint of the peoples of these islands. --Bill Reid | Talk 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support apart from being shorter, the proposed solution solves some problematic sections.--Aldux 12:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Yes, but its like having an article dealing with the waves of Asian migration into the American continent during the last ice age and calling it Settlement in the United States and Canada when it should have been Settlement in North America. --Bill Reid | Talk 15:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support but can't we come up with some acceptable generic way to refer to the whole of the islands? Perhaps "Settlement of Britannia" or "Settlement of Insular Western Europe"? ;-)--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Aye, the term already exists and that's the British Isles but for some it isn't pc. Maybe Settlement in the Brito Irish archepelago? Too contrived perhaps? --Bill Reid | Talk 09:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Insular Western Europe would include Sardinia, which I hope is OT here; something ought to be...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In fact this article was conceived as genetics of the UK and Ireland. Some people changed it becasue they do not like to call it what it was, an article about genetics. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

The genetics section states that, on average, 80% of the British Isle population genes are from Paleolothic (hunter-gatherer) natives, whilst the rest is from neolithic "farmers". Assuming that this remaining 20% refers to haplogroup R1a, then wouldn;t we need to make some kind of a side-point that some theories connect this with the spread of Indo-European langueges, rather than farming. Hxseek 14:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Related article for review

Can editors of this page take a look at Lamhfionn. I see enough online sourcing to be certain that this pre-historic leader is named in various accounts, but I don't know reliable sources on the topic. Thanks. GRBerry 02:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

SNP markers and Non ancestral/sex markers are IRRELEVANT to population ancestry

those snp and genome wide marker tests are irrelevant.

Those genes can change over time and dont leave any history behind in a population.

They only tell us who is related to who, they dont tell us where we come from.

If we only looked at those genes, we would never be able to deduce that all human beings came from africa.

we all came from somewhere else, some populations aqquire genes from neghibouring populations, mainly through natural selection after those genes enter the population, but both populations still come from seperate origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.195.149 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but somepeople here do not care atall aobut the seriousness of this article. That is why this article is a mess. Only the Y chromosome and mitocondrial DNA are valid for ancestry. Anyone who does not know that basic thing should not even participate in this article. But this is Wiki, the place where ignorace becomes an author. Chole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)