"A DNA study of Britons has shown that genetically there is not a unique Celtic group of people in the UK." - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31905764
(Full article at Nature (http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14230.epdf?referrer_access_token=77YPptwsDE3YmcqXQuqcTNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MiE0_B2kFTYAb64eH_EPxJeiJzg7Mfl6MEBC6p_EUzUhn20X4WGsMhORPh_wQWF0XWfuvis22UqrLNVuhlijqXTxOXx-26amOZUjUE9AICb_6Nw0oQxV-xs8GMPjlYpJwFNyGa7gRD7y8jFh7QlM7Q&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.co.uk), which I haven't yet read but looks worth studying.)
I'm not sure why anyone was "very surprised" and expected "this uniform Celtic fringe" in the light of all the "no such thing as the Celts" writing of recent decades.
I see Cumbria seems to have an identity all of its own. But we knew that, didn't we, Jim?
Edit: Another summary, not concentrating so much on the Celts, at http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry
This sort of thing is incredibly dangerous. the conclusions are very debatable. Fir example migration from Germany and the Netherlands has been easy for centuries before and after the Anglo Saxon conquest. Similarly the goods at Sutton Hoo might well indicate Scandinavian settlement before the Vikings.
Interesting as well from the Cumbrian point of view that the old three counties, Westmoreland is more Northumbrian, Furness is linked genetically to Lancashire (which it used to be part of) and Cumberland is distinct as well.
Jim
This particular study seems to be a promotional piece for a new-ish (2012+) SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) algorithmic method called 'fineSTRUCTURE'. In essence the numerous authors seem to be trying their hand at history with a method better suited for epidemiology.
Since the populations are based on 1885 DNA groupings (at least so the authors think, the selection method being people whose grandparents were born within 50 miles of their descendants' current locations) all this really tells us is that as of 1885 or so the alleles of stationary Celtic populations have lined up in conformity with their locations for the past 1,000+ years. One cannot conclude from this that Celts of a previous period were allelically or haploidally distinct in any meaningful way. Or if one can, I cannot see the basis for so doing.
Can anyone?
I was quite surprised to see W. Yorks having an identifiable difference. A portion of both sides of my family is from there.
My grandparents or even great grandparents wouldn't have been a good indicator for this. From what I have seen so far there was a good chunk of mobility within my family one or more generations before 1885 - some was fairly short range incl. Derbyshire and W Yorks to Manchester but there was also Norfolk to Manchester, Lancs and Herefordshire to Birmingham, and Suffolk to Kent. No wonder the red squares are so pervasive.
Quote from: Swampster on March 21, 2015, 10:05:29 AM
I was quite surprised to see W. Yorks having an identifiable difference.
Not really - if Yorkshire is "God's own county", West Yorks folks think themselves as real Yorkshire :)
And they would doubtless affirm:
Ba gum, the gaffer would be reet chuffed wi' tha gumption. That were reet gradley.
Or words to that effect ...
In a desperate attempt to fulfill our legal duty as churchwardens which is to know who is buried where in the churchyard (in our case a problem that stems from a lack of record keeping on the part of a clergyman in the 1960s and 70s)
So she's been tracing the family trees of the people buried there, which enables her to work out why certain names appear on the same tombstone as other names etc.
But that's by the by. Barrow in a new town, in 1830 it had a population of about 60, in 1845 a population of about 30,000. So we get people from all over. But interestingly enough once you go back to before 1850 you find that there were families that moved about the area, with Whitehaven a limit at one end and Lancaster at the other and Kendal in the middle.
In the 1850s we start getting a lot of 'immigration' including a considerable Cornish contingent. (You can actually link their arrival in Furness area to the closing of a mine in Cornwall.)
But also interesting is the fact that these people would casually move from Cornwall to Millom, to Belfast, to Whitehaven, to Chicago, to Canada (just across the border) and back to Barrow, just following work in the mines.
So our experience with this area is that if you can get back to before the railways, you probably can hit a reasonably settled population
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 21, 2015, 06:01:16 PM
So our experience with this area is that if you can get back to before the railways, you probably can hit a reasonably settled population
Jim
Good point. My wife does a lot of family geneology stuff and there is a surprising amount of moving around from the early 19th century, with impoverished labourers and artisans heading to cities to try to make their fortunes (or at least not starve).
Interesting, a survey in Glasgow recently showed something like 30% never live more than half a mile from their parents home.
I was told at school (so have never checked the source) that if you plot the distance between the birth places of a married couple, the largest increase coincides with the introduction of the bicycle :o
Jim
The bicycle sees the first great increase in distance between the domiciles of marriage partners, apparently the raiway is the next.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on March 21, 2015, 11:00:57 PMapparently the railway is the next.
And cheap air travel and immigration must be next?
My wife and I were born about 9000km apart.
Quote from: Mark G on March 21, 2015, 10:33:42 PM
Interesting, a survey in Glasgow recently showed something like 30% never live more than half a mile from their parents home.
Actually, my mother's family is a good example of this. With one outlier born in Ireland but returning to the ancestral patch, they live around a single street from 1840s to 1930s. A lot of my relatives still live within a couple of miles of it.
9000, practically neighbours.
Mine was 18000 'straight line' distance.
Accordingly to the internet, anyway.
Not enough has been provided in this article. What does "different" mean (in percentages or whatever)?
It is perhaps not surprising that those in distinct regional groups are "more different from each other than from the English group". Surely, the "English" group mingled with all of them, while they didn't mingle with each other so much? More importantly, do the apparent genetic differences between "celtic" groups indicate that these Celts were a cultural, rather than ethnic group? Maybe, but let's not forget that these same celts have a history stretching back to thousands of years before the invasion of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans. This is possibly enough time for regional genetic groups to form from the common root.
Maps of particular genetic markers would be much more useful in this respect and they should also include other significant areas at least (lands populated by continental celts and the invaders' previous homelands) as these are just as important in the story. If possible, these markers should be also traced back in time (as was done for the "Out of Africa" theory). Finally, some historical data would also be useful - remains of men from bogs, bones and such.
As it is, it looks like interesting, but it is only scratching the surface and far from conclusive.
I think that there is at least a theory that 'celtic' was a cultural thing rather than a genetic thing
Jim
Just so long as its not a football thing...