This, I think, reaches pretty much the same conclusions as this, though the dates for original colonisation have moved back from 7000 to 16000 years:

Britain and Ireland are so thoroughly divided in their histories that there is no single word to refer to the inhabitants of both islands. Historians teach that they are mostly descended from different peoples: the Irish from the Celts and the English from the Anglo-Saxons who invaded from northern Europe and drove the Celts to the country’s western and northern fringes.

But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans. The implication that the Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh have a great deal in common with each other, at least from the geneticist’s point of view, seems likely to please no one. The genetic evidence is still under development, however, and because only very rough dates can be derived from it, it is hard to weave evidence from DNA, archaeology, history and linguistics into a coherent picture of British and Irish origins.

That has not stopped the attempt. Stephen Oppenheimer, a medical geneticist at the University of Oxford, says the historians’ account is wrong in almost every detail. In Dr. Oppenheimer’s reconstruction of events, the principal ancestors of today’s British and Irish populations arrived from Spain about 16,000 years ago, speaking a language related to Basque.

The British Isles were unpopulated then, wiped clean of people by glaciers that had smothered northern Europe for about 4,000 years and forced the former inhabitants into southern refuges in Spain and Italy. When the climate warmed and the glaciers retreated, people moved back north. The new arrivals in the British Isles would have found an empty territory, which they could have reached just by walking along the Atlantic coastline, since the English Channel and the Irish Sea were still land.

This new population, who lived by hunting and gathering, survived a sharp cold spell called the Younger Dryas that lasted from 12,300 to 11,000 years ago. Much later, some 6,000 years ago, agriculture finally reached the British Isles from its birthplace in the Near East. Agriculture may have been introduced by people speaking Celtic, in Dr. Oppenheimer’s view. Although the Celtic immigrants may have been few in number, they spread their farming techniques and their language throughout Ireland and the western coast of Britain. Later immigrants arrived from northern Europe had more influence on the eastern and southern coasts. They too spread their language, a branch of German, but these invaders’ numbers were also small compared with the local population.

In all, about three-quarters of the ancestors of today’s British and Irish populations arrived between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, when rising sea levels split Britain and Ireland from the Continent and from each other, Dr. Oppenheimer calculates in a new book, “The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story”

Posted in

9 responses to “The United British Isles”

  1. Richard Dell Avatar
    Richard Dell

    The Basques? Curious. Mapping of genetic markers has largely corresponded to the mapping of languages across Eurasia. Most European languages originally derive (I believe) from southern Asia. The Basque language is usually referred to as an “orphan language” – is has no descendents. This is one reason the Basques feel threatened by France and Spain and want an independent state to preserve their culture. So the finding that Brits may be descended from Basques runs counter to the migration of languages, giving a cause for scepticism.
    As for Invasions, there is evidence of conflict with the Vikings in the eight century, but none for the earlier “invasions” by Angles and Saxons, suggesting that these were gradual and peaceful migrations. The one that dramatically changed Britain, its language and governance was of course the Norman invasion.

    Like

  2. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    1) “Most European languages originally derive (I believe) from southern Asia.” Pretty unlikely, if you mean the sub-Continent. Recent guesses about where the Indo-European languages come from seem largely to be either Anatolia, or the Southern Steppes, perhaps between the Black and Caspian Seas. But I’m an utter amateur, so will accept correction without too much affront.
    2) The bit that I find counter-intuitive is the notion that Neolithic people don’t have much measurable effect. But perhaps by the time it reached Britain, the Neolithic revolution was being spread by People Like Us, rather than People Like Syrians?

    Like

  3. Celtiberian Avatar
    Celtiberian

    There are a lot of misconceptions or false stereotypes almost for any european country: Some stupid racist french and english writters came to spain in the XIX century and began to propagate the false idea that we were of arab descent. Hopefully modern genetics have demonstrated how untrue this racist romantic vision of Spain was. In fact the conclusions are very similar to those that in your case apply: We spaniards are a mix of celto-iberians and sucessive invasions left a faint or very faint genetic imprint on us: Phoenitians, greeks, romans, germanic tribes, arabs, etc, none really changed our original paleolithic makeup. We spaniards are in fact very homogeneus and genetically very similar to the basque population. So genetics say that we spaniards only have a 3% contribution coming from northafricans in our genetic pool: Only 3% of spaniards could claim to have some northafrican ancestor between their tens of thousands of ancestors till the arab invasion of Spain. The Gibraltar strait acted like a strong genetic barrier but also there were other reasons that prevented interbreeding: Culture and religion and the fact that they were expelled by military forces all the way back to Africa . This means is time you british stopped relating us spaniards with northafricans. Just because we like getting tanned on summers or we have in fact a “darker looking” like basques, doesnt mean we descent from northafrican people!WE ARE THE FIRST EUROPEAN SETTLERS AND THE TRUE CELTS!

    Like

  4. Johnny 5 Avatar

    True Celts? Right. Since Celtic is a language group and not a genetic one, I don’t know what you mean. Don’t be ashamed because there some Arab blood in Spain. I have some Sicilian roots and don’t feel any shame regarding the two hundred years of Arab rule; take pride in your uniqueness. Also, since the British Isles consists mostly of R1b y haplogroup carriers, they probably have just as much right to call themselves “The first European settlers” as you do.

    Like

  5. Celtiberian Avatar
    Celtiberian

    As all modern genetic studies point to Spain as the origin of migrations to British isles I can very well say we spaniards are the first European settlers much more taking into account how close Africa is from Spain and the fact that Iberian first populations arrived from Africa on paleolithic times. So of course we spaniards are aboriginal europeans dating from paleotithic times.If we are not the first european settlers we are some of the first and of course we arrived before the british. No question about it as the isles were populated later than the continent for obvious reasons.
    And of course I agree with you that Celt is not a race. I surely never said that but how would you call those people speaking “Celt”?. Well surely I call them celts obviously. We all know latin contries dont belong to the same race but to a group of people speaking a language derived from latin and we still call them “latins” obviously too.
    So saying we spaniards are paleolithic aboriginal europeans and probably the true celts is not far from truth in my opinion on the light of new genetic discoveries.

    Like

  6. Celtiberian Avatar
    Celtiberian

    I can even tell you something more. Didnt you now that “pure” basques have on average a genuine darker look than the rest of spaniards?. Do you think it is related with “moors”?. Obviously not: just look they have 90% or RB1 haplotype.
    It is related to the fact that when you see a basque and a spaniard you are really to some extent looking at the face of the aboriginal paleolithic europeans. They had in fact a darker looking. That is the looking we spaniards have inherited.
    Ignorants driven by stereotypes about Spain (probably the most stereotyped country on planet earth) should have said this was a typical middle eastern or even “moorish”looking, like the vast majority of romantic writers from XIX century that came to Spain and nowadays like all that bunch of racist nordicist that in their retarded neanderthalic brain think that skin colour define race and that we southeuropeans are some sort of mongrelic race more related with Africa than with Europe.
    Go tell this neanderthalic relics that we spaniards are in fact aboriginal europeans and that british are mainly our descendants not the descendants of germanic tribes, although they speak a germanic language!

    Like

  7. Bsque by the grace of god Avatar
    Bsque by the grace of god

    basques a darker look than the rest of spaniards? hehe jealousy is a bitch…

    Like

  8. basques are of a holy bloodline Avatar
    basques are of a holy bloodline

    spanish people arent the real iberians or celts, the basques are..most celtiberians were driven out by the spanish..the basques moved up to hibernia(ireland) and the UK.Calling spanish people “celts” or “iberians” is a misnomer…they arent holy the basques and our blood brothers the catalans are.

    Like

Leave a reply to Bsque by the grace of god Cancel reply