(My comments and interpretation from pieces of reports: see Nature Today,
Daily Telegraph {London}, and reports by David Derbyshire; also research
reports by Trinity College, Dublin, and Leicester University, England: led
by Dr Daniel Bradley of Trinity College.
I am commenting from brief secondary reports, and have not seen the original
study report.)
Even though Celtic intrusion into Ireland is purported to date from c. 700
BCE, the area around Connacht, Ireland has the largest group/concentration
of Gaelic surnames (which only came in to standard use about 1 kya) they
represent as a group the strongest
percentile holding of this genetic relationship to the earlier ancestors.
(fueling their claims to be "the most Irish in the world"). It would seem
that the indicator is to a resilient connection to pre-Neolithic settlers.
This however, is measured in "degree" as "percentage" of an identified group
with the genetic indicator. It is similar to other studies which found a
rural English schoolteacher "related" to ancient remains in a nearby arch
site.
The group of genes (haplogroup 1) on the Y chromosomes, passed by
males..like the surnames: seems to illustrate a connection between the
resilient surnames and the degree of ancestry extending back as far as
40,000 years. (I am suggesting that the resilient surnames and y chromosome
link are simply two different indicators of relative insularity in this
particular area.) Research included 221 men from the
Connacht area, sorted into seven groups based on surname.
The researchers found that 98.8pc of men with Gaelic Connacht surnames
(Ruane), carried the group of genes. But the further east people came from
(indicated by surname), the lower the frequency of the genetic trait. It was
carried by just 62.5% of the English (Hill)surnames, 52.9% of the Scottish
surnames (Blair) and 83% of the Norman and Norse surnames (Fitzgerald).
I note with interest the two closest groups are the (Connacht/Irish: 98.8%)
with the (Norman/Norse: 83%). This apparent relationship
is to me, most significant historically, but was not the focus, apparently
of the study and reports. I suggest that one factor in the difference in
these two groups is related to natural homogeny of island over mainland
circumstances.
Also, regional variation from other insular groups carried similar
indicators: surnames apparently originating in Munster dropped only
to 94.6%. Ulster: 81.1. Leinster in the south east: 73.3
Reports and reporters however, suggest that the east-west pattern
continues across Europe. Basques are said to be 89 % (!!) affiliated, while
Turks: just 1.8.
Comments, anyone? More data?
(Minor harassing note for John: Observe that the Norse/Norman surname
variance was identical and they were therefore grouped together, as Y
indicators were not influenced by their PROTO-French Celtic wives on the
Continent :-)
La Revedere;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<
rexbo@...>