At their peak, around 300BC, the influence of the Celts stretched from Ireland in the west to the south of Spain and across to Italy’s Po Valley, and probably extended to parts of Poland and Ukraine and the central plain of Turkey in the east. These mummies seem to suggest, however, that the Celts penetrated well into central Asia, nearly making it as far as Tibet.”From around 1800BC, the earliest mummies in the Tarim Basin were exclusively Caucausoid, or Europoid,” says Professor Victor Mair of Pennsylvania University

I truly believe there is a strong link between ireland (and the british isles in general) and (northern) spain, and that the base of both peoples is the same.
Some diferences may be explained by:

1) Nordic influences in ireland and mediterranean influences in spain.
2) Prevalence of stereotypes in people’s minds that don’t relate with reality.
3) As someone said above, a possible evolutive specialization of irish people that modified their eyes/skin colors to better support the new climatic conditions, although that doesn’t explain why many people in spain (like me) are pale, tall with blue eyes.

Although I have to say that actually, Galicia’s and Ireland’s climate is very similar, but in general there are more irish people with fair features than galician ones.

I must admit that I am no expert when it comes to historical or anthropological periods, such as the Younger Dryas, etc. that you refer to. This shows with Dan’s comment. But still, you argument doesn’t really make much sense.

It is indeed imperative that historical periods be examined in conjunction with all other evidence. But, looking at this matter from simply a genetic perspective, Western Europe (note that by this I am mainly speaking about Ireland, Iberia, the British Isles, and to a lesser extent western Continental Europe) shares similar DNA sequences and haplotypes - the Y-dna being R1b and mitoDNA being H. According to the scientific analysis that took place, and I hope is still taking place, in Trinity College Dublin and the explication of Brian McEvoy, Jim Bradley, Stephen Oppenheimer, and Bryan Sykes (I believe I have these names correct), Ireland and Iberia are indeed very similar in both of these factors (y and mito DNA). How? Well, both Iberia and Ireland have similar frequencies of R1b, with specific subclades differing by only a small amount of alleles. But, for a while, people were rightfully skeptical, and cited that the R1b similarity does not necessarily point to a shared heritage. Thus, McEvoy published an article where he took a sizable sampling size of mtDNA to prove that the maternal side also had a noticeable homogeniety. McEvoy concluded that all of western Europe (remember my definition) has a shared genetic heritage, with particular similarities between Iberia, Ireland, and western Britain. These findings have not sufficiently been debunked for me to doubt them.

However, the autosomal DNA results don’t quite corroborate all this, and here lies the relevancy of your argument: “To say that the Irish are not gentically related to Central European Celts is simply wrong.” In this case, Ireland and the like are actually genetically closer to central Europe. Even now, I find it difficult to account for this tentative finding. Perhaps, the discrepancy is due to centuries of separation from the refuge in central to northern Iberia. I think the most probable explanation is that, as McEvoy has mentioned, the maternal side of those on the Atlantic Facade is actually less centrally located in Iberia. Rather, mtDNA is appreciably less homogeneous than the y-DNA and is rather sporatic, which may account for this somewhat slight autosomal divergence. Your assertion, “So, if the Irish are really Basque, then why is their dna not identical to the Basque?,” I have to say, is utterly ridiculous. No DNA is IDENTICAL, unless twins are involved. It is however undeniable that there is great SIMILARITY in DNA in these areas. Meanwhile, there is greater contrast, as these experts say, among central European DNA and western European DNA.

And as for the Basques, I don’t know if you’ve heard, but being one of the oldest remnants of the R1b line, they are actually anomalies, and therefore are different quantitatively from EVERYONE else.

With respect to cultural similarities, I’d rather not champion Barry Cunliffe’s Long Duree theory, though I personally agree with it, because culture is so subjective. Still, based on my perceptions, I would agree that western Europe shares an Atlantic-based heritage and are thus very similar in culture. You argue against this with no reasoning. Central to northern Iberia is actually quite similar to Ireland, in terms of music and even customs.

Therefore, the Proto-Indoeuropean language was spoken before the Last Glacial Maximum and the isolation of populations into respective refugia was the cauldron which produced the foundation of many of the languages which formed the western branch of the Indo-european languages.

To say that the Irish are not gentically related to Central European Celts is simply wrong. They are. In fact it appears that Ireland has the group of R1b1c from which is the oldest surviving example of those mesolithic hunter groups which ventured out of the Iberian refuge, and Central European Celtic dna markers are “downstream” so to speak from Irish and Iberian R1b1c types. So, if the Irish are really Basque, then why is their dna not identical to the Basque? The Basque never left the Younger-Dryas refuge, and may have been there prior to the Last Glacial Maximum. The Celtic speakers did and settled Britain and Ireland. Other R1b1c types, such as the Frisians, appear to have been “Germanized” by contact in northern Europe with haplotype U in Scandinavia as evidenced by the existence of R1b in Norway and other countries. The criticism that the Irish and other British are really Basque does not account for the profound difference in religion and custom. The Irish were profoundly Indo-European in religion and custom, with some religious practices very similar to those found in the Sanskrit Vedas. Pre-christian Basque religion, in contradistinction, is hardly similar to the Vedas.

It is possible the painters of the Cro-Magnon cave paintings in the Aurignacian age were Basque speakers. It is also likely they were Proto-Indoeuropean speakers who spoke a Proto-Celtic-Italic. The Celts and the Basque developed close to each other in the Iberian refuge, but they were still distinct populations. The Basque then as now preferred the mountains; that served to keep the language and cultures different.

Homer’s Iliad was taken seriously enough by archaeologists to ignite the search for Troy. Why isn’t the oral history of our island considered as worthy ?

I still see my people clinging to the western edge of Europe. I am M343 and I know who I am.

Anna Chaimbeul

“and the sizably smaller number in Iberia and Wales that have red hair. In other words, I think the red hair mutation is a staple of the Celts from Central Europe, That would make the most sense.”

I think you are wrong about this one. Red hair is virtually or nearly absent among Iberians and it only originated in the British Isles during the Younger Dryas days that lasted from 12,300 to 11,000 years ago. Those people so-called Celts by virtue of their superior red hair color are actually mesolithic inhabitants of the British Isles.

You should read Myths of British ancestry by Stephen Oppenheimer again!

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817

I see your point, but actually, genetic evidence proves that both Iberia, Ireland, and the rest of the British are not in fact Celts, for the MOST PART. Now, you have to be very careful here. You might wonder what exactly does the word “Celt” mean (I know I have)?

First, and I mentioned this before, the term Celt refers to Celtic-speaking areas. Sometimes, and inappropriately so, it refers to a common Celtic culture or heritage.

The only way these areas (Iberia, Ireland, and the rest of the British Isles) are Celtic is that they speak Celtic languages, and Barry Cunliffe, a respected linguist, even points out that Celtic and its Goidelic cousins are more related to Italic (he calls it the Italo-Celtic relation or something) than its supposedly close relative Brythonic. But that’s pretty much it. The people, and genetics confirms this, of Ireland and Iberia in particular are NOT related to the true Celts of central France and east Germany (this is the established Celtic homeland). Look for the work done out of Trinity University if you don’t believe it. One of the authors McEvoy has even published it in the Journal of Medicine, although its available on the internet. What confuses some is that the genetic evidence still gets the term Celtic muddled, so that even though it explicitly states the areas are not related to Central Europe, some still interpret these areas as Celts, just not the “Continental Celts.” But, don’t be fooled, as Bryan Sykes states, by Celtic he means the people who migrated from Iberia to Ireland and so on.

In terms of culture, these areas, as well as, most of west-central Europe was influenced the Celtic homeland of France and Germany, but in ANCIENT TIMES (i.e. thousands of years B.C.). Over the centuries, they have absolutely lost that Celtic culture, which was limited in the first place. After all, very little Celtic artifacts are found in Ireland and Iberia, and even in Britain (see Barry Cunliffe). Simon James has also pointed out that Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, and Galicia have only started referring to themselves as “Celts” since the 18th or 17th century. It was only because Edward Lluyd devised a way to distance these areas from their enemy England, that the whole fervent Celtomania movement has erupted. The fact that no one wanted to define themselves as Celtic before the 18th century suggests the even culturally, these nations are hardly “Celtic.” Looking at the issue another way, what about these areas is actually, truly “Celtic” (remember when I say Celtic, I refer to the “true Celts” of ancient France and Germany and their nearby descendants)? With exception to some artwork and other trading resources done along the Atlantic in ancient times, Celtic culture is not to be found, especially, ironically enough, in Ireland and Iberia (see Cunliffe).

So, in conclusion, Ireland, Iberia, and the rest of the British Isles are largely NOT Celtic. They are mostly not Celtic genetically (especially Ireland and Iberia), culturally (as evidenced by the lack of material resources that point to direct Celtic influence and the fact that no one had allegiance to being Celtic until the 18th century when everyone superficially recognized themselves and others as Celtic), and archaelogically (some places do have strong Celtic influences, like East England I believe, but places like Ireland and Iberia have precious few Celtic artifacts).

What frustrates me is that people are taking Sykes’ and Oppenheimer’s conclusion that Ireland, in particular, is closest genetically to Iberia for granted. It seems to me that the people reading about all these developments from the British Isles and Ireland will not immediately think, “hey, I guess that sort of makes me a Spaniard,” but rather, “hey, us guys from the British Isles are not so different from one another” and additionally “I guess that makes those (Scotsmen, or those Welshmen, or those Englishmen, or those Irishmen) our close cousins.”

That being said, I haven’t been able to decipher which nation(s) is genetically closer to which nation(s). In other word, is it the Irish that are closest to the people from Iberia. Or is it the Scots that are closest to the Irish, etc. That hasn’t quite been made clear yet.