If anyone wants the full article emailed to them, I’m at wendy at iol dot ie.
The other two authors, not named in the article, are Martin Richards (Schools of Biology and Computing, University of Leeds) and Peter Forster (The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge).
The report has just been published in the October 2004 issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics.
Here’s the abstract of the report.
I’m gonna see if I can find a geneticist to mug, because there’s another report in that issue that I’m interested in.
Celtic is a linguistic group, not a genetic group. In so far as there is any resemblence between the linguistic divisions and the genetic divisions of mankind, they tend to be very sketchy and incomplete. The larger divisions particularly tend to be confused. If you look at some obscure language of New Guinea that’s only spoken by about a thousand people, there’s a good chance that the native speakers of that language will all be genetically close. If you look at all the native speakers of English, they won’t be remotely close. This article’s statements aren’t even interesting.
It looks like the Times has scooped everyone. Bradley has a number of papers out on related topics, but I’m not finding this particular study, yet.
Bradley’s earlier work is discussed in this article in the Irish Echo, with remarks that indicate the direction that Bradley’s research was taking him.
I saw that one and I meant to point it out to you… oops
It doesn’t matter to me either way…I still think Ireland is a beautiful country with a beautiful culture and can’t wait to visit (or maybe even live there) one day!