Celtic exploration of the Arctic Ocean and of the North Atlantic

When Pytheas of Massalia visited Scotland around 330 BC, its inhabitants (Picts or other Celts) informed him about a land in the north, that he later called Thule. That was most probably Iceland, implying that Celts had discovered Iceland long before Vikings.

Plutarch (ca. 40 - 120 AD) wrote also about another island located far to the west of Britain, bearing a name similar to the name of titan Kronos from Greek mythology. The Sea of Kronos is how later waters between Iceland and Greenland were referred too. So that could be Greenland (Greenland is of course a name invented much later, probably by Eric the Red, to attract settlers).

Sagas (including the Saga of Eric the Red) mention the land of "Hvitramannaland" ("White Man's Land", Latin: "Albania") also known as "Írland it Mikla" ("Great Ireland", Latin: "Hibernia Maior") - located supposedly about six-day sail west from Ireland, and also not far away from Vínland (Vineland). Unless it was fictional, it could refer to some Celtic settlement existing in - perhaps - Greenland.

In year 825, an Irish monk named Dicuil wrote "Liber de Mensura Orbis Terrae", in which we can find a detailed description of the Faroe Islands, and a claim that hermit monks from Ireland had lived in those islands for 100 years before the "Northmen pirates" took them. He also describes the island of Thule (Iceland), beyond the Faroes, and writes that Irish hermit monks had been staying on Thule during the summer months for 30 years (since around 795 - about one century before first Vikings settled in Iceland). But were there also settlers, or just monks? And if just monks, then why?

The "Book of Settlements" (one of most important sources for early history of Iceland, alongside the "Book of Icelanders") claims that first Viking settlers in Iceland found traces of an earlier people, a Christian one, such as bells and crooks. Perhaps those were remains of hermitages of Irish monks.

"The Voyage of Saint Brendan the Navigator", a story first recorded around year 900 AD, indicates that certain Brendan (born in 484 AD in Kerry county, Ireland) reached Iceland, Greenland, the island of Jan Mayen in the Arctic Ocean, and maybe even the coast of America.

The Voyage of Saint Brendan is unique because it was recorded in 900 AD, before Viking travels to America took place. But there are more legends about Celtic travellers reaching America, such as this Welsh story about Madog ab Owain Gwynedd, who supposedly came to America in 1170:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoc

It is claimed that after 400 AD, when climate in the region started to gradually get warmer, Pictish and other Celtic sailors regularly visited Iceland, gathering exotic resources such as eiderdown, and exporting them to the Mediterranean world. For sea travels Picts and Britons were using wooden ships, while Irish people were using currachs, covered by bovine skins. Such ships could transport up to 20 people, they were propelled by sails and oars.

"People of the West" (Vestmenn), as they were later called by Norsemen, probably visited Iceland already before 400 AD - findings of coins from that period may indicate this. On the other hand, coins produced long before 400 AD could get there long after that date too.

But a more controversial issue is whether Celts actually established some settlements there or not (apart from some hermitages of monks). Farley Mowat in one of his books claimed that Eric the Red found an Irish house in Greenland.

Celts contributed with some advancements in shipbuilding techniques in Northern Europe (check for example Ellmers, "Celtic plank boats and ships 500 BC - AD 1000" and Casson, "Ships and seamanship in the ancient world").

A small archipelago of Vestmannaeyjar (near Iceland) is named so after Insular Celts, but the origins of this name are unclear. One theory is that it is relatively recent and comes from Celtic slaves who escaped from Viking captivity and settled there. So this is probably not a sign of Celtic settlement predating Viking settlement. There are some other Celtic toponyms in Iceland as well (for example Írafell, Írafellsbunga, Kjaransvík, etc.).

I've wondered whether Pytheas was referring to the Faroes, although some later writers described Thule as being northwest of them, which would mean Iceland. Pytheas may also have been referring to some place in Scandinavia.

Ultima Thule

Afaik it is still debated just what Pytheas was referring to. It surely got mixed up in future centuries too. IIRC some Byzantine histories and maps of the pre 8th century or so name Sweden as Thule.

In general the view is that Thule was Iceland, but i haven't read much on this...

Nice thread, Domen

Domen said:

In year 825, an Irish monk named Dicuil wrote "Liber de Mensura Orbis Terrae", in which we can find a detailed description of the Faroe Islands, and a claim that hermit monks from Ireland had lived in those islands for 100 years before the "Northmen pirates" took them. He also describes the island of Thule (Iceland), beyond the Faroes, and writes that Irish hermit monks had been staying on Thule during the summer months for 30 years (since around 795 - about one century before first Vikings settled in Iceland). But were there also settlers, or just monks? And if just monks, then why?

Click to expand...

It has to do with the rich tradition of monasticism in Ireland, their relationship to the sea, and the role of monastaries in Irish society.

Ireland took to monasticism very quickly and strongly. It is possible this has something to do with congruence with traditional Irish Religious patterns. It is certain though that they were aware of and felt community with the monastic traditions of the East and the "desert fathers".

It also has to do with the fact that Ireland had no urban centers. This meant that the European model of diocese headed by Bishops didn't really matter. Instead, monasteries developed through relationships with non-territory based Clans.

This created a striking dynamic. While a strong cultural urge to isolate from society drove Irish Monasticism, Irish Monastaries became the focal point of Irish Society: the closest thing to urban settlements and the fulcrum of countless worldly affairs.

This, in turn, drove the monks to seek new degrees of isolation. First they would do so within spaces like Rathlin Island and Iona. As individuals or small groups they would also venture out to sea, and this involves the Medieval Irish reading of the Bible and Eastern Sources.

Ireland has no deserts. The bible has a LOT of deserts. The desert is a frequent and constant symbol, from the Israelites 40 years, to Jesus's 40 days. The medieval Irish transposed the symbol of the desert onto the symbol of the sea.

In fact, the Lebor Gabála Érenn describes the Irish as a people taken out of Egypt, 'wandering' by sea, encountering hostile tribes, until they reach the fertile land of Ireland.

To Columbus and the Vikings, the sea was a highway. A gateway to riches and trade, and a way to discover new lands of great bounty.

It would be a mistake to imagine Irish monks set off with the same attitude.

To them, the sea was a waste. A great, inhospitable mass that promised loneliness and isolation. And it was that loneliness and isolation that drove them on to the Faroes and Iceland. To them it was not a particularly puzzling notion why they would bring no women or children or laymen to affix a permanent colony.

Escape from such things was the only appeal these places had to the Irish.

sydhe said:

I've wondered whether Pytheas was referring to the Faroes, although some later writers described Thule as being northwest of them, which would mean Iceland. Pytheas may also have been referring to some place in Scandinavia.

Click to expand...

Kyriakos said:

Afaik it is still debated just what Pytheas was referring to. It surely got mixed up in future centuries too. IIRC some Byzantine histories and maps of the pre 8th century or so name Sweden as Thule. In general the view is that Thule was Iceland

Click to expand...

Well, there is no absolute certainty about this, but - as both of you agree - most likely Thule was Iceland.

Scandinavia, though also barely known to the Greeks and the Romans, was usually referred to by other names.

ParkCungHee said:

To Columbus and the Vikings, the sea was a highway. A gateway to riches and trade, and a way to discover new lands of great bounty.

It would be a mistake to imagine Irish monks set off with the same attitude.

To them, the sea was a waste. A great, inhospitable mass that promised loneliness and isolation. And it was that loneliness and isolation that drove them on to the Faroes and Iceland. To them it was not a particularly puzzling notion why they would bring no women or children or laymen to affix a permanent colony.

Escape from such things was the only appeal these places had to the Irish.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see, Norse Pagan mentality (the Vikings) versus Early Christian mentality (the Irish) versus Renaissance mentality (Columbus).

So the Christian culture of piety and "eternity > temporality" was the reason why Irish people were exporting monks instead of settlers across the sea. This makes sense, since Scandinavians also became much less "adventurous" when it comes to undertaking colonization of new lands or organizing raids against foreign realms after their Christianization. As much as Pagan Vikings had been renowned for raiding foreign lands, Christian Scandinavians in the 12th century themselves fell victim to raids by Pagan Slavs - who, for example, in October of 1134/1135 captured Roskilde in Denmark and a year later, in August of 1135/1136, the 4th largest town in Norway - Kungahälla (that raiding activity was among reasons why the Wendish Crusade was called by Pope in 1147).

Some reading about that:

http://www.lodose.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/013b-Bohus-Fortress-Kungahälla-Kungälv-eng.pdf

(...) At one time, Kungahälla was Norway's fourth largest town. It was Norway's outpost in the south and occasionally the residence of Norwegian kings. Kungahälla is mentioned early on in the Old Norse sagas where there are several accounts of its greatness and importance. (...) A service was being held in Kastala church in August 1135 when the news came that the Wends were heading towards the town. The Wends were a Slavic people from northern Germany. (...) One section of the Wendish army arrived by river, above Kungahälla, which meant that the town was attacked from two directions. They also brought horses with them, [they were] led by Duke Ratibor. The Icelandic chronicler, Snorri Sturluson, recounts how Kungahälla was looted and burned. The Norwegians became thralls in the country of the Wends. Snorri was told this by his foster father, Jon Loptsson, who had been brought up by Andreas, a priest in Kungahälla. Snorri went to Norway in 1218 and became King Håkon Håkonsson's close confidant. He spent some time in Västergötland where he stayed with Eskil, the brother of Birger Jarl. (...)

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kungahälla

(...) Konghelle appears in writings by the English chronicler, Orderic Vitalis, who named the city as one of six Norwegian civitates. During August 1135, the city was attacked and sacked by the Pomeranians. After the destruction, the city was moved to a site slightly to the west of the original site. Snorri Sturluson, writing a century later, said that Konghelle never completely recovered.[2] (...)

Click to expand...

Coming back to Celtic maritime exploits:

In 56 BC Roman fleet of Julius Caesar fought a naval battle against Celtic fleet near the southern coast of what later became Bretagne (in 56 BC that part of Bretagne was inhabited by a tribe known as the Weneted). In his "Gallic Wars", Caesar left a unique description of Celtic ships:

An excerpt from Book 3 of "Gallic Wars":

(...) For their ships were built and equipped after this manner. The keels were somewhat flatter than those of our ships, whereby they could more easily encounter the shallows and the ebbing of the tide: the prows were raised very high, and, in like manner the sterns were adapted to the force of the waves and storms [which they were formed to sustain]. The ships were built wholly of oak, and designed to endure any force and violence whatever; the benches which were made of planks a foot in breadth, were fastened by iron spikes of the thickness of a man's thumb; the anchors were secured fast by iron chains instead of cables, and for sails they used skins and thin dressed leather. These [were used] either through their want of canvas and their ignorance of its application, or for this reason, which is more probable, that they thought that such storms of the ocean, and such violent gales of wind could not be resisted by sails, nor ships of such great burden be conveniently enough managed by them. The encounter of our fleet with these ships' was of such a nature that our fleet excelled in speed alone, and the plying of the oars; other things, considering the nature of the place [and] the violence of the storms, were more suitable and better adapted on their side; for neither could our ships injure theirs with their beaks (so great was their strength), nor on account of their height was a weapon easily cast up to them; and for the same reason they were less readily locked in by rocks. To this was added, that whenever a storm began to rage and they ran before the wind, they both could weather the storm more easily and heave to securely in the shallows, and when left by the tide feared nothing from rocks and shelves: the risk of all which things was much to be dreaded by our ships. (...)

Click to expand...

This description shows that Ancient Celts were good seafarers and that their ships were well-adapted to conditions in northern seas.

The naval battle in 56 BC took place in the Quiberon Bay, between 100 Roman galleys and 220 Celtic ships:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiberon_Bay

Rome won that one thanks to using a clever fighting technique and exploiting weak points of the enemy:

(...) The bay has seen several important naval battles. The first recorded in history was the Battle of Morbihan in 56 BCE, between the Romans led by Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus and the local Veneti [Weneted] tribe. The Romans had struggled to overcome the Veneti, who had coastal fortresses that could easily be evacuated by their powerful navy. Eventually the Romans built galleys and met the Veneti sailing fleet in Quiberon Bay. Despite being outnumbered 220 to 100 by a fleet of heavier ships, the Romans used hooks on long poles to shred the halyards holding up the leather sails of the Veneti, leaving the Veneti fleet dead in the water (...)

Click to expand...

Domen said:

So the Christian culture of piety and "eternity > temporality" was the reason why Irish people were exporting monks instead of settlers across the sea. This makes sense, since Scandinavians also became much less "adventurous" when it comes to undertaking colonization of new lands or organizing raids against foreign realms after their Christianization. As much as Pagan Vikings had been renowned for raiding foreign lands, Christian Scandinavians in the 12th century themselves fell victim to raids by Pagan Slavs - who, for example, in October of 1134/1135 captured Roskilde in Denmark and a year later, in August of 1135/1136, the 4th largest town in Norway - Kungahälla (that raiding activity was among reasons why the Wendish Crusade was called by Pope in 1147).

Click to expand...

No, you misunderstand entirely. I am saying the particular circumstances of Irish Monasticism was what drove the Irish to explore what they perceived as a barren, dangerous wasteland.

It was only because of their peculiar form of Christianity (in it's cultural heritage, social structures, relationship with kings etc) that these places had any appeal to them in the first place, and what appealed to them was the fact that they were barren, desolate wastelands.

OK, so you have made a case for a more Irish-specific explanation. Granted.

But the Viking Age also came to an end with the beginning of Christianity among them. And what areas did they settle after conversion to Christianity? Zero, null. After conversion to Christianity feudal Scandinavian realms did try to expand politically, but family-based settlement never followed.

If anything, Swedish and Danish rulers invited foreign (mostly German) settlers to their newly acquired domains.

For example Holstein, Mecklenburg and Vorpommern were first acquired from Pagan Slavs by Danes, only later (after 1227 - LINK) by the HRE. Yet, already before 1227 - when the area was Danish - kings of Denmark invited some groups of... German (including Saxon) settlers. But not any Danes.

Domen said:

OK, so you have made a case for a more Irish-specific explanation. Granted.

But the Viking Age also came to an end with the beginning of Christianity among them. And what areas did they settle after conversion to Christianity? Zero, null. After conversion to Christianity feudal Scandinavian realms did try to expand politically, but family-based settlement never followed.

Click to expand...

Sweyn Forkbeard? Cnut? Harald Hardrada? All Christians, and all conquerors or would-be conquerors.

I'd have said that the Viking Age came to an end more because there were stronger, more centralised states able to protect their borders against maritime raiders/settlers than because everyone had turned Christian.

However, AFAIK no settlers followed the conquests of Sweyn and Cnut. The Danelaw settlement dates to earlier, Pagan times.

Perhaps because those were undertakings of Christian feudal monarchs, not of independent bands of farmers made pirates (that's the class from which most of vikings recruited themsleves - farmers, plus some traders; even Jarls were usually peasants who distinguished themselves in raids).

But I don't see why being Christian would discourage sending settlers anywhere. Christians in general didn't have the anti-world attitude of monks. If they had done, they'd all have become celibates and ceased to exist after a generation or two.

There's surprisingly little evidence for Viking settlers in Britain, for instance (as a recent genetics study confirmed).

Plotinus said:

Sweyn Forkbeard? Cnut? Harald Hardrada? All Christians, and all conquerors or would-be conquerors.

I'd have said that the Viking Age came to an end more because there were stronger, more centralised states able to protect their borders against maritime raiders/settlers than because everyone had turned Christian.

Click to expand...

Or simply because the raiders/traders were forced out of business. The Frisians did a good job of that. So raiding may simply have become unprofitable. There's a distinct difference between the earlier raiding expeditions and the later conquest type. Early raiders weren't interested in conquest: they were interested in loot and booty. The later Viking conquests were directed primarily at acquiring land (or the authority over that land).

Any chance the ancient tales of Hyperborea refer to Britain?

Plotinus said:

But I don't see why being Christian would discourage sending settlers anywhere. Christians in general didn't have the anti-world attitude of monks. If they had done, they'd all have become celibates and ceased to exist after a generation or two.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that you describe the Monks attitude as "anti-world", because in a lot of ways it was more "pro-world" than their contemporaries. They might have viewed the Oceans as desolate wastes, but they seemed to enjoy the desolates more than the average Irishman.

I didn't mean they didn't like the natural or physical world, but that they didn't want to participate in or perpetuate human society. "The world" in the Pauline sense, if you see what I mean.

And yes, there's an irony in that given that the monasteries, particularly in Ireland, grew and became quite bustling settlements in their own right, with all kinds of secular hangers-on, but then that weakens even further the original claim that Christians weren't interested in settling.

Agent327 said:

There's surprisingly little evidence for Viking settlers in Britain, for instance (as a recent genetics study confirmed).



Or simply because the raiders/traders were forced out of business. The Frisians did a good job of that. So raiding may simply have become unprofitable. There's a distinct difference between the earlier raiding expeditions and the later conquest type. Early raiders weren't interested in conquest: they were interested in loot and booty. The later Viking conquests were directed primarily at acquiring land (or the authority over that land).

Click to expand...

They did probably found Swansea in Wales, at least.

And what did the Frisians do? Didn't Charles Martel completely conquer them?

Plotinus said:

Sweyn Forkbeard? Cnut? Harald Hardrada? All Christians, and all conquerors or would-be conquerors.

I'd have said that the Viking Age came to an end more because there were stronger, more centralised states able to protect their borders against maritime raiders/settlers than because everyone had turned Christian.

Click to expand...

Quite true. It's also worth noting that Norse aggression in some cases actually increased following conversion--as Norse states grew larger and more unified, they were able to mount more full-scale invasions than in the past and use conquering the pagans of the Baltic as a reason for conquest. The Danes conquered the formerly powerful Slavic pagans of Rügen and then went on to seize Estonia in their crusade. The Swedes took over Finland and then began their invasions of the Russian principalities. Christianity certainly didn't tame them!

Phrossack said:

The Danes conquered the formerly powerful Slavic pagans of Rügen and then went on to seize Estonia in their crusade.

Click to expand...

... and today everyone speaks Danish in Rügen and Swedish in Estonia. Or at least they identify as Danes/Swedes. No?

Remember, that I wrote about settlement (demographic expansion) - not about political conquests.

An archaeologist friend of mine tells me grains have been found in the Faroes that significantly pre-date the Vikings, but I have no idea.

As for Viking settlement in England, little evidence? Not at all. A contemporary chronicle documents their settlement. Norse also seems to have become the language of southern Northumbria, eastern Mercia and East Anglia, judging by place-names. The settlers were mostly men, and agnatic lines were probably hit hard during the Norman Conquest which might be why DNA is not as overwhelmingly conclusive.

Pangur Bán said:

As for Viking settlement in England, little evidence? Not at all. A contemporary chronicle documents their settlement.

Click to expand...

Here I agree. However, that settlement took place - AFAIK - overwhelmingly in the Pagan Viking period, not so much in the Christian period, right?

Agent327 said:

There's surprisingly little evidence for Viking settlers in Britain, for instance (as a recent genetics study confirmed).

Click to expand...

Pangur Bán said:

agnatic lines were probably hit hard during the Norman Conquest which might be why DNA is not as overwhelmingly conclusive.

Click to expand...

Danish DNA is probably indistinguishable from Anglo-Saxon DNA. So I'm not sure on what basis did they conclude that 10% - 40% of lineages in England are Anglo-Saxon, but Danish ancestry is "hardly detectable". Perhaps it is already included in that 10% - 40% (depending on region). Norwegian DNA is largely different from Danish, but Danish is similar to Northwestern German - and that's where most of Saxons came from (Angles & Jutes from Denmark).

But another theory is that the Saxons came mostly from what is the Netherlands. In such case it should be possible to distinguish them from Danish Vikings - the Dutch have largely different DNA than the Danes (Northwestern Germans are quite intermediary between the two, similar to both).

Pangur Bán said:

an archaeologist friend of mine tells me grains have been found in the Faroes that significantly pre-date the Viking

Click to expand...

This could probably confirm that some Celts lived there before the Vikings. But not necessarily immediately before the Vikings.

There could be Celtic settlement, then a long period when the region was uninhabited, and then Viking settlement.

From which period are these grains ???

Domen said:

Danish DNA is probably indistinguishable from Anglo-Saxon DNA. So I'm not sure on what basis did they conclude that 10% - 40% of lineages in England are Anglo-Saxon, but Danish ancestry is "hardly detectable". Perhaps it is already included in that 10% - 40% (depending on region). Norwegian DNA is largely different from Danish, but Danish is similar to Northwestern German - and that's where most of Saxons came from (Angles & Jutes from Denmark).

Click to expand...

Probably indistuinguishable?

Domen said:

But another theory is that the Saxons came mostly from what is the Netherlands. In such case it should be possible to distinguish them from Danish Vikings - the Dutch have largely different DNA than the Danes (Northwestern Germans are quite intermediary between the two, similar to both).

Click to expand...

Whatever theory, the end result is a surprisingly small portion of the UK being of Viking descent.

Phrossack said:

They did probably found Swansea in Wales, at least.

Click to expand...

Vikings probably founded Swansea? And this points to what?

Phrossack said:

And what did the Frisians do? Didn't Charles Martel completely conquer them?

Click to expand...

Trade. (Not sure what Charles Martel has to do with that. Was he a trade monopolist?)

Agent327 said:

Probably indistuinguishable?

Click to expand...

Yes. For example when it comes to Danish and Northwestern German Y-DNA, it is dominated by I1 and R1b S21 (U106).

While for example in Norway there is also a lot of R1a Z284, which makes a difference and it can be distinguished.

The highest % of R1a haplogroup in the UK is in Orkney (22,5% of males), Shetland (15,5%) and Western Scottish Isles (7,5%).

This is consistent with the historical patterns of settlement of Norwegian Vikings, but not necessarily of Danish Vikings.

=================================

BTW - the single most numerous Y-DNA haplogroup in the British Isles is R1b, but it cannot be treated as a monolith.

Approximate percent of males with R1b:

Ireland - 81%
Brittany - 80%
Normandy - 76%
Wales - 74%
Scotland - 73%
England - 67%
Netherlands - 49%

But there are huge differences in proportions of various subclades of R1b (which split from each other thousands of years ago):

In these maps below, proportions between the following clades (branches) of R1b are shown - two major branches shown by these maps are P312 and U106, and P312 is further divided into two of its major sub-branches plus the whole rest of P312, while U106 is not further broken down:

red = R1b S21 a.k.a. U106 (distinct than P312)
===================================
blue = R1b L21 (a sub-branch of P312)
green = R1b U152 a.k.a. S28 (a sub-branch of P312)
violet = R1b P312 other than L21 or U152 (all other sub-branches)

Dutch R1b in the Netherlands is overwhelmingly S21 (U106):



Irish, Welsh and Scottish R1b is overwhelmingly L21 - blue in smaller maps:

Proportion of L21 to other types of R1b:



R1b-L21 as % of all lineages (not just within R1b):



In France and Italy there is a lot of U152 (S28) - green in the smaller map:

Proportion within R1b:



Percent of all lineages:



English R1b is more mixed than in those neighbouring regions:



But question is whether patterns in England are more the result of migrations in the last 2000 years, or existed (to some extent) already before that date.

Thomas et. al. in their old, 2003, study on paternal (Y-DNA) ancestry in the UK, assumed that Romano-Britons had identical Y-DNA as Irish Gaels:

"To represent the indigenous [pre-Anglo-Saxon] population of the British Isles, we have selected a site in central Ireland."

Which in my opinion is a highly dubious presupposition for which there is no evidence - there is even clear evidence to the contrary. For example - there was Roman settlement in England, but not in Ireland. There was also settlement of Belgian tribes in England, but not in Ireland. Finally English Celts were more diverse (both La Tene and Hallstatt). So there is no reason to assume that Brythonic Celts and then Romano-Britons were genetically identical to Goidelic Celts.

I think a much better representation of the "natives" of the British Isles will be provided by aDNA from Iron Age and Roman archaeological sites.

And aDNA = DNA extracted from ancient bones (so far there are only 2 Celtic Age male skeletons found at Hinxton).

Excavations of Iron Age graves at the archaeological site in Hinxton, England, uncovered skeletons of 2 men who died around 2000 years ago (so over 400 years before the start of Anglo-Saxon immigration, and also before the Roman conquest). A team under Stephan Schiffels have examined their Y-DNA and they both belonged to R1b-L21 which is nowadays still the most common paternal lineage in most regions of Britain, and also in French Bretagne.

In Ireland surnames of Gaelic Irish origin tend to strongly correlate with haplogroup R1b-L21:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...e-R1b-before-the-Viking-and-British-invasions

(...) I have scrutinised FamilyTreeDNA's Ireland Y-DNA Project and noticed that practically all the Irish surnames belonged to haplogroup R1b, while almost all members of other haplogroups had English, Scottish, or occasionally even Welsh surnames. (...)

The project has 4700 members to this day, out of which 910 belong to other haplogroups than R1b or I2a. Within R1b, roughly 125 members belong to R1b-U106. (...)

Out of 51 members of haplogroup G in the project, only four surnames (Lannin, Murphy, McCauley, McQuate) could be considered Irish - although McQuate and McCauley can also be Scottish. The vast majority of I2b members have Germanic names.

E1b1b is even more extreme, with only 5 native Irish surnames out of 96 members.

I counted 87 members of I2a (I-P37.2) or I2a1 in the Ireland Y-DNA Project, out of which approximately 30 were clearly non-Irish surnames.

Based on the modern population, it can be said that the native Irish almost completely lack both G2a and I2b, but have a fair amount of I2a.

I2a is therefore the only haplogroup aside from R1b to have a majority of Irish surnames (...)

Click to expand...

Surnames were adopted by British and Irish populations relatively early on (compared to the rest of Europe) - in the Early Middle Ages.

Someone who has a surname of Old English origin could be a descendant of Romano-Britons as well, but was already assimilated into the Anglo-Saxon community by the time of adopting his surname during the Early Middle Ages. In most of other parts of Europe surnames started to be used much later.