# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Bronze Age >  New Study Shows MASSIVE Ancient BA Immigration Into Ireland

## moore2moore

How very timely: "Origins of the Irish down to mass migration, ancient DNA confirms"

The study found R1b in Ireland to be the result of mass immigration (and not elite dominance). 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...rms?CMP=twt_gu

This is consistent with what I posted about the rather prosaic explanations for current distributions. Hunter gatherers started with small population sizes. Cereal farmers had medium. The influx of herders, with a ready supply of meat, and milk, and cereals had larger population sizes. And mass migration.

Full link to study here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...45113.full.pdf

From the article:

"These people [bearing R1b] also brought with them the inherited variation that permits the digestion of milk in maturity.

----------


## Fire Haired14

Thanks for the post. They had R1b-L21. So, probably the primary ancestors of modern British and Irish. My guess is there is significant but minority Neolithic ancestry in British and Irish though.

----------


## Fire Haired14

They were probably proto-Celts.

Irish Times article.
Ancient Irish had Middle Eastern ancestry, study reveals

BBC article.
Ancient DNA sheds light on Irish origins

----------


## arvistro

Great news. Are those earliest L21 found so far?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Great news. Are those earliest L21 found so far?


Yes. Bell beaker from Central Europe had U152, which today is mostly Italy, and then France/Switzerland. So, it matches geography. U152 settled in Central Europe/Italy and L21 settled in the British Isles. Next we need R1b-DF27 from Iberia dating 2000 BC.

I discussed on this thread, most West European male lines decent from a small family of R1b-P312 males who expanded in circa 2000 BC.

----------


## MOESAN

_
I 'll say my thoughts later (for my personal pleasure)

concerning Ballynahatty woman, she is from the Late Neolithic (3343/3020 from a Megalithic culture of apparently Long Barrows sort.
She shows as waited more links to already well mixed Post-cardial Neolithic people of West and Southwest Europe and close to Gokhem too.
the survey says she doesn' show the characteristics of a bottlenecked group of farmers; I'm not surprised if she is descended from one of these LongBarrows people and close groups which expanded surely along all the Atlantic and North Sea shores until Scandinavia and which play a role in the formation of Funnel-TricherBK (more in North).
to conclude is a pity she has not been tested for the chromosome Y (laughings)_

----------


## Fire Haired14

Irish_BA have a close genealogical relationship with modern North Sea Europeans, especially Isles Celts(now English speakers, but ethnically Celts) from the British isles. 

This is from Supp. Table S14.2 It's the amount of "Haplotypes" given to moderns by ancients. I don't understand the science, all i know is it tracks recent ancestry.


Rathlin1

Scottish
36.512

Ireland
36.313

Welsh
35.745

GermanyAustria
33.658

French
32.299

English
32.213

Norwegian
31.425

Orcadian
30.072

Tuscan
29.202

Spanish
28.613

Hungarian
28.995

Belorussian
28.418

Polish
26.957

NorthItalian
27.829

Bulgarian
26.21

SouthItalian
26.127

Russian
25.537

Lithuanian
25.067

Greek
24.341

Syrian
23.896

Turkish
23.886

Chuvash
23.865

Basque
23.824

----------


## LeBrok

This is interesting:



> heir partial MN ancestry.These analyses, taken with the PCA and ADMIXTURE results,indicate that the Irish Bronze Age is composed of a mixtureof European MN and introgressing Steppe ancestry (9, 10). Toestimate the proportion of Yamnaya to MN ancestry in each IrishBronze Age sample, we took three approaches. First, fromADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1), we examined the green Caucasusancestry component. We presume an ultimate source of this asthe Yamnaya where it features at a proportion of 40% of theirtotal ancestry. In our three Irish Bronze Age samples, it is presentat levels between 6–13%, which, when scaled up to include theremaining 60% of Yamnaya ancestry,* imply a total of 14–33%Yamnaya ancestry* and therefore 67–86% MN in the Irish BronzeAge. Second, for each Bronze Age Irish individual, we calculatedthe proportion of MN ancestry by using the ratio f4(Mbuti, Ballynahatty;X, Dai)/f4(Mbuti, Ballynahatty; Gok2, Dai), which gaveestimates between 72 ± 4% to 74 ± 5%, implying again a substantialYamnaya remainder. Third, we followed the methods described inHaak et al. (9), which use a collection of outgroup populations, toestimate the mixture proportions of three different sources, Linearbandkeramik(Early Neolithic; 35 ± 6%), Loschbour (WHG; 26 ±12%), and Yamnaya (39 ± 8%), in the total Irish Bronze Agegroup. These three approaches give an overlapping *estimate of∼32% Yamnaya ancestry*


It means that when these IE/R1b guys got to Ireland they only sported about 30% of original Steppe/Yamnaya ancestry. They have already heavily mixed with MN residents of Central Europe. I could suppose it was either by means of mixing in South West Yamnaya with farmers of Cucuteni, or somewhere else in Central Europe.

----------


## Angela

> Thanks for the post. They had R1b-L21. So, probably the primary ancestors of modern British and Irish. My guess is there is significant but minority Neolithic ancestry in British and Irish though.


Most of it is as expected, but it's nice to get confirmation, isn't it? :) Of course, it's not the genetic community they have to convince, it's the archaeologists of the Anglo-speaking world. I was a bit stunned at the figures they cited for archaeologists who even after this recent slew of ancient dna still won't accept the important role of migration in both the Neolithic and the Bronze Age transitions.

In terms of the Middle Neolithic ancestry in these Bronze Age Irish men it's certainly there, but probably not from the Irish Middle Neolithic people, or at least that's what I understand them to be saying here:

"However, like other European Bronze Age samples, this introgressionis incomplete, as they also show significant MN ancestrywhen placed in a clade with Yamnaya. The highest levels of MNancestry were observed when either Ballynahatty or Gok2 (Scandinavian)was the sample under study. However, when paired withcentral European Bronze Age populations, the Rathlin samplesshow no trace of significant introgression from Ballynahatty, suggestingthat earlier Irish populations may not have been a source oftheir partial MN ancestry."

So, that begs the question, one, as to what happened to the Irish Middle Neolithic people, and two, where did these Bronze Age people pick up their Middle Neolithic ancestry? I, like LeBrok, have always thought that perhaps the downstream L51+ was in the southwestern steppe or adjacent Balkan areas before it started to move more into Central Europe. We'll see if that turns out to be the case. As to the Irish MN, there are papers showing that the agriculture crash in Ireland was particularly severe, if I remember correctly, with the number of sites dwindling severely. I'll see if I can dig it out. I think I got it from Jean Manco originally. 

What do you make of the claim of 40% WHG in her? I haven't been keeping track of each piece of amateur analysis, but in addition to the 10% picked up initially, I though it was then an additional 10-15-20% over the next thousands of years depending on the area, no?

Did you also note the total MN/Yamnaya figures for them? If you take into account all three methods used, they come up with 2/3 MN versus 1/3 Yamnaya, so certainly not the total replacement of some of the speculation I've seen. The number is smaller than in the Haak analysis though, isn't it, if we go by the figures from the graphic.



I'm sure you noted the pigmentation data in the supplement. Will you be adding it to your spreadsheets? Interesting that one didn't have the Herc2 derived snp at all (brown-eyed) and the rest were all heterozygous, right? So, some selection went on in subsequent years, but based on what?

Oh, another point, wouldn't it be quite a coincidence that these MN people whom the authors claim probably didn't contribute much to the modern Irish just so happened to also be heterozygous for the hemochromatosis risk allele?

----------


## Tomenable

Central European Corded Ware had ~75% Yamnaya ancestry. And these guys had ~32%.

So to get from Germany to Ireland, a lot of "banging with the locals" was necessary... :)

Unless they descended from some Non-CW group, which was already more mixed before.

----------


## Angela

> This is interesting:
> 
> It means that when these IE/R1b guys got to Ireland they only sported about 30% of original Steppe/Yamnaya ancestry. They have already heavily mixed with MN residents of Central Europe. I could suppose it was either by means of mixing in South West Yamnaya with farmers of Cucuteni, or somewhere else in Central Europe.


We cross posted. :)

From the Haak chart I pasted in it looks like Eastern Bell Beaker was about 45% Yamnaya? So, they picked up an additional 15% during their trek to Ireland?

Take a look at what I highlighted about lastase persistence alleles too. It ties into what you were saying about there being a lot of ongoing selection for LP.

----------


## Tomenable

> Did you also note the total MN/Yamnaya figures for them? If you take into account all three methods used, they come up with 2/3 MN versus 1/3 Yamnaya, so certainly not the total replacement of some of the speculation I've seen.


But what Y-DNA did those MN samples have ???

Because if they didn't have R1b, then it means almost total replacement of Y-DNA.

This implies that MN autosomal was from local females.

Kind of devastating for those poor MN men anyway.

----------


## Tomenable

> From the Haak chart I pasted in it looks like Eastern Bell Beaker was about 45% Yamnaya?


Yes, correct. 

Question is: Where did they manage to loose the other 55% between Russia and Germany ???

And also Western Corded Ware was 75% Yamnaya, while Eastern Bell Beaker (their immediate neighbours) just 45%.

So this is strange, either Beaker got admixed by Corded, or both groups travelled independently.

----------


## Tomenable

*Fire Haired, you posted this:*

From Supplementary Table S14.2:

Similarity of Irish Bronze Age Rathlin1 Celtic individual to modern populations (from top to bottom):

1) Scottish ------------- 36.512
2) Ireland -------------- 36.313
3) Welsh --------------- 35.745
4) GermanyAustria ---- 33.658
5) French -------------- 32.299
6) English -------------- 32.213

(...)

IMO this shows that Gaelic Celts (ancestors of Irish+Scots) were not the same as Brythonic Celts.

Welsh are just slightly more similar to Gaelic Celts than Germans/French, and English even less.

And I remember that Welsh were most similar to Brythonic Celtic samples from July 2015 study:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/17/022723

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...22723.full.pdf

Welsh are a purely Celtic group, so they should be more similar to all Celts if they were all identical.

But Scots - who are in general a bit less Celtic than Welsh - are still more similar to Gaelic Celts than Welsh.

This is IMO a clear proof, that Gaelic Celts were not genetically the same as were Brythonic Celts.

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

That sample Rathlin1 is from Rathlin Island (these are areas where Scottish Dál Riata came from):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathlin_Island

----------


## LeBrok

> What do you make of the claim of 40% WHG in her? I haven't been keeping track of each piece of amateur analysis, but in addition to the 10% picked up initially, I though it was then an additional 10-15-20% over the next thousands of years depending on the area, no?


That's hell of a interesting conundrum. All MN show elevated WHG level up to 40%. Where did it come from? Additional mixing with remaining HGs? Invasions of HGs from North? There is no ANE to indicate first steppe invasions by then.
Or perhaps, it is CHG component who dispersed through farming communities together with new inventions? Looking at Yamnaya sample, on page 3, it should be the case.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...45113.full.pdf




> Did you also note the total MN/Yamnaya figures for them? If you take into account all three methods used, they come up with 2/3 MN versus 1/3 Yamnaya, so certainly not the total replacement of some of the speculation I've seen. The number is smaller than in the Haak analysis though, isn't it, if we go by the figures from the graphic.


In Ireland they have replaced quite a bit, but still they plot on PC somewhere off today's Irish. Perhaps some locals survived or perhaps due to Viking invasions.

----------


## LeBrok

> Central European Corded Ware had ~75% Yamnaya ancestry. And these guys had ~32%.
> 
> So to get from Germany to Ireland, a lot of "banging with the locals" was necessary... :)
> 
> Unless they descended from some Non-CW group, which was already more mixed before.


If they were closer to Cucuteni than CW than they could have had much more EEF before they started their trek. Anyhow they were quite genetically distinct from pure Yamnaya when they have gotten to Ireland.

----------


## Tomenable

> It means that when these IE/R1b guys got to Ireland they only sported about 30% of original Steppe/Yamnaya ancestry.


So they picked up 70% of Non-Steppe ancestry, but just 2% of Non-Steppe Y-DNA (assuming that originally Irish were 98% R1b):

From "Where the Irish pure R1b before the Viking and British invasions?" thread by Maciamo:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...tish-invasions




> It is enough for me to consider that Ireland before the 9th century was probably exclusively populated by R1b (98%) and I2a (2%) lineages. (...)


How on Earth could they become 68% Non-Steppe (while moving from Ukraine to Ireland), but preserving 98% of Steppe Y-DNA ???

That would imply that it was a migration of mostly (or almost exclusively) males, who married almost exclusively local women.

Were those Neolithic women all sex bombs? :)

----------


## Angela

> Yes, correct. 
> 
> Question is: Where did they manage to loose the other 55% between Russia and Germany ???
> 
> And also Western Corded Ware was 75% Yamnaya, while Eastern Bell Beaker (their immediate neighbours) just 45%.
> 
> So this is strange, either Beaker got admixed by Corded, or both groups travelled independently.


Wait, if they started out as sort of Corded Ware like (75% Yamnaya like), they "lost" 30 points to get to 45% (which is the Eastern Bell Beaker/Unetice level), correct? Then they lose more on the trip into Ireland. That could happen if instead of going up into northern relatively unpopulated areas they went through the more populous central zones.

If they started out as Yamnaya like, you're right, they lost 55 points. It could be explained if they traveled from the southwestern Ukraine and then into the southern Balkans, then maybe via a Danube route, or perhaps the L51+ group had been mingling for a while with CT? Anyway, they got to central Europe by a different route, in that case, as you say.




> I don't know which way it happened. Interesting, right?
> 
> "But what Y-DNA did those MN samples have ???
> 
> Because if they didn't have R1b, then it means almost total replacement of Y-DNA.
> 
> This implies that MN autosomal was from local females.
> 
> Kind of devastating for those poor MN men anyway."


Well, if the authors of the paper are correct, their MN wasn't from the Irish MN people. I'm assuming, since we have Megalithic yDna that was I2 on the route that these people had taken, that they probably carried a lot of I2. 

Anyway, the larger question remains. Ydna G2 is pretty low in central Europe. I2 does better but is it the original subclades we can attribute to the MN farmers, or is it I2 that remained hunter-gatherer in the east, got swept up by the Indo-Europeans, and thus got swept west?

Somebody call Sparkey! :)

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Tomenable,

There isn't extensive DNA from Welsh. I suspect they are not purely from Britons. There's probably part Germania(Anglo Saxon, etc.) via English and whatever else(French, Roman, etc.). The Iron age Briton genome is closest to Irish not Welsh. Added with information that Irish from 2000 BC have a close relationship to Welsh and Irish, I think Britons and Gealics have lots of common ancestry. 

@Everyone,

1/3 "Yamnaya" and 2/3 MN+other West Eurasian makes sense. The mixing between MN and "Yamnaya" mostly happened in Central Europe. Before Steppe ever migrated to Central Europe they could have been as much as 1/4 via admixture with Balkan MNs. Corded Ware and Sintashta had much higher amounts of Steppe than anyone today. Most LNBA Central Europeans, even one from 1000 BC, have more Steppe than anyone. A combination of contentious admixture with MN and later migrations caused Steppe to go down. 

@Y DNA,

The LNBA Irish technically belong to a differnt paternal lineage than Eastern Beaker. They had R1b-L21. They must have come from a P312-rich nation, where all non-L21 lineages went extinct. So, L21 as probably the lineage of royalty or something.

----------


## Angela

> *Fire Haired, you posted this:*
> 
> From Supplementary Table S14.2:
> 
> Similarity of Irish Bronze Age Rathlin1 Celtic individual to modern populations (from top to bottom):
> 
> 1) Scottish ------------- 36.512
> 2) Ireland -------------- 36.313
> 3) Welsh --------------- 35.745
> ...


I'm not sure of that, mainly because modern populations have mingled so much. For the English part of it has to be because they took the brunt of the Anglo-Saxon invasions. There's been a lot of introgression of "the English" into parts of Wales as well. Isn't there a pretty high level of U-106 there?

Given all the internal migrations within the British Isles I'm not sure that I'd totally rely on the relationship to modern populations. Doesn't some huge number of English people have at least one Irish grandparent? Am I remembering that correctly? Like 1/4 or 1/3?

So, although there is obviously continuity for the last 4000 years or so, I don't know that I'd bet a large sum that this is the exact order. It's certainly possible, though.

----------


## LeBrok

> But what Y-DNA did those MN samples have ???
> 
> Because if they didn't have R1b, then it means almost total replacement of Y-DNA.
> 
> This implies that MN autosomal was from local females.
> 
> Kind of devastating for those poor MN men anyway.


Can thier Mt DNA tell us where their mothers were from?

----------


## LeBrok

> So they picked up 70% of Non-Steppe ancestry, but just 2% of Non-Steppe Y-DNA (assuming that originally Irish were 98% R1b):
> 
> From "Where the Irish pure R1b before the Viking and British invasions?" thread by Maciamo:
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...tish-invasions
> 
> 
> 
> How on Earth could they become 68% Non-Steppe (while moving from Ukraine to Ireland), but preserving 98% of Steppe Y-DNA ???
> ...


R1b is like a virus. It will find the way to live and multiply. lol Could be the same explanation as for lack and disappearance of G2a even though we still carry 40-80% of EEF. Y chromosome has it's own funny ways, evolution and selection.
Who knows, perhaps they went through some bottlenecking on their way. This could explain prevalence of L-21 over other and older R1b.

----------


## Angela

> Yes, correct. 
> 
> Question is: Where did they manage to loose the other 55% between Russia and Germany ???
> 
> And also Western Corded Ware was 75% Yamnaya, while Eastern Bell Beaker (their immediate neighbours) just 45%.
> 
> So this is strange, either Beaker got admixed by Corded, or both groups travelled independently.


Wait, if they started out as sort of Corded Ware like (75% Yamnaya like), they "lost" 30 points to get to 45% (which is the Eastern Bell Beaker/Unetice level), correct? Then they lose more on the trip into Ireland. That could happen if instead of going up into northern relatively unpopulated areas they went through the more populous central zones.

If they started out as Yamnaya like, you're right, they lost 55 points. It could be explained if they traveled from the southwestern Ukraine and then into the southern Balkans, then maybe via a Danube route, or perhaps the L51+ group had been mingling for a while with CT? Anyway, they got to central Europe by a different route, in that case, as you say.




> I don't know which way it happened. Interesting, right?
> 
> "But what Y-DNA did those MN samples have ???
> 
> Because if they didn't have R1b, then it means almost total replacement of Y-DNA.
> 
> This implies that MN autosomal was from local females.
> 
> Kind of devastating for those poor MN men anyway."


Well, if the authors of the paper are correct, their MN wasn't from the Irish MN people. I'm assuming, since we have Megalithic yDna that was I2 on the route that these people had taken, that they probably carried a lot of I2. Somebody call Sparkey! :)

Anyway, the larger question remains. Ydna G2 is pretty low in central Europe. I2 does better but is it the original subclades we can attribute to the MN farmers, or is it I2 that remained hunter-gatherer in the east, got swept up by the Indo-Europeans, and thus got swept west?

----------


## Alan

According to this article, the incoming Bronze Age immigrants had 1/3 of their ancestry from the Steppes. Doesn't sound like CW. Sounds more like a distinct herder/farmer group. Maybe Bell Beakers? The percentages do fit somehow. So at the end of the day Central European Bell Beakers were indeed Indo Europeans?


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-envi...ource=facebook

----------


## moore2moore

> That would imply that it was a migration of mostly (or almost exclusively) males, who married almost exclusively local women.
> 
> Were those Neolithic women all sex bombs? :)


What were we saying about R1b sex fantasies again? 

The paper that is the subject of this post emphatically stressed that your notions above were NOT the case. Please read it.

It emphasized that the early Irish population, where the males bore R1b, emigrated to Ireland in MASSIVE numbers, of both sexes. And that they had a large breeding population. This was not a "large breeding population _of native farmers_" because those populations, autosomally, did not form the bulk of the modern Irish population.

If you don't want to read the paper's findings, I summarized them here: http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2015/12...ithic-and.html

There was plenty of time for the Beaker, Lactase Persistent people to pick up non-Steppe genomes on the way to Ireland. As I have said several, several, several (and several) times before. Gosh to think that just this morning people were making fun of me for stating that R1b expanded due to LP. And then this paper states the same.

Ireland is an island. So is Sardinia. To have these R1b sex-selection theories, you have to grasp that the large percentages of I2 in Sardinia is the result of Founder Effect and Drift, but that the large percentages of R1b in Ireland is the result of studly (or conqeuering) males breeding with all the locals. In other words, it's inconsistent and illogical.

----------


## Sile

> What were we saying about R1b sex fantasies again?


I think he was saying that they where mostly gay, thats why the population of ireland is so low. 98% R1b is dancing with the fairies time.




> The paper that is the subject of this post emphatically stressed that your notions above were NOT the case. Please read it.
> 
> It emphasized that the early Irish population, where the males bore R1b, emigrated to Ireland in MASSIVE numbers, of both sexes. And that they had a large breeding population. This was not a "large breeding population _of native farmers_" because those populations autosomally died out.


so are you saying the youngest haplogroup ( r1b ) basically populated a near empty ireland?





> If you don't want to read the paper's findings, I summarized them here: http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2015/12...ithic-and.html
> 
> There was plenty of time for the Beaker, LP people to pick up non-Steppe genomes on the way to Ireland. As I have said several, several, several (and several) times before. 
> 
> Weren't we just debating a couple days ago that R1b might be tied to LP?
> 
> Ireland is an island. So is Sardinia. To have these R1b theories, you have to believe that the large percentages of I2 in Sardinia is the result of Founder Effect and Drift, but that the large percentages of R1b in Ireland is the result of studly (or conqeuering) males breeding with all the locals. In other words, it's illogical.


Are we saying a certain calculated % of steppe drops off as people move or drops off over time.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I'm sure you noted the pigmentation data in the supplement. Will you be adding it to your spreadsheets? Interesting that one didn't have the Herc2 derived snp at all (brown-eyed) and the rest were all heterozygous, right? So, some selection went on in subsequent years, but based on what?


That's possible but unlikely. I don't think there were big changes after LNBA. 




> Oh, another point, wouldn't it be quite a coincidence that these MN people whom the authors claim probably didn't contribute much to the modern Irish just so happened to also be heterozygous for the hemochromatosis risk allele?


Lots of people outside of Ireland have those alleles. But they're rare, so it is weird. Maybe DNA can't decipher ancestry percentages well. They can only work with 500,000 SNPs or so. 99.99% of every human's DNA is identical. There might not be enough differences to decipher ancestry in clean cut percentages.

----------


## Alan

> Yes, correct. 
> 
> Question is: Where did they manage to loose the other 55% between Russia and Germany ???
> 
> And also Western Corded Ware was 75% Yamnaya, while Eastern Bell Beaker (their immediate neighbours) just 45%.
> 
> *So this is strange, either Beaker got admixed by Corded, or both groups travelled independently.*



This. Actually I don't know of any scientists who claims Bell Beaker descend of CW. In fact there was quite some clashes between CW and Bell Beaker as far as I remember. Also the yDNA is quite different in both.

----------


## moore2moore

Sile, based on your first point, I can't tell if you are joking or being serious. But I will address your second point.

The population of hunter gatherers was tiny. It is always tiny, when compared to other populations. The lifestyle simply can't support many people per square kilometer, and the women wait 2x longer between kids. These principles are the same the world over.

The population size of the first cereal farmers was bigger, mid-sized you may say. But it was probably ill-adopted to Ireland, and depending largely on climate. 

The population size of those with the ability to digest milk, the technology to turn excess grain into alcohol (and not flush), herding (meat when you want it!) was larger; almost modern proportions when you talk about potential mates. The study says this several times. 

Ireland is an island. Mountains and island populations often have Founder Effect and Drift affect the sex chromosomes. 

Example: one band happens to be mostly Hunter Gatherer patrilines, but farmer autosomally. It lands on an island. Over time, certain of the patrilines will die out by chance. Because it started with a higher percentage HG patrilines, over time that will look even larger. This describes Sardinia.

Another band with mostly Steppe or Beaker or herder patrilines, but mixed autosomally lands on another island. The same forces over time will exaggerate the percentages, based on Founder Effect (who started there) and Drift (who ended up). The isolation helps. This describes Ireland.

----------


## Fire Haired14

If what happened is that *all* R1b/a had many more sons then we'd have a diverse array of R1b/a, but we don't. I think it's a mixture of that and people with Steppe lineages being royalty. I1 looks like a native lineage which became a royal lineage. It doesn't mean EEF/WHG I1 had more sons, it means a single I1 lineage became royal.

Most R1a/b and I1 expansion occuered in 2000 BC or earlier. So, yes most Euro Y DNA traces back to a handful of fathers who lived in circa 3000 BC. But there's going to be a lot of diversity in R1b/a and I1 that happened after 2000 BC. The majority of men have sons, there's no way G2a, I2a, (other R1a/b), etc. just stopped having sons. And after 2000 BC, everyone who isn't apart of a royal lineage or whatever isn't going to stop having sons and creating diversity in Y DNA.

----------


## Tomenable

In total the study has 3 samples of Y-DNA, all 3 from Glebe, Rathlin Island:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/St.+Thomas...15a20f363075f55

Rathlin1 - 2026-1885 years BC, Early Bronze Age, haplogroup *R1b1a2a1a2c1g* (= R-DF21/S192)

Rathlin2 - 2024-1741 years BC, Early Bronze Age, haplogroup *R1b1a2a1a2c1* (= R-DF13/S521/CTS241)

Rathlin3 - 1736-1534 years BC, Early Bronze Age, haplogroup *R1b1a2a1a2c* (= R-L21/M529/S145)

----------


## Angela

> That's possible but unlikely. I don't think there were big changes after LNBA. 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of people outside of Ireland have those alleles. But they're rare, so it is weird. Maybe DNA can't decipher ancestry percentages well. They can only work with 500,000 SNPs or so. 99.99% of every human's DNA is identical. There might not be enough differences to decipher ancestry in clean cut percentages.


Fire-Haired, do you know the percentage of blue eyes in Ireland? You need to be homozygous for the derived allele.

These people were still heterozygous, i.e. brown-eyed.

----------


## Alan

> So they picked up 70% of Non-Steppe ancestry, but just 2% of Non-Steppe Y-DNA (assuming that originally Irish were 98% R1b):
> 
> From "Where the Irish pure R1b before the Viking and British invasions?" thread by Maciamo:
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...tish-invasions
> 
> 
> 
> How on Earth could they become 68% Non-Steppe (while moving from Ukraine to Ireland), but preserving 98% of Steppe Y-DNA ???
> ...


How on earth can you explain 70% non Steppic ancestry just all by male replacement that is technically noit possible. Thats just crazy and honestly the only two individuals still holding on this theory are you and Davidski. 

It's rather like Lebrok and Angela say, those proto Cells probably came from a region which was already EF rich. Maybe somewhere around CT??

----------


## moore2moore

> If what happened is that *all* R1b/a had many more sons then we'd have a diverse array of R1b/a, but we don't. I think it's a mixture of that and people with Steppe lineages being royalty. I1 looks like a native lineage which became a royal lineage. It doesn't mean EEF/WHG I1 had more sons, it means a single I1 lineage became royal.
> 
> Most R1a/b and I1 expansion occuered in 2000 BC or earlier. So, yes most Euro Y DNA traces back to a handful of fathers who lived in circa 3000 BC. But there's going to be a lot of diversity in R1b/a and I1 that happened after 2000 BC. The majority of men have sons, there's no way G2a, I2a, (other R1a/b), etc. just stopped having sons. And after 2000 BC, everyone who isn't apart of a royal lineage or whatever isn't going to stop having sons and creating diversity in Y DNA.


Hmmm. You lost me there. I don't understand what you mean by "became royal." Could you model it out for us?

Let's say Ireland had 5,000 hunter gatherers (or none) (C1). Then it had 10,000 farmers (G2 and I2). Then 100,000 herders moved in (R1b). Explain to me how the royalty stopped the other 95,000 from having kids.

Can you please provide some examples from recorded history around the world where "royalty" had enough kids to populate an entire nation? Did they sterilize or just kill the commoners? Who fought the wars for the royalty? Why didn't people rebel?

Unless I am mistaken, the biggest example cited in scientific journals is the raping and pillaging of Genghis Khan, which resulted in up to 10% of males in some provinces of Pakistan to be descended from him. But it sounds like you are saying that there are modern countries where 80-90% of the men descend directly from royalty.

Surely I must misunderstand you. Help me understand.

----------


## moore2moore

Cavalli Sforza wrote chapters in his seminal books, on how important it in in genetics, to understand the difference between expansions and what he called "impansions." 

He wrote more on understanding the power of randomness and drift when we are talking about billions of people on the earth. Most genetic textbooks have examples based on the surname convergence on Tristan da Cunha, etc.

Strongly suggest reading these.

----------


## Alan

> What were we saying about R1b sex fantasies again? 
> 
> The paper that is the subject of this post emphatically stressed that your notions above were NOT the case. Please read it.
> 
> It emphasized that the early Irish population, where the males bore R1b, emigrated to Ireland in MASSIVE numbers, of both sexes. And that they had a large breeding population. This was not a "large breeding population _of native farmers_" because those populations, autosomally, did not form the bulk of the modern Irish population.



Don't bother, it is not a R1b fantasy alone, I and many other commentators have tried to explain David how absurd his male "dominance " theories are. And all he repeated was the same nonsense over and over again without even reading or trying to disprove the arguments brought against him. It might make some people feel more "manly" because they share the same Haplogroup. I actually would feel uncomfortable to be considered the "product" of a "rape movement". But some people seem to be completely fine with it.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Hmmm. You lost me there. I don't understand what you mean by "became royal." Could you model it out for us?


I1 is native EEF/WHG. It isn't from the Steppe. Yet, it expanded around 2000 BC with R1b/a. So, a simple way to put it is a lucky native EEF/WHG dude became a king in a IE tribe who just arrived. His sons had lots power and many sons. Eventually lots of people have Y DNA I1. It isn't because in Scandinavia EEF men killed Steppe men. 




> Let's say Ireland had 5,000 hunter gatherers (or none) (C1). Then it had 10,000 farmers (G2 and I2). Then 100,000 herders moved in (R1b). Explain to me how the royalty stopped the other 95,000 from having kids.


In Ireland's case this works, because the newcomers already had R1b-L21 and mostly replaced the natives. But why did they all have R1b-L21? What happened to other P312? At somepoint there was a P312-rich nation with a diverse array of P312 lineages. Why did all but one P312 lineage go extinct? No other explanation, except R1b-L21 being sometype of royal lineage can explain. 

In India we see the same pattern as in Europe. They don't just have a lot of R1a-Z93, they belong to a specific subclade of Z93. What happened to the other Z93 men? It's possible there's a tradition of having powerful elites for IEs. And this is why 100% of Sintashta had R1a-Z93. 100% of Yamnaya had R1a-Z2103, 100% of COrded ware had R1a-M417, 100% of East bell beaker had R1b-P312, etc. The expansions of R1a-Z93, R1b-Z2013, etc. aren't just because they killed native men it is also because they killed each other. 




> Can you please provide some examples from recorded history around the world where "royalty" had enough kids to populate an entire nation? Did they sterilize or just kill the commoners? Who fought the wars for the royalty? Why didn't people rebel?


It's a gradual process.

----------


## moore2moore

*Italy is in the center of the Mediterranean, which was the "superhighway" of the ancient world. It has been invaded by countless people: Neandertals, Cro-Magnons, Hunter Gatherers, Farmers, Herders, Samnites, Romans, Greeks, Goths, Franks, Lombards, Byzantines, Saracens. We all pretty much know the list, right? 

Italy has the largest Y-haplogroup diversity in all of Europe. It is a land that has been coveted for millennia. I think we all grasp this, as I have seen this posted on other threads here.

Ireland has very low Y-haplogroup diversity. It is almost 80% one haplogroup. It is a land that has been ignored for millennia. The Romans said "no thanks." The Anglo-Saxons said, "no thanks." There has not been much incursion. (Note I didn't say none). The fact that it is an island, and westernmost, and cold, all help its isolation. I think most of us know Ireland's geography and history.

If you populate one land, and every 100 years, 10% of the the population is new, you will end up with 10 different haplogroups after 1000 years. The ones that have been there longer will decrease in numbers. I think we all can grasp this math.

If you populate another land, and there are no introgressions to speak of, after the first major settlement, you will end up with FEWER haplogroups after 1000 years. The sheer chance of some males not having sons, and some males dying before childbearing age, will mean that their lineages die with them. The apparent variability will decrease over time. This is what I ask you to grasp, Fire Haired.

The last paragraph will give the ILLUSION that only 1 group of guys was having kids, because they were "royalty" (as you said) or "getting all the ladies" (as Tomenable said). Alas, they are simply not true.
*

----------


## Alan

Edit: seems someone was faster than I.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> It might make some people feel more "manly" because they share the same Haplogroup. I actually would feel ashamed to be considered the "product" of a "rape movement". But some people seem to be completely fine with it.


I do to. I'm not actually ashamed but I'm not proud evil is what caused me to have a certain Y DNA. Probably more so for me, because mine is Df27 from Spain, in that case it was probably more so IE-elite than population-replacement like in Ireland. I have little connection with the first DF27 men. And no one is 50%+ Steppe. Everyone comes more so from the natives. R1b-L21 replaced other P312, R1a-Z282 replaced other M417, etc. Most people with Y DNA that expanded in the Bronze age have little connection with the first people who had it.

----------


## Sile

> Sile, based on your first point, I can't tell if you are joking or being serious. But I will address your second point.
> 
> The population of hunter gatherers was tiny. It is always tiny, when compared to other populations. The lifestyle simply can't support many people per square kilometer, and the women wait 2x longer between kids. These principles are the same the world over.
> 
> The population size of the first cereal farmers was bigger, mid-sized you may say. But it was probably ill-adopted to Ireland, and depending largely on climate. 
> 
> The population size of those with the ability to digest milk, the technology to turn excess grain into alcohol (and not flush), herding (meat when you want it!) was larger; almost modern proportions when you talk about potential mates. The study says this several times. 
> 
> Ireland is an island. Mountains and island populations often have Founder Effect and Drift affect the sex chromosomes. 
> ...


most ancient hunter "villages/camps" found in Germany ( northern) did house between 8 to a dozen people.........20% of these places was found a chance that some women where also hunters/skinners( ancient tanners ). *the chances of an all male hunting group would be basically non-existent.* A typical scenario would be hunters where living with farmers and would leave for 2 to 3 months at a time, then they would return. 
This issue that hunters killed off every farmer they saw seems a fabricated dream by some to justify why R1's dominated Europe over time.
The simple fact is that hunters have a leader........who is a chief...who become king...who commands a harem/concubine.............farmers do not need a leader............we still saw this system being applied by the zulus in the 19th century.

----------


## Tomenable

> There isn't extensive DNA from Welsh. I suspect they are not purely from Britons. There's probably part Germania(Anglo Saxon, etc.) via English and whatever else(French, Roman, etc.). The Iron age Briton genome is closest to Irish not Welsh. Added with information that Irish from 2000 BC have a close relationship to Welsh and Irish, I think Britons and Gealics have lots of common ancestry.


Welsh have the highest percent of Non-Indo-European, Neolithic autosomal ancestry.

At least that's what the March 2015 study on British genetic landscape claimed.

The highest in Britain, that is.

----------


## Tomenable

> Ireland has very low Y-haplogroup diversity. It is almost 80% one haplogroup. It is a land that has been ignored for millennia. The Romans said "no thanks." The Anglo-Saxons said, "no thanks." There has not been much incursion. (Note I didn't say none).


Well, the Vikings and especially the English caused a lot of trouble for the Irish people. 

Just to mention that they were under English occupation for several centuries, and that they lost their original language because of English policies of rooting out Irish culture, religion (Catholicisim) and their original Gaelic Celtic language (today Ireland is English-speaking). Not to mention the mass emigration of the Irish to the USA in the 19th century (and that emigration affected still Celtic-speaking regions more than those which were already English-speaking ones). I am actually very surprised, that their genetic composition is still basically the same as before all of this. I posted some figures in my Anthrogenica thread "R1b of European-Americans":

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post119876




> Irish immigration, even though a bit less numerous than German, was definitely the most impressive one in per-capita terms. See the first link in my post #24 - from 1820 to 1940 as many as 4,580,557 people came from tiny Ireland (and 200,334 more in 1941-1996). According to the census of 1900, out of the total of 76.2 million pop. of the USA, 1.6 million were Irish-born, another 5 million were born to Irish-born parents (2nd generation Irish immigrants) - the sum already being 6.6 million - and there were also 3rd and 4th generation Irish immigrants, but no figures are given on them. Plus, already in 1790 an estimated 50,000 up to 150,000 Irish lived in the USA (1,57% up to 4,7% of the total White pop.).
> 
> No surprise, that today there are several times more Irish-American people, than Irish-Irish people... 
> 
> As for ancestry reports in 1980:
> 
> Irish ancestry in 1980 was reported by 40,165,702 people but of them only 10,337,353 reported Irish alone, while 29,828,349 reported Irish in combination with some other ancestry or ancestries.


By the way, R1b-L21 is today the most numerous of subclades of R1b among European-Americans.

Here is data posted by other users in the thread linked above (samples from Family Tree DNA):

R1b-P312->L21 - 1290
R1b-P312->DF27 - 427
R1b-P312->U152 - 369
R1b-P312-others - 266

R1b-P312 (total) - 2352

R1b-U106 (total) - 897

So R1b-L21 comprises nearly 40% of European-American R1b in the USA today - source:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post119363

----------


## Alan

> most ancient hunter "villages/camps" found in Germany ( northern) did house between 8 to a dozen people.........20% of these places was found a chance that some women where also hunters/skinners( ancient tanners ). *the chances of an all male hunting group would be basically non-existent.* A typical scenario would be hunters where living with farmers and would leave for 2 to 3 months at a time, then they would return. 
> This issue that hunters killed off every farmer they saw seems a fabricated dream by some to justify why R1's dominated Europe over time.
> The simple fact is that hunters have a leader........who is a chief...who become king...who commands a harem/concubine.............farmers do not need a leader............we still saw this system being applied by the zulus in the 19th century.


We have genetic prove for both cases. Western Hunter &Gatherers and Farmer stayed for so long isolated from each other that we had two (actually three with the SHG) distinct populations in Europe living side by side.

However we also have prove for allot of cases where smaller groups of WHG were included into the farming communities. This is visible on some additional WHG y and mtDNA among farmers as well ~10% WHG aDNA admixture. 

This indicates two things for me, despite how warlike and aggressive the farmers could have been when needed (mass graves), they seem to have been in most cases very "open minded", civilized and "democratic" people in comparison to the H&G who I assume were more tribal at that time. 

The other thing this indicates is, the relationship between both groups wasn't really hostile, maybe distrustful for the foreigners and their culture but slowly adapting to each other. I have atleast never heard of war or any mass kilings between WHG and EEF groups.

Thats how I see it.

----------


## Tomenable

> I and many other commentators have tried to explain David how absurd his male "dominance " theories are.


They are not so absurd at all, actually. Y-DNA is most prone to such founder effects, more than mtDNA and than autosomal DNA.

Haven't you seen studies which show that "effective population size" of reproducing males was much smaller than that of females:

*"8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man 
An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene":*

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-tech...uctive-success

----------


## LeBrok

> In Ireland's case this works, because the newcomers already had R1b-L21 and mostly replaced the natives. But why did they all have R1b-L21? What happened to other P312? At somepoint there was a P312-rich nation with a diverse array of P312 lineages. Why did all but one P312 lineage go extinct? No other explanation, except R1b-L21 being sometype of royal lineage can explain. 
> .


There was a bottlenecking in this tribe shortly after development of L21. The tribe was down to few males from same family. It happened that after this bottlenecking the tribe was lucky and successful, built up in numbers, and went for a tour to Ireland. Irish also have rampant single gene diseases, like cystic fibrosis and hemochromatosis, which also point to bottlenecking and a founder effect.

----------


## Sile

> We have genetic prove for both cases. Western Hunter &Gatherers and Farmer stayed for so long isolated from each other that we had two (actually three with the SHG) distinct populations in Europe living side by side.
> 
> However we also have prove for allot of cases where smaller groups of WHG were included into the farming communities. This is visible on some additional WHG y and mtDNA among farmers as well ~10% WHG aDNA admixture. 
> 
> This indicates two things for me, despite how warlike and aggressive the farmers could have been when needed (mass graves), they seem to have been in most cases very "open minded", civilized and "democratic" people in comparison to the H&G who I assume were more tribal at that time. 
> 
> The other thing this indicates is, the relationship between both groups wasn't really hostile, maybe distrustful for the foreigners and their culture but slowly adapting to each other. I have atleast never heard of war or any mass kilings between WHG and EEF groups.
> 
> Thats how I see it.


these SHG etc, are changing all the time, there is no consistency ..........we now have eurogenes stating ANE is now CHG

----------


## Tomenable

*LeBrok,*

That bottlenecking could as well take place already after their arrival to Ireland.

----------


## Tomenable

YFull has R1b-L21 as "formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybp":

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L21/

So no sign of bottlenecking (there should be a gap of several centuries between "formed" and "TMRCA" in case of such an event).

More likely, L21 extremely rapidly expanded, immediately after its emergence.

So there was no "proper" bottlenecking, but a very rapid expansion from a very small population, which can cause similar effects.

Probably L21 either emerged in Ireland, or arrived there as a very small group.

----------


## LeBrok

> *LeBrok,*
> 
> That bottlenecking could as well take place already after their arrival to Ireland.


 Could be. They could have been in a big battle with farmers. They have won but barely survived maybe? 
Or they have lost a battle with other IE in England and few survivals hid on Ireland?

----------


## Aaron1981

> Central European Corded Ware had ~75% Yamnaya ancestry. And these guys had ~32%.
> 
> So to get from Germany to Ireland, a lot of "banging with the locals" was necessary... :)
> 
> Unless they descended from some Non-CW group, which was already more mixed before.



They appear very similar to the central European Bell Beaker groups genetically. I imagine the fact CW was further north east and never penetrated Europe as BB did, might explain why the further north and north east regions retained more steppe ancestry. Likewise, we may construct a similar argument on the EEF side of things never penetrating the furthest extremities of Europe.

----------


## LeBrok

> YFull has R1b-L21 as "formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybp":
> 
> http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L21/
> 
> So no sign of bottlenecking (there should be a gap of several centuries between "formed" and "TMRCA" in case of such an event).
> 
> More likely, L21 extremely rapidly expanded, immediately after its emergence.
> 
> So there was no "proper" bottlenecking, but a very *rapid expansion* from a very small population, which can cause similar effects.
> ...


Yes, bottlenecking, small group, rapid expansion, all good. :)

----------


## Aaron1981

> *Fire Haired, you posted this:*
> 
> From Supplementary Table S14.2:
> 
> Similarity of Irish Bronze Age Rathlin1 Celtic individual to modern populations (from top to bottom):
> 
> 1) Scottish ------------- 36.512
> 2) Ireland -------------- 36.313
> 3) Welsh --------------- 35.745
> ...


If I remember correctly, only Hinxton 4 was a good read. It would be nice to see this fit in the analysis, although I imagine it would yield very similar results to these BA Irish ones. I'm skeptical that Brythonic Celts were much different at all.

----------


## Alan

> They are not so absurd at all, actually. Y-DNA is most prone to such founder effects, more than mtDNA and than autosomal DNA.
> 
> Haven't you seen studies which show that "effective population size" of reproducing males was much smaller than that of females:
> 
> *"8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man 
> An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene":*
> 
> http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-tech...uctive-success


Are you actually aware that you are trying to prove, "male dominance" bullshit of David with the founder effect argument I used to disprove it? Founder effect doesn't speak for a all male part of one(EHG) group taking all females(CHG) from another, thats exactly what David and you claim. Founder effect on the other hand proves my point, get the facts straight.

Founder effect is exactly what I used as possible explanation of how ONE single Haplogroup R1b z2103 came to dominate most of the Yamna sample so far.

David didn't agree with that either. However all we have so far are mostly the eastern Yamna samples and they lack not only other Haplogroups but also any other sub clade which has been found among EHG.

----------


## Tomenable

*LeBrok,*

But England and Britain also has a lot of L21 and probably had more before the Common Era.

*Alan,*

Dominance is one of possible causes of a founder effect (others are immunity, chance, etc.).

----------


## Alan

> these SHG etc, are changing all the time, there is no consistency ..........we now have eurogenes stating ANE is now CHG


I didn't saw Eurogenes stating such a thing, but if he did, he is completely nuts.

I saw him stating that Mal'ta aka real "ANE" ancestry is almost non existing in modern West Eurasians. And the "ANE" showing up in the Near East is predominantly shared ancestry with CHG. So I am not sure if he said anything else like ANE is CHG, if he did, don't take that serious.

----------


## Tomenable

I believe both in cases of male dominance and in cases of founder effects during migrations (that would be "by chance").

So I partially agree both with you and with David.

But if autosomal DNA is changing so much faster than Y-DNA then it is rather due to dominance of some group of males.

----------


## Alan

> *LeBrok,*
> 
> But England and Britain also has a lot of L21 and probably had more before the Common Era.
> 
> *Alan,*
> 
> Dominance is one of possible causes of a founder effect (others are immunity, chance, etc.).


No, just no. 

Please first understand what Founder effect means. the "Dominance" that you and David claim, is not a founder effect. It is one cultural group (EHG or in the Beaker case "Yamna"), forcefully taking wives and only wives of the other culture. This is not a freakn founder effect. What you describe can be possibly a "Bottle-neck effect".

Founder effect is, when one or few individuals of a culture (Yamna) take the lead, after some time, be it through having more sons, being an Elite or something else, and dominate the yDNA of this culture. This is founder effect. 

Things speaking against bottleneck effect are, there is no EHG specific Haplogroup in Yamna and there is no Yamna specific Haplogroups in EHG.

That means what could have happened.

After CHG(male and female) and EHG(male and female) groups merged into one, a few Haplogroups (pred. R1b z2103) took somehow the lead and reproduced the most. Causing any other CHG and EHG male lineages to *"die out".

*Of course this is all still mere speculations cause we don't have any Yamna samples from further down South and West of the culture.
*
But not even this does the man on Eurogenes accept. All he wants to hear is, Super masculine EHG males came on horseback down to the Caucasus stole/took wives from there and rid back into the Steppes and this constantly.*

Now if that make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me.

And I can tell you why, another argument he prefers to ignore. The cultural influence from down south into Yamna is huge, far bigger than anything from EHG groups.

From Kurgans, to Bronze to herding simply everything on Yamna looks more Southern. Did these "stolen" wives teached all these things to the masculine EHG males ?

----------


## LeBrok

> No, just no. 
> 
> Please first understand what Founder effect means. the "Dominance" that you and David claim, is not a founder effect. It is one cultural group (EHG or in the Beaker case "Yamna"), forcefully taking wives and only wives of the other culture. This is not a freakn founder effect. What you describe can be possibly a "Bottle-neck effect".
> 
> Founder effect is, when one or few individuals of a culture (Yamna) take the lead, after some time, be it through having more sons, being an Elite or something else, and dominate the yDNA of this culture. This is founder effect. 
> 
> Things speaking against bottleneck effect are, there is no EHG specific Haplogroup in Yamna and there is no Yamna specific Haplogroups in EHG.


 So you don't agree that after bottlenecking, with lets say only one family males are left alive, founder effect will happen?




> That means what could have happened.
> 
> After CHG(male and female) and EHG(male and female) groups merged into one, a few Haplogroups (pred. R1b z2103) took somehow the lead and reproduced the most. Causing any other CHG and EHG male lineages to *"die out".
> *


Yes, it can possibly have statistical advantage, but only in small tribes. When a tribe is 10,000 strong, it is impossible to make much of progress with one male dominance. The only way for one haplogroup to dominate on a big scale is by positive natural selection.

----------


## Aaron1981

> What were we saying about R1b sex fantasies again? 
> 
> The paper that is the subject of this post emphatically stressed that your notions above were NOT the case. Please read it.
> 
> It emphasized that the early Irish population, where the males bore R1b, emigrated to Ireland in MASSIVE numbers, of both sexes. And that they had a large breeding population. This was not a "large breeding population _of native farmers_" because those populations, autosomally, did not form the bulk of the modern Irish population.
> 
> If you don't want to read the paper's findings, I summarized them here: http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2015/12...ithic-and.html
> 
> There was plenty of time for the Beaker, Lactase Persistent people to pick up non-Steppe genomes on the way to Ireland. As I have said several, several, several (and several) times before. Gosh to think that just this morning people were making fun of me for stating that R1b expanded due to LP. And then this paper states the same.
> ...


After reading many of your posts here and elsewhere, it seems you are the one with the agenda. "R1b expanded due to LP". Yes, that is full of holes since that mutation, like hemochromatosis ones, are not sex specific. Let's be pragmatic like you say, and stick to facts which are known. The paper did say a few pertinent facts to this discussion which are relevant.

-Ballynahatty was part of a non-endogamous culture, unlike Loschbour, which implies farmers immigrated to Ireland in quantity and gradually took over
-BA Irish were also non-endogamous and the paper stated that their farmer ancestry did not appear to be from the earlier Ballynahatty "farmer" ancestry of Ireland. Another case for subsequent migration of people to Ireland from the east.

None of this actually explains why R1b is dominant. One could infer that if the immigrants were largely R1b-L21+ and they replaced the earlier inhabitants, then by definition they would become a majority. To my simple logic, this seems to be the most reasonable case. It would not explain how R1b in general earned an advantage in west-central Europe which appears to also be true. There have been many papers and theories that suggest, perhaps to your dismay, that Neolithic and later cultures of Europe were *patriarchal,* and the later cultures of Europe, who appear to be R1b, had agriculture and metallurgy at their disposal which are most definitely advantageous to survival.

We know a few other significant details.

- The earliest hunter-gatherers of Europe are non-R1b males and at low frequency today. I2 and his descendants appears to be the more successful hunter gatherer over C-V20, who may be from an early wave (although that's my personal speculation since La Brana shows less correlation to most other genomes) You can't compare Sardinia to Ireland for many good reasons, but that is a topic for another discussion really. The plainly obvious difference between a Sardinian and Italian genome for starters - but Ireland and Britain show no such difference.

It's unfortunate that there wasn't a Neolithic Irish male sequenced. If he turned out to also be L21+, that would throw a wrench into the information we have at this point.

----------


## Tomenable

*Alan,*

The model of male elite dominance affecting Y-DNA - similar to the one David is talking about - has been mathematically validated. 

Heinrich Härke, Mark Thomas and Michael Stumpf created a realistic model showing that certain Y-DNA types can increase in frequency from 10% to 50% of the total during just 8 up to 12 generations (1 generation = ~25 years). All that is needed is female mate choice (or any other factor) giving dominant male group a selective advantage of 1.2 to 1 per generation. If group "B" conquers group "A" and initially B has 10% of Y-DNA and A has 90%, then if during the next 8-12 generations for every 1 A woman taking an A male as husband, 1.2 A women take a B male as a husband, then frequency of B haplogroups should increase to 50% of all Y-DNA after such time. If selective advantage is lesser than 1.2, then it will take more generations.

The paper in question, which discusses this model, is *"Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England"*. I am not saying that the model is based on valid data (because it is based on Capelli's 2002 estimates saying that half of English Y-DNA is Germanic - in reality the % of Germanic Y-DNA in English people can be lower; ancient DNA will tell us), but the model itself works with realistic mechanisms. The model shows 10% influx invading males ruling over 9 times more numerous local males, could still increase their Y-DNA from 1/10 to 1/2 even during just a dozen or so generations. And that of course without slaughtering the locals, just skewing the access to young females in favour of the victors.

All you need is an *apartheid-like* society, in which dominant groups can have as many wives as they want, etc.

----------


## Angela

> What were we saying about R1b sex fantasies again? 
> 
> The paper that is the subject of this post emphatically stressed that your notions above were NOT the case. Please read it.
> 
> It emphasized that the early Irish population, where the males bore R1b, emigrated to Ireland in MASSIVE numbers, of both sexes. And that they had a large breeding population. This was not a "large breeding population _of native farmers_" because those populations, autosomally, did not form the bulk of the modern Irish population.
> 
> If you don't want to read the paper's findings, I summarized them here: http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2015/12...ithic-and.html
> 
> There was plenty of time for the Beaker, Lactase Persistent people to pick up non-Steppe genomes on the way to Ireland. As I have said several, several, several (and several) times before. Gosh to think that just this morning people were making fun of me for stating that R1b expanded due to LP. And then this paper states the same.
> ...



I would suggest that instead of insulting yet another poster at eupedia your time would have been better spent re-reading the paper yourself. It seems to me that you are inflating and therefore misrepresenting the claims of this research paper, albeit perhaps unintentionally. 

Let's take LP. As I've already pointed out to you on your other thread, you were incorrect to state that LP originated on the steppe. Or, at least, there is no evidence yet to suggest that it did. It is correct that Eastern Bell Beaker, who seem to have been R1b, carried it. We don't know if the mutation occurred in them (unlikely if it should be confirmed that it already existed in Neolithic farmers in Spain) or if they picked it up from Middle Neolithic farmers, or from some unknown and as yet untested area of the steppe.

Once picked up, it proved useful, and selection began to operate. No one has ever disagreed with that.

Now, let's get to your comments in this post. You say that the paper states that R1b expanded, and perhaps particularly in Ireland, because of LP. Please quote the precise language in the paper, or supplement, including page number, where the authors make such a statement. I'll save you the trouble; that's your statement, not theirs.

This is what they actually say; it's quite different.

"several important genetic variants that* today* show maximal or very high frequencies in Ireland *appear* at this horizon. *These include those coding for lactase persistence*, blue eye color, *Y chromosome R1b* haplotypes, and the hemochromatosis C282Y allele..." 

Now, I'm not saying that LP wouldn't have helped a group survive and even expand. However, I would think they'd have to have a substantial percent of their population carrying the LP genes for it to really be a factor. Did you bother to read the supplement? Perhaps not. In said supplement it says the following:

"The most well documented genomic region associated with dietary change is the LCT lactase persistence locus. The high coverage Neolithic individual, Ballynahatty, was homozygous for the ancestral alleles at both the LCTa and LCTb loci, while the *high coverage Bronze Age male was a heterozygote at both positions*. Base calls for the two *lower coverage Bronze Age samples* indicated the presence of the *ancestral allele in these individuals*."

Now, perhaps if the coverage was better it would show they also had some LP derived snps, but perhaps not. If it was only 1/3 of them who carried it would it have been a tremendous advantage? Perhaps, but to portray this as a situation where a huge tribe of all LP people were given this huge advantage as they crossed the continent is rather overstating things, in my opinion. 

Let's now move on to your statement that the paper says that the Bronze Age R1b people migrated to Ireland in MASSIVE numbers of both sexes, by which I assume that you mean the sexes were equally represented, i.e. it was not a predominantly male migration. 

Please quote the precise language, page number etc. where the authors make this claim. I'll once again save you some time. They don't. They don't provide estimates of the numbers at all. What they're saying is that the modern Irish basically descend almost totally from these people. That is not quite the same thing. They certainly don't give an estimate of the gender break down. 

The phylogeny of this R1b clade in fact indicates that it was probably a small group that first arrived and the homogeneity of Irish R1b is because of a rapid expansion of a small group.

Now, this kind of misrepresentation of the paper's findings doesn't matter very much in the particular case of Ireland because the testing done by the authors indicates, if they are correct, that there was no input from the Irish MN people into the modern Irish, or, in other words, there was no mixing between the two groups. Now, I always like to think that encounters between two groups were peaceful, so perhaps the agricultural crash was so severe, as I mentioned upthread, that the MN population in Ireland virtually died out. In that case, the migrating group is moving into virtually virgin territory. The only other possibility would be that the few who remained were wiped out. The MN these Bronze Age people carry is from the continent, not Ireland. 

Now, on to a broader canvas. The story of the movement of the Indo-European groups carrying yDna R1b and R1a across the continent from the steppe is not the same as the story of the movement of these people into Ireland. While the farming populations of Central Europe experienced periodic population declines, Central Europe was certainly not virgin territory when the people from the steppe arrived. There were still substantial numbers of people remaining. In addition, I have never seen any paper that posits huge populations on the steppe. They barely had farming in the beginning and their herding mode of life was under stress from the same climate change which was wreaking havoc on the farmers. If you have a paper which proves a huge population on the steppe around 4000-3000 BC, please provide a link to it. Likewise, if you know of a paper which proves a vastly smaller population in central Europe, please provide it.

So, for the sake of argument, absent a tremendous disparity in numbers, why do we see a virtual wipe-out of G2 and I2, and overwhelming dominance of R1b and R1a? 

More importantly, even if there was a tremendous disparity in numbers, why don't we see a similar wipe-out of the MN mtDna lineages? Perhaps you should think about that. If you need some papers on the mtDna changes in Europe over time I can dig some out for you.

Btw, this situation is not analygous, in my opinion, to what happened on the steppe. There are a couple of possibilities for the incursion of CHG, up to 50%, into the Yamnaya, and the change in mtDna to include a large proportion of "Near Eastern" mtDna, while we only see one yDna-R1b. One is that there was bride exchange with south of Caucausus populations. I find that hard to believe because we don't see equal amounts of EHG in the southern populations, although perhaps the Samara EHG were so few in number that the exchange had a bigger effect on them. Then there is the "raiding" for wives scenario, which I know captures the imagination of some men but seems far fetched to me given the distances they'd have to have gone. The third is that there were other y dna groups on the steppe and they were either killed and their women were appropriated or we just haven't yet found their remains. After all we now have found a J2 Karelian like sample. Fourth, the specific R1b clade that formed Yamnaya sojourned for a while east or south of the steppe before returning, and carried some CHG themselves. 

I don't know which is the correct scenario. Perhaps we'll get some more clues soon. If it was indeed murder, or ethnic cleansing or whatever you want to call it, and then rape, then I too am ashamed to be a product of it, but it's happened many times in history, so we're probably all a product of it whether because of these events or similar ones. 

Oh, and thanks for the suggestion, but some of us have been reading Cavalli-Sforza for twenty-five years, and discussing his work for at least five years on this Board.

----------


## Maciamo

> The study found R1b in Ireland to be the result of mass immigration (and not elite dominance).


How could anyone come to such conclusion based on 3 samples from the same period from a single place in Ireland ? All it shows was that R1b men arrived from the continent and were very similar to the Unetice and other central European Proto-Italo-Celtic R1b people. 

We don't know yet whether these R1b people lived side by side with the Neolithic population for a while, whether they intermingled with them or not, or if they simply exterminated them. We don't know if R1b came through a massive, well-planned maritime migration or if, on the contrary, only a relatively small group of well-armed R1b people settled in Ireland and progressively outbred and killed the Neolithic inhabitants due to their more advanced weapons and their higher protein diet (livestock + milk) better suited to the rocky, infertile Irish soil. It could also be that the Neolithic population was had troubles surviving due to failing crops (as seems to have happened in many places around Europe in the Late Neolithic) and because their population was so small, R1b migrants had no difficulty supplanting them with their Steppe-like lifestyle, livestock and technologies, better suited to Ireland. But it could also be that R1b newcomers brought new diseases to which Neolithic populations were not immunized (like Europeans in the Americas) and that it was what ultimately gave them the edge to outbreed the indigenous peoples, without need for heavy warfare. All of these scenarios are possible and probably complementary, but this study cannot tell us which is the most likely as the authors didn't test samples from a variety of places or periods in Ireland throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. 

Who is to say that pockets of Neolithic farmers didn't survive for hundreds of years after the arrival of the Proto-Celtic R1b people ? After all there are still regions with 5 to 10% of Sardinian-like I2a1a in western Ireland (Connacht), while it is close to 0% in Ulster and Munster.

This study confirms what I already knew from inference, namely that R1b-L21 arrived in Ireland c. 2000 BCE with a migration of Bronze Age Proto-Celts from Central Europe. These Proto-Celts were descended from Steppe populations but already heavily admixed with Neolithic Central and Southeast Europeans after spending 2000 years in the Balkans, Carpathians and around Germany and Bohemia. It also confirms that prior to that Ireland was populated by Neolithic farmers similar to all other farmers in Neolithic Western Europe, as was obvious from the fact that they belonged to a wider collectivist Megalithic culture and were all part of the Bell Beaker trading network. 

The bottom line is that we still don't know how long it took for R1b-L21 to spread around Ireland. We don't know for how long Neolithic farmers survived independently after the arrival of these R1b people. We don't know whether wars, famines and/or diseases brought the collapse of the Neolithic population, nor how fast that collapse happened in various places around Ireland. It could be that R1b tribes quickly settled all over Ireland *or* that the island was divided in two zones (invaders vs indigenous), just like what happened with later migrations (Anglo-Normans, Vikings, Lowland Scots). If R1b people took all the island at once, they could have killed or enslaved the Neolithic population, or intermarried with them. In fact, both scenarios could have happened in different regions, just like what happened with the Europeans and Amerindians (Amerindians mostly wiped out in the first zones of contact in the Caribbeans, eastern Brazil and northeastern USA, but heavy intermingling in places like Mexico, Columbia, Peru or Paraguay). 

What's important to understand is when we retrace the history of population across a continent for several millennia is that there isn't a simple, unique explanation that applies to all regions and periods, but rather a mosaic of scenarios.


The way I see it is that it is very likely that _some_ intermingling happened between R1b invaders and the older Neolithic population for two important reasons:

1) R1b Proto-Indo-Europeans have always taken wives/concubines from conquered population, be it in the Caucasus, in the Steppe, in the Balkans, or in Central Europe. We know this from the changing admixtures over time and from the appearance of new mtDNA lineages matching the autochthonous haplogroups of each region. Foreign mtDNA entered slowly the R1b population, meaning that the majority of R1b men's wives were from their own tribe. But a minority of foreign women were taken in every region, and there is little reason to believe that it should be any different in Ireland.

2) The 3 Irish EBA samples are almost identical in admixtures to Unetice, but not to modern Irish - who have considerably more EEF admixture. Germanic migrations obviously altered the Irish gene pool since the Bronze Age, but is it really possible that Vikings and Normans brought much more EEF if modern Scandinavians have less EEF than modern Irish ? That doesn't seem right. The most probable scenario is that R1b tribes pushed Neolithic Irish farmers into isolated pockets inland and toward Connacht, that both groups lived side by side for many centuries, until eventually the two groups merged, perhaps only during the Iron Age, when class distinction faded and a new society emerged. The more time passes, the more people forget where they come from, and the more the effects of intermarriages uniformise neighbouring populations.

----------


## bicicleur

the expansion of R-L21 began just 500 years before they arrived in Ireland

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L21/

I wonder whether they allready spoke Goidelic, the Celtic language which spread all over the British Isles.
In that case, the origin of the Celts would be much earlier than anticipated, it would be 4.5 ka, the time when R1b-P312 split.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

If neolithic farming in Ireland was always relatively marginal then farmers from the Atlantic Megalith culture might not have fully covered the territory leaving surviving WHG populations on the fringes.

If subsequent to their settlement changing conditions led to a partial or complete farming collapse then you'd have the conditions for a small, partially LP population of incoming cattle herders to expand into the remaining territory (alongside strong selection for LP).

A dramatic founder effect and expansion from a small population seems to fit better with things like the very high frequency of the hemochromatosis C282Y allele (and did they check for their red haired frequency?)

If the pre-herder population of Ireland included a surviving whg population (or if the some parts of the megalith culture farmer population included a higher than usual whg percentage) then that could explain the WHG resurgence.

If it is a case of massive founder effect and not a massive tribal invasion then the seemingly male dominated nature of the expansion can easily be explained by the invaders coming from a male dominated occupation like
- mercenaries
- traders
- prospectors
- miners

----------


## Sile

> *Italy is in the center of the Mediterranean, which was the "superhighway" of the ancient world. It has been invaded by countless people: Neandertals, Cro-Magnons, Hunter Gatherers, Farmers, Herders, Samnites, Romans, Greeks, Goths, Franks, Lombards, Byzantines, Saracens. We all pretty much know the list, right? 
> 
> Italy has the largest Y-haplogroup diversity in all of Europe. It is a land that has been coveted for millennia. I think we all grasp this, as I have seen this posted on other threads here.
> 
> Ireland has very low Y-haplogroup diversity. It is almost 80% one haplogroup. It is a land that has been ignored for millennia. The Romans said "no thanks." The Anglo-Saxons said, "no thanks." There has not been much incursion. (Note I didn't say none). The fact that it is an island, and westernmost, and cold, all help its isolation. I think most of us know Ireland's geography and history.
> 
> If you populate one land, and every 100 years, 10% of the the population is new, you will end up with 10 different haplogroups after 1000 years. The ones that have been there longer will decrease in numbers. I think we all can grasp this math.
> 
> If you populate another land, and there are no introgressions to speak of, after the first major settlement, you will end up with FEWER haplogroups after 1000 years. The sheer chance of some males not having sons, and some males dying before childbearing age, will mean that their lineages die with them. The apparent variability will decrease over time. This is what I ask you to grasp, Fire Haired.
> ...


One must take in consideration the flooding in the po valley in Italy prevented this "italian association
*An advance began after the Last Glacial Maximum around 20,000 years ago, which brought the Adriatic to a high point at about 5500 years ago.[7] Since then the Po delta had been prograding. The rate of coastal zone progradation between 1000 BC and 1200 AD was 4 m/yr.[8] Human factors, however, brought about a change in the equilibrium in the mid-20th century with the result that the entire coastline of the northern Adriatic is now degrading
*and that the danube was much wider in water

only way into central Italy in early and mid neolithic was by boat or through Liguria. These 3 Irish must have stayed north of the danube river and marched to ireland through germany and northern france

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> New Study Shows MASSIVE Ancient BA Immigration Into Ireland


It shows a massive population turnover but more likely a massive founder effect from a small initial population imo.





> This is consistent with what I posted about the rather prosaic explanations for current distributions. Hunter gatherers started with small population sizes. Cereal farmers had medium. The influx of herders, with a ready supply of meat, and milk, and cereals had larger population sizes.


I don't think that can be true or herders would have replaced farmers everywhere. I think it's more a case that farmers have the highest population density in *optimal* farming terrain but that density declines as the terrain becomes more marginal for farming and at a certain point there's a crossover with herders having a higher potential density. You see this pattern everywhere - farmers in the best terrain, herders in the more marginal terrain and HGs only surviving in terrain that is too marginal even for herding.





> My guess is there is significant but minority Neolithic ancestry in British and Irish though.


Agree, with most in refuge zones like north Wales imo.





> I'm not surprised if she is descended from one of these LongBarrows people and close groups which expanded surely along all the Atlantic and North Sea shores until Scandinavia and which play a role in the formation of Funnel-TricherBK (more in North).


Yes, Atlantic Megalith culture person.





> So, that begs the question, one, as to what happened to the Irish Middle Neolithic people, and two, where did these Bronze Age people pick up their Middle Neolithic ancestry? ... As to the Irish MN, there are papers showing that the agriculture crash in Ireland was particularly severe ... What do you make of the claim of 40% WHG in her? ... If you take into account all three methods used, they come up with 2/3 MN versus 1/3 Yamnaya, so certainly not the total replacement of some of the speculation I've seen.


My guesses,
- Irish MN was only viable in the optimal farming land and the amount of that land was quite small in Ireland even before the farming collapse so imo they could have simply been swamped by the herders rather than massacred
- If they were disproportionately male and the result of multiple similar disproportionately male hops (for example) steppe -> Danube -> Hungary -> Brittany then their EEF percentage could have gone up with each hop. Then a final hop to Ireland where the local females were more EEF/WHG leading to a big boost for WHG at the end.
- If neolithic farming was always marginal in Ireland (acid soil from atlantic rain leaching) then WHG may have survived later than elsewhere.
- The total replacement may just mean the replacement of the Irish MN version of mixture. The incoming population brought some of the same components.





> How on Earth could they become 68% Non-Steppe (while moving from Ukraine to Ireland), but preserving 98% of Steppe Y-DNA ??? That would imply that it was a migration of mostly (or almost exclusively) males, who married almost exclusively local women. Were those Neolithic women all sex bombs? :)


If you "what if" the possibility of a disproportionately male migrations then what kind of historical analogies are there for example from America? I'd suggest occupations like trappers, hunters, traders, prospectors or miners.





> so are you saying the youngest haplogroup ( r1b ) basically populated a near empty ireland?


That's my view except either
- near empty after a dramatic contraction of the initial farmer settlement
- a mixture of above with some surviving low population density HG territory





> How on earth can you explain 70% non Steppic ancestry just all by male replacement that is technically noit possible. Thats just crazy and honestly the only two individuals still holding on this theory are you and Davidski.


Multiple events.

If you have a standard pattern of 80% migrants made up of 50% male and 30% female with the extra 20% females coming from the locals then each move reduces the steppe adna without effecting the ydna. In this example the steppe adna would go 80% -> 64% -> 51% -> 41% -> 33% so five hops in total
e.g.
- Steppe - Danube - Hungary - Brittany - Ireland
or
- Steppe - Crete - Sardinia - Iberia - Ireland

##

----------


## Tomenable

Bronze Age Irish samples had R1b-L21 Y-DNA, but their mtDNA haplogroups were U5b2a2 and J2b1a.

U5b2a2 has confirmed presence in Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe, and J2b1a was in Neolithic Europe.

So the idea that it was a mixture of mostly immigrant Y-DNA + mostly local mtDNA seems correct.

----------


## Alan

> So you don't agree that after bottlenecking, with lets say only one family males are left alive, founder effect will happen?
> 
> Yes, it can possibly have statistical advantage, but only in small tribes. When a tribe is 10,000 strong, it is impossible to make much of progress with one male dominance. The only way for one haplogroup to dominate on a big scale is by positive natural selection.


Lebrok the whole point is that they claim a horde of "horny" EHG males went all the way down south to take some CHG females as wives, completely ignoring their own females. So in their theory CHG did not play ANY role in the formation of Yamna beside giving ~50% aDNA admixture through "captured" females.

Hmm last time I checked however Kurgans, Bronze, Wagons, Herding everything came from down South. 

Also what they ignore is, EHG does not have any R1b z2103 so far. 

Thats means 

1. We don't know yet where these R1b z2103 came from.
2. We don't have any EHG specific lineages to even support this male dominance theory in slightest
3. Yamna is build on southern cultural foundations.


Now if a Founder effect took place is not even the main question. The question is, IF there was a founder effect how did it happen. Was it some lonely EHG males taking the journey down to the Caucasus to get some CHG females as wives (the points above and the fact that it is only one lineage instead many speak against it), or was it rather that one male lineage somehow came to dominate the culture after some time?

Even than we don't even know if this R1b z2103 samples are representative of all Yamna, because we don't habe any samples from South and West of the culture.

----------


## Maciamo

> Bronze Age Irish samples had R1b-L21 Y-DNA, but their mtDNA haplogroups were U5b2a2 and J2b1a.
> 
> U5b2a2 has confirmed presence in Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe, and J2b1a was in Neolithic Europe.
> 
> So the idea that it was a mixture of mostly immigrant Y-DNA + mostly local mtDNA seems correct.


How on earth could you say that U5b2a2 and J2b1a were local lineages ? U5b2a is found all over Europe from Russia to the British Isles, including places like Latvia, Poland and Croatia. It is Mesolithic pan-European and was surely already in the Steppe before the Bronze Age. It was also found in several samples from neolithic Germany (but not Southeast Europe or Anatolia) and in one Unetice sample. That last one would seem to confirm that it could very well have come with R1b from the continent to Ireland. It's impossible to say if that particular U5b2a2 was integrated to the R1b tribes in central Europe or if it came straight from the Steppe. MtDNA isn't accurate enough for that.

J2b1a was clearly brought by Neolithic farmers from the Near East. It was found in Neolithic Germany and Sweden, so once again it could have been a female lineage absorbed by R1b tribes in central Europe long before R1b moved to Ireland. 

More importantly, the third Irish EBA R1b was U5a1b1e, which nowadays is found mostly in Northeast Europe (esp. Scandinavia, Finland and Russia) and Central Asia, and therefore indicates more reasonably a Steppe origin. The FTDNA U5 Project does not have any U5a1b1e from Ireland.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Maciamo,

U5b2a2 is from WHG then EEF. U5b2a existing in Russia today isn't evidence it came from the Steps. Most of Russian's ancestors came from Central Europe to Russia in the Middle Ages, and if not then in 2000 BC. Also, R1b-L21 was the Y DNA of local people in Bronze age Ireland. East Bell Beaker was a R1b-P312 nation. The people who came to Ireland were an R1b-L21 nation. R1b did not become popular gradually because the powerful had it.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> they claim a horde of "horny" EHG males went all the way down south to take some CHG females as wives, completely ignoring their own females.


Not true.

There is an odd disconnect between the Yamnaya ydna and mtdna which needs some explanation and one possible explanation is violence.

No doubt there are other possible explanations.

----------


## DuPidh

> If neolithic farming in Ireland was always relatively marginal then farmers from the Atlantic Megalith culture might not have fully covered the territory leaving surviving WHG populations on the fringes.
> 
> If subsequent to their settlement changing conditions led to a partial or complete farming collapse then you'd have the conditions for a small, partially LP population of incoming cattle herders to expand into the remaining territory (alongside strong selection for LP).
> 
> A dramatic founder effect and expansion from a small population seems to fit better with things like the very high frequency of the hemochromatosis C282Y allele (and did they check for their red haired frequency?)
> 
> If the pre-herder population of Ireland included a surviving whg population (or if the some parts of the megalith culture farmer population included a higher than usual whg percentage) then that could explain the WHG resurgence.
> 
> If it is a case of massive founder effect and not a massive tribal invasion then the seemingly male dominated nature of the expansion can easily be explained by the invaders coming from a male dominated occupation like
> ...



I think is an invasion! Irish invaders were for most part hunter gatherers in constant move for food. They were thieves as well. They had noted on their move that there were people who had possessions and those possessions could be stolen. So, probably they killed a lot of Southern European people type, indigenous people who had occupied the territories thousands of years ahead. I think the invading Irish had more fighting skills since their survival depended on them , so they were a lot better fighting force who killed most indigenous people and stole their food. Why do you think such encounters were peaceful? 
I think this explains why Irish can't cook! (with the exception of boiling potatoes).

----------


## Ukko

> I think is an invasion! Irish invaders were for most part hunter gatherers in constant move for food. They were thieves as well. They had noted on their move that there were people who had possessions and those possessions could be stolen. So, probably they killed a lot of Southern European people type, indigenous people who had occupied the territories thousands of years ahead. I think the invading Irish had more fighting skills since their survival depended on them , so they were a lot better fighting force who killed most indigenous people and stole their food. Why do you think such encounters were peaceful? 
> I think this explains why Irish can't cook! (with the exception of boiling potatoes).


I gather you dont like the Irish.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## RobertColumbia

> *Italy is in the center of the Mediterranean, which was the "superhighway" of the ancient world. It has been invaded by countless people: Neandertals, Cro-Magnons, Hunter Gatherers, Farmers, Herders, Samnites, Romans, Greeks, Goths, Franks, Lombards, Byzantines, Saracens. We all pretty much know the list, right? 
> 
> Italy has the largest Y-haplogroup diversity in all of Europe. It is a land that has been coveted for millennia. I think we all grasp this, as I have seen this posted on other threads here.
> 
> Ireland has very low Y-haplogroup diversity. It is almost 80% one haplogroup. It is a land that has been ignored for millennia. The Romans said "no thanks." The Anglo-Saxons said, "no thanks." There has not been much incursion. (Note I didn't say none). The fact that it is an island, and westernmost, and cold, all help its isolation. I think most of us know Ireland's geography and history.
> 
> If you populate one land, and every 100 years, 10% of the the population is new, you will end up with 10 different haplogroups after 1000 years....
> The last paragraph will give the ILLUSION that only 1 group of guys was having kids, because they were "royalty" (as you said) or "getting all the ladies" (as Tomenable said). Alas, they are simply not true.
> *


Right. Some other "superhighway" lands that have very high Y-haplogroup diversity are Greece, Turkey, the Fertile Crescent, and Iran. These have been highly desirable areas - convenient to major transportation routes and very good for farming. Compare this with pre-colonial Australia, which was dominated by C-bearing men for thousands of years.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I think is an invasion! Irish invaders were for most part hunter gatherers in constant move for food. They were thieves as well. They had noted on their move that there were people who had possessions and those possessions could be stolen. So, probably they killed a lot of Southern European people type, indigenous people who had occupied the territories thousands of years ahead. I think the invading Irish had more fighting skills since their survival depended on them , so they were a lot better fighting force who killed most indigenous people and stole their food. Why do you think such encounters were peaceful? 
> I think this explains why Irish can't cook! (with the exception of boiling potatoes).


Next it'll be Syrians who move to Europe in massive numbers and change genes :). Europeans don't want to have kids anymore, care more about individual rights and feelings than issues that matter. Anyways, there's no way to know if migration matches that narrative. A lot of those narratives for pre-history are motivated by racism. 

I wouldn't be surprised if conquest and rape did happen, but it can't be that simple. Plus, natives don't just stop having sex once new people arrive. 60-80% of EEF/WHG men would have still been having sons when Steppe arrived. Why would they stop? All Europeans are 50%+ non-Steppe, the admixture could not have been solely Steppe male and non-Steppe female. 

Spain is a perfect example. Over 60% have R1b-P312, yet probably under 20% of their ancestry and under 50% of their ancestry is LNBA Central European. EEF/WHG continued to have sons. Maybe Steppe groups were dominate and larger in number, and had powerful elite who are the reason most Europeans today have Steppe Y DNA.

----------


## moore2moore

> Now, let's get to your comments in this post. You say that the paper states that R1b expanded, and perhaps particularly in Ireland, because of LP. Please quote the precise language in the paper, or supplement, including page number, where the authors make such a statement. I'll save you the trouble; that's your statement, not theirs.
> 
> Let's now move on to your statement that the paper says that the Bronze Age R1b people migrated to Ireland in MASSIVE numbers of both sexes, by which I assume that you mean the sexes were equally represented, i.e. it was not a predominantly male migration. 
> 
> Please quote the precise language, page number etc. where the authors make this claim. I'll once again save you some time. They don't. They don't provide estimates of the numbers at all. What they're saying is that the modern Irish basically descend almost totally from these people. That is not quite the same thing. They certainly don't give an estimate of the gender break down. 
> 
> The phylogeny of this R1b clade in fact indicates that it was probably a small group that first arrived and the homogeneity of Irish R1b is because of a rapid expansion of a small group.
> 
> 
> Oh, and thanks for the suggestion, but some of us have been reading Cavalli-Sforza for twenty-five years, and discussing his work for at least five years on this Board.


Now, now, there is no need for sarcasm. Many of us have read books for a long time, but sometime we require reminders about their contents. And I am unaware of any reason why posting longer on one particular board makes one more rational or special. *Unless of course one is R1b. (Ha!)

Actually the authors do state what I stated, but you need to use some logic. I don't say this to offend you; please assume the best and take this at face value. We are all adults here; we all understand that written words sometimes look more harsh than they should.

The authors state:

1. The autosomal genes of the previous Irish inhabitants did not survive until modern times in Ireland. They survived in places like Sardinia.

2. The new inhabitants had a huge population. We know this because we did Runs of Homozygosity. 

3. The new inhabitants bore R1b patrilines.

4. Since the older matrilines and autosome did not survive, and since the new population was large, and since humans need men and women to have babies....

There is only one conclusion that is possible.

*I have a demographic hypothetical for you, and I'm curious about your answer and Tomenable's. 

There is a tribe on an island with 300 members. 100 are senior citizens, 100 are parents, and 100 are kids.

The next generation of kids (100) is split, as humans tend to be when young, at 50% males, 50% females.

The males come from 5 patrilines, the females, 5 matrilines.

MEN...DIE...YOUNGER....THAN...WOMEN. Men have higher mortality rates across their lives than women. It used to be war and hunting; now it is industrial accidents.

This is true in every society across the globe and has always been true.

Back to our tribe: 

The 50 males go hunting one day, and a bear gets the best of 5 of them. 45 return.

Of the 45 males, 5 get drunk and brawl and later die from their injuries. 40 now live.

Then they get into a war with another tribe, and 10 die. Now there are 30 males of breeding population in the tribe, and 50 females.

Over time, this will give a FALSE APPEARANCE. Don't fall for it. It's simple demography.

Tomenable: is this evidence that women preferred certain male lines?

Angela: is this evidence that the initial settlers were all men, who had their way with multiple women?

Serious questions, yes or no.

*

----------


## LeBrok

> 2. The new inhabitants had a huge population. We know this because we did Runs of Homozygosity.


You see, your point is based on huge migration scenario, so yet you use a thought exercise based on a small tribe?




> *I have a demographic hypothetical for you, and I'm curious about your answer and Tomenable's. 
> 
> There is a tribe on an island with 300 members. 100 are senior citizens, 100 are parents, and 100 are kids.
> 
> The next generation of kids (100) is split, as humans tend to be when young, at 50% males, 50% females.
> 
> The males come from 5 patrilines, the females, 5 matrilines.
> 
> MEN...DIE...YOUNGER....THAN...WOMEN. Men have higher mortality rates across their lives than women. It used to be war and hunting; now it is industrial accidents.
> ...


I'd say, repeat your exercise on a scale of a big tribe of 30,000 people. You'll notice that things become more randomly even. When you lose 10,000 people, you would lose proportionally same amount of all haplogroups.
Now repeat the same exercise on small or big group, with a twist. Add extra male offspring for one of the haplogroups and run it for 100 generations, it is about 3,000 years. This is how small positive mutation works. We'll see what you'll get.

----------


## DuPidh

> I gather you dont like the Irish.


I like Irish! I am a bit biased about Irish women, because of their drinking habits. But men are fabulous!
The only problem is some Irish tend to use the term wogs against Southern Europeans, which has I think displeasure connotation against middle eastern and southern europeans. Here we go Irish! The wogs taught you how to grow cabbage. They also brought the potato from Americas, since Irish like potatoes.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> 1. The autosomal genes of the previous Irish inhabitants did not survive until modern times in Ireland.


That's one possibility. Another is the neolithic farmer population was relatively small and the new herder population swamped them.

----------


## Angela

> If neolithic farming in Ireland was always relatively marginal then farmers from the Atlantic Megalith culture might not have fully covered the territory leaving surviving WHG populations on the fringes.
> 
> If subsequent to their settlement changing conditions led to a partial or complete farming collapse then you'd have the conditions for a small, partially LP population of incoming cattle herders to expand into the remaining territory (alongside strong selection for LP).
> 
> A dramatic founder effect and expansion from a small population seems to fit better with things like the very high frequency of the hemochromatosis C282Y allele (and did they check for their red haired frequency?)
> 
> If the pre-herder population of Ireland included a surviving whg population (or if the some parts of the megalith culture farmer population included a higher than usual whg percentage) then that could explain the WHG resurgence.
> 
> If it is a case of massive founder effect and not a massive tribal invasion then the seemingly male dominated nature of the expansion can easily be explained by the invaders coming from a male dominated occupation like
> ...


Interestingly, I didn't see any derived MCIR for red hair in the tables. As I said above, the two groups seemed to both be derived homozygotes for the two major skin depigmentation genes. The Bronze Age men were heterozygotes for HERC2, so brown eyed, but this is only three men, so there might have been people who were actually blue eyed among them. As the authors state, one of them probably had lighter hair with brown eyes. 

The severity of the farming collapse in Britain is well-documented, so we're talking about a very small population remaining, unlike in other areas of Europe. The authors don't see, as I pointed out before, any input from the Irish Neolithic people into the Bronze Age people, but as Maciamo pointed out these are three samples from one area. We might find samples from other areas that do show some input from the prior people. 

It's difficult to know how many actual migrants made their way into Ireland. If this clade did start expanding five hundred years earlier, that might have been in central Europe or northwest France where it can also be found. 

The mtDna of these Bronze Age men is also interesting. It's not the HV of the Irish Megalithic woman, but neither is it very steppe like. The U5b is western and central European Mesolithic and also found in central European farmers. The J2b likewise is common in central European farmers. It's only the U5a that we could say is steppe related.

If I have time I'll take a look at the modern breakdown of mtDna in Ireland.

----------


## Tomenable

> that might have been in central Europe or northwest France where it can also be found.


It's presence in North-West France can be from much later times, when Britons from Britain settled there (hence the name Bretagne).

----------


## LeBrok

> It's presence in North-West France can be from much later times, when Britons from Britain settled there (hence the name Bretagne).


I think the U5s and even J2 could have been Central/East European in their case. I think Maciamo pegged Unetice Culture as R1b. He might be right again. Was there any recent discovery of Y hg from Unetice?

----------


## Tomenable

> I think Maciamo pegged Unetice Culture as R1b. He might be right again. Was there any recent discovery of Y hg from Unetice?


We have 4 samples of Y-DNA from Unetice culture and no of them is R1b, only R1a and I2 (including I2a and I2c).

*Unetice sample (age) haplogroup:*

RISE431 (2286-2048 BC) ------ *R1a1a1*
I0114 (2131-1979 BC) ----------- *I2a2*
I0116 (2118-1961 BC) ----------- *I2c2*
I0804 (2200-1550 BC) ------------ *I2*

*And here Unetcie mtDNA samples:*

http://s11.postimg.org/rtx9wcf8z/Unetice_mt_DNA.png



Sum:

U2 - 7
U4 - 2
U5 - 15
U8 - 3
==========
(U in total) - 27
==========
H - 21
==========
HV - 1
J - 6
T1 - 2
T2 - 8
K - 9
X - 5
W - 4
V - 4
R - 1

----------


## moore2moore

> You see, your point is based on huge migration scenario, so yet you use a thought exercise based on a small tribe?
> 
> 
> I'd say, repeat your exercise on a scale of a big tribe of 30,000 people. You'll notice that things become more randomly even. When you lose 10,000 people, you would lose proportionally same amount of all haplogroups.
> Now repeat the same exercise on small or big group, with a twist. Add extra male offspring for one of the haplogroups and run it for 100 generations, it is about 3,000 years. This is how small positive mutation works. We'll see what you'll get.


I'm afraid you've entirely missed the point. 

In a population size of 30,000 (or 1 million), there will be different haplogroups and different clades and subclades. (Remember haplogroups are a human construct. We could call "R1a" "P5b" if we wanted to.)

At any rate, there will be several different lineages in any population. But some will die out. Whether these are different subclades of R1b or other Hgs. If there is no further input, you will see an apparent reduction in patrilines.

This is taught in every genetics textbook, with the examples, well proven, about surname collapse on deserted islands with castaways.

Males die at different proportions to females, as my example above (and demography) outlines rather clearly. It's not a proportion thing. Every generation, there is the risk of failing to have male offspring and dying in war. For rare clades, each generation taking one more off the table means that there are fewer every generation.

This will give the ILLUSION that there was a founding pop of fewer males. Don't be fooled.

I might add another possibility, somewhat tongue in cheek, but there are historical examples. It is a possibility that the R1b males were pacifists, and they refused to fight wars, so the other castes did all the fighting. Kind of like how the Brahmin caste were priests, but the Vardhan caste were warriors, in India.

My point is that there are many more explanations than the "sexual selection" theory or the "every R1b was a royal chieftain" theory that some cling to.

But of course, many will stubbornly fight this possibility because, well, I think most of us know why.

----------


## LeBrok

> I'm afraid you've entirely missed the point. 
> 
> In a population size of 30,000 (or 1 million), there will be different haplogroups and different clades and subclades. (Remember haplogroups are a human construct. We could call "R1a" "P5b" if we wanted to.)
> 
> At any rate, there will be several different lineages in any population. But some will die out. Whether these are different subclades of R1b or other Hgs. If there is no further input, you will see an apparent reduction in patrilines.


What will disappear are deep subclades, which are low in numbers. That's why accidental deaths and natural disasters can wipe them out. For the major clades or haplogroups it won't work, because their members number in thousands. 
Exercise:
Start with 1,000 members of each haplogroup, 1k R1b, 1k I2, etc, up to 6 of them (or use subclades of one haplogroup), simulating mixed population of 6 thousand males. Roll a dice to determine who will die accidently. 1 for R1b dying, 2 for I2, etc. Do 4,800 rounds, simulating death of most of the tribe, and check proportion of each haplogoup.
I assure you that each haplogroup will be close to 200 members, probably not more than 10% fluctuation. If you increase the tribe to 100 thousand members the fluctuation of proportions of haplogroups will be even smaller, like 1%.

Now, do the same exercise for only 10 members of each haplogroup, tribe of 60 males. Roll the dice 48 times, till 12 members of the tribe are left. This time check proportions. Not only they will have bigger disproportions, but most likely you wiped out one or two haplogroups. Even if 20 dies off, there is a chance of losing one complete haplogroup.

That's the difference of accidental or random fluctuations on small and big numbers. I hope now you get what I mean and how it works.





> This is taught in every genetics textbook, with the examples, well proven, about *surname collapse on deserted islands with castaways*.


Another example of small group.



> Males die at different proportions to females, as my example above (and demography) outlines rather clearly. It's not a proportion thing. Every generation, there is the risk of failing to have male offspring and dying in war. For rare clades, each generation taking one more off the table means that there are fewer every generation.


 Again for small subclades or small groups, similar to bottlenecking phenomenon.




> I might add another possibility, somewhat tongue in cheek, but there are historical examples. It is a possibility that the R1b males were pacifists, and they refused to fight wars, so the other castes did all the fighting.


 If it happens only to R1b guys, it would mean a genetic predisposition, mutation on Y chromosome. Therefore by ways of natural selection.





> Kind of like how the Brahmin caste were priests, but the Vardhan caste were warriors, in India.


 Interesting that upper caste has more R1a than other castes, up to 50%. It looks more like a founder effect of Indo-Iranian invasion. Upper caste was rich, more resources and higher survival of offspring. However entire India sports 6 major haplogroups and few minor ones. Perhaps because it always was a huge population in fertile land, unlike Ireland.




> My point is that there are many more explanations than the "sexual selection" theory or the "every R1b was a royal chieftain" theory that some cling to.


 I'm not sure how you figured that we are not dealing with *all* above mechanisms of evolution of populations. And just to be on a record. Your number theory has part in it too. Bigger in smaller population, lesser in larger. But it should be stressed, that it is not the only mechanism. Life is more complex than just numbers.




> But of course, many *will stubbornly fight this possibility* because, well, I think most of us know why.


 Stop seeing it as black and white issue, and stop exaggerating. You are the only one who is trying to force it on others as a leading or even only forcing of haplogroup selection. We, on other hand, admit its existence and a role it plays, but also accept other forces, like natural selection, bottleneck, founder effect, etc. They all take part.

----------


## LeBrok

> We have 4 samples of Y-DNA from Unetice culture and no of them is R1b, only R1a and I2 (including I2a and I2c).
> 
> *Unetice sample (age) haplogroup:*
> 
> RISE431 (2286-2048 BC) ------ *R1a1a1*
> I0114 (2131-1979 BC) ----------- *I2a2*
> I0116 (2118-1961 BC) ----------- *I2c2*
> I0804 (2200-1550 BC) ------------ *I2*
> 
> ...


Thanks, wrong place then. Look at these I2 dominating "Poland". ;)

----------


## Maciamo

> The authors don't see, as I pointed out before, any input from the Irish Neolithic people into the Bronze Age people, but as Maciamo pointed out these are three samples from one area. We might find samples from other areas that do show some input from the prior people.


I would be really surprising to find signs of admixtures with locals right after R1b Proto-Celts migrated to Ireland, c. 2000 BCE. The Rathlin-1 sample dates from 1950 BCE _±_ 70 years, and Rathlin-2 from 1880 BCE _±_ 140 years. So they might have been the first or second generation of their lineage to live in Ireland. They may not even have been born there. So it's only to be expected that they shouldn't have any local admixture. If they had, they would surely be the first generation of 'hybrids' and they would look half Unetice and half Neolithic Irish.

As I said above, it is more likely that the two groups (R1b vs Neolithic Irish) lived side by side for many centuries before they started intermingling. The fact that Rathlin-3, who dates from c. 1630 BCE still shows no sign of local admixture would seem to confirm this. But I am confident that the two groups eventually merged, as modern Irish DNA clearly has more EEF than the Rathlin samples.

----------


## Tomenable

> Thanks, wrong place then. Look at these I2 dominating "Poland". ;)


Actually all three Unetice I2 samples are from "Germany", while only Unetice R1a sample is from "Poland" - locations added:

RISE431 (2286-2048 BC) ------ *R1a1a1 ----- Łęki Małe, Poland*
I0114 (2131-1979 BC) ----------- *I2a2 ----- Esperstedt, Germany*
I0116 (2118-1961 BC) ----------- *I2c2 ----- Esperstedt, Germany*
I0804 (2200-1550 BC) ------------ *I2 ------- Eulau, Germany

*I would like to see also some Unetice Y-DNA samples from Czech Republic, and of course more samples in general.




> As I said above, it is more likely that the two groups (R1b vs Neolithic Irish) lived side by side for many centuries before they started intermingling. The fact that Rathlin-3, who dates from c. 1630 BCE still shows no sign of local admixture would seem to confirm this. But I am confident that the two groups eventually merged, as modern Irish DNA clearly has more EEF than the Rathlin samples.


Good points Maciamo, this is one of reasons why we should be careful before assuming replacements everywhere.

----------


## Tomenable

> Interesting that upper caste has more R1a than other castes, up to 50%. It looks more like a founder effect of Indo-Iranian invasion. Upper caste was rich, more resources and higher survival of offspring. However entire India sports 6 major haplogroups and few minor ones. Perhaps because it always was a huge population in fertile land, unlike Ireland.


In some upper castes R1a is even *around or over 70%* (e.g. Punjab Khatris, West Bengal Brahmins, Uttar Pradesh Brahmins, Nepali Brahmins, Nepali Kshatriya, etc.). Generally speakers of Aryan languages and upper castes have higher percentages (but frequencies differ significantly between samples from various studies and various groups). The average share of R1a in the whole Indian sub-continent is harder to establish, but probably up to 1/3, so up to 300 million males, much more than the combined number of R1b and R1a males in Europe (but combined R1b and R1a are around 1/2 of all European males, a higher percentage than in India).

----------


## DuPidh

> Actually all three Unetice I2 samples are from "Germany", while only Unetice R1a sample is from "Poland" - locations added:
> 
> RISE431 (2286-2048 BC) ------ *R1a1a1 ----- Łęki Małe, Poland*
> I0114 (2131-1979 BC) ----------- *I2a2 ----- Esperstedt, Germany*
> I0116 (2118-1961 BC) ----------- *I2c2 ----- Esperstedt, Germany*
> I0804 (2200-1550 BC) ------------ *I2 ------- Eulau, Germany
> 
> *I would like to see also some Unetice Y-DNA samples from Czech Republic, and of course more samples in general.
> 
> ...



Early farmers were tech advanced compared with pastoral R1b. The early farmers were not strictly farmers, the had pastoral skills as well. So, according to my imagination the initial encounter of pastoral R1B with the farmers were violent. After violence settled they cooperated and intermingled but early farmers were less resistant against deceases the R1b brought. So as a rule the early farmers should have outnumbered the R1b but they were devastated by deceases the R1b brought. Think of Usa INDIANS.

----------


## bicicleur

> Early farmers were tech advanced compared with pastoral R1b. The early farmers were not strictly farmers, the had pastoral skills as well. So, according to my imagination the initial encounter of pastoral R1B with the farmers were violent. After violence settled they cooperated and intermingled but early farmers were less resistant against deceases the R1b brought. So as a rule the early farmers should have outnumbered the R1b but they were devastated by deceases the R1b brought. Think of Usa INDIANS.


that is your opinion
early farmers didn't have wheels
did they have draught animals?
did they have ploughs?
how much milk did their cows produce?

----------


## DuPidh

> that is your opinion
> early farmers didn't have wheels
> did they have draught animals?
> did they have ploughs?
> how much milk did their cows produce?


You mean R1b pastorals brought ploughs?
Why did they need them when they had no idea of farming?
You mean R1b pastorals had wheels?
Don't the wheels need roads?
Wheels are Mesopotamian inventions of 3000 bc, time when R1b pastorals were raiding Europe

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Interestingly, I didn't see any derived MCIR for red hair in the tables. As I said above, the two groups seemed to both be derived homozygotes for the two major skin depigmentation genes. The Bronze Age men were heterozygotes for HERC2, so brown eyed, but this is only three men, so there might have been people who were actually blue eyed among them. As the authors state, one of them probably had lighter hair with brown eyes. 
> 
> The severity of the farming collapse in Britain is well-documented, so we're talking about a very small population remaining, unlike in other areas of Europe. The authors don't see, as I pointed out before, any input from the Irish Neolithic people into the Bronze Age people, but as Maciamo pointed out these are three samples from one area. We might find samples from other areas that do show some input from the prior people. 
> 
> It's difficult to know how many actual migrants made their way into Ireland. If this clade did start expanding five hundred years earlier, that might have been in central Europe or northwest France where it can also be found. 
> 
> The mtDna of these Bronze Age men is also interesting. It's not the HV of the Irish Megalithic woman, but neither is it very steppe like. The U5b is western and central European Mesolithic and also found in central European farmers. The J2b likewise is common in central European farmers. It's only the U5a that we could say is steppe related.
> 
> If I have time I'll take a look at the modern breakdown of mtDna in Ireland.


Yes. I have my pet miner theory but it doesn't really matter for this part whether it was a small miner migration or a large tribal one. If the neolithic farmer population was small and limited to a few regions because of the climate conditions the cattle herders may have had plenty of land to fill before any need of conflict and the small farmer population could have simply been absorbed into a population that became much larger.




> I didn't see any derived MCIR for red hair in the tables




drat :)

----------


## bicicleur

> You mean R1b pastorals brought ploughs?
> Why did they need them when they had no idea of farming?
> You mean R1b pastorals had wheels?
> Don't the wheels need roads?
> Wheels are Mesopotamian inventions of 3000 bc, time when R1b pastorals were raiding Europe


LBK didn't have ploughs nor draught animals
probably Vinca and Cucuteni-Tripolye had, and so R1b new them too
they also had more productive milk cows
R1b had wheels and draught animals too
the wheel was invented 3500 years ago in a place unknown
old school archeologists did attribute all major inventions to Mesopotamia

when LBK didn't find any more loess soil, their tribes started to kill each other

----------


## Tomenable

All kinds of similarity - autosomal DNA, Y-DNA and mtDNA - point to common origin of East Europeans and Indo-Aryans:

*"Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations":

*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC311057/

*Excerpts:

1) mtDNA similarity (it is not as significant as other affinities):

*Quote:

"To explore the impact of West Eurasians on contemporary Indian caste populations, we compared mtDNA (400 bp of hypervariable region 1 and 14 restriction site polymorphisms) and Y-chromosome (20 biallelic polymorphisms and 5 short tandem repeats) variation in ∼265 males from eight castes of different rank to ∼750 Africans, Asians, Europeans, and other Indians. *For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most similar to Asians. However, 20%–30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes."*

*2) Y-DNA similarity (the most significant of all types of affinities):*

Quote:

"In contrast, *for paternally inherited Y-chromosome variation each caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians. Moreover, the affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans.* These findings are consistent with greater West Eurasian male admixture with castes of higher rank."

*3) Authors also compared autosomal DNA, to validate conclusion:*

Quote:

*"Nevertheless, the mitochondrial genome and the Y chromosome each represents only a single haploid locus and is more susceptible to large stochastic variation, bottlenecks, and selective sweeps.* 

*Thus, to increase the power of our analysis, we assayed 40 independent, biparentally inherited autosomal loci (1 LINE-1 and 39 Alu elements) in all of the caste and continental populations (∼600 individuals). Analysis of these data demonstrated that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes. Collectively, all five datasets show a trend toward upper castes being more similar to Europeans, whereas lower castes are more similar to Asians."

*============================

Check also this website, "The Aryan Trail":

https://sites.google.com/a/sudiptoda.../thearyantrail

----------


## Angela

> Yes. I have my pet miner theory but it doesn't really matter for this part whether it was a small miner migration or a large tribal one. If the neolithic farmer population was small and limited to a few regions because of the climate conditions the cattle herders may have had plenty of land to fill before any need of conflict and the small farmer population could have simply been absorbed into a population that became much larger.
> 
> 
> 
> drat :)
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]


Exactly. As far as I'm concerned there isn't* one* model for the Indo-European migrations that fits every part of Europe or Central Asia or South Asia. In terms of Ireland, it may indeed have been a situation where it was an almost empty landscape, so it wouldn't matter if it was a small or a "massive" number of new people. Given its isolation, and its climate, and the quality of its soil, it wasn't subject to any further major migrations. Then later, with the end of the Bronze Age, there was another major population collapse. 

These things are more than enough to explain the current demographic situation in Ireland. In other areas the circumstances were different. Much depends on the existing population density, whether a particular influx was of "families", like, for example, the Lombards in Italy, to jump ahead in time, or more male dominated, as has been proposed for the Goths in Italy. It also matters, as I've been saying for a long time, how "mixed" the Indo Europeans were before they got to certain areas. Looking at these Irish Bronze Age men, they were very mixed indeed; only about 1/3 Yamnaya, and if we take out the 1/2 CHG, only 1/6 of the original steppe group. It would have been a group like this, I think, which would have brought the Indo-European languages to Italy. We'll see if the ancient dna bears that out.

Yes, disappointing about the MCIR. Of course, this is only three samples. I do have some interest in the topic since so many of my father's people have copper red hair. I've always wondered how it got to them. That it's so prevalent in their villages is no surprise. They've been isolated in that area for over 600 years. 

Does anyone know if there was a lot of MCIR derived in Unetice or any other Central European Bronze Age groups that might have moved down into Italy? Maybe it came with them?

----------


## berun

sorry all, but i can't stay on the chair with the new data, so...

i think i got it all... [caution, monthy piton's mode]:

It was around 2923 BCE that there was a concile of indoeuropean herders of Yamnaya, someone said:

- ye! let's go to invade Poland!
- are you crazy? between future Berlin and Minsk there are 3 milion people and we are 200000, moreover they inhabit amist forests not very suitable for herding...
- shut up! you know how big breasts have Polish women?
- how are?
- like that!...
- oh!
- so let's go there!
- let's go!

so R1a and R1b came together to Poland 

[seriously, it could be more the case that farmers in Europe were suffering plagues or a more provable starvation after years of bad crops, the same climatic difficulties would have pushed IE to the north?]

sometime around 2310 BCE the Corded Ware king said:

- i'm thristy of blood! i wish to anhilate everybody west of Elbe river in few years!
- we serve you king! let's go...
- no!, you can't! you are R1a bastards, sons of Polish who..., only pure R1b will follow me!
- oh! we will stay here, we don't like to follow d... sukaz!

sometime around 2309 BCE, near Hannover the king said:

- Western Europe is quite big, we must divide; my broda and his family U106 will go north...
- ooooh, noooo, i want to go south!
- shut up, north!
- but i like sun and sangria...
- go north!

- and for DF27 will go to Spain, U152 will go to France, and L21 to England / Ireland; but myself and my sons P312 will go were we would like.... all right?

two years later somewhere near Frankfurt:

- what are you doing here little U106?
- no, i'm DF27!
- little liar! it's not that the shaman did a genetic test where you are U106? so go north!

somewhere near Paris:

- what are you doing here potatoeater L21!? you! start to swim and go to the islands, don't remain here!

so around 2114 BCE indoeuropeans L21 settled also in Ireland and remained there by four millenia...

This ironic history is to try to show the impact to see how in a remote island as Ireland three L21 were inhumated in a marginal little island some years after invading (?) the island... what is that? they arrived with L21 subclades also! and where were then U106, DF27, U152??? founder effect?? which one?? the one that L21 carriers have no fear to cross the sea maybe?? what kind of invasion it is supposed to be that that is divided by haplogroups?

----------


## Angela

> LBK didn't have ploughs nor draught animals
> probably Vinca and Cucuteni-Tripolye had, and so R1b new them too
> they also had more productive milk cows
> R1b had wheels and draught animals too
> the wheel was invented 3500 years ago in a place unknown
> old school archeologists did attribute all major inventions to Mesopotamia
> 
> when LBK didn't find any more loess soil, their tribes started to kill each other



Is this for some reason personal with you, a grudge match going back not 2,000 years to the Romans vs Celts this time, but 5,000 years to the farmers versus the steppe people? It's a question of sides, and you've taken the side of your Yamnaya ancestors versus your farmer ancestors? :)

The studies and evidence of which I'm aware, including David Anthony, indicate that farming was a minor part of the culture of the steppe peoples, present initially only in some isolated river valleys west of the Don. In fact, that's one of the "clouds" on the entire "Indo-European" from the Pontic steppe theory, as James Mallory pointed out. (Coincidentally, he's a contributing author to this study.) What they knew of it they learned _from_ farming people. That's also how they got their domesticated animals and learned how to herd them.
http://jolr.ru/files/(112)jlr2013-9(145-154).pdf

As for plows, they were already in use in European Neolithic farming cultures in Passy around Paris at least by 4500 BC, pulled by oxen, and, some scholars have speculated, perhaps even by horses.
http://archive.archaeology.org/onlin...res/neolithic/

We discussed it here:
http://archive.archaeology.org/onlin...ures/neolithic

See also:
http://www.academia.edu/12994132/Div...n_Central_Euro

So, if farmers all over Europe had ploughs and draft animals long before Yamnaya or Corded Ware, then how precisely could the IEs possession of them have been an advantage the IEs had over people who had them first? I don't mean to be provocative, but I don't understand that.

As for wheels, this is still pretty much the consensus view among archaeologists so far as I know:

"Evidence of wheeled vehicles appears from the second half of the 4th millennium BC, near-simultaneously in Mesopotamia (Sumerian civilization), the Northern Caucasus (Maykop culture) and Central Europe, so that the question of which culture originally invented the wheeled vehicle is still unsolved."

I don't see steppe groups mentioned anywhere there. I know a lot of peope are R1b aficionados, so if Maykop turns out to be R1b, although perhaps heavily CHG, you guys will be able to claim it, along perhaps with Bronze. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel

Wheeled carts, so far as I remember, first appeared in the TRB culture.

As to this matter of the dairy cows and how much milk they produced, that's very interesting. Could you point me to the papers you're using for the fact that the cows on the steppe produced more milk than the ones in Vinca or CT? I'd love to see that.

I'm really not going to bother sourcing material about violence among Neolithic groups vs violence among steppe groups. I'm sure we've all been there, read that. All human groups were violent if resources were scarce. The steppe people were no slouches in this regard, or are you not one of the "we he men killed all the inferior haplogroup men and impregnated all their women brigrade?" Regardless, from their remains the newcomers were pretty battle scarred by the time they got to the rest of Europe.

----------


## MOESAN

I put here my raw global thoughts, but I have not red all last posts, sorry.



I red the veryexciting paper about Neolithic and Bronze people of Ballynahatty andRathlin.
I red too someEupedia and Eurogenes comments about it. I'm amazed sometimes by theinterpretation someones do, not by force in Eupedia. Someones seemthinking a « steppic » or « Yamanya »component in an ancient population implies a direct coming of wellidentified Samara Yamnaya Bronze people into Western Europe, astaightforward road from Volga to ireland through North Europeplains, by instance. There is a dense litterature about Europearcheology of this period having dured since about 3000 to about 1000BC in Europe, broadly said., according to places.
I know little aboutit, but between Samara Bronze period and Iron Age we red about CordedWare (proto-Copper), Bell Beakers (of more than a sort), Wessex andArmorican Tumuli, Baviera-Bohemia-Thuringen Tumuli (more than asort), Urnfield (wth specific Lusace), Vatya in an Hungary divided inmore than a Middle Bronze culture, Knovitz and Co, at diverse elevelof depth it's true because some local cultures can havecorrespondance in faurther ones an can be grouped together : allthat to say Europe Bronze was not a level uniform culture. We sawCopper in Balkans or Italy or Iberia without too much new DNA, Bronzein some place with true but light « steppic » (supposed)elements, when Corded shooed a strong Yamnaya-like steppic imput.(But we have to be prudent here : some Chalcolithic people ofSpain showed more than other eastern auDNA that seems imply a farEast origin, if not by force in Northern Steppes). 
Fr. HUBERT thoughtceltic could be older than believed and that Celts were an elitewhich put in move or/and imposed themselves to other Bronze tribes.He favoured the Tumuli Culture (with BBs and then Unetice heritages)as the « dung » of the future Celts, Hallstatt and LaTène were subsequent stages but not the daybreak of Celts for him.He even thought (I don't know if he red JC. COON and his 3-mixphenotypes) that the northern Beakers who passed from Lower Rhinemouths to Britain and Ireland were maybe already Celticspeakers (proto-gaelic for him), stating that at the same time around2200 the Westphalen plain of N-W Germany seem undergoing a decreaseof population. We know for sure someones among BBs and Wessex camefrom South-Germany-Switzerland. And we know BBs times saw some movesof population, more leaps than a long and unique journey, with morepopulation of Southwest Europe adding to the Central Europe ones, amovement opposite to the mainstream of the Metals Ages spitebeginning at their daybreak in Occident. With _greater changes inSwitzerland and Hungary than in Iberia or Germany-Bohemia._ 


The Irish Bronze 3men of Rathlin show as almost in all settlements of Metals Ages a bitheterogenerity between them – were they of exactly the same time ?- but les heterogeneity than samples of BBs or CWC. Their new but low« Yamnaya » component is not a surprise for me knowingtheir ancestors came to Ireland surely through finally intangledways. Spite the Irish bronze men seem a post-BBs sample they sharetheir MN component with Central Europe than with Iberia and localBallynahatty. The heterogeneity of later BBs settlements is provedgenetics, metrics and non-metric anthropology a bit in contradictionto other analysis. In PCA the Irish Bronze men are close to somethingbetween Croatia and Bulgaria, so less less northern than most CentralEurope Bronze men, less western than Hungary bronze man ??? Butthe PCA drawing is very compact so ? 


The wide sharing inHBRContinuity with today Irishmen and people of Western Britain seemconfirming the populating of Ireland and Britain occurred for themost during Chalcolithic and Bronze Age and did not begin only atIron Ages (hard for some British scientists). Or the Iron men whoarrived later were still broadly said of the same type of population(Belgae were closer to Eastern Gauls than to Germanics I think). TheEast England less close population confirms the later Germanicsdiverse imputs. It places England with Northern Brittany and France,and at a slightly lower level of sharing, Lower-Sax/Harz region whatis not without signification? Coastal N-Sax and Scandinavia sharesnot more than rest of France or Belgium, the Netherlands. Compared toHungarian Bronze BR2 – but as BBs, Bronze Hungarians show a largefork of auDNA variation ! - it shows less affinities to Poland,Central North Europe ; this BR2 himself shows a large spectrumsharing too with Greece, Sicilia, Toscania, Wales, S-E Ireland, NorthItaly : a beautiful melting pot !
The specifictendancy of Neolithic Ballynhatty towards Iberian MN and Sardiniansis not found among the 3 Rathlin men, what could prove, if the (post)BBs quality (rather Food Vessel) is confirmed, that Northern BBs havefew recent stuff in common with Iberians, spite their higher EEFcomponent in front of other LBA people ; confirmed by othersurveys, by the way. The 'mediterranean' (so largely EEF) componentin BBs of N-Central Europe could be more an effect of closer EEFstock, the BBs period moves being people's pushing from vicinity tovicinity (French provence 'mediterraneans' to Switzerland, Swiss'mediterraneans' to Hungary ??? uneasy to say, based onDESIDERI's work...
& : Thatsaid, we have no sound proof of an I-Ean language in Ireland at thosedates. If I-Ean, as said someones, it could rather be a Western I-Eandialect vaguely akin to Lusitanian or proto-Ligurian, or better tothe famous and uncertain ancient North-West Europe I-Ean dialect, allof them not too far from what we can imagine for an Italo-Celticstratum... 
Just a detail :seemingly the colonizationS of Ireland took the Northern Road throughBritain to S-W Scotland, and relations were maintained this way veryoften, whatever the direction inwards or outwards for Ireland. Easierto cross the sea there ? Neolithic colonization(s?) took thesame ways. 
Two conclusions :
1- a system offoreign exogame mating among Bronze elites confirmed more and more byY-haplo's local uniformity and auDNA great span of variants.Confirmed at Iron Age too, what is not to say it was the sameeverywhere everytime, nor the Bronze elite males didn' t send theirwives with them ; they surely took other wives on the road sothe auDNA and mtDNA of these wives was evolving along with them, withcertainly a final phase of stabilization here and there, leading todifferent shartings of auDNA according to the countries crossedduring the total « tour » made by them since begining ofmigrations/journeys.
2- I'm very glad ofthe progress in ancient DNA data but I do't see anything toosurprising which could put History upside down, only more precisionsconcerning some episodes and yet concerning languages we are stillmaking assumptions.


The hemachromatosismutations in cause are common in Brittany ; it seems Czechs haveat least one of them and another inherited from Slavs. So crossingsdon't always eliminate mutations which are letal at homozygoticstade. Genetics...

----------


## MOESAN

Some forumers seem not knowing things are not always as in peplums or cartoons. Transitions between cultures are not always so easy to mark: some HGs began to clear the forests, in Ireland, Neolithic people seem having progressively passed from dominantly crops to more and more pasture before "nomadic" Bronze people arrival, some crisis could have occurred (elm disease), cheftain society type developped before Metals people colonizations, farmers had sometimes slaughters between them and so on... it seems Irish people began to be more ad stay on the pastoral side than the purely agricole one, whatever the first culture, it deserve deeper study, but soils could explain this at some degree.
Prudence.

----------


## moore2moore

> Start with 1,000 members of each haplogroup, 1k R1b, 1k I2, etc, up to 6 of them (or use subclades of one haplogroup), simulating mixed population of 6 thousand males. Roll a dice to determine who will die accidently. 1 for R1b dying, 2 for I2, etc. Do 4,800 rounds, simulating death of most of the tribe, and check proportion of each haplogoup.
> I assure you that each haplogroup will be close to 200 members, probably not more than 10% fluctuation. If you increase the tribe to 100 thousand members the fluctuation of proportions of haplogroups will be even smaller, like 1%.
> 
> Now, do the same exercise for only 10 members of each haplogroup, tribe of 60 males. Roll the dice 48 times, till 12 members of the tribe are left. This time check proportions. Not only they will have bigger disproportions, but most likely you wiped out one or two haplogroups. Even if 20 dies off, there is a chance of losing one complete haplogroup.


With all due respect, your exercise is void ab initio. There are no (few) groups in the world where the beginning population was precisely and neatly and evenly divided amongs haplogroups.

----------


## LeBrok

> With all due respect, your exercise is void ab initio. There are no (few) groups in the world where the beginning population was precisely and neatly and evenly divided amongs haplogroups.


 In case you don't realise, it is an example of a proces. Likewise your example is an example of a supposed process, and not real life scenario. As I mentioned before, and you conveniently, not addressing, is the fact that all today's and ancient mixes of Hgs came by way of various processes mentioned above.
Can you explain by way of numbers how the Neolithic Farmers, of Southern Europe, which genetic autosomal admixture is still dominant up to 90% in Sardinia, manage to lose dominance of their G2a haplogroup? By your game of numbers hypotheses, major haplogroups have bigger chance to become even more dominant. Once on a top it can't lose, right?
Unless there are other forces in the universe of population genetics.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Does anyone know if there was a lot of MCIR derived in Unetice or any other Central European Bronze Age groups that might have moved down into Italy? Maybe it came with them?


The main variants are in SNPs where derived alleles can be the result of DNA damage. RISE98 and RISE94 Sweden circa 2000 B, RISE395 and RISE386 Sintashta circa 1800 BC, RISE500 Andronovo circa 1400 BC. Those are the only confirmed by files provided by srkz online. He hasn't processed most though.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

Moesan




> The hemachromatosismutations in cause are common in Brittany ; it seems Czechs haveat least one of them and another inherited from Slavs. So crossingsdon't always eliminate mutations which are letal at homozygoticstade. Genetics...


Milk has very low iron so hemachromatosis mutations that retain iron may have been beneficial and selected for if the diet was heavily dependent on milk.

----------


## Alan

> the wheel was invented 3500 years ago in a place unknown


Most likely Kura_Araxes, who had even horses prior to Sintashta, or even the predating Leyla Tepe. It is also said that Maykop had some of the earliest wheels. 

So somewhere around this Leyla Tepe, Kura-Araxes, Maykop, Mesopotamia, Yamna axis it must have been invented.





> "Evidence of wheeled vehicles appears from the second half of the 4th millennium BC, near-simultaneously in Mesopotamia (Sumerian civilization), the Northern Caucasus (Maykop culture) and Central Europe, so that the question of which culture originally invented the wheeled vehicle is still unsolved."



If wheels are found almost simultaneously in these regions than it must come from an ancestral culture that unites them. This can only be farmers/herders.

----------


## Alan

> sorry all, but i can't stay on the chair with the new data, so...
> 
> i think i got it all... [caution, monthy piton's mode]:
> 
> It was around 2923 BCE that there was a concile of indoeuropean herders of Yamnaya, someone said:
> 
> - ye! let's go to invade Poland!
> - are you crazy? between future Berlin and Minsk there are 3 milion people and we are 200000, moreover they inhabit amist forests not very suitable for herding...
> - shut up! you know how big breasts have Polish women?
> ...


David and Tomenable mode: "Thats exactly how it happened!" lol

Now seriously There is absolutely nothing that speaks for Bell Beaker R1b being descend of Corded Ware. I rather thing we are dealing here with two seperate waves of herding groups.

In fact there are rather signs that Corded Ware people were massacred by indigineous cultures of Central Germany. This might be the reason why actually almost non of the Corded Ware yDNA has survived. But this again is an important information the people will not mention.

----------


## Angela

> Most likely Kura_Araxes, who had even horses prior to Sintashta, or even the predating Leyla Tepe. It is also said that Maykop had some of the earliest wheels. 
> 
> So somewhere around this Leyla Tepe, Kura-Araxes, Maykop, Mesopotamia, Yamna axis it must have been invented.
> 
> 
> If wheels are found almost simultaneously in these regions than it must come from an ancestral culture that unites them. This can only be farmers/herders.




By central Europe they mean TRB. That's where the first representation is found, and it's from the 4th millennium BC.

See:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/neol...d-Vehicles.htm

See:https://books.google.com/books?id=mXKGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=first+ wheeled+carts+in+TRB+culture&source=bl&ots=mk46kw8 9W6&sig=zxXuMILqXVew66KMJebZXWN-CIE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1qs6svYnKAhVLXh4KHSNRBi 4Q6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=first%20wheeled%20carts%20i n%20TRB%20culture&f=false

----------


## Tomenable

Angela, that's a very interesting news that TRB had some of the earliest wheels.

TRB has mostly EEF+WHG genetics, but there could be some early Indo-European / Steppe penetration into that culture.

One part of TRB culture, was the so called Baalberge group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalberge_group

Baalberge group includes one sample of R1 haplogroup (but probably it was just R1*, neither R1a nor R1b).

According to some sources, there was indeed some steppe influence in Baalberge:

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot...blog-page.html



The Baalberge sample of R1 is from the same period, as the controversial "R1b" sample from Atapuerca (ATP3):

(I've added Rathlin genomes to the table - 3 x R1b1a2, including 2 from 2750-1750 BC and 1 from 1750-750 BC):

*Y-DNA Discontinuities (updated chart - Rathlin R1b added)*

----------


## Tomenable

The sample of R1 haplogroup (most likely basal *R1** ???) from Baalberge / TRB is:

*Germany, Quedlinburg IX [I0559 / QLB 15], date 3645-3537 BC, Y-DNA - R1 (xR1b1a2, xR1a1a).*

Sources (according to Jean Manco's Ancestral Journeys):

Brandt 2013; Haak 2015; Mathieson 2015; Additional info on Y-DNA from Vince Tilroe

----------


## LeBrok

> Most likely Kura_Araxes, who had even horses prior to Sintashta, or even the predating Leyla Tepe. It is also said that Maykop had some of the earliest wheels. 
> 
> So somewhere around this Leyla Tepe, Kura-Araxes, Maykop, Mesopotamia, Yamna axis it must have been invented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If wheels are found almost simultaneously in these regions than it must come from an ancestral culture that unites them. This can only be farmers/herders.


Wagon was an amazing invention. Paradigm shift type invention. I'm sure it has spread very fast through all the regions in one generation or two. It will be hard to determine who invented it first, ever.

----------


## Tomenable

A heavy four-wheeled wagon was probably invented somewhere between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, because this is roughly half-way from Sumer to Central Europe, so the most reasonable assumption is that - if it spread so quickly over such a vast area - then it must have been invented somewhere in the middle between the two regions.

A lighter and swifter, two-wheeled chariot, was invented much later to the north of the Aral Sea in the Ural Steppes, and it was also spreading in all directions at a similar pace - as this map below shows:

----------


## Tomenable

> If wheels are found almost simultaneously in these regions than it must come from an ancestral culture that unites them


Really ???

If we apply this logic to all inventions, then it would mean that *Gunpowder* was invented already before 36,200-45,000 years ago, because that was the last time when an ancestral culture that united both the Chinese and the Europeans existed:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/...st-Asians.html

Gunpowder was found almost simultaneously (only a gap of up to several centuries) in China and in Europe.

----------


## Angela

> Wagon was an amazing invention. Paradigm shift type invention. I'm sure it has spread very fast through all the regions in one generation or two. It will be hard to determine who invented it first, ever.



Exactly. Look at all these dates:

According to the University of Chicago:
"The wheel: *The ancient Mesopotamians were using the wheel by about 3,500 B.C. They used the potter’s wheel to throw pots and wheels on carts to transport both people and goods.* "
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/release...i-firsts.shtml

There's also statements to the effect that the first actual wheel was found in Mesopotamia.

From this link:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/neol...Vehicles_2.htm

"Although long-standing tradition credits the southern Mesopotamian civilization with invention of wheeled vehicles, today scholars are less certain, as there appears to be a nearly simultaneous record of use throughout the Mediterranean basin."

"In technological terms, the earliest wheeled vehicles appear to been four-wheeled, as determined from *models* identified at Uruk (Iraq) and Bronocice (Poland-3500BC). A two-wheeled cart is *illustrated* at the end of the fourth millennium BC, at Lohne-Engelshecke, Germany (~*3402-2800* cal BC [cal BC])"

"The oldest known *evidence* of wheeled vehicles in Europe comes from the Flintbek site, a Funnel Beaker culture near Kiel, Germany, dated to *3420-3385* cal BC. A series of *cart tracks* was identified beneath the northwestern half of the long barrow, measuring just over 20 m long and consisting of two parallel bundles of wheel ruts, up to 60 cm wide. Each single wheel rut was 5-6 cm wide, and the gauge of the wagons has been estimated at 1.1 to 1.2 m wide."
(*Flintbek is near the Baltic Sea*.)

"*Reliable dates indicate that two- and four-wheeled vehicles were known from the mid-fourth millennium BC throughout most of Europe*. "

The earliest one on the steppe mentioned in this article is in a Catacomb Culture Kurgan:
"In 2014, Shishlina and colleagues reported the recovery of a dismantled four-wheeled full-sized wagon, direct-dated to between *2398-2141 cal BC*. This Early Bronze Age Steppe Society (specifically East Manych Catacomb culture) site in Russia contained the interment of an elderly man, whose grave goods also included a bronze knife and rod, and a turnip-shaped pot.The rectangular wagon frame measured 1.65x0.7 meters (5.4x2.3 ft) and the wheels, supported by horizonal axles, were .48 m (1.6 ft) in diameter. Side panels were constructed of horizontally placed planks; and the interior was probably covered with reed, felt, or woollen mat. Curiously, the different parts of the wagon were made of a variety of wood, including elm, ash, maple and oak."


I did find earlier evidence of wheels on the steppe in this paper, but it's* 2900BC*.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/in...File/16087/pdf

----------


## LeBrok

There is also evidence of wheeled toys in Cucuteni culture:



> *Wheels[edit]*
> 
> Very few researchers, e.g., Asko Parpola, an Indologist at the University of Helsinki in Finland, believe that the CT-culture used the wheel with wagons. However, only miniature models of animals on 4 wheels have been found, and they date to the first half of the fourth millennium BC.[51] Such models are often thought to have been children's toys; nevertheless, the do convey the idea that objects could be pulled on wheels. Up to now there is no whatever evidence for wheels used with real wagons.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucute...ture#Geography
No real wagons were found yet there of that age, but at least these toy wagons proof that they understood the concept, and most likely toys were based on real things. It seems that wagons spread very fast through all farming societies.

----------


## Drac II

> Really ???
> 
> If we apply this logic to all inventions, then it would mean that *Gunpowder* was invented already before 36,200-45,000 years ago, because that was the last time when an ancestral culture that united both the Chinese and the Europeans existed:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/...st-Asians.html
> 
> Gunpowder was found almost simultaneously (only a gap of up to several centuries) in China and in Europe.


Not disputing your main argument, but just point out that the gap between the appearance of gunpowder in China and in Europe is big enough to grant the Chinese the priority in its invention. Of course, as your line of argumentation well implies, it is perfectly possible that Europeans discovered it by other means, like coming in contact with an intermediary between China and Europe (for example, Arabs, Persians, Turks), or independently on their own. Direct contact with the first inventor or having an ancestral culture in common is neither implied nor necessary for two separate populations to be able to discover the same thing, either simultaneously or at a later period. Same thing, therefore, with the wheel or any other invention/discovery.

----------


## Tomenable

Drac II - my point was not to dispute that the Chinese invented gunpowder (this is beyond any doubts, in fact), but to show that inventions can spread very fast. Angela wrote that wagons were known in 3 different places in the second half of the 4th millennium BC. That's an interval of 500 years. Gunpowder also spread from China to Europe during no more than 500 years since its invention. Of course Europeans acquired gunpowder either via the Mongols or via the Arabs and Turks (it is not certain from which of the two groups), who in turn had acquired it from the Chinese before.

And yes, the same invention can be invented in more than one place independently. But gunpowder wasn't - it just spread very fast.

As for wheels:

We know that wheel was known also in Pre-Columbian America, but they didn't figure out that it could be used for transportation:

Mayan wheels:





They used them for games:

----------


## Alan

> Really ???
> 
> If we apply this logic to all inventions, then it would mean that *Gunpowder* was invented already before 36,200-45,000 years ago, because that was the last time when an ancestral culture that united both the Chinese and the Europeans existed:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/...st-Asians.html
> 
> Gunpowder was found almost simultaneously (only a gap of up to several centuries) in China and in Europe.


 you have a 4000 BC case of wheels simultenously in Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. just slightly later in Yamna. Also take in mind in the links provided by Angela th archeoligcal evidences show that even two wheeled wagons were known to some cultures prior to Sintashta. What if not farming/Herding cultures do connect 4000 BC Central Europe with the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Steppes? 

To me it is an obvious thing it was invented somewhere between Mesopotamia, Kura Araxes, Maykop, Leyla Tepe and Yamna. 

Is it too obvious to be true? Also wagons make completely sense in farming/herding societies. What kind of role would they play in other societies? Or are you implying that also wagons were invented by Easern Hunters and Gatherers? For what usage?

----------


## Alan

> There is also evidence of wheeled toys in Cucuteni culture:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucute...ture#Geography
> No real wagons were found yet there of that age, but at least these toy wagons proof that they understood the concept, and most likely toys were based on real things. It seems that wagons spread very fast through all farming societies.


As mentioned above the invention of wheels obviously is in connection to agricultural lifestyle.

----------


## Angela

It's unwise, in my opinion, to rely only on one or a few perhaps dated studies. Nor do I think that the fact that wheels were used in games by the Maya but they never created a cart is really on point given that the representations we're talking about in TRB, for example, is of an actual cart, wheels, axle and all. 

Anyway, here you go...a 2012 paper specifically and only on wagons.
http://www.academia.edu/1817159/Preh...ries_Minor_32_

She reviews all the prior papers and shows where recent discoveries and re-dating changes the conclusions that should be drawn.

There is actual evidence of wheel ruts, planked road sections etc. and other indisputable marks of actual wagon use from the mid 4th century all the way in Switzerland and on the coast of the Baltic in farming communities.

I don't understand why, when specialists in the field are tentative in assigning the "credit" to a specific group, we see such certainty here on this Board.

----------


## MOESAN

> Moesan
> 
> 
> 
> Milk has very low iron so hemachromatosis mutations that retain iron may have been beneficial and selected for if the diet was heavily dependent on milk.


exactly what I red and ment: just to recall that selection is not straighforwards sometimes: balance between homozygoty and heterozygoty for some diseases. How explain so numerous letal genes survived so long times among diverse populations...

----------


## MOESAN

> It's presence in North-West France can be from much later times, when Britons from Britain settled there (hence the name Bretagne).



Spite real and effective, the Brittons migration into Brittany (and at some lower level into North France) cannot explain by itself the XX°Century genetic situation of Brittany. Some of the links between Brittany and the Isles are older and the stream direction was the opposite at first. The Britton migration (in fact more than a settlement period) has only reinforced the similarities which are far from an identity.

----------


## LeBrok

> you have a 4000 BC case of wheels simultenously in Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. just slightly later in Yamna. Also take in mind in the links provided by Angela th archeoligcal evidences show that even two wheeled wagons were known to some cultures prior to Sintashta. What if not farming/Herding cultures do connect 4000 BC Central Europe with the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Steppes? 
> 
> *To me it is an obvious thing it was invented* *somewhere between Mesopotamia, Kura Araxes, Maykop, Leyla Tepe and Yamna.*


 Why obvious? Did they find a wheel with inscription "This is the first wheel in the world"? ;) European finds are as old as from Near East, so who knows.




> Is it too obvious to be true? Also wagons make completely sense in farming/herding societies. *What kind of role would they play in other societies?* Or are you implying that also wagons were invented by Easern Hunters and Gatherers? For what usage?


 It makes a perfect sense for seasonal hunters who travel hundreds or thousands miles after migratory animals. In these setting a wagon is a house on wheels, perfect for grasslands of the Steppe. Having said that, hunters didn't have tools to carve nice big wheels from big logs, not mentioning the rest of a wagon. In some way copper and bronze tools were essential. Prerequisite to get to the wagon technology. Only copper age farmers could to this.

----------


## MOESAN

I beg your pardon concerning some of my posts very uneasy to read: it occurs (helas) for long posts I copy and paste since I've changed my Windows 7 into Windows 10. I 'll try to find a solution in future.
Please, don't think this is caused by too much drinking!!!

----------


## Tomenable

*Alan,*




> Is it too obvious to be true? Also wagons make completely sense in farming/herding societies. What kind of role would they play in other societies?


Wagons make most sense in highly mobile societies of nomadic herders, because they allow them to transport more stuff with them. And of course a society which invented wagons had to have draught animals (such as horses or oxen) first, before wagons, unless we are talking about such types of wagons as: a small cart, a wheelbarrow, a mandrawn wagon, or a tipcart. The Mayas or the Incas apparently did not come up with an idea that wheels could be used for transportation, because they did not have draught animals (except for llamas and alpacas among the Incas - but these are more like pack animals, they are too small and weak to be draught animals).

*LeBrok,*




> It makes a perfect sense for seasonal hunters who travel hundreds or thousands miles after migratory animals.


Not if they don't have draught animals. So domestication of horse (or another draught animal) had to happen first.

----------


## Tomenable

*Alan,*




> you have a 4000 BC case of wheels simultenously in Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. just slightly later in Yamna. Also take in mind in the links provided by Angela th archeoligcal evidences show that even two wheeled wagons were known to some cultures prior to Sintashta.


OK two-wheeled wagons but what kind of such wagons? A "two-wheeled wagon" can be anything from this...



... to things much more sophisticated.

As for two-wheleed *chariots* used in battles (not as "civilian" carts), they appear for the first time in Sintashta.

And in Egypt they appear after the Hyksos invasion (during the 15th Dynasty).

The Hyksos were suspected of having an Indo-Iranian ruling class because of that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin...Indo-Europeans




> Contemporary with the Hyksos, there was a widespread Indo-Aryan expansion in central and south Asia. The Hyksos used the same horsedrawn chariot as the Indo-Aryans, and Egyptian sources mention a rapid conquest. The German Egyptologist Wolfgang Helck once argued that the Hyksos were part of massive Hurrian and Indo-Aryan migrations into the Near East.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos




> The Hyksos brought several technical improvements to Egypt, as well as cultural infusions such as new musical instruments and foreign loan words.[20] The changes introduced include new techniques of bronze working and pottery, new breeds of animals, and new crops.[20] In warfare, they introduced the horse and chariot,[21] the composite bow, improved battle axes, and advanced fortification techniques.[20] Because of these cultural advances, Hyksos rule was decisive for Egypt’s later empire in the Middle East.[20]


But in reality they could obtain chariots from Indo-Iranians as a cultural exchange.

Europe did not need a Muslim or Mongol ruling class to obtain gunpowder from them.

----------


## MOESAN

> The sample of R1 haplogroup (most likely basal *R1** ???) from Baalberge / TRB is:
> 
> *Germany, Quedlinburg IX [I0559 / QLB 15], date 3645-3537 BC, Y-DNA - R1 (xR1b1a2, xR1a1a).*
> 
> Sources (according to Jean Manco's Ancestral Journeys):
> 
> Brandt 2013; Haak 2015; Mathieson 2015; Additional info on Y-DNA from Vince Tilroe



My post is not a contradiction. I just remark that in some admixtures and PCAs the few Baalberge culture people we have are very very EEF or mediterranean shifted, with apparently no DNA from Steppes or East Asia; curiously so called Funnelbeaker people (from where? Sweden? I don't know) show less EEF or 'mediterranean', more WHG, and some 'westasian' and something which East the Caspian absent in the Baalberge people (Quedinburg and others). THis is surprising if Baalburge ha a steppic heritage. so if some Kurgan cultural markers exist, it could be by acculturation. We have still to explain the Y-R1... it's true 3 persons is very few, knowing the extreme heterogeneity of Chalco and Bronze elites but if R1 is from far East, withtout any central Steppes in auDNA???.

----------


## berun

> Now seriously There is absolutely nothing that speaks for Bell Beaker R1b being descend of Corded Ware. I rather thing we are dealing here with two seperate waves of herding groups.


That's it; Bell Beaker is seen as culturaly introgressive in Germany (unrelated to Corded Ware culture), and looking at Y-DNA also intrussive at genetic level (where R1b BB settled was previously R1a and after BB passed came to be again R1a). Even more, BB in Germany arrive at the same century that BB in England and Ireland; but the whorst is that even if BB would be IE, why they got no R1a "brothers" with them? I can't say that BB / R1b is not IE, but at least it can't be so simple as this is against logic; now it ressembles like the theory of IE from neolithic Anatolia (it has sense but is against pre-IE languages and cultural traits). 

As BB was formed in Portugal i think it must be checked there the source for R1b. The alterntive would be the Hungarian melting pot.

----------


## MOESAN

to Berun
BBs seem having been very disticnt from CWC at first. but what is BB ??? the BBs culture in germany seem arrived from Danube/Rhine region, centered around Worms on Rhine. they merged a little after around southern North-Sax Herz Thuringen region rich for metals ores. the Isles BBs were a mixed population where surely some CWC men of Thuringen and "aborigenes" were involved; old anthropology suggests the Corded people were a minority (some specific Y-R1a in Britain?), autochtones a good minority and BBs ('dirnaric or 'taurid' types the majority. the porosity of some aspects of culture can be seen in the new decoration of BBs where are found corded decoration. The today types in the Isles exclude the BBs would have been the last settlers there.
and the far origin of BBs is still unknown: all the way I'm looking to East, not South-West. the supposed first BBs were not in Souternh but in Northern Portugal. and a handful of males, certainly. I suppose this variant of pottery and artefacts kit were adopted by other Chalcolithic populations more numerous in a commercial (and maybe religious) networks wehre metallurgists skills were preponderant. If at first there has been a BB human type or types, I think it has been diluted after some centuries.
I need Y-haplos of Chalcolithic Romania and surroundings and more detailed subclade for mt-H there and all around. As you I think Hungary-N-Croatia crosings region could have been a stage in the BB creation and propagation. The real rückström for BBs could have been SW to E rather than the contrary, finally.
more than a road: the Beakers (Food Vessels/Cremation) of Ireland seemingly were not passed through the Rhine/S-England ; Scotland had the two sorts, all that roughly said because I'm not archeologist and rely upon compilations. 
concerning R1a/R1b, I think the low number of some groups favorized the lost of the rarest SNps and Haplos; I believe the southernmost newcomers in Europe at Metals Ages were rather R1b, whatever they came from South Pont or Anatolia (no proof for me). the northernmost more R1a. No mystery then, if right.

to Angela: I think the pigmentation research in ancient DNA relies often upon too less loci to be true Bible story. We discussed this in other threads. All the way the today irish population shows about 40% true light eyes, against 75-78% among Scandinavians or 65% among Dutch.

----------


## Angela

> *Alan,*
> 
> 
> 
> Wagons make most sense in highly mobile societies of nomadic herders, because they allow them to transport more stuff with them. And of course a society which invented wagons had to have draught animals (such as horses or oxen) first, before wagons, unless we are talking about such types of wagons as: a small cart, a wheelbarrow, a mandrawn wagon, or a tipcart. The Mayas or the Incas apparently did not come up with an idea that wheels could be used for transportation, because they did not have draught animals (except for llamas and alpacas among the Incas - but these are more like pack animals, they are too small and weak to be draught animals).
> 
> *LeBrok,*
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not following the logic here. The steppe people got their domesticated cattle and oxen *from* the farming cultures, so that takes care of the draught animals. I don't believe I mentioned anything about horses. 

Nothing also changes the fact that we find actual solid wooden wheels along with axles all over Neolithic Europe including as far as Switzerland and even west of that by 3500 BC, and some in Maykop from around that time. The ones actually on the steppe are younger. 

Many experts who've examined all the evidence say it's almost impossible to determine where the wheel and wheeled cart were invented, so I'll go with that. If you are totally convinced it must have been the steppe, that's your prerogative, of course.

This is one scholar who seems to favor Europe and particularly Cucuteni-Tripoliye:
https://books.google.com/books?id=2P...Europe&f=false

As to spoked wheels on carts or primitive chariots, I do personally think the evidence for Sintashta is pretty strong. 

@Moesan,

My point was that in the case of these samples they are heterozygous for HERC2 and the associated gene. Modern people who are heterozygous virtually never have blue eyes, and don't often have light eyes, which is why they predicted brown eyes for the sample with the most complete genome. 

I also said this is only three samples, so others might have been homozygous for these alleles.

That's it. 

As to the rest, I know you're not a fan of the predictors. :) I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree; I've worked with them professionally and I think they're very useful. They don't work perfectly, true, particularly for hair color or fine gradations of skin color, but it's certainly better, in my opinion, than the guesses of 19th century physical anthropologists or modern distributions, which is obviously why population geneticists use them.

As to the percentages you give for Irish eye color frequencies versus other groups they look low, but as it's not one of my areas of interest and I've never researched it, I'll take your word for it.

Ed. Oh, here's one of the drawings of a cart like object with an axle of some sort. It's dated to 3500 BC, as I said.

----------


## bicicleur

> Is this for some reason personal with you, a grudge match going back not 2,000 years to the Romans vs Celts this time, but 5,000 years to the farmers versus the steppe people? It's a question of sides, and you've taken the side of your Yamnaya ancestors versus your farmer ancestors? :)
> 
> The studies and evidence of which I'm aware, including David Anthony, indicate that farming was a minor part of the culture of the steppe peoples, present initially only in some isolated river valleys west of the Don. In fact, that's one of the "clouds" on the entire "Indo-European" from the Pontic steppe theory, as James Mallory pointed out. (Coincidentally, he's a contributing author to this study.) What they knew of it they learned _from_ farming people. That's also how they got their domesticated animals and learned how to herd them.
> http://jolr.ru/files/(112)jlr2013-9(145-154).pdf
> 
> As for plows, they were already in use in European Neolithic farming cultures in Passy around Paris at least by 4500 BC, pulled by oxen, and, some scholars have speculated, perhaps even by horses.
> http://archive.archaeology.org/onlin...res/neolithic/
> 
> We discussed it here:
> ...


very little is known about the origin of plows, draught animals, the wheel, domestication of cattle or horse, ..
20 years ago all of this would have been attributed to Mesopotamia
that is why I didn't make any statements, I hope you noticed the question marks
and I was replying a post re EN (early neolithic) that is why I asked whether LBK knew plows

maybe the Cerny people knew the plow and draugth animals, it is hard to tell from just one artefact
it makes sense though, as it would have been helpfull to make their monumental constructions

but these were not the early neolithics
and read my post, I claim Vinca and CT had more productive cows than EN
without any proof for my claim as I go against DuPidh claims who doesn't proof anything either
as you probably know, David Anthony claims early IE got their cows from Vinca & CT, so they were the same

and indeed, I've had it with these stories of violent IE and peacefull farmers
farmers were peacefull as long as there was abundance in their own village
but they produced many children and there was only place for the first borns, the others had to conquer some estate elsewhere
the problem was those people couldn't organise themselves in big numbers, many may have joined the army of some other groups

the origin of the Cerny people is unclear
they develop contemporary with the Chasséen which spread all over France starting some 4500 BC, and it doesn't look like these were peacefull people
it is a stratified society with villages with defensive enclosures

there are so many questions remaining
if everybody is making so many asumptions I'm allowed to make some too in order to tell some alternative story
there are plenty of indications of neolithic violence

and the worst, they were the so-called 'civilisations', that is when large-scale organised violence realy got started

so stop insinuating are you not one of the "we he men killed all the inferior haplogroup men and impregnated all their women brigrade?"
I know it happened, and it happened all the time and everywhere

----------


## bicicleur

> Good point. This is another prerequisite for a wagon. I guess the only society who was ready for wagons were farmers, who could make them and use bulls to pull them. Horses were too small back then to be considered draught animals, though not impossible for smaller wagons, or connected in pairs or tandem.


yes the time was ripe, but the invention itself and the technological knowhow should not be underestimated

----------


## berun

MOESAN, the eastern origin of BB is your guess. Also you are guessing about R1a/R1b proportions in germany. I prefer to rely in archaeology and the most old BB is in central portugal.

But after archaeology there is logic thinking:

- R1b is found at 2000 BCE in ireland
- the previous cultural changes that could provide such haplo is neolithic megalithism at 3800 BCE or BB at 2400 BCE. As megalithism is not IE the unique way left to IE R1b is BB
- isles' L21 is found also in 2000 BCE
- if irish BB came through ingland the bottleneck or apparition of such haplo was in 3-4 generations as BB appears a century before in england.... too short time. And the most old BB was in portugal... unlikely to be then IE

Of course there is the option that BB was got by IE in rhine area abd from there went to germany and ireland... but it s necessary prove it.

----------


## Tomenable

> That's it; Bell Beaker is seen as culturaly introgressive in Germany (unrelated to Corded Ware culture), and looking at Y-DNA also intrussive at genetic level (where R1b BB settled was previously R1a and after BB passed came to be again R1a). Even more, BB in Germany arrive at the same century that BB in England and Ireland; but the whorst is that even if BB would be IE, why they got no R1a "brothers" with them? I can't say that BB / R1b is not IE, but at least it can't be so simple as this is against logic; now it ressembles like the theory of IE from neolithic Anatolia (it has sense but is against pre-IE languages and cultural traits). 
> 
> As BB was formed in Portugal i think it must be checked there the source for R1b. The alterntive would be the Hungarian melting pot.


It seems that Bell Beakers were one culture, but two ethnicities - something from user rms2 of Anthrogenica:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...l=1#post131146




> I never said the Beaker cup was all there was to the culture. 
> 
> I was talking about the differences between the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker and later Bell Beaker, especially Central European Bell Beaker.
> 
> Here are some of the differences again.
> 
> *1. The very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker people were short-statured, long-headed (dolichocephalic), gracile Mediterraneans, which is the default physical type for Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers.
> 
> 2. Central European and later Bell Beaker people, especially the males, were tall, robust, and round-headed (brachycephalic).
> ...

----------


## Tomenable

By the way, those Bronze Age Rathlin Island individuals were real giants (for their times):

They were 5,11 and 6,1 and 6,2 tall (that's like 180.34 cm, 185.42 cm and 187.96 cm).

That was GIGANTIC height for the standards of that time period in Europe (or anywhere).

They would be well above average even today, even in Northern Europe or in Dinaric Alps.

The 6,2 tall guy was as tall as me without all the advantages of modern diet and medicine.

Weren't Neolithic men real "dwarfs" compared to them (something like 160 cm on average)?

----------


## berun

Nobody can't deny that BB adopted local fashions in central europe. But the question is genetic, if locals adopted BB culture or BB mixed with locals. And what would be paramount: if BB lost their original language for local IE. Too many problems set: language change, genetic change, subclades appearing just when appearing BB, portuguese origin of BB, etc

----------


## Alan

> By the way, those Bronze Age Rathlin Island individuals were real giants (for their times):
> 
> They were 5,11 and 6,1 and 6,2 tall (that's like 180.34 cm, 185.42 cm and 187.96 cm).
> 
> That was GIGANTIC height for the standards of that time period in Europe (or anywhere).
> 
> They would be well above average even today, even in Northern Europe or in Dinaric Alps.
> 
> The 6,2 tall guy was as tall as me without all the advantages of modern diet and medicine.
> ...


Actually the erliest Neolithic immigrants from Anatolia are said by archeolgistsand anthropologist to have been Robust dolichocephalic and quite long in statue. However there are signs of "gracilization" by statue in Europe afterwards. Even todays Sardinians are said to have gone through this trend.

----------


## Alan

> Nobody can't deny that BB adopted local fashions in central europe. But the question is genetic, if locals adopted BB culture or BB mixed with locals. And what would be paramount: if BB lost their original language for local IE. Too many problems set: language change, genetic change, subclades appearing just when appearing BB, portuguese origin of BB, etc



There is definitely this, I see these Bronze Age herders as some kind of immigrants who assimilated and integrated very fast into the local cultures by adding some of their culture to it. This is the case in virtually 90% of cases for Indo Europeans. I kinda doubt that they could have imposed their language on most of the local cultures. I rather see them taking on the local speech but enriching the tongue with some of their own words. This is why I think what we call "Indo European" is basically a hybrid of languages enriched by speech of Bronze Age herders who immigrated around the globe.

This is why I don't think we are dealing with one "PIE culture" but rather with a network of related herding/farming and fishing cultures all around the Black and Caspian see, be it South, North, West or East of it. 

This is why I assume Yamna is just one of the Indo European cultures. The other are probably Maykop, Kura Araxes, Cucuteni-Tripolye, Leyla Tepe and so on.

----------


## Angela

> By the way, those Bronze Age Rathlin Island individuals were real giants (for their times):
> 
> They were 5,11 and 6,1 and 6,2 tall (that's like 180.34 cm, 185.42 cm and 187.96 cm).
> 
> That was GIGANTIC height for the standards of that time period in Europe (or anywhere).
> 
> They would be well above average even today, even in Northern Europe or in Dinaric Alps.
> 
> The 6,2 tall guy was as tall as me without all the advantages of modern diet and medicine.
> ...



Goodness, are you calling your WHG ancestors dwarves?! What a very pejorative term to use for the ancestors who represent such a large part of your genome. 

WHG/Loschbour was 1.6 or 5’3. “Robust” means bone size, not height.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/02...-u5a-from.html


Oetzi was 1.65 or 5’4.

(The Anatolian farmers were actually taller on average than the farmers in Europe, I think. The authors of Mathiesen et al seem to think that there was actually selection going on for a _decrease_ in height in Neolithic Spain, at least. Might it also have been admixture with the shorter WHG?)


Steppe Yamnaya people were 1.75 so 5’7 

“As per Haak et al as quoted by Dienekes...
"*The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race. It was tall (175.5cm), dolichocephalic, with broad faces of medium height. Among them there were, however, more robust elements with high and wide faces of the proto-Europoid type, and also more gracile individuals with narrow and high faces, probably reflecting contacts with the East Mediterranean type (Kurts 1984: 90)."*

So, that begs the question: where did the people who were the subject of this paper get their extreme height? Is it some previously unmeasured population? Does anyone have figures for SHG or EHG? Or was it the effect of the adoption of the dairy eating culture of Central Europe on the steppe genes? Interesting. 

I would just note that we’re supposed to be approaching all these issues from a scientific perspective. There's no_ absolute_ value in being taller or having massive body and facial bones. It all boils down to adaptation to environment. It's been a long time since I took physical anthropology, but I thought it was pretty accepted that broad, bony faces and thickset, stocky bodies were better for cold climates. If you're living in a warmer climate, less fat is better, so are lighter bones.
We discussed this extensively on this thread:


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ple#post469270

----------


## MOESAN

> MOESAN, the eastern origin of BB is your guess. Also you are guessing about R1a/R1b proportions in germany. I prefer to rely in archaeology and the most old BB is in central portugal.
> 
> But after archaeology there is logic thinking:
> 
> - R1b is found at 2000 BCE in ireland
> - the previous cultural changes that could provide such haplo is neolithic megalithism at 3800 BCE or BB at 2400 BCE. As megalithism is not IE the unique way left to IE R1b is BB
> - isles' L21 is found also in 2000 BCE
> - if irish BB came through ingland the bottleneck or apparition of such haplo was in 3-4 generations as BB appears a century before in england.... too short time. And the most old BB was in portugal... unlikely to be then IE
> 
> Of course there is the option that BB was got by IE in rhine area abd from there went to germany and ireland... but it s necessary prove it.


_
I was guessing as you are doing, none of us has a proof at this date. But we have NO element in BB kit propagation which ressembles a steady and important DEMIC colonization directly from S-W: it went too quickly, and to spotty at first; changes occurred later in Central Europe, but they are uneasy to analyse. But we have Rhine where were found new physical types about the 2200 BC and even before and we have strontium and artefacts and anthropology to prove the Isles BBs and subsequent Wessex came from the Netherlands- and Germany through Rhine mouth. You have the Food Vessel of Ireland who had often new types too, and some scholars thought they came from Iberia (your guess?). The question is we have almost NO R1b-L21 in Iberia, the most of it is in the Isles, Brittany-Normandy_ _and South-West Norway plus some places between these places; even in other region of France and in Romace Switzerland there are more R-L21 than in Iberia.
__I have some facts to support my guesses which are no more than guesses for now. My guesses are not religion and I wait more facts as you I suppose.
I repeat I'm not sure BBs remained too long time the original ethnic group having introduced the first types of this beaker sort.
are we sure of the accuracy of dates? I don't say these first Bronze or Chalco Irishmen were true BBs. I believe they were a post BBs development of Central North or North West continental Europe, but in debt to BBs culturally speaking. More than a culture followed BBs into the Isles even if they surely had some unprecise links with BBs. The isolation saga of some British scholars is dying, I suppose.
_&: bottleneck did you say? I'm not aware of this even if I think there is someone at some level. But R-L21/S145 was present in England and Scotland at high levels, before R-U156 (Belgae? N-E Gauls? and R-U106 came to England in big groups without erase L21 too much.

----------


## berun

It will be necessary to finetune BB processes as to know how it populated europe.

For bottleneck i mean the necessary assumption to make L21 of BB origin as to become the isles' subclade, if "spanish" DF27 would be the irish main subclade then another bottleneck effect would be done there, but at least it would'nt be necessary to force such event at 2500-2400 BC as with L21.

Later events that would deliver L21 to the continent:

- inner migrations inside the roman empire
- romano-britons after the romans left britain in 400 (unsure about tribal's politics for romanized people and how would be the new economic " laws")
- britons taking refuge after saxon and irish attacks and ravagings (going so far as north spain, even having their own bishropic in galicia)
- 100 years war against france (british occuping and controlling much territory)
- migration of catholics to france after the british state was not favoring more them.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> exactly what I red and ment: just to recall that selection is not straighforwards sometimes: balance between homozygoty and heterozygoty for some diseases. *How explain so numerous letal genes survived so long times* among diverse populations...


Yes exactly. It makes me wonder how many genetic diseases have some unknown positive effect - or _had_ a positive effect in the past in a particular region due to local climate. diet or whatever.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

Carts and Wagons

The benefit of wagons to both settled farmers and (potentially) more mobile pastoralists seems about equal to me but the availability of draught animals would tip it to the farmers imo...

although when I thought of draft animals I first thought oxen then horses but then I remembered...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8_rUxIqRor...2.40.19+PM.png

http://www.everythingchurchill.com/w...dogSled_07.jpg

http://doglawreporter.blogspot.co.uk...s-nations.html

"A strange sight likely met the Spaniards several days march north of the Pecos River in 1541. Thousands of Indians crossing an endless stretch of flat country, with tents, packs, children, even round river boats—all their possessions—dragged and carried by dogs mixed among and coaxed by the women, a moving city spread out as far as the eye could see, searching for the great woolly cattle that sustained them."

#

not relevant but love this one

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qim...t_to_webp=true

#

Dog sleds of various kinds don't prove anything but if someone forced me to guess I'd say the people most likely to first develop carts would be
a) settled farmers with domesticated oxen
b) who lived adjacent to some dog-sled nomads

#

edit:

actually, now i think of it - could dog skeletons show signs of use as draft animals?

edit2:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4LGabZ2OGf...0/newfcart.jpg

http://browningmgs.com/Images_1919A4...anes&Maxim.jpg

Dog sleds/carts would be great for carrying the little kids freeing up the women to carry everything else

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qim...t_to_webp=true

(jk) :)

Makes me wonder if there's a correlation between very physically large dog breeds and being good with kids?

edit3

http://www.vetstreet.com/our-pet-exp...-gentle-giants

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Goodness, are you calling your WHG ancestors dwarves?! What a very pejorative term to use for the ancestors who represent such a large part of your genome. 
> 
> WHG/Loschbour was 1.6 or 5’3. “Robust” means bone size, not height.
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/02...-u5a-from.html
> 
> 
> Oetzi was 1.65 or 5’4.
> 
> (The Anatolian farmers were actually taller on average than the farmers in Europe, I think. The authors of Mathiesen et al seem to think that there was actually selection going on for a _decrease_ in height in Neolithic Spain, at least. Might it also have been admixture with the shorter WHG?)
> ...


I'd guess
- WHG as shorter/robust
- SHG/EHG taller/robust (due to either cold adaptation or extra high protein diet or both)
- farmers tending to shorter/gracile
had a lot to do with how much protein they got in their diet.

So if farming tended to reduce height/robustness over time this process may have been slowed down among dairy-focused populations.

----------


## Tomenable

> Originally Posted by Angela
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Tomenable
> 
> ...


Yes, I have found figures for EHGs - EHG hunters were much taller than WHG ones. *Formicola and Giannecchini, "Evolutionary trends of stature in upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe" (from 1999) estimated that the average height of Mesolithic males in Eastern Europe (EHG) was 173.2 cm (n = 75) and in Western Europe (WHG)* *only 163.1 cm (n = 96):*

*Source:* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10074386

Many EHGs were dolichocephalic - a *10,800 ybp* skull from Peschanitsa to the south of Lake Ladoga (in Lyubytinskiy Rayon of Novgorod Oblast) and a *10,300 ybp* skull from Popovo to the north east of Lake Onega (in Arkhangelsk Oblast) are dolichocehalic and also the earliest known examples of "Nordic type". Peschanitsa skull is "gracile Nordic" and Popovo skull is "robust Nordic". Around that time there was a migration of hunters from Russia to Scandinavia (likely they were the source of EHG admixture in *SHG*):




> *The First Eastern Migrations of People and Knowledge into Scandinavia: Evidence from Studies of Mesolithic Technology, 9th-8th Millennium BC*
> 
> Abstract:
> 
> In this paper a team of Scandinavian researchers identifies and describes a Mesolithic technological concept, referred to as ‘the conical core pressure blade’ concept, and investigates how this concept spread into Fennoscandia and across Scandinavia. Using lithic technological, contextual archaeological and radiocarbon analyses, it is demonstrated that this blade concept arrived with ‘post-Swiderian’ hunter-gatherer groups from the Russian plain into northern Fennoscandia and the eastern Baltic during the 9th millennium bc. From there it was spread by migrating people and/or as transmitted knowledge through culture contacts into interior central Sweden, Norway and down along the Norwegian coast. However it was also spread into southern Scandinavia, where it was formerly identified as the Maglemosian technogroup 3 (or the ‘Sværdborg phase’). In this paper it is argued that the identification and *spread of the conical core pressure blade concept represents the first migration of people, technology and ideas into Scandinavia from the south-eastern Baltic region and the Russian plain.* (...)


Source: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...0#.Voqw0leTngA




> I'd guess
> - WHG as shorter/robust
> - SHG/EHG taller/robust (due to either cold adaptation or extra high protein diet or both)
> - farmers tending to shorter/gracile


EHGs were on average 10 cm taller than WHG, with a mix of both more gracile (Peschanitsa) and more robust (Popovo) males. Peschanitsa-Popovo skulls (8750 BC - 8300 BC) are dolichocephalic and were also classified by anthropologists as "Nordic". 

They are the oldest known specimens of "Nordic anthropological type" found so far.

At that time in North-Western Russia there was the so called Boreal Period (11,000 - 10,000 years ago), when climate in that region was warmer than today in the Winter (-12°-8° C in January), but cooler than at present in the Summer (6°-18° C in July).

Bell Beakers from Central Europe were tall but brachycephalic (perhaps brachycephalized Nordic = Sub-Nordic).

----------


## Tomenable

> So if farming tended to reduce height/robustness over time this process may have been slowed down among dairy-focused populations.


But was that farming reducing robustness, or rather gracile farmers mass migrating to hunter lands ???

For example in America Paleoindians = more robust skulls (like modern Eskimos) and modern Amerindians = more gracile skulls.

Eskimos have never become farmers (too cold there), while among Native Americans many became farmers.

In Japan Jomon culture and modern Ainu = more robust skulls, while Yayoi culture and modern Japanese = more gracile skulls.

But as far as I know, modern Japanese and modern Ainu are two different groups, not so closely related.

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

*See the photos below:*

Left: Jomon Skull (Mesolithic Japan - hunters)
Right: Yayoi Skull (Neolithic Japan - farmers)

Jomon skull resembles modern Ainu more, while Yayoi resembles modern Japanese more:

http://thekishicut.files.wordpress.c...t-08-53-00.png



More Jomon specimens: http://www.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publish_...7platei-02.jpg



Left: Paleo-American Skull, 12,000 years old (hunter)
Right: Pre-Columbian Native American, 1000 years old

https://physicalanthropologymzi.file...tc3adtulo1.jpg



Paleo-American skull is more similar to skulls of modern Eskimos / Inuits (Left skull below):

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...g/skulls-1.jpg



You can see the robustness of Eskimos by looking at their faces too (notice the massive jaw of the guy in the middle):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...the_Eskimo.png

----------


## Tomenable

I remember someone claiming that "East Asians / Mongoloids all look the same to me" - well, it's not the case.  :Smile: 

They are just as diverse as Caucasoids on the whole. 

But for example Han Chinese are all descended from a very small founder population which became farmers and expanded into huge numbers, similar to those Anatolian G2a hunters who flooded Europe. That's why Han Chinese look similar to each other.

However, there is much more to East Asians / Mongoloids than Chinese. Look at those Eskimos - much different.

----------


## Tomenable

Probably it has much more to do with *climatic conditions* than with farming / hunting. Paleoamericans came from Siberia through Beringia after all. So they came from very cold and dry climate. Later they evolved more gracile in hotter and more humid climatic zones. Eskimos never moved to hotter and humid climates, so they preserved the ancestral robust type of Paleoamericans.

As for farming, it correlates with gracile type because farming was invented in southern climates and spread to the north. Farming couldn't be invented in northern climates, they were too unfavourable for it. It could only spread there later from the south.

----------


## Tomenable

*Coming back to post #146 and Eastern Hunter-Gatherers:*

Some Hunter-Gatherer skulls from Russia (dates range from the 9th millennium BC to the 2nd millennium BC):











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


As you can see those EHG skulls posted above look very differently from La Brana and Loschbour skulls below:

----------


## Greying Wanderer

another candidate for pre oxen carts are goat carts

http://www.eieio.org/images/gotcrt2.gif

especially when you consider thor's mythological goat pulled chariot

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...42a03302b7.jpg

(which always seemed very silly to me until just now)

----------


## Greying Wanderer

@Tomenable




> But was that farming reducing robustness, or rather gracile farmers mass migrating to hunter lands ???


I was thinking maybe a bit of both - definitely the latter but maybe also northern HG descended people coming south (e.g. maybe Rastlin Island) and gradually shrinking / becoming more gracile over time as their diet shifted (or cold climate selection faded).

----------


## Angela

> Yes, I have found figures for EHGs - EHG hunters were much taller than WHG ones. *Formicola and Giannecchini, "Evolutionary trends of stature in upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe" (from 1999) estimated that the average height of Mesolithic males in Eastern Europe (EHG) was 173.2 cm (n = 75) and in Western Europe (WHG)* *only 163.1 cm (n = 96):*
> 
> *Source:* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10074386
> 
> Many EHGs were dolichocephalic - a *10,800 ybp* skull from Peschanitsa to the south of Lake Ladoga (in Lyubytinskiy Rayon of Novgorod Oblast) and a *10,300 ybp* skull from Popovo to the north east of Lake Onega (in Arkhangelsk Oblast) are dolichocehalic and also the earliest known examples of "Nordic type". Peschanitsa skull is "gracile Nordic" and Popovo skull is "robust Nordic". Around that time there was a migration of hunters from Russia to Scandinavia (likely they were the source of EHG admixture in *SHG*):
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...0#.Voqw0leTngA
> ...


Thanks for finding that, Tomenable. We should make a sticky for this data perhaps, so we have it in one place. 

So:
WHG 163.1-5'3"

Oetzi 165 or 5'4"

Anatolian farmers: ? (Mathiesen said they were taller than European Neolithic but I couldn't find a precise figure. Anyone know?

Yamnaya 175 so 5'7-8

EHG 173.2 so 5'6-7, a little shorter than Yamnaya.

So, we still have to find an explanation for the much greater height of this Irish sample, yes? Has someone checked the height? That seems like a really big increase. Still, I've seen families where the American diet results in a three to four inch increase between father and sons in one generation. 

Tomenable, there's a mountain of literature on how selection based on climate favors certain body types and individual features. People evolved to fit their environment. They didn't burst fully formed from the head of Zeus. :) Just look it up.

That doesn't mean migration and admixture doesn't have a role to play, however, after the type has been "set".

----------


## Tomenable

> So, we still have to find an explanation for the much greater height of this Irish sample, yes?


Angela, I think I know one possible explanation: a culture of milk drinking. All three Rathlin males were lactose tolerant, IIRC.

So perhaps they were a milk-drinking society, and this is good for growing tall in childhood and adolescence.

Today the "Celtic Fringe" of Britain and Ireland have the highest lactase persistence frequency in Europe, IIRC.

BTW - I have read somewhere, that drinking milk is actually a much younger custom/tradition than creating various products - such as cheese, kefir, kumis or sour milk - from milk. And lactase persistence is not required to eat cheese or to drink kumis:

(Mongols have a low frequency of lactase persistence, AFAIK - correct me if I'm wrong though):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumis




> Kumis, also spelled kumiss or koumiss in English (or kumys, see other transliterations and cognate words below under terminology and etymology) is a fermented dairy product traditionally made from mare's milk. The drink remains important to the peoples of the Central Asian steppes, of Huno-Bulgar, Turkic and Mongol origin: Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Kalmyks, Kyrgyz, Mongols, and Yakuts.[1]
> 
> Kumis is a dairy product similar to kefir, but is produced from a liquid starter culture, in contrast to the solid kefir "grains". Because mare's milk contains more sugars than cow's or goat's milk, when fermented, kumis has a higher, though still mild, alcohol content compared to kefir.


I guess that lactase persistence rose to high frequencies via selection only in those cultures which were drinking raw milk.

And also it rose to high frequencies in areas where drinking milk was a major factor when it comes to chances of survival.

----------


## Fire Haired14

There are only 3 height examples from BA Ireland. There's no way that was the average. A few years ago I read a study, with bones from all over Europe dating to the Roman period, and average height ranged from 5'6-5'7.5. Also, the average height in Medieval England: 5'6. The tallest I saw was a collection from Medieval Denmark at 5'8.5. There's plenty of old bones to look at, the average man didn't reach 5'10-6'0 till the 1800s. 

British and Irish today are not noticeable tall. 5'9-5'10 is the average.

There were no pre-historic giants. 5'6-5'8 is probably the human male average. The only exception would be few strangely short people in East and South Asia and strangely tall some people in East Africa and maybe elsewhere.

----------


## Tomenable

> *Coming back to post #146 and Eastern Hunter-Gatherers:*
> 
> Some Hunter-Gatherer skulls from Russia (dates range from the 9th millennium BC to the 2nd millennium BC):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Yamnaya skull (covered in ochre) looks similar to some of those earlier EHG skulls from Russia posted above:

*http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/wp-con...d-800x1067.jpg



*BTW:*

*Using ochre in burial rituals was practiced by EHG in Russia and Finland long before Yamnaya - links:*

_"The Use of Ochre in Stone Age Burials of the East Baltic":_

http://mikroarkeologi.se/publications/ch11_Ilga.pdf

_"Postglacial pioneer settlement in the Sarvinki area, Eastern Finland. A red ochre grave in Rahakangas 1 site":_

https://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/226...ent_in_the.pdf

So it seems that Yamnaya adopted the use of ochre from EHG, who were ca. 60% of their ancestors as we know.

----------


## Tomenable

1) The use of ochre in East Baltic region; later the use of Ochre in Yamnaya culture;

2) Genetically EHG type people in East Baltic region (Karelia); 60% EHG in Yamnaya;

3) Yamnaya had not only ca. 60% of their ancestry from EHG, also similar skull shapes;

Reminds me of that supposedly "fringe" theory that Homer's Epic Tales originated somewhere close to the Baltic Sea, in cold climate:

*"The Baltic Origins of Homer's Epic Tales":* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ba...27s_Epic_Tales

According to this theory, events of Iliad and Odyssey take place in sub-arctic climate similar to Finland, rather than Mediterranean climate. Author suggests, that although the epic tales were written down in the Mediterranean world, they include memories of the "Urheimat":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urheimat




> According to his assumptions, the events told by Homer did not take place in the Mediterranean area, as the tradition asserts, but rather in the seas of Northern Europe, Baltic Sea and Northern Atlantic. This theory has been widely taken into consideration (both in Italy, where the author has been invited to present it in some universities and high schools, and in the rest of the world) and has caused heated debate among the academic community: some of them agree with Vinci, but the great majority argue that his ideas don't have well-grounded linguistic and archeological bases.


Could it be, that Karelian-type EHG passed their own oral legends to Yamnaya.

And then Yamnaya transmitted them orally to Proto-Greeks?

Finally, certain Homer decided to write them down ???

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

I wouldn't dismiss such connections immediately - for example "Ebu Gogo" oral traditions in the Island of Flores, turned out to be true:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebu_gogo




> The Nage people of Flores describe the Ebu Gogo as having been able walkers and fast runners around 1.5 m tall. They reportedly had wide and flat noses, broad faces with large mouths and hairy bodies. The females also had "long, pendulous breasts."[2] They were said to have murmured in what was assumed to be their own language and could reportedly repeat what was said to them in a parrot-like fashion.


Ebu Gogo myths describe Homo Floresiensis, with whom ancestors of modern Nage of Flores had contact before this hominid got extinct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis




> Homo floresiensis ("Flores Man"; nicknamed "hobbit" and "Flo") is an extinct species widely believed to be in the genus Homo. The remains of an individual that would have stood about 3.5 feet (1.1 m) in height were discovered in 2003 on the island of Flores in Indonesia. Partial skeletons of nine individuals have been recovered, including one complete skull, referred to as "LB1".[1][2] These remains have been the subject of intense research to determine whether they represent a species distinct from modern humans. This hominin is remarkable for its small body and brain and for its survival until relatively recent times (possibly as recently as 12,000 years ago).[3] Recovered alongside the skeletal remains were stone tools from archaeological horizons ranging from 94,000 to 13,000 years ago. Some scholars suggest that the historical H. floresiensis may be connected by folk memory to ebu gogo myths prevalent on the isle of Flores.[4]

----------


## Tomenable

> There were no pre-historic giants.


Surely there were "Giants" (just like "Ebu Gogo" myth turned out to be true after discovery of Homo Floresiensis  :Wink: ):

Meganthropus was an extinct hominid on average ca. 8 feet (2.44 m) tall and ca. 400 to 600 lbs (181 – 272 kg):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganthropus



I think that many hominids got extinct much later than we have been assuming. Recent evidence seems to confirm this.

First Homo Floresiensis, now this (another hominid who survived until at least 14,000 years ago, perhaps longer):

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...uman-ancestors

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Tomenable,

There's a low chance any Pre-Historic European groups were very noticeable taller than each other. There's hardly any height diversity in Europe today. In most parts of the world the genetic height is 5'6-5'8.

----------


## Tomenable

Well, according to Mathieson genetic height of "Steppe people" (STP) was greater than this of modern Europeans (CEU & IBS):

Green "HG" are WHG perhaps (?), it seems that their genetic height was not so low - probably poor diet made them just 5'3" :

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/...8299801759.jpg

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> @Tomenable,
> 
> There's a low chance any Pre-Historic European groups were very noticeable taller than each other. There's hardly any height diversity in Europe today. In most parts of the world the genetic height is 5'6-5'8.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Ma...cal_attributes




> They are thought to have stood on average 176.2 cm (5 feet 9 1⁄3 inches) tall,[32] male fossils are recorded as being 195 cm (6 feet 5 inches) and taller.[33][34] They differ from modern-day humans in having a more robust physique and a slightly larger cranial capacity


There's a possible simple explanation for why

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule




> *Bergmann's rule is an ecogeographic principle that states that within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder environments, and species of smaller size are found in warmer regions.*


Although I'd still imagine that rule would require a high calorie (and protein?) intake to physically build and fuel the larger size so bigger but fewer might be the trade off?

It's just speculation but if they were bigger when it was colder they may have shrunk gradually as it got warmer.

----------


## Tomenable

> Yes exactly. It makes me wonder how many genetic diseases have some unknown positive effect - or _had_ a positive effect in the past in a particular region due to local climate. diet or whatever.


Exactly! Many genetically inherited "conditions" used to have a positive effect in the past.

One example of something which is now considered a "genetic disease" but was useful in the past, is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_V_Leiden

Today Factor V Leiden may cause a person die younger, but in the past it could help you survive a battle.

Another example might be acromegaly. Perhaps you have heard about a Russian boxer Nikolai Valuev?

Nikolai Valuev resembles a Neanderthal a bit, but that's because he has a condition called acromegaly.

However, what if acromegaly is caused by a recessive mutation inherited from interbreeding with Neanderthals?

Acromegaly is associated, among other health problems, with hypertension (high blood pressure).

*But here is what I found about high blood pressure in animals:*

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25140012

http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/49/2/260.full




> *'high blood-pressure animals' have better capillarization of the peripheral tissues allowing high endurance performance.*


So acromegaly apparently increases endurance performance, something which could be useful in prehistory (or today in BOXING - surprise!).

Many things which are considered "diseases" today were probably useful, prehistoric adaptations.

Today high blood pressure may cause a person die relatively younger.

But in prehistoric times a mammoth was more likely to kill you much sooner than hypertension!

While today high blood pressure is considered a "disease" because one might die at age 65 instead of at age 95 because of it, in prehistoric times it could be beneficial because it could save you from being killed by a mammoth at age 35, for example.

----------


## Tomenable

Is acromegaly present in populations with close to ~0% Neanderthal ancestry (Sub-Saharans) ???

----------


## Tomenable

*For reference:*

Neanderthal man (left), boxer Nikolai Valuev who has been diagnosed with a condition of acromegaly (right):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0hSMHzEKK9...sjacobsen1.jpg

http://www.koanicsoul.com/blog/wp-co...lai_Valuev.jpg

----------


## LeBrok

> I guess that lactase persistence rose to high frequencies via selection only in those cultures which were drinking raw milk.
> 
> And also it rose to high frequencies in areas where drinking milk was a major factor when it comes to chances of survival.


Let's remember that, kids of all cultures, farmers and herders, drunk milk. The difference is that lactose intolerant people need to stop drinking milk around puberty, but lactose persistent folks can keep drinking.

----------


## Tomenable

Some claim that acromegaly is maladaptive - causes diabetes, cardiac failure, hypertension, accelerated arthritis.

However, even if it really is (and always was ???) maladaptive, it might still be of Neanderthal origin.

After all, Neanderthals accumulated many maladaptive mutations due to excessive inbreeding - according to:

Kelley Harris, Rasmus Nielsen, *"The Genetic Cost of Neanderthal Introgression"*:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/10/31/030387




> using previously published estimates of inbreeding in Neanderthals, and of the distribution of fitness effects from human protein coding genes, we show that the average Neanderthal would have had at least 40% lower fitness than the average human due to higher levels of inbreeding and an increased mutational load


Anyway - in case of Valuev, his acromegaly does NOT seem to be a major obstacle in his boxing career.

----------


## Tomenable

> Kids of all cultures farmers and herders drunk milk.


How can you possibly know this ??? Those cultures practiced breastfeeding of babies, but so did hunter-gatherers.

But we don't know if they drunk raw animal milk, or if they just used milk to produce cheese, kefir, kumis, etc.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Greying Wanderer and Tomenable,

I agree modern disorders could have been selected for in the past because of climate and created strangely tall or big populations. It's possible there were ancient people who were 5'10-6'0 tall or more, because of excess hormones or whatever other disorders. But I've read modern averages and averages from ancient Europe, and the average genetic height for males is consistently 5'6-5'8 all around the world. I doubt any of the Pre-Historic Admixture events recorded in Europe included a group who towered over the other. 

Some people wrongly assume differences between modern humans in phenotype is caused solely by climate. It was assumed Pale skin is because of latitude, and that's been for the most part debunked in the case of Europe. Some of these theories are PC mumbo jumbo. It's an easy and quick explanation for racial(phenotype) differences, that allows all humans to be a "single human race". Plus, I see geneticists make exaggerated claims about the effect of SNPs on traits so their papers get published and praise by others. 

*We have to admit*: 1: It's very difficult to find what in DNA produce certain traits. 2: It's very difficult to discover what caused differnt phenotypes evolve.

----------


## Tomenable

What is the average genetic height for Mbuti / Biaka Pygmies ???

Are they so extremely short partially because of poor nutrition ???

----------


## Tomenable

Polish wrestler Leon Pinecki, height: 203 cm, arm span: 245 cm, weight: 128 kg (but his head doesn't look as if he had acromegaly):

----------


## LeBrok

> *Surely there were "Giants"* (just like "Ebu Gogo" myth turned out to be true after discovery of Homo Floresiensis ):
> 
> *Meganthropus was an extinct hominid on average ca. 8 feet* (2.44 m) tall and ca. 400 to 600 lbs (181 – 272 kg):
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganthropus
> 
> 
> 
> I think that many hominids got extinct much later than we have been assuming. Recent evidence seems to confirm this.
> ...


Surely, not.



> *Extreme claims[edit]**Meganthropus has been the target of numerous extreme claims, none of which is supported by peer-reviewed authors since the late 20th century*. Perhaps the most common claim is that Meganthropus was a giant; one unsourced claim estimated they were 9 feet (2.75 m) tall and 750 to 1000 pounds (340 to 450 kilograms).
> O.D. von Engeln [and] Kenneth E. Caster. mentioned that " Another astounding discovery is that of human teeth in China and Java of such size as to suggest a period of gigantism in human evolution. If the teeth can be accepted as indicative, these giant men stood 9 to 10 feet tall and weighed perhaps 600 to 700 pounds!" Von Engeln, O. D.; Caster, Kenneth E. (1952). Geology. : McGraw-Hill Book Co.Inc.(pages 411-412) *No exact height has been published in a peer-reviewed journal since the late 20th century*, and none gives an indication of Meganthropus being substantially larger than _H. erectus._ *However, earlier estimates from the 1940s and 1950s, based primarily on the very large Sangiran No. 6 jaw fragment,* led Prof. Franz Weidenreich, and several other anthropologists to conclude Meganthropus was a giant, and substantially larger than any H. erectus, perhaps on the order of 2 to 4 times the body mass. Perhaps as expression of this theory, Von Koenigswald and Weidenreich named the taxon in 1942, "Meganthropus palaeojavanicus", which in Neo-Latin translates to "great or large man of ancient Java".
> *There have been some rumors of post-cranial material, but those have either yet to be published or belong to H. erectus*. Reports, most if not all apparently from Australian researcher Rex Gilroy, place Meganthropus in Australia. He associates it with giant tools and even modern day reports. But, almost all paleoanthropologists maintain that *Meganthropus is known only from central Java*. *In similar non-peer-reviewed claims, some Bigfoot researchers claim that Bigfoot is a modern Meganthropus.*


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganthropus

Seems very iffy to say the least.

----------


## Tomenable

*LeBrok*, Robert Pershing Wadlow when last measured on 27 June 1940, was found to be 2.72 m (8 ft 11.1 in) tall.

Of course - it was some kind of medical condition - but at least it shows the upper range of human height.

Currently the tallest living man is Sultan Kösen who measured 251 cm (8 ft 3 in) - also not a healthy man.

I wonder what's the tallest "healthy" male ever. But how to determine where does "healthy" end and "sick" start?

----------


## Tomenable

> Seems very iffy to say the least.


The problem with Meganthropus is that nobody has found a complete skeleton so far.

But his height was estimated based on the size of several bones, including skull.

----------


## LeBrok

> How can you possibly know this ??? Those cultures practiced breastfeeding of babies, but so did hunter-gatherers.
> 
> But we don't know if they drunk raw animal milk, or if they just used milk to produce cheese, kefir, kumis, etc.


 You mean they really missed extremely nutritional food for their always hungry kids? Actually it were the kids who milked cows, goats and sheep daily. They had the first access to milk. Fresh, delicious milk just inches from their hungry mouths! Try to stop them...

----------


## LeBrok

> The problem with Meganthropus is that nobody has found a complete skeleton so far.
> 
> But his height was estimated based on the size of several bones, including skull.


It is easier to believe that such case of one individual, if true, was related to hyper supply of growth hormone, than gigantic people on islands. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantism

Usually, animal and people get smaller, not bigger, when secluded on islands for long time.

----------


## Alan

> *Alan,*
> 
> 
> 
> OK two-wheeled wagons but what kind of such wagons? A "two-wheeled wagon" can be anything from this...
> 
> 
> 
> ... to things much more sophisticated.
> ...


I am just telling you that two or four wheeled wagons already existed prior to Sintashta, also Horses. I never even argued about the form or usage of these wagons. It is possibly true that Sintashta folks improved the two wheeled wagons for warfare. I am not denying this. Why should I? They were a group of Indo-Iranians at the end of the day, more the linguistic ancestors of the Indo_Aryans though (Sintashta -> BMAC -> Indo-Aryans). But that doesn' mean these were not used elsewhere already as chariots too because we have ~3000 year old evidences of Sumeria where four wheeled "chariots" are used and we have evidences that two wheeled wagons did also existed prior to Sintashta. Srubna culture, Yaz and Kura Araxes look more like being ancestral to the Iranic speakers. Interestingly Kura Araxes and Srubna had very similar cultures based on farming and live stock breeding. 

I also know about the Hyksos being probably of Indo_Iranian origin. And interestingly this is roughly at the time of the Mitanni people and we have evidences that the Mitanni had contact to the ancient Egyptians. One of the Princesses of Egypt is even said to be of Mitanni origin. Therefore it is likely that the Hyksos were of Mitanni origin. There are hypothesis that the Mitanni derive from the Kura-Araxes culture.

It seems that the Indo_Iranians can be seperated into even four! major cultural branches.

Kura-Araxes, Srubna, Sintashta-Andronovo-BMAC, Yaz

Google for them and you will realize the similarities these cultures have.

----------


## Tomenable

> I also know about the Hyksos being probably of Indo_Iranian origin.


The Hyksos are considered either Semitic or a mix of Semites and Hurrians.

There is no evidence of Indo-Iranian (or any other IE) names among them.

On the other hand, rulers of the Mitanni realm had Indo-European names.

But most of the population of it were Non-Indo-European ethnic Hurrians.

----------


## Tomenable

Yes - I wrote that they were suspected of having a ruling class of Indo-Iranian origin because of having chariots.

And now I write that there is no confirmation of this idea in any other aspects (apart from knowledge of chariots):

*See the wiki article on Hyksos origins:* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos..._of_the_Hyksos

BTW - "they had an elite of Indo-Iranian origin" =/= "they spoke Indo-Iranian language and were Indo-Iranians".

In the Mitanni kingdom, even though it was ruled by Aryans, the main language was Hurrian - not Indo-Iranian.

----------


## Tomenable

> By 1500 BC "Hurrians" as a state didn't exist, it was Mitanni already and mixed of Indo_Iranians and Hurrians


But the Hyksos migrated towards Egypt earlier than 1500 BC, long before the rest of Hurrians were attacked by Indo-Iranians.




> And just in case you don't know it is still not known what kind of language the Hurrians really spoke.


Aren't there some inscriptions or single words in Hurrian language (and it was probably most closely related to Urartian) ??? :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurro-Urartian_languages

----------


## Angela

> *Angela,
> *.
> 
> By the way, coming back to *post #140* for a moment (and your claim about WHG ancestry):
> 
> North-Eastern Europeans score a lot of "WHG" only in calculators which do not take into account EHG and SHG. 
> 
> Most of HG here is EHG and SHG (Poles for example have some connection with SHG - see the link below), not WHG:
> 
> ...


What a very predictable response. In fact, I personally already predicted that this would be the response. :)

Your link is not very persuasive. 

As for the rest, from the "calculators" I've seen, they show WHG and EHG, but no break out for SHG. I have no doubt that considerable effort will be expended in creating one that does so, however, and making sure that the SHG numbers are higher in certain countries. :) 

Then those so inclined can congratulate themselves on their SHG percentages, if the EHG aren't sufficiently "light". 

Such a waste of effort when the first Anatolian farmers were already fixed for SLC24A5 and 40% derived for SLC 42A5 and thus perhaps even slightly lighter than Yamnaya, not to mention that by the Middle Neolithic many central European farmers were derived for both and had the blue eye genes as well, but it seems that old stereotypes and attitudes die hard.

Ed. In fact, you'd better check Fire-Haired's sheets on pigmentation for EHG and SHG. Even SHGs weren't 100% derived for the three major snps you know. Sorry to disappoint, but there were some "darker ones" still among them.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> ...
> Well it might well be - that's the thing. Sickle cell is very bad for you but if it protects you against something worse (malaria) then it can still be selected for.
> 
> This is why I think it's possible for something like acromegaly to have been wide spread at one point in time - perhaps because of Bergman's rule - and then gradually reduced in frequency after it got warmer. As long as it helped you to reproduce and only became negative in your 40s it might have been net benign in a particular environment....


True. There are many different genetic conditions that are like this - they can have good or bad effects depending on the situation. I am a heterozygous carrier (single copy) for HFE Hereditary Hemochromatosis/Haemochromatosis (the so-called "Celtic Curse"), which helps the body store enough dietary iron under famine conditions (which have been depressingly common in Ireland over the centuries), but which (especially when one has two HH genes) can cause self-poisoning of internal organs.

----------


## holderlin

Also, R1b-P312 was the ultimate badass. There's just no getting around this simple fact.

----------


## Alan

> Tomenable, so far as I can tell, no one posting here personally cares which ancient group was "lighter" except you, most certainly not me. I fail to see why the possession of adaptations for environment or the vagaries of history and its invasions and their effect on pigmentation should be a source of "pride", but maybe it's just that I'm not emotionally invested in these things and have a more analytical frame of mind. 
> 
> I have only been trying patiently to correct your mis-statements of fact, such as that the Anatolian farmers had no derived SLC45A2. 
> 
> You also seem to forget that it was I who told you to look back at Mathiesen et al and Fire-Haired's excellent chart. I also told you to re-check the data for the SHG and EHG. 
> 
> As to Fire-Haired's statement, that's an unfair criticism of it on your part, if I may say so. He never mentioned the EHG. It was a summary of general observations. He has provided links to his sheets numerous times and assumed, no doubt, that people would read and remember them. As I said, not everyone has an obsessive interest in ranking ancient peoples by exact percentages of derived de-pigmentation snps. General trends are enough.
> 
> As to how the Yamnaya became "darker" than the EHG, I don't know precisely how it happened. We know the pigmentation snps for our few EHG samples and there's some variation. Might there have been even more variation on the steppe before the "admixture"? I don't know. We do know that CHG was derived for SLC24A5, but these are very old samples. I don't know, and neither does anyone else, what depigmentation snps the population which mixed with EHG so much later actually carried. I can see how admixture between the EHG and a population which carried no derived SLC42A5 could result in people who had lower SLC42A5 than the EHG. I don't understand, however, how the Yamnaya people could have less SLC24A5 than the CHG when all those samples are SLC24A5 derived.
> ...



Some comments there took my attention
One is this



> I looked into the Greek Mesolithic a while back and came to the conclusion it is very atypical for Europe and probably came from the Levant sort of area. So I am not at all surprised that Greek Mesolithic and Neolithic may have been very similar and basically what we call EEF. However, Greece is very unusual for Europe in this respect and an exception to the rule of the Mesolithic hunters being long-time Europeans who contrasted with the incoming farmers. Personally I expect Greek hunters to be E people but again this is a rare Greece-specific thing and very unusual for Mesolithic Europe.



It looks like Mesolithic Greece was more related to Mesolithic Levant than mainland Mesolithic Europe. However there is also no doubt of population replacement during the Neolithic just that a group of Neolithic farmers from Anatolia "replaced" or mixed with the local Hunters and Gatherers who were genetically indistinguishable but culturally not farmers.

Another interestin thing. Greek farmers were dark skinned, while Anatolian and Central European farmers were light skinned. Could that mean the Anatolian farmer went directly into Central Europe?

----------


## Angela

> Alan:It looks like Mesolithic Greece was more related to Mesolithic Levant than mainland Mesolithic Europe. However there is also no doubt of population replacement during the Neolithic just that a group of Neolithic farmers from Anatolia "replaced" or mixed with the local Hunters and Gatherers who were genetically indistinguishable but culturally not farmers.
> 
> Another interestin thing. Greek farmers were dark skinned, while Anatolian and Central European farmers were light skinned. Could that mean the Anatolian farmer went directly into Central Europe?


I think the first is probably what happened, although we don't know if they were indistinguishable (i.e. similar groups moving into the area and beyond). Certainly, the mesolithic mtDna found so far in Greece contains no "U" and does contain types more commonly found in the Near East. We don't know what "Y" they carried. The only way we'll get any clarity is with mesolithic autosomal dna from southern Europe. It will be interesting to see how far this group penetrated into Greece and whether similar communities existed in other places in southern Europe, perhaps initially along coastal areas.

As to their pigmentation, I couldn't find any reference to the pigmentation of the Mesolithic Greeks, nor to that of the Neolithic Greeks, only the reference to the Bronze Age. Have you found anything? 

The archaeology indicates that the Neolithic migration into Europe started from southeastern Anatolia/northern Levant, going along the coast and very early into Cyprus. After that, the "colonization" of parts of Anatolia and Greece is almost concurrent, and in fact it reached Greece before it reached parts of western and northern Anatolia. 
http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthono...eolith_Exp.jpg

*If* it should turn out that the Greek mesolithic groups, like the WHG, did not possess any of the major depigmentation snps, then it would mean that the change took place later on. It is doubtful that it was first spread by any imagined WHG back migration into Anatolia as they didn't possess it themselves. 

We also don't have pigmentation data from further south.

Perhaps those studies that see a radiation from somewhere around the Caucasus for derived SLC 24A5 were correct. I don't know about derived SLC 42A5. As I said, the Anatolian farmers didn't get it from any back migration of WHG. It had to arise somewhere where it could spread both north to the EHG/SHG and to the Anatolian farmers. Selection took care of the rest. 

Some of these questions will only be solved by more ancient dna.

Anyway, to get back to the immigration into Ireland, we know that by that point, these people carried both of the derived major skin depigmentation snps and they were at least heterozygous for HERC II. 

@Holderlin

Sorry, I'll take a rain check as they say. I do go camping, quite like it in fact, but only, I'm afraid, with all the latest tech gear. Heck, I even bring my mother's old and trusty little Motta and espresso! I like my civilized comforts. :) I wouldn't even want to live in the 1700 and 1800 hundreds. You should read Oriental's thread about the disgusting practices of the past. All I can say is YUCK!
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/ODQ5WDU2Ng==/z/3J8AAOSwo8hTnrQv/$_32.JPG?set_id=880000500F

----------


## Tomenable

This map:



Shows that Neolithic transition took place in Greece earlier than in Western Anatolia.

Perhaps Greek hunters invented agriculture independently all by themselves?

----------


## Tomenable

> It had to arise somewhere where it could spread both north to the EHG/SHG


SHG were essentially like WHG, but with some EHG admixture.

That mutation probably spread to SHG directly from EHG, during the 9th-8th Millennia BC:




> *The First Eastern Migrations of People and Knowledge into Scandinavia: Evidence from Studies of Mesolithic Technology, 9th-8th Millennium BC:* http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...nalCode=sarc20
> 
> *Abstract:*
> 
> In this paper a team of Scandinavian researchers identifies and describes a Mesolithic technological concept, referred to as ‘the conical core pressure blade’ concept, and investigates how this concept spread into Fennoscandia and across Scandinavia. *Using lithic technological, contextual archaeological and radiocarbon analyses, it is demonstrated that this blade concept arrived with ‘post-Swiderian’ hunter-gatherer groups from the Russian plain into northern Fennoscandia and the eastern Baltic during the 9th millennium bc.* From there it was spread by migrating people and/or as transmitted knowledge through culture contacts into interior central Sweden, Norway and down along the Norwegian coast. However it was also spread into southern Scandinavia, where it was formerly identified as the Maglemosian technogroup 3 (or the ‘Sværdborg phase’). In this paper it is argued that the identification and spread of the conical core pressure blade concept represents the first migration of people, technology and ideas into Scandinavia from the south-eastern Baltic region and the Russian plain.

----------


## Angela

> Shows that Neolithic transition took place in Greece earlier than in Western Anatolia.
> 
> Perhaps Greek hunters invented agriculture independently all by themselves?



Absolutely not. The archaeology is crystal clear. Agriculture was "invented", if you will, in the Near East. That has never been questioned. The only issue was whether it spread to Europe through cultural diffusion or demic diffusion. I'm of the personal opinion that it almost never was spread solely through cultural diffusion, as the change from a hunter-gatherer society to an agricultural society entails far more profound changes than just learning how to till the ground. 

There are hundreds of texts on the subject. Even the map I posted above shows the earliest dates are in the Near East. 

See also this: 


The latest finds are in fact pushing the attempt to domesticate plants further and further into the past...23,000 years, in fact. 
http://www.nap.edu/openbook/12692/xh...9ad4g94001.jpg




> That mutation probably spread to SHG directly from EHG, during the 9th-8th Millennia BC:


Even if that were somehow proven to be true, it doesn't tell us how it got into the EHG, or the Anatolian farmers, for that matter. Perhaps it spread from south to north. Who knows, maybe some nubile farmer girl was traded to the steppe and beyond, perhaps even from the Balkans, and then selection in areas with less solar exposure did the rest. It could spread very quickly in these little groups of hunter-gatherers. After all, Karelia is dated to 5500 BC. Farmers had already been in parts of the Balkans for a thousand years. Ydna "J" also got all the way up to Karelia. I guess we'll all have to wait for more ancient dna. 

Now, I don't want to be rude, but people coming to this thread for information on the post Neolithic migration into Ireland are having to wade through a lot of off-topic if interesting conversation and that's being rude to them. 

If people want to continue these conversations, by all means do so, but on more appropriate threads. I might even join you. :)

----------


## LeBrok

Off topic posts moved here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ral-discussion

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> True. There are many different genetic conditions that are like this - they can have good or bad effects depending on the situation. I am a heterozygous carrier (single copy) for HFE Hereditary Hemochromatosis/Haemochromatosis (the so-called "Celtic Curse"), which helps the body store enough dietary iron under famine conditions (which have been depressingly common in Ireland over the centuries), but which (especially when one has two HH genes) can cause self-poisoning of internal organs.


Yes, the paper mentions the Rastlin men being LP and having the Hemochromatosis genes.

Milk has little to no iron so Hemochromatosis might possibly have been selected for in Ireland if the people were reliant on milk for calories.

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=Angela;473771]Thanks for finding that, Tomenable. We should make a sticky for this data perhaps, so we have it in one place. 

So:
WHG 163.1-5'3"

Oetzi 165 or 5'4"

Anatolian farmers: ? (Mathiesen said they were taller than European Neolithic but I couldn't find a precise figure. Anyone know?

Yamnaya 175 so 5'7-8

EHG 173.2 so 5'6-7, a little shorter than Yamnaya.

So, we still have to find an explanation for the much greater height of this Irish sample, yes? Has someone checked the height? That seems like a really big increase. Still, I've seen families where the American diet results in a three to four inch increase between father and sons in one generation. 

Tomenable, there's a mountain of literature on how selection based on climate favors certain body types and individual features. People evolved to fit their environment. They didn't burst fully formed from the head of Zeus. :) Just look it up.

That doesn't mean migration and admixture doesn't have a role to play, however, after the type has been "set".[/QUOTE

_possible explanations:
- evolution concerning body proportions depends on factors as way of life_ _(diet, physical activities) with complexe effects but evolving quickly, post-birth for the most, between fecondation and birth also according to diet of the mother (parents to children, and also between these children) and natural (climatic) selection, with slow evolution over a lot of generations by genetic selection
__- elites selection: it seems to me the more warlike the population the more high statured the elites (justified or not by efficacity)
- 3 men is very few to calculate the mean stature of a population, even the elite's one. COON wrote the Iron Age Irishmen were about 1m70 as a mean.
Just to recall it, surely you knew already that_

----------


## MOESAN

> @Tomenable,
> 
> There's a low chance any Pre-Historic European groups were very noticeable taller than each other. There's hardly any height diversity in Europe today. In most parts of the world the genetic height is 5'6-5'8.



Fire-Haired
You affirm things without any proof, sometimes, spite some interestings posts where you put true data.
Cro-Magnon cousins were about 1m74 or more, Mugem Mesolithic were about 1m58, Teviec 1m55, other Mesolithic groups between 1m63 and 1m65 in the West Europe, taller in the East. In Brittany Teviecoid people were replaced during the megalithic period by men about 1m67/1m68...
even today, spite modifications due to way of life the old differences keep on as a whole; in the 1930 the national means were between 1m63 and 1m73, the regional means were between 1m60 and 1m76, without speaking of the pure central Saami (about 1m55). 
some old means were not too serious (means taken among army recrues, among migrants of specific regions) but as a whole the most of them were verified.

----------


## MOESAN

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Ma...cal_attributes
> 
> 
> 
> There's a possible simple explanation for why
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule
> 
> 
> ...


_Very simplistic and hardly confimed this Bergmann's law, indeed; for I tink. Other theorie exist, different (by instance "the farther from the population center the taller". Maybe all of them contain a part of truth giving way to a multicaused result. I think in a same group the smallest are more resistant as a whole than the tallest, compared to their dimensions. the taller the lower performance index. Maybe I'm wrong?_

----------


## Angela

> _Very simplistic and hardly confimed this Bergmann's law, indeed; for I tink. Other theorie exist, different (by instance "the farther from the population center the taller". Maybe all of them contain a part of truth giving way to a multicaused result. I think in a same group the smallest are more resistant as a whole than the tallest, compared to their dimensions. the taller the lower performance index. Maybe I'm wrong?_


I've read that too, although there's also something about "average" height in men today being more "fit". I think it depends on the environment, lifestyle etc. as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22875819

"Intralocus sexual conflict (IASC) occurs when a trait under selection in one sex constrains the other sex from achieving its sex-specific fitness optimum. Selection pressures on body size often differ between the sexes across many species, including humans: among men individuals of average height enjoy the highest reproductive success, while shorter women have the highest reproductive success. Given its high heritability, IASC over human height is likely. Using data from sibling pairs from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, we present evidence for IASC over height: in shorter sibling pairs (relatively) more reproductive success (number of children) was obtained through the sister than through the brother of the sibling pair. By contrast, in average height sibling pairs most reproductive success was obtained through the brother relative to the sister. In conclusion, we show that IASC over a heritable, sexually dimorphic physical trait (human height) affects Darwinian fitness in a contemporary human population."

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Fire-Haired
> You affirm things without any proof, sometimes, spite some interestings posts where you put true data.
> Cro-Magnon cousins were about 1m74 or more, Mugem Mesolithic were about 1m58, Teviec 1m55, other Mesolithic groups between 1m63 and 1m65 in the West Europe, taller in the East. In Brittany Teviecoid people were replaced during the megalithic period by men about 1m67/1m68...
> even today, spite modifications due to way of life the old differences keep on as a whole; in the 1930 the national means were between 1m63 and 1m73, the regional means were between 1m60 and 1m76, without speaking of the pure central Saami (about 1m55). 
> some old means were not too serious (means taken among army recrues, among migrants of specific regions) but as a whole the most of them were verified.


I admit there could have been pre-historic groups who were much taller than each other. The way I know the genetic height for most men is 5'6-5'8, is outside of the West essentially all men in the world are 5'6-5'8. Before the 1800s Western men were 5'6-5'8. 

Isles Celts aren't noticeable tall. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc. are 5'9-5'10 on average today. Other posters brought up how tall(6'0) the Late Neolithic Irish were from a single site, and I was pointing out it is unlikely they were that tall on average. I think people want the Eastern(Steppe, Steppe admixed) newcomers to be macho giants, and I'm pointing out the reality that they weren't genetically much taller or bigger than EEF/MN.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

The thing about height is even if there were selective pressure to be taller in a particular time and place that would still be constrained by diet. You can only know for sure when there are no dietary limits e.g. the Dutch keep getting taller - is there anything odd about what they eat?

I generally assume it's something to do with getting a lot protein but that's just a guess.

(Also I vaguely recall Irish recruits to the British Army in (IIRC) Napoleonic times (maybe earlier) being an inch taller.)

----------


## MOESAN

> I admit there could have been pre-historic groups who were much taller than each other. The way I know the genetic height for most men is 5'6-5'8, is outside of the West essentially all men in the world are 5'6-5'8. Before the 1800s Western men were 5'6-5'8. 
> 
> Isles Celts aren't noticeable tall. Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc. are 5'9-5'10 on average today. Other posters brought up how tall(6'0) the Late Neolithic Irish were from a single site, and I was pointing out it is unlikely they were that tall on average. I think people want the Eastern(Steppe, Steppe admixed) newcomers to be macho giants, and I'm pointing out the reality that they weren't genetically much taller or bigger than EEF/MN.


_Sorry I don't manage well with english measures so i speak in international metric system. 
BUT NO even today the world and continental mean statures are not level at all, spite beginning of homogeneization by migration. Today Portugueses and Spanish people are always less tall than other Europeans and Bosnians, Dutches and Scandinavians the tallest (so : "traditional", spite some fluxtuations produced by some increase in some countries due to late industrialization and amelioration of life conditions opposed to some stagnation in other countries after sooner progress. Even regional differences are still seen. And I don't speak about Asia as opposed to Africa and so on. WHy are you following your prejudice in place of take data? Do you think Quecha people or Mexicans are as tall as Bosnians?
But the way, Irishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen are not the tallest in the UK, as a mean. Some of the old means of statures in UK were inaccurate: Scotsmen of Galloway of 1m78 (1930-40's) or something like that but in fact young recrues of the army! Also Irishmen overrated in old surveys based upon limited states. Today Greek people are taller than irish people, and their life level is not better (But Greeks were already credited of 1m69 in the30/40's when French people were about 1m65)
_No offense, Fire Haired, you know I'm not looking for fight. By the way I fear I'm beginning to do what I reproach sometimes: loosing time about details far from the core of the thread. Nos vad deoc'h, good night.

----------


## MOESAN

I wait for more data about Ireland - You can look at Eurogenes blog: "Davidski" made a post about one Rathlin man, plotted between most of BBs and most of CWCs; dpend on the confidence you put in his works, but it don't seem to impossible.

----------


## Drac II

> _ Today Portugueses and Spanish people are always less tall than other Europeans_


Says who? Measured average male height in Spain goes from 5 ft 8 in to 5 ft 9 in. In France, for example, measured average male height goes from about 5 ft 8 1⁄2 in. to 5 ft 9 in.

Average male heights in Europe according to Grasgruber et al. 2014:






> _Today Greek people are taller than irish people,_


Again, says who? Measured average male height in Greece is about 5 ft 9 in. to 5 ft 9 1⁄2 in., while in Ireland it is also 5 ft 9 in. to 5ft 9 1⁄2 in.

----------


## Tomenable

Yes, the Irish are on average about 2 centimeters taller than the English (per Grasgruber 2014).

Must be shocking to some English: :)

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages...-humanization/

----------


## MOESAN

all of us: it is not a competition for higher statured statute. No national pride (what kind?)...
The states made in countries are not always taking in account the whole population, so some fluctuations. Plus for the most they don't take ethnic origin in accoiunt what is not without importance today (migrants).
Spanish vs French people: NO war! I speak about a general trend of Iberians being AS A WHOLE the lowest statured people in Europe for a long span of time (trend). That said, French people showED as a mean 1 cm up only over long enough periods: nothing to justify a fight between us! By the way some Spanish regions as Valencia/Levante were tallest than the most of French regions. No problem for me.
Wait and see future surveys, they contradict themselves from year to year: Finland people were smaller than Scandinavians people as a whole in the 1900 - they became taller, almost as tall as Scandinavians before mark some stop in their lifting up. When means are made by generation we see often populations close for stature passing one before another and vice versa from year to year...
Japaneses grew faster than French people in these last decennies, it's true.
What I red recently said Irish people were not among the highest Europeans and a bit smaller than Greeks. 
Concerning factors, calories are far to be the only explanation. Concerning food, I think it depends too on some chemical products introduced in food, specially in meat (: the great scale ways of production of meat is not exactly the same in different countries of Europe, the feeding culinary habits not more.
to give some pride to someones, i'm 1m71 (France of my generation: about 1m73): so a bit low statured, but my feet touch the ground! WHen I meat military musicians of the Netherlands - in the 1069-70, they seemed about 8-9 cm taller than me.
_To come back to my post, I was just answering Fire Haired to contradict his affirmations about "level statures" all around the world, whatever the period. Nothing more.
Have a good Sunday evening._

----------


## Angela

Really, this is getting tiresome. Do men have to get into a *******contest over absolutely everything? Does the cherry picking of studies to prove one's own group is somehow "better", an absurdity in this context anyway, never end?

The statistics vary by study:
http://www.averageheight.co/average-...ght-by-country
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman...ht-chart.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templa...ound_the_world

The general picture is pretty clear, however. The average height in most European countries is around 5'9-5'10", with the exception being the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries. 

There are situations where a difference of two to three inches would indeed be noteworthy and important, but overall body height is not one of them. 

Now, let's get back to the migration into Ireland. I really don't want to spend time moving posts. An extended discussion of height by European country belongs in the anthropology section.

Ed. @ Moesan
Thank you for introducing some sanity into the discussion.

----------


## holderlin

> Really, this is getting tiresome. Do men have to get into a *******contest over absolutely everything? Does the cherry picking of studies to prove one's own group is somehow "better", an absurdity in this context anyway, never end?
> 
> The statistics vary by study:
> http://www.averageheight.co/average-...ght-by-country
> http://www.disabled-world.com/artman...ht-chart.shtml
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templa...ound_the_world
> 
> The general picture is pretty clear, however. The average height in most European countries is around 5'9-5'10", with the exception being the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries. 
> 
> ...


OK, I'm just going to say what everyone is thinking.

We really need to get to the bottom of the genetics of penis size. We're worried about going to Mars and we have no idea, for example, if EEF was packing more meat than WHG? I mean for all we know Yamnaya dudes just whipped it out and the rest of the world got out of the way.

I guess while I'm at it I can propose my Teal wives bulbous buttocks theory. I won't go into details until my hypothesis is fully developed but I invite you all to consider the basic notion and give me your thoughts.

Yeah I know I know we're gonna have to make another thread.

----------


## Sile

> OK, I'm just going to say what everyone is thinking.
> 
> We really need to get to the bottom of the genetics of penis size. We're worried about going to Mars and we have no idea, for example, if EEF was packing more meat than WHG? I mean for all we know Yamnaya dudes just whipped it out and the rest of the world got out of the way.
> 
> I guess while I'm at it I can propose my Teal wives bulbous buttocks theory. I won't go into details until my hypothesis is fully developed but I invite you all to consider the basic notion and give me your thoughts.
> 
> Yeah I know I know we're gonna have to make another thread.


it depends as some say if it is ring-barked

----------


## Angela

> OK, I'm just going to say what everyone is thinking.
> 
> We really need to get to the bottom of the genetics of penis size. We're worried about going to Mars and we have no idea, for example, if EEF was packing more meat than WHG? I mean for all we know Yamnaya dudes just whipped it out and the rest of the world got out of the way.


Delusions, my friend. :) Then, in addition to all of that, you have to know what you're doing, well, unless you're using force, I suppose, and then there's the predilection to getting sloppy drunk and incapable to be considered. 

Indeed, some of the biggest proponents of this theory look like nerdy librarians...which explains a great deal. Present company excepted, of course. 

Punto e basta.

Oh, as for the women, forget those fat paleolithic Venus figurines. I present to you...Ishtar...a little too heavy jawed, but other than that...perfection.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._the_Night.jpg

----------


## berun

Coming back to Bell Beakers...

Interesting papers:

http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de...r/14c_raum.htm
(calibrated maps)

https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/dopso..._200605_ab.pdf
(overview)

http://www.academia.edu/1249547/_200...007_p._129-214
(good to read)

After checking again the BB culture it seems a very mysterious one: they don't replace the local cultures, instead they adapt (above all they get the same inhumation/tomb styles), not very usual for invading people... maybe they were nomad beer bartenders? bronze miners/smithers? yet a mystery.

But with the given information it is difficult to buy R1b = IE = BB; how BB could depart from neolithic Portugal, lose language and genes in Germany, then come back to Iberia and people all it with regional DF27 (except Basques keeping language, but no genes...); and that at the same time that BB appears in Germany it appears also in Britain, but with a clade L21 already regional in Britain/Ireland by 2000 BCE...

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Coming back to Bell Beakers...
> 
> Interesting papers:
> 
> http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de...r/14c_raum.htm
> (calibrated maps)
> 
> https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/dopso..._200605_ab.pdf
> (overview)
> ...


I'm not sure if it fits all the facts but i wonder about two related BB being the result of a single source population splitting in two as it travels west with one branch arriving by sea in Iberia/Gascony and from there spreading to Brittany/SW Britain/Wales/Ireland and the second branch taking a more overland route eventually following the Rhine to Holland.

So original source R1b ydna, partially IE* -> two separate but related BB populations, maritime BB and river BB.

(* defining IE as a collection of components that arrived in a particular region from wherever and then those components stewed over time to produce a final IE package - so partially IE could define any group from that region who left before the process was complete)

edit:

forgot physical type difference
- maritime branch mixed with megalith culture
- river branch didn't

----------


## holderlin

Ishtar's looking great there

I would also say that the ancients were no less preoccupied with such things. Aphrodite was in fact born out of a severed member.

----------


## Brennos

> Coming back to Bell Beakers... Interesting papers: http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de...r/14c_raum.htm (calibrated maps) https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/dopso..._200605_ab.pdf (overview) http://www.academia.edu/1249547/_200...007_p._129-214 (good to read) After checking again the BB culture it seems a very mysterious one: they don't replace the local cultures, instead they adapt (above all they get the same inhumation/tomb styles), not very usual for invading people... maybe they were nomad beer bartenders? bronze miners/smithers? yet a mystery. But with the given information it is difficult to buy R1b = IE = BB; how BB could depart from neolithic Portugal, lose language and genes in Germany, then come back to Iberia and people all it with regional DF27 (except Basques keeping language, but no genes...); and that at the same time that BB appears in Germany it appears also in Britain, but with a clade L21 already regional in Britain/Ireland by 2000 BCE...


 You forgot the most important feature: the different human type of the Iberian BB and the Central/Eastern BB. The former was typical gracile mediterranean, like other Neolithic samples, the latter was tall and robust with brachycephalic skull.

----------


## LeBrok

> Coming back to Bell Beakers...
> 
> Interesting papers:
> 
> http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de...r/14c_raum.htm
> (calibrated maps)
> 
> https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/dopso..._200605_ab.pdf
> (overview)
> ...


We are pretty sure there were few waves of R1b to Iberia, the first ones were most likely not IE.

----------


## berun

Hi brennos. Do you have any reference or paper about BB anthropometry?

----------


## Brennos

> Hi brennos. Do you have any reference or paper about BB anthropometry?


You could pm rms2 on Anthrogenica: he has got a lot of books about the argument. He was the first to point this observation.

----------


## berun

OK, but i prefer first hand readings... and even so it is better to check the raw data.

By the way if BB originated in Iberia it would be worth to check if DF27 maps the same extension; it is not doing so, and the continental places where it is found actualy can be explained by historical causes; so deduction is that when BB spread out of the peninsula DF27 was not a big clade yet or it didn't appeared yet; but then checking S116-all (mapped in "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe" in figure1):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/

the extension coincides quite well with that of BB phenomenon, and it is particularly interesting that S116* keept mainly an iberian extension...

So R1b = BB (at least S116...), and then it is difficult to say that it was already IE... moreover there is the Basque "problem" that they are so much R1b; of course they were a small tribe in the Pyrenees and something strange could be done there that local guys disappeared and the new incomers gave out their IE (celtic?) language... but the gross problem is with the supposed similar gene change in the non-IE speaking peninsula area, being even more the most populated area (!)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_300BC-en.svg

----------


## LeBrok

> You could pm rms2 on Anthrogenica: he has got a lot of books about the argument. He was the first to point this observation.


Don't trust his observations. He screwed up J2 expansion very badly, associating it with Roman Empire and Christianity. Now we know it was much much ancient, like late Neolithic and Bronze Age. What is worse, he never admitted that he was wrong. Well, at least on Eupedia here. 
He has few active threads here.

----------


## Brennos

> OK, but i prefer first hand readings... and even so it is better to check the raw data.
> 
> By the way if BB originated in Iberia it would be worth to check if DF27 maps the same extension; it is not doing so, and the continental places where it is found actualy can be explained by historical causes; so deduction is that when BB spread out of the peninsula DF27 was not a big clade yet or it didn't appeared yet; but then checking S116-all (mapped in "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe" in figure1):
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039512/
> 
> the extension coincides quite well with that of BB phenomenon, and it is particularly interesting that S116* keept mainly an iberian extension...
> 
> So R1b = BB (at least S116...), and then it is difficult to say that it was already IE... moreover there is the Basque "problem" that they are so much R1b; of course they were a small tribe in the Pyrenees and something strange could be done there that local guys disappeared and the new incomers gave out their IE (celtic?) language... but the gross problem is with the supposed similar gene change in the non-IE speaking peninsula area, being even more the most populated area (!)
> ...


Obviously, he has the bibliography - the so called first hand books - to tell you.

Ad for S116, its greatest diversity is in central Europe. We can't put arguments on today spread of SNPs. If so, we can easily say that R1b is native American because of its great distribution in North America.

----------


## MOESAN

> I'm not sure if it fits all the facts but i wonder about two related BB being the result of a single source population splitting in two as it travels west with one branch arriving by sea in Iberia/Gascony and from there spreading to Brittany/SW Britain/Wales/Ireland and the second branch taking a more overland route eventually following the Rhine to Holland.
> 
> So original source R1b ydna, partially IE* -> two separate but related BB populations, maritime BB and river BB.
> 
> * defining IE as a collection of components that arrived in a particular region from wherever and then those components stewed over time to produce a final IE package - so partially IE could define any group from that region who left before the process was complete)
> 
> edit:
> 
> forgot physical type difference
> ...



_​It's not impossible. We need more facts. The intruders new types at BB sites were at first something unkonwn in Western Europe. I think they could very well be Central-eastern European people with some contacts with steppic tribes. Some could have taken as you say a maritime route to go to Southern Atlantic Europe. The Cyprus people of the time showed some physical proximity before all that mixed with surroundings populations. I would be very glad if we had anDNA of the Worms BBs region and of the Bronze Cyprus folks (autosomes and Y-haplos). Plus of some Portugal first BBs.
I agree with Berun's doubts about the equation: I-E = BB = Y-R1b (even if for R1b = I-E the doubt is far less evident) - but doubts are not certainty! a special branch of Y-R1b can be possible even for first BBs "importers". What remains is BBs phenomenon seems more an acculturation of diverse elites than a true massive colonization spite some regions show some demic changes at local scale, limited compared to the final spread of BBs culture.
And always this question of burying discoverings: basic folks or elite? the answer seems: elite, and very moving elite sometimes and someplaces at the beginning of metals in Europe (heterogenous autosome DNA, and strontium surveys)_

----------


## MOESAN

GENETIKER produced an admixture of EBA Irishmen:
very heterogenous between them, what contradicts the scientists study. Genetiker has hos own system and it could be useful in some cases and inaccurate in other cases?
the 3 give, roughly (my percentages, made at "nose sight") -renamed by myself
A- > 40% WHG - < 20% EHG - 0% EEF - > 40% westasian - 
B- < 10% WHG - > 50% EHG - < 20% EEF - < 5% westasian - *< 10% amerindian (red colour: Pima)
*C- < 20% WHG - > 35% EHG - < 3% EEF - > 35% westasian -* < 5% amerindian ( " " ")
But he wrote he was trying to do better with more SNP's so this first work would be a low coverage one...
*
I don't know what confidence to have for now... admixtures analysis can be uncertain sometimes, according to categorizing choices - but a certain heterogeneity in auDNA at those times of metals daybreak could be sensible, if we look at other places in Eurasia ath the same times.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

Some interesting stuff, don't know enough to judge but...

tree rings implying major flooding in Ireland in between the neolithic woman and the arrival of the Rastlin samples

http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.c...eat-flood.html

and another (neolithic events are near the end)

http://www.archaeology.co.uk/article...ng-dynasty.htm

given the very heavy rainfall in Ireland maybe the early farmers were flooded out?

http://norway4.wikispaces.com/file/v..._of_norway.jpg

Just a thought.

----------


## MOESAN

> You forgot the most important feature: the different human type of the Iberian BB and the Central/Eastern BB. The former was typical gracile mediterranean, like other Neolithic samples, the latter was tall and robust with brachycephalic skull.


_
I don't know if it can help because in past I didn't note the references of my readings, except when they were extracted from books I decided to keep with me (I was not "doctoring").
What I red here and there among old scholars and not exclusively Coon is that almost everywhere at the daybreak of Copper and then Bronze, 'dinaric' or 'dinaroid' types appeared in Western and Southwestern Europe (even Los Millares or South Portugal if I red well) in mines places whatever their density - they were new there. The same in Cataluna, East Pyrenees and Languedoc-Provence. The same among old terminology Food Vessel peoeple of Ireland. Some appeared in Greece and densely enough during Copper/Bronze in Cyprus. the non-metric survey of Desideri concluded the more modified populations during BBs times (what precise time???) were in Switzerland ad Hungary, on the way to more 'iberian' or 'mediterranean' side. In fact other surveys based on metrics concluded the 'dinaroid' type dominant among Bohemia BBs and EVEN in some Hungary cultures linked to BBs. The apparent 'mediterranean' identity of some BBs seems to me more the reflect of the settlement of a small number of these 'dinaroids' in Iberia and in Western Mediterranean but with some strong influences: some preceding southern population could have been put in move, not by force directly from Southern Iberia to Hungary but from places to places where roughly 'mediterraneanlike' populations (perhaps females for the most) were involved. Along Rhine the majority of them were of 'dinaroid' type, type which play a strong role in the first BBs of British Round Barrows people (~2200 BC). The same big role among Poland and Bohemia BBs., before osmosis.
All the way BBs is a fluctuating concept and we cannot be sure the different BBs places (not all Western Europe spite some erroneous maps) saw exactly the same people as History was running on, spite the archeological labelof "BB". What is sure is that a new brachycephalic type (new according to discovered buryings), 'dinaric' (and associated 'dinaroid') appeared in Europe (until Denmark) about the 3000 BC. in South, they tended to disappear after some time (departure or/and assimilation?)
Pure or the result of statistically stable crossing between 2 phenotypes, the "type" has been everywhere where metals were in cause in Europe. The first apparented brachycephalic types appeared clearly in Anatolia and South Caucasus about the 2000 BC, maybe a bit before, before riching Palestina where they did not mix immediatly with the predecessors.
the geographical origin? We don't know. Why going too far from their current places of high density? Western Balkans or Carpathians? the mountains could have favoured a selection upon a basis of crossing envolving 'borrebylike' subbracchycephals and some kind of dolichocephals? the different types of dolichocephals involved can explain nuances? Balkans were the place where met some different people, someones arrived or acculturated to a respectable level of skills in metallurgy, even before the steppic big moves.
&: the use of certain cradling methods in Anatolia flattening the occipital could date of a period of an elite domination apparented to these people? other skull disforming traditions occurred along History, linked to elites.
_

----------


## Brennos

> _ I don't know if it can help because in past I didn't note the references of my readings, except when they were extracted from books I decided to keep with me (I was not "doctoring"). What I red here and there among old scholars and not exclusively Coon is that almost everywhere at the daybreak of Copper and then Bronze, 'dinaric' or 'dinaroid' types appeared in Western and Southwestern Europe (even Los Millares or South Portugal if I red well) in mines places whatever their density - they were new there. The same in Cataluna, East Pyrenees and Languedoc-Provence. The same among old terminology Food Vessel peoeple of Ireland. Some appeared in Greece and densely enough during Copper/Bronze in Cyprus. the non-metric survey of Desideri concluded the more modified populations during BBs times (what precise time???) were in Switzerland ad Hungary, on the way to more 'iberian' or 'mediterranean' side. In fact other surveys based on metrics concluded the 'dinaroid' type dominant among Bohemia BBs and EVEN in some Hungary cultures linked to BBs. The apparent 'mediterranean' identity of some BBs seems to me more the reflect of the settlement of a small number of these 'dinaroids' in Iberia and in Western Mediterranean but with some strong influences: some preceding southern population could have been put in move, not by force directly from Southern Iberia to Hungary but from places to places where roughly 'mediterraneanlike' populations (perhaps females for the most) were involved. Along Rhine the majority of them were of 'dinaroid' type, type which play a strong role in the first BBs of British Round Barrows people (~2200 BC). The same big role among Poland and Bohemia BBs., before osmosis. All the way BBs is a fluctuating concept and we cannot be sure the different BBs places (not all Western Europe spite some erroneous maps) saw exactly the same people as History was running on, spite the archeological labelof "BB". What is sure is that a new brachycephalic type (new according to discovered buryings), 'dinaric' (and associated 'dinaroid') appeared in Europe (until Denmark) about the 3000 BC. in South, they tended to disappear after some time (departure or/and assimilation?) Pure or the result of statistically stable crossing between 2 phenotypes, the "type" has been everywhere where metals were in cause in Europe. The first apparented brachycephalic types appeared clearly in Anatolia and South Caucasus about the 2000 BC, maybe a bit before, before riching Palestina where they did not mix immediatly with the predecessors. the geographical origin? We don't know. Why going too far from their current places of high density? Western Balkans or Carpathians? the mountains could have favoured a selection upon a basis of crossing envolving 'borrebylike' subbracchycephals and some kind of dolichocephals? the different types of dolichocephals involved can explain nuances? Balkans were the place where met some different people, someones arrived or acculturated to a respectable level of skills in metallurgy, even before the steppic big moves. &: the use of certain cradling methods in Anatolia flattening the occipital could date of a period of an elite domination apparented to these people? other skull disforming traditions occurred along History, linked to elites._


 Good point, but it doesn't fit with the global fashion: a lot of population, not closely related, had the opposite manner, i.e. to make longer the head. See Huns, some Amerindians, Egyptians, ecc...

----------


## Greying Wanderer

> Good point, but it doesn't fit with the global fashion: a lot of population, not closely related, had the opposite manner, i.e. to make longer the head. See Huns, some Amerindians, Egyptians, ecc...


Maybe it does. If the people who became BB ultimately came from a place where people were brachycephalic but took two routes to the west - one segment went overland and kept their head shape while the other segment went via Iberia and mixed with gracile people along the way and changed head shape.

----------


## berun

MOESAN, The question of Brachycephaly is interesting, but it was also present in a Neolithic person in Catalonia, so i'm thinking that mainly they came with "Dinaric" Y-DNA I2 and E as the Cardial Culture first appears in Epirus. But it is true that the Neolithic is mainly dolicocephalic and with Bell Beaker the Brachycephaly rises to 10-15% (in Catalonia at least); but what i can not understand is that if Brachycephaly came with BB why in Catalonia this culture appears around 3000/2900 BCE and in Central Europe it appears 400 years after. Moreover there are not noticeable cultural disruption with such Brachycephalics as after Bell Beaker it follows regional Pyrenean Bell Beaker. Moreover teeth analisys in Swiss BB points to southern migrants, in Czech republic i remember that BB is associated to migrants, making more complicated to find out the "phantom" Indoeuropean migration with BB to Western Europe. It's necessary to find out more data to verify this theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnanaro_culture

In Sardinia late BB is associated to the apparition of Brachycephaly and the North Italy Polada Culture, which seems received northern migrants from Central Europe; i would expect a more radical cultural shift if invading IE were taking the island.

----------


## epoch

> Coming back to Bell Beakers...
> 
> Interesting papers:
> 
> http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de...r/14c_raum.htm
> (calibrated maps)
> 
> https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/dopso..._200605_ab.pdf
> (overview)
> ...


The EEF in Ballynahatty show a lot of affinity to Iberia. The BB show none. Exit Iberian origin hypothesis. At least for the BB that swept Ireland.

----------


## epoch

We need to have a good look at the EEF part of BB. With D-stats we need to check whether it sways to the Hungarian, the Swedish, the central German or Stuttgarts side. That may be part of the unraveling of this story.

----------


## Greying Wanderer

@berun




> In Sardinia late BB is associated to the apparition of Brachycephaly and the North Italy Polada Culture, which seems received northern migrants from Central Europe; i would expect a more radical cultural shift if invading IE were taking the island.


Just as an example of different routes - imagine IE came down the Danube as far as Hungary but were blocked there for a while by LBK so some went around them to the south and some went north.

(I'm not saying this is what happened just an example of how a source population might split.)

----------


## berun

> The EEF in Ballynahatty show a lot of affinity to Iberia. The BB show none. Exit Iberian origin hypothesis. At least for the BB that swept Ireland.


Why? What we have from neolithic Iberia is quite rich (R1b, E, G, C, I2...) and i'm waiting to get results from Megalithism, from Atlantic facade, from south Spain, from farmers, from herders, from cow herders, etc. as to check how much variation there was. If poor i would go to change mind, but only then. Moreover the less affinity of the Irish BB with Iberia is with the actual populations, which have had a lot of admixtures in 4000 years; even more, after descending the Rhine the BB got there a good deal of Yamnaya's aDNA: different histories, different genes.

----------


## Brennos

> Why? What we have from neolithic Iberia is quite rich (R1b, E, G, C, I2...) and i'm waiting to get results from Megalithism, from Atlantic facade, from south Spain, from farmers, from herders, from cow herders, etc. as to check how much variation there was. If poor i would go to change mind, but only then. Moreover the less affinity of the Irish BB with Iberia is with the actual populations, which have had a lot of admixtures in 4000 years; even more, after descending the Rhine the BB got there a good deal of Yamnaya's aDNA: different histories, different genes.


 You forgot H2... very important in Neolithic Europe, even if in minority. Megalith results are available from France and Spain... if you look on Ancestral Journeys...

----------


## berun

The megalith results are not a sure matter so i prefer to don't rely on them. You can check

http://www.arqueologiaprehistorica.e...pi%2003-12.pdf

There were three phases: Megalithic inhumation around 3700 BCE with a dolmen and a menhir; after some years of use the dolmen was dismantelated (the bones were keept in the same place otherwise); after some 1000 years Bell Beakers erected a stone tumulus over the old dolmen remains (over it there were the bones of the megalithics)... and such tumulus was partly destroyed by ploughing. 

So, i prefer to wait better results from more virgin sites.

----------


## Brennos

> The megalith results are not a sure matter so i prefer to don't rely on them. You can check
> 
> http://www.arqueologiaprehistorica.e...pi%2003-12.pdf
> 
> There were three phases: Megalithic inhumation around 3700 BCE with a dolmen and a menhir; after some years of use the dolmen was dismantelated (the bones were keept in the same place otherwise); after some 1000 years Bell Beakers erected a stone tumulus over the old dolmen remains (over it there were the bones of the megalithics)... and such tumulus was partly destroyed by ploughing. 
> 
> So, i prefer to wait better results from more virgin sites.


I'm sorry, but it seems you want to stretch results according to a not-well-exposed agenda: we do have results, reliable or not, but we have them.

----------


## berun

I'm also sorry but i need to say that my DNA agenda is blank, but of course i have hypotheses in my head. Otherwise the best procedure in science is to don't rely on unsure data, otherwise it could be stated whichwever mad theory from that. Yo can't figure out how much unsure or biased data is processed as to get results from that, even pointing to the contrary of what really happened.

----------


## Brennos

> I'm also sorry but i need to say that my DNA agenda is blank, but of course i have hypotheses in my head. Otherwise the best procedure in science is to don't rely on unsure data, otherwise it could be stated whichwever mad theory from that. Yo can't figure out how much unsure or biased data is processed as to get results from that, even pointing to the contrary of what really happened.


So, you are pointing out the absence of good faith in some scholars? When they publish their papers and are exposed to academic critics, I only see good faith. I seems like you think to live in a sort of corrupted world, where scientific data are under some party agendas. I'm sorry again, but as do exist iberianist academics, so do exist steppist ones. The agendas are multiple and not only tied to one hypothesis.

----------


## Brennos

> I'm also sorry but i need to say that my DNA agenda is blank, but of course i have hypotheses in my head. Otherwise the best procedure in science is to don't rely on unsure data, otherwise it could be stated whichwever mad theory from that. Yo can't figure out how much unsure or biased data is processed as to get results from that, even pointing to the contrary of what really happened.


And, of course, I only see two unsure data from France as for y-dna. We have other y-dna results from spain.

----------


## berun

It s not a problem of good faith but mainly a lack to go further with the origin of the data (or even the selection), so that dubious / biased data can give failed theories; and one of the best examples is precisely a study of the french actual Y DNA. But i was speaking in science as a whole, and that has nothing to do with agendas.

----------


## MOESAN

> GENETIKER produced an admixture of EBA Irishmen:
> very heterogenous between them, what contradicts the scientists study. Genetiker has hos own system and it could be useful in some cases and inaccurate in other cases?
> the 3 give, roughly (my percentages, made at "nose sight") -renamed by myself
> A- > 40% WHG - < 20% EHG - 0% EEF - > 40% westasian - 
> B- < 10% WHG - > 50% EHG - < 20% EEF - < 5% westasian - *< 10% amerindian (red colour: Pima)
> *C- < 20% WHG - > 35% EHG - < 3% EEF - > 35% westasian -* < 5% amerindian ( " " ")
> But he wrote he was trying to do better with more SNP's so this first work would be a low coverage one...
> *
> I don't know what confidence to have for now... admixtures analysis can be uncertain sometimes, according to categorizing choices - but a certain heterogeneity in auDNA at those times of metals daybreak could be sensible, if we look at other places in Eurasia ath the same times.


I relooked to Genetiker's work K15 and it seems his last results are far more homogenous for those three "Irishmen"!

----------


## MOESAN

> Good point, but it doesn't fit with the global fashion: a lot of population, not closely related, had the opposite manner, i.e. to make longer the head. See Huns, some Amerindians, Egyptians, ecc...


why "BUT" ? I was not telling the deformations has been always the same, I did only a link between cranial deformation and elites; the Huns deformations, imitated by some of the Germanics (not all, even in the same tribe), were not mimicking a natural form, I think, but were made to strongly impress other people by giving the impression of a larger (broader/higher) skull when seen from face.
concerning BB I firstly discard Y-R1b people because the most of their descendants show very few 'dinaroid' forms; but if we suppose a Y-R1b clan from Western Steppes and settled for a time in regions (somepart in Balkans or Carpathians?) where local crossings had already created autosomals combinations producing a high % of 'dinaroid' types we can assume these R1b clan changed type after some generations spite remaining R1b Y haplo lignage dominant, and transports later these new type in other colonization regions. They could have met again other R1b clans in North-Central Europe which had never known this very autosomal/phenotypical change and had never kown the BB cultural evolution? I don't know but maybe I created a fancied obstacle ?
the autosomDNA of BBs even inhumed in same places show big differences between individuals showing great mobility (see also Desideri's survey about teeth) but here we have rather remnants of late BBs people of Central Europe; I don't know anything about Iberia ancient BBs DNA helas.
I'm not sure the adoption of BBs kit has been always made on the same basis everywhere: demic and limited here, almost only cultural (at least for burying practices) and more extended there? the domestic pottery could give a key,I'm not a specialist of archeology...

----------


## MOESAN

> The megalith results are not a sure matter so i prefer to don't rely on them. You can check
> 
> http://www.arqueologiaprehistorica.e...pi%2003-12.pdf
> 
> There were three phases: Megalithic inhumation around 3700 BCE with a dolmen and a menhir; after some years of use the dolmen was dismantelated (the bones were keept in the same place otherwise); after some 1000 years Bell Beakers erected a stone tumulus over the old dolmen remains (over it there were the bones of the megalithics)... and such tumulus was partly destroyed by ploughing. 
> 
> So, i prefer to wait better results from more virgin sites.


_Thanks for the intresting link - but where? (La Mina people?) and what "link" with Irish Bronze?_

----------


## MOESAN

> It's presence in North-West France can be from much later times, when Britons from Britain settled there (hence the name Bretagne).


Y-R1b is found in romance Switzerland and in Norway at some level, and at lower levels, in North Spain and a lot of other regions! the Irish slaves explanation for Norway seems a bit weird to me (high reproductive impact of male slaves!?! But I can mistake...)

----------

