New Study Shows MASSIVE Ancient BA Immigration Into Ireland

[epoch]

Coming back to Bell Beakers...

Interesting papers:

http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/2000_mueller/14c_raum.htm
(calibrated maps)

https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/dopson_jana_s_200605_ab.pdf
(overview)

http://www.academia.edu/1249547/_20...ehistorische_Zeitschrift_82_2_2007_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...

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.es/revistas/arpi 03-12.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.es/revistas/arpi 03-12.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.es/revistas/arpi 03-12.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...)