PDA

View Full Version : Teasar: Re-population of Ireland in the Bronze age



Fire Haired14
01-11-15, 14:14
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/03/00/030002_6a09b8ca.jpg
Bronze age Irish huts. Source (http://www.geograph.ie/photo/30002).

Jean Manco was at the GGI 2015 conference a few days where Dan Bradley of Trinity College Dublin spoke. Dan Bradly has Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron age genomes from Ireland. All he said was there massive replacement in Ireland. We can confidently assume this replacement occurred in the Bronze age. There's a good chance Beaker-folk caused this replacement. I and many others have been proposing Ireland(and Britian) were repopulated in the Bronze age for 3+ years.

This is gratifying because many have said we're crazy, replacement is impossible, where's the evidence in archaeology, etc. The evidence is in DNA. Modern Irish are basically identical to Late Neolithic Central Europeans(who were R1b-P312 rich). The Neolithic inhabitants of Ireland were without a doubt "EEF+WHG". There's simply no room for significant pre-Bronze age ancestry in the British Isles.

The same thing has been proven to have happened in Scandinavia and East Europe. Ancient genomes suggest 70%+ Late Neolithic/Bronze age population replacement in Scandinavia in East Europe.

Although in Spain it was very differnt. We can see in a Spaniard from 1500 BC that she had Steppe ancestry but was overwhelmingly of Neolithic Spanish decent. It's hard to say as of now, but I'd guess modern Iberians are 50%+ of Neolithic Iberian decent. There is significant LN/BA Central European ancestry but not nearly as much as in the British Isles.

Brennos
01-11-15, 17:50
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/03/00/030002_6a09b8ca.jpg
Bronze age Irish huts. Source (http://www.geograph.ie/photo/30002).

Jean Manco was at the GGI 2015 conference a few days where Dan Bradley of Trinity College Dublin spoke. Dan Bradly has Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron age genomes from Ireland. All he said was there massive replacement in Ireland. We can confidently assume this replacement occurred in the Bronze age. There's a good chance Beaker-folk caused this replacement. I and many others have been proposing Ireland(and Britian) were repopulated in the Bronze age for 3+ years.

This is gratifying because many have said we're crazy, replacement is impossible, where's the evidence in archaeology, etc. The evidence is in DNA. Modern Irish are basically identical to Late Neolithic Central Europeans(who were R1b-P312 rich). The Neolithic inhabitants of Ireland were without a doubt "EEF+WHG". There's simply no room for significant pre-Bronze age ancestry in the British Isles.

The same thing has been proven to have happened in Scandinavia and East Europe. Ancient genomes suggest 70%+ Late Neolithic/Bronze age population replacement in Scandinavia in East Europe.

Although in Spain it was very differnt. We can see in a Spaniard from 1500 BC that she had Steppe ancestry but was overwhelmingly of Neolithic Spanish decent. It's hard to say as of now, but I'd guess modern Iberians are 50%+ of Neolithic Iberian decent. There is significant LN/BA Central European ancestry but not nearly as much as in the British Isles.

The funny thing is that on this forum there are people that have suggested this for many years... well, those people were ridiculized on other fora, but now here it is their revenge.

Greying Wanderer
01-11-15, 18:50
There's a good chance Beaker-folk caused this replacement.


Modern Irish are basically identical to Late Neolithic Central Europeans(who were R1b-P312 rich).

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5591/14874056532_d0ccd80310_o.jpg

I don't doubt Ireland was largely repopulated in the Copper Age and that Bell Beaker are most likely but I don't think the exact geographical source is pinned down yet.


There's simply no room for significant pre-Bronze age ancestry in the British Isles.

Sure there is. Wait and see if the replacement was mostly male mediated or not.

Brennos
01-11-15, 20:48
Sure there is. Wait and see if the replacement was mostly male mediated or not. And, why not, both male and female mediated?

Angela
02-11-15, 00:08
We should know soon enough, so I'm definitely not putting any money down. :)

However, we have lots of mtDna from Ireland, don't we? We also have mtDna from the Neolithic and from the steppe. Has anyone compared them?

Even though there's lots of "Near Eastern" mtDna in both groups I think there are differences in terms of subclades. If anyone really wants fuel for speculation I think it's there.

I'm afraid my own interest is flagging a bit.

Fire Haired14
02-11-15, 00:20
We should know soon enough, so I'm definitely not putting any money down. :)

However, we have lots of mtDna from Ireland, don't we? We also have mtDna from the Neolithic and from the steppe. Has anyone compared them?

Even though there's lots of "Near Eastern" mtDna in both groups I think there are differences in terms of subclades. If anyone really wants fuel for speculation I think it's there.

I'm afraid my own interest is flagging a bit.

I have 300 mtDNAs from Ireland saved. Ireland does have typical Steppe mtDNA but not a lot at all. But, high coverage data is needed.

Brennos
02-11-15, 11:54
I have 300 mtDNAs from Ireland saved. Ireland does have typical Steppe mtDNA but not a lot at all. But, high coverage data is needed. So - if I understood correctly - the steppe mtDNA in Ireland is a tiny percentage on the total?

Fire Haired14
02-11-15, 14:18
So - if I understood correctly - the steppe mtDNA in Ireland is a tiny percentage on the total?

It looks that way. However lots of high coverage data is needed to confirm.

Maciamo
02-11-15, 14:57
I am looking forward for the Y-DNA results in this study. I am particularly interested in the Neolithic samples, since the Irish may have had over 95% of R1b-P312 (essentially L21, but also some DF27 and from the Iron Age also U152) before the Vikings, Normans, English and Lowland Scots moved to the island. I expected to find mostly I2a1, I2a2 and G2a among Neolithic samples, but the proportions between these three haplogroups may not be the same as today, because of genetic drift and because other peoples brought the same haplogroups too.

I think that everyone expects R1b-L21 to have been the main paternal lineage to have appeared in the Bronze Age in the British Isles, but it would be nice to have a confirmation. It wouldn't be the first time that we see lots of unexpected lineages, mostly lineages that have died out today as they were slowly replaced by royal or noble lineages over the millennia. What I am saying is that it's not impossible to have lots of R1b-L11* or R1b-P312* that have no descendants today. If enough samples are tested between 2000 BCE and, say 500 CE, we could see just how quickly modern R1b-L21, and especially M222, diffused within the Irish population. If I am not mistaken, M222 has a TMRCA of only about 2000 years, so its expansion may only have happened during the Late Iron Age.

Sile
02-11-15, 18:31
I am looking forward for the Y-DNA results in this study. I am particularly interested in the Neolithic samples, since the Irish may have had over 95% of R1b-P312 (essentially L21, but also some DF27 and from the Iron Age also U152) before the Vikings, Normans, English and Lowland Scots moved to the island. I expected to find mostly I2a1, I2a2 and G2a among Neolithic samples, but the proportions between these three haplogroups may not be the same as today, because of genetic drift and because other peoples brought the same haplogroups too.

I think that everyone expects R1b-L21 to have been the main paternal lineage to have appeared in the Bronze Age in the British Isles, but it would be nice to have a confirmation. It wouldn't be the first time that we see lots of unexpected lineages, mostly lineages that have died out today as they were slowly replaced by royal or noble lineages over the millennia. What I am saying is that it's not impossible to have lots of R1b-L11* or R1b-P312* that have no descendants today. If enough samples are tested between 2000 BCE and, say 500 CE, we could see just how quickly modern R1b-L21, and especially M222, diffused within the Irish population. If I am not mistaken, M222 has a TMRCA of only about 2000 years, so its expansion may only have happened during the Late Iron Age.

only 2000years for TMRCA, that 50BC :disappointed:

Greying Wanderer
02-11-15, 19:10
And, why not, both male and female mediated?

Just a pet theory but I think they were originally copper miners - so possibly disproportionately male.

Fire Haired14
02-11-15, 20:16
I am looking forward for the Y-DNA results in this study. I am particularly interested in the Neolithic samples, since the Irish may have had over 95% of R1b-P312 (essentially L21, but also some DF27 and from the Iron Age also U152) before the Vikings, Normans, English and Lowland Scots moved to the island. I expected to find mostly I2a1, I2a2 and G2a among Neolithic samples, but the proportions between these three haplogroups may not be the same as today, because of genetic drift and because other peoples brought the same haplogroups too.

I think that everyone expects R1b-L21 to have been the main paternal lineage to have appeared in the Bronze Age in the British Isles, but it would be nice to have a confirmation. It wouldn't be the first time that we see lots of unexpected lineages, mostly lineages that have died out today as they were slowly replaced by royal or noble lineages over the millennia. What I am saying is that it's not impossible to have lots of R1b-L11* or R1b-P312* that have no descendants today. If enough samples are tested between 2000 BCE and, say 500 CE, we could see just how quickly modern R1b-L21, and especially M222, diffused within the Irish population. If I am not mistaken, M222 has a TMRCA of only about 2000 years, so its expansion may only have happened during the Late Iron Age.

It was announced next year there will be new papers published with genomes from Western(inlu. Iberia) Bell beaker. That data will finally resolve whether R1b in Eastern Bell Beaker had a Western or Eastern source. I looked at FTDNA's R1b-L21 project results. Because of this I expect Bronze age Irish to be R1b-L21.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L21?iframe=yresults

I noticed that there isn't a single L21 clade that dominates. There's several clades, I think almost 10, that take up most L21 All have a TMRC of about 4,000 years according to yfull.

RobertColumbia
04-11-15, 17:43
I am looking forward for the Y-DNA results in this study. I am particularly interested in the Neolithic samples, since the Irish may have had over 95% of R1b-P312 (essentially L21, but also some DF27 and from the Iron Age also U152) before the Vikings, Normans, English and Lowland Scots moved to the island. I expected to find mostly I2a1, I2a2 and G2a among Neolithic samples, but the proportions between these three haplogroups may not be the same as today, because of genetic drift and because other peoples brought the same haplogroups too.

I think that everyone expects R1b-L21 to have been the main paternal lineage to have appeared in the Bronze Age in the British Isles, but it would be nice to have a confirmation. It wouldn't be the first time that we see lots of unexpected lineages, mostly lineages that have died out today as they were slowly replaced by royal or noble lineages over the millennia. What I am saying is that it's not impossible to have lots of R1b-L11* or R1b-P312* that have no descendants today. If enough samples are tested between 2000 BCE and, say 500 CE, we could see just how quickly modern R1b-L21, and especially M222, diffused within the Irish population. If I am not mistaken, M222 has a TMRCA of only about 2000 years, so its expansion may only have happened during the Late Iron Age.

Where do you think most of the I1 in Ireland came from? Do you think most of it has been in Ireland since the Neolithic or do you think most of the I1 is from Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon settlement?

The extremely high presence of R1b-M222 is quite interesting. It's TMRCA keeps getting pushed back (making it less likely that the MRCA was actually King Niall or a close contemporary), but its dominance still seems to indicate a strong social selection factor for it. Even if M222 existed hundreds of years before Niall, it's still quite likely that Niall (as a member of the Gaelic social elite) was M222 and that a significant percentage (but not 100%) of M222's today are actually paternally descended from his and his sons' extra large harems.

Sennevini
05-11-15, 12:19
The first Irish high kings with their men are, according to legend, supposed to have entered Ireland ca. 1900-1500 BC.

Fire Haired14
05-11-15, 16:38
The first Irish high kings with their men are, according to legend, supposed to have entered Ireland ca. 1900-1500 BC.

It is interesting Irish claim their ancestors displaced a previous people who lived in Ireland because for the most part that did occur. Irish Book of Invasions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebor_Gab%C3%A1la_%C3%89renn#Tuatha_D.C3.A9_Danann ): The Neolithic sites called Brú na Bóinne are associated with Tuatha Dé Danann the people who lived in Ireland before the Geals. Why wouldn't they say those remains were made by Irish 100s of years ago?

It's possible the book of invasions has truth to it. Lots looks like even medival add ons. Could be a lot like Roman origin stories, where they claim to be from Trojans or Greeks or etc. Could be based on truth though.

MOESAN
05-11-15, 17:18
from Wikipedia
Fir Bolg[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lebor_Gab%C3%A1la_%C3%89renn&action=edit&section=10)](Those who went to Greece were enslaved by the Greeks and made to carry bags of clay. After 230 years, they sail back to Ireland. They are known as the Fir Bolg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fir_Bolg) (men of bags), and contain two sub-groups known as the Fir Domnann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fir_Domnann) and Fir Gálioin. Led by their five chieftains, they divide Ireland into five provinces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Ireland): Gann takes North Munster, Sengann takes South Munster, Genann takes Connacht, Rudraige takes Ulster and Slanga takes Leinster. A succession of nine High Kings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_King_of_Ireland) rule over Ireland for the next 37 years.]

Ireland invasions story is very confusing and specialists, even when they accept some facts are not in accord concerning the number and order or arrivals-
but I chose this famous 'Fir Bolg' to show some people mentioned by legends could have had some reality; 'bolg' = 'sack', 'bag' - HUBERT, knowing this tribe was divided into Fir Galiaoin and Fir Domnainn, supposed they were Brittons or Gauls, P-celtic speakers anyway; and the famous 'bolg', aside of an explicative myth, could be the large trousers Belgae people wore, larger than the ordinal 'bracae'; seemingly Goidels or Gaels did not wear trousers...

Tuatha Dé Dananns could maybe have something in common with Danube/Danaw river and Central Europe; their craftmans gods could refer to Central Europe skillful metallurgists, maybe a link to BBs? Uneasy to say; all the way it doesn't check the chronological order of the legends??? here it's a personal interpretation and myself would not put a kopeck coin on it!

Athiudisc
05-11-15, 22:47
Keeping in mind that the Lebor Gabála is a huge mishmash of mythic history, folklore and invention, I've always rather thought that the Fir Bolg were essentially synonymous with the Fomhóraigh.

The former are listed as one of the invasions, but they never seem to have had any contact with the latter, despite previous and later groups having to contend with such, and they're of the same stock as the Tuatha Dé.

The battles the Tuatha Dé fight at Magh Tuireadh are against first the Fir Bolg, for kingship of Ireland, and secondly against the Fomhóraigh, for the same thing, the Fomhóraigh having come to rule (again) through Bres, who shares kinship with both groups.

So, basically, the Fir Bolg are of the same divine background as the Tuatha Dé (as, to some degree, are the Fomhóraigh), the Fir Bolg never encounter the Fomhóraigh like all the other invaders (because, in this theory, they can't really encounter themselves), and the two groups fight over sovereignty every so often between bouts of interbreeding.

I tend to imagine these are echoes of the same sort of older Indo-European mythology we see when looking at the Aesir/giants, asuras/devas, etc.

Eventually, Christians smashed all the older lore they could find (along with folk memories of actual invasions of Ireland) together and made a medieval narrative out of it along the lines of other contemporaneous accounts which were popular.

If one were to attempt to generally associate (not terribly seriously) the various invasions (if they existed) with Y-DNA, I'd hazard that the Ceasrach (the first people in Ireland after "Noah's flood") were I2, the Partholóin (the people who brought farming) were various forms of G2/J2 (maybe?), the Neimhidh/Fir Bolg/Fomhóraigh/Tuatha Dé divine (thus largely beyond our concepts of DNA), and the Celts R1b-L21, based on its fairly obvious association with Celtic-speakers.

Maciamo
06-11-15, 11:02
Where do you think most of the I1 in Ireland came from? Do you think most of it has been in Ireland since the Neolithic or do you think most of the I1 is from Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon settlement?

The extremely high presence of R1b-M222 is quite interesting. It's TMRCA keeps getting pushed back (making it less likely that the MRCA was actually King Niall or a close contemporary), but its dominance still seems to indicate a strong social selection factor for it. Even if M222 existed hundreds of years before Niall, it's still quite likely that Niall (as a member of the Gaelic social elite) was M222 and that a significant percentage (but not 100%) of M222's today are actually paternally descended from his and his sons' extra large harems.

I1 most likely came to the British Isles with the Anglo-Saxons, Normans and Vikings. I seriously doubt that any of the subclade found today descend from Neolithic I1 because the TMRCA of modern samples is just too young. That being said, there could be extinct subclades of I1 among Neolithic samples (like the one found in Neolithic Hungary) non-ancestral to modern I1.

Maciamo
06-11-15, 11:03
only 2000years for TMRCA, that 50BC :disappointed:

For M222, not for L21, which is about 2000 years older.

Tomenable
12-11-15, 17:00
there could be extinct subclades of I1 among Neolithic samples (like the one found in Neolithic Hungary) non-ancestral to modern I1.

Why do you assume that Neolithic I1 from Hungary is an extinct branch, and non-ancestral to modern I1?

That I1 was found in LBK culture, which later expanded to the north, forming the TRB culture, groups of which reached Scandinavia. So in my opinion that I1 from Hungary could be ancestral to I1 in Scandinavia. Let's remember, that in Mesolithic Scandinavia no I1 has been found, but only various subclades of I2. So it most likely came there later, with Neolithic TRB farmers, who were the first ones to bring farming to Scandinavia. I see no reason to condemn Neolithic Hungarian I1 to extinction, even though it probably went through a bottleneck, and then a founder effect.

Here is roughly how I imagined that (and IMO I1 was in Scandinavia before R1a and before R1b as well):

MAP (http://s4.postimg.org/kbpfu1f71/My_idea.png)

http://s4.postimg.org/kbpfu1f71/My_idea.png

Tomenable
12-11-15, 17:19
By the way - where in Europe can the most basal subclades of I1 be found today ???

If I recall correctly, most basal subclades are found in Central Europe, rather than in Scandinavia.

This would suggest that the most recent common ancestor of all modern I1 could indeed live there.

Another thing is, that recently haplogroup I (not I1, but some kind of I) has been found in Neolithic remains from Western Anatolia. And since we have absolutely no pre-Neolithic I1 from Europe, we can no longer be sure if I1 was in Europe in Mesolithic times, or came later from Anatolia.

Of course I don't claim that I is more native to Anatolia than to Europe, but it is possible, that groups of WHG hunters with I moved from the Balkans to Anatolia, where haplogroup I1 multiplied in numbers, was absorbed by predominantly G2a farmers, and then "re-emigrated" back to Europe.

The other option is, that Neolithic farmers absorbed haplogroup I from WHG hunters already after moving into the Balkans and Hungary.

In any case, it seems that "WHG-type" hunters were not limited just to Europe, some groups also inhabited Mesolithic Western Anatolia.

Tomenable
12-11-15, 17:36
The only source who claims that he found I1 in Mesolithic Europe (in Scandinavia, to be precise) is Genetiker:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-stora-forvar-11/

But then, Genetiker also claims that he found R1b-M269 in El Portalon cave of Neolithic Non-Indo-European Spain.

I'm not sure how much we can trust him, both of these findings seem to be unconfirmed by professional studies so far.

MOESAN
13-11-15, 23:19
I think since a long time the most of Y-I1 is not by force anterior to Y-R1a in Sweden-Norway- I wait proofs of course.
Your hypothesis of a Central Europe ancient Y-I1 of Neolithic culture later climbed towards North is not impossible - is TRB responsible of its northwards way to Scandinavia? I don't know, but if possible it doesn't prove the most of these I1 bearers were fully neoliticized before TRB, and in Hungary - a lonesome Neolithic Y-I1 in Hungary is not sufficient to answer this. Nevertheless a metrics surveys of Zsoffmann in the Carpathian Bassin spoke of a robust-dolichomorphic element among neolithicized populations there, not confused with her "proto-european-cromagnoid" (sorry for their namings!), element which was not found in other Neolithic regions nor in Dniestr region at this time.
What confuse me in an Hungarian or Central Europe Neolithic origin of today Scandinavian Y-I1 is the big lost of Y-G2a and of others "Neolithical" Y-haplos on the road... it would suppose a drastic bottleneck just followed by a drastic founder effect, but who knows?

Fire Haired14
14-11-15, 00:08
The only source who claims that he found I1 in Mesolithic Europe (in Scandinavia, to be precise) is Genetiker:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-stora-forvar-11/

But then, Genetiker also claims that he found R1b-M269 in El Portalon cave of Neolithic Non-Indo-European Spain.

I'm not sure how much we can trust him, both of these findings seem to be unconfirmed by professional studies so far.

The calls he gets for SNPs have been confirmed several times. The pre-I1 in Sf11 looks legit because it's based on many SNPs.

Rethel
14-11-15, 01:02
That I1 was found in LBK culture, which later expanded to the north, forming the TRB culture, groups of which reached Scandinavia. So in my opinion that I1 from Hungary could be ancestral to I1 in Scandinavia. Let's remember, that in Mesolithic Scandinavia no I1 has been found, but only various subclades of I2. So it most likely came there later, with Neolithic TRB farmers, who were the first ones to bring farming to Scandinavia. I see no reason to condemn Neolithic Hungarian I1 to extinction, even though it probably went through a bottleneck, and then a founder effect.

Here is roughly how I imagined that (and IMO I1 was in Scandinavia before R1a and before R1b as well):


Tomenable,
very good concept. I was assuming couple of years ago, when every one was exited that aftre LGM
from some refuges came I1 into Scandinavia, that I1 was probabaly result of founder effect - if not
migrated in near past from the south, then most probably was decimated in Scandinavia by CW and
after that, living as very few people in mountains, forests and as slaves among early germanic people
were growing in number changing their phenotype at the begining of that process and enlarging later
helped by some plags and wars - all in historical times. Your estimation is very restraind in time, and
this is good, but even this is probably to bold.

I quote from wikipedia: A new study in 2015 estimated the origin as between 3,470 to
5,070 years ago or between 3,180 to 3,760 years ago, using two different techniques

Original source: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/fig_tab/ncomms8152_T1.html

Whole I1 can have common ancestor who was living during reign of Rameses III around
1165 BC. So, there is even no need for this 6000-8000 years from prehistorical times...

But I like your concept after all... :good_job:

Fire Haired14
14-11-15, 03:01
I quote from wikipedia: A new study in 2015 estimated the origin as between 3,470 to
5,070 years ago or between 3,180 to 3,760 years ago, using two different techniques

Original source: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/fig_tab/ncomms8152_T1.html

Whole I1 can have common ancestor who was living during reign of Rameses III around
1165 BC. So, there is even no need for this 6000-8000 years from prehistorical times...

But I like your concept after all... :good_job:

That study was very good, it shows R1b/R1a/I1/N1c expanded in Europe after 5,000 years ago. We have an example of I1 in Sweden from 4,000 years ago, so before Rameses. It's crazy to think about: Out of the millions of men who lived in Europe in 3000-4000 BC, 4 of them take up 60%+ of Y DNA in Europe today.

Rethel
14-11-15, 03:13
That study was very good, it shows R1b/R1a/I1/N1c expanded in Europe after 5,000 years ago. We have an example of I1 in Sweden from 4,000 years ago, so before Rameses. It's crazy to think about: Out of the millions of men who lived in Europe in 3000-4000 BC, 4 of them take up 60%+ of Y DNA in Europe today.

It is not crazy, but this many-thousand-years-empty-timeline is simply artificial.

So many datation was changed during lat 10 years, and ascendent-descendent system,
that probably many will be change yet. As the example of I1 shows, there was no 33.000*
of years as previosly was claiming. 10 times to much... and most of this huge empty periods
are probably many times to big periods... But they are very needed for evolutionists like oxygen...

2000 BC (in Sweden) or 1200 BC - in this situation it makes no big difference. Mistake is huge
in both cases and this 4000 years can be wrong also - there is never 100% cetaity in datation.
But it doesn't matter - 4000 years ago comparing to previously 33.000* ya - it is a big difference.

Real distances between for example I and I1 and I2 are probably much shorter, that it is claiming.
As this study shows (and not only this one of course), there is completly no need for so huuuuge
period of empty time of tens of thousands of years to multiply and to made couple of subhaplotype.




*It was exactly ~28.000 +/- 5000, and later the age was estimated on ~15.000 years...

Rethel
14-11-15, 03:21
Why I cannot click to anyone green pluses and add reputation?

Sile
14-11-15, 04:38
Why I cannot click to anyone green pluses and add reputation?

you only get 3 clicks per day - total is combination of green and red

MOESAN
15-11-15, 16:15
It looks that way. However lots of high coverage data is needed to confirm.

All of us ar perhaps going to quick; say: a Central Europe Late Neolithic mt DNA in Ireland doesn't prove the most of it was in Ireland and the Isles since Neolithic; some more "autochtonous neolithical" lt DNA of central Europe could have been assimilated by Celts or others before reaching the Isles?
when I read 'BBs' I have always a doubt concerning the understanding of people about it: first BBs launchers of the 3000 BC or cultures of West or North-Central Europe (already celtized?) of the 2500/2200 BC having adopted BBs kits?