Genetic history of the British Isles

[Dagne]

I don't think that Lithuanians have more Neolithic mtDNA because these haplogroups confer an evolutionary advantage. There are just too many different Neolithic haplogroups. A clear evolutionary advantage would be limited to one specific haplogroup and subclade. Any new mutation could mess up the acquired benefits of previous mutations. I wrote about beneficial mtDNA mutations here. You'll see that it's more complicated than just looking at top level haplogroups.

Besides, it is fairly clear that some H subclades were already present in Mesolithic Europe. Many H subclades are almost exclusively European (H4, H6, H10, H11, H17, H45). Among them, H4 and H6 probably came from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe as they were absent from both Mesolithic and Neolithic/Chalcolithic samples in central or western Europe.

Do you know the breakdown of H subclades for the Lithuanian populations ?

The breakdown of Lithuanian mtDNA (subclade, n, %) as of 2004 study. More detailed and larger one will be out in 2015.

H 60 33.3

H1 3 1.7

H3 8 4.4

H4 7 3.9

H5 2 1.1

H8 3 1.7

V 8 4.4

HV4 2.2

preHV 1 0.6

U 5 2.8

K 4 2.2

U3 3 1.7

U4 9 5.0

U5a 5 2.8

U5a1 2 1.1

U5b 6 3.3

U5b1 2 1.1

U5 1 0.6

J 9 5.0

J1 1 0.6

J1b1 4 2.2

T 13 7.2

T1 5 2.8

I 7 3.9

W 2 1.1

X 1 0.6

Others 5 2.8



http://www.ebiblioteka.lt/resursai/L...ica/A-01-1.pdf

[Maciamo]

The breakdown of Lithuanian mtDNA (subclade, n, %) as of 2004 study. More detailed and larger one will be out in 2015.

H 60 33.3

H1 3 1.7

H3 8 4.4

H4 7 3.9

H5 2 1.1

H8 3 1.7

V 8 4.4

HV4 2.2

preHV 1 0.6

U 5 2.8

K 4 2.2

U3 3 1.7

U4 9 5.0

U5a 5 2.8

U5a1 2 1.1

U5b 6 3.3

U5b1 2 1.1

U5 1 0.6

J 9 5.0

J1 1 0.6

J1b1 4 2.2

T 13 7.2

T1 5 2.8

I 7 3.9

W 2 1.1

X 1 0.6

Others 5 2.8

http://www.ebiblioteka.lt/resursai/L...ica/A-01-1.pdf

Thanks. This confirms my suspicions. Most of the H subclades in Lithuania probably didn't come with Near Eastern (EEF) farmers. I believe that H1 and H3 were in southern Europe at least since the Mesolithic and were assimilated by Neolithic farmers along the way. H4 is clearly European. As for H5 and H8, I have linked both to the original R1b people. H5 may also have come from Near Eastern farmers, depending on the subclade.

J1b1 is also linked to R1b. T1 could be Indo-European if it is T1a1a1.

[Moor]

Nice Job, Thanks for sharing, that's interesting.

[ElHorsto]

I understand what your are saying. But it's important to compare autosomal admixtures with the same calculator. The lack of 'West Asian' admixture does not necessarily mean that Iron Age Britons had no West Asian DNA whatsoever. Obviously West Asian, Caucasian, Southwest Asian, Gedrosian, EEF, etc. all refer to some sort of Middle Eastern ancestry. My point was simply that, using the same K12 admixtures, Iron Age Celts lacked two types of admixture now found in all British and Irish people. It could be an error. I didn't run the admixture calculation, so I am only reporting what I read. It doesn't make much sense since there is no way the Romans or Normans brought 6% of West Asian admixture in the Irish or Highland Scots !

Thanks, I see, your statement was strictly based on one calculator. Our misunderstanding came from too many implicit assumptions I made, which is assuming a calculator-independent Middle eastern admixture which would be visible in any of the listed (West Asian, Caucasian, Southwest Asian, Gedrosian, EEF, etc.) in any calculator. But I also implicitly excluded EEF from Middle-eastern since it's abundance in Europe comes from neolithic times and is not linked to the intersting ANE-related Bronze-Age incursions. Too many implicit assumptions caused a misunderstanding.

[Aberdeen]

I think modern people have difficulty understanding the extent to which ancient people would have depended on boats for transportation. Prior to the invention of paved roads and railways, the only efficient way to ship large quantities of goods was by water. And in the Neolithic, prior to the adoption of horses and carts, even the movement of people could only occur rapidly by water. It's likely that the movement of the early Middle Eastern farmers into Europe did happen primarily by land from the Balkans, but that would have required a process of slow diffusion taking hundreds and thousands of years, which is what the archeological record suggests. But I suspect some of the Neolithic farmers reached southern Europe by boat. And I suspect that by the late Neolithic, sea travel along the Mediterranean and Atlantic was quite common, and I suspect that's how R1b subclade L21 and DF27 spread in western Europe. If R1b does turn up among Yamnaya, I hope we get subclade details.

[Sile]

If we believe Maghreb folklore, which states they originated in modern kuwait and travelled west into North-africa ( maghreb means west in arabic ), then what else did they bring apart from their E marker?

[motzart]

if R1b was associated with the spread of Indo European languages then why in the African R1b hot spot do they not speak an Indo European language?

[Melancon]

if R1b was associated with the spread of Indo European languages then why in the African R1b hot spot do they not speak an Indo European language?

It is possible that R1b people spoke many languages before Proto-Indo-European. And it also possible that a small group of R1b men migrated back into Africa and mixed with the Natives.

[Sile]

It is possible that R1b people spoke many languages before Proto-Indo-European. And it also possible that a small group of R1b men migrated back into Africa and mixed with the Natives.

logically it mean that R1b and R1a since they are the same age must of split not near Europe. it the only way that R1b can infest western europe. If they spit on the steppes then genetically for Europe it makes no sense.

I believe R1b was Yamyana and R1a arrived later ( when r1b departed )

[Sile]

3) Bronze Age invaders come, kill local men, seize political power, get harems and monopolise women available for reproduction. Their Y-DNA rise suddenly. Apparently this is what happened with E-M81, but I don't know exactly how.
.

I said this a year ago

I believe R1 haplogroups brought in the system of dynasties ............an ability to monopolise women , followed by their sons and their sons etc...........it does not take many generations to increase your marker 10 fold

[motzart]

I said this a year ago

I believe R1 haplogroups brought in the system of dynasties ............an ability to monopolise women , followed by their sons and their sons etc...........it does not take many generations to increase your marker 10 fold

I think its like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

[motzart]

logically it mean that R1b and R1a since they are the same age must of split not near Europe. it the only way that R1b can infest western europe. If they spit on the steppes then genetically for Europe it makes no sense.

I believe R1b was Yamyana and R1a arrived later ( when r1b departed )

What about the r1a in corded ware? Why did R1b decide to rape everybody in Western Europe but not the East or central or balkans?

[Maciamo]

What about the r1a in corded ware? Why did R1b decide to rape everybody in Western Europe but not the East or central or balkans?

Because the Balkans were heavily populated, with fortified towns and better weapons than the relatively weak (militarily) Megalithic people in the west.

[Maciamo]

I said this a year ago

I believe R1 haplogroups brought in the system of dynasties ............an ability to monopolise women , followed by their sons and their sons etc...........it does not take many generations to increase your marker 10 fold

That's basically what I always said. Many specialists of Indo-European studies have known for a long time that the Indo-Europeans introduced the patriarchal model of society with a strong social stratification (like the Indian caste system). That also means dynasties of kings. Neolithic Europeans were more collectivist and egalitarian, with councils of elders rather than one omnipotent king.

[Maciamo]

if R1b was associated with the spread of Indo European languages then why in the African R1b hot spot do they not speak an Indo European language?

Have you not read anything on the R1b page I wrote ? PIE language originated in the steppe, when R1b, R1a, G2a3b1 and J2b2 people all merged together into a single society (Yamna culture). Before that there was no Indo-European language. Some words came from R1a tribes, others from R1b tribes. R1b-V88 split from M269 right after the domestication of cattle 10,500 years ago. PIE is only 5,500 years old. The 5,000 year gap explains why R1b-V88 didn't speak the same language as M269 when they reached the steppe, and even if it were, the language of R1b-M269 tribes only became Indo-European after the cultural merger with R1a tribes.

[bicicleur]

Have you not read anything on the R1b page I wrote ? PIE language originated in the steppe, when R1b, R1a, G2a3b1 and J2b2 people all merged together into a single society (Yamna culture). Before that there was no Indo-European language. Some words came from R1a tribes, others from R1b tribes. R1b-V88 split from M269 right after the domestication of cattle 10,500 years ago. PIE is only 5,500 years old. The 5,000 year gap explains why R1b-V88 didn't speak the same language as M269 when they reached the steppe, and even if it were, the language of R1b-M269 tribes only became Indo-European after the cultural merger with R1a tribes.

why do you consider J2b2 part of Yamna?
why do you think Yamna was the first Indo-European culture?
don't Anatolian and Tocharian language origins predate Yamna?

[Maciamo]

why do you consider J2b2 part of Yamna?
why do you think Yamna was the first Indo-European culture?
don't Anatolian and Tocharian language origins predate Yamna?

Anatolian languages were probably brought by one of the earliest out-of-the-steppe migrations, from which descend the Hittites and Trojans. They are an isolated branch because they split early and conquered an already heavily populated and highly cultured region, so that Anatolian languages became hybridised with non-IE. The same thing happened with Greek and Albanian, but later.

My theory is that Tocharian descends from the equally early migration of steppe people to the Altai, which created the Afanasevo culture (c. 3600-2400 BCE), contemporary to Yamna. So in all fairness it could be said that an archaic form of Proto-IE existed just before Yamna. Since the Tocharian branch split before PIE was fully formed, it remained archaic and evolved in isolation for several millennia.

J2b2 was surely part of Yamna because it is the main type of J2 found among the Scandinavians, tribes of the Volga-Ural (Tatars, Bashkirs), the Altai, and among upper caste Indians. This is also true for G2a3b1. There is also a lot of J2a in India and Central Asia but that is due to the proximity to West Asia/Iran.

[bicicleur]

Anatolian languages were probably brought by one of the earliest out-of-the-steppe migrations, from which descend the Hittites and Trojans. They are an isolated branch because they split early and conquered an already heavily populated and highly cultured region, so that Anatolian languages became hybridised with non-IE. The same thing happened with Greek and Albanian, but later.

My theory is that Tocharian descends from the equally early migration of steppe people to the Altai, which created the Afanasevo culture (c. 3600-2400 BCE), contemporary to Yamna. So in all fairness it could be said that an archaic form of Proto-IE existed just before Yamna. Since the Tocharian branch split before PIE was fully formed, it remained archaic and evolved in isolation for several millennia.

J2b2 was surely part of Yamna because it is the main type of J2 found among the Scandinavians, tribes of the Volga-Ural (Tatars, Bashkirs), the Altai, and among upper caste Indians. This is also true for G2a3b1. There is also a lot of J2a in India and Central Asia but that is due to the proximity to West Asia/Iran.

ok Tocharian split just before Yamna
Anatolian is a mystery. Troy is 5000 years old and we don't know whether the founders were allready IE. Hittites entered history only some 3800 years ago.
How did those Anatolians do that? Coming out of obscurity and conquering a heavily populated and highly cultured region?

Do you still subscribe the Pontic steppe origin theory as described by David Anthony?
It may still hold, but my biggest reservation is about the role of horse riding by early IE.
What do you think about the collapse of Gumelnita and the invasion of steppe people 6000 - 6200 year ago?

[Maciamo]

ok Tocharian split just before Yamna
Anatolian is a mystery. Troy is 5000 years old and we don't know whether the founders were allready IE. Hittites entered history only some 3800 years ago.
How did those Anatolians do that? Coming out of obscurity and conquering a heavily populated and highly cultured region?

Do you still subscribe the Pontic steppe origin theory as described by David Anthony?
It may still hold, but my biggest reservation is about the role of horse riding by early IE.
What do you think about the collapse of Gumelnita and the invasion of steppe people 6000 - 6200 year ago?

The collapse of Gumelnița–Karanovo was probably caused by incursions of steppe people, but that happened 700 years before the Yamna culture so it's hard to say if these were already R1b people. Probably, but not necessarily. They might be the ones who continued to Anatolia and became the ancestors of the Trojans/Luwians and Hittites. In fact that sounds like the most probable scenario. Another possibility is that the Proto-Hittites originated in Maykop and migrated (by sea or across the Caucasus) to northern Anatolia.

[motzart]

Have you not read anything on the R1b page I wrote ? PIE language originated in the steppe, when R1b, R1a, G2a3b1 and J2b2 people all merged together into a single society (Yamna culture). Before that there was no Indo-European language. Some words came from R1a tribes, others from R1b tribes. R1b-V88 split from M269 right after the domestication of cattle 10,500 years ago. PIE is only 5,500 years old. The 5,000 year gap explains why R1b-V88 didn't speak the same language as M269 when they reached the steppe, and even if it were, the language of R1b-M269 tribes only became Indo-European after the cultural merger with R1a tribes.

So after all these people met up and invented the PIE language they all just shook hands and parted ways? That convinently explains why the irish and basques have such a homogeneous make up. I dont buy it.

[Maciamo]

So after all these people met up and invented the PIE language they all just shook hands and parted ways? That convinently explains why the irish and basques have such a homogeneous make up. I dont buy it.

Just read the page.

[Melancon]

Just read the page.

From my hard and deep research into genealogy and history the Irish and Basques are indeed the most homogeneous populations in Europe. The Irish have a tiny bit of admixture from the Norse Vikings though. And a tiny bit of French Huguenot contribution too.

I have Cajun French ancestry and share ancestors and am a bit homogeneous myself. It makes me laugh a little when foreigners suggest that we Cajuns are a mulatto people; when the chances of this are extremely unlikely. They get us confused for French Creoles. (In my analogy; calling Cajuns a mulatto people or Creole is the same equivalent to saying Norwegians and Saami are mixed/the same people. The Saami evidently look Caucasian but are mixed with Siberian Mongoloid from the East.)

In comparison; it is actually more likely for a Scandinavian to have Mongoloid Hun due to haplogroup Q. Neo-Nazi Nordicists in Scandinavia believe themselves to be the most homogeneous peoples in Europe; but history and genetics will tell you that this is most likely not true.

[Aaron1981]

So after all these people met up and invented the PIE language they all just shook hands and parted ways? That convinently explains why the irish and basques have such a homogeneous make up. I dont buy it.

This is just the Y chromosome so it's very well possible the R1b founder could have been far more West Asian than he was even at the time of the Hinxton Celt which was 3000 years after the arrival of PIE speakers to Europe.

A very key example are the C-V20 males whose autosomal DNA looks exactly like the surrounding Hungarian farmers of the LBK who consisted of G-P15 intrusive Middle-Eastern lineages. The Y chromosome doesn't tell us anything about the overall genome of an individual. Being R1b Irish vs R1b Basque tells us nothing about the origin of the R1b male or where he came from.

[Sile]

The collapse of Gumelnița–Karanovo was probably caused by incursions of steppe people, but that happened 700 years before the Yamna culture so it's hard to say if these were already R1b people. Probably, but not necessarily. They might be the ones who continued to Anatolia and became the ancestors of the Trojans/Luwians and Hittites. In fact that sounds like the most probable scenario. Another possibility is that the Proto-Hittites originated in Maykop and migrated (by sea or across the Caucasus) to northern Anatolia.

As i read recently................where west-semetic language ends , so begins Luwian ............on the modern borders of Turkey and Syria

Is ancient Anatolia region refferred to as European for auDna genetics ( autosomal ) or not..........clearly it is not Middle Eastern or Levant. The answer will, IMO, will conclude that Yamna took R1b to the atlantic sea and the R1b in Anatolia only supplied the "greek" islands

[bicicleur]

A very key example are the C-V20 males whose autosomal DNA looks exactly like the surrounding Hungarian farmers of the LBK who consisted of G-P15 intrusive Middle-Eastern lineages. The Y chromosome doesn't tell us anything about the overall genome of an individual..

Interesting. Can you tell me where you got that info?