Genetic history of the British Isles

I don't understand how you can just willy nilly combine data from different studies that don't even test for the subclades you have listed in your results. I looked at most of them and none of them test for the same subclades you have listed. I looked at the FTDNA project for East Anglia, they have less than 200 members and you list the sample size as 466. Actual academics must just look at the material on here and cringe, I know I do.

FYI, I didn't just use the FTDNA data for regional percentages but all the other studies mentioned in the sources. For East Anglia that includes 172 samples from Rosser 2000 and 121 samples from Capelli 2003.

In every single paper that has been released for the past 2 years all of them support an Y DNA r1b and mtdna H expansion in Europe with the bell beaker culture and yet this mainstream theory is disregarded in favor of nonsense.

I have said that R1b originated in the Yamna and Maykop cultures and spread around Europe during the Bronze Age with IE migrations since 2009. Up to academics all said that R1b descended from Cro-Magnon and re-exapnded from the Franco-Cantabrian LGM refuge. In 2010, Balaresque et al. launched a new fanciful trend by claiming that R1b came with Neolithic farmers from the Near East, a theory that was supported by virtually all academics (and by Dienekes on his blog) until 2013-2014 when no R1b at all turned up in any of the Neolithic Y-DNA samples tested around Europe. Yet some people still believe that R1b came with Neolithic farmers. Just because R1b-M269 was found in a site labelled as "Bell Beaker" by Lee et al. does not mean that these individuals belong to the same ethnicity as the original Bell Beakers of Portugal. In fact, if you look at the mtDNA found alongside the Thuringian R1b, it looks typically Yamna (U2e, U5a1, T1a, K1, I1a1 and W5a), while the mtDNA tested in Megalithic Iberia doesn't (HV, H, K1a, J, T2, U5b, X).

Some people (like that guy from the Bell Beaker blog) even used my own explanation that R1b-V88 spread to North Africa during the Neolithic to make up other fanciful hypotheses about R1b-M269 oddly emerging from V88 (a phylogenetic nonsense) and spreading to Iberia to form the Bell Beaker culture in the Late Neolithic. I am not saying that R1b-V88 wasn't present in Neolithic Iberia. It probably was at low levels (alongside I2a1, G2a, etc.). But it cannot be the source of R1b-M269, which makes up the vast majority of European R1b. As for R1b-M269 spreading to North Africa then to Iberia instead of R1b-V88, that makes even less sense since there is virtually no R1b-M269 in North Africa.
 
There was no gradual rise in H. I went through the mutations of just about every ancient European mtDNA sample, and know the percentages, subclades, and haplotypes and for all of them. H was very low in LBK, but was just as high in earlier Neolithic cultures of Hungary as in later Neolithic and bronze age cultures in Germany.

Most of the "H"s from Mesolithic Iberia were not even tested for a HV or H SNP, and most samples from those old studies are probably false positives. There are alot of L3, N or M samples and R*(R0, U5, U4, etc., JT) from old Iberian samples which make no sense at all and are not found in younger studies. There are a series of shared haplotypes between Mesolithic and Neolithic Iberians in those old studies, probably meaning they have the same contamination source.

No need to try to find an increase between early and late LBK samples. That was the same culture, the same people.

I have calculated the mtDNA frequencies of 180 Late Neolithic samples, and depending if you include samples that could be R, HV or H as H or not, you get between 32% and 36% of hg H (against 17% in the Early Neolithic, which are mostly from Central Europe). But that could simply be because there are more Late Neolithic samples from Iberia.

Also, the Cs from the ancient Pontic steppe are also probably false posties.

Very doubtful since mtDNA C5 was identified in Mesolithic Karelia (north-western Russia), while C4a2 was among the lineages of the Dnieper-Donets culture in Neolithic Ukraine. C4a3 and C4a6 samples dating from the Bronze Age (Catacomb culture) were also found in the Odessa region of Ukraine. Both C4a and C5 are common among the Turkmens, Uzbeks and Tajiks today, populations with substantial levels of R1a and R1b. Besides C4a and C5 are still found in eastern Europe today.
 
Selection can mess with mtDNA haplogroup frequencies. Lithuanians are mostly WHG but have 80% EEF mtDNA. I think for some reason mtDNA H may have given a survival advantage and so it's frequencies rose independently throughout Europe.

Yamna had very little mtDNA H, we have 63 mtDNA samples from bronze age Pontic steppe, more than Reich has.

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 ?
 
Great read.
But I have doubts regarding the one statement above.
I think that K12 hides significant "West-Asian" admixture inside "West-European" admixture, namely that part which was already present in pre-roman celts. In K12b actually "West-Asian" (in terms of Caucasus, Gedrosia, South-Asian, Southwest-Asian) admixture become visible also in the pre-roman samples. In turn, "West-European" and "East-European" get replaced by the more consistent K12b "North-European" admixture. This is also much less conflicting when comparing with contemporary Britons. Why do you prefer K12 over K12b?

Also the admixture analysis for instance in Lazatidis et al 2013 consistently showed significant West-Asian-like (yellow color) admixture in contemp. Britons, which is higher than in K12, and which was lacking in Sardinians and Basques as expected.

I understand that the Gedrosia-part might not necessarily be West-Asian, but it is still close, and then there is still Caucasus admixture left.

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 !
 
There was also Ajvide 70, a Mesolithic/Neolithic cusp sample from the Pitted Ware culture, which tested as F but not I.


Maybe, he was positive for F and F2 but there are a lot of false positives in his DNA lisitng. I suppose coverage was very low.
The most remarkable is that he tested no I as you state.
 
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/LMA/Acta medica Lituanica/A-01-1.pdf
 
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/LMA/Acta medica Lituanica/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.
 
Nice Job, Thanks for sharing, that's interesting.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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 )
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 54004 times.

Back
Top