New Study Shows MASSIVE Ancient BA Immigration Into Ireland

[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.

So, there are processes and migrations which we might not as yet completely understand. Perhaps there was a later migration into the steppe from a population with a slightly different pigmentation profile, as perhaps Alan is suggesting. Also, we have to keep in mind that these are small sample groups which we are discussing. Some might say that's also true of WHG, but I think that's a little different situation. They uniformly don't carry depigmentation snps, whether they were in Spain, Belgium, Switzerland or Hungary. They were also an extremely homogenous group. I think the speculation that this is the group that migrated from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge is probably correct, and they did not possess these depigmentation alleles. Their relatives in the far north might have gotten them from some other ancient group, and then selection operated on it in those areas with very low solar exposure.

I think there may be unknown migrations into Europe as well, into Greece at least, and perhaps into other adjoining areas as well. There was the release of information about the Greek Bronze Age just recently which should give us some pause.

This is the anthrogenica thread where it is discussed.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5044-An-interesting-article

The Bronze Age Greek samples from Macedonia are described as "dark" skinned. Now, I don't know whether that means "WHG" dark, or "CHG" like, or "MN" like. No snp information was provided. I think we can assume they were not "modern" European like, and so they didn't have high levels of derived SLC45A2. They also are testing Neolithic samples, but I don't know if they described their pigmentation anywhere.

There was some additional interesting information, however. The biggest change in autosomal dna was described as being from the early Neolithic to the mid-late Neolithic, and it was stated that there was very little change from the mid-late Neolithic to the Bronze Age.

"Highest genetic differences shows between the early to late Nelithic. Mid/Late Neo to Bronze Age has a low fst

Fu FS in Bronze age is -13+, showing a population expansion.

No structure in the Bronze Age, to this point. Possibly Neo to Bronze continuity. Going to do more testing of Bronze Age Cultures and eventual shotgun."

I guess we'll have to wait for more detailed information, but I think it's enough to see that the old, rather simplistic narratives were incorrect for pigmentation and perhaps even for the spread of the Indo-European languages.

As for your continued mantra that the yurt or brush hut dwelling hunter-gatherers of the steppe who couldn't farm, couldn't herd domesticated animals, and didn't even have them, and knew nothing of metallurgy or chiefdoms or possessed any of the the other "hallmarks" of "Indo-European" culture are "The Indo-Europeans", repeating something ad infinitum doesn't make it so. I'll stick with David Anthony. The Indo-European language, culture, and people formed on the steppe between about 4000-3000 BC. To claim "The Indo-Europeans" are the people of the steppe prior to any admixture is like claiming "The Mexicans are the Aztecs, when the Mexicans are mestizos genetically and most of their culture is Spanish."

Now, whether most of the genetic change that occurred in Central and Northern Europe was the result of the actual movement of the Samara Yamnaya people themselves or of culturally "Indo-Europeanized" and genetically related people and perhaps some Motala like people who also got Indo-Europeanized is another story. I've been saying since the Lazaridis paper came out that perhaps some of the claims were a bit exaggerated, which shouldn't be surprising considering David Anthony was a contributing author. As for a Motala like group perhaps moving south starting around the mid-to-late Neolithic, that was totally rejected when I first proposed it. Now let's see what further evidence shows.

Now, perhaps we should try to stick closer to the thread topic and the migration into Ireland.

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/highlyallochthonous/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Neolith_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/10.1080/00293652.2013.770416?journalCode=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/xhtml/images/p20019ad4g94001.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/31858-Skin-eye-hair-pigmentation-general-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]

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-Magnon#Physical_attributes



There's a possible simple explanation for why

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann's_rule



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.

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/2011/01/28/irish-apes-tactics-of-de-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-male-height-by-country
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-chart.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Average_height_around_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.