New Study Shows MASSIVE Ancient BA Immigration Into Ireland

[Sile]

Sile, based on your first point, I can't tell if you are joking or being serious. But I will address your second point.

The population of hunter gatherers was tiny. It is always tiny, when compared to other populations. The lifestyle simply can't support many people per square kilometer, and the women wait 2x longer between kids. These principles are the same the world over.

The population size of the first cereal farmers was bigger, mid-sized you may say. But it was probably ill-adopted to Ireland, and depending largely on climate.

The population size of those with the ability to digest milk, the technology to turn excess grain into alcohol (and not flush), herding (meat when you want it!) was larger; almost modern proportions when you talk about potential mates. The study says this several times.

Ireland is an island. Mountains and island populations often have Founder Effect and Drift affect the sex chromosomes.

Example: one band happens to be mostly Hunter Gatherer patrilines, but farmer autosomally. It lands on an island. Over time, certain of the patrilines will die out by chance. Because it started with a higher percentage HG patrilines, over time that will look even larger. This describes Sardinia.

Another band with mostly Steppe or Beaker or herder patrilines, but mixed autosomally lands on another island. The same forces over time will exaggerate the percentages, based on Founder Effect (who started there) and Drift (who ended up). The isolation helps. This describes Ireland.

most ancient hunter "villages/camps" found in Germany ( northern) did house between 8 to a dozen people.........20% of these places was found a chance that some women where also hunters/skinners( ancient tanners ). the chances of an all male hunting group would be basically non-existent. A typical scenario would be hunters where living with farmers and would leave for 2 to 3 months at a time, then they would return.
This issue that hunters killed off every farmer they saw seems a fabricated dream by some to justify why R1's dominated Europe over time.
The simple fact is that hunters have a leader........who is a chief...who become king...who commands a harem/concubine.............farmers do not need a leader............we still saw this system being applied by the zulus in the 19th century.

 

[Tomenable]

There isn't extensive DNA from Welsh. I suspect they are not purely from Britons. There's probably part Germania(Anglo Saxon, etc.) via English and whatever else(French, Roman, etc.). The Iron age Briton genome is closest to Irish not Welsh. Added with information that Irish from 2000 BC have a close relationship to Welsh and Irish, I think Britons and Gealics have lots of common ancestry.

Welsh have the highest percent of Non-Indo-European, Neolithic autosomal ancestry.

At least that's what the March 2015 study on British genetic landscape claimed.

The highest in Britain, that is.

 

[Tomenable]

Ireland has very low Y-haplogroup diversity. It is almost 80% one haplogroup. It is a land that has been ignored for millennia. The Romans said "no thanks." The Anglo-Saxons said, "no thanks." There has not been much incursion. (Note I didn't say none).

Well, the Vikings and especially the English caused a lot of trouble for the Irish people.

Just to mention that they were under English occupation for several centuries, and that they lost their original language because of English policies of rooting out Irish culture, religion (Catholicisim) and their original Gaelic Celtic language (today Ireland is English-speaking). Not to mention the mass emigration of the Irish to the USA in the 19th century (and that emigration affected still Celtic-speaking regions more than those which were already English-speaking ones). I am actually very surprised, that their genetic composition is still basically the same as before all of this. I posted some figures in my Anthrogenica thread "R1b of European-Americans":

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...pean-Americans&p=119876&viewfull=1#post119876

Irish immigration, even though a bit less numerous than German, was definitely the most impressive one in per-capita terms. See the first link in my post #24 - from 1820 to 1940 as many as 4,580,557 people came from tiny Ireland (and 200,334 more in 1941-1996). According to the census of 1900, out of the total of 76.2 million pop. of the USA, 1.6 million were Irish-born, another 5 million were born to Irish-born parents (2nd generation Irish immigrants) - the sum already being 6.6 million - and there were also 3rd and 4th generation Irish immigrants, but no figures are given on them. Plus, already in 1790 an estimated 50,000 up to 150,000 Irish lived in the USA (1,57% up to 4,7% of the total White pop.).

No surprise, that today there are several times more Irish-American people, than Irish-Irish people...

As for ancestry reports in 1980:

Irish ancestry in 1980 was reported by 40,165,702 people but of them only 10,337,353 reported Irish alone, while 29,828,349 reported Irish in combination with some other ancestry or ancestries.

By the way, R1b-L21 is today the most numerous of subclades of R1b among European-Americans.

Here is data posted by other users in the thread linked above (samples from Family Tree DNA):

R1b-P312->L21 - 1290
R1b-P312->DF27 - 427
R1b-P312->U152 - 369
R1b-P312-others - 266

R1b-P312 (total) - 2352

R1b-U106 (total) - 897

So R1b-L21 comprises nearly 40% of European-American R1b in the USA today - source:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...pean-Americans&p=119363&viewfull=1#post119363

 

[Alan]

most ancient hunter "villages/camps" found in Germany ( northern) did house between 8 to a dozen people.........20% of these places was found a chance that some women where also hunters/skinners( ancient tanners ). the chances of an all male hunting group would be basically non-existent. A typical scenario would be hunters where living with farmers and would leave for 2 to 3 months at a time, then they would return.
This issue that hunters killed off every farmer they saw seems a fabricated dream by some to justify why R1's dominated Europe over time.
The simple fact is that hunters have a leader........who is a chief...who become king...who commands a harem/concubine.............farmers do not need a leader............we still saw this system being applied by the zulus in the 19th century.

We have genetic prove for both cases. Western Hunter &Gatherers and Farmer stayed for so long isolated from each other that we had two (actually three with the SHG) distinct populations in Europe living side by side.

However we also have prove for allot of cases where smaller groups of WHG were included into the farming communities. This is visible on some additional WHG y and mtDNA among farmers as well ~10% WHG aDNA admixture.

This indicates two things for me, despite how warlike and aggressive the farmers could have been when needed (mass graves), they seem to have been in most cases very "open minded", civilized and "democratic" people in comparison to the H&G who I assume were more tribal at that time.

The other thing this indicates is, the relationship between both groups wasn't really hostile, maybe distrustful for the foreigners and their culture but slowly adapting to each other. I have atleast never heard of war or any mass kilings between WHG and EEF groups.

Thats how I see it.

 

[Tomenable]

I and many other commentators have tried to explain David how absurd his male "dominance " theories are.

They are not so absurd at all, actually. Y-DNA is most prone to such founder effects, more than mtDNA and than autosomal DNA.

Haven't you seen studies which show that "effective population size" of reproducing males was much smaller than that of females:

"8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man
An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene":

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

 

[LeBrok]

In Ireland's case this works, because the newcomers already had R1b-L21 and mostly replaced the natives. But why did they all have R1b-L21? What happened to other P312? At somepoint there was a P312-rich nation with a diverse array of P312 lineages. Why did all but one P312 lineage go extinct? No other explanation, except R1b-L21 being sometype of royal lineage can explain.
.

There was a bottlenecking in this tribe shortly after development of L21. The tribe was down to few males from same family. It happened that after this bottlenecking the tribe was lucky and successful, built up in numbers, and went for a tour to Ireland. Irish also have rampant single gene diseases, like cystic fibrosis and hemochromatosis, which also point to bottlenecking and a founder effect.

 

[Sile]

We have genetic prove for both cases. Western Hunter &Gatherers and Farmer stayed for so long isolated from each other that we had two (actually three with the SHG) distinct populations in Europe living side by side.

However we also have prove for allot of cases where smaller groups of WHG were included into the farming communities. This is visible on some additional WHG y and mtDNA among farmers as well ~10% WHG aDNA admixture.

This indicates two things for me, despite how warlike and aggressive the farmers could have been when needed (mass graves), they seem to have been in most cases very "open minded", civilized and "democratic" people in comparison to the H&G who I assume were more tribal at that time.

The other thing this indicates is, the relationship between both groups wasn't really hostile, maybe distrustful for the foreigners and their culture but slowly adapting to each other. I have atleast never heard of war or any mass kilings between WHG and EEF groups.

Thats how I see it.

these SHG etc, are changing all the time, there is no consistency ..........we now have eurogenes stating ANE is now CHG

 

[Tomenable]

LeBrok,

That bottlenecking could as well take place already after their arrival to Ireland.

 

[Tomenable]

YFull has R1b-L21 as "formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybp":

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L21/

So no sign of bottlenecking (there should be a gap of several centuries between "formed" and "TMRCA" in case of such an event).

More likely, L21 extremely rapidly expanded, immediately after its emergence.

So there was no "proper" bottlenecking, but a very rapid expansion from a very small population, which can cause similar effects.

Probably L21 either emerged in Ireland, or arrived there as a very small group.

 

[LeBrok]

LeBrok,

That bottlenecking could as well take place already after their arrival to Ireland.

Could be. They could have been in a big battle with farmers. They have won but barely survived maybe?
Or they have lost a battle with other IE in England and few survivals hid on Ireland?

 

[Aaron1981]

Central European Corded Ware had ~75% Yamnaya ancestry. And these guys had ~32%.

So to get from Germany to Ireland, a lot of "banging with the locals" was necessary...

Unless they descended from some Non-CW group, which was already more mixed before.

They appear very similar to the central European Bell Beaker groups genetically. I imagine the fact CW was further north east and never penetrated Europe as BB did, might explain why the further north and north east regions retained more steppe ancestry. Likewise, we may construct a similar argument on the EEF side of things never penetrating the furthest extremities of Europe.

 

[LeBrok]

YFull has R1b-L21 as "formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybp":

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L21/

So no sign of bottlenecking (there should be a gap of several centuries between "formed" and "TMRCA" in case of such an event).

More likely, L21 extremely rapidly expanded, immediately after its emergence.

So there was no "proper" bottlenecking, but a very rapid expansion from a very small population, which can cause similar effects.

Probably L21 either emerged in Ireland, or arrived there as a very small group.

Yes, bottlenecking, small group, rapid expansion, all good.

 

[Aaron1981]

Fire Haired, you posted this:

From Supplementary Table S14.2:

Similarity of Irish Bronze Age Rathlin1 Celtic individual to modern populations (from top to bottom):

1) Scottish ------------- 36.512
2) Ireland -------------- 36.313
3) Welsh --------------- 35.745
4) GermanyAustria ---- 33.658
5) French -------------- 32.299
6) English -------------- 32.213

(...)

IMO this shows that Gaelic Celts (ancestors of Irish+Scots) were not the same as Brythonic Celts.

Welsh are just slightly more similar to Gaelic Celts than Germans/French, and English even less.

And I remember that Welsh were most similar to Brythonic Celtic samples from July 2015 study:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/17/022723

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/07/17/022723.full.pdf

Welsh are a purely Celtic group, so they should be more similar to all Celts if they were all identical.

But Scots - who are in general a bit less Celtic than Welsh - are still more similar to Gaelic Celts than Welsh.

This is IMO a clear proof, that Gaelic Celts were not genetically the same as were Brythonic Celts.

============================

That sample Rathlin1 is from Rathlin Island (these are areas where Scottish Dál Riata came from):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathlin_Island

If I remember correctly, only Hinxton 4 was a good read. It would be nice to see this fit in the analysis, although I imagine it would yield very similar results to these BA Irish ones. I'm skeptical that Brythonic Celts were much different at all.

 

[Alan]

They are not so absurd at all, actually. Y-DNA is most prone to such founder effects, more than mtDNA and than autosomal DNA.

Haven't you seen studies which show that "effective population size" of reproducing males was much smaller than that of females:

"8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man
An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene":

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

Are you actually aware that you are trying to prove, "male dominance" bullshit of David with the founder effect argument I used to disprove it? Founder effect doesn't speak for a all male part of one(EHG) group taking all females(CHG) from another, thats exactly what David and you claim. Founder effect on the other hand proves my point, get the facts straight.

Founder effect is exactly what I used as possible explanation of how ONE single Haplogroup R1b z2103 came to dominate most of the Yamna sample so far.

David didn't agree with that either. However all we have so far are mostly the eastern Yamna samples and they lack not only other Haplogroups but also any other sub clade which has been found among EHG.

 

[Tomenable]

LeBrok,

But England and Britain also has a lot of L21 and probably had more before the Common Era.

Alan,

Dominance is one of possible causes of a founder effect (others are immunity, chance, etc.).

 

[Alan]

these SHG etc, are changing all the time, there is no consistency ..........we now have eurogenes stating ANE is now CHG

I didn't saw Eurogenes stating such a thing, but if he did, he is completely nuts.

I saw him stating that Mal'ta aka real "ANE" ancestry is almost non existing in modern West Eurasians. And the "ANE" showing up in the Near East is predominantly shared ancestry with CHG. So I am not sure if he said anything else like ANE is CHG, if he did, don't take that serious.

 

[Tomenable]

I believe both in cases of male dominance and in cases of founder effects during migrations (that would be "by chance").

So I partially agree both with you and with David.

But if autosomal DNA is changing so much faster than Y-DNA then it is rather due to dominance of some group of males.

 

[Alan]

LeBrok,

But England and Britain also has a lot of L21 and probably had more before the Common Era.

Alan,

Dominance is one of possible causes of a founder effect (others are immunity, chance, etc.).

No, just no.

Please first understand what Founder effect means. the "Dominance" that you and David claim, is not a founder effect. It is one cultural group (EHG or in the Beaker case "Yamna"), forcefully taking wives and only wives of the other culture. This is not a freakn founder effect. What you describe can be possibly a "Bottle-neck effect".

Founder effect is, when one or few individuals of a culture (Yamna) take the lead, after some time, be it through having more sons, being an Elite or something else, and dominate the yDNA of this culture. This is founder effect.

Things speaking against bottleneck effect are, there is no EHG specific Haplogroup in Yamna and there is no Yamna specific Haplogroups in EHG.

That means what could have happened.

After CHG(male and female) and EHG(male and female) groups merged into one, a few Haplogroups (pred. R1b z2103) took somehow the lead and reproduced the most. Causing any other CHG and EHG male lineages to "die out".

Of course this is all still mere speculations cause we don't have any Yamna samples from further down South and West of the culture.

But not even this does the man on Eurogenes accept. All he wants to hear is, Super masculine EHG males came on horseback down to the Caucasus stole/took wives from there and rid back into the Steppes and this constantly.

Now if that make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me.

And I can tell you why, another argument he prefers to ignore. The cultural influence from down south into Yamna is huge, far bigger than anything from EHG groups.

From Kurgans, to Bronze to herding simply everything on Yamna looks more Southern. Did these "stolen" wives teached all these things to the masculine EHG males ?

 

[LeBrok]

No, just no.

Please first understand what Founder effect means. the "Dominance" that you and David claim, is not a founder effect. It is one cultural group (EHG or in the Beaker case "Yamna"), forcefully taking wives and only wives of the other culture. This is not a freakn founder effect. What you describe can be possibly a "Bottle-neck effect".

Founder effect is, when one or few individuals of a culture (Yamna) take the lead, after some time, be it through having more sons, being an Elite or something else, and dominate the yDNA of this culture. This is founder effect.

Things speaking against bottleneck effect are, there is no EHG specific Haplogroup in Yamna and there is no Yamna specific Haplogroups in EHG.

So you don't agree that after bottlenecking, with lets say only one family males are left alive, founder effect will happen?

That means what could have happened.

After CHG(male and female) and EHG(male and female) groups merged into one, a few Haplogroups (pred. R1b z2103) took somehow the lead and reproduced the most. Causing any other CHG and EHG male lineages to "die out".

Yes, it can possibly have statistical advantage, but only in small tribes. When a tribe is 10,000 strong, it is impossible to make much of progress with one male dominance. The only way for one haplogroup to dominate on a big scale is by positive natural selection.

 

[Aaron1981]

What were we saying about R1b sex fantasies again?

The paper that is the subject of this post emphatically stressed that your notions above were NOT the case. Please read it.

It emphasized that the early Irish population, where the males bore R1b, emigrated to Ireland in MASSIVE numbers, of both sexes. And that they had a large breeding population. This was not a "large breeding population of native farmers" because those populations, autosomally, did not form the bulk of the modern Irish population.

If you don't want to read the paper's findings, I summarized them here: http://snplogic.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-cassidy-earthquake-neolithic-and.html

There was plenty of time for the Beaker, Lactase Persistent people to pick up non-Steppe genomes on the way to Ireland. As I have said several, several, several (and several) times before. Gosh to think that just this morning people were making fun of me for stating that R1b expanded due to LP. And then this paper states the same.

Ireland is an island. So is Sardinia. To have these R1b sex-selection theories, you have to grasp that the large percentages of I2 in Sardinia is the result of Founder Effect and Drift, but that the large percentages of R1b in Ireland is the result of studly (or conqeuering) males breeding with all the locals. In other words, it's inconsistent and illogical.

After reading many of your posts here and elsewhere, it seems you are the one with the agenda. "R1b expanded due to LP". Yes, that is full of holes since that mutation, like hemochromatosis ones, are not sex specific. Let's be pragmatic like you say, and stick to facts which are known. The paper did say a few pertinent facts to this discussion which are relevant.

-Ballynahatty was part of a non-endogamous culture, unlike Loschbour, which implies farmers immigrated to Ireland in quantity and gradually took over
-BA Irish were also non-endogamous and the paper stated that their farmer ancestry did not appear to be from the earlier Ballynahatty "farmer" ancestry of Ireland. Another case for subsequent migration of people to Ireland from the east.

None of this actually explains why R1b is dominant. One could infer that if the immigrants were largely R1b-L21+ and they replaced the earlier inhabitants, then by definition they would become a majority. To my simple logic, this seems to be the most reasonable case. It would not explain how R1b in general earned an advantage in west-central Europe which appears to also be true. There have been many papers and theories that suggest, perhaps to your dismay, that Neolithic and later cultures of Europe were patriarchal, and the later cultures of Europe, who appear to be R1b, had agriculture and metallurgy at their disposal which are most definitely advantageous to survival.

We know a few other significant details.

- The earliest hunter-gatherers of Europe are non-R1b males and at low frequency today. I2 and his descendants appears to be the more successful hunter gatherer over C-V20, who may be from an early wave (although that's my personal speculation since La Brana shows less correlation to most other genomes) You can't compare Sardinia to Ireland for many good reasons, but that is a topic for another discussion really. The plainly obvious difference between a Sardinian and Italian genome for starters - but Ireland and Britain show no such difference.

It's unfortunate that there wasn't a Neolithic Irish male sequenced. If he turned out to also be L21+, that would throw a wrench into the information we have at this point.