New Study Shows MASSIVE Ancient BA Immigration Into Ireland

[Tomenable]

Alan,

The model of male elite dominance affecting Y-DNA - similar to the one David is talking about - has been mathematically validated.

Heinrich Härke, Mark Thomas and Michael Stumpf created a realistic model showing that certain Y-DNA types can increase in frequency from 10% to 50% of the total during just 8 up to 12 generations (1 generation = ~25 years). All that is needed is female mate choice (or any other factor) giving dominant male group a selective advantage of 1.2 to 1 per generation. If group "B" conquers group "A" and initially B has 10% of Y-DNA and A has 90%, then if during the next 8-12 generations for every 1 A woman taking an A male as husband, 1.2 A women take a B male as a husband, then frequency of B haplogroups should increase to 50% of all Y-DNA after such time. If selective advantage is lesser than 1.2, then it will take more generations.

The paper in question, which discusses this model, is "Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England". I am not saying that the model is based on valid data (because it is based on Capelli's 2002 estimates saying that half of English Y-DNA is Germanic - in reality the % of Germanic Y-DNA in English people can be lower; ancient DNA will tell us), but the model itself works with realistic mechanisms. The model shows 10% influx invading males ruling over 9 times more numerous local males, could still increase their Y-DNA from 1/10 to 1/2 even during just a dozen or so generations. And that of course without slaughtering the locals, just skewing the access to young females in favour of the victors.

All you need is an apartheid-like society, in which dominant groups can have as many wives as they want, etc.

 

[Angela]

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.

I would suggest that instead of insulting yet another poster at eupedia your time would have been better spent re-reading the paper yourself. It seems to me that you are inflating and therefore misrepresenting the claims of this research paper, albeit perhaps unintentionally.

Let's take LP. As I've already pointed out to you on your other thread, you were incorrect to state that LP originated on the steppe. Or, at least, there is no evidence yet to suggest that it did. It is correct that Eastern Bell Beaker, who seem to have been R1b, carried it. We don't know if the mutation occurred in them (unlikely if it should be confirmed that it already existed in Neolithic farmers in Spain) or if they picked it up from Middle Neolithic farmers, or from some unknown and as yet untested area of the steppe.

Once picked up, it proved useful, and selection began to operate. No one has ever disagreed with that.

Now, let's get to your comments in this post. You say that the paper states that R1b expanded, and perhaps particularly in Ireland, because of LP. Please quote the precise language in the paper, or supplement, including page number, where the authors make such a statement. I'll save you the trouble; that's your statement, not theirs.

This is what they actually say; it's quite different.

"several important genetic variants that today show maximal or very high frequencies in Ireland appear at this horizon. These include those coding for lactase persistence, blue eye color, Y chromosome R1b haplotypes, and the hemochromatosis C282Y allele..."

Now, I'm not saying that LP wouldn't have helped a group survive and even expand. However, I would think they'd have to have a substantial percent of their population carrying the LP genes for it to really be a factor. Did you bother to read the supplement? Perhaps not. In said supplement it says the following:

"The most well documented genomic region associated with dietary change is the LCT lactase persistence locus. The high coverage Neolithic individual, Ballynahatty, was homozygous for the ancestral alleles at both the LCTa and LCTb loci, while the high coverage Bronze Age male was a heterozygote at both positions. Base calls for the two lower coverage Bronze Age samples indicated the presence of the ancestral allele in these individuals."

Now, perhaps if the coverage was better it would show they also had some LP derived snps, but perhaps not. If it was only 1/3 of them who carried it would it have been a tremendous advantage? Perhaps, but to portray this as a situation where a huge tribe of all LP people were given this huge advantage as they crossed the continent is rather overstating things, in my opinion.

Let's now move on to your statement that the paper says that the Bronze Age R1b people migrated to Ireland in MASSIVE numbers of both sexes, by which I assume that you mean the sexes were equally represented, i.e. it was not a predominantly male migration.

Please quote the precise language, page number etc. where the authors make this claim. I'll once again save you some time. They don't. They don't provide estimates of the numbers at all. What they're saying is that the modern Irish basically descend almost totally from these people. That is not quite the same thing. They certainly don't give an estimate of the gender break down.

The phylogeny of this R1b clade in fact indicates that it was probably a small group that first arrived and the homogeneity of Irish R1b is because of a rapid expansion of a small group.

Now, this kind of misrepresentation of the paper's findings doesn't matter very much in the particular case of Ireland because the testing done by the authors indicates, if they are correct, that there was no input from the Irish MN people into the modern Irish, or, in other words, there was no mixing between the two groups. Now, I always like to think that encounters between two groups were peaceful, so perhaps the agricultural crash was so severe, as I mentioned upthread, that the MN population in Ireland virtually died out. In that case, the migrating group is moving into virtually virgin territory. The only other possibility would be that the few who remained were wiped out. The MN these Bronze Age people carry is from the continent, not Ireland.

Now, on to a broader canvas. The story of the movement of the Indo-European groups carrying yDna R1b and R1a across the continent from the steppe is not the same as the story of the movement of these people into Ireland. While the farming populations of Central Europe experienced periodic population declines, Central Europe was certainly not virgin territory when the people from the steppe arrived. There were still substantial numbers of people remaining. In addition, I have never seen any paper that posits huge populations on the steppe. They barely had farming in the beginning and their herding mode of life was under stress from the same climate change which was wreaking havoc on the farmers. If you have a paper which proves a huge population on the steppe around 4000-3000 BC, please provide a link to it. Likewise, if you know of a paper which proves a vastly smaller population in central Europe, please provide it.

So, for the sake of argument, absent a tremendous disparity in numbers, why do we see a virtual wipe-out of G2 and I2, and overwhelming dominance of R1b and R1a?

More importantly, even if there was a tremendous disparity in numbers, why don't we see a similar wipe-out of the MN mtDna lineages? Perhaps you should think about that. If you need some papers on the mtDna changes in Europe over time I can dig some out for you.

Btw, this situation is not analygous, in my opinion, to what happened on the steppe. There are a couple of possibilities for the incursion of CHG, up to 50%, into the Yamnaya, and the change in mtDna to include a large proportion of "Near Eastern" mtDna, while we only see one yDna-R1b. One is that there was bride exchange with south of Caucausus populations. I find that hard to believe because we don't see equal amounts of EHG in the southern populations, although perhaps the Samara EHG were so few in number that the exchange had a bigger effect on them. Then there is the "raiding" for wives scenario, which I know captures the imagination of some men but seems far fetched to me given the distances they'd have to have gone. The third is that there were other y dna groups on the steppe and they were either killed and their women were appropriated or we just haven't yet found their remains. After all we now have found a J2 Karelian like sample. Fourth, the specific R1b clade that formed Yamnaya sojourned for a while east or south of the steppe before returning, and carried some CHG themselves.

I don't know which is the correct scenario. Perhaps we'll get some more clues soon. If it was indeed murder, or ethnic cleansing or whatever you want to call it, and then rape, then I too am ashamed to be a product of it, but it's happened many times in history, so we're probably all a product of it whether because of these events or similar ones.

Oh, and thanks for the suggestion, but some of us have been reading Cavalli-Sforza for twenty-five years, and discussing his work for at least five years on this Board.

 

[Maciamo]

The study found R1b in Ireland to be the result of mass immigration (and not elite dominance).

How could anyone come to such conclusion based on 3 samples from the same period from a single place in Ireland ? All it shows was that R1b men arrived from the continent and were very similar to the Unetice and other central European Proto-Italo-Celtic R1b people.

We don't know yet whether these R1b people lived side by side with the Neolithic population for a while, whether they intermingled with them or not, or if they simply exterminated them. We don't know if R1b came through a massive, well-planned maritime migration or if, on the contrary, only a relatively small group of well-armed R1b people settled in Ireland and progressively outbred and killed the Neolithic inhabitants due to their more advanced weapons and their higher protein diet (livestock + milk) better suited to the rocky, infertile Irish soil. It could also be that the Neolithic population was had troubles surviving due to failing crops (as seems to have happened in many places around Europe in the Late Neolithic) and because their population was so small, R1b migrants had no difficulty supplanting them with their Steppe-like lifestyle, livestock and technologies, better suited to Ireland. But it could also be that R1b newcomers brought new diseases to which Neolithic populations were not immunized (like Europeans in the Americas) and that it was what ultimately gave them the edge to outbreed the indigenous peoples, without need for heavy warfare. All of these scenarios are possible and probably complementary, but this study cannot tell us which is the most likely as the authors didn't test samples from a variety of places or periods in Ireland throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Who is to say that pockets of Neolithic farmers didn't survive for hundreds of years after the arrival of the Proto-Celtic R1b people ? After all there are still regions with 5 to 10% of Sardinian-like I2a1a in western Ireland (Connacht), while it is close to 0% in Ulster and Munster.

This study confirms what I already knew from inference, namely that R1b-L21 arrived in Ireland c. 2000 BCE with a migration of Bronze Age Proto-Celts from Central Europe. These Proto-Celts were descended from Steppe populations but already heavily admixed with Neolithic Central and Southeast Europeans after spending 2000 years in the Balkans, Carpathians and around Germany and Bohemia. It also confirms that prior to that Ireland was populated by Neolithic farmers similar to all other farmers in Neolithic Western Europe, as was obvious from the fact that they belonged to a wider collectivist Megalithic culture and were all part of the Bell Beaker trading network.

The bottom line is that we still don't know how long it took for R1b-L21 to spread around Ireland. We don't know for how long Neolithic farmers survived independently after the arrival of these R1b people. We don't know whether wars, famines and/or diseases brought the collapse of the Neolithic population, nor how fast that collapse happened in various places around Ireland. It could be that R1b tribes quickly settled all over Ireland or that the island was divided in two zones (invaders vs indigenous), just like what happened with later migrations (Anglo-Normans, Vikings, Lowland Scots). If R1b people took all the island at once, they could have killed or enslaved the Neolithic population, or intermarried with them. In fact, both scenarios could have happened in different regions, just like what happened with the Europeans and Amerindians (Amerindians mostly wiped out in the first zones of contact in the Caribbeans, eastern Brazil and northeastern USA, but heavy intermingling in places like Mexico, Columbia, Peru or Paraguay).

What's important to understand is when we retrace the history of population across a continent for several millennia is that there isn't a simple, unique explanation that applies to all regions and periods, but rather a mosaic of scenarios.


The way I see it is that it is very likely that some intermingling happened between R1b invaders and the older Neolithic population for two important reasons:

1) R1b Proto-Indo-Europeans have always taken wives/concubines from conquered population, be it in the Caucasus, in the Steppe, in the Balkans, or in Central Europe. We know this from the changing admixtures over time and from the appearance of new mtDNA lineages matching the autochthonous haplogroups of each region. Foreign mtDNA entered slowly the R1b population, meaning that the majority of R1b men's wives were from their own tribe. But a minority of foreign women were taken in every region, and there is little reason to believe that it should be any different in Ireland.

2) The 3 Irish EBA samples are almost identical in admixtures to Unetice, but not to modern Irish - who have considerably more EEF admixture. Germanic migrations obviously altered the Irish gene pool since the Bronze Age, but is it really possible that Vikings and Normans brought much more EEF if modern Scandinavians have less EEF than modern Irish ? That doesn't seem right. The most probable scenario is that R1b tribes pushed Neolithic Irish farmers into isolated pockets inland and toward Connacht, that both groups lived side by side for many centuries, until eventually the two groups merged, perhaps only during the Iron Age, when class distinction faded and a new society emerged. The more time passes, the more people forget where they come from, and the more the effects of intermarriages uniformise neighbouring populations.

 

[bicicleur 2]

the expansion of R-L21 began just 500 years before they arrived in Ireland

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

I wonder whether they allready spoke Goidelic, the Celtic language which spread all over the British Isles.
In that case, the origin of the Celts would be much earlier than anticipated, it would be 4.5 ka, the time when R1b-P312 split.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

If neolithic farming in Ireland was always relatively marginal then farmers from the Atlantic Megalith culture might not have fully covered the territory leaving surviving WHG populations on the fringes.

If subsequent to their settlement changing conditions led to a partial or complete farming collapse then you'd have the conditions for a small, partially LP population of incoming cattle herders to expand into the remaining territory (alongside strong selection for LP).

A dramatic founder effect and expansion from a small population seems to fit better with things like the very high frequency of the hemochromatosis C282Y allele (and did they check for their red haired frequency?)

If the pre-herder population of Ireland included a surviving whg population (or if the some parts of the megalith culture farmer population included a higher than usual whg percentage) then that could explain the WHG resurgence.

If it is a case of massive founder effect and not a massive tribal invasion then the seemingly male dominated nature of the expansion can easily be explained by the invaders coming from a male dominated occupation like
- mercenaries
- traders
- prospectors
- miners

 

[Sile]

Italy is in the center of the Mediterranean, which was the "superhighway" of the ancient world. It has been invaded by countless people: Neandertals, Cro-Magnons, Hunter Gatherers, Farmers, Herders, Samnites, Romans, Greeks, Goths, Franks, Lombards, Byzantines, Saracens. We all pretty much know the list, right?

Italy has the largest Y-haplogroup diversity in all of Europe. It is a land that has been coveted for millennia. I think we all grasp this, as I have seen this posted on other threads here.

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). The fact that it is an island, and westernmost, and cold, all help its isolation. I think most of us know Ireland's geography and history.

If you populate one land, and every 100 years, 10% of the the population is new, you will end up with 10 different haplogroups after 1000 years. The ones that have been there longer will decrease in numbers. I think we all can grasp this math.

If you populate another land, and there are no introgressions to speak of, after the first major settlement, you will end up with FEWER haplogroups after 1000 years. The sheer chance of some males not having sons, and some males dying before childbearing age, will mean that their lineages die with them. The apparent variability will decrease over time. This is what I ask you to grasp, Fire Haired.

The last paragraph will give the ILLUSION that only 1 group of guys was having kids, because they were "royalty" (as you said) or "getting all the ladies" (as Tomenable said). Alas, they are simply not true.

One must take in consideration the flooding in the po valley in Italy prevented this "italian association
An advance began after the Last Glacial Maximum around 20,000 years ago, which brought the Adriatic to a high point at about 5500 years ago.^[7] Since then the Po delta had been prograding. The rate of coastal zone progradation between 1000 BC and 1200 AD was 4 m/yr.^[8] Human factors, however, brought about a change in the equilibrium in the mid-20th century with the result that the entire coastline of the northern Adriatic is now degrading
and that the danube was much wider in water

only way into central Italy in early and mid neolithic was by boat or through Liguria. These 3 Irish must have stayed north of the danube river and marched to ireland through germany and northern france

 

[Greying Wanderer]

New Study Shows MASSIVE Ancient BA Immigration Into Ireland

It shows a massive population turnover but more likely a massive founder effect from a small initial population imo.

This is consistent with what I posted about the rather prosaic explanations for current distributions. Hunter gatherers started with small population sizes. Cereal farmers had medium. The influx of herders, with a ready supply of meat, and milk, and cereals had larger population sizes.

I don't think that can be true or herders would have replaced farmers everywhere. I think it's more a case that farmers have the highest population density in *optimal* farming terrain but that density declines as the terrain becomes more marginal for farming and at a certain point there's a crossover with herders having a higher potential density. You see this pattern everywhere - farmers in the best terrain, herders in the more marginal terrain and HGs only surviving in terrain that is too marginal even for herding.

My guess is there is significant but minority Neolithic ancestry in British and Irish though.

Agree, with most in refuge zones like north Wales imo.

I'm not surprised if she is descended from one of these LongBarrows people and close groups which expanded surely along all the Atlantic and North Sea shores until Scandinavia and which play a role in the formation of Funnel-TricherBK (more in North).

Yes, Atlantic Megalith culture person.

So, that begs the question, one, as to what happened to the Irish Middle Neolithic people, and two, where did these Bronze Age people pick up their Middle Neolithic ancestry? ... As to the Irish MN, there are papers showing that the agriculture crash in Ireland was particularly severe ... What do you make of the claim of 40% WHG in her? ... If you take into account all three methods used, they come up with 2/3 MN versus 1/3 Yamnaya, so certainly not the total replacement of some of the speculation I've seen.

My guesses,
- Irish MN was only viable in the optimal farming land and the amount of that land was quite small in Ireland even before the farming collapse so imo they could have simply been swamped by the herders rather than massacred
- If they were disproportionately male and the result of multiple similar disproportionately male hops (for example) steppe -> Danube -> Hungary -> Brittany then their EEF percentage could have gone up with each hop. Then a final hop to Ireland where the local females were more EEF/WHG leading to a big boost for WHG at the end.
- If neolithic farming was always marginal in Ireland (acid soil from atlantic rain leaching) then WHG may have survived later than elsewhere.
- The total replacement may just mean the replacement of the Irish MN version of mixture. The incoming population brought some of the same components.

How on Earth could they become 68% Non-Steppe (while moving from Ukraine to Ireland), but preserving 98% of Steppe Y-DNA ??? That would imply that it was a migration of mostly (or almost exclusively) males, who married almost exclusively local women. Were those Neolithic women all sex bombs?

If you "what if" the possibility of a disproportionately male migrations then what kind of historical analogies are there for example from America? I'd suggest occupations like trappers, hunters, traders, prospectors or miners.

so are you saying the youngest haplogroup ( r1b ) basically populated a near empty ireland?

That's my view except either
- near empty after a dramatic contraction of the initial farmer settlement
- a mixture of above with some surviving low population density HG territory

How on earth can you explain 70% non Steppic ancestry just all by male replacement that is technically noit possible. Thats just crazy and honestly the only two individuals still holding on this theory are you and Davidski.

Multiple events.

If you have a standard pattern of 80% migrants made up of 50% male and 30% female with the extra 20% females coming from the locals then each move reduces the steppe adna without effecting the ydna. In this example the steppe adna would go 80% -> 64% -> 51% -> 41% -> 33% so five hops in total
e.g.
- Steppe - Danube - Hungary - Brittany - Ireland
or
- Steppe - Crete - Sardinia - Iberia - Ireland

##

 

[Tomenable]

Bronze Age Irish samples had R1b-L21 Y-DNA, but their mtDNA haplogroups were U5b2a2 and J2b1a.

U5b2a2 has confirmed presence in Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe, and J2b1a was in Neolithic Europe.

So the idea that it was a mixture of mostly immigrant Y-DNA + mostly local mtDNA seems correct.

 

[Alan]

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

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.

Lebrok the whole point is that they claim a horde of "horny" EHG males went all the way down south to take some CHG females as wives, completely ignoring their own females. So in their theory CHG did not play ANY role in the formation of Yamna beside giving ~50% aDNA admixture through "captured" females.

Hmm last time I checked however Kurgans, Bronze, Wagons, Herding everything came from down South.

Also what they ignore is, EHG does not have any R1b z2103 so far.

Thats means

1. We don't know yet where these R1b z2103 came from.
2. We don't have any EHG specific lineages to even support this male dominance theory in slightest
3. Yamna is build on southern cultural foundations.


Now if a Founder effect took place is not even the main question. The question is, IF there was a founder effect how did it happen. Was it some lonely EHG males taking the journey down to the Caucasus to get some CHG females as wives (the points above and the fact that it is only one lineage instead many speak against it), or was it rather that one male lineage somehow came to dominate the culture after some time?

Even than we don't even know if this R1b z2103 samples are representative of all Yamna, because we don't habe any samples from South and West of the culture.

 

[Maciamo]

Bronze Age Irish samples had R1b-L21 Y-DNA, but their mtDNA haplogroups were U5b2a2 and J2b1a.

U5b2a2 has confirmed presence in Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe, and J2b1a was in Neolithic Europe.

So the idea that it was a mixture of mostly immigrant Y-DNA + mostly local mtDNA seems correct.

How on earth could you say that U5b2a2 and J2b1a were local lineages ? U5b2a is found all over Europe from Russia to the British Isles, including places like Latvia, Poland and Croatia. It is Mesolithic pan-European and was surely already in the Steppe before the Bronze Age. It was also found in several samples from neolithic Germany (but not Southeast Europe or Anatolia) and in one Unetice sample. That last one would seem to confirm that it could very well have come with R1b from the continent to Ireland. It's impossible to say if that particular U5b2a2 was integrated to the R1b tribes in central Europe or if it came straight from the Steppe. MtDNA isn't accurate enough for that.

J2b1a was clearly brought by Neolithic farmers from the Near East. It was found in Neolithic Germany and Sweden, so once again it could have been a female lineage absorbed by R1b tribes in central Europe long before R1b moved to Ireland.

More importantly, the third Irish EBA R1b was U5a1b1e, which nowadays is found mostly in Northeast Europe (esp. Scandinavia, Finland and Russia) and Central Asia, and therefore indicates more reasonably a Steppe origin. The FTDNA U5 Project does not have any U5a1b1e from Ireland.

 

[Fire Haired14]

@Maciamo,

U5b2a2 is from WHG then EEF. U5b2a existing in Russia today isn't evidence it came from the Steps. Most of Russian's ancestors came from Central Europe to Russia in the Middle Ages, and if not then in 2000 BC. Also, R1b-L21 was the Y DNA of local people in Bronze age Ireland. East Bell Beaker was a R1b-P312 nation. The people who came to Ireland were an R1b-L21 nation. R1b did not become popular gradually because the powerful had it.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

they claim a horde of "horny" EHG males went all the way down south to take some CHG females as wives, completely ignoring their own females.

Not true.

There is an odd disconnect between the Yamnaya ydna and mtdna which needs some explanation and one possible explanation is violence.

No doubt there are other possible explanations.

 

[DuPidh]

If neolithic farming in Ireland was always relatively marginal then farmers from the Atlantic Megalith culture might not have fully covered the territory leaving surviving WHG populations on the fringes.

If subsequent to their settlement changing conditions led to a partial or complete farming collapse then you'd have the conditions for a small, partially LP population of incoming cattle herders to expand into the remaining territory (alongside strong selection for LP).

A dramatic founder effect and expansion from a small population seems to fit better with things like the very high frequency of the hemochromatosis C282Y allele (and did they check for their red haired frequency?)

If the pre-herder population of Ireland included a surviving whg population (or if the some parts of the megalith culture farmer population included a higher than usual whg percentage) then that could explain the WHG resurgence.

If it is a case of massive founder effect and not a massive tribal invasion then the seemingly male dominated nature of the expansion can easily be explained by the invaders coming from a male dominated occupation like
- mercenaries
- traders
- prospectors
- miners

I think is an invasion! Irish invaders were for most part hunter gatherers in constant move for food. They were thieves as well. They had noted on their move that there were people who had possessions and those possessions could be stolen. So, probably they killed a lot of Southern European people type, indigenous people who had occupied the territories thousands of years ahead. I think the invading Irish had more fighting skills since their survival depended on them , so they were a lot better fighting force who killed most indigenous people and stole their food. Why do you think such encounters were peaceful?
I think this explains why Irish can't cook! (with the exception of boiling potatoes).

 

[Ukko]

I think is an invasion! Irish invaders were for most part hunter gatherers in constant move for food. They were thieves as well. They had noted on their move that there were people who had possessions and those possessions could be stolen. So, probably they killed a lot of Southern European people type, indigenous people who had occupied the territories thousands of years ahead. I think the invading Irish had more fighting skills since their survival depended on them , so they were a lot better fighting force who killed most indigenous people and stole their food. Why do you think such encounters were peaceful?
I think this explains why Irish can't cook! (with the exception of boiling potatoes).

I gather you dont like the Irish.

 

[RobertColumbia]

Italy is in the center of the Mediterranean, which was the "superhighway" of the ancient world. It has been invaded by countless people: Neandertals, Cro-Magnons, Hunter Gatherers, Farmers, Herders, Samnites, Romans, Greeks, Goths, Franks, Lombards, Byzantines, Saracens. We all pretty much know the list, right?

Italy has the largest Y-haplogroup diversity in all of Europe. It is a land that has been coveted for millennia. I think we all grasp this, as I have seen this posted on other threads here.

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). The fact that it is an island, and westernmost, and cold, all help its isolation. I think most of us know Ireland's geography and history.

If you populate one land, and every 100 years, 10% of the the population is new, you will end up with 10 different haplogroups after 1000 years....
The last paragraph will give the ILLUSION that only 1 group of guys was having kids, because they were "royalty" (as you said) or "getting all the ladies" (as Tomenable said). Alas, they are simply not true.

Right. Some other "superhighway" lands that have very high Y-haplogroup diversity are Greece, Turkey, the Fertile Crescent, and Iran. These have been highly desirable areas - convenient to major transportation routes and very good for farming. Compare this with pre-colonial Australia, which was dominated by C-bearing men for thousands of years.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I think is an invasion! Irish invaders were for most part hunter gatherers in constant move for food. They were thieves as well. They had noted on their move that there were people who had possessions and those possessions could be stolen. So, probably they killed a lot of Southern European people type, indigenous people who had occupied the territories thousands of years ahead. I think the invading Irish had more fighting skills since their survival depended on them , so they were a lot better fighting force who killed most indigenous people and stole their food. Why do you think such encounters were peaceful?
I think this explains why Irish can't cook! (with the exception of boiling potatoes).

Next it'll be Syrians who move to Europe in massive numbers and change genes . Europeans don't want to have kids anymore, care more about individual rights and feelings than issues that matter. Anyways, there's no way to know if migration matches that narrative. A lot of those narratives for pre-history are motivated by racism.

I wouldn't be surprised if conquest and rape did happen, but it can't be that simple. Plus, natives don't just stop having sex once new people arrive. 60-80% of EEF/WHG men would have still been having sons when Steppe arrived. Why would they stop? All Europeans are 50%+ non-Steppe, the admixture could not have been solely Steppe male and non-Steppe female.

Spain is a perfect example. Over 60% have R1b-P312, yet probably under 20% of their ancestry and under 50% of their ancestry is LNBA Central European. EEF/WHG continued to have sons. Maybe Steppe groups were dominate and larger in number, and had powerful elite who are the reason most Europeans today have Steppe Y DNA.

 

[moore2moore]

Now, let's get to your comments in this post. You say that the paper states that R1b expanded, and perhaps particularly in Ireland, because of LP. Please quote the precise language in the paper, or supplement, including page number, where the authors make such a statement. I'll save you the trouble; that's your statement, not theirs.

Let's now move on to your statement that the paper says that the Bronze Age R1b people migrated to Ireland in MASSIVE numbers of both sexes, by which I assume that you mean the sexes were equally represented, i.e. it was not a predominantly male migration.

Please quote the precise language, page number etc. where the authors make this claim. I'll once again save you some time. They don't. They don't provide estimates of the numbers at all. What they're saying is that the modern Irish basically descend almost totally from these people. That is not quite the same thing. They certainly don't give an estimate of the gender break down.

The phylogeny of this R1b clade in fact indicates that it was probably a small group that first arrived and the homogeneity of Irish R1b is because of a rapid expansion of a small group.


Oh, and thanks for the suggestion, but some of us have been reading Cavalli-Sforza for twenty-five years, and discussing his work for at least five years on this Board.

Now, now, there is no need for sarcasm. Many of us have read books for a long time, but sometime we require reminders about their contents. And I am unaware of any reason why posting longer on one particular board makes one more rational or special. *Unless of course one is R1b. (Ha!)

Actually the authors do state what I stated, but you need to use some logic. I don't say this to offend you; please assume the best and take this at face value. We are all adults here; we all understand that written words sometimes look more harsh than they should.

The authors state:

1. The autosomal genes of the previous Irish inhabitants did not survive until modern times in Ireland. They survived in places like Sardinia.

2. The new inhabitants had a huge population. We know this because we did Runs of Homozygosity.

3. The new inhabitants bore R1b patrilines.

4. Since the older matrilines and autosome did not survive, and since the new population was large, and since humans need men and women to have babies....

There is only one conclusion that is possible.

I have a demographic hypothetical for you, and I'm curious about your answer and Tomenable's.

There is a tribe on an island with 300 members. 100 are senior citizens, 100 are parents, and 100 are kids.

The next generation of kids (100) is split, as humans tend to be when young, at 50% males, 50% females.

The males come from 5 patrilines, the females, 5 matrilines.

MEN...DIE...YOUNGER....THAN...WOMEN. Men have higher mortality rates across their lives than women. It used to be war and hunting; now it is industrial accidents.

This is true in every society across the globe and has always been true.

Back to our tribe:

The 50 males go hunting one day, and a bear gets the best of 5 of them. 45 return.

Of the 45 males, 5 get drunk and brawl and later die from their injuries. 40 now live.

Then they get into a war with another tribe, and 10 die. Now there are 30 males of breeding population in the tribe, and 50 females.

Over time, this will give a FALSE APPEARANCE. Don't fall for it. It's simple demography.

Tomenable: is this evidence that women preferred certain male lines?

Angela: is this evidence that the initial settlers were all men, who had their way with multiple women?

Serious questions, yes or no.

 

[LeBrok]

2. The new inhabitants had a huge population. We know this because we did Runs of Homozygosity.

You see, your point is based on huge migration scenario, so yet you use a thought exercise based on a small tribe?

I have a demographic hypothetical for you, and I'm curious about your answer and Tomenable's.

There is a tribe on an island with 300 members. 100 are senior citizens, 100 are parents, and 100 are kids.

The next generation of kids (100) is split, as humans tend to be when young, at 50% males, 50% females.

The males come from 5 patrilines, the females, 5 matrilines.

MEN...DIE...YOUNGER....THAN...WOMEN. Men have higher mortality rates across their lives than women. It used to be war and hunting; now it is industrial accidents.

This is true in every society across the globe and has always been true.

Back to our tribe:

The 50 males go hunting one day, and a bear gets the best of 5 of them. 45 return.

Of the 45 males, 5 get drunk and brawl and later die from their injuries. 40 now live.

Then they get into a war with another tribe, and 10 die. Now there are 30 males of breeding population in the tribe, and 50 females.

Over time, this will give a FALSE APPEARANCE. Don't fall for it. It's simple demography.

Tomenable: is this evidence that women preferred certain male lines?

Angela: is this evidence that the initial settlers were all men, who had their way with multiple women?

Serious questions, yes or no.

I'd say, repeat your exercise on a scale of a big tribe of 30,000 people. You'll notice that things become more randomly even. When you lose 10,000 people, you would lose proportionally same amount of all haplogroups.
Now repeat the same exercise on small or big group, with a twist. Add extra male offspring for one of the haplogroups and run it for 100 generations, it is about 3,000 years. This is how small positive mutation works. We'll see what you'll get.

 

[DuPidh]

I gather you dont like the Irish.

I like Irish! I am a bit biased about Irish women, because of their drinking habits. But men are fabulous!
The only problem is some Irish tend to use the term wogs against Southern Europeans, which has I think displeasure connotation against middle eastern and southern europeans. Here we go Irish! The wogs taught you how to grow cabbage. They also brought the potato from Americas, since Irish like potatoes.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

1. The autosomal genes of the previous Irish inhabitants did not survive until modern times in Ireland.

That's one possibility. Another is the neolithic farmer population was relatively small and the new herder population swamped them.