New Study Shows MASSIVE Ancient BA Immigration Into Ireland

[LeBrok]

But what Y-DNA did those MN samples have ???

Because if they didn't have R1b, then it means almost total replacement of Y-DNA.

This implies that MN autosomal was from local females.

Kind of devastating for those poor MN men anyway.

Can thier Mt DNA tell us where their mothers were from?

 

[LeBrok]

So they picked up 70% of Non-Steppe ancestry, but just 2% of Non-Steppe Y-DNA (assuming that originally Irish were 98% R1b):

From "Where the Irish pure R1b before the Viking and British invasions?" thread by Maciamo:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...e-R1b-before-the-Viking-and-British-invasions



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?

R1b is like a virus. It will find the way to live and multiply. lol Could be the same explanation as for lack and disappearance of G2a even though we still carry 40-80% of EEF. Y chromosome has it's own funny ways, evolution and selection.
Who knows, perhaps they went through some bottlenecking on their way. This could explain prevalence of L-21 over other and older R1b.

 

[Angela]

Yes, correct.

Question is: Where did they manage to loose the other 55% between Russia and Germany ???

And also Western Corded Ware was 75% Yamnaya, while Eastern Bell Beaker (their immediate neighbours) just 45%.

So this is strange, either Beaker got admixed by Corded, or both groups travelled independently.

Wait, if they started out as sort of Corded Ware like (75% Yamnaya like), they "lost" 30 points to get to 45% (which is the Eastern Bell Beaker/Unetice level), correct? Then they lose more on the trip into Ireland. That could happen if instead of going up into northern relatively unpopulated areas they went through the more populous central zones.

If they started out as Yamnaya like, you're right, they lost 55 points. It could be explained if they traveled from the southwestern Ukraine and then into the southern Balkans, then maybe via a Danube route, or perhaps the L51+ group had been mingling for a while with CT? Anyway, they got to central Europe by a different route, in that case, as you say.

I don't know which way it happened. Interesting, right?

"But what Y-DNA did those MN samples have ???

Because if they didn't have R1b, then it means almost total replacement of Y-DNA.

This implies that MN autosomal was from local females.

Kind of devastating for those poor MN men anyway."

Well, if the authors of the paper are correct, their MN wasn't from the Irish MN people. I'm assuming, since we have Megalithic yDna that was I2 on the route that these people had taken, that they probably carried a lot of I2. Somebody call Sparkey!

Anyway, the larger question remains. Ydna G2 is pretty low in central Europe. I2 does better but is it the original subclades we can attribute to the MN farmers, or is it I2 that remained hunter-gatherer in the east, got swept up by the Indo-Europeans, and thus got swept west?

 

[Alan]

According to this article, the incoming Bronze Age immigrants had 1/3 of their ancestry from the Steppes. Doesn't sound like CW. Sounds more like a distinct herder/farmer group. Maybe Bell Beakers? The percentages do fit somehow. So at the end of the day Central European Bell Beakers were indeed Indo Europeans?


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-env...social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

 

[moore2moore]

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?

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.

 

[Sile]

What were we saying about R1b sex fantasies again?

I think he was saying that they where mostly gay, thats why the population of ireland is so low. 98% R1b is dancing with the fairies time.

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 died out.

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

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, LP people to pick up non-Steppe genomes on the way to Ireland. As I have said several, several, several (and several) times before.

Weren't we just debating a couple days ago that R1b might be tied to LP?

Ireland is an island. So is Sardinia. To have these R1b theories, you have to believe 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 illogical.

Are we saying a certain calculated % of steppe drops off as people move or drops off over time.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I'm sure you noted the pigmentation data in the supplement. Will you be adding it to your spreadsheets? Interesting that one didn't have the Herc2 derived snp at all (brown-eyed) and the rest were all heterozygous, right? So, some selection went on in subsequent years, but based on what?

That's possible but unlikely. I don't think there were big changes after LNBA.

Oh, another point, wouldn't it be quite a coincidence that these MN people whom the authors claim probably didn't contribute much to the modern Irish just so happened to also be heterozygous for the hemochromatosis risk allele?

Lots of people outside of Ireland have those alleles. But they're rare, so it is weird. Maybe DNA can't decipher ancestry percentages well. They can only work with 500,000 SNPs or so. 99.99% of every human's DNA is identical. There might not be enough differences to decipher ancestry in clean cut percentages.

 

[Alan]

Yes, correct.

Question is: Where did they manage to loose the other 55% between Russia and Germany ???

And also Western Corded Ware was 75% Yamnaya, while Eastern Bell Beaker (their immediate neighbours) just 45%.

So this is strange, either Beaker got admixed by Corded, or both groups travelled independently.

This. Actually I don't know of any scientists who claims Bell Beaker descend of CW. In fact there was quite some clashes between CW and Bell Beaker as far as I remember. Also the yDNA is quite different in both.

 

[moore2moore]

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.

 

[Fire Haired14]

If what happened is that *all* R1b/a had many more sons then we'd have a diverse array of R1b/a, but we don't. I think it's a mixture of that and people with Steppe lineages being royalty. I1 looks like a native lineage which became a royal lineage. It doesn't mean EEF/WHG I1 had more sons, it means a single I1 lineage became royal.

Most R1a/b and I1 expansion occuered in 2000 BC or earlier. So, yes most Euro Y DNA traces back to a handful of fathers who lived in circa 3000 BC. But there's going to be a lot of diversity in R1b/a and I1 that happened after 2000 BC. The majority of men have sons, there's no way G2a, I2a, (other R1a/b), etc. just stopped having sons. And after 2000 BC, everyone who isn't apart of a royal lineage or whatever isn't going to stop having sons and creating diversity in Y DNA.

 

[Tomenable]

In total the study has 3 samples of Y-DNA, all 3 from Glebe, Rathlin Island:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/St.+Thomas...15a20f363075f55

Rathlin1 - 2026-1885 years BC, Early Bronze Age, haplogroup R1b1a2a1a2c1g (= R-DF21/S192)

Rathlin2 - 2024-1741 years BC, Early Bronze Age, haplogroup R1b1a2a1a2c1 (= R-DF13/S521/CTS241)

Rathlin3 - 1736-1534 years BC, Early Bronze Age, haplogroup R1b1a2a1a2c (= R-L21/M529/S145)

 

[Angela]

That's possible but unlikely. I don't think there were big changes after LNBA.



Lots of people outside of Ireland have those alleles. But they're rare, so it is weird. Maybe DNA can't decipher ancestry percentages well. They can only work with 500,000 SNPs or so. 99.99% of every human's DNA is identical. There might not be enough differences to decipher ancestry in clean cut percentages.

Fire-Haired, do you know the percentage of blue eyes in Ireland? You need to be homozygous for the derived allele.

These people were still heterozygous, i.e. brown-eyed.

 

[Alan]

So they picked up 70% of Non-Steppe ancestry, but just 2% of Non-Steppe Y-DNA (assuming that originally Irish were 98% R1b):

From "Where the Irish pure R1b before the Viking and British invasions?" thread by Maciamo:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...e-R1b-before-the-Viking-and-British-invasions



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?

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.

It's rather like Lebrok and Angela say, those proto Cells probably came from a region which was already EF rich. Maybe somewhere around CT??

 

[moore2moore]

If what happened is that *all* R1b/a had many more sons then we'd have a diverse array of R1b/a, but we don't. I think it's a mixture of that and people with Steppe lineages being royalty. I1 looks like a native lineage which became a royal lineage. It doesn't mean EEF/WHG I1 had more sons, it means a single I1 lineage became royal.

Most R1a/b and I1 expansion occuered in 2000 BC or earlier. So, yes most Euro Y DNA traces back to a handful of fathers who lived in circa 3000 BC. But there's going to be a lot of diversity in R1b/a and I1 that happened after 2000 BC. The majority of men have sons, there's no way G2a, I2a, (other R1a/b), etc. just stopped having sons. And after 2000 BC, everyone who isn't apart of a royal lineage or whatever isn't going to stop having sons and creating diversity in Y DNA.

Hmmm. You lost me there. I don't understand what you mean by "became royal." Could you model it out for us?

Let's say Ireland had 5,000 hunter gatherers (or none) (C1). Then it had 10,000 farmers (G2 and I2). Then 100,000 herders moved in (R1b). Explain to me how the royalty stopped the other 95,000 from having kids.

Can you please provide some examples from recorded history around the world where "royalty" had enough kids to populate an entire nation? Did they sterilize or just kill the commoners? Who fought the wars for the royalty? Why didn't people rebel?

Unless I am mistaken, the biggest example cited in scientific journals is the raping and pillaging of Genghis Khan, which resulted in up to 10% of males in some provinces of Pakistan to be descended from him. But it sounds like you are saying that there are modern countries where 80-90% of the men descend directly from royalty.

Surely I must misunderstand you. Help me understand.

 

[moore2moore]

Cavalli Sforza wrote chapters in his seminal books, on how important it in in genetics, to understand the difference between expansions and what he called "impansions."

He wrote more on understanding the power of randomness and drift when we are talking about billions of people on the earth. Most genetic textbooks have examples based on the surname convergence on Tristan da Cunha, etc.

Strongly suggest reading these.

 

[Alan]

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.

Don't bother, it is not a R1b fantasy alone, I and many other commentators have tried to explain David how absurd his male "dominance " theories are. And all he repeated was the same nonsense over and over again without even reading or trying to disprove the arguments brought against him. It might make some people feel more "manly" because they share the same Haplogroup. I actually would feel uncomfortable to be considered the "product" of a "rape movement". But some people seem to be completely fine with it.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Hmmm. You lost me there. I don't understand what you mean by "became royal." Could you model it out for us?

I1 is native EEF/WHG. It isn't from the Steppe. Yet, it expanded around 2000 BC with R1b/a. So, a simple way to put it is a lucky native EEF/WHG dude became a king in a IE tribe who just arrived. His sons had lots power and many sons. Eventually lots of people have Y DNA I1. It isn't because in Scandinavia EEF men killed Steppe men.

Let's say Ireland had 5,000 hunter gatherers (or none) (C1). Then it had 10,000 farmers (G2 and I2). Then 100,000 herders moved in (R1b). Explain to me how the royalty stopped the other 95,000 from having kids.

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.

In India we see the same pattern as in Europe. They don't just have a lot of R1a-Z93, they belong to a specific subclade of Z93. What happened to the other Z93 men? It's possible there's a tradition of having powerful elites for IEs. And this is why 100% of Sintashta had R1a-Z93. 100% of Yamnaya had R1a-Z2103, 100% of COrded ware had R1a-M417, 100% of East bell beaker had R1b-P312, etc. The expansions of R1a-Z93, R1b-Z2013, etc. aren't just because they killed native men it is also because they killed each other.

Can you please provide some examples from recorded history around the world where "royalty" had enough kids to populate an entire nation? Did they sterilize or just kill the commoners? Who fought the wars for the royalty? Why didn't people rebel?

It's a gradual process.

 

[moore2moore]

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.

 

[Alan]

Edit: seems someone was faster than I.

 

[Fire Haired14]

It might make some people feel more "manly" because they share the same Haplogroup. I actually would feel ashamed to be considered the "product" of a "rape movement". But some people seem to be completely fine with it.

I do to. I'm not actually ashamed but I'm not proud evil is what caused me to have a certain Y DNA. Probably more so for me, because mine is Df27 from Spain, in that case it was probably more so IE-elite than population-replacement like in Ireland. I have little connection with the first DF27 men. And no one is 50%+ Steppe. Everyone comes more so from the natives. R1b-L21 replaced other P312, R1a-Z282 replaced other M417, etc. Most people with Y DNA that expanded in the Bronze age have little connection with the first people who had it.