New Study Shows MASSIVE Ancient BA Immigration Into Ireland

Moesan



Milk has very low iron so hemachromatosis mutations that retain iron may have been beneficial and selected for if the diet was heavily dependent on milk.


exactly what I red and ment: just to recall that selection is not straighforwards sometimes: balance between homozygoty and heterozygoty for some diseases. How explain so numerous letal genes survived so long times among diverse populations...
 


It's presence in North-West France can be from much later times, when Britons from Britain settled there (hence the name Bretagne).


Spite real and effective, the Brittons migration into Brittany (and at some lower level into North France) cannot explain by itself the XX°Century genetic situation of Brittany. Some of the links between Brittany and the Isles are older and the stream direction was the opposite at first. The Britton migration (in fact more than a settlement period) has only reinforced the similarities which are far from an identity.
 
you have a 4000 BC case of wheels simultenously in Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. just slightly later in Yamna. Also take in mind in the links provided by Angela th archeoligcal evidences show that even two wheeled wagons were known to some cultures prior to Sintashta. What if not farming/Herding cultures do connect 4000 BC Central Europe with the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Steppes?

To me it is an obvious thing it was invented somewhere between Mesopotamia, Kura Araxes, Maykop, Leyla Tepe and Yamna.
Why obvious? Did they find a wheel with inscription "This is the first wheel in the world"? ;) European finds are as old as from Near East, so who knows.

Is it too obvious to be true? Also wagons make completely sense in farming/herding societies. What kind of role would they play in other societies? Or are you implying that also wagons were invented by Easern Hunters and Gatherers? For what usage?
It makes a perfect sense for seasonal hunters who travel hundreds or thousands miles after migratory animals. In these setting a wagon is a house on wheels, perfect for grasslands of the Steppe. Having said that, hunters didn't have tools to carve nice big wheels from big logs, not mentioning the rest of a wagon. In some way copper and bronze tools were essential. Prerequisite to get to the wagon technology. Only copper age farmers could to this.
 
I beg your pardon concerning some of my posts very uneasy to read: it occurs (helas) for long posts I copy and paste since I've changed my Windows 7 into Windows 10. I 'll try to find a solution in future.
Please, don't think this is caused by too much drinking!!!
 
Alan,

Is it too obvious to be true? Also wagons make completely sense in farming/herding societies. What kind of role would they play in other societies?

Wagons make most sense in highly mobile societies of nomadic herders, because they allow them to transport more stuff with them. And of course a society which invented wagons had to have draught animals (such as horses or oxen) first, before wagons, unless we are talking about such types of wagons as: a small cart, a wheelbarrow, a mandrawn wagon, or a tipcart. The Mayas or the Incas apparently did not come up with an idea that wheels could be used for transportation, because they did not have draught animals (except for llamas and alpacas among the Incas - but these are more like pack animals, they are too small and weak to be draught animals).

LeBrok,

It makes a perfect sense for seasonal hunters who travel hundreds or thousands miles after migratory animals.

Not if they don't have draught animals. So domestication of horse (or another draught animal) had to happen first.
 
Alan,

you have a 4000 BC case of wheels simultenously in Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. just slightly later in Yamna. Also take in mind in the links provided by Angela th archeoligcal evidences show that even two wheeled wagons were known to some cultures prior to Sintashta.

OK two-wheeled wagons but what kind of such wagons? A "two-wheeled wagon" can be anything from this...

227552695_1_644x461_taczka-taczki-wozek-paszowy-290l-producent-lubartow.jpg


... to things much more sophisticated.

As for two-wheleed chariots used in battles (not as "civilian" carts), they appear for the first time in Sintashta.

And in Egypt they appear after the Hyksos invasion (during the 15th Dynasty).

The Hyksos were suspected of having an Indo-Iranian ruling class because of that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Hyksos#Hurrians_or_Indo-Europeans

Contemporary with the Hyksos, there was a widespread Indo-Aryan expansion in central and south Asia. The Hyksos used the same horsedrawn chariot as the Indo-Aryans, and Egyptian sources mention a rapid conquest. The German Egyptologist Wolfgang Helck once argued that the Hyksos were part of massive Hurrian and Indo-Aryan migrations into the Near East.

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

The Hyksos brought several technical improvements to Egypt, as well as cultural infusions such as new musical instruments and foreign loan words.[20] The changes introduced include new techniques of bronze working and pottery, new breeds of animals, and new crops.[20] In warfare, they introduced the horse and chariot,[21] the composite bow, improved battle axes, and advanced fortification techniques.[20] Because of these cultural advances, Hyksos rule was decisive for Egypt’s later empire in the Middle East.[20]

But in reality they could obtain chariots from Indo-Iranians as a cultural exchange.

Europe did not need a Muslim or Mongol ruling class to obtain gunpowder from them.
 
The sample of R1 haplogroup (most likely basal R1* ???) from Baalberge / TRB is:

Germany, Quedlinburg IX [I0559 / QLB 15], date 3645-3537 BC, Y-DNA - R1 (xR1b1a2, xR1a1a).

Sources (according to Jean Manco's Ancestral Journeys):

Brandt 2013; Haak 2015; Mathieson 2015; Additional info on Y-DNA from Vince Tilroe


My post is not a contradiction. I just remark that in some admixtures and PCAs the few Baalberge culture people we have are very very EEF or mediterranean shifted, with apparently no DNA from Steppes or East Asia; curiously so called Funnelbeaker people (from where? Sweden? I don't know) show less EEF or 'mediterranean', more WHG, and some 'westasian' and something which East the Caspian absent in the Baalberge people (Quedinburg and others). THis is surprising if Baalburge ha a steppic heritage. so if some Kurgan cultural markers exist, it could be by acculturation. We have still to explain the Y-R1... it's true 3 persons is very few, knowing the extreme heterogeneity of Chalco and Bronze elites but if R1 is from far East, withtout any central Steppes in auDNA???.
 
Now seriously There is absolutely nothing that speaks for Bell Beaker R1b being descend of Corded Ware. I rather thing we are dealing here with two seperate waves of herding groups.

That's it; Bell Beaker is seen as culturaly introgressive in Germany (unrelated to Corded Ware culture), and looking at Y-DNA also intrussive at genetic level (where R1b BB settled was previously R1a and after BB passed came to be again R1a). Even more, BB in Germany arrive at the same century that BB in England and Ireland; but the whorst is that even if BB would be IE, why they got no R1a "brothers" with them? I can't say that BB / R1b is not IE, but at least it can't be so simple as this is against logic; now it ressembles like the theory of IE from neolithic Anatolia (it has sense but is against pre-IE languages and cultural traits).

As BB was formed in Portugal i think it must be checked there the source for R1b. The alterntive would be the Hungarian melting pot.
 
to Berun
BBs seem having been very disticnt from CWC at first. but what is BB ??? the BBs culture in germany seem arrived from Danube/Rhine region, centered around Worms on Rhine. they merged a little after around southern North-Sax Herz Thuringen region rich for metals ores. the Isles BBs were a mixed population where surely some CWC men of Thuringen and "aborigenes" were involved; old anthropology suggests the Corded people were a minority (some specific Y-R1a in Britain?), autochtones a good minority and BBs ('dirnaric or 'taurid' types the majority. the porosity of some aspects of culture can be seen in the new decoration of BBs where are found corded decoration. The today types in the Isles exclude the BBs would have been the last settlers there.
and the far origin of BBs is still unknown: all the way I'm looking to East, not South-West. the supposed first BBs were not in Souternh but in Northern Portugal. and a handful of males, certainly. I suppose this variant of pottery and artefacts kit were adopted by other Chalcolithic populations more numerous in a commercial (and maybe religious) networks wehre metallurgists skills were preponderant. If at first there has been a BB human type or types, I think it has been diluted after some centuries.
I need Y-haplos of Chalcolithic Romania and surroundings and more detailed subclade for mt-H there and all around. As you I think Hungary-N-Croatia crosings region could have been a stage in the BB creation and propagation. The real rückström for BBs could have been SW to E rather than the contrary, finally.
more than a road: the Beakers (Food Vessels/Cremation) of Ireland seemingly were not passed through the Rhine/S-England ; Scotland had the two sorts, all that roughly said because I'm not archeologist and rely upon compilations.
concerning R1a/R1b, I think the low number of some groups favorized the lost of the rarest SNps and Haplos; I believe the southernmost newcomers in Europe at Metals Ages were rather R1b, whatever they came from South Pont or Anatolia (no proof for me). the northernmost more R1a. No mystery then, if right.

to Angela: I think the pigmentation research in ancient DNA relies often upon too less loci to be true Bible story. We discussed this in other threads. All the way the today irish population shows about 40% true light eyes, against 75-78% among Scandinavians or 65% among Dutch.
 
Alan,



Wagons make most sense in highly mobile societies of nomadic herders, because they allow them to transport more stuff with them. And of course a society which invented wagons had to have draught animals (such as horses or oxen) first, before wagons, unless we are talking about such types of wagons as: a small cart, a wheelbarrow, a mandrawn wagon, or a tipcart. The Mayas or the Incas apparently did not come up with an idea that wheels could be used for transportation, because they did not have draught animals (except for llamas and alpacas among the Incas - but these are more like pack animals, they are too small and weak to be draught animals).

LeBrok,



Not if they don't have draught animals. So domestication of horse (or another draught animal) had to happen first.

I'm not following the logic here. The steppe people got their domesticated cattle and oxen from the farming cultures, so that takes care of the draught animals. I don't believe I mentioned anything about horses.

Nothing also changes the fact that we find actual solid wooden wheels along with axles all over Neolithic Europe including as far as Switzerland and even west of that by 3500 BC, and some in Maykop from around that time. The ones actually on the steppe are younger.

Many experts who've examined all the evidence say it's almost impossible to determine where the wheel and wheeled cart were invented, so I'll go with that. If you are totally convinced it must have been the steppe, that's your prerogative, of course.

This is one scholar who seems to favor Europe and particularly Cucuteni-Tripoliye:
https://books.google.com/books?id=2...v=snippet&q=wheel in Neolithic Europe&f=false

As to spoked wheels on carts or primitive chariots, I do personally think the evidence for Sintashta is pretty strong.

@Moesan,

My point was that in the case of these samples they are heterozygous for HERC2 and the associated gene. Modern people who are heterozygous virtually never have blue eyes, and don't often have light eyes, which is why they predicted brown eyes for the sample with the most complete genome.

I also said this is only three samples, so others might have been homozygous for these alleles.

That's it.

As to the rest, I know you're not a fan of the predictors. :) I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree; I've worked with them professionally and I think they're very useful. They don't work perfectly, true, particularly for hair color or fine gradations of skin color, but it's certainly better, in my opinion, than the guesses of 19th century physical anthropologists or modern distributions, which is obviously why population geneticists use them.

As to the percentages you give for Irish eye color frequencies versus other groups they look low, but as it's not one of my areas of interest and I've never researched it, I'll take your word for it.

Ed. Oh, here's one of the drawings of a cart like object with an axle of some sort. It's dated to 3500 BC, as I said.

94f65b9b77f90f6cf4261703feeee83a.jpg
 
Is this for some reason personal with you, a grudge match going back not 2,000 years to the Romans vs Celts this time, but 5,000 years to the farmers versus the steppe people? It's a question of sides, and you've taken the side of your Yamnaya ancestors versus your farmer ancestors? :)

The studies and evidence of which I'm aware, including David Anthony, indicate that farming was a minor part of the culture of the steppe peoples, present initially only in some isolated river valleys west of the Don. In fact, that's one of the "clouds" on the entire "Indo-European" from the Pontic steppe theory, as James Mallory pointed out. (Coincidentally, he's a contributing author to this study.) What they knew of it they learned from farming people. That's also how they got their domesticated animals and learned how to herd them.
http://jolr.ru/files/(112)jlr2013-9(145-154).pdf

As for plows, they were already in use in European Neolithic farming cultures in Passy around Paris at least by 4500 BC, pulled by oxen, and, some scholars have speculated, perhaps even by horses.
http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/neolithic/

We discussed it here:
http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/neolithic

See also:
http://www.academia.edu/12994132/Di...Intensification_of_Metallurgy_in_Central_Euro

So, if farmers all over Europe had ploughs and draft animals long before Yamnaya or Corded Ware, then how precisely could the IEs possession of them have been an advantage the IEs had over people who had them first? I don't mean to be provocative, but I don't understand that.

As for wheels, this is still pretty much the consensus view among archaeologists so far as I know:

"Evidence of wheeled vehicles appears from the second half of the 4th millennium BC, near-simultaneously in Mesopotamia (Sumerian civilization), the Northern Caucasus (Maykop culture) and Central Europe, so that the question of which culture originally invented the wheeled vehicle is still unsolved."

I don't see steppe groups mentioned anywhere there. I know a lot of peope are R1b aficionados, so if Maykop turns out to be R1b, although perhaps heavily CHG, you guys will be able to claim it, along perhaps with Bronze. :)

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

Wheeled carts, so far as I remember, first appeared in the TRB culture.

As to this matter of the dairy cows and how much milk they produced, that's very interesting. Could you point me to the papers you're using for the fact that the cows on the steppe produced more milk than the ones in Vinca or CT? I'd love to see that.

I'm really not going to bother sourcing material about violence among Neolithic groups vs violence among steppe groups. I'm sure we've all been there, read that. All human groups were violent if resources were scarce. The steppe people were no slouches in this regard, or are you not one of the "we he men killed all the inferior haplogroup men and impregnated all their women brigrade?" Regardless, from their remains the newcomers were pretty battle scarred by the time they got to the rest of Europe.

very little is known about the origin of plows, draught animals, the wheel, domestication of cattle or horse, ..
20 years ago all of this would have been attributed to Mesopotamia
that is why I didn't make any statements, I hope you noticed the question marks
and I was replying a post re EN (early neolithic) that is why I asked whether LBK knew plows

maybe the Cerny people knew the plow and draugth animals, it is hard to tell from just one artefact
it makes sense though, as it would have been helpfull to make their monumental constructions

but these were not the early neolithics
and read my post, I claim Vinca and CT had more productive cows than EN
without any proof for my claim as I go against DuPidh claims who doesn't proof anything either
as you probably know, David Anthony claims early IE got their cows from Vinca & CT, so they were the same

and indeed, I've had it with these stories of violent IE and peacefull farmers
farmers were peacefull as long as there was abundance in their own village
but they produced many children and there was only place for the first borns, the others had to conquer some estate elsewhere
the problem was those people couldn't organise themselves in big numbers, many may have joined the army of some other groups

the origin of the Cerny people is unclear
they develop contemporary with the Chasséen which spread all over France starting some 4500 BC, and it doesn't look like these were peacefull people
it is a stratified society with villages with defensive enclosures

there are so many questions remaining
if everybody is making so many asumptions I'm allowed to make some too in order to tell some alternative story
there are plenty of indications of neolithic violence

and the worst, they were the so-called 'civilisations', that is when large-scale organised violence realy got started

so stop insinuating are you not one of the "we he men killed all the inferior haplogroup men and impregnated all their women brigrade?"
I know it happened, and it happened all the time and everywhere
 
Good point. This is another prerequisite for a wagon. I guess the only society who was ready for wagons were farmers, who could make them and use bulls to pull them. Horses were too small back then to be considered draught animals, though not impossible for smaller wagons, or connected in pairs or tandem.

yes the time was ripe, but the invention itself and the technological knowhow should not be underestimated
 
MOESAN, the eastern origin of BB is your guess. Also you are guessing about R1a/R1b proportions in germany. I prefer to rely in archaeology and the most old BB is in central portugal.

But after archaeology there is logic thinking:

- R1b is found at 2000 BCE in ireland
- the previous cultural changes that could provide such haplo is neolithic megalithism at 3800 BCE or BB at 2400 BCE. As megalithism is not IE the unique way left to IE R1b is BB
- isles' L21 is found also in 2000 BCE
- if irish BB came through ingland the bottleneck or apparition of such haplo was in 3-4 generations as BB appears a century before in england.... too short time. And the most old BB was in portugal... unlikely to be then IE

Of course there is the option that BB was got by IE in rhine area abd from there went to germany and ireland... but it s necessary prove it.
 
That's it; Bell Beaker is seen as culturaly introgressive in Germany (unrelated to Corded Ware culture), and looking at Y-DNA also intrussive at genetic level (where R1b BB settled was previously R1a and after BB passed came to be again R1a). Even more, BB in Germany arrive at the same century that BB in England and Ireland; but the whorst is that even if BB would be IE, why they got no R1a "brothers" with them? I can't say that BB / R1b is not IE, but at least it can't be so simple as this is against logic; now it ressembles like the theory of IE from neolithic Anatolia (it has sense but is against pre-IE languages and cultural traits).

As BB was formed in Portugal i think it must be checked there the source for R1b. The alterntive would be the Hungarian melting pot.

It seems that Bell Beakers were one culture, but two ethnicities - something from user rms2 of Anthrogenica:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...insular-Atlant&p=131146&viewfull=1#post131146

rms2 said:
I never said the Beaker cup was all there was to the culture.

I was talking about the differences between the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker and later Bell Beaker, especially Central European Bell Beaker.

Here are some of the differences again.

1. The very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker people were short-statured, long-headed (dolichocephalic), gracile Mediterraneans, which is the default physical type for Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers.

2. Central European and later Bell Beaker people, especially the males, were tall, robust, and round-headed (brachycephalic).

3. The earliest Iberian Bell Beaker people buried their dead in the old collective Neolithic tombs, like Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers, without the warrior kit of weapons, horse bones, etc.

4. Central European and later Bell Beaker people buried their important dead singly in pits under a round tumulus accompanied by a warrior kit of weapons, horse sacrifices, etc.

5. The very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker is found in or near substantial settlements.

6. Central European and later Bell Beaker settlements are far less substantial and in fact are difficult to find, apparently because the people were mobile, horse-riding pastoralists and not sedentary farmers.

I think these and other differences make it evident that we are talking about different sets of people, despite the common cup.

I do not think the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker people were buried with archery equipment or wristguards. When did including weapons in Beaker burials begin in Iberia?


This is why it is important to have a clear Bell Beaker chronology, because the first Bell Beaker (if it really was the first) in Iberia apparently really was quite different from the fully developed Bell Beaker culture.
 
By the way, those Bronze Age Rathlin Island individuals were real giants (for their times):

They were 5,11 and 6,1 and 6,2 tall (that's like 180.34 cm, 185.42 cm and 187.96 cm).

That was GIGANTIC height for the standards of that time period in Europe (or anywhere).

They would be well above average even today, even in Northern Europe or in Dinaric Alps.

The 6,2 tall guy was as tall as me without all the advantages of modern diet and medicine.

Weren't Neolithic men real "dwarfs" compared to them (something like 160 cm on average)?
 
Nobody can't deny that BB adopted local fashions in central europe. But the question is genetic, if locals adopted BB culture or BB mixed with locals. And what would be paramount: if BB lost their original language for local IE. Too many problems set: language change, genetic change, subclades appearing just when appearing BB, portuguese origin of BB, etc
 
By the way, those Bronze Age Rathlin Island individuals were real giants (for their times):

They were 5,11 and 6,1 and 6,2 tall (that's like 180.34 cm, 185.42 cm and 187.96 cm).

That was GIGANTIC height for the standards of that time period in Europe (or anywhere).

They would be well above average even today, even in Northern Europe or in Dinaric Alps.

The 6,2 tall guy was as tall as me without all the advantages of modern diet and medicine.

Weren't Neolithic men real "dwarfs" compared to them (something like 160 cm on average)?

Actually the erliest Neolithic immigrants from Anatolia are said by archeolgistsand anthropologist to have been Robust dolichocephalic and quite long in statue. However there are signs of "gracilization" by statue in Europe afterwards. Even todays Sardinians are said to have gone through this trend.
 
Nobody can't deny that BB adopted local fashions in central europe. But the question is genetic, if locals adopted BB culture or BB mixed with locals. And what would be paramount: if BB lost their original language for local IE. Too many problems set: language change, genetic change, subclades appearing just when appearing BB, portuguese origin of BB, etc


There is definitely this, I see these Bronze Age herders as some kind of immigrants who assimilated and integrated very fast into the local cultures by adding some of their culture to it. This is the case in virtually 90% of cases for Indo Europeans. I kinda doubt that they could have imposed their language on most of the local cultures. I rather see them taking on the local speech but enriching the tongue with some of their own words. This is why I think what we call "Indo European" is basically a hybrid of languages enriched by speech of Bronze Age herders who immigrated around the globe.

This is why I don't think we are dealing with one "PIE culture" but rather with a network of related herding/farming and fishing cultures all around the Black and Caspian see, be it South, North, West or East of it.

This is why I assume Yamna is just one of the Indo European cultures. The other are probably Maykop, Kura Araxes, Cucuteni-Tripolye, Leyla Tepe and so on.
 
By the way, those Bronze Age Rathlin Island individuals were real giants (for their times):

They were 5,11 and 6,1 and 6,2 tall (that's like 180.34 cm, 185.42 cm and 187.96 cm).

That was GIGANTIC height for the standards of that time period in Europe (or anywhere).

They would be well above average even today, even in Northern Europe or in Dinaric Alps.

The 6,2 tall guy was as tall as me without all the advantages of modern diet and medicine.

Weren't Neolithic men real "dwarfs" compared to them (something like 160 cm on average)?


Goodness, are you calling your WHG ancestors dwarves?! What a very pejorative term to use for the ancestors who represent such a large part of your genome.

WHG/Loschbour was 1.6 or 5’3. “Robust” means bone size, not height.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/02/mesolithic-mtdna-haplogroup-u5a-from.html


Oetzi was 1.65 or 5’4.

(The Anatolian farmers were actually taller on average than the farmers in Europe, I think. The authors of Mathiesen et al seem to think that there was actually selection going on for a decrease in height in Neolithic Spain, at least. Might it also have been admixture with the shorter WHG?)


Steppe Yamnaya people were 1.75 so 5’7

“As per Haak et al as quoted by Dienekes...
"The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race. It was tall (175.5cm), dolichocephalic, with broad faces of medium height. Among them there were, however, more robust elements with high and wide faces of the proto-Europoid type, and also more gracile individuals with narrow and high faces, probably reflecting contacts with the East Mediterranean type (Kurts 1984: 90)."

So, that begs the question: where did the people who were the subject of this paper get their extreme height? Is it some previously unmeasured population? Does anyone have figures for SHG or EHG? Or was it the effect of the adoption of the dairy eating culture of Central Europe on the steppe genes? Interesting.

I would just note that we’re supposed to be approaching all these issues from a scientific perspective. There's no absolute value in being taller or having massive body and facial bones. It all boils down to adaptation to environment. It's been a long time since I took physical anthropology, but I thought it was pretty accepted that broad, bony faces and thickset, stocky bodies were better for cold climates. If you're living in a warmer climate, less fat is better, so are lighter bones.
We discussed this extensively on this thread:


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...70&highlight=height+Yamnaya+people#post469270
 
MOESAN, the eastern origin of BB is your guess. Also you are guessing about R1a/R1b proportions in germany. I prefer to rely in archaeology and the most old BB is in central portugal.

But after archaeology there is logic thinking:

- R1b is found at 2000 BCE in ireland
- the previous cultural changes that could provide such haplo is neolithic megalithism at 3800 BCE or BB at 2400 BCE. As megalithism is not IE the unique way left to IE R1b is BB
- isles' L21 is found also in 2000 BCE
- if irish BB came through ingland the bottleneck or apparition of such haplo was in 3-4 generations as BB appears a century before in england.... too short time. And the most old BB was in portugal... unlikely to be then IE

Of course there is the option that BB was got by IE in rhine area abd from there went to germany and ireland... but it s necessary prove it.

I was guessing as you are doing, none of us has a proof at this date. But we have NO element in BB kit propagation which ressembles a steady and important DEMIC colonization directly from S-W: it went too quickly, and to spotty at first; changes occurred later in Central Europe, but they are uneasy to analyse. But we have Rhine where were found new physical types about the 2200 BC and even before and we have strontium and artefacts and anthropology to prove the Isles BBs and subsequent Wessex came from the Netherlands- and Germany through Rhine mouth. You have the Food Vessel of Ireland who had often new types too, and some scholars thought they came from Iberia (your guess?). The question is we have almost NO R1b-L21 in Iberia, the most of it is in the Isles, Brittany-Normandy
and South-West Norway plus some places between these places; even in other region of France and in Romace Switzerland there are more R-L21 than in Iberia.
I have some facts to support my guesses which are no more than guesses for now. My guesses are not religion and I wait more facts as you I suppose.
I repeat I'm not sure BBs remained too long time the original ethnic group having introduced the first types of this beaker sort.
are we sure of the accuracy of dates? I don't say these first Bronze or Chalco Irishmen were true BBs. I believe they were a post BBs development of Central North or North West continental Europe, but in debt to BBs culturally speaking. More than a culture followed BBs into the Isles even if they surely had some unprecise links with BBs. The isolation saga of some British scholars is dying, I suppose.
&: bottleneck did you say? I'm not aware of this even if I think there is someone at some level. But R-L21/S145 was present in England and Scotland at high levels, before R-U156 (Belgae? N-E Gauls? and R-U106 came to England in big groups without erase L21 too much.
 

This thread has been viewed 114980 times.

Back
Top