Ancient genomes indicate population replacement in Early Neolithic Britain

Always the same :
supporters of « totalitarist » thesis : black or white.
- Were the first BB’s the same as the northern Rhinan BB’s come in the Isles ?
Not by force, but we can be sure that BB’s pots appeared in Britain along with new people, proved photypically and genetically -
- Is the « BB’s genetic signature » supposed to be still dominant in Britain the result of ONLY the first well identified BB’s incursions ?
I ‘m not sure : I suppose that other people with a rather close auDNA and Y haplo’s, the Celts of more than a wave, colonized (rather than « invaded ») the Isles at IA, even possibly before at BA - or in this very case, N-W IE speaking pops very close to later Celts - just with a bit more Western Neolithic auDNA, picked on their way to Britain and not by force a result of ancient Britain Neolithic people, spite I’m almost sure some pre-BB’s Britain Neolithic auDNA has been passed too. ATW the difference between all these Neolithic (+litlle WHG) inputs were tiny, making it difficult to distinguish acutely between them.
So, no complete disparition of ancient Britain Neolithic people (they were discarded for a lot of them and pushed in harsh lands, otherwise surely a lot of their females taken by BB’s males), and no reduction of today British people to a BB’s story without important other moves.
What I see is that bias is still common enough among scientists in Human Sciences, spite they are less visible and less strong than among certain persons of the fora and blog community...
It seems that the old « pots, no men » theory has still its supporters !


* We could suppose that the first I-E speakers waves contained less West-Neolithic auDNA than the subsequent ones.


I don’t know if Davidski has made PCA or other things about his diverse BB’s and his supposed Celts or Celts proxi’s ??? It could say us something, could it not ? Or I forgot.

the first BB arrived ca 4,5 ka
we know of later IA Hallstatt and Belgian Gauls also entered the British Isles
but the Y-DNA of the first arrivals ca 4.5 ka has been identified as R1b-L21 which was just born at that time
and the Irish still have 80 % of this same R1b-L21
for Hallstatt and Gauls, we'd rather expect R1b-U152
 
the first BB arrived ca 4,5 ka
we know of later IA Hallstatt and Belgian Gauls also entered the British Isles
but the Y-DNA of the first arrivals ca 4.5 ka has been identified as R1b-L21 which was just born at that time
and the Irish still have 80 % of this same R1b-L21
for Hallstatt and Gauls, we'd rather expect R1b-U152

I don't disagree.
BB's on the continent had already Y-R1b-U152 if I don't mistake. We can be almost sure that R1b-L21, BB's themselves and surely close enough cousins (on the male lineages), had kept their claws on the N-W Gaul. All of them have formed kind of a continuum since BB(s ages, I think. The Celtic language is IMO a local (E-France, Alps) evolution (specialisation) of a W-IE language already present at BA and even already among northern BB's. Celts had the strong side at some time and their new version of language was passed to precedent people of same stock for a big part.
I imagnine Celtization of the Isles was for a part an acculturation, plus partial colonisation, both processes intermingled in diverse proportions according to places. but R1b L21 is to be studied in depth because I think lot of NW FRance (even in Brittany for a part) L21 are not come from the Isles but are the remnant of the L21 stayed on the continent.
some tribes names of Ireland seem Gauls or Belgae names, or at least Brittonic and not Gaelic names.
 

This thread has been viewed 24009 times.

Back
Top