New Paper on Consanguinity in the Middle East and its effects

[Tomenable]

Angela,

The statutes passed by the Anglo-Saxons against the Britons, and intermarriage with the Britons, and those of the Langobardi in Italy, could have come from some Jim Crow legislation from the American south. Horrific.

Hinxton samples were an exception. Oakington samples showed evidence of mixing between Anglo-Saxons and Britons.

And remember that modern English people are no more than ca. 30% Anglo-Saxon, the rest of their ancestry is Celtic:

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

 

[Tomenable]

Do you know off hand the cultural affiliation of those RISE samples which were much more inbred?

RISE601 - Iron Age Altai region
RISE509 - Afanasievo culture
RISE548 - Yamnaya culture
RISE503 - Andronovo culture

 

[Angela]

The statutes speak for themselves. Look them up. The Britons were treated like a lower form of life. That isn't incompatible with the invading men taking concubines or raping, for that matter, the local women.

All geneticists see is the end product of the "gene flow". It doesn't come with a tag labeling it as "rape", concubine, etc.

 

[Tomenable]

The statutes speak for themselves.

Which ones? I only remember that in statutes of the Kingdom of Wessex fine for committing a crime against a Saxon was higher than fine for commiting a crime against a Briton. But class differences were still more important than ethnic differences.

Fine (weregild) for killing a Briton noble was still much higher than for killing a Saxon peasant:

Killing a Saxon noble = 1200 shillings
Killing a Briton noble = 600 shillings

Killing a Saxon peasant = 200 shillings
Killing a Briton peasant = 120 shillings

So in Wessex a Briton nobleman was still worth three times more than a Saxon peasant.

And let's remember that it was the legal situation only in the kingdom of Wessex.

Maybe in some other kingdoms Saxons and Britons were equal before the law.

It doesn't come with a tag labeling it as "rape", concubine, etc.

Celtic (Romano-Briton) Y-DNA haplogroups are still very numerous among the English.

Even some R1b-U106 was already present among Romano-Britons (see York samples).

The Britons were treated like a lower form of life.

2004 "King Arthur" is a nice movie but I think you have been watching too much of it.

It was actually the Britons themselves who invited the Anglo-Saxons. The Britons forgot how to fight under centuries of living under "Pax Romana", and they wanted protection against Picts raiding them from Scotland and other Celts invading them from Ireland. So Vortigern invited Anglo-Saxon mercenaries. Later those Anglo-Saxon males brought also their families across the sea.

Anglo-Saxons noticed that Britain had more fertile soils and better pasture grounds than their native lands.

 

[bicicleur 2]

@Bicicleur,
Given the papers written on how inbred the hunter-gatherers of Europe must have been, your example must not have been the norm. Tomorrow, when I have some time, I'll try to find some of them. I know the citations were published somewhere on the Board.

Ok, if you have the time, thank you. I'm interested.

I know archeologists suspected most HG tribes were exogamous, but recent DNA studies should shine brighter light on this.
For the 2 cases I mentioned, there is actual proof of exogamy.

 

[bicicleur 2]

As for the Britons, they were mostly R1b-L21.
There is some Germanic DNA in Roman Times, but IMO they were gladiators or mercenaries.
This R1b-L21 arrived allready 4 ka, so the Y-DNA remained quite stable till after Roman Times, alltough before Roman Times allready many Belgian tribes had infiltrated.

Early Bronze	Northern Ireland	Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin1]	M	2026–1885 BC	R1b1a2a1a2c1g	L21/M529/S145 > DF13/S521 > DF21/S192	U5a1b1e	Cassidy 2015
Early Bronze	Northern Ireland	Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin2]	M	2024–1741 BC	R1b1a2a1a2c1	L21/M529/S145 > DF13/S521	U5b2a2	Cassidy 2015
Early Bronze	Northern Ireland	Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin3]	M	1736–1534 BC	R1b1a2a1a2c	L21/M529/S145	J2b1a	Cassidy 2015

 

[Tomenable]

As for the Britons, they were R1b-L21.

Nope. They were more diverse, including P312(xL21).

Romano-Britons from Eboracum (York) were L21, U152, DF19 and U106:

https://s31.postimg.org/wezs92uqj/phenotypes.png

R1b-U106 were subclades R1b-S497 and R1b-DF98:

R1b-DF63 is a subclade downstream of R1b-L21:

Here also mtDNA haplogroups of samples from the table posted above:

1) Pre-Roman Melton (210 BC - 40 AD):

M1489 - U2e1e (female)

1) Roman-era York (years 100-400 AD):

R1b-L21:

6DRIF-18 - R1b-L21 and H1bs
6DRIF-21 - R1b-DF63 and J1c3e2

R1b-U106:

3DRIF-16 - R1b-S497 and H6a1a
6DRIF-3 - R1b-DF98 and J1b1a1

R1b-U152:

6DRIF-22 - R1b-U152 and H2

R1b-DF19:

6DRIF-23 - R1b-DF19 and H6a1b2

Non-R1b:

3DRIF-26 - J2-L228 and H5

2) Anglo-Saxon Teesside (650–910 AD):

NO3423 - I1-S107 and H1a

 

[Tomenable]

Early Bronze	Northern Ireland	Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin1]	M	2026–1885 BC	R1b1a2a1a2c1g	L21/M529/S145 > DF13/S521 > DF21/S192	U5a1b1e	Cassidy 2015
Early Bronze	Northern Ireland	Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin2]	M	2024–1741 BC	R1b1a2a1a2c1	L21/M529/S145 > DF13/S521	U5b2a2	Cassidy 2015
Early Bronze	Northern Ireland	Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin3]	M	1736–1534 BC	R1b1a2a1a2c	L21/M529/S145	J2b1a	Cassidy 2015

Rathlin samples are from Ireland (Latin name: Hibernia) not from Britain:

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

Ireland is not Britain, and it was NEVER inhabited by ethnic Britons.

Irish Celts were Gaels, which is an entirely different branch of Celts.

 

[Tomenable]

There is absolutely no evidence that U106s from Eboracum were Germanic.

Analyses of isotopes from their teeth show that they were British-born, not immigrants.

And autosomally they were most similar to modern Scotsmen and Irishmen:

1) 3DRIF-16 (hg R1b-S497) was autosomally most similar to Scottish people.

2) 6DRIF-3 (hg R1b-DF98) was autosomally most similar to Irish people.

They also had some autosomal affinity to Balto-Slavs (Lithuanians and Poles).

As this heat map shows, both were more similar to Poles than to Germans:

Eboracum ("Ancient York") samples were autosomally most similar to modern Insular Celtic nations:

People in modern East Anglia (especially Norfolk and Suffolk) are least similar to "Ancient York":

East Anglia is where the very first groups of Anglo-Saxons landed and settled during the 400s:

 

[bicicleur 2]

Nope. They were more diverse, including P312(xL21).

Romano-Britons from Eboracum (York) were L21, U152, DF19 and U106:

https://s31.postimg.org/wezs92uqj/phenotypes.png

R1b-U106 were subclades R1b-S497 and R1b-DF98:

R1b-DF63 is a subclade downstream of R1b-L21:

Here also mtDNA haplogroups of samples from the table posted above:

1) Pre-Roman Melton (210 BC - 40 AD):

M1489 - U2e1e (female)

1) Roman-era York (years 100-400 AD):

R1b-L21:

6DRIF-18 - R1b-L21 and H1bs
6DRIF-21 - R1b-DF63 and J1c3e2

R1b-U106:

3DRIF-16 - R1b-S497 and H6a1a
6DRIF-3 - R1b-DF98 and J1b1a1

R1b-U152:

6DRIF-22 - R1b-U152 and H2

R1b-DF19:

6DRIF-23 - R1b-DF19 and H6a1b2

Non-R1b:

3DRIF-26 - J2-L228 and H5

2) Anglo-Saxon Teesside (650–910 AD):

NO3423 - I1-S107 and H1a

the first has no identified Y-DNA
the driffield skeletons were gladiators, as I mentioned, they were not free men
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...iators-slaughtered-crowds-unearthed-York.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160119-gladiator-headless-skeletons-dna/
the last is Anglo-Saxon, not Briton

 

[bicicleur 2]

Rathlin samples are from Ireland (Latin name: Hibernia) not from Britain:

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

Ireland is not Britain, and it was NEVER inhabited by ethnic Britons.

Irish Celts were Gaels, which is an entirely different branch of Celts.

Ireland is one of the British Isles.
Britons is the name the Romans gave, and north of them lived the Picts.
But I don't know why exactly the Romans gave them different names.

Maybe the Britons spoke a Belgian language, as England was infiltrated by Belgian tribes.

 

[bicicleur 2]

There is absolutely no evidence that U106s from Eboracum were Germanic.

Analyses of isotopes from their teeth show that they were British-born, not immigrants.

is this specific for drif3 and drif 16 ?

because :

Previous analysis of chemical signatures in the bones and teeth of other skeletons from the cemetery had determined that some of the men grew up in colder climates, perhaps Germany or further east in continental Europe. The chemical evidence also indicated some of them ate millet grain—a crop that was unavailable in Britain—as children.




http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160119-gladiator-headless-skeletons-dna/

 

[Angela]

Tomenable, please stop spamming this thread with off topic data with which we are already familiar. The topic is consanguinity in the Near East, although I'm willing to discuss it elsewhere. To be honest, it's really annoying trying to wade through post after post that has nothing to do with the topic.

@Bicicleur,

I'll try to find those studies.

 

[Angela]

Razib Khan points to something about consanguinity I'd forgotten, and gives a historical example: uncle niece mating is equivalent to half sibling matings.

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-gods-curse-the-sin-of-incest/#comments

It seems that it's usually man and his brother's daughter. Patriarchy is the culprit once again, and probably control of wealth.

The control of wealth thing, and power, is what got so many of the royal families in the end.

Look at all the hemophilia in Victoria's descendants, and everybody knows about the Spanish Habsburgs.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005174

"The results indicate that inbreeding at the level of first cousin (F = 0.0625) exerted an adverse effect on survival of 17.8%±12.3. It is speculated that the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II (F = 0.254) of two different genetic disorders: combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis, determined by recessive alleles at two unlinked loci, could explain most of the complex clinical profile of this king, including his impotence/infertility which in last instance led to the extinction of the dynasty."

There were a lot of uncle/niece matings in that line too.

When the Medici of Florence inter-married with them over a few generations, their direct line ended too.

 

[Regio X]

An exception?

http://www.newser.com/story/228379/dna-could-explain-why-italian-island-has-so-many-100-year-olds.html

(...)
"Mountains in Ogliastra have isolated its villages for generations, leading to a 'high rate of inbreeding' and a genetically homogeneous population. That could mean residents share genetic traits protecting them from certain diseases. 'Part of it is the environment and the diet, of course, but part of it might be something genetic that we don’t yet know about,' Tiziana CEO Gabriele Cerrone tells the Times. Cerrone says Ogliastra is one of only three regions in the world with an impressively high number of centenarians. There are currently 91 living in the province. Its population's longevity rate is second only to that of Okinawa in Japan."

 

[Angela]

An exception?

http://www.newser.com/story/228379/dna-could-explain-why-italian-island-has-so-many-100-year-olds.html

(...)
"Mountains in Ogliastra have isolated its villages for generations, leading to a 'high rate of inbreeding' and a genetically homogeneous population. That could mean residents share genetic traits protecting them from certain diseases. 'Part of it is the environment and the diet, of course, but part of it might be something genetic that we don’t yet know about,' Tiziana CEO Gabriele Cerrone tells the Times. Cerrone says Ogliastra is one of only three regions in the world with an impressively high number of centenarians. There are currently 91 living in the province. Its population's longevity rate is second only to that of Okinawa in Japan."

This is what I was getting at when I said that it might depend on what mutations for disease or less than optimal fitness exists in the founding population.

On the other hand I know that they do a lot of studies on recessive autosomal disease on Sardinia, and precise;y in more isolated places, so I don't know. Maybe a certain number of children die, but the ones that survive got all the "good" genes?

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v21/n11/full/ejhg201343a.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673602079552