Upcoming paper on British ancient dna

Well, we'll have to wait for their paper, but I don't see how people from, say, Bavaria, bearing the Celtic language, could have been as Neolithic like as the builders of Stonehenge. The German Beakers couldn't have been mistaken for MN farmers, unless there was more admixture later, and then the genome changed again after the fall of Rome..

This doubt of mine will be probably answered just when the final paper is released, but I wonder if it is possible to model a scenario where, instead of an overwhelmingly EEF Iron Age population, what happeed is just that the impact of this heavily EEF-enriched population was MUCH bigger than they expect, and in fact they could have been overestimating the Bell Beaker > Present era continuity of people in Britain, because that EEF-enriched population also had a significant Bell-Beaker-like ancestry, just reduced due to resurgence of EEF admixture as they mixed with pockets of mostly EEF Central Europeans or then with Southern Europeans who migrated to Centreal Europe. Is it possible to make such a confusion in the results, thus implying that this foreign Iron Age influx was bigger than expected?
 
Perhaps the Celts that came from the vicinity of Austria/Bavaria carried significant Mediterranean ancestry in the first place, and didn't mix much with the more northern groups that they encountered before coming to Britain?

Excellent thought or they could have brought slaves with them that later mixed back in.

It's absolutely, positively impossible that Bell Beaker brought Celtic languages to Britain. Continental & Insular Celtic languages are extremely similar. The Bell Beaker migration to Britain occurred around 2500 B.C.E. . For the sake of comparison, the phylogenetic model that is compatible with IE from the steppe puts the Western-IE / Indo-Iranian split at ~2500 B.C.E. .

That could easily be a thousand years off and is only an estimation, Bell Beaker are fact. The wave model of linguistic evolution would allow for stable progressive developments to spread from the islands back to the continent and vice versa. It would be interesting to look at how much actual interaction was going on.
 
This doubt of mine will be probably answered just when the final paper is released, but I wonder if it is possible to model a scenario where, instead of an overwhelmingly EEF Iron Age population, what happeed is just that the impact of this heavily EEF-enriched population was MUCH bigger than they expect, and in fact they could have been overestimating the Bell Beaker > Present era continuity of people in Britain, because that EEF-enriched population also had a significant Bell-Beaker-like ancestry, just reduced due to resurgence of EEF admixture as they mixed with pockets of mostly EEF Central Europeans or then with Southern Europeans who migrated to Centreal Europe. Is it possible to make such a confusion in the results, thus implying that this foreign Iron Age influx was bigger than expected?

Fwiw, yes, I think it's possible to have some confusion when you're dealing with groups which share some components. I think that's part of what's going on with the Indian results. I'm not convinced they can really tell which is EHG ancestry from the steppe versus ANE heavy SIberian hunter-gatherer ancestry.

They seem to be admitting that they were wrong to say that there was uninterrupted continuity in Britain, or at least in England, since the Bronze Age. As someone said, if you don't have lots of samples from lots of different time periods you can miss the swings back and forth. That's one of the reasons I was pretty circumspect in drawing large conclusions from the Lombard dna paper: it was excellent but we need a lot more like that from the same area but different periods.

Well, we knew there were some changes in England, i.e. the Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings, although they might be so similar it wouldn't have made that much difference. What surprises me is how large, apparently, the swing was toward more "southern" ancestry. The Anglo-Saxons etc. might just have swung the pendulum back a little bit.

I'm still not convinced, though, that a Hallstatt like group will be the answer. Reich is usually very precise with his language, and he said the "new" gene flow was "similar" to that of the people who built Stonehenge. I'd be very surprised to learn that there were people in northern France or Belgium or the Netherlands, or even in Austria who fit that bill.

If they have Hallstatt and other similar autosomes analyzed, and they're not very steppe heavy, it will have interesting implications for Southern European countries as well, in that as I always suspected the steppe component in some of these waves to hit the south might not have been very large.
 
That could easily be a thousand years off and is only an estimation, Bell Beaker are fact. The wave model of linguistic evolution would allow for stable progressive developments to spread from the islands back to the continent and vice versa. It would be interesting to look at how much actual interaction was going on.

I guess language change is quite erratic so we may never know for sure, but a Celtic split that early in time goes against everything I believe to know. Moreover, I do not find it very difficult to believe that the Iron Age Celts, who by that time were probably advanced enough to field actual armies, would have been capable of imposing their language on a pre-existing majority population.
 
I have knowledge only about 1 unique Elite Hallstatt sample. Could you tell me what is the other one?

I looked it up - you're right it was only 1 elite male that was sampled in that Austrian paper. Sorry!
 
when he says "similar" to EEF how about iberians. i believe most legions used by caesar in gaul were from iberia and there were also many iberians in britain.
hopefully they manage to date the admixture event. if it was 600bc or 600 years later. but it could also be possible that all three options are true.
 
"But at some point after the Bronze Age, groups in the south-east appear to have mixed with a population similar to those Stonehenge builders who inhabited Britain before the Beakers arrived.
Most people from south-east Britain still trace most of their ancestry to the Beaker people, but the later mixing event had a bigger impact than Medieval Anglo-Saxon migrations - traditionally seen as the foundation point of English history.

Prof Reich said his team at Harvard currently had three working hypotheses to explain the result. While the Beakers replaced around 90% of the ancestry in Britain, it's possible that a pocket (or pockets) of Neolithic farmers held out in isolation somewhere for hundreds of years.
During the Iron Age (which began around 3,000 years ago), they mixed back in with the general population, diluting the Beakers' genetic background with a type of ancestry that's now stronger around the Mediterranean than in Northern or Central Europe.

To date we don't know the weight of the shift back towards 'med' or 'neolithic'
or EEF ancient pops; and first BB's never constitued 90% of Britain Bronze pop; someones consider that BB's pushed out the preceding pops, not eradicated them at all (at the contrary, see under); only it seems they left them the worst lands (woodlands) - we have some Britain BBs of some hotspots, and BB's settled for the most on lands not too far from sea, in Britain at least – today Britain pops are not too far from ancient BB’s of the Isles, but this proximity is surely due to more than an historical move from the continent bringing pops which were also close to BB’s auDNA in some way ;

more than an explanation can work here : I believe in a resurgence of old pops which never died out (look at Wales) + some less « steppic »/a bit more « neolithical-like » Celtic tribes of Gaul and Belgia and why not some Roman input ; here we need archeologic details concerning the remnants studied, if they varied from place to place and if the show diverse cultural backgrounds ;
& : picked in Lloyd and Jennifer Laing (1980 it’s true, so some salt ?!?):
« The beakers folk mixed fairly easily and peacefully with the native inhabitants . Beaker pottery is frequently found in megalithic chambered tombs, and beaker association with many of the native monuments of late Neolithic Britain is apparent. In their flint-work they took over some of the traditions of local Neolithic communities and in turn local pottery was influenced by Beaker styles. The fact that some gracile dolichocephalic skeletons have been found in Beakers-style burials indicates that some of the native population adopted a Beaker lifestyle... ». A bit idyllic ?
By the way they say that first allover-corded beakers in Britain were older than on the continent (almost 3000BC) without proved immigration, and that it’s the mix-type (corded-maritime) from the Netherlands which was brought in by immigration around 2500 BC (Round Barrows)...






for the little I know, the most of the identifiable Celtic tribes which put a feet into Britain at those times were from the region between North-East today France and Belgium, maybe Switzerland or close Bavaria, Belgae among them ; I don’t know but I suppose these tribes were not too much « EEFized » at Iron Age what would have been possibly the case for more southern Gaulish tribe a bit later (« not too much » doesn’t mean « not at all ») ; and I suppose it was rather young members among the warriors « low » elites which took part in these adventures, not a lot of slaves (these warriors would have been less mixed than the higher elites which married with locals for political purpose ; that said we don’t know to date the social statute of the studied people in this survey -
what would be interesting is to know if they have splitted out diverse EEF-like pops (more or less ‘iberian’ as opposed to ‘danubian’ or like this) in this southerner component which reappeared...
so : everything is possible, maybe a three-ways EEF ? I put my joker : « wait and see » ;
Agree with Angela that our ancient auDNA diverse analysises don’t disentangle always in a reliable and definitive way the question of WHO send some basic autosomal components and WHEN ; (I hope I don’t mistake her here)
& :I’m aware of no mention about Hallstatt or La Tène auDNA at hand or I passed over something ?
 
"But at some point after the Bronze Age, groups in the south-east appear to have mixed with a population similar to those Stonehenge builders who inhabited Britain before the Beakers arrived.
Most people from south-east Britain still trace most of their ancestry to the Beaker people, but the later mixing event had a bigger impact than Medieval Anglo-Saxon migrations - traditionally seen as the foundation point of English history.

Prof Reich said his team at Harvard currently had three working hypotheses to explain the result. While the Beakers replaced around 90% of the ancestry in Britain, it's possible that a pocket (or pockets) of Neolithic farmers held out in isolation somewhere for hundreds of years.
During the Iron Age (which began around 3,000 years ago), they mixed back in with the general population, diluting the Beakers' genetic background with a type of ancestry that's now stronger around the Mediterranean than in Northern or Central Europe.

To date we don't know the weight of the shift back towards 'med' or 'neolithic'
or EEF ancient pops; and first BB's never constitued 90% of Britain Bronze pop; someones consider that BB's pushed out the preceding pops, not eradicated them at all (at the contrary, see under); only it seems they left them the worst lands (woodlands) - we have some Britain BBs of some hotspots, and BB's settled for the most on lands not too far from sea, in Britain at least – today Britain pops are not too far from ancient BB’s of the Isles, but this proximity is surely due to more than an historical move from the continent bringing pops which were also close to BB’s auDNA in some way ;

more than an explanation can work here : I believe in a resurgence of old pops which never died out (look at Wales) + some less « steppic »/a bit more « neolithical-like » Celtic tribes of Gaul and Belgia and why not some Roman input ; here we need archeologic details concerning the remnants studied, if they varied from place to place and if the show diverse cultural backgrounds ;
& : picked in Lloyd and Jennifer Laing (1980 it’s true, so some salt ?!?):
« The beakers folk mixed fairly easily and peacefully with the native inhabitants . Beaker pottery is frequently found in megalithic chambered tombs, and beaker association with many of the native monuments of late Neolithic Britain is apparent. In their flint-work they took over some of the traditions of local Neolithic communities and in turn local pottery was influenced by Beaker styles. The fact that some gracile dolichocephalic skeletons have been found in Beakers-style burials indicates that some of the native population adopted a Beaker lifestyle... ». A bit idyllic ?
By the way they say that first allover-corded beakers in Britain were older than on the continent (almost 3000BC) without proved immigration, and that it’s the mix-type (corded-maritime) from the Netherlands which was brought in by immigration around 2500 BC (Round Barrows)...






for the little I know, the most of the identifiable Celtic tribes which put a feet into Britain at those times were from the region between North-East today France and Belgium, maybe Switzerland or close Bavaria, Belgae among them ; I don’t know but I suppose these tribes were not too much « EEFized » at Iron Age what would have been possibly the case for more southern Gaulish tribe a bit later (« not too much » doesn’t mean « not at all ») ; and I suppose it was rather young members among the warriors « low » elites which took part in these adventures, not a lot of slaves (these warriors would have been less mixed than the higher elites which married with locals for political purpose ; that said we don’t know to date the social statute of the studied people in this survey -
what would be interesting is to know if they have splitted out diverse EEF-like pops (more or less ‘iberian’ as opposed to ‘danubian’ or like this) in this southerner component which reappeared...
so : everything is possible, maybe a three-ways EEF ? I put my joker : « wait and see » ;
Agree with Angela that our ancient auDNA diverse analysises don’t disentangle always in a reliable and definitive way the question of WHO send some basic autosomal components and WHEN ; (I hope I don’t mistake her here)
& :I’m aware of no mention about Hallstatt or La Tène auDNA at hand or I passed over something ?

Yes, I agree. It may be all three.
 
The med influx almost certainly came from U152. And simple pigmentation maps show Anglo-Saxon influence on at least Eastern England is criminally underrated.
 
How big of a change did the Anglo saxons make on England genetically?
 
I have read 10-30% autosomally and ~40% paternally.
 
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34427-R1b-DF27-in-Iberia?p=516587&viewfull=1#post516587

DF27 branches


View attachment 9991View attachment 9989View attachment 9990

Look there. I hope Reich sequences Y-DNA. Many are also curious if I1 could have crossed the channel before the Romans left.

I go back lately here, sorry-
When I look at these maps, the opposition between the "Basque" R1b distribution and the other "iberian" R1b ones is stricking: the Basque one seem a natural cline of isolation by distance with a center (2 in facts) of density, and a western trend, when the others (L176.2 more) show an only eastern centroid in Iberia and a rupture before reappearing (weakly it's true) in N-Belgium and E-England; could it be the traces of settlements in Britain of Roman troops from E-Iberia?
 
...could it be the traces of settlements in Britain of Roman troops from E-Iberia?

Considering that the only true "Romans" would have been the officers, and not all of them, raises the question of where not just the "troops", but also the auxiliaries, artisans, and other support personnel, would have come from. Even if the legions were withdrawn, many others brought in by the Romans would have been left behind, as well as a host of progeny, concentrated in the most Romanized provinces.
 
Considering that the only true "Romans" would have been the officers, and not all of them, raises the question of where not just the "troops", but also the auxiliaries, artisans, and other support personnel, would have come from. Even if the legions were withdrawn, many others brought in by the Romans would have been left behind, as well as a host of progeny, concentrated in the most Romanized provinces.

Agree, I forget always to mention this fact. But in what proportions? My experience tells me that the most of foreign people come along power when economy is at its high point, go away when power leaves and economy falls down. At every time almost everywhere. Sure some traces of crossings (your progeny?) stay, but not as much as we could think.
&: some of the legions were filled with true Roman citizens, I think. Not all of them made of colonised countries people.
 
Considering that the only true "Romans" would have been the officers, and not all of them, raises the question of where not just the "troops", but also the auxiliaries, artisans, and other support personnel, would have come from. Even if the legions were withdrawn, many others brought in by the Romans would have been left behind, as well as a host of progeny, concentrated in the most Romanized provinces.

That very much depends on the time period. In the later empire, that would have been true perhaps but not in the Republic or early Empire. Bear in mind that to serve in the legions you had to be a Roman citizen. That right was universal very early in Italia, much later in the rest of the empire. Even more true is that there were many groups of auxiliaries from all over the empire, although many were from Northern France and the lower Rhine. Vindolanda, from which we have so many artifacts, was staffed by soldiers from the lower Rhine.

Also important is the following:
"The overall size of the Roman forces in Roman Britain grew from about 40,000 in the mid 1st century AD to a maximum of about 55,000 in the mid 2nd century. the proportion of auxiliaries in Britain grew from about 50% before 69 AD to over 70% in c. 150 AD. By the mid-2nd century, there were about 70 auxiliary regiments in Britain, for a total of over 40,000 men."

All of this can be researched. We know a lot about where the men of certain legions were "raised".

This is just an introduction:

https://www.romanobritain.org/8-military/mil_legions-of-britain.php

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

I don't see mention of it in these two articles, but there were also, for example, cavalry units from North Africa along the great wall.

It's also important to realize that where the army went, so went the craftsmen and tradesmen, many of them from Greece, Anatolia, etc.

While I do believe they may have left behind traces of their passage in yDna, I doubt they made a huge difference in autosomal dna. You need folk migrations for that.
 
While I do believe they may have left behind traces of their passage in yDna, I doubt they made a huge difference in autosomal dna. You need folk migrations for that.

Of course, when Reich talked about 90% replacement, he was referring to Y-DNA lineages. The Bell Beakers were already admixed when they came into Britain, and became even more so from taking G2a brides, with polygyny possibly acting as an accelerant. The pre-Bell Beaker population was also not likely to have been evenly spread, with G2a's more likely to have been concentrated in the south and I2a's less densely spread in the more inhospitable north.

If we include Caesar's two invasions, the Romans were involved in Britain for over 450 years. The initial invasions would have caused a decrease in population (forming a bottleneck?), but it would have rebounded (from founder effects?) where a "Pax Romana" had been successfully imposed.

I just don't see a large migration of Mediterranean farmer-folk as being very plausible in that time period. It is more likely a combination of what was already there (and never disappeared) and what was brought in (by the Bell Beakers, Celts, and Romans).
 
Actually, I do think geneticists meant that there was 90% population replacement in Britain with the coming of the Bell Beakers, given the samples they have so far. The 50% farmer ancestry in them was already there when they were in Germany or other places in central Europe.

Also, I haven't looked at the figures for a long time, but there was no whole sale slaughter and enslavement in Britain with the invasion, as there was in certain parts of Gaul. It was more a case of divide and conquer, with certain tribes of Britons forming alliances with the Romans.

Finally, there has been a lot in the papers about the increase in "Southern" ancestry in Britain since the time of the Bell Beakers. I think some late arriving Gallic tribes may have supplied some, as did the Romans, but I don't think it stopped there. The ascendance of the Norman dynasty meant that men trying their fortune came from all over France, even from south of the Loire, and more so with each passing marriage to another French princess. It would hardly have been difficult for them, when the court and all the upper classes spoke French.

Think of Eleanor of Aquitaine, the heir of the dynasty of Poitiers which ruled southwestern France. She was Duchess of Aquitaine in her own right. She brought with her not only speakers of her native tongue but knights, squires, troubadours from all over southern France, including speakers of Gascon and Provencal.

All of this in combination could and probably did affect the autosomal composition of Britain, but not to any huge degree.
 

This thread has been viewed 29275 times.

Back
Top