PDA

View Full Version : A controversial theory holds invaders from Iberia may have massacred much of Ireland



R.Rocca
06-13-2013, 12:21 AM
Alastair Moffat is at it again...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-distinctive-dna-marker-proof-of-ancient-genocide-1.1426197

A controversial theory holds invaders from Iberia may have massacred much of Ireland’s male population
Is distinctive DNA marker proof of ancient genocide?

A controversial theory holds invaders from Iberia may have massacred much of Ireland

Did you know Ireland has the highest concentration of men with the R1b DNA marker? No fewer than 84 per cent of all Irish men carry this on their Y chromosome.

While this marker is also high on male Y chromosomes in parts of Britain, particularly Wales, according to commercial ancestry testing company IrelandsDNA, the high prevalence here may indicate the arrival of a lot of people at a broadly similar time who weren’t prepared to peacefully co exist with the settlers here.
“The high prevalence rates have always perplexed Irish geneticists and historians,” says Alastair Moffat of IrelandsDNA. The firm’s research proposes a new hypothesis. There is already established evidence suggesting that the first farmers, (carrying the Y chromosome lineage of ‘G’, which can be found across Europe) arrived in Kerry about 4,350BC.

According to IrelandsDNA, the so called ‘G-Men’ may have established farming in Ireland “but their successful culture was almost obliterated by what amounted to an invasion, even a genocide, some time around 2,500BC” (the frequency of G in Ireland is now only 1.5 per cent). “There’s a cemetery in Treille [France], where ancient DNA testing has been carried out and almost all men carry the ‘G’ marker but the women don’t,” says Moffat. They carry native/indigenous markers. This strongly suggests incoming groups of men. Because the R1b marker is still so prevalent in Ireland and is also frequently found in places like France and northern Spain we believed that around 2,500 BC, the R1b marker arrived in Ireland from the south.”

Moffat admits it is just a hypothesis but cites connections which lead to this theory. “The first signs of farming in Ireland were found on the Dingle peninsula in Kerry, which suggests people coming from the south,” he says. “If you look at Lebor Gabála Érenn or The Book of the Taking of Ireland [a Middle Irish collection recounting mythical origins of life in Ireland dating from the 11th century] most of the invasions come from the south.”
The southern migrants referred to by Moffat were the Beaker people, originating from Iberia. It has also been suggested that it was they who may have brought Celtic languages up the Atlantic coast.

Moffat cites archaeological evidence, from the Copper Age, to suggest this movement. “Evidence for the beginning of the Copper Age in Ireland is also found in the south, particularly Ross Island in Killarney, where a tremendous complex system of prehistoric mines exists. It’s clear that the copper was exported.
“How did these new people impose themselves in such a big way,” he asks. “It has to have been through conflict. The early people were farmers so they invested generations of effort in improving the land. When these new people show up they must have used violence to shift the ‘G-Men’. The frequency of ‘G-Men’ is tiny in Ireland. Compare the statistics: 1 per cent versus 84 percent.”

Not everyone is convinced, however. “What they [IrelandsDNA] are suggesting is based on a very strong interpretation of a small piece of a genetic pattern,” says Prof Dan Bradley from the Smurfit Institute of Genetics. “There’s no real scientific evidence to warrant the use of terms like ‘genocide’. You can’t link modern genetic variation securely through archaeological strata without ancient DNA testing also. You can certainly have conjecture and there are indeed ways of looking at the time and depth of these things. But they have very wide margins for error. The reality is I don’t think we can securely place any of these DNA marker patterns in time without ancient DNA testing.”

Ancient DNA testing has been ongoing in Ireland for the last two years by Bradley in Trinity and Prof Ron Pinhasi in the UCD School of Archaeology, who is involved with a large project of ancient DNA testing throughout Europe.

“I don’t know of any time in history where a culture came in and completely wiped out another,” says Pinhasi. “You don’t see total wipeouts, unless there is reason for a population to become extinct, like massive climate change. But we have no reason to believe Bronze Age farmers became extinct this way.
“Sure there were a lot of population movements and mixing going on at this time. That’s why modern people don’t look like neolithic people, genetically speaking, but it would have had minimal impact on the gene pool” he says. “You’re not going to have hundreds of thousands of people suddenly coming from Spain but you would definitely have had smaller groups coming in boats. Plus there’s no archeological proof of any massive warfare or battles here at that time.”

The mapping out of ancient genetics of populations from 45,000BC to the Bronze Age, now under way, may very possibly reveal many misconceptions about our past.

rms2
06-13-2013, 12:30 AM
The part I like is . . .



. . .

Ancient DNA testing has been ongoing in Ireland for the last two years by Bradley in Trinity and Prof Ron Pinhasi in the UCD School of Archaeology, who is involved with a large project of ancient DNA testing throughout Europe.

. . .

The mapping out of ancient genetics of populations from 45,000BC to the Bronze Age, now under way, may very possibly reveal many misconceptions about our past.

That sounds great!

I also like the fact that Bradley and Pinhasi did not answer Moffat by saying that R1b came out of the Franco-Cantabrian Ice Age Refuge and was brought to Ireland by Basque fishermen. :biggrin1:

It looks like those days are gone.

Hubert thought the Beaker Folk came as conquerors to the British Isles. I'm not saying Moffat is right, but it is odd just how dominant R1b is in Ireland, and most of that is L21.

rms2
06-13-2013, 12:38 AM
You know, back in the early days of L21 I wrote Professor Bradley and told him what was going on with the R-L21 Plus Project, and he asked me a few questions about L21. I am pretty sure he was not aware of it at that time, which would have been late 2008, maybe early 2009. I would like to get his take on it now.

razyn
06-13-2013, 12:47 AM
Alastair Moffat is at it again...


“There’s a cemetery in Treille [France], where ancient DNA testing has been carried out and almost all men carry the ‘G’ marker but the women don’t,” says Moffat.

Seems kind of choice...

rms2
06-13-2013, 12:53 AM
I wondered at that, too. I'm sure Moffat knows that women can't carry y-dna markers, so I'm sure something else is intended than the way that came out.

Scarlet Ibis
06-13-2013, 04:16 AM
Seems kind of choice...

lol Good eye; I missed that bit.

rms2
06-13-2013, 10:47 AM
I'm surprised this thread hasn't attracted more attention.

Anyway, I wonder how much of what Moffat says is influenced by his conversations with Dr. Jim Wilson. I would imagine a considerable amount. If that is true, then Dr. Wilson has changed his views quite a bit. He used to believe that R1b was the first y haplogroup into the Isles following the last Ice Age. If he is now entertaining the idea that it is late or even post Neolithic in Ireland, that represents quite a switch.

GTC
06-13-2013, 12:50 PM
I'm surprised this thread hasn't attracted more attention.


After his "Garden of Eden" nonsense, Moffat is on my ignore list.

rossa
06-13-2013, 01:06 PM
At least they got rid of the blurb from the website about M284 being part of the population responsible for ancient cave paintings in France. And no solid evidence for an early G presence, color me surprised.

rms2
06-13-2013, 03:26 PM
After his "Garden of Eden" nonsense, Moffat is on my ignore list.

I must have missed that. What did he say?

rms2
06-13-2013, 03:35 PM
At least they got rid of the blurb from the website about M284 being part of the population responsible for ancient cave paintings in France. And no solid evidence for an early G presence, color me surprised.

What I got out of that article is the good news that they (Bradley, Pinhasi, and others) are working on ancient dna in Ireland and have been working on it for the last two years, and that apparently Dr. Wilson is willing to entertain ideas about the advent of R1b other than the stale, old "R1b-in-the-Iberian-Ice-Age-Refuge" thing.

I think the notion of a Neolithic presence for y haplogroup G is based on Neolithic finds on the Continent, and maybe Moffat has some inside info, via Dr. Wilson, that we don't yet know about. Notice that Bradley did not counter Moffat by saying there was no G in Ireland during the Neolithic.

Clinton P
06-13-2013, 03:47 PM
Alistair Moffat is a historian and is also the rector of the University of St Andrews.

Here is some of what he came out with on a BBC radio 4 interview:

“It has been posited by scientists for about 20 years that Adam and Eve really existed. They may never have met, but they really existed”.

“What happened was a kind of genetic bottleneck – around 70 thousand BC an Indonesian volcano called mount Toba blew itself to smithereens and it was almost a species extinction event and so all the other lineages apart from these two, apart from Adam and Eve were destroyed”.

“And what happened with the Britain’s DNA project is that about 4 or 5 weeks ago we discovered a remarkable individual, a Mr Ian Kinnaird from Caithness and he has Eve’s DNA – he’s only two removed from Eve … he carries a marker called L1b which is only two mutations different from what Eve’s marker must have been … he’s Eve’s grandson …”.

Clinton P

rossa
06-13-2013, 04:12 PM
What I got out of that article is the good news that they (Bradley, Pinhasi, and others) are working on ancient dna in Ireland and have been working on it for the last two years, and that apparently Dr. Wilson is willing to entertain ideas about the advent of R1b other than the stale, old "R1b-in-the-Iberian-Ice-Age-Refuge" thing.

I think the notion of a Neolithic presence for y haplogroup G is based on Neolithic finds on the Continent, and maybe Moffat has some inside info, via Dr. Wilson, that we don't yet know about. Notice that Bradley did not counter Moffat by saying there was no G in Ireland during the Neolithic.

Let's hope, I thought one of the issues with Irish finds was that a lot of remains were cremated and bodies in bogs were damaged due to the acidic nature of the bogs (a recent find in bogs in Denmark are suposed to be tested).
I'll gladly eat my words if Moffat is right but it seems more of a case of someone from a DNA company offering one plausible idea out of many.
Another issue with the company Ireland's DNA is that there will now be a lot of Irish results but spread across three different companies.

On re-reading the article it says there is established evidence for an early G arrival in Kerry but it's not attributued to anyone. Also the fact that Moffat says the high percentage of R1b is down to genocide instead of maybe M222 like succesful Gaelic orders suggests he may not be keeping up wit the hobbyists.

rms2
06-13-2013, 05:38 PM
Alistair Moffat is a historian and is also the rector of the University of St Andrews.

Here is some of what he came out with on a BBC radio 4 interview:

“It has been posited by scientists for about 20 years that Adam and Eve really existed. They may never have met, but they really existed”.

“What happened was a kind of genetic bottleneck – around 70 thousand BC an Indonesian volcano called mount Toba blew itself to smithereens and it was almost a species extinction event and so all the other lineages apart from these two, apart from Adam and Eve were destroyed”.

“And what happened with the Britain’s DNA project is that about 4 or 5 weeks ago we discovered a remarkable individual, a Mr Ian Kinnaird from Caithness and he has Eve’s DNA – he’s only two removed from Eve … he carries a marker called L1b which is only two mutations different from what Eve’s marker must have been … he’s Eve’s grandson …”.

Clinton P

Yikes!

Thanks for that.

rms2
06-13-2013, 05:44 PM
Let's hope, I thought one of the issues with Irish finds was that a lot of remains were cremated and bodies in bogs were damaged due to the acidic nature of the bogs (a recent find in bogs in Denmark are suposed to be tested).
I'll gladly eat my words if Moffat is right but it seems more of a case of someone from a DNA company offering one plausible idea out of many.
Another issue with the company Ireland's DNA is that there will now be a lot of Irish results but spread across three different companies.

On re-reading the article it says there is established evidence for an early G arrival in Kerry but it's not attributued to anyone. Also the fact that Moffat says the high percentage of R1b is down to genocide instead of maybe M222 like succesful Gaelic orders suggests he may not be keeping up wit the hobbyists.

I don't know if they have actually found any G in Neolithic remains in Ireland, but it wouldn't surprise me. G seems to be popping up pretty consistently among Neolithic remains on the Continent, along with I2.

How much of what Moffat says is solely his own and how much comes from his conversations with Dr. Jim Wilson are good questions. Since Moffat is not a geneticist, I think at least some of what he says must come from Dr. Wilson. It may get embellished and exaggerated in the translation, but it's somewhere there in the background, I think.

GoldenHind
06-13-2013, 06:17 PM
There has to be some reason why R1b in general, and L21 in particular, is so dominant in Ireland, but I don't think genocide of the previous inhabitants is the only or even the most likely explanation.

It seems unlikely to me that the R1b in Ireland came there from Iberia. The most common variety of R1b in Iberia appears to be DF27, which I gather is pretty rare in Ireland, while L21, which is so dominant in Ireland, is apparently pretty rare in Iberia.

alan
06-13-2013, 07:52 PM
Alastair Moffat is at it again...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-distinctive-dna-marker-proof-of-ancient-genocide-1.1426197

A controversial theory holds invaders from Iberia may have massacred much of Ireland’s male population
Is distinctive DNA marker proof of ancient genocide?

A controversial theory holds invaders from Iberia may have massacred much of Ireland

Did you know Ireland has the highest concentration of men with the R1b DNA marker? No fewer than 84 per cent of all Irish men carry this on their Y chromosome.

While this marker is also high on male Y chromosomes in parts of Britain, particularly Wales, according to commercial ancestry testing company IrelandsDNA, the high prevalence here may indicate the arrival of a lot of people at a broadly similar time who weren’t prepared to peacefully co exist with the settlers here.
“The high prevalence rates have always perplexed Irish geneticists and historians,” says Alastair Moffat of IrelandsDNA. The firm’s research proposes a new hypothesis. There is already established evidence suggesting that the first farmers, (carrying the Y chromosome lineage of ‘G’, which can be found across Europe) arrived in Kerry about 4,350BC.

According to IrelandsDNA, the so called ‘G-Men’ may have established farming in Ireland “but their successful culture was almost obliterated by what amounted to an invasion, even a genocide, some time around 2,500BC” (the frequency of G in Ireland is now only 1.5 per cent). “There’s a cemetery in Treille [France], where ancient DNA testing has been carried out and almost all men carry the ‘G’ marker but the women don’t,” says Moffat. They carry native/indigenous markers. This strongly suggests incoming groups of men. Because the R1b marker is still so prevalent in Ireland and is also frequently found in places like France and northern Spain we believed that around 2,500 BC, the R1b marker arrived in Ireland from the south.”

Moffat admits it is just a hypothesis but cites connections which lead to this theory. “The first signs of farming in Ireland were found on the Dingle peninsula in Kerry, which suggests people coming from the south,” he says. “If you look at Lebor Gabála Érenn or The Book of the Taking of Ireland [a Middle Irish collection recounting mythical origins of life in Ireland dating from the 11th century] most of the invasions come from the south.”
The southern migrants referred to by Moffat were the Beaker people, originating from Iberia. It has also been suggested that it was they who may have brought Celtic languages up the Atlantic coast.

Moffat cites archaeological evidence, from the Copper Age, to suggest this movement. “Evidence for the beginning of the Copper Age in Ireland is also found in the south, particularly Ross Island in Killarney, where a tremendous complex system of prehistoric mines exists. It’s clear that the copper was exported.
“How did these new people impose themselves in such a big way,” he asks. “It has to have been through conflict. The early people were farmers so they invested generations of effort in improving the land. When these new people show up they must have used violence to shift the ‘G-Men’. The frequency of ‘G-Men’ is tiny in Ireland. Compare the statistics: 1 per cent versus 84 percent.”

Not everyone is convinced, however. “What they [IrelandsDNA] are suggesting is based on a very strong interpretation of a small piece of a genetic pattern,” says Prof Dan Bradley from the Smurfit Institute of Genetics. “There’s no real scientific evidence to warrant the use of terms like ‘genocide’. You can’t link modern genetic variation securely through archaeological strata without ancient DNA testing also. You can certainly have conjecture and there are indeed ways of looking at the time and depth of these things. But they have very wide margins for error. The reality is I don’t think we can securely place any of these DNA marker patterns in time without ancient DNA testing.”

Ancient DNA testing has been ongoing in Ireland for the last two years by Bradley in Trinity and Prof Ron Pinhasi in the UCD School of Archaeology, who is involved with a large project of ancient DNA testing throughout Europe.

“I don’t know of any time in history where a culture came in and completely wiped out another,” says Pinhasi. “You don’t see total wipeouts, unless there is reason for a population to become extinct, like massive climate change. But we have no reason to believe Bronze Age farmers became extinct this way.
“Sure there were a lot of population movements and mixing going on at this time. That’s why modern people don’t look like neolithic people, genetically speaking, but it would have had minimal impact on the gene pool” he says. “You’re not going to have hundreds of thousands of people suddenly coming from Spain but you would definitely have had smaller groups coming in boats. Plus there’s no archeological proof of any massive warfare or battles here at that time.”

The mapping out of ancient genetics of populations from 45,000BC to the Bronze Age, now under way, may very possibly reveal many misconceptions about our past.


Oh Dear its like 2008 all over again. Whoever wrote that has no idea of subclades that clearly separate them into very different groups and also autosomal DNA which puts Ireland and Spain in very different clusters. I am surprised by his ignorance and I think it is probably willful in order to get a cheap wow factor. Its a shame it has made it into a good quality Irish broadsheet. It belongs in a tabloid.

R.Rocca
06-13-2013, 08:45 PM
Oh Dear its like 2008 all over again. Whoever wrote that has no idea of subclades that clearly separate them into very different groups and also autosomal DNA which puts Ireland and Spain in very different clusters. I am surprised by his ignorance and I think it is probably willful in order to get a cheap wow factor. Its a shame it has made it into a good quality Irish broadsheet. It belongs in a tabloid.

It is one thing to speculate on a forum like this, but to portray something like that as a near certainty to the media is something completely different. I have to hand it to him though, he is a shrewd business man:

1. Drum up interest for ScotlandsDNA by telling the media about the 'discovery' of the L21 Pictish marker.
2. Drum up interest for BritainsDNA by telling the media that 500k British men are descendants of Romans via U152(xL2).
3. Drum up interest for IrelandsDNA by telling the media that the Irish are genetically tied to Iberians by way of Bell Beaker.

rossa
06-13-2013, 08:48 PM
It is one thing to speculate on a forum like this, but to portray something like that as a near certainty to the media is something completely different. I have to hand it to him though, he is a shrewd business man:

1. Drum up interest for ScotlandsDNA by telling the media about the 'discovery' of the L21 Pictish marker.
2. Drum up interest for BritainsDNA by telling the media that 500k British men are descendants of Romans via U152(xL2).
3. Drum up interest for IrelandsDNA by telling the media that the Irish are genetically tied to Iberians by way of Bell Beaker.

And throwing in a nice catchy term like G-men while he's at it.

TigerMW
06-13-2013, 09:23 PM
It is one thing to speculate on a forum like this, but to portray something like that as a near certainty to the media is something completely different. I have to hand it to him though, he is a shrewd business man:

1. Drum up interest for ScotlandsDNA by telling the media about the 'discovery' of the L21 Pictish marker.
2. Drum up interest for BritainsDNA by telling the media that 500k British men are descendants of Romans via U152(xL2).
3. Drum up interest for IrelandsDNA by telling the media that the Irish are genetically tied to Iberians by way of Bell Beaker.

Yes, I think you've identified the marketing strategy. However, I'm not sure if he is qualified as shrewd businessman, maybe more of a Barnum and Bailey wannabe.

It's a little amusing that Moffat's "genocide" scenario plays into Kylosov,

"It seems that the arrival of the Aryans (R1a) in Europe was peaceful. There are no clear indications that their arrival triggered any sort of violence. However, the migration of the Arbins (R1b) was marked by an almost complete elimination of the E1b, F, G2a, J, I1, I2, and K haplogroups from Europe."

alan
06-13-2013, 09:36 PM
It is one thing to speculate on a forum like this, but to portray something like that as a near certainty to the media is something completely different. I have to hand it to him though, he is a shrewd business man:

1. Drum up interest for ScotlandsDNA by telling the media about the 'discovery' of the L21 Pictish marker.
2. Drum up interest for BritainsDNA by telling the media that 500k British men are descendants of Romans via U152(xL2).
3. Drum up interest for IrelandsDNA by telling the media that the Irish are genetically tied to Iberians by way of Bell Beaker.

He cannot be so ignorant of the massive difference in P312 clades and the autosomal DNA too which clearly links Ireland to Britian, France and NW Europe. He really cannot surely not know this. The book he co-authored with Wilson on Scotland showed fairly good knowledge of this and that R1b and even P312 cannot be treated as a block headcount. It looks like shameless spinning and and attempt to tap into the Milesian mythology. I also think its an attempt to exploit post-colonial scars where some may prefer to find some exotic link that separates them from the British. It also taps into a similar preference to see echoes of the 17th century Catholic alliances with Spain against British agression back projected into antiquity. Its very easy to sell ideas to people who want to believe them. I personally think its looks very very cynical.

alan
06-13-2013, 09:52 PM
Yes, I think you've identified the marketing strategy. However, I'm not sure if he is qualified as shrewd businessman, maybe more of a Barnum and Bailey wannabe.

It's a little amusing that Moffat's "genocide" scenario plays into Kylosov,

"It seems that the arrival of the Aryans (R1a) in Europe was peaceful. There are no clear indications that their arrival triggered any sort of violence. However, the migration of the Arbins (R1b) was marked by an almost complete elimination of the E1b, F, G2a, J, I1, I2, and K haplogroups from Europe."

lol R1b - the psycopath lineage. I really do not like people who like to put R1a and R1b in some sort of intense rivallry. Weird considering we come from the same R1 people back in the Palaeolithic. You would think they should be treated as brother clades. I find it funny that people want to see them as very different autosomally too when the autosomal differences in Europe are more north-south than east-west along R1a-R1b division lines and probably relate to earlier peoples. To be honest if you read into the history of the steppes the sheer incredibly complexity of the cultures is apparent with all sorts of inputs over millenia even before 3000BC. Unfortunately the archaeology of the steppes was for a long time put into a soft focus of uniformity by meaningless mega-culture terms that hide the sheer diversity of the cultures and their inputs from outside. This has fed into the picture of some sort of native untouched region by some scholars in the past and many people with just a little knowledge buy into this primordalism of a pristine pure steppe zone untouched or only lightly touched by outsiide influences. That is not the picture you get when you read work on the steppes in the last decade or so.

R.Rocca
06-13-2013, 11:16 PM
He cannot be so ignorant of the massive difference in P312 clades and the autosomal DNA too which clearly links Ireland to Britian, France and NW Europe. He really cannot surely not know this. The book he co-authored with Wilson on Scotland showed fairly good knowledge of this and that R1b and even P312 cannot be treated as a block headcount. It looks like shameless spinning and and attempt to tap into the Milesian mythology. I also think its an attempt to exploit post-colonial scars where some may prefer to find some exotic link that separates them from the British. It also taps into a similar preference to see echoes of the 17th century Catholic alliances with Spain against British agression back projected into antiquity. Its very easy to sell ideas to people who want to believe them. I personally think its looks very very cynical.

Let's not forget that the autosomal DNA of the first L21 might have been very similar of the other clades of P312. Just like autosomal DNA has shown that Mesolithic Iberians are not the ancestors of modern Iberians, it could very well be that the Iberians of the Copper Age may have looked more like modern day NW Europeans if we subtract the eastern clades that surely came later (Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Moors, etc.).

AJL
06-13-2013, 11:33 PM
Its very easy to sell ideas to people who want to believe them. I personally think its looks very very cynical.

Sadly, it reminds me of Donald Panther Yates.

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=506.0

AJL
06-13-2013, 11:35 PM
lol R1b - the psycopath lineage. I really do not like people who like to put R1a and R1b in some sort of intense rivallry.

Indeed, most men with R1a will have significant R1b in their background and vice versa.

alan
06-13-2013, 11:42 PM
Let's not forget that the autosomal DNA of the first L21 might have been very similar of the other clades of P312. Just like autosomal DNA has shown that Mesolithic Iberians are not the ancestors of modern Iberians, it could very well be that the Iberians of the Copper Age may have looked more like modern day NW Europeans if we subtract the eastern clades that surely came later (Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Moors, etc.).

That is true. The y DNA evidence is much more telling though. Only a small amount of Iberians (mainly those at the French border) share L21 the main Irish lineage while only a small amount of Irish share the predominant DF27 lineages of the Iberians. The two countries are extremes of domination by just one of the big three P312 clades. Ireland is far more related to Britain and to a lesser degree France when it comes to P312 clades. No other countries come even close. If you want as good a realistic take on the origins of the Irish then Mallory's book of that name is by far the best summary of this.

GoldenHind
06-14-2013, 12:04 AM
Yes, I think you've identified the marketing strategy. However, I'm not sure if he is qualified as shrewd businessman, maybe more of a Barnum and Bailey wannabe.

It's a little amusing that Moffat's "genocide" scenario plays into Kylosov,

"It seems that the arrival of the Aryans (R1a) in Europe was peaceful. There are no clear indications that their arrival triggered any sort of violence. However, the migration of the Arbins (R1b) was marked by an almost complete elimination of the E1b, F, G2a, J, I1, I2, and K haplogroups from Europe."


What are "Arbins?" Is this just a cute name for R1b?

GoldenHind
06-14-2013, 12:07 AM
If they really wanted to drum up some business, they should claim they have identified "Norman DNA."

rms2
06-14-2013, 12:09 AM
That's Klyosov's invented name for the R1b population, the counterpart to "Aryan" : aR[1]bin versus aR1an.

GTC
06-14-2013, 03:42 AM
If they really wanted to drum up some business, they should claim they have identified "Norman DNA."

Give them time ...

Andrew Lancaster
06-14-2013, 09:18 AM
Indeed, most men with R1a will have significant R1b in their background and vice versa.

All of them will. Any European will have approximately the exact same amounts of R1b, R1a, G, E, etc men in their family tree.

rms2
06-14-2013, 11:07 AM
All of them will. Any European will have approximately the exact same amounts of R1b, R1a, G, E, etc men in their family tree.

I agree but with the qualification that the proportions of the various y haplogroups depend on where in Europe most of one's ancestors came from. For example, a person of primarily Balkan ancestry will have a far greater proportion of E1b1b ancestors in his tree than a person from the British Isles would, and a person of primarily Eastern European ancestry - a Russian, say - will have a greater proportion of R1a ancestors than a Spaniard would.

alan
06-14-2013, 11:47 AM
I agree but with the qualification that the proportions of the various y haplogroups depend on where in Europe most of one's ancestors came from. For example, a person of primarily Balkan ancestry will have a far greater proportion of E1b1b ancestors in his tree than a person from the British Isles would, and a person of primarily Eastern European ancestry - a Russian, say - will have a greater proportion of R1a ancestors than a Spaniard would.

Although a huge amount of Europeans live in areas where thousands of years of their ancestry came from pre-R peoples in the Neolithic and before that. However, what that pre-R ancestry was would have varied a lot in terms of proportion of farmer vs hunter genes and of course variations in the mix within the farming waves too (LBK, Cardial as well as the later groups who settled areas neither of those cultures settled). I think the main divide in Europe is caused by the proportion between farmer and hunter input although that proportion was not all down to the remote past and was also altered by far later movements (including historic ones) in some places by movements from other areas where there was a different farmer-hunter mix (eg Germanic movements). In general though I think it would be crazy to attribute too much of the north European component to IE or later Germanic or Slavic movements because it is very high in places like Ireland (the top component there) and only a tiny part of it is down to late input. Other divisions like Atlanto-Med. that some studies use only make sense if it is a hybrid between hunters and farmers.

rms2
06-14-2013, 11:56 AM
I think you also have to keep in mind that the greatest proportion of one's ancestors lived comparatively recently. The population of Europe in the distant past was relatively small. We all share most of that small pool of ancestors, but the later incomers were obviously successful breeders and their groups would come to form the greater part of our cumulative ancestry.

alan
06-14-2013, 12:42 PM
I think you also have to keep in mind that the greatest proportion of one's ancestors lived comparatively recently. The population of Europe in the distant past was relatively small. We all share most of that small pool of ancestors, but the later incomers were obviously successful breeders and their groups would come to form the greater part of our cumulative ancestry.

I half agree with that but when a male-only movement (say R1b) arrives in an area they will quickly dilute their ancestral autosomal DNA to an eighth in just 3 generations of marrying local woman before marrying among themselves really becomes a realistic option. Even if they then tend to marry among other R1b male lines locally the dilution cannot really be undone if its affected all the local R1b lineages by then. So even a massive expansion of an R1b line after that would simply expand the 3rd or 4th generation autosomal DNA that the R1b settlers had acquired in early generations of settling. No amount of expansion of a y lineage changes the likelihood that those lineages were expanding a much diluted version of their ancestral autosomal DNA. In other words if a 3rd generation beaker man with is one eighth beaker autosomal ancestry has tons of sons who marry women whose father is a distant cousin and also has an eighth beaker ancestry then the proportion is going to remain the same no matter how much they expand or how much they imbreed. Without further intrusions of the same beaker people then the beaker people even if they marry among themselves will have reached some sort of equilibrium of autosomal DNA pattern that was created in their first few generations when they had to marry locals. Alliance marrying of locals would have been a neccessity for a small group like that. That is the way I would see it. Clearly it is a different story if whole communities settle as probably happened in pre-beaker times.

AJL
06-14-2013, 03:09 PM
I agree but with the qualification that the proportions of the various y haplogroups depend on where in Europe most of one's ancestors came from. For example, a person of primarily Balkan ancestry will have a far greater proportion of E1b1b ancestors in his tree than a person from the British Isles would, and a person of primarily Eastern European ancestry - a Russian, say - will have a greater proportion of R1a ancestors than a Spaniard would.

Yes, that was my point too -- two Welsh people, one an R1a guy and one an R1b, will have roughly the same amount of ancestors from each haplogroup as each other: but typically an R1a Welsh person will have significantly fewer R1a ancestors than an R1b Ukrainian man.

rms2
06-14-2013, 05:17 PM
I half agree with that but when a male-only movement (say R1b) arrives in an area they will quickly dilute their ancestral autosomal DNA to an eighth in just 3 generations of marrying local woman before marrying among themselves really becomes a realistic option. Even if they then tend to marry among other R1b male lines locally the dilution cannot really be undone if its affected all the local R1b lineages by then. So even a massive expansion of an R1b line after that would simply expand the 3rd or 4th generation autosomal DNA that the R1b settlers had acquired in early generations of settling. No amount of expansion of a y lineage changes the likelihood that those lineages were expanding a much diluted version of their ancestral autosomal DNA. In other words if a 3rd generation beaker man with is one eighth beaker autosomal ancestry has tons of sons who marry women whose father is a distant cousin and also has an eighth beaker ancestry then the proportion is going to remain the same no matter how much they expand or how much they imbreed. Without further intrusions of the same beaker people then the beaker people even if they marry among themselves will have reached some sort of equilibrium of autosomal DNA pattern that was created in their first few generations when they had to marry locals. Alliance marrying of locals would have been a neccessity for a small group like that. That is the way I would see it. Clearly it is a different story if whole communities settle as probably happened in pre-beaker times.

I think that depends on how many women each male incomer begets children with and how many of those children survive to produce offspring themselves. If one Beaker man begets children with five different women over the course of his lifetime, and those children enter the breeding pool, then the amount of Beaker autosomal dna has increased versus the stuff that is not at least half Beaker.

If the Beaker men had a breeding advantage due to elite status and perhaps wealth, then non-Beaker autosomal dna would be at a reproductive disadvantage. Yes, the native females would introduce non-Beaker stuff, but as I pointed out above, a single Beaker man with multiple native female partners would increase the pool of half-Beaker versus non-Beaker autosomal dna.

alan
06-14-2013, 08:03 PM
Another obvious point is that P312 is most typically dated to c. 2500BC by people doing variance calculations. Bell beaker arrived in the north-west Europe in less than a century after that date. So just how many P312 people even existed in the world when less than 100 years later they arrived in NW Europe If the correlation between P312 and beaker and the variance dating is correct then we are looking at basically a few clans of people trying to control metallurgy and other trade. You cant go from Mr P312 to more than a few hundred people in the space of less than a century. It gets worse when you look at L21 alone. It must have been born just as beaker was reaching NW France and the isles. There really cannot have been very many L21 men when the beakers arrived in the isles. They were probably all cousins (perhaps 2nd, 3rd cousins). It is probably best to see them as trade families rather than a people as such. Anyway I dont want to labour the point but the beaker people were clearly in no position to massacre anyone. Their dominance genetically in any given location may have taken many centuries or even millenia to achieve.

alan
06-14-2013, 08:19 PM
I think that depends on how many women each male incomer begets children with and how many of those children survive to produce offspring themselves. If one Beaker man begets children with five different women over the course of his lifetime, and those children enter the breeding pool, then the amount of Beaker autosomal dna has increased versus the stuff that is not at least half Beaker.

If the Beaker men had a breeding advantage due to elite status and perhaps wealth, then non-Beaker autosomal dna would be at a reproductive disadvantage. Yes, the native females would introduce non-Beaker stuff, but as I pointed out above, a single Beaker man with multiple native female partners would increase the pool of half-Beaker versus non-Beaker autosomal dna.

Its hard to reason through but I would say in the 1st locally born beaker generation they were probably half beaker in autosomal DNA due to marrying local women. Then in the next generation the beaker people would consist of brothers and sisters and 1st cousins who were half beaker in terms of autosomal DNA. i strongly suspect that that generation would have married out too which would have created a generation of quarter beaker people. I dont think they would have commenced marrying within themselves (and probably to a limited degree) until at least that generation and personally I think they probably would still have been spreading around looking for alliances. I dont think they would have wanted to avoid looking like an alien group if they could. That is why I tend to think that before beaker people had got beyond the stage of needing to marry locals to form alliances etc (and to avoid pretty nasty inbreeding) they may have got to their autosomal DNA may have been very diluted. It only takes 2 generations of marrying out and avoiding close cousin marriages to get to the stage where the original beaker DNA was reduced to a quarter. At that stage even if they exterminated every non-beaker person and only married their 3rd cousins they would already be 75% local in autosomal DNA. I basically think its close to impossible for a small male only group (if indeed that is what beaker was) to avoid having their original autosomal DNA quartered or worse unless they had some sort of policy of importing wives from other beaker groups. The mind boggles as to what the linguistic effect is on a group like that if they are forced to marry out for a couple of generations. Its hard to imagine the language not being very significantly effected in that period by marrying out.

razyn
06-14-2013, 08:22 PM
Maybe the P312 Trading Company had antibodies to something that made the local guys sterile, such as mumps.

alan
06-14-2013, 09:51 PM
Maybe the P312 Trading Company had antibodies to something that made the local guys sterile, such as mumps.

Maybe the locals wore their trousers too tight and Beaker introduced new baggy clothes or tunics that kept the family jewels at the right temperature.

razyn
06-14-2013, 10:00 PM
Well one of our Celtic nationalists was going on about kilts on the Tarim Basin mummies, not long ago... But I was more thinking of somebody's cowpox theory, of recent memory, whereby that would have given the pastoralist newcomers some resistance to smallpox.

Webb
06-14-2013, 11:47 PM
The beakers introduced spirits that could be made frequently due to the farming of grain. Everywhere they went they were the life of the party. They got everyone sloshed, thereby becoming sort of drunken celebrities. The women couldn't resist the partying beakers. Consider the acceptance of alcohol in the countries dominated by R1b. I keep saying it was all about the beer, or wine, or spirits.

ADW_1981
06-15-2013, 02:05 AM
There has to be some reason why R1b in general, and L21 in particular, is so dominant in Ireland, but I don't think genocide of the previous inhabitants is the only or even the most likely explanation.

It seems unlikely to me that the R1b in Ireland came there from Iberia. The most common variety of R1b in Iberia appears to be DF27, which I gather is pretty rare in Ireland, while L21, which is so dominant in Ireland, is apparently pretty rare in Iberia.


There would be a cascade effect. Southern France and western France have sizeable amoungs of DF27 and L21. Prior to moving to Ireland, southern England may have been saturated with L21 some DF27/P312*. I would agree if the settlers moved directly Spain -> Ireland L21 wouldn't make much sense at all. Realistically this type of settlement would take generations.

rms2
06-15-2013, 12:38 PM
Another obvious point is that P312 is most typically dated to c. 2500BC by people doing variance calculations. Bell beaker arrived in the north-west Europe in less than a century after that date. So just how many P312 people even existed in the world when less than 100 years later they arrived in NW Europe If the correlation between P312 and beaker and the variance dating is correct then we are looking at basically a few clans of people trying to control metallurgy and other trade. You cant go from Mr P312 to more than a few hundred people in the space of less than a century. It gets worse when you look at L21 alone. It must have been born just as beaker was reaching NW France and the isles. There really cannot have been very many L21 men when the beakers arrived in the isles. They were probably all cousins (perhaps 2nd, 3rd cousins). It is probably best to see them as trade families rather than a people as such. Anyway I dont want to labour the point but the beaker people were clearly in no position to massacre anyone. Their dominance genetically in any given location may have taken many centuries or even millenia to achieve.

Maybe, but those age estimates are only estimates, with big margins of error. P312 could easily be a thousand years older than estimated. It could also be younger, but I think that less likely. In other words, I would factor in the margin of error and not use the age estimates to put too fine a point on things.

alan
06-15-2013, 01:28 PM
Maybe, but those age estimates are only estimates, with big margins of error. P312 could easily be a thousand years older than estimated. It could also be younger, but I think that less likely. In other words, I would factor in the margin of error and not use the age estimates to put too fine a point on things.

I do think that a date as late as 2500BC for P312 is a shade late to explain the spread of P312 unless it wasnt part of beakers in its earliest phases. One or the other has to give. I am not sure which. It could be argued that the very earliest phases featured L51*, L11* etc but that doesnt really help because the vast majority of R1b in that zone is P312 and it would not really fit a simple link with the spread of beaker. Either it was at least a century or two older than 2500BC or it only joined beaker in central Europe. Actually even pushing P312 back 100-150 years would make it a much better fit. it would also make a huge difference as to how many beaker people there actually were by the time it underwent it big geographical expansions c. 2500BC as that would give it 5 or 6 genetations to multiply which makes an exponensial difference in a really fast growing lineage (difference between just a tiny extended family to perhaps a few thousand people (athough that its the whole of Europe). I would feel that to fan out even as specialists in many small clans of a few dozen peoples across Europe there would have to have reached that sort of level at least since Mr P312. On balance it is easier to think P312 dates from 2700BC or something like that if we want to make the beaker spread of P312 more of a viable model. I wouldnt push it may a lot further than that (certainly not much more than 3000BC) or we start to run into conflict with ancient DNA evidence. Certainly 2500BC is a shade young and is problematic for a viable beaker model.

rms2
06-15-2013, 06:16 PM
It's too bad they didn't test the Kromsdorf remains for P312.

alan
06-15-2013, 07:09 PM
It's too bad they didn't test the Kromsdorf remains for P312.

Well we know it wasnt U106. So it had to be M269*, L23*, L51*, L11* or P312*. The first two seem very unlikely to me given the extreme lack of them today. I doubt too it was L51* because that would likely to have led to a lineage and I doubt L11* originated there. My money is on L11* or P312.

rms2
06-15-2013, 11:55 PM
Well we know it wasnt U106. So it had to be M269*, L23*, L51*, L11* or P312*. The first two seem very unlikely to me given the extreme lack of them today. I doubt too it was L51* because that would likely to have led to a lineage and I doubt L11* originated there. My money is on L11* or P312.

I think they were P312+, but, of course, I could be wrong.

I figure those scientists were thinking, "Hey, we're in Germany! Let's test these remains for U106! We could get lucky and have a big breakthrough to our credit!"

So they missed the big P312 breakthrough.

alan
06-16-2013, 12:05 PM
I think they were P312+, but, of course, I could be wrong.

I figure those scientists were thinking, "Hey, we're in Germany! Let's test these remains for U106! We could get lucky and have a big breakthrough to our credit!"

So they missed the big P312 breakthrough.

I tended for a while to think L51* originated nearer the west side of north Italy but now its been found correlated with the Romance people in Tyrol in a study I think it probably originated somewhere around the Austria-Italy border in the eastern Alps. I still do not feel I know where L11 first happened. If it was also in the eastern Alps then I suppose it could have split with some heading north (perhaps ancestral to U106) and some heading west (ancestral to P312). However if L11 occurred on the west side of the Alps then I think its likely that the spread of L11* north was also beaker driven. The problem with seeing L11* going along the Danube then both west and north into the future U106 world is that there is no natural route into its high variance area of U106 between the Dniester and the Rhine. If it was the Rhine then its got to have been neaker driven. If it was the Dniester or any other route straight to the Baltic then that would push both L11 and L51 much further east than most would accept. Nothing is certain but I think on balance I would tend to believe that L11* travelled to the Baltic from the west and that later U106 appeared among an individual there perhaps in late beaker or early post-beaker times.

TigerMW
06-18-2013, 12:12 PM
I tended for a while to think L51* originated nearer the west side of north Italy but now its been found correlated with the Romance people in Tyrol in a study I think it probably originated somewhere around the Austria-Italy border in the eastern Alps. I still do not feel I know where L11 first happened. If it was also in the eastern Alps then I suppose it could have split with some heading north (perhaps ancestral to U106) and some heading west (ancestral to P312). However if L11 occurred on the west side of the Alps then I think its likely that the spread of L11* north was also beaker driven. The problem with seeing L11* going along the Danube then both west and north into the future U106 world is that there is no natural route into its high variance area of U106 between the Dniester and the Rhine. If it was the Rhine then its got to have been neaker driven. If it was the Dniester or any other route straight to the Baltic then that would push both L11 and L51 much further east than most would accept. Nothing is certain but I think on balance I would tend to believe that L11* travelled to the Baltic from the west and that later U106 appeared among an individual there perhaps in late beaker or early post-beaker times.

I don't think this is a popular idea because it is a can of worms but I think this is where the linguistics can help with the puzzle. U106 does correlate with Germanic languages and P312 with Italo-Celtic but also with Germanic. We have R1a correlating (which types specifically I'm still trying to understand) with Balto-Slavic and Germanic in Europe. Of course the basic premise is that PIE is a valid concept and these languages follow tree-like branching with word borrowing versus development being discernible. It makes sense to me but its all controversial as well.

TigerMW
06-18-2013, 12:22 PM
I do think that a date as late as 2500BC for P312 is a shade late to explain the spread of P312 unless it wasnt part of beakers in its earliest phases. One or the other has to give. I am not sure which. It could be argued that the very earliest phases featured L51*, L11* etc but that doesnt really help because the vast majority of R1b in that zone is P312 and it would not really fit a simple link with the spread of beaker. Either it was at least a century or two older than 2500BC or it only joined beaker in central Europe. Actually even pushing P312 back 100-150 years would make it a much better fit. it would also make a huge difference as to how many beaker people there actually were by the time it underwent it big geographical expansions c. 2500BC as that would give it 5 or 6 genetations to multiply which makes an exponensial difference in a really fast growing lineage (difference between just a tiny extended family to perhaps a few thousand people (athough that its the whole of Europe). I would feel that to fan out even as specialists in many small clans of a few dozen peoples across Europe there would have to have reached that sort of level at least since Mr P312. On balance it is easier to think P312 dates from 2700BC or something like that if we want to make the beaker spread of P312 more of a viable model. I wouldnt push it may a lot further than that (certainly not much more than 3000BC) or we start to run into conflict with ancient DNA evidence. Certainly 2500BC is a shade young and is problematic for a viable beaker model.

This is an essential point that I still think many don't understand. It was not many P312 men that procreated our P312 Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA). It was just one. There was just one "Mr. P312" MRCA. That does not mean that his brothers and cousins were not already part of some fast growing clan but his was the oldest lineage to survive. If a clan is growing quickly and spreading quickly (intermarrying with others) that is good for survivorship as the added diversity in geography, climate, culture, autosomal DNA, etc. amounted to safety. There is safety not just in numbers, but in diversification so as one plague or one war or whatever would not wipe the clan out.

I think we do have those facts to work with. There was a "Mr. P312" MRCA, a "Mr. U106", "Mr. L11", etc. Their modern modals indicate they probably weren't too distantly related. Apparently, the fact that they survived indicates rapid proliferation and movement, leveraging networks and alliances.

BTW, as far as the thread title goes or Klyosov's opinions. I don't discount them out of hand. Both the carrot and stick may have been in play. For some clan to prevail in setting up the first Pan-European network, they probably had to use both. Maybe it was the metallurgy, livestock or some combination of factors that was the carrot, but people don't make major changes without pain. The existing Europeans probably had to at least feel some threat as well. I guess that threat didn't have to come from the new people though, perhaps they were starving or facing some other catastrophes.