Analyses of a fifth ancient English genome

Below are the results of analyses of ERS389799, the fifth of the five Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon samples from Hinxton, England.

The data indicate that ERS389799 was female. The mt-SNP calls show that she belonged to mitochondrial haplogroup H2a2a1.

ERS389799 didn’t have any of the K12b Gedrosia component. She had a bit less of the MDLP Iberian components than ERS389796, and a bit more of them than ERS389798.

The abstract for the paper on these ancient English genomes mentions that one of the two Iron Age genomes is high coverage. ERS389798 is the high coverage genome, so we know that ERS389798 is one of the two Iron Age samples. The abstract also mentions that the Iron Age samples had a greater affinity with Iberian samples. Since ERS389797 had such large amounts of the MDLP Iberian components, we can deduce that ERS389797 is the other Iron Age sample. The three samples from the Anglo-Saxon period are therefore ERS389795, ERS389796, and ERS389799. The abstract mentioned that the samples from the Anglo-Saxon period had a greater affinity with Finnish samples. We can see that this finding is due to ERS389795, which had large amounts of the MDLP Balto-Finnic components.

globe4

  • 88.51% European
  • 5.93% African
  • 5.57% Amerindian
  • 0.00% Asian

globe10

  • 85.96% Atlantic_Baltic
  • 6.00% Southern
  • 5.37% Neo_African
  • 1.41% Palaeo_African
  • 1.26% Amerindian
  • 0.00% Australasian
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Siberian
  • 0.00% South_Asian
  • 0.00% West_Asian

globe13

  • 60.87% North_European
  • 31.98% Mediterranean
  • 5.02% West_African
  • 1.57% Palaeo_African
  • 0.55% Amerindian
  • 0.01% Southwest_Asian
  • 0.00% Arctic
  • 0.00% Australasian
  • 0.00% East_African
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Siberian
  • 0.00% South_Asian
  • 0.00% West_Asian

K7b

  • 85.37% Atlantic_Baltic
  • 7.16% Southern
  • 6.86% African
  • 0.50% Siberian
  • 0.11% West_Asian
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% South_Asian

K10a

  • 67.95% Atlantic_Baltic
  • 25.60% Mediterranean
  • 5.34% Sub_Saharan
  • 1.11% Palaeoafrican
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Red_Sea
  • 0.00% Siberian
  • 0.00% South_Asian
  • 0.00% Southeast_Asian
  • 0.00% West_Asian

K12b

  • 54.51% North_European
  • 38.02% Atlantic_Med
  • 5.01% Sub_Saharan
  • 2.32% East_African
  • 0.08% Northwest_African
  • 0.06% Caucasus
  • 0.00% East_Asian
  • 0.00% Gedrosia
  • 0.00% Siberian
  • 0.00% South_Asian
  • 0.00% Southeast_Asian
  • 0.00% Southwest_Asian

dv3

  • 59.73% West_European
  • 24.91% Mediterranean
  • 8.22% East_European
  • 5.41% Palaeo_African
  • 1.69% Neo_African
  • 0.03% Northwest_African
  • 0.00% East_African
  • 0.00% Northeast_Asian
  • 0.00% South_Asian
  • 0.00% Southeast_Asian
  • 0.00% Southwest_Asian
  • 0.00% West_Asian

MDLP K=5

  • 47.18% West-Eurasian
  • 42.46% Paleo-mediterranean
  • 9.97% Caucasian
  • 0.39% South-Asian
  • 0.00% East-Eurasian

MDLP K=6

  • 46.71% West-Eurasian
  • 38.86% Paleo-Mediterranean
  • 8.34% Caucasian
  • 6.08% North-West-Eurasian
  • 0.01% South-Asian
  • 0.00% East-Euroasian

MDLP K=7

  • 44.62% West-Eurasian
  • 37.77% Paleo-Mediterranean
  • 9.60% Paleo-Scandinavian
  • 7.98% Caucasian
  • 0.02% South-Central-Asian
  • 0.00% Altaic-Turkic
  • 0.00% Volga-Uralic

MDLP K=8

  • 48.49% West-European
  • 26.70% East-European
  • 12.52% Caucasian
  • 6.54% Paleo-Mediterranean
  • 5.72% Paleo-Scandinavian
  • 0.02% South-Central-Asian
  • 0.00% Altaic-Turkic
  • 0.00% Volga-Finnic

MDLP K=9

  • 48.53% West-European
  • 24.40% East-European
  • 12.44% Caucasian
  • 6.14% Paleo-Mediterranean
  • 5.83% Paleo-Scandinavian
  • 2.63% Paleo-Balkanic
  • 0.02% South-Central-Asian
  • 0.00% Altaic-Turkic
  • 0.00% Volga-Finnic

MDLP K=10

  • 52.96% British
  • 15.28% Iberian
  • 10.70% East-European
  • 6.88% Paleo-Mediterranean
  • 5.82% Paleo-North-European
  • 5.13% Caucasian
  • 2.83% Paleo-Balkanic
  • 0.40% South-Central-Asian
  • 0.00% Altaic-Turkic
  • 0.00% Volga-Finnic

MDLP K=11

  • 53.87% Celto-Germanic
  • 14.24% Iberian
  • 10.69% East-European
  • 6.43% Mediterranean
  • 5.61% Paleo-North-European
  • 5.18% Caucasian
  • 2.85% Paleo-Balkanic
  • 0.58% Volga-Uralic
  • 0.56% South-Central-Asian
  • 0.00% Altaic-Turkic
  • 0.00% Uralic-Permic

MDLP K=12

  • 54.58% Celto-Germanic
  • 13.81% Iberian
  • 11.87% East-European
  • 6.06% Paleo-Mediterranean
  • 6.03% Paleo-North-European
  • 4.22% Caucasian
  • 2.58% Paleo-Balkanic
  • 0.41% South-Central Asian
  • 0.41% Volga-Uralic
  • 0.01% Balto-Finnic
  • 0.00% Alatic-Turkic
  • 0.00% Uralic-Permic

MDLP K=13

  • 25.79% Paleo-Mediterranean
  • 23.05% Altaic
  • 13.07% East-Mediterranean
  • 12.15% Mediterrean
  • 8.28% Baltic-Finnic
  • 7.90% South-Central-Asian
  • 7.06% Celto-Germanic
  • 2.03% Paleo-North-European
  • 0.63% Caucasian
  • 0.02% Iberian
  • 0.00% East-European
  • 0.00% Uralic-Permic
  • 0.00% Volga-Uralic

MDLP K=14

  • 49.71% Celto-Germanic
  • 11.55% Iberian
  • 11.01% Balto-Slavic
  • 8.83% East-Mediterranean
  • 6.13% Paleo-Scandinavian
  • 5.21% Mediterranean
  • 3.51% Paleo-Mediterranean
  • 2.34% Paleo-Balkanic
  • 1.47% Caucasian
  • 0.15% South-Central-Asian
  • 0.08% Volga-Finnic
  • 0.00% Altaic
  • 0.00% Balto-Finnic
  • 0.00% Uralic-Permic

MDLP K=15

  • 50.64% Celto-Germanic
  • 11.28% Balto-Slavic
  • 11.00% Iberian
  • 8.17% East-Mediterranean
  • 6.19% Paleo-North-European
  • 5.23% Balkanic-1
  • 3.29% West-Mediterranean
  • 2.37% Balkanic-2
  • 1.49% Caucasian
  • 0.24% South-Central-Asian
  • 0.11% Volga-Uralic
  • 0.00% Balto-Finnic
  • 0.00% East-Altaic
  • 0.00% Uralic-Permic
  • 0.00% West-Altaic

MDLP World-22

  • 46.14% North-East-European
  • 38.16% Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic
  • 11.02% North-European-Mesolithic
  • 3.02% Pygmy
  • 1.65% South-African
  • 0.01% Sub-Saharian
  • 0.00% Arctic-Amerind
  • 0.00% Austronesian
  • 0.00% East-Siberean
  • 0.00% East-South-Asian
  • 0.00% Indian
  • 0.00% Indo-Iranian
  • 0.00% Indo-Tibetan
  • 0.00% Melanesian
  • 0.00% Mesoamerican
  • 0.00% Near_East
  • 0.00% North-Amerind
  • 0.00% North-Siberean
  • 0.00% Paleo-Siberian
  • 0.00% Samoedic
  • 0.00% South-America_Amerind
  • 0.00% West-Asian

MDLP Ancient Roots K17

  • 51.19% Ancestral_East_European_ANE
  • 28.36% West_European_HG
  • 10.29% Caucasian-Basal
  • 7.22% Ancestral_Mediterranean_EEF
  • 1.61% Ancestral_Sami-Finnic
  • 0.29% Ancestral_West_Siberian
  • 0.27% Uralic
  • 0.16% Amerindian
  • 0.13% Ancestral_South_Indian
  • 0.11% Ancestral_North_Indian
  • 0.08% Ancestral_East_Siberian
  • 0.08% Melano-Austronesian
  • 0.06% African_Sub_Saharian
  • 0.04% Archaic_African
  • 0.04% Near-East-Basal
  • 0.04% South_East_Asian
  • 0.01% Circumpolar

MDLP Ancient Roots K18

  • 43.66% North_West_European
  • 25.57% East_European
  • 16.83% Caucasian
  • 12.09% Sami-Finnic
  • 0.87% Mediterranean
  • 0.85% Archaic_African
  • 0.11% Volga-Uralic
  • 0.00% Afroasiatic
  • 0.00% Amerindian
  • 0.00% Arctic
  • 0.00% East_African
  • 0.00% East_Siberian
  • 0.00% Melano-Austronesian
  • 0.00% Roma
  • 0.00% South_Central_Asian
  • 0.00% South_East_Asian
  • 0.00% South_Indian
  • 0.00% West_Siberian

MDLP K23b

  • 43.33% European_Hunters_Gatherers
  • 23.15% European_Early_Farmers
  • 16.11% Caucasian
  • 4.38% Near-East
  • 3.27% Austronesian
  • 2.61% North-African
  • 1.52% African-Pygmy
  • 1.31% Archaic-Human
  • 1.21% Archaic-African
  • 1.08% Subsaharian
  • 0.74% Ancestral-North-Eurasian
  • 0.62% Paleo-Siberian
  • 0.44% Ancestral-North-Indian
  • 0.11% East-African
  • 0.10% Austroloid
  • 0.01% South-East-Asian
  • 0.00% Altaiс
  • 0.00% Amerindian
  • 0.00% Ancestral-South-Indian
  • 0.00% Arctic
  • 0.00% East-Siberian
  • 0.00% Khoisan
  • 0.00% Melano-Polinesian
Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized
13 comments on “Analyses of a fifth ancient English genome
  1. Alberto says:

    Thank you for the fast analysis of all the samples. Now it all makes more sense.

    So the 2 Iron Age samples were more typically Celtic, with less North_European/Atlantic_Baltic and more Southern/Mediterranean components, that’s why the abstract mentions they had some higher affinity with Iberians. While the Anglo-Saxon invaders from later on do represent a more northern type (2 of them clearly, while the other seems like a mixture of the old Celts and new Anglo-Saxons).

    Old Celtic population had Gedrosia component while it seems Anglo-Saxons didn’t. But nowadays where Anglo-Saxons came from (North Germany, south Denmark,…) does have Gedrosia component (as well and Norway and Sweden). Did the Gedrosia component arrive to northern Europe only during the middle ages? And why, when we thought that gene flow during those times would have been the other way around (Northerners going south and west)?

    • Banti says:

      Historically Britain was once inhabited by Iberians and the 2 ‘Iron age’ samples are therefor most probably those Iberians (or remnants of) that once inhabited Britain. (not Celts)
      These results prove/confirm the accounts of Tacitus and Caesar more than anything. The abstract mentions that 2 were ‘Iron age’ from 2000BP and the other 3 Anglo_Saxon from 1300BP. The Abstract also mentions “the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples” so the modern British have little to do with the former Iron age populous.

      • genetiker says:

        It was only the Silures of southeastern Wales that Tacitus described as having an Iberian phenotype. He described a variety of different phenotypes existing in Britain in his time.

        From his Agricola:

        Who were the first inhabitants of Britain, whether indigenous or immigrants, is a question involved in the obscurity usual among barbarians. Their temperament of body is various, whence deductions are formed of their different origin. Thus, the ruddy hair and large limbs of the Caledonians point out a German derivation. The swarthy complexion and curled hair of the Silures, together with their situation opposite to Spain, render it probable that a colony of the ancient Iberi possessed themselves of that territory. They who are nearest Gaul resemble the inhabitants of that country; whether from the duration of hereditary influence, or whether it be that when lands jut forward in opposite directions, climate gives the same condition of body to the inhabitants of both. On a general survey, however, it appears probable that the Gauls originally took possession of the neighboring coast. The sacred rites and superstitions of these people are discernible among the Britons. The languages of the two nations do not greatly differ. The same audacity in provoking danger, and irresolution in facing it when present, is observable in both. The Britons, however, display more ferocity, not being yet softened by a long peace: for it appears from history that the Gauls were once renowned in war, till, losing their valor with their liberty, languor and indolence entered amongst them. The same change has also taken place among those of the Britons who have been long subdued; but the rest continue such as the Gauls formerly were.

        As far as I’m aware, the writings of Caesar don’t tell us anything about the biological phenotype of the peoples of Britain in his time.

        From his De Bello Gallico:

        The interior portion of Britain is inhabited by those of whom they say that it is handed down by tradition that they were born in the island itself: the maritime portion by those who had passed over from the country of the Belgae for the purpose of plunder and making war; almost all of whom are called by the names of those states from which being sprung they went thither, and having waged war, continued there and began to cultivate the lands. The number of the people is countless, and their buildings exceedingly numerous, for the most part very like those of the Gauls: the number of cattle is great. They use either brass or iron rings, determined at a certain weight, as their money. Tin is produced in the midland regions; in the maritime, iron; but the quantity of it is small: they employ brass, which is imported. There, as in Gaul, is timber of every description, except beech and fir. They do not regard it lawful to eat the hare, and the cock, and the goose; they, however, breed them for amusement and pleasure. The climate is more temperate than in Gaul, the colds being less severe.

        The most civilised of all these nations are they who inhabit Kent, which is entirely a maritime district, nor do they differ much from the Gallic customs. Most of the inland inhabitants do not sow corn, but live on milk and flesh, and are clad with skins. All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with wood, which occasions a bluish colour, and thereby have a more terrible appearance in fight. They wear their hair long, and have every part of their body shaved except their head and upper lip. Ten and even twelve have wives common to them, and particularly brothers among brothers, and parents among their children; but if there be any issue by these wives, they are reputed to be the children of those by whom respectively each was first espoused when a virgin.

        ERS389798 was one of the two Iron Age samples. If ERS389798 was R1b-L21, then he was definitely at least part Celtic, because R1b-L21 is the Insular Celtic haplogroup.

        The ADMIXTURE analysis that I used for my K = 26 admixture analysis of Amerindians and Mestizos produced a Finnish component and a Basque component, and the plot shows that the British are a mix of these two components, but that they have more of the Basque component than the Finnish component.

  2. genetiker says:

    I don’t think ERS389796 is a mixture of Celts and Anglo-Saxons. I think she’s evidence that the people who immigrated to England during the Anglo-Saxon period were genetically heterogeneous. I think that most of the Anglo-Saxons were R1b-U106, and that they carried the Gedrosia component, like ERS389796.

    The Bell Beaker culture spread to Scandinavia around 2500–2000 BC, so we know that R1b and the Gedrosia component entered Scandinavia no later than that time.

    My analyses of the genome of the old man of Borum Eshøj in Denmark showed that he had 25.03% of the Gedrosia component, which is as large as the amounts that Mal’ta 1 and Afontova Gora 2 had. The old man belonged to the Nordic Bronze Age culture, which is thought to have been the culture of the proto-Germanic people.

  3. Alberto says:

    Yes, it’s possible that …95 and …99 don’t represent the most typical Anglo-Saxon invaders. With so few samples it’s difficult to draw any meaningful conclusion. They could be more Eastern for whatever reason (nowadays England has around 4.5% R1a, that is supposed to have come with the Anglo-Saxons, so these 2 could belong to that group of people).

  4. Banti says:

    Tacirtus: The swarthy complexion and curled hair of the Silures, together with their situation opposite to Spain, render it probable that a colony of the ancient Iberi possessed themselves of that territory.
    Caesar: interior portion of Britain is inhabited by those of whom they say that it is handed down by tradition that they were born in the island itself: the maritime portion by those who had passed over from the country of the Belgae

    These 2 ‘Iron age’ samples are not from the Maritime/Coastal i.e. Belgae Gaul area. And they absolutely confirm what was already well known Historically by people who were in Britain ~2000BP. This study confirms that iron age Britain was still Iberian or remnant Iberian. And so if ERS389798 is R1b L21 that that is not Insular “Celtic” but Insular Iberian. Keeping the Irish Mil Espaine in mind as well. R1b U152 which is only (sufficiantly) present on the Maritime portions would be Continetal Urnfield (Celtic/Italic) and Insular Gaulish/Belgae.

    • Banti says:

      PS: (cant edit my previous post)
      Kent is of the Gaulish/Belgae Maritime portion but the samples are not from Kent but from a more interior location (Hinxton). The results confirm a strong Iberian presence even during the late iron age (few decades before Claudian conquest). I dont doubt your ADMIXTURE analysis skills but going with what the Abstract reveals than in PCA all samples are within North European realm (also mtDNA HG’s) but with FineStructure ‘We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population….the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation….in particular Spain (1000GP IBS)’ clearly revealing its Iberian strain. Which is Historically not a secret since ~2000BP.

  5. genetiker says:

    I don’t know why you keep putting Iron Age in quotation marks. 2,000 years before present in Britain is Iron Age.

    Again, it’s only the Silures of southeastern Wales that Tacitus described as looking like Iberians. He then inferred from that observation that their ancestors probably came from Iberia.

    Tacitus didn’t say anything about any of the other peoples of Britain having Iberian affinities. He specifically said that the Caledonians, in what is now Scotland, had a very different phenotype, including red hair.

    Caesar didn’t say anything about any of the peoples of Britain having Iberian affinities.

    If you know of other ancient sources that say that any of the peoples of Britain other than the Silures had Iberian affinities, then I’d like to see them.

    We don’t have any samples from the Silures, so we have no idea what haplogroups they belonged to, or what their autosomal DNA was like.

    There is no doubt whatsoever that R1b-L21 is the Insular Celtic haplogroup. The distribution of R1b-L21, shown in (b) here, coincides perfectly with the distribution of the Insular Celtic languages. There’s nothing Iberian about the distribution of R1b-L21.

    I agree that the Belgae were R1b-U152/S28.

    It is true that the Iron Age samples had a stronger affinity with Iberian samples than the Anglo-Saxon samples did. I believe that the reason for that is that R1b people inhabited an Iberian refuge for much of the Upper Paleolithic. I think that the R1b-L21 people of Iron Age Britain preserved more of the Iberian alleles originally associated with R1b than the R1b-U106 Anglo-Saxons did. But it would be wrong to infer from that greater Iberian affinity that all of the Iron Age people of Britain looked like the average modern-day Iberian, and it would certainly be wrong to infer that they weren’t Celtic. It’s wrong to simply say that the Iron Age people of Britain were “Iberians”.

    Of course the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population. The Anglo-Saxons obviously made some contribution to the DNA of the modern-day British, and the Iron Age people of Britain obviously lacked whatever DNA the Anglo-Saxons contributed.

    • Banti says:

      Tacitus does not single out the Silures as Iberians.
      He uses the Silures as the prime example that ”an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts”. And if this study proves anything than that Tacitus was correct and Iberians did indeed cross over to Britain. Archaeologically most probably during the Chalcolithic Bell Beaker times. So personally i am not surprised by the results (illustrated in the Abstract) of the 2 iron age samples and their Iberian affinity.

      Correct that Caesar does not specify who the internal inhabitants are but he clearly differentiates them to the Gauls/Celts in saying that the internal inhabitants are ”born in the island itself” and the Gauls/Celts of the maritime areas are ”passed over from the country of the Belgae”. Archaeologically these ‘native’ Britons could only be from the Iberian Bell Beaker folks who inhabited Britain before the Celts. Archaeologically the Gaulish/Celtic crossing is dated to 1st century BC aka ~2100BP. And i never said that these 2 ‘Iron age’ samples are Iberian i said they are Iberian or remnants of these Iberians.

      As for R1b-L21 lets not forget the Mil Espaine and the Bell Beaker complex. I have to wait till the entire study gets published but if indeed these 2 Iron age Iberian types are L21 than what is supposedly Celtic about them? L21 would be an Insular >Iberian< branch of P-312 a sister to DF27.

  6. genetiker says:

    Tacitus does not single out the Silures as Iberians.

    Nor did he generalize from them to any of the other Iron Age peoples of Britain, as you’re doing.

    To the contrary, he said of the inhabitants of Britain that “their temperament of body is various”.

    To the contrary, he said that the Caledonians had “ruddy hair and large limbs”.

    The Caledonians were among the interior inhabitants that Caesar said were “born in the island itself”. They would have been R1b-L21, and they did not have the modern-day Iberian phenotype that the Silures had.

    The R1b-L21 Insular Celts entered Britain long before 100 BC, when the R1b-S28 Belgae entered Britain.

    Since the Iron Age individuals clustered with modern-day Northern Europeans in the PCA, we can infer that they physically resembled modern-day Northern Europeans, and not modern-day Iberians, as the Silures did.

    He uses the Silures as the prime example that ”an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts”.

    He didn’t use them as an example of anything. “These parts” refers only to the territory of the Silures themselves, which was southeastern Wales.

    Correct that Caesar does not specify who the internal inhabitants are but he clearly differentiates them to the Gauls/Celts

    The differentiation is between the Gaulish maritime inhabitants and the non-Gaulish interior inhabitants. Non-Gaulish doesn’t mean non-Celtic. The interior inhabitants were R1b-L21 Insular Celts, and the maritime inhabitants were R1b-S28 Gaulish Celts.

    I have to wait till the entire study gets published but if indeed these 2 Iron age Iberian types are L21 than what is supposedly Celtic about them?

    The Iron Age individuals cluster with Northern Europeans in the PCA, so it’s not correct to call them “Iberian types”.

    L21 would be an Insular >Iberian< branch of P-312 a sister to DF27.

    L21 is no less a sister to S28, L238, DF19, or DF99 than it is to DF27. Again, there’s nothing Iberian about L21.

    Archaeologically these ‘native’ Britons could only be from the Iberian Bell Beaker folks who inhabited Britain before the Celts.

    You seem to be thinking within the framework of the Kurgan hypothesis, which has never had any evidence to support it, and which is now strongly contradicted by multiple pieces of evidence.

    There was no late introduction of Indo-European languages to Western Europe, as the Kurgan hypothesis asserts.

    There’s zero archeological evidence for the Copper or Bronze Age invasion of Western Europe by Eastern Europeans posited by the Kurgan hypothesis.

    You need to switch your thinking over to my new framework, which is the only one that is supported by all of the available evidence.

    The Indo-European language family is pan-European. The spread of Indo-European languages across Europe must be associated with a pan-European material culture, and there were only two material cultures that were pan-European: the Aurignacian and the Gravettian. From the archeological and genetic evidence we can infer that the Aurignacians were Y hg I, and that they entered Europe from the Middle East through the Balkan peninsula, and we can infer that the Gravettians were Y hg R, and that they entered Europe from Central Asia through Russia. We know that R1b is associated with the centum Indo-European languages, and that R1a is associated with the satem Indo-European languages, so we can conclude that it was the Gravettian culture that was associated with the spread of Indo-European languages across Europe.

    R1b would have arisen in the western Gravettians, and the Solutreans, Magdalenians, Azilians, Megalithic people, and Bell Beaker people would have been R1b speakers of languages ancestral to the historical and present-day centum Indo-European languages.

    The Newgrange megalithic structure in Ireland was built around 3200 BC. The entrance stone at Newgrange is covered with petroglyphs in the form of spirals. Spirals, and in particular the triple spiral on part of the stone are classic motifs of Celtic art, so Newgrange is evidence that Celts or proto-Celts have inhabited Ireland going all the way back to 3200 BC.

  7. Banti says:

    ” The Newgrange megalithic structure in Ireland was built around 3200 BC. The entrance stone at Newgrange is covered with petroglyphs in the form of spirals. Spirals, and in particular the triple spiral on part of the stone are classic motifs of Celtic art, so Newgrange is evidence that Celts or proto-Celts have inhabited Ireland going all the way back to 3200 BC ”

    And none of that has anything to do with the Celts. The Celts are Indo-Europeans (language) and the Indo-Europeans emerged from the East (Archaeologically) beginning with Globular-Amphora and Corded-ware. Nothing Celtic ever existed that far west before the Urnfield and Hallstatt expansions no matter how many “spirals”.
    Nothing to do with the Kurgan hypothesis:
    https://archive.org/stream/horsewheelandlanguage#page/n0/mode/2up

    The Chalcolithic Bell Beakers are not Indo-Europeans and neither is the (Neolithic/Chalcolithic) Stone Henge Celtic. The Celts emerged from the Bronze age Urnfield (Hallstatt A/B to Iron age Hallstatt C/D>LaTene) which in turn all stems from the Unetice>Tumulus continuity i.e. expanding from the East to the West; And no R1b or r1a ever existed during the Mesolithic or Neolithic eras otherwise one of those samples would have been R1b or R1a. However so far only a lot of G2a and I2 but no R1b/R1a.

    ” The Iron Age individuals cluster with Northern Europeans in the PCA, so it’s not correct to call them “Iberian types”. ”

    That is what i have noted before myself. But with FineStructure a divergence to the Anglo-Saxons is detected and a close S European especially Iberian (IBS) strain. Not surprising given what Tacitus recorded about Iberians ‘of a former date crossed over’ and the Bell Beakers.

    ” The Caledonians were among the interior inhabitants that Caesar said were “born in the island itself”. They would have been R1b-L21, and they did not have the modern-day Iberian phenotype that the Silures had. ”

    No he didnt. And i think we both know that Caesar in his 55/54 BC invasions never even reached as far north as where the Caledonians were. But Tacitus following his father in law Agricola did. And he recorded them as Germanic.

  8. genetiker says:

    And none of that has anything to do with the Celts.

    Sure it does. Celtic motifs are Celtic. And the entrance stone at Newgrange is covered with Celtic motifs.

    the Indo-Europeans emerged from the East (Archaeologically) beginning with Globular-Amphora and Corded-ware

    Nothing Celtic ever existed that far west before the Urnfield and Hallstatt expansions

    All you’re doing is repeating the assertions of the Kurgan hypothesis. Those assertions have no evidence to support them.

    no matter how many “spirals”

    The spirals are spirals. No need for quotation marks.

    Nothing to do with the Kurgan hypothesis:

    Oh right, the Holy Bible of the Kurgan hypothesis. As time passes people will increasingly realize what a pile of garbage that book is.

    The Chalcolithic Bell Beakers are not Indo-Europeans and neither is the (Neolithic/Chalcolithic) Stone Henge Celtic

    The Celts emerged from the Bronze age Urnfield (Hallstatt A/B to Iron age Hallstatt C/D>LaTene) which in turn all stems from the Unetice>Tumulus continuity i.e. expanding from the East to the West

    Just more assertions, without any evidence to support them.

    There’s no direct evidence for what language the Megalithic people or the Bell Beaker people spoke. There’s no direct evidence for what language any prehistoric people spoke, and there never will be any. The languages spoken by prehistoric people can only be determined by inference, by first using data from historical times to establish the relationships between haplogroups and languages, and then applying those relationships to the haplogroups found in prehistoric DNA. The historical data show without doubt that R1b is associated with the centum Indo-European languages, and since the Bell Beaker people were R1b, we can infer that they spoke languages that were ancestral to the historical centum Indo-European languages.

    And no R1b or r1a ever existed during the Mesolithic or Neolithic eras otherwise one of those samples would have been R1b or R1a.

    I’ve already addressed this, in my comments here and here.

    But with FineStructure a divergence to the Anglo-Saxons is detected and a close S European especially Iberian (IBS) strain.

    The finding of similarity between the Iron Age samples and Iberian samples was based on low frequency variation. The genetic variants that cause the difference in phenotype between Northern Europeans and Iberians aren’t low frequency variants. It’s the PCA that gives us the best indication of overall phenotype, and the PCA showed that the Iron Age samples clustered with Northern Europeans. So those individuals would not have had the Iberian phenotype that Tacitus described the Silures as having.

    No he didnt.

    Caesar divided the inhabitants of Britain into two groups: the Belgae who had just recently arrived and who lived along the southern coast, and the other inhabitants, who were there before the Belgae and who lived inland from the southern coast. The Caledonians obviously weren’t Belgae, they obviously didn’t live along the southern coast, and they obviously were there before the Belgae. So they were obviously part of the second group that Caesar divided the inhabitants into.

    And he recorded them as Germanic.

    Tacitus conjectured that the Caledonians had a “German derivation” based entirely on their “ruddy hair and large limbs”, traits that he thought they had in common with Germans. The Caledonians of course spoke an Insular Celtic language, not a Germanic language.

    • Banti says:

      ” I’ve already addressed this, in my comments here and here. ”

      I get the logic behind that and i (personally) find it a good concept. But in all honesty there must be more academic data confirming that. They just recently published a study (August/September) with some samples from the Neolithic Balkans and if i remember correct than again none were however R1b or R1a. And Mal’ta [MA1] illustrated the presence of the ancestral R* much further east (Siberia).

      ” It’s the PCA that gives us the best indication of overall phenotype, and the PCA showed that the Iron Age samples clustered with Northern Europeans. So those individuals would not have had the Iberian phenotype that Tacitus described the Silures as having. ”

      The reason the modern Iberians have a darker phenotype than the modern British is because of the cline in certain DERIVED light pigmentation SNP’s such as rs16891982 G/G (Homozygous derived) or rs12913832 G/G (Homozygous derived) based on the 8plex system (error rate 0-1%).
      The mentioned study uses the 1000GP samples and in that respect:
      IBS = 66.4% rs16891982 G/G — GBR = 95.6% rs16891982 G/G
      IBS = 9.3% rs12913832 G/G — GBR = 68.1% rs12913832 G/G
      In the context of results from other 1000GP samples: CEU US Europeans and TSI Tuscany:
      CEU = 96.0% rs16891982 G/G — TSI = 94.4% s16891982 G/G
      CEU = 57.6% rs12913832 G/G — TSI = 15.9% rs12913832 G/G

      If this study, like Lazaridis 2013 and other studies (Skoglund/Keller), also issues a table with the 8plex results of each of the 5 samples than that would be very informative as to compare the iron age samples with teh Anglo_Saxon and all with the modern populations 1000GP samples.

      ” Caesar divided the inhabitants of Britain into two groups: the Belgae who had just recently arrived and who lived along the southern coast, and the other inhabitants, who were there before the Belgae and who lived inland from the southern coast. The Caledonians obviously weren’t Belgae, they obviously didn’t live along the southern coast, and they obviously were there before the Belgae. So they were obviously part of the second group that Caesar divided the inhabitants into. ”

      Caesar never even met the Caledonians he just operated in the Kent and Thames area. So his ‘interior population’ was restricted to the tribes north of Hertfordshire (exactly the area of which the 2 iron age samples are from) and not as far north as modern Scotland.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories
%d bloggers like this: