Most British men are descended from ancient farmers

[Beorn]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/1/19/1263921726812/Farmer-having-a-picnic-wi-001.jpg



Most men in Britain are descended from the first farmers to migrate across Europe from the Near East 10,000 years ago, scientists say.
Ancient farmers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/agriculture) left their genetic mark on modern males by breeding more successfully than indigenous hunter-gatherer men as they made their way west, a study has found.

As a result, more than 60% of British men, and nearly all of those in Ireland, can trace their Y chromosome back to the agricultural revolution, or more precisely the sexual success of the men behind it.
The farmers' Y chromosome becomes more common in the west of England and reaches a national peak of 78% in Cornwall, scientists found.
Men with surnames including Titchmarsh and Haythornthwaite are among the most likely to carry the farmers' Y chromosome, known as R1b1b2. The Y chromosome is passed down the male line only, from father to son.
"These farmers expanded into territories with small and sparse hunter-gather populations and moved on as time passed. The Y chromosome got caught up in that and it surfed the wave of expansion," said Mark Jobling, a geneticist at Leicester University and an author of the study.

The rise of farming is one of the most important cultural transformations in the history of modern humans. Increased food production allowed communities to settle rather than wander in search for food, a shift that heralded the huge expansion of the human population.
The first European farmers came from the "fertile crescent" that stretched from the eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, but experts have argued whether the westerly spread of agriculture (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/agriculture) was driven by the cultural transmission of ideas and technology, or by migrating farmers.
Researchers led by Jobling collected DNA samples from more than 2,500 men across Europe. Around 80% of the men had the R1b1b2 type of Y chromosome, making it the most common lineage on the continent.

A map showing the distribution of the chromosome across Britain reveals that it became increasingly common but less genetically diverse from the south east to the north west. The analysis, published in the journal PLoS Biology (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000285), suggests the R1b1b2 Y chromosome entered the country with the earliest farmers in the south east and gradually spread west as they migrated.
Genetic tests on women showed that most are descendants of hunter-gatherer females. "To us, this suggests a reproductive advantage for farming males over indigenous hunter-gatherer males during the switch from hunting and gathering to farming," said Patricia Balaresque, a co-author of the study.

"Maybe back then, it was just sexier to be a farmer."


Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/19/british-men-ancient-farmers)

[Thulsa Doom]

Yepp, no big surprise there. Agriculture is the big "thing" in human history.

This explains why Europeans are so close genetically.

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/Fst.gif

But they still didn´t get it right. Agriculture spread from Anatolia into Balkan and the Mediterranean coast, but the R1b people picked it up in Eastern Europe somewhere close to todays Hungary. They came probably from the north of the Black Sea and Caucasus.

It turns out that we all are bunch of Basques.:dunno:

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Most British men are descended from"ancient farmers" or is it from "rancid farmers":tongue

[Albion]

Rubbish. The neolithic intrusion haplogroups are minuscule in the British Isles. R1b and I1 have nothing to do with the first farmers.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=17770&stc=1&d=1322928394
Black = haplogroups associated with the neolithic "first farmers", Blue = pre-farming or Indo-European haplogroups.
Map created by shading in haplogroups map in two shades.

[Agrippa]

Rubbish. The neolithic intrusion haplogroups are minuscule in the British Isles. R1b and I1 have nothing to do with the first farmers.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=17770&stc=1&d=1322928394
Black = haplogroups associated with the neolithic "first farmers", Blue = pre-farming or Indo-European haplogroups.
Map created by shading in haplogroups map in two shades.

Haplogroups alone are not the complete picture to begin with and even if it gives very concrete hints, we still don't know for sure which haplogroups were spread at which time.

Also, Neolithic expansion means something different for different regions, because even if it was a movement largely from within Europe, this doesn't mean there is continuity everywhere, ESPECIALLY NOT on the British Isles.

Considering what kind of people lived there before the Neolithic transition and which waves came afterwards, it is almost ridiculous to say that the modern British are largely the descendents of the Mesolithic inhabitants with only minor Neolithic and Post-Neolithic intrusions.

So even if ignoring the debate about which haplogroups are more recently Near Eastern derived ("Neolithic") or older in Europe ("Mesolithic"), for Britain one thing is for sure: The yDNA map which shows close to no Neolithic influences in Britain is completely worthless.

Whether they came from Central and Western Europe or directly from the Near East, both means in Britain the majority of the populations is descending from Neolithic colonists, not Mesolithic inhabitants. Britain in particular was colonised various times, by various culturally and biologically more progressive people (Megalithic, Bell Beaker, Celts etc.).

It is wrong to speak of "Near Eastern = Neolithic".

Neolithic colonists might have been different in different regions and we still don't have the complete picture of the various expansions and colonisations, we need more aDNA data.

The recent distribution of haplogroups might be very misleading.

And of course, for Britain any sort of Indo-European colonisation means Neolithic/Post Neolithic expansion as well, because they were not Mesolithic indigenous people there.

If understood that way, it makes perfect sense to say that the British are indeed majority wise Neolithic/Post Neolithic, but not necessarily DIRECTLY Near Eastern derived.

The role of R1b is pretty complicated and until we have more data, it might very well have been Neolithic/Post Neolithic for many regions of Europe.

From the text:

"Maybe back then, it was just sexier to be a farmer."

Typical crappy formulation we know from the British media, like the "gay cave man" for a Corded Ware individual.

Fact is, we don't know all processes behind the expansions, but to view it from the point of todays "sexually liberated" post 1968 and pill period, after the Cultural Marxist and Liberalist deconstruction and social engineering, is ridiculous.

It is much more likely, that there were aspects of social dominance and even direct warlike dominance involved, as well as the simple fact of having more offspring and a different attitude towards life.

Actually, all these recent studies prove what the Cultural Marxists in science questioned for decades, that massive migrations and population replacements TOOK PLACE and are no invention of some "Nazis" and "racists" or backwarded "nationalists", but were a major factor not just in prehistory and history, but also BIOLOGICALLY!

It was part of the higher level individual and group selection and changed the racial and general biological qualities of various populations, since, like another ridiculous statement of the "politically correct idiocy", evolution didn't stop, it became faster!

And the direction it goes largely depends on the way of life of populations, their cultural structures and selective regime, much more so than "the natural habitat", especially in later times, especially in the more favourable habitats, which were so important for higher culture and civilisation.

Even the diseases and plagues people had and have to deal with are oftentimes the result of a specific way of life and not just the greater region a people lives in.

Anyway, this Feminist and Liberalist interpretation of the data is ridiculous, if groups of related males colonised large areas in just a few generations and stiff resistance of the locals in some areas is proven and logical for many others, if there was a conflict of interests.

To explain such a complex change of culture and race by "sexier farmers" is a joke, even from the purely socio-cultural perspective, since social status is more than that.

But to be more concrete:

Genetic tests on women showed that most are descendants of hunter-gatherer females. "To us, this suggests a reproductive advantage for farming males over indigenous hunter-gatherer males during the switch from hunting and gathering to farming," said Patricia Balaresque, a co-author of the study.

They didn't reproduce as often, because they were replaced, killed or enslaved - that is much more likely than women changing to the newcomers because they were "sexier as peasants", which is so stupid as a theory, that one can just ask oneself whether to laugh or cry when reading such nonsense.

Because while farmers had often a higher social status indeed, the life of the foragers was often much more convenient and easier, as long as the territory was good for living and the population didn't grow too fast.

What we see in more and more Neolithic remains are wounds and proofs for fights, weapons quite often, larger settlements, sometimes even fortified.

No, they were as peaceful as the Maya, but unfortunately, unlike the Maya, we don't have written history, so those post 68 pseudo-science can still say crap undisputed in the mass media all too often, while being (fortunately) completely disproven in the case of the Maya.

Anyway, the story is more complex than just "violence and war" vs. "sexual selection and social status" alone, but fact is, these two factors played in, beside many others.

[Logan]

Gene study sheds new light on origins of British men


'New genetic evidence reveals that most British men are not descended from immigrant farmers who migrated east 5,000-10,000 years ago -- contrary to previous research.

Instead, scientists from the Universities of Oxford and Edinburgh say that most European men can trace their lineage to people -- most likely hunter-gatherers -- who had settled in Europe long before that time.

The latest study, based on the most common genetic lineage in European males, aims to correct an analysis of genetic data, published last year. It had reported that most British men came from people who migrated west, with the spread of agriculture, from the Near East.

More than 100 million European men have a set of genes called R-M269, including about three-quarters of British men. A key question in understanding the peopling of Europe is when this group spread out across Europe.

Researchers say their work shows that the set of genes chosen to estimate the age of this group of men vary the outcome enormously. They add that the previously reported east-west pattern is not found in their larger and more comprehensive dataset. This, the Oxford -- Edinburgh team says, leaves little evidence for a farmer-led dispersal of this major group.

According to Dr Cristian Capelli, the Oxford geneticist who led the research, the study "resets" the debate on the peopling of Europe. He says, "Our works overturns the recent claims of European Y chromosomes being brought into the continent by farmers."

Co-author, Dr Jim Wilson of the University of Edinburgh's Centre for Population Health Sciences, adds that the paper shows for the first time that certain properties of the genes studied strongly influence the accuracy of the date estimate.

"Estimating a date at which an ancestral lineage originated is an interesting application of genetics, but unfortunately it is beset with difficulties and it is very difficult to provide good dates. Many people assume that the more genes the more accurate the dates, but this is not the case: some genetic markers are more suited to dating than others."

The study also reports multiple subgroups of the R-M269 group that are very common in different parts of Europe, consistent with expansion of these different groups in each place.'

:coffee:


http://www.speroforum.com/a/59240/Gene-study-sheds-new-light-on-origins-of-British-men

[Albion]

Also, Neolithic expansion means something different for different regions, because even if it was a movement largely from within Europe, this doesn't mean there is continuity everywhere, ESPECIALLY NOT on the British Isles.

The new theories surrounding the latter arrival of R1b and R1a aren't set in stone yet, it was only like two years ago when they were supposed to have come from Iberia and Ukraine. I'm not jumping straight on the bandwagon again, this time I'm leaving it for a few years and for additional research until I accept anything about R1b and a.


Considering what kind of people lived there before the Neolithic transition and which waves came afterwards, it is almost ridiculous to say that the modern British are largely the descendents of the Mesolithic inhabitants with only minor Neolithic and Post-Neolithic intrusions.

How is that?


So even if ignoring the debate about which haplogroups are more recently Near Eastern derived ("Neolithic") or older in Europe ("Mesolithic"), for Britain one thing is for sure: The yDNA map which shows close to no Neolithic influences in Britain is completely worthless.

R1b and R1a in the map aren't treated as Neolithic because I'd like to leave it a while before concluding this, no doubt some new theory will be out tomorrow... :rolleyes2:
If R1b and R1a are more recent then basically the majority of European Y-DNA doesn't date back to the LGM in Europe.


Whether they came from Central and Western Europe or directly from the Near East, both means in Britain the majority of the populations is descending from Neolithic colonists, not Mesolithic inhabitants. Britain in particular was colonised various times, by various culturally and biologically more progressive people (Megalithic, Bell Beaker, Celts etc.).

And most came successively from the same areas time and time again.


It is wrong to speak of "Near Eastern = Neolithic".

Of course some Near Eastern haplogroups may be more recent in some areas, especially Southern Europe, but for the majority I think Neolithic fits.


Neolithic colonists might have been different in different regions and we still don't have the complete picture of the various expansions and colonisations, we need more aDNA data.

Sometimes I wonder whether I should bother with Mt and Y DNA with autosomal tests. Y and Mt would tell me the founders of my lines but not the full picture on groups they intermarried with.
I suppose the attraction of Y and Mt DNA is that you can say "my ancient ancestor came from this general area thousands of years ago...via...." but knowing only the founders of both sides isn't all that good to be honest, but then again autosomal could throw up a lot of surprises.


If understood that way, it makes perfect sense to say that the British are indeed majority wise Neolithic/Post Neolithic, but not necessarily DIRECTLY Near Eastern derived.

Like I said, R1b and R1a aren't widely accepted as being so recent yet. Whilst it is likely, I'm not committing to it until I see further studies and wide acceptance.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=17904&stc=1&d=1323207424

[Agrippa]

The latest article just proves my point and what Dienekes wrote goes in a similar direction, not because everything he says is more correct, but because ALL OF THEM REALLY DON'T KNOW until they have enough ancient samples tested!

Before that they can simply change the calculation of the mutation rate and age of a haplogroup and the picture will change completely, without anything being proven for sure, everything being still open to debate, with many unknown variables involved.

So I trust, if at all, just one thing: Test the bones!


How is that?

The Mesolithic inhabitants seem to have been, all around Europe, especially in the North, much more Cromagnoid and archaic, than the later waves of colonists.

Looking at the spread of the groups mentioned, like the Megalithic culture, Bell Beakers and Celts, we can CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY observe a drastic typological change and demic diffusion associated with the new culture's arrival.

So where did they all go? We have one wave after another going towards Britain, every time the racial picture changed, and now we should expect that 90 percent + are the result of indigenous Mesolithics surviving on Britain?

That is absurd!

It is absurd for the mtDNA already, but it is complete crap and simply impossible for the yDNA, unless we assume that everytime, when the whole island was conquered, from one corner of Britain Mesolithic rests expanded again and again, to replace the newcomers.

While this event might have indeed taken place, especially one time, I guess for I1 in Northern Europe, this would still mean two things:
- it didn't happen in Britain
- and it doesn't change the whole genpool again, it just spreads a haplogroup, male lineage


R1b and R1a in the map aren't treated as Neolithic because I'd like to leave it a while before concluding this, no doubt some new theory will be out tomorrow...

Every haplogroup in Europe was at one time in the Near East it seems, unless coming directly from Africa. So the real question is always just one thing: WHEN did it enter Europe.

And for Britain, the same question must be raised: When did it enter Britain!

If you say the British are descendents of Mesolithic foragers, to me that would suggest they are descendents of BRITISH Mesolithic foragers.

If Neolithic colonists from Central Europe came, even if they were primarily "converted Central European Mesolithics", that is to me a Neolithic expansion, or what else should it be?

Even in the Near East we deal with Palaeolithic-Mesolithic-Neolithic etc. ages, so the distinction makes sense only from one perspective: For a concrete region!

How can someone speak of "Mesolithic continuity" if the local population was largely erradicated and the modern ones are descendents of people which came WITH THE NEOLITHIC PACKAGE.

We don't know for absolutely sure, whether some "Near Eastern lineages" weren't in Europe before the Neolithic times neither! Most people just say so, and it might be quite likely, but it is possible that G, J and E for example was present in Mesolithic times already...


Of course some Near Eastern haplogroups may be more recent in some areas, especially Southern Europe, but for the majority I think Neolithic fits.

But who was the culture bearer? There was demic diffusion and a change of racial qualities, that is obvious, it is palpable, its being proven by the bones directly (typologically) and indirectly (aDNA tests).

So the question is just: Where did the waves start - there were MORE THAN ONE and how much of the local populations did it convert?

Both can't be answered definitely by now and for the latter part, it might have been very different in different regions.

For example it seems to be that in the North East the transition was more gradual and more local elements being assimilated or even "learned by themselves", very slowly by first adopting just "parts of the package" and for example using pottery long before being real herders and tillers.

But in other regions we see an explosion, we see a drastic change of the whole package, biological and cultural. Now that must have been a demic diffusion, anything else is just unlogical. And if looking at that, we must assume a high percentage, a strong population change.

Now the question is: Was this a movement from within Europe, for example from South Eastern and Eastern Europe towards the West, especially the latter waves, of which some already go into the Metal Age and might be associated with the Indo-Europeans.


Sometimes I wonder whether I should bother with Mt and Y DNA with autosomal tests. Y and Mt would tell me the founders of my lines but not the full picture on groups they intermarried with.
I suppose the attraction of Y and Mt DNA is that you can say "my ancient ancestor came from this general area thousands of years ago...via...." but knowing only the founders of both sides isn't all that good to be honest, but then again autosomal could throw up a lot of surprises.

Well, it is like it is with surnames. We all love them, they are the direct line of descendence, even though much more surnames are behind it, but even if we can't create a complete picture, we can at least know those few - even if they being again created "just some centuries ago".

It is on a personal level genealogy and makes genetics more personal, because you can name your lineage.

And of course, the larger picture is somewhat different, because individuals might be completely different if comparing yDNA/mtDNA and autosomal DNA, but in populations, that can be, but is rarely the case if looking at the statistics.


Like I said, R1b and R1a aren't widely accepted as being so recent yet. Whilst it is likely, I'm not committing to it until I see further studies and wide acceptance.

Like I said: I wait for studies done on the ancient bones. That's the way to go, everything else is just speculation.

Just think about the surprises which came up already, nobody could have "calculated this", nobody knew which haplogroups the LBK or Cardial groups really had and still we have just rather small samples.

We need much more of that, we need a more complete picture.

No matter what some geneticist calculated, if the DNA being preserved and analysed from the ancient bones, that rules out any calculation if the result being certain and probably even repeated by different samples.

[Albion]

The Mesolithic inhabitants seem to have been, all around Europe, especially in the North, much more Cromagnoid and archaic, than the later waves of colonists.

Couldn't progressiveness and gracialisation have come from gradual change without population replacement?


So where did they all go? We have one wave after another going towards Britain, every time the racial picture changed

I haven't seen much evidence for this. British archaeology stresses continuity right up until the Anglo-Saxons.


Every haplogroup in Europe was at one time in the Near East it seems, unless coming directly from Africa. So the real question is always just one thing: WHEN did it enter Europe.

I know, this is my issue with R1B and a. I'd like to know if they were present during the LGM, arrived during the neolithic or bronze age or just exactly how and when they got here.

If R1a entered from Southern Russia and R1b from Anatolia (following the Black Sea coast?) this would have major consequences on the type and culture of the peoples arriving.
Another theory could be that R1b arrived in Europe due to the Black Sea deluge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory), but this would be earlier than Europedia suggests (bronze age).


And for Britain, the same question must be raised: When did it enter Britain!

Yes, this is what I want to know. I want to know whether R1b can be linked to the megaliths / stonecircles or just the Celts and the bronze age predecessors and Germanic successors.


If you say the British are descendents of Mesolithic foragers, to me that would suggest they are descendents of BRITISH Mesolithic foragers.

I doubt I1 has been in England all that long, it's probably Germanic. I2 is probably indigenous. I don't really care whether they were British or some other West European hunter gatherers really.
Most of them either followed the marine mammals and shellfish up the coasts or followed the rivers and for a time the game herds, Eastern England has probably always shown differences to the west.


If Neolithic colonists from Central Europe came, even if they were primarily "converted Central European Mesolithics", that is to me a Neolithic expansion, or what else should it be?

I suppose you could describe it as such. West Europeans spreading practices to or replacing other West Europeans isn't really the same as a totally new group of peoples appearing out of the east and replacing most of the population of Western Europe.


How can someone speak of "Mesolithic continuity" if the local population was largely erradicated and the modern ones are descendents of people which came WITH THE NEOLITHIC PACKAGE.

It depends on who replaced who. If a closely related group replaced another then it isn't really the same as a entirely new group doing the same.
If people from Belgium replaced people in England the haplogroups and aDNA wouldn't be all that different I suspect.


We don't know for absolutely sure, whether some "Near Eastern lineages" weren't in Europe before the Neolithic times neither! Most people just say so, and it might be quite likely, but it is possible that G, J and E for example was present in Mesolithic times already...

I don't think so.


Like I said: I wait for studies done on the ancient bones. That's the way to go, everything else is just speculation.

:thumb001:

[Agrippa]

Couldn't progressiveness and gracialisation have come from gradual change without population replacement?

Well, that depends on the case in question, again I simply don't see a general "Neolithic Near Eastern" vs. "Mesolithic European" scheme, things are more complicated than that.

But if looking at regions in which the distance between the Mesolithic local type and the Neolithic new forms was huge, that is simply and absolutely impossible. It is NO OPTION.

Neither for the culture, nor for the transmission of it, nor for the traits and racial qualities. It is absolutely out of question that we deal with local continuity.

Just to mention some facts: The change happened quite often in just a very limited time span, much to short for any selection or deep modification changing the traits of a whole population so completely. Especially in the more drastic cases, we speak of totally antagonistic types and traits, which can be only explained by longer term isolation or different development, alternatively relatively long and hard directional selection.

We deal here with differences of the complete skeleton, proportional but also detail traits changing so completely, that they are sometimes AT THE EXTREMES of what is known, TO THIS DAY in the Europid normal racial variation.

And where the foragers survived, co-existed or mixed, we see that in the record as well. They don't disappear, but we deal with two different people in a lot of cases, especially in the Northern fringe regions.


I haven't seen much evidence for this. British archaeology stresses continuity right up until the Anglo-Saxons.

Well, in post 1968's times those people which I named before tried to ignore the reality of life and human nature. They are morons if they think they can go on that way.

Actually C.S. Coon and many other authors, all which dealt with the subject thoroughly noted the huge changes taking place, foreign (to the region) variants entering the isles and so on.

How can anybody who knows something about Mesolithic skulls and then the Neolithic new comers or typical Central European Bell Beakers for example say there was no demic diffusion?

They must be liars, blind or idiots.

When they speak about continuity, we always have to define a starting point. But for Northern and North Eastern Europe in particular, the starting point after the LGM we know is at the opposite end of the Europid variation in comparison to the core groups of the Neolithic colonists.


I know, this is my issue with R1B and a. I'd like to know if they were present during the LGM, arrived during the neolithic or bronze age or just exactly how and when they got here.

Also consider all the branches. If one branch was in the West earlier, this doesn't mean new waves couldn't be brought into the region afterwards!


If R1a entered from Southern Russia and R1b from Anatolia (following the Black Sea coast?) this would have major consequences on the type and culture of the peoples arriving.
Another theory could be that R1b arrived in Europe due to the Black Sea deluge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory), but this would be earlier than Europedia suggests (bronze age).

I think a major group came from the areas North of the Caucasus or Western Anatolia-South Eastern Europe. There we can find, this is important to note, leptodolichomorphic and more progressive (Proto-Mediterranoid to Proto-Nordoid?) variants in the Mesolithic period already (!) and in a higher frequency than in Central or even less North and North Eastern Europe at that time.


Yes, this is what I want to know. I want to know whether R1b can be linked to the megaliths / stonecircles or just the Celts and the bronze age predecessors and Germanic successors.

In any case, both would mean a later Neolithic/Post Neolithic expansions.


I suppose you could describe it as such. West Europeans spreading practices to or replacing other West Europeans isn't really the same as a totally new group of peoples appearing out of the east and replacing most of the population of Western Europe.

Well, if they came from East and changed both culture and race quite impressively for the following generations and population, it is probably as important as a consequence.


It depends on who replaced who. If a closely related group replaced another then it isn't really the same as a entirely new group doing the same.
If people from Belgium replaced people in England the haplogroups and aDNA wouldn't be all that different I suspect.

Right, but what if the people in Belgium became very different in many generations of a different selection for both racial qualities and culture?

That would be a quite drastic and significant change as well and nothing of a continuity.


I don't think so.

Me neither, I just wanted to point out that even if it seems to be unlikely and we both agree it is most likekly not the case, we don't know it for sure and if they would test with a high certainty some bones for that and find it, we would have to adjust our view on the issue to the facts and results.

[Unurautare]

Farmers and shepherds ftw! :cool::cool:

[Albion]

Well, that depends on the case in question, again I simply don't see a general "Neolithic Near Eastern" vs. "Mesolithic European" scheme, things are more complicated than that.

But if looking at regions in which the distance between the Mesolithic local type and the Neolithic new forms was huge, that is simply and absolutely impossible. It is NO OPTION.

Neither for the culture, nor for the transmission of it, nor for the traits and racial qualities. It is absolutely out of question that we deal with local continuity.

Just to mention some facts: The change happened quite often in just a very limited time span, much to short for any selection or deep modification changing the traits of a whole population so completely. Especially in the more drastic cases, we speak of totally antagonistic types and traits, which can be only explained by longer term isolation or different development, alternatively relatively long and hard directional selection.

We deal here with differences of the complete skeleton, proportional but also detail traits changing so completely, that they are sometimes AT THE EXTREMES of what is known, TO THIS DAY in the Europid normal racial variation.

And where the foragers survived, co-existed or mixed, we see that in the record as well. They don't disappear, but we deal with two different people in a lot of cases, especially in the Northern fringe regions.

Fair enough. I won't lie, my grasp of pre- {British} Bronze Age history is quite vague.


Well, in post 1968's times those people which I named before tried to ignore the reality of life and human nature. They are morons if they think they can go on that way.

Actually C.S. Coon and many other authors, all which dealt with the subject thoroughly noted the huge changes taking place, foreign (to the region) variants entering the isles and so on.

How can anybody who knows something about Mesolithic skulls and then the Neolithic new comers or typical Central European Bell Beakers for example say there was no demic diffusion?

They must be liars, blind or idiots.

They do claim cultures were spread by small migrations but downplay the size and portray the incomers as a very small minority elite with the bulk of the population continuing since the post LGM recolonisation.


Also consider all the branches. If one branch was in the West earlier, this doesn't mean new waves couldn't be brought into the region afterwards!

Agreed.


I think a major group came from the areas North of the Caucasus or Western Anatolia-South Eastern Europe. There we can find, this is important to note, leptodolichomorphic and more progressive (Proto-Mediterranoid to Proto-Nordoid?) variants in the Mesolithic period already (!) and in a higher frequency than in Central or even less North and North Eastern Europe at that time.

How are sub-races passed on exactly? You get elements of your looks from both parents so I'd presume if you looked back far enough you'd probably find direct ancestors who looked nothing like yourself. Or are they largely inherited through generations from either mother or farther (depending on gender) with minor alterations from the other parent (such as eye and hair colour)?


In any case, both would mean a later Neolithic/Post Neolithic expansions.

Yes. The megaliths and barrows are quite symbolically important to me, they're really the first things which the inhabitants built and which still survive today. If you go back further it's all just archaeology, no monuments visible to the public. A few very minor and well hidden cave paintings beforehand and that's it.
In a way they're our equivalent of Egypt's pyramids, so linking the current population to them is very desirable.


That would be a quite drastic and significant change as well and nothing of a continuity.

Yes. My example presumes that they were still largely similar though.


Me neither, I just wanted to point out that even if it seems to be unlikely and we both agree it is most likekly not the case, we don't know it for sure and if they would test with a high certainty some bones for that and find it, we would have to adjust our view on the issue to the facts and results.

Agreed.

G2a is associated with hill farmers throughout Europe. I see that as a 99% safe bet at least.

[Agrippa]

How are sub-races passed on exactly? You get elements of your looks from both parents so I'd presume if you looked back far enough you'd probably find direct ancestors who looked nothing like yourself. Or are they largely inherited through generations from either mother or farther (depending on gender) with minor alterations from the other parent (such as eye and hair colour)?

It is largely individual inheritance, because both is possible and it depends on the genetic recombination process.

Anyway, the most important factor for the past was selection once a complete type or new traits were introduced. So if f.e. archaic Mesolithics mixed with more progressive Neolithic variants, in a couple of generations a new type but closer to the Neolithics could have emerged from recombinations and selection afterwards. This means a limited original impact would have produced a wave of expansion by selection, since the new way of life and selective regime would have expanded TOGETHER.

It is really best understood in a wave model in which I would assume that primarily the males moved as compact groups quite often, especially in later times.

In such a model it is quite possible that the total genetic impact at the other end of this geographical expansion is rather low, while the male lineages and type still expanded there. This is possible, but if looking at what we know so far rather unlikely. Longer range migrations of complete groups of colonists seem to have happened all the time, often even in a rather planned manner, like searching for concrete pastures, ressources, new territory. Sending scouts around and so on.

They were no primitives which just went here or there quite often, but real colonists which did a planned colonisation most of the time. It is, for many regions, really comparable to the American situation when the Europeans expanded later. Don't forget, the small scale replacement happened quite often by smaller to medium sized settler groups as well, which just reproduced faster, more successfully, and were able to defend themselves while doing so.

When the climate and habitat as a whole did not allow that, we see European colonies, but not settlement colonies in which the indigenous being replaced.

Same here: There were woodland and boreal regions, into which the newcomers only scouted and went for hunting parties at time, but never lived there, settled down. Those regions and the respective fringe regions, which were at the same time often quite favourable for specialised foragers, are the North and North East - North of a certain line, and even parts of Britain probably. There we can see the survival of foragers at a higher rate and a slower acculturation process, like I said, not the complete package, but for example pottery without farming and animal breeding.


Yes. The megaliths and barrows are quite symbolically important to me, they're really the first things which the inhabitants built and which still survive today. If you go back further it's all just archaeology, no monuments visible to the public. A few very minor and well hidden cave paintings beforehand and that's it.
In a way they're our equivalent of Egypt's pyramids, so linking the current population to them is very desirable.

It seems they came by the see and introduced for the first time and in larger numbers Mediterranoid forms, rather Atlantomediterranid to North Atlantid, if we consult C.S. Coon:

One is, therefore, led to conclude that the Megalithic cult was not merely a complex of burial rites which diffused without visible carriers; and also that the bearers of this complex avoided mixture by coming by sea.

In stature and bodily build, the Megalithic people belong to a large variety of Mediterranean. The stature for a large number of males58 from England ranges about a mean of 167 or 168 cm.; which is not contraverted by the meager evidence from Scotland and Ireland. Four male skeletons from a single burial in Kent59 may represent, more nearly than most, the Windmill Hill group; they are somewhat shorter than the rest.

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-IV10.htm

[Turkey]

typical