Bell Beakers in Ireland

[ironroad41]

What does that mean? Are you saying Hubert is not a competent source on the Beaker Folk? Hubert wrote back in the early 20th century. He had nothing to say about dna, but what he said about archaeology and linguistics is still valuable. The point of the quote from him was to provide information on the Beaker Folk in the British Isles, information which is still valid.

The climate in Western Europe is the climate in Western Europe. It has little bearing on people who are not there at the time.

As you know DNA as we understand it only began about 50 years ago, and 20 to 30 years ago if you are talking about the properties of the Y Chromosome.

I can look at almost any DNA paper prior to 2000 and probably find errors in it. There simply wasn't enough data to make a statement about what is or isn't in this field.

Your comment about climate is a little inane. I look at Climate at a major force in population displacements! The whole Neolithic movement into western Europe was probably due to shift of the Trade winds south c. 5K BC and which dried up the Sahara, moderated Southern Europe and cooled down northern Europe a tad. I think there is a little argument that changes in climate affect food production and water availability which are both necessary for human life to exist and thrive.

A good knowledge of climactic conditions over the Millenia is very helpful in understanding population movements.

[MMaddi]

Who are you to to tell me what I should and should not say? I know who you are and where you come from.

Why don't you calm down? Some people might take your words that I bolded as a threat, whether you meant it that way or not.

[MMaddi]

Your comment about climate is a little inane. I look at Climate at a major force in population displacements! The whole Neolithic movement into western Europe was probably due to shift of the Trade winds south c. 5K BC and which dried up the Sahara, moderated Southern Europe and cooled down northern Europe a tad. I think there is a little argument that changes in climate affect food production and water availability which are both necessary for human life to exist and thrive.

A good knowledge of climactic conditions over the Millenia is very helpful in understanding population movements.

I agree with what you've written above and I think that Stevo would also agree with at least your last sentence, which I've bolded. Climate, especially extreme climate changes, have a lot to do with human migrations.

However, Stevo's point is addressing the question of what were the haplogroups of Europeans at various times in the past.

So, merely knowing that climate change caused or contributed to migration into Europe at this or that time doesn't tell us the haplogroup of those who migrated. DNA results tell us this. The fact is that what we know so far from DNA results of ancient remains tells us that there was no R1b in Europe more than about 4,600 years ago.

Hence, as Stevo wrote, "The climate in Western Europe is the climate in Western Europe. It has little bearing on people who are not there at the time." If the DNA results are right in telling us that there was no R1b in Europe before 4,600 years ago, the European climate before that time has nothing to do with R1b, since it wasn't there then!

[1798]

Why don't you calm down? Some people might take your words that I bolded as a threat, whether you meant it that way or not.

It was not meant as a threat. I can read and I can make up my own mind about things.

[1798]

So, merely knowing that climate change caused or contributed to migration into Europe at this or that time doesn't tell us the haplogroup of those who migrated. DNA results tell us this. The fact is that what we know so far from DNA results of ancient remains tells us that there was no R1b in Europe more than about 4,600 years ago.

The R1b dna found in Germany is dated to 4,600. The two R1b men could be descended from an R1b line that was in that region for 2000 years. They just didn't arrive there and then died that very year.

[1798]

I don't see how testing ancient dna is going to resolve the origin problem. R* was found in the Siberian boy. I didn't see any posts about an origin for R in Siberia.

[ironroad41]

I agree with what you've written above and I think that Stevo would also agree with at least your last sentence, which I've bolded. Climate, especially extreme climate changes, have a lot to do with human migrations.

However, Stevo's point is addressing the question of what were the haplogroups of Europeans at various times in the past.

So, merely knowing that climate change caused or contributed to migration into Europe at this or that time doesn't tell us the haplogroup of those who migrated. DNA results tell us this. The fact is that what we know so far from DNA results of ancient remains tells us that there was no R1b in Europe more than about 4,600 years ago.

Hence, as Stevo wrote, "The climate in Western Europe is the climate in Western Europe. It has little bearing on people who are not there at the time." If the DNA results are right in telling us that there was no R1b in Europe before 4,600 years ago, the European climate before that time has nothing to do with R1b, since it wasn't there then!

I guess I would advocate what Jean M. is advocating, have patience. We know that wooly mammoths and aurochs and such were in Western Europe pre-Holocene, but I'm not sure their remains have been found? It requires certain kinds of climactic conditions or well protected caves to leave fossil remains in the climate of W. Europe over the period of the Holocene.

You and Steve say there is no evidence; That is not proof! If all the remains of certain Hgs, are "gone", then there is no evidence, but you haven't proven they weren't there? The evidence we have is of a different nature, the sheer numbers of R1b in Western Europe now; The fact that went East and is the dominant haplogroup in the native americans. The scenario seems to be that R began in SE Asia or its predecessor P, that as the oceans rose, migrations from that area occurred and R travelled north and West to Siberia and parts of Eastern Asia. (The proof of that has only become available in the last few years(Malt'a boy, Karafet paper). The Climate in the early Holocene was ideal in northern Europe east to Siberia. Why wouldn't some form of R migrate West?

Megaliths, Stonehenge, etc. aren't the beginning of early cultures in the west, they are a culmination of sorts. The Druid university, which is also very old, and may be tied to the Stonehenge complex, didn't begin when Rome destroyed Anglesby Island (sp) off the coast of Wales.

Consider all the Petroglyphs and other remnants of early civilizations, such as above, that remain; I sure wish that stones talked, and it may be, one day, we'll find out they do?

[Stevo]

. . .

Your comment about climate is a little inane . . .

No it isn't. Your constant harping on the climate in Western Europe during the Paleolithic Period and into the Mesolithic is meaningless for R1b unless one assumes R1b was already there.

There is no evidence it was, so whether it was snowy or rainy or sunny, whether there was a tsunami engulfing "Doggerland" or not, the climate in Western Europe had little to no impact on people who were not there at the time.

[Stevo]

The R1b dna found in Germany is dated to 4,600. The two R1b men could be descended from an R1b line that was in that region for 2000 years. They just didn't arrive there and then died that very year.

Think about it.

There is a lot of R1b in Europe now. That is one of the reasons that eight or ten years ago almost everyone thought R1b was the first y haplogroup to repopulate Europe after the LGM. They also mistakenly carried on the old, erroneous, 19th-century notion that the Basques were a Paleolithic relic population; therefore, because Basques have a high frequency of R1b, R1b must likewise be a Paleolithic relic in Europe.

But R1b in Western Europe is almost 100% R-L11 of too little diversity to be that old there, and the SNP trail leads back to the east, to places like Armenia and northern Iran, where L23 and M269* prevail. The Basques are about 95% lactase persistent, not a Paleolithic trait, and their language contains words for Neolithic and metal age items, words that were not borrowed from other languages. In other words, the Basques aren't an Old Stone Age relic population. That was a 19th century fiction.

Now, add to all that the fact that NO R1b has turned up at ANY Neolithic or older sites, despite the fact that R1b is the single most frequent y haplogroup in Europe today and the fact that ancient y-dna test results from Europe are mounting.

Yes, some R1b could be recovered from a Mesolithic European site tomorrow, but that is looking less and less and less likely.

If those two R1b Beaker men were descended from other R1b men who had been in Europe for thousands of years already, one would think some older R1b would be turning up there, but it isn't. Another thing is that the Beaker Folk, especially the males, were an intrusive population. They differed from the older inhabitants not only culturally but physically, as well. In other words, they were newcomers.

[1798]

Think about it.

There is a lot of R1b in Europe now. That is one of the reasons that eight or ten years ago almost everyone thought R1b was the first y haplogroup to repopulate Europe after the LGM. They also mistakenly carried on the old, erroneous, 19th-century notion that the Basques were a Paleolithic relic population; therefore, because Basques have a high frequency of R1b, R1b must likewise be a Paleolithic relic in Europe.

But R1b in Western Europe is almost 100% R-L11 of too little diversity to be that old there, and the SNP trail leads back to the east, to places like Armenia and northern Iran, where L23 and M269* prevail. The Basques are about 95% lactase persistent, not a Paleolithic trait, and their language contains words for Neolithic and metal age items, words that were not borrowed from other languages. In other words, the Basques aren't an Old Stone Age relic population. That was a 19th century fiction.

Now, add to all that the fact that NO R1b has turned up at ANY Neolithic or older sites, despite the fact that R1b is the single most frequent y haplogroup in Europe today and the fact that ancient y-dna test results from Europe are mounting.

Yes, some R1b could be recovered from a Mesolithic European site tomorrow, but that is looking less and less and less likely.

If those two R1b Beaker men were descended from other R1b men who had been in Europe for thousands of years already, one would think some older R1b would be turning up there, but it isn't. Another thing is that the Beaker Folk, especially the males, were an intrusive population. They differed from the older inhabitants not only culturally but physically, as well. In other words, they were newcomers.

Where did the two R1b men who died in Germany 4,600 ybp come from?

[MMaddi]

I guess I would advocate what Jean M. is advocating, have patience.

I agree with her and you. At some point in the future, evidence may emerge that makes your theory possible or even likely. If such evidence emerges, I'll congratulate you for your great foresight. But, at the moment, the evidence we have speaks against what you're proposing.

You and Steve say there is no evidence; That is not proof! If all the remains of certain Hgs, are "gone", then there is no evidence, but you haven't proven they weren't there? The evidence we have is of a different nature, the sheer numbers of R1b in Western Europe now; The fact that went East and is the dominant haplogroup in the native americans. The scenario seems to be that R began in SE Asia or its predecessor P, that as the oceans rose, migrations from that area occurred and R travelled north and West to Siberia and parts of Eastern Asia. (The proof of that has only become available in the last few years(Malt'a boy, Karafet paper). The Climate in the early Holocene was ideal in northern Europe east to Siberia. Why wouldn't some form of R migrate West?

Let me remind you, as I posted earlier in this thread, that what you have is circumstantial and inferential. All the physical evidence (DNA results from ancient remains) we have so far tells us that there was no R1b in Europe as early as you propose. In my view, and generally in science or a courtroom, physical evidence trumps circumstantial evidence.

I've bolded your statement explaining why we don't find any R1b in European remains older than 4,600 years ago. Really? Those who disagree with your theory have to "prove" that R1b wasn't in Europe but isn't available in remains to be tested, even though other haplogroups' remains have survived? You're saying that those who point out flaws in your theory have to prove a negative. You must be aware that's not possible, which is a great "out" for you.

[EastAnglian]

Think about it.

There is a lot of R1b in Europe now. That is one of the reasons that eight or ten years ago almost everyone thought R1b was the first y haplogroup to repopulate Europe after the LGM. They also mistakenly carried on the old, erroneous, 19th-century notion that the Basques were a Paleolithic relic population; therefore, because Basques have a high frequency of R1b, R1b must likewise be a Paleolithic relic in Europe.

But R1b in Western Europe is almost 100% R-L11 of too little diversity to be that old there, and the SNP trail leads back to the east, to places like Armenia and northern Iran, where L23 and M269* prevail. The Basques are about 95% lactase persistent, not a Paleolithic trait, and their language contains words for Neolithic and metal age items, words that were not borrowed from other languages. In other words, the Basques aren't an Old Stone Age relic population. That was a 19th century fiction.

Now, add to all that the fact that NO R1b has turned up at ANY Neolithic or older sites, despite the fact that R1b is the single most frequent y haplogroup in Europe today and the fact that ancient y-dna test results from Europe are mounting.

Yes, some R1b could be recovered from a Mesolithic European site tomorrow, but that is looking less and less and less likely.

If those two R1b Beaker men were descended from other R1b men who had been in Europe for thousands of years already, one would think some older R1b would be turning up there, but it isn't. Another thing is that the Beaker Folk, especially the males, were an intrusive population. They differed from the older inhabitants not only culturally but physically, as well. In other words, they were newcomers.

Don't you ever feel like Bill Murray?

[MMaddi]

Don't you ever feel like Bill Murray?

Good point! The title for this thread should be changed to "Groundhog Day."

[1798]

Don't you ever feel like Bill Murray?

The earliest Bell Beakers were found in Iberia 2,800 BC so I don't see how some men have a problem being connected to Iberia 5000 years ago as opposed 8-10,000 years ago.The first tombs were built in Ireland 6000 ybp by men some of whom were in the R1b group so what part do you not understand?
Even Bill Murray would know that much.

[ironroad41]

[QUOTE=MMaddi;386260]


Let me remind you, as I posted earlier in this thread, that what you have is circumstantial and inferential. All the physical evidence (DNA results from ancient remains) we have so far tells us that there was no R1b in Europe as early as you propose. In my view, and generally in science or a courtroom, physical evidence trumps circumstantial evidence.[quote/].

How much physical evidence is available from 10K to 6K BC? Include the Isles, France, Germany and Spain (Iberia).