World Families Forums - Barry Cunliffe, Britain Begins, out on Kindle

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 23, 2014, 03:33:22 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Barry Cunliffe, Britain Begins, out on Kindle
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Barry Cunliffe, Britain Begins, out on Kindle  (Read 2237 times)
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2012, 01:27:26 PM »

By the way, is Mesolithic I2 the same as the very old "Wodans" that Sykes mentions in his book? Which y-dna dating methods are we using to suggest mesolithic for I2?

That is not Mesolithic. That is one of the haplogroups Barry Cunliffe lists for the Neolithic. At least I think that is the one he means. It is all confused by his use of old nomenclature.

That's what I thought.

So, is the consensus now, if we ignore Sykes and Oppenheimer, that no Mesolithic Y-DNA lines have survived in modern Britain?

What about mtDNA? It appears that nobody is either able or willing to use modern mtDNA to infer prehistoric population movements of women. I gather it is harder to do. Could Mesolithic female lines have survived in the Britain and Ireland?
As far as we know the only lineages that were present, or atleast have turned up in the ancient DNA samples, are varieties of U and possibly HV and RO. Thee lineages are not in the majority in the U.K, and they're found in the rest of Europe too (thus could have been brought by female immigrants). So Mesolithic women may have survived in small numbers.

As for Mesolithic haplogroups, last time I checked both sub-clades of I bottle necked in recent times, but possibly I2 which is a bit older could have made it's way to Britain prior to farming.

Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2012, 03:21:03 PM »

By the way, is Mesolithic I2 the same as the very old "Wodans" that Sykes mentions in his book? Which y-dna dating methods are we using to suggest mesolithic for I2?

That is not Mesolithic. That is one of the haplogroups Barry Cunliffe lists for the Neolithic. At least I think that is the one he means. It is all confused by his use of old nomenclature.

That's what I thought.

So, is the consensus now, if we ignore Sykes and Oppenheimer, that no Mesolithic Y-DNA lines have survived in modern Britain?

What about mtDNA? It appears that nobody is either able or willing to use modern mtDNA to infer prehistoric population movements of women. I gather it is harder to do. Could Mesolithic female lines have survived in the Britain and Ireland?
As far as we know the only lineages that were present, or atleast have turned up in the ancient DNA samples, are varieties of U and possibly HV and RO. Thee lineages are not in the majority in the U.K, and they're found in the rest of Europe too (thus could have been brought by female immigrants). So Mesolithic women may have survived in small numbers.

As for Mesolithic haplogroups, last time I checked both sub-clades of I bottle necked in recent times, but possibly I2 which is a bit older could have made it's way to Britain prior to farming.



Ok, so mtDNA Hg U looks very old in Europe according to ancient DNA samples but can we say that people living in Britain today with Hg U are directly descended from Haplogroup U people who were living in Britain during the Mesolithic?

OR, could they be descended from Hg U people who came to GB during Neolithic, Metal Age or historic times?
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #27 on: September 13, 2012, 10:01:40 AM »

Today's native Americans are descended from people who arrived there 12,000 years ago.Why would you find it hard to believe that people in the Isles cant be descended from people who arrived 9000 ybp?
Logged
glentane
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #28 on: September 13, 2012, 11:07:16 AM »

Today's native Americans are descended from people who arrived there 12,000 years ago.Why would you find it hard to believe that people in the Isles cant be descended from people who arrived 9000 ybp?
Dunno. Ask me about the First Peoples again in 6000 years.
That'll be at least five millennia of desperate land-hungry subsistence farmers at the Malthusian limit, armed with man-killing longbows (the characteristic leaf-shaped arrowhead is designed as primarily a war weapon, recycle ammo easily on the battlefield/siege-assault without it getting snagged on target's clothes and worse bits), add near-psychotic bronze age warrior castes with infinitely superior weapons and tactics whose main relaxation was rustling and boozing (and slavery, I suspect), iron age invaders with military vehicles and horses, who enjoyed the odd human sacrifice and maybe a bit of cannibalism, the blessed Romans spreading their usual brand of totalitarian hearts-and-minds doctrine (which horrified even the continental barbarians as dastardly and unchivalrous), and wave after wave of axe-wielding seaborne raiders after that, all looking for a new claim.
And all definitely without the Queensberry Rules.

If I was an ancient brit fisher/forager, I'd slip quietly into the old canoe and head off to the smaller outer isles to the north and west, or down to Brittany and the Morbihan. Anywhere away from those mud-grubbing lunatics. Frighten the fish and the deer away, they do, and wreck the woods and the hazel-groves for their scabby huts and firewood.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2012, 11:10:15 AM by glentane » Logged
SEJJ
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2012, 01:16:47 PM »

By the way, is Mesolithic I2 the same as the very old "Wodans" that Sykes mentions in his book? Which y-dna dating methods are we using to suggest mesolithic for I2?

That is not Mesolithic. That is one of the haplogroups Barry Cunliffe lists for the Neolithic. At least I think that is the one he means. It is all confused by his use of old nomenclature.

That's what I thought.

So, is the consensus now, if we ignore Sykes and Oppenheimer, that no Mesolithic Y-DNA lines have survived in modern Britain?

What about mtDNA? It appears that nobody is either able or willing to use modern mtDNA to infer prehistoric population movements of women. I gather it is harder to do. Could Mesolithic female lines have survived in the Britain and Ireland?
As far as we know the only lineages that were present, or atleast have turned up in the ancient DNA samples, are varieties of U and possibly HV and RO. Thee lineages are not in the majority in the U.K, and they're found in the rest of Europe too (thus could have been brought by female immigrants). So Mesolithic women may have survived in small numbers.

As for Mesolithic haplogroups, last time I checked both sub-clades of I bottle necked in recent times, but possibly I2 which is a bit older could have made it's way to Britain prior to farming.



Ok, so mtDNA Hg U looks very old in Europe according to ancient DNA samples but can we say that people living in Britain today with Hg U are directly descended from Haplogroup U people who were living in Britain during the Mesolithic?

OR, could they be descended from Hg U people who came to GB during Neolithic, Metal Age or historic times?

I thought there was an article out recently that suggested discontinuity between the U5 in Mesolithic populations and modern U5 - Been  a while since i've read anything about it so i can't remember details.
Logged

Y-DNA: I1*
MT-DNA: U5a1b4
       
SEJJ
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2012, 01:19:44 PM »

Today's native Americans are descended from people who arrived there 12,000 years ago.Why would you find it hard to believe that people in the Isles cant be descended from people who arrived 9000 ybp?
Dunno. Ask me about the First Peoples again in 6000 years.
That'll be at least five millennia of desperate land-hungry subsistence farmers at the Malthusian limit, armed with man-killing longbows (the characteristic leaf-shaped arrowhead is designed as primarily a war weapon, recycle ammo easily on the battlefield/siege-assault without it getting snagged on target's clothes and worse bits), add near-psychotic bronze age warrior castes with infinitely superior weapons and tactics whose main relaxation was rustling and boozing (and slavery, I suspect), iron age invaders with military vehicles and horses, who enjoyed the odd human sacrifice and maybe a bit of cannibalism, the blessed Romans spreading their usual brand of totalitarian hearts-and-minds doctrine (which horrified even the continental barbarians as dastardly and unchivalrous), and wave after wave of axe-wielding seaborne raiders after that, all looking for a new claim.
And all definitely without the Queensberry Rules.

If I was an ancient brit fisher/forager, I'd slip quietly into the old canoe and head off to the smaller outer isles to the north and west, or down to Brittany and the Morbihan. Anywhere away from those mud-grubbing lunatics. Frighten the fish and the deer away, they do, and wreck the woods and the hazel-groves for their scabby huts and firewood.

They come with fire, they come with axes... gnawing, biting, breaking, hacking, burning. Destroyers and usurpers, curse them.

Edit: Makes a lot of sense - And i suppose the people along the coasts would have had a different lifestyle and  surely - Fish heavy i suppose?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2012, 01:26:40 PM by SEJJ » Logged

Y-DNA: I1*
MT-DNA: U5a1b4
       
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2012, 01:25:51 PM »

By the way, is Mesolithic I2 the same as the very old "Wodans" that Sykes mentions in his book? Which y-dna dating methods are we using to suggest mesolithic for I2?

That is not Mesolithic. That is one of the haplogroups Barry Cunliffe lists for the Neolithic. At least I think that is the one he means. It is all confused by his use of old nomenclature.

That's what I thought.

So, is the consensus now, if we ignore Sykes and Oppenheimer, that no Mesolithic Y-DNA lines have survived in modern Britain?

What about mtDNA? It appears that nobody is either able or willing to use modern mtDNA to infer prehistoric population movements of women. I gather it is harder to do. Could Mesolithic female lines have survived in the Britain and Ireland?
As far as we know the only lineages that were present, or atleast have turned up in the ancient DNA samples, are varieties of U and possibly HV and RO. Thee lineages are not in the majority in the U.K, and they're found in the rest of Europe too (thus could have been brought by female immigrants). So Mesolithic women may have survived in small numbers.

As for Mesolithic haplogroups, last time I checked both sub-clades of I bottle necked in recent times, but possibly I2 which is a bit older could have made it's way to Britain prior to farming.



Ok, so mtDNA Hg U looks very old in Europe according to ancient DNA samples but can we say that people living in Britain today with Hg U are directly descended from Haplogroup U people who were living in Britain during the Mesolithic?

OR, could they be descended from Hg U people who came to GB during Neolithic, Metal Age or historic times?

I thought there was an article out recently that suggested discontinuity between the U5 in Mesolithic populations and modern U5 - Been  a while since i've read anything about it so i can't remember details.
The u5 found in the Cheddar man was found to be identical in a few of the samples of men from the nearby area. I'm not sure how many markers they used (does mtDNA use markers of some type? I presume it does) so it's possible that just like early anaylisis of R1b there wasn't enough detail.

At the time, CM was used by Sykes et. al. as evidence that many Paleolithic Britons have survived the various invasions since the Ice age. But actually the mtDNA of CM, along with a growing number of samples from the rest of Europe, turned out to debunk that theory.
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2012, 02:38:16 PM »

U5 has been found in ancient remains in Ireland.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2012, 02:40:11 PM »

The u5 found in the Cheddar man was found to be identical in a few of the samples of men from the nearby area. I'm not sure how many markers they used (does mtDNA use markers of some type? I presume it does) so it's possible that just like early anaylisis of R1b there wasn't enough detail.

At the time, CM was used by Sykes et. al. as evidence that many Paleolithic Britons have survived the various invasions since the Ice age. But actually the mtDNA of CM, along with a growing number of samples from the rest of Europe, turned out to debunk that theory.

Yes, this is a good example of "one does not a trend make."

Of course, there are probably some remnants from the Mesolith that remain today. Some even think there are remnants of the Neanderthals surviving in us. However, a large part of what modern Europeans are today, came much later.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2012, 02:42:48 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2012, 02:57:22 PM »

U5 has been found in ancient remains in Ireland.
I'm not aware of any pre-farming mtDNA samples in Ireland, what are you reffering to?

If it is it strengthens the case for U, particularly U5 and u4, being the main Paleolithic haplogroups in Europe.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #35 on: September 13, 2012, 03:27:18 PM »

U5 has been found in ancient remains in Ireland.
I'm not aware of any pre-farming mtDNA samples in Ireland, what are you referring to?

It was Bronze Age. It was from Glencurran Cave (1500 BC). It is easy to find in my list of ancient DNA results, since it is the only one from Ireland.   
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #36 on: September 14, 2012, 03:30:40 AM »

Some of the children in the school in the same area as the find were tested and had matching dna. That is continuity.
Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #37 on: September 14, 2012, 06:32:19 AM »

Today's native Americans are descended from people who arrived there 12,000 years ago.Why would you find it hard to believe that people in the Isles cant be descended from people who arrived 9000 ybp?

I would love to believe it but I am looking for solid genetic evidence that directly links British Mesolithic Hg U with modern day Hg U people in Britain.

And as others have said, 9000 years is a long time and much has happened in the Isles since then.

For instance, with Cheddar Man (U5) how detailed was Bryan Sykes' original DNA sequencing and was it detailed enough to prove direct descent with the local school children as was reported in the late 1990s, early 2000s? Don't forget Sykes did this many years ago when DNA testing was in its infancy, so he may have only used a few markers.

My main point is this. How do we know that the U5 school children in modern Cheddar simply don't share a common U5 ancestor with Cheddar Man outside the isles but that the children's U5 didn't arrive in Britain until the Neolithic or later?
Logged
Mkk
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #38 on: September 14, 2012, 12:25:43 PM »

Some of the children in the school in the same area as the find were tested and had matching dna. That is continuity.
Yes, but as I understand it mtDNA mutates at a very slow rate so there are many women with exactely the same mtDNa. For example, we could see that Mesolithic people crossed doggerland from Germany to get to Britain ; and if Anglo-Saxon women came to Britain from the same place, but 10,000 years later, they may bring the same HG.
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #39 on: September 14, 2012, 02:21:30 PM »

The school children with Gaelic names that I am refering to live in Ireland.  They matched the dna of the bronze age child found in County Clare.



Today's native Americans are descended from people who arrived there 12,000 years ago.Why would you find it hard to believe that people in the Isles cant be descended from people who arrived 9000 ybp?

I would love to believe it but I am looking for solid genetic evidence that directly links British Mesolithic Hg U with modern day Hg U people in Britain.

And as others have said, 9000 years is a long time and much has happened in the Isles since then.

For instance, with Cheddar Man (U5) how detailed was Bryan Sykes' original DNA sequencing and was it detailed enough to prove direct descent with the local school children as was reported in the late 1990s, early 2000s? Don't forget Sykes did this many years ago when DNA testing was in its infancy, so he may have only used a few markers.

My main point is this. How do we know that the U5 school children in modern Cheddar simply don't share a common U5 ancestor with Cheddar Man outside the isles but that the children's U5 didn't arrive in Britain until the Neolithic or later?
Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #40 on: September 15, 2012, 03:38:44 AM »

The school children with Gaelic names that I am refering to live in Ireland.  They matched the dna of the bronze age child found in County Clare.



Today's native Americans are descended from people who arrived there 12,000 years ago.Why would you find it hard to believe that people in the Isles cant be descended from people who arrived 9000 ybp?

I would love to believe it but I am looking for solid genetic evidence that directly links British Mesolithic Hg U with modern day Hg U people in Britain.

And as others have said, 9000 years is a long time and much has happened in the Isles since then.

For instance, with Cheddar Man (U5) how detailed was Bryan Sykes' original DNA sequencing and was it detailed enough to prove direct descent with the local school children as was reported in the late 1990s, early 2000s? Don't forget Sykes did this many years ago when DNA testing was in its infancy, so he may have only used a few markers.

My main point is this. How do we know that the U5 school children in modern Cheddar simply don't share a common U5 ancestor with Cheddar Man outside the isles but that the children's U5 didn't arrive in Britain until the Neolithic or later?

Sorry, I thought you were referring to Cheddar Man where it was also reported that local school children and a teacher were descended from him.

I just don't think we can say that for sure, given the lack of detail in early DNA sequencing used by Sykes.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #41 on: September 15, 2012, 04:41:54 AM »

Sorry, I thought you were referring to Cheddar Man where it was also reported that local school children and a teacher were descended from him.

The newspaper reports were mainly garbage. Sykes never said that. Sykes said they shared a maternal ancestor. As he tried to explain to the press:

  • MtDNA is passed down from mother to child. Cheddar Man could not pass on his mtDNA to anyone.
  • That common ancestor did not necessarily live in Cheddar.

In fact that ancestor did not necessarily live in England. There was U5 all over Europe in the Mesolithic. There was no way to tell from the DNA if the U5 found in the two children (an exact match) and the teacher (one mutation away) was closely related to that of Cheddar Man.

Sykes has never published his results from Cheddar Man i.e. the exact mutations. I had to take the result from ISOGG, and I don't know where they got it. They say 16192T, 16270T, which they report as U5a. (It isn't.)


 
« Last Edit: September 15, 2012, 04:50:12 AM by Jean M » Logged
avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #42 on: September 15, 2012, 05:35:59 AM »

Sorry, I thought you were referring to Cheddar Man where it was also reported that local school children and a teacher were descended from him.

The newspaper reports were mainly garbage. Sykes never said that. Sykes said they shared a maternal ancestor. As he tried to explain to the press:

  • MtDNA is passed down from mother to child. Cheddar Man could not pass on his mtDNA to anyone.
  • That common ancestor did not necessarily live in Cheddar.

In fact that ancestor did not necessarily live in England. There was U5 all over Europe in the Mesolithic. There was no way to tell from the DNA if the U5 found in the two children (an exact match) and the teacher (one mutation away) was closely related to that of Cheddar Man.

Sykes has never published his results from Cheddar Man i.e. the exact mutations. I had to take the result from ISOGG, and I don't know where they got it. They say 16192T, 16270T, which they report as U5a. (It isn't.)


 

Yeh, I was referring to the media reports. In his book though, Sykes did use Cheddar Man to support his argument for genetic continuity from the Mesolithic.

I suppose it's better to say that Cheddar Man's mother or sister could have had direct descendants, though highly unlikely, because as you said, it looks as though U5 was common all over Europe at that time.

Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #43 on: September 15, 2012, 06:11:29 AM »

In his book though, Sykes did use Cheddar Man to support his argument for genetic continuity from the Mesolithic.

That's fair enough in general terms. We have U5 from Mesolithic sites over a large part of Europe now. It is the signature of the European Mesolithic, along with U4.

The confusion arises from people thinking that if they carry U5, they must be descended from the nearest Mesolithic caveman to where they live now (or where their earliest known European ancestor in the maternal line lived.) We can't rule that out. It might happen to be true for one or two people living today. But there has been so much movement since the Mesolithic that it is unlikely to be that simple for most people. For those who carry a subclade of U5, things may get a bit clearer. 
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #44 on: September 17, 2012, 10:20:03 AM »

Interesting postings.

It made me think of the Amesbury Archer who is connected to the Alps through tooth stratum. Had they had done an MT test instead they would be claiming his mother was from England. The Archer's MT results would be interesting.
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #45 on: September 17, 2012, 09:15:31 PM »

Interesting postings.

It made me think of the Amesbury Archer who is connected to the Alps through tooth stratum. Had they had done an MT test instead they would be claiming his mother was from England. The Archer's MT results would be interesting.

His Y-DNA would be interesting as well!
Logged

LDJ
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.145 seconds with 18 queries.