Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a newspaper article on this subject which explains what I was saying above about the Ballynahatty woman.
She’s a brown-eyed, brown-haired woman, with a face that would be right at home in the Mediterranean or the Middle East.
And she’s Irish.
She lived about 5200 years ago, and was buried near a stone monument and an ancient ring-shaped earthwork, in Ballynahatty, near Belfast. It was her people who built nearly all those megalithic tombs, monuments and stone circles, that you see in advertisements from the Irish tourism industry.
And it’s now being suggested that nearly everyone in Ireland at that time looked like Maria, like they were from the Mediterranean. And that’s because they were.
The genetic profile of these first Irish farmers indisputably originates in the Middle East. Maria’s closest modern relatives — genetically — are the inhabitants of the Italian island of Sardinia.
Maria lived a stone-age existence. Literally. Nearly all her tools and implements were made from natural products like stone and wood. But she was a farmer, meaning she did not rely on hunting and gathering for her food.
Her ancestors may have taken a few centuries to complete the journey from the Middle East to the cold and foggy forests of northern Ireland. The genetic evidence suggests a maritime route, across the Mediterranean, to southern Spain, then up the Atlantic coast.
Maria’s DNA has traces of an even older first people in Ireland, people who relied on hunting and gathering for food. But it’s only a trace, leading scientists to suggest that Maria’s Neolithic farming people displaced and replaced the hunter-gatherers.
But in turn, Maria’s DNA is almost entirely absent from the population of modern Ireland. So this indicates that at some point, Maria’s people lost out to a new and very different population.
Three male skeletons provide clues to help scientists explain what happened. They were uncovered on the island of Rathlin, off the coast of Northern Ireland.
Let’s call them the Rathlin boys.
The Rathlin boys lived about 1000 years after Maria, and their DNA is very different to hers. Genetically, the lads have a very close affinity to the populations of modern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Do you have a link that provides evidence that the Neolithic DNA found in Maria is different that the Neolithic DNA found in the modern Irish population. I find it quite peculiar that your link downplays the Neolithic component in the current Irish population. You and I both know it is a significant compenent but based on the current politics the term middle east isn't a term people want to attach their lineage to.
Do you have a link that provides evidence that the Neolithic DNA found in Maria is different that the Neolithic DNA found in the modern Irish population. I find it quite peculiar that your link downplays the Neolithic component in the current Irish population. You and I both know it is a significant compenent but based on the current politics the term middle east isn't a term people want to attach their lineage to.
It is in the post before Bonny Jean's enlightening post.
I'll repeat it here.
However, the Irish Bronze Age showed no significant introgression from Ballynahatty when placed in a clade with continental LN/BA populations (D(Mbuti, Ballynahatty; Irish Bronze Age, Continental LN/BA)), with results actually suggesting higher correlation between Ballynahatty and certain continental samples, most significantly the Hungarian Bronze Age (|Z| = 1.909 - 2.881). A similar result was obtained when Ballynahatty was replaced with the Scandinavian Middle Neolithic Gok2. However, when Spanish_MN or Esperstedt_MN took Ballynahatty’s place significant introgression into continental LN/BA populations to the exclusion of the Irish Bronze Individuals was seen, with the notable exception of the Nordic LN. This indicates that while the Irish Bronze Age contains a substantial amount of Middle Neolithic ancestry we find no strong evidence to suggest that the Irish population from which Ballynahatty came was its source. It is also not likely to be identical to the component of Middle Neolithic ancestry found in German LN/BA samples, or indeed any continental LN/BA so far sampled.
Basically what the above paragraph is saying is the Ballynahatty female's Middle Neolithic ancestry doesn't match any found on the continent and doesn't match the Middle Neolithic ancestry of the Rathlin males. So it appears that these Irish mid neolithic people did not survive. This is what I've been trying to explain on this thread. Ireland has had a history of boom and bust at different periods in history. Of course Ireland hasn't been the only place this has happened but it appears that in Ireland these population crashes have been quite dramatic.
There are other genomes that have been tested so hopefully we should get more information in the coming year.
Different areas of Europe have different proportions of Neolithic Farmer, Hunter Gather and Steppe ancestry (I'm sure you are aware of this). It is fairly obvious that some areas such as southern Europe were more populated when these Steppe people came so different areas have different proportions. Southern Europe had a bigger population due to more favourable living conditions.
Just as an example it is interesting that Sardinia is nearly all Neolithic Farmer to this present day.
Do you have a link that provides evidence that the Neolithic DNA found in Maria is different that the Neolithic DNA found in the modern Irish population. I find it quite peculiar that your link downplays the Neolithic component in the current Irish population. You and I both know it is a significant compenent but based on the current politics the term middle east isn't a term people want to attach their lineage to.
I don't think they are downplaying it at all. Scientists in this day and age would not do that. All their work is public knowledge and there are quite a few very knowledgeable amateurs that get access to the same information and run their own tests.
Anyway it is mainly ignorance (like what has unfortunately been already posted in this thread). All populations came from elsewhere. The neolithic population that came to Europe is no longer the same as what is in the present Middle East. While these Neolithic Farmers left Anatolia new people moved in there as well. Anyone with a bit of knowledge knows that the present day European population of Sardinia is the closest match to Neolithic Farmers not the present day populations of the Middle East.
They are not saying the Irish don't have Middle Neolithic ancestry. This has already been explained. It is that they didn't get their Middle Neolithic ancestry from the same population of Ballynahatty. The present day population of Irish owes a lot of their genetics to the Rathlin men and people similar to them.
What the geneticists are suggesting as a result of this research is that the Irish genome was significantly modified (not replaced) by what possibly could have been a rapid mass migration from eastern Europe into Ireland.
The purpose of the research was to study migration by determining the ancestral origin of the samples. The woman's ancesters originated in the fertile crescent, or near/middle east. The bronze age samples suggest 1/3 steppe ancestral origin. The geneticists aren't certain of that yet. More samples need to be tested. Similar studies have been done on continental samples and some, not all, show traces of ancestral steppe origin too.
We already knew from the archaeological record that there was a mass migration of people from the mid east into Europe. Now we know that included Ireland. There is little archaeological evidence of steppe migrations due to their nomadic nature. This is why geneticists find these results fascinating. We know they tended to migrate west. We also know from historical records that mid easterners had frequent encounters with their steppe neighbors.
Like it or not, people from the fertile crescent, near/mideast, contributed to the modern day European (including Ireland) gene pool.
What the geneticists are suggesting as a result of this research is that the Irish genome was significantly modified (not replaced) by what possibly could have been a rapid mass migration from eastern Europe into Ireland.
The purpose of the research was to study migration by determining the ancestral origin of the samples. The woman's ancesters originated in the fertile crescent, or near/middle east. The bronze age samples suggest 1/3 steppe ancestral origin. The geneticists aren't certain of that yet. More samples need to be tested. Similar studies have been done on continental samples and some, not all, show traces of ancestral steppe origin too.
We already knew from the archaeological record that there was a mass migration of people from the mid east into Europe. Now we know that included Ireland. There is little archaeological evidence of steppe migrations due to their nomadic nature. This is why geneticists find these results fascinating. We know they tended to migrate west. We also know from historical records that mid easterners had frequent encounters with their steppe neighbors.
Like it or not, people from the fertile crescent, near/mideast, contributed to the modern day European (including Ireland) gene pool.
But I don't disagree with anything you've said here. What I was trying to explain to you from the paper was that the Ballynahatty woman's dna was not passed on. The Rathlin men have Middle Neolithic dna but not the same source as the Ballynahatty woman. People appear to be reading this as no MN dna in Ireland but that wasn't been said at all.
I thought what I have been posting was clear. The Rathlin men's Middle Neolithic dna was picked up in Central Europe before they arrived in Ireland.
I'll have to go back and read my posts as I don't quite get where I said there was no Neolithic dna in Ireland. At the risk of repeating myself again the study said that the Irish mid neolithic doesn't appear to have survived in the modern population and that it doesn't match the neolithic dna from the Continent.
Here is this section once again. This indicates that while the Irish Bronze Age contains a substantial amount of Middle Neolithic ancestry we find no strong evidence to suggest that the Irish population from which Ballynahatty came was its source. It is also not likely to be identical to the component of Middle Neolithic ancestry found in German LN/BA samples, or indeed any continental LN/BA so far sampled.
People appear to be reading too much into nothing and suggesting that there is some sensitivity about having Neolithic dna. Every European population has Farmer dna and I have no issues with this. There is a mystery about what has happened to the middle neolithic population in Ireland that was there before the R1b men came. There are more ancient genomes in Ireland which they have most probably tested and have not released the results yet.
I'm kind of feeling very frustrated with this thread and wonder why I've even commented at all. There has been a blatant bigoted post and then people alluding that people have issues with having Neolithic ancestry. I'm baffled by this. I've added the pdf for people to read for themselves. I'm wondering what has been the difficulty with all of this? Anyone wouldn't even find this stuff that controversial and especially people that keep a close eye on this sort of subject. Anyone looking at genetics the last couple of years would have heard about all the Yamnaya males so far being R1b and that these Yamnaya men are the source of R1b in Europe. This result for Ireland was not unexpected.
@Bernie thanks for answering my questions. I do see that the Neolithic DNA in the Bronze age samples(Rathlin) is different than the Ballynahatty woman(Neolithic). Perhaps she will be uploaded on Gedmatch soon for comparison.
I thought that in post #3 when you stated the below in quotes you were disputing middle eastern farmers contribution to Irish roots. I misunderstood your initial post.
"The study doesn't even say that. I'm always amazed that people can get totally inaccurate information from studies."
@Bernie thanks for answering my questions. I do see that the Neolithic DNA in the Bronze age samples(Rathlin) is different than the Ballynahatty woman(Neolithic). Perhaps she will be uploaded on Gedmatch soon for comparison.
I thought that in post #3 when you stated the below in quotes you were disputing middle eastern farmers contribution to Irish roots. I misunderstood your initial post.
"The study doesn't even say that. I'm always amazed that people can get totally inaccurate information from studies."
Possibly some of it is my fault as well. The study's main point was how these R1b Rathlin males and others like them have come to dominate Irish genetics. Focusing on the Ballynahatty sample was a dead end so I was trying to point this out. The interesting thing about that is what happened to these earlier Irish when these R1b men came. So the whole focus was really these R1b males. Even some papers were highlighted the neolithic sample and didn't appear to grasp what the study was saying.
Who the modern day Irish are genetically more similar to was not the point of the study, and that is why the media and others are not focused on that.
Migration is the hot topic. Archaeologists are divided on whether transitions from hunter-gatherer to agriculture to stone/metal use were due to local adoption of new ways or if they were influenced by influxes of new people.
The archaeologists and geneticists who conducted this study are saying that the Irish are descended from the woman's people (who mass-migrated) but that the genome was significantly modified by what may have been another mass migration.
Obviously no concrete conclusions can be made from so few samples. They aren't even sure about the steppe ancestry ... they suspect it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
