Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Trying to get progress: draft page created

Every time I look at the article I throw my hands up. Tabula rasa is required but that needs time or else trying to do it bit by bit will look like vandalism and attract problems. I therefore started a draft here. It is not intended for just me though. Others are welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made an intro there. Maybe it could already be inserted. But the main reason for wanting to start a draft is for the rest of the article which needs a new overall structure and approach. I'll let others comment. No need to rush.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Have topped up the literature list as discussed and formatted it using templates so that we can use Harvard referencing if so desired.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I felt that having waited and received no comment the draft intro was good enough to move in. Of course people will say something or edit it if this was the wrong thing to do. The big job will be the rest of the article, which needs a totally new structure. I have proposed (in the draft) as follows...

• Differences in results between different types of DNA studies
• Discussion of how the results tend to differ and what this is thought to mean. See Chiaroni et al.
• Mitochondrial studies

• Comparisons to Western Europe.
• Differences between parts of British Isles.

• Y DNA studies

• Comparisons to Western Europe.
• Differences between parts of British Isles.

• Autosomal DNA studies

• Comparisons to Western Europe.
• Differences between parts of British Isles.

• Ancient DNA evidence

The trick will be that this structure is so different from the present one that we maybe need to work on this on the draft page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd propose it to be like this...

• Differences in results between different types of DNA studies - Give a brief introduction stating the reasoning for the differences. Discuss how the results tend to differ and what this is thought to mean (See Chiaroni et al).

• Mitochondrial studies

• Comparisons to Western Europe.
• Differences between parts of British Isles.

• Y DNA studies

• Comparisons to Western Europe.
• Differences between parts of British Isles.

• Autosomal DNA studies

• Comparisons to Western Europe.
• Differences between parts of British Isles.

• Ancient DNA evidence

... basically some of the points come under that header, with your second point being an introduction underneath the main header instead. I could show you in the article if you don't know what I mean.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I really hope someone will actually start re-working this article. It really has a lot of issues. The over-reliance on Sykes and Oppenheimer is inappropriate, as has been discussed many times. Please note that long ago I already pasted most of the necessary reading into the Literature section in such a format that now refs can be made easily using the Harvcoltxt template.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to remind of the background on this article, there was a some argument a while back when one editor started getting critical of this article, but after some discussion it was agreed that it really does need work. So those of us who are highly critical of it have held off from cuttin this article too aggressively and instead sources and ideas about structure have been proposed. The article however remains sub-standard and once threats of deletions etc stopped, interest in defending and improving the article also disappeared. The current article simply does not reflect a duely weighted summary of what up-to-date reliable sources say. I think the onus is on the people who insisted they could and would save the article to prove it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems, Andrew, is that many of us who are interested in the subject have wholly insufficient technical knowledge to be able to rewrite the article. I certainly have no interest in "saving" the article as it is now written, but equally I do feel strongly that any article that replaces it must - as well as being scientifically accurate and up-to-date - address the issues for which many readers are looking for answers. It should, for example, set out critical assessments of the work of Oppenheimer and others, which (like it or not) has gained considerable public interest - not to either accept them or to dismiss them out of hand, but to set them in the context of current academic knowledge. Obviously, this whole area of study is of great interest to a wide range of non-academic people - some of whom would like to think they are genetically different from other groups or "nations" in this group of islands, and others that we are all genetically similar or wholly intermixed. Nationalism, for want of a better word, is a highly potent force. This area of academic study has cultural and indeed political significance. So, it is important both that this article is academically respectable, and that it is capable of being understood by the interested reader who may well have no academic background in the area. My view, personally, is that an academically respectable article should be written first, and then if there are parts that are difficult to follow, the edits for clarity can follow. But only academically qualified editors can undertake the first step - and it may be that those steps should be taken in a sandbox first, rather than by changing the article itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, this article should not be about criticisms of Oppenheimer etc because that is not what the article is about, and we can not write much about it anyway because there is not much debate in the literature about it either. (Oppenheimer et al with their clan names are simply not of much interest. They are not part of the science.) Secondly, concerning the practical task which is stuck in a rut here, I think you are exaggerating in order to find a neat explanation for the rut, which is just a basic everyday rut. This is just a case where work needs to be done, and can be done. I'll explain why:

• Anything that would require an academic to summarize it should not be on Wikipedia. If you are saying that normal Wikipedians can only put in out of date stuff with clan names, and can do no better, then this article should be deleted?
• How could we non academics have had the discussion we did previously, if only academics could understand such things?
• As you'll recall, the discussion was pretty simple. A couple of editors said they did not want some old sources removed or questioned and that they needed convincing that those old sources were out of date and not mainstream; then another editor, me, gave a bibliography and everyone said "oh OK". I then also gave a draft structure etc.

It is just a matter of going through the up to date articles I have added to the bibliography, and writing this article based on those, not Oppenheimer etc. Indeed it might be best to do it in a draft version first. But no problem, I already made a page for it. If passing reference to those clan names needs to remain then so be it. But the article can not be centrally all about a couple of out of date popularizations. If that is the only option that will be accepted by some editors, then we go back to needing to discuss whether this article should exist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't suggesting that the article should be about criticisms of Oppenheimer etc.. But, however much his views may be regarded by academics as "..simply not of much interest...not part of the science", they have received much publicity in the outside world, which is populated by readers of articles like this, and they need to be addressed - not necessarily in this article, but in articles linked from this article if you (and others) prefer. If there are summaries of the current state of academic knowledge which are accessible to the general reader, then clearly they should be used. But, in this case, it appears that there are not. Therefore, the only information which is available is either academic research, or populist articles. If the populist articles are not to be used, the academic articles need to be summarised, and the only people who can do that are the people who understand them. My only reason for being on this page is to emphasise the importance of having a good article, or good articles, on the subject matter covered by this one. Sorry, but personally I don't have the time or, probably, the expertise, to completely rewrite an article on the basis of a list of academic papers. The structure of your proposal is, I'm sure, fine, but the flesh needs to be put on the bones by people who understand the subject. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no-one objecting to mentioning the "clan" names, but this should be as a side comment about popular culture. Currently it is the core of the article. Personally I actually think that this makes the article harder to understand than the academic articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although labelling Oppenheimer as "popular culture" when much of his work clearly holds, or at least held, some academic credibility, strikes me as not NPOV. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think much of the work of Oppenheimer and Sykes work holds, at least not in any area notable for this article here. But anyway even if it did that would not require us to mention them (the article is not about the history of the field). Of course I could ask you to explain what you think holds with recent literature but you would claim not to have the time to check?  :)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. This article - or, if not this article, another article linked to it - needs to explain why the widely-publicised work of Oppenheimer and Sykes does not (now) "hold" - if that is indeed the case. I have no idea what the current state of academic research is. That is one of the reasons why I think there needs to be an article explaining it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I did not miss that point: I just disagree. Presenting the case against an author is not what Wikipedia is for. If other outside sources have presented the case against, then we can potentially have something about it in Wikipedia. If they have not, then Oppenheimer and Sykes still might get mentioned, if they are notable in some area. When it comes to the genetics of the British Isles that is very debatable outside of the popular culture area, but I think it is accepted more or less as being part of popular culture for the time being. If there were enough notability to justify a special article on the history of the subject itself, then that might be another place, but I think there is no justification for such an article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

They are notable, and influential in, if you insist on using this terminology, "popular culture". (Personally, I'd rather use words like "widely read".) Academic research is more reliable and more up-to-date, but increasingly (in my view) impenetrable to the general reader. It's as though there are two separate worlds, each failing to respond to the other. It's part of WP's responsibility to bring those worlds together - academics may rubbish popular authors, but they must surely have published some reasons for doing so. And, as I suggested, only those who understand the arguments and the terminology are capable of making sense of current knowledge. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Giving haplogroups mythical founders with modern sounding ethnic names, and then trying to say you (and by implication science as a whole) know exactly when and where they lived when you do not is not just a question of style. It is fundamentally in conflict with the science. And it is quite simply not part of WP's responsibility to be concerned with trying reconcile science and popular culture when they are in conflict. WP sets itself the task of just summarizing what the appropriate sources write. Because this article claims to be about genetics, it needs to be structured around the scientific facts as they are understood by mainstream science (or else I'd suggest deletion; note how little agreement there is about what should be in this article, what it should be titled etc.). The clan names should not be the basis of the article, and even trying to explain how they relate to the real science is not obvious, because the whole structure of these clan fantasies includes what are essentially myths presented as scientific, that are in conflict with the science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying any of that. As I've said, it's up to someone who understands the science to prepare a readable article. I'm fed up with saying that - I just want someone to do it. Then, after it's done, there can be discussion on it - including on whether additional information should be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I get it. You want someone else to do it, and when they do it, you will disagree with their reciting of what "academics" say. And so others are put off from doing it, and so this article is stuck. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to anything I have said, anywhere, at any time, which leads you to think that I would disagree with including in this article what the academic consensus says. Of course I wouldn't do that - I'm trying to find out what the consensus is, but no-one seems willing to tell me. I "want someone else to do it" because I don't understand what the academic literature is saying, so it would be pretty difficult for me to summarise it. How many times do I have to say this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Although you claim ignorance when necessary, saying now even that no one has tried to help you with the literature (which is not really very nice given the efforts I originally went to, in order to defuse the earlier stalemate here when I was called in), you have also never failed to defend Oppenheimer when people actually start pushing for concrete change, and you've expressed your opinion in this very discussion now that "much of his work clearly holds". This apparently means that you actually think you know the academic literature better than others? I post the question in this direct way, for the very practical reason that if this is just a misunderstanding then it would be good to clear it up, because, to repeat my point, it appears right now that you not only have a position, but that you have a position which will make editing this article quite difficult for anyone else.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion that their work holds some academic credibility was based on what other editors said some time ago - if it's wrong, or if I've misunderstood, fine. I'm obviously capable of misunderstanding a lot. So far as "defending Oppenheimer" is concerned - I read his book, thought it was interesting, and wanted to find out some more. That is not a crime. But you appear to completely misinterpret what I am saying. There is a need to set out academic consensus, in this article. There is also a need - somewhere on WP, maybe in the articles on Oppenheimer and Sykes themselves, I really don't care - to set out their views, as they have been expressed in "popular culture" to use your term (or "books", to use my term), and to set out a critique of them. I have absolutely no "position" whatsoever on this, except to have a strong view that someone, somewhere, ought to spend some time summarising what the academic consensus currently is, so that apparently stupid people like me can actually read about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right, there are no crimes here, and I certainly did not mean to imply that. Obviously the biggest practical issue is simply getting someone to find the time, whether it is one of us or someone else. I am most concerned that misunderstandings might be holding people from editing. Please keep in mind that the article is off-putting for editors who know this area because it is a standard approach on WP to try piecemeal editing, but that is going to be difficult here. So potential editors will be fearing reversions and wasted edits. That's why I proposed the draft approach also, which might still potentially help. If there are any notes at all you think you can put on that draft, please do feel free.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm happy to help where I can, but as well as having little prior knowledge, and few sources, I have great time constraints (as I'm sure we all do). On an article like this where I am (obviously) an amateur, I'm much more likely to pop by occasionally to raise questions or make minor changes (eg pointing out Doggerland) than make a concerted effort to improve large sections of text. But please be assured that I have no "agenda", other than to improve WP articles. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest name change to: Genetic history of Britain, Ireland and associated islands

Read the previous impasse on the name for this article and suggest the above wording as a possible acceptable name to all parties in the discussion.Jembana (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the article British Isles. This is comprehensive and watertight. What is wrong with it and what possible improvement does your proposed name change above offer? Frankly the term 'Britain' is aniquated and open to confusion and 'associated islands' is meaningless. Tmol42 (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Tmo142, I am merely suggesting a way out from the objections to the term British Isles by several editors after I read the stalled discussion from September and November 2009 under the heading "British Isles?" above. Trying to reach a consenus here. Tmo142, it seems you want to keep the name as it is.Jembana (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a serious and ongoing attempt to develop a consensus on the use of "British Isles" in WP at Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force. Rather than attempting to resolve the issue on this page, it would be far preferable, in my view, to have it discussed by a wider group of experienced editors there. Would other editors on this page support that approach? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but I really think that a name change here is unnecessary. The suggestion is well-intentioned but sounds like an awkward 'Wikipedia-ism'. Some of the sources cited in the article use the term 'British Isles' anyway.--Pondle (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur with leaving it to the folk to discuss terminology re 'British Isles' ( I was unaware of this but it appears British Isles is seen as a better option there anyway). I also see no point in reserecting a dead discusson from over 6 months ago on renaming this page. Tmol42 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, "British Isles Terminology task force"? This appears to be a bad case of wikilawyering. As in, just keep the "controversy" alive for its own sake, maybe you can bore people away eventually and then you will have your "consensus". I fully agree that as long as there is no consensus to move the British Isles article, there is no reason to even discuss this here. Jembana, please try to understand the point that nobody is trying to move articles until their title is "acceptable to all parties". This is not only impossible, it is also not what Wikipedia is trying to do. We choose article titles under WP:NAME. There are solid criteria, essentially "commonly used in WP:RS". If a name can be shown to satisfy this, it is irrelevant whether it is "acceptable to all parties" on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This was resolved 2 months ago. Why are you reviving it now ? It should rather be archived (if I knew how to do this I would).Jembana (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Would just like to reaffirm my strong opposition to this article name being changed. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with Dbachmann above, it has been true for a long time that there is dispute, not to say bitter contention, not all of it wholly groundless, about the modern use of "British Isles" and in line with that, we are engaged in a serious effort to generate an MOS for it's use at British Isles MOS - Specific Concerns which is useful as it gives a good summary of the disputes. I concur that sources must be our guide, but of course the question then goes to which sources and in this issue a truckload of sources can often be located to support both sides of the debate. With regards to the fact that this article is primarily about geography, human culture and history, there would I think be a general consensus for most serious editors that it should remain named as-is, so I wouldn't want to see this one altered. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no concesus for a move. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah wikipedia. The only place this side of the 1940s there's a British Isles naming controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.101.38 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

, obsessively detailed article on, no less. --dab (𒁳) 21:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: I started work for better or worse

As discussed many times, the article needs work and it has been a question of finding the time. I have made a start. It is difficult, so if you see me making mistakes please be nice to me and let me know? I would note that I am, perhaps wrongly, starting out by trying to do what I said I thought might not work - incremental change, trying to save old work. This is difficult, and so errors are possible. That Sykes and Oppenheimer will become less important is hopefully not going to surprise anyone given all that has been published since. Also, I am trying to put in references, but of course in a job like this sourcing is not always coming first. But if anyone can help by putting more sourcing in that would be very greatly appreciated.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, for those wanting to keep an eye over my shoulder and make sure I do not dump too much stuff, I will try to make it obvious which edits contain substantial deletions. Here is one. Keep in mind that I have added a lot of more up to date and more accurately cited stuff which replaces it, so please do not just revert the deletion without thinking it through carefully and comparing to the new versions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another deletion edit. Again, please note new stuff was inserted first, and I really did look over all of this and try to save what I could, so please do not react too hard to this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is the last of 3 such edits. It might sound brutal but that is not the intention. We now have a platform for re-building if I have over-done the deleting, but to be honest I do not think I have.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Before the Ice Age

The second paragraph of the intro states “The population of Britain prior to the Ice Age and movements of people from nearby Western Europe since, are the subject of debate and research concerning the most important routes of migration into Britain and also the periods of the most important migrations.”. Would Britain have been inhabitable during the Ice Age, and if not, is the population of Britain prior to the Ice Age at all relevant to that of today? Or is that what the subject of debate and research concerns? Daicaregos (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I wrote or helped write that and I can see it needs adjusting. It should read "prior to the end of the last Ice Age". Does that explain it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure does. Thanks.
How do you feel about changing 'Britain' to 'Great Britain'? Britain seem more like the political entity to me, with Great Britain the name of the island. Although, not everyone may agree. Daicaregos (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with changing it from Britain, but I think your exact proposals would raise issues. There are different ways of using these terms but Great Britain is actually often a political entity, and Britain is often a geographical term. So I propose Britain and Ireland. I am thinking this would be preferred to the British Isles, which some Irish people feel to be treating Ireland as subservient. I'll change it already, because I think it is already an improvement. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Take care on that one. Changes from British Isles to Britain and Ireland (and vice versa) are the subject of an Arbcom ruling. I understand that any such changes need to be discussed first at WP:BISE. Good luck with that :) Daicaregos (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)I think the issue of Britain v. Great Britain is a moot point - there are arguments on both sides. I hope, quite strongly, that we can make progress quickly on the substantive content of the article, and resolve the potentially quite difficult and divisive issues of terminology - including any use made of the term "British Isles" - later on (or, at least, in a separate forum) rather than letting it derail the process of improving this article.Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::Just seen you've made changes along those lines already. Suggest you self revert and discuss at WP:BISE before re-instating. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it in a way which seems politically correct to me, and I think I wrote the original. If there is a policy someone can clearly explain, no problem, please do explain it or give a reference. But while I appreciate your advice, I do not intend to stop myself from editing, especially if I am fixing my own edit, because someone heard there was an Arbcom ruling that might apply to something relatively unimportant in the work I am doing, and does not know what it said. Life is too short to check every vague worry. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked at WP:BISE and I see no clear conclusions, but also no reason to think we are in any highly controversial area with either British Isles or Britain and Ireland. The suggestion was that Britain is wrong, and that suggestion was correct. Britain was wrong, and so the article is now improved.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is that terminology is an extremely difficult, contentious and contested area - particularly difficult (potentially) on topics like this where it's not clear the extent to which we are talking about a "geographical area" or a group (pair?) of societies and cultures. But I'm not sure that WP:BISE is set up to advise in circumstances when an article is in the middle of major revision, is it? My advice, for what it's worth, is that Andrew should concentrate on the substance of the article, recognising that, at some point, there may be other editors wishing to impart their own advice on terminology. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The other point is that you were right to question just "Britain" because very simply Britain does not include Ireland. So it needed changing. Great Britain also does not include Ireland. So the options were British Isles or Britain and Ireland. Therefore the edit I did was definitely at least going to be one step closer to any eventual peace treaty that folks come up with on this matter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Haplogroup R1b1b2

In the genetic make up of the Welsh people the article claims that 80% is of Palaeolithic in origin, in fact Haplogroup R1b1b2 is between 4000-8000 years old and originated in southwest Asia. So therefore the population of Wales or the British Isles could not possibly be Palaeolithic in origin.234aaa (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC) ISOGG 2010 Y-DNA R: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

234aaa (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does the article say that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote: ■Haplogroup R1b1b2 (M269) is observed most frequently in Europe, especially western Europe, but with notable frequency in southwest Asia. R1b1b2 is estimated to have arisen approximately 4,000 to 8,000 years ago in southwest Asia and to have spread into Europe from there. The Atlantic Modal Haplotype, or AMH, is the most common STR haplotype in haplogroup R1b1b2a1a (P310/S129) and most European R1b1b2 belongs to haplogroups R1b1b2a1a1 (U106) or R1b1b2a1a2 (P312/S116).

[How you could not see that I have no idea! The paragraph is near the bottom of the article just above the references section.234aaa (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[User:234aaa|234aaa]] (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You wrote that "the article claims that 80% is of Palaeolithic in origin" not "the article claims Haplogroup R1b1b2 is between 4000-8000 years old and originated in southwest Asia". Please be nice. Why did you write that "the article claims that 80% is of Palaeolithic in origin"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew,the wiki articlce claimed that 80% of the British was Palaeulithic not the ISOGG article.234aaa (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can not see this in the article? I notice you now say "claimed". Was this perhaps in an old version?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Autosomes

This article is missing autosomal DNA data - which is by the far the most abundant and the only type which gives the 'whole' picture. Based on Y-DNA or mtDNA data, one will come to the (false) conclusion that Europe can be neatly divided into DNA-defined, geographic regions. We need to include that autosomal studies have shown (as I'm sure that most people interested in this topic already know) that Europe is very homogeneous and does not segregate into groups, but the only real pattern which exists is a north to south/ southeast cline. It is this data which reflects how hundreds of thousands of years of intermixture, environmental adaptation, etc have shape the genotype of modern Europeans Hxseek (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is just a question of someone needing to find the time to do it. Sounds like you are volunteering? :) Seriously, this problem gets mentioned often in these types of articles, and I think it comes down partly to the fact that good autosomal studies are a new thing. But there is another aspect which is that autosomal studies, at least the more recent sort, tend not to come out with nice simple conclusions. People love being able to cite older studies from 10 year ago which confidently assert that ethnic group X has 10.5% genetic mixture from ethnic group Y - and obviously this preference for old simple stories is not always a good thing. The challenge is to find a way to explain the results of autosomal studies where the contributions being made to gene pools are quite correctly no longer named after modern proxies but now theoretical constructs, "components", based on mathematical models.

But you can defend it a bit in some contexts. For example there is a case to be made for saying that Y DNA studies in particular are even better for understanding the direction and impact of cultural movements (just NOT that good for working out how big the movements were as opposed to how much of an impact they had on male lines alone, which can be quite a different, more sensitive and fast-changing, thing). Of course for this article here we are supposedly writing about the genetic contribution, and not movements of elites and technologies, and so we should be more interested in autosomal studies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

J2 Montgomery.

I think the abundance of a branch of J2 among the bearers of surname Montgomery should be mentioned in the "Uncommon Y haplogroups" section. СЛУЖБА (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two points to check concerning whether that should be put in this article: Has any published source ever commented on this? (Some Wikipedians will frown if your only source is a surname project website.) And is it notable enough to be mentioned? (I could mention dozens of families with "unusual" main haplogroups from Britain: Scottish Calhouns and Johnsons are E-V13 for example.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.42.143 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I just read your post and it is utter rubbish.Please get your facts straight before posting rubbish like this.Oh BTW Brutus actually came from Troy acccording to welsh myth and not Iberia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.36.140 (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Common sense

I am interested in the post roman period. So I have often scoured the internet for information on the period. Now here comes my penny's worth!. What becomes clear from any reading on the subject is that the study of dna and its use for historical population immigration, is still in its infancy with some of the science unresolved. The sampling is incredibly small. I believe the oxford welcome study has about 4500 volunteers. This is remember out of a population of 60 million plus. Often grand theories are constructed based on sample data from a decade ago. Then a few years later along comes another study that then refutes the supposed connection, being based on more "sophisticated" sampling and understanding of the science of dna. Moreover as Guy Halsall points out, historical prejudice reigns in that english samples are tested for their supposed affinities with continental populations that they supposedly sprang from ie North Germany. A more balanced study would include possibly a north Italian or central French samples for example. All in all I would suggest that the topic is, at the moment, left alone till consensus amongst the scientists emerges, a larger proportion of contemporary british dna has been collected and more importantly we have a large sample of historic dna garnered through the archaeology of human remains from the 4th to the 10th century. I for one do not believe that Irish or Welsh dna represents relic dna that was once found all over the British Isles until the anglo-saxon migrations of the 5th-7th centuries. Britain was probably already a genetically diverse country. A cursory reading of Tacitus and his discussion of the various tribes of Britain is enough to convince me of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.69.225 (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is a joke.

Poor Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree this artical is a JOKE!. Please provide some evidence and links written by scientist not clowns. I can not find any research on some of these dna sequences. please explain?. Also modern facts prove Celtic is only part of the Iron age a culture from approx 600BC to 250AD?. They are not a race of people your research is out of date. The Chinese have 5000 years of written history are they Celtic?. English language started only in at 12th century. I have asked many times here but someone always removes my message. If the German's or Germanic have a DNA project please provide the links. I am sure it does not exist. Your evidence has been falsified for to long. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2166573/Prehistoric-DNA-bones-cave-proves-English-originally-came-Spain.html DUFF COOPER 22.6.2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.98.184 (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail article removed

The Daily Mail article you've linked to is a bit of a joke, read the actual research it is mis-reporting [1] and also[2]. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Britons come from Spain, everyone knows by now.

This fact is already well known since the advent of genetic research. But some people running this article, obvious propagandists, go to all lengths to hide this fact. This video is very recent, from 2010. This view continues to b3e the majority view. Only one group of people say that R1b originated in the Neolithic and they are presented as if they were right an son on. In any case, going to all lengths hiding the theory supported by most genetic research about the Spanish origins of most Western Europeans and Britons is also explained by a traditional century long propaganda and inferiority complex. Yes, North-West Europeans seem to come from Spain. So Waht¡. It is about people put an end to their stupid fantasists. Spain happens to be right next door, by the way. Boo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQHX_MwhN80

Ignorance is so incredible and this article has so much manipulation in it. Goob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the field. The "one group" of people who favor a Neolithic southeastern origin for R1b are the majority since the publication of several new studies over the last years. Many of the same scientists were previously in what you think of as the other group. There is no big debate between groups. The differences of opinion you are seeing are in different years: old opinion versus new opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure continue manipulating Lancaster. Anyone can read the article that you and people like you have put together. You can manipulate ignorants but people who know look at these articles in Wiki as pure trash. By the way, Spencer Weels also misunderstands the field in this 2010 clip. Boo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have strong feelings on this, as also shown by the fact that you've posted similar messages on many articles, and done almost nothing else with your Wikipedia account. I am not against anyone having a passionate interest but please understand that even if your theories are right we can not use them here if you have no published sources agreeing with you. Here is the relevant paragraph from R1b, which gives a similar account of theories in this field to this article, only in a bit more detail:

Early research focused upon Europe. In 2000 Ornella Semino and colleagues argued that R1b had been in Europe before the end of Ice Age, and had spread north from an Iberian refuge after the Last Glacial Maximum. Age estimates of R1b in Europe have steadily decreased in more recent studies, with Neolithic and Mesolithic age estimates being more common. However, that Semino et al's proposals might be correct for at least part of European R1b, for example in Sardinia, has been proposed as recently as 2010. Barbara Arredi and colleagues were the first to point out that the distribution of R1b variance forms a cline from east to west, which is more consistent with an entry into Europe from Western Asia with the spread of farming. A 2009 paper by Chiaroni et al. added to this perspective by using R1b as an example of a wave haplogroup distribution, in this case from east to west. The proposal of a southeastern origin of R1b were supported by three detailed studies based on large datasets published in 2010. These detected that the earliest subclades of R1b are found in western Asia and the most recent in western Europe. While age estimates in these articles are all more recent than the Last Glacial Maximum, all mention the Neolithic, when farming was introduced to Europe from the Middle East as a possible candidate period. Myres et al. (August 2010), and Cruciani et al. (August 2010) both remained undecided on the exact dating of the migration or migrations responsible for this distribution, not ruling out migrations earlier or later than the Neolithic.

Please note that if you look at the full list of authors on those articles of the last few years, the list of researchers who have no signed up to SE origins theory for NW European R1b is like a who's who of this field. As I mentioned before, it includes many (maybe all?) of the people who originally proposed an Iberian origin. There is no expert in this field as far as I know who has a counter argument to the latest data showing an SE origin. That is why I say that your description of a field split between two camps is wrong. The two camps you mention are the same people in different years.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This haplogroup stuff is interesting, but its importance is completely overblown with great regularity by amateurs. A people is not a bunch of Y-haplogroups. You are not your Y-haplogroup. There are few fields where Wikipedia is more desperately in need of expert editors than in our articles on genetic history. We are completely swamped with uneducated nonsense of the kind of the OP. --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I have focused only on the true/false assertions about Y haplogroup R1b above. R1b is a marker of some kind of human movement which must have been very dramatic, in the sense that a few male lines which were closely related became very dominant. It is notable. But that does NOT mean that the whole population moved. Y haplogroups are probably like languages and technologies, fairly fast moving, but transferable between populations. For better or worse though, the field itself has tended to use them as proxies (not normally as crudely as in the above comments). This was partly simply because it was cheap to test. Now things are changing. We are now seeing a new wave of studies which look at thousands of points on the whole chromosome. Let's hope future versions of this article receive the benefit. Such studies will eventually indeed probably show real connections between Spain and Britain!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I will not even bother to respond to your manipulation of scientific genetic information. It is so cheap. Poor Wiki readers (Sure Spencer Well is an amater) as the half a dozen blooks published in the area. Go cheat others¡. Boo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a response to me? Anyway, if you can name some of those half dozen blooks and explain what you are talking about with regards to Spencer Wells, that might make your remarks more worthy of consideration.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, there's confusion all round on all sides here. Haplogroup studies are useful for tracing past population movements but are much more difficult to use for measuring the relative relatedness of populations - this is better done by autosomal studies. The other big confusion is the importance given to the location of the original mutation of a haplogroup - this means very little in terms of relatedness of populations. A Japanese can have a typical "European" haplogroup and still be thoroughly Japanese (hello sailor said great, great, great gran). Typical Mongolian haplogroups are found in western Asia, among Euro Russians and some eastern Europeans - this has more to do with past invasions and trading contacts than any mass migrations. This droning on about a "middle eastern" origin of a haplogroup says nothing about why a particular haplogroup has its present geographic distribution and frequencies; remember, it only takes an individual or a few to carry the mutation across a continent by migration and/or breeding and the said mutated gene ends up in a very different population. We know, for instance, that the origin of the mutation for blue eyes was somewhere around the Black Sea, and this helps explain why so many in the Balkans and parts of Anatolia have blue eyes, but it does not explain the current concentration around the North Sea - Baltic areas - post glacial migration from population bottlenecks or founder effects or genetic drift in small isolated populations, - the same can be said about the much argued R1b + whatever - saying it originated on mars and a martian brought it to earth doesn't explain why it has the present dispersal at such high frequencies over such a wide and contiguous area. One must search for a mechanism or mechanisms - like, post-glacial maximum re-expansions and the various migrations of that period, for an explanation. As with everything, the reality is more complicated and nuanced than simply saying population "x = y because of z" and it will take quite some time to sort out. Jumping to extreme, simplistic conclusions of any sort is silly. This research is still in very early days; just look at the arguments over the genetic "clocks" to date the age of the first appearance of a mutation.Provocateur (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that most of these confusions actually already exist in the peer reviewed literature? Really what we have to try to do is just summarize what gets published, and we do this job bit by bit by volunteers. So there are two practical questions we can separate: 1. Do you think the literature being cited is being reported properly? 2. Do you want to take the time to add reference to more literature?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Did it ages ago, not here (don't want to upset the Poms), but in the Spanish people page (I see now it has become the genetic histroy of Iberia - its still a mess but there's at least some order and a huge number of referred studies), and also on the genetic history of europe page (mainly anonymously) - it was who I insisted, by example, that references to studies mention their publication dates and that not too much weight be given to any study or studies. You are right, there are problems within/between the studies(they could try co-ordinating their efforts more) but over the broad sweep they were relatively consistent. I feel just too much is now being made of one recent study arguing over the significance of R1b (it should be mentioned, but it is just one and controversial) - study after study has shown not only the fact that there is one very common hap at high frequencies, but in fact these contiguous areas show similar hap profiles, y and mtdna. Perhaps there are more complex patterns emerging. Lets not go back to the old days when everyone was waving around their preferred study. Provocateur (talk)(UTC)

And it hasn't taken long for serious problems with that study to be exposed: See 'A Comparison of Y-Chromosome Variation in Sardinia and Anatolia Is More Consistent with Cultural Rather than Demic Diffusion of Agriculture'[3] - this study should also be mentioned in this article.Provocateur (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning a bit more. You are saying that we shouldn't focus too much only on R1b, which makes sense to me, and yet the article you say should be mentioned is really about a quite technical point concerning R1b in Southern Europe and has nothing to do with R1b in Britain. The article's data has been super-ceded also by more recent studies which now appear to explain the unusual R1b types sometimes found in areas like Sardinia. Please see R1b.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In Origins of the British (2006), Stephen Oppenheimer states (pages 375 and 378):

"By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory..."

"...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia... Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."

In page 367 Oppenheimer states in relation to Zoë H Rosser's pan-European genetic distance map:

"In Rosser's work, the closest population to the Basques is in Cornwall, followed closely by Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and then northern France."

In his 2006 book Blood of the Isles (published in the United States and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland), Sykes examines British genetic "clans". He presents evidence from mitochondrial DNA, inherited by both sexes from their mothers, and the Y chromosome, inherited by men from their fathers, for the following points:

• The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line, i.e. those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), but who (genetically speaking) should more properly be called Cro-Magnon. In continental Europe, this same Cro-Magnon genetic legacy gave rise to the Basques. But both "Basque" and "Celt" are cultural designations not genetic ones and therefore to call a Celt "Basque" or a Basque "Celtic", is a fallacy.

• The contribution of the Celts of central Europe to the genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland was minimal; most of the genetic contribution to the British Isles of those we think of as Celtic, came from western continental Europe, I.E. the Atlantic seaboard.

• The Picts were not a separate people: the genetic makeup of the formerly Pictish areas of Scotland shows no significant differences from the general profile of the rest of Britain. The two "Pictland" regions are Tayside and Grampian.

• The Anglo-Saxons are supposed, by some, to have made a substantial contribution to the genetic makeup of England, but in Sykes's opinion it was under 20 percent of the total, even in southern England.

• The Vikings (Danes and Norwegians) also made a substantial contribution, which is concentrated in central, northern, and eastern England - the territories of the ancient Danelaw. There is a very heavy Viking contribution in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, in the vicinity of 40 percent. Women as well as men contributed substantially in all these areas, showing that the Vikings engaged in large-scale settlement.

• The Norman contribution was extremely small, on the order of 2 percent.

• There are only sparse traces of the Roman occupation, almost all in southern England.

• In spite of all these later contributions, the genetic makeup of the British Isles remains overwhelmingly what it was in the Neolithic: a mixture of the first Mesolithic inhabitants with Neolithic settlers who came by sea from Iberia and ultimately from the eastern Mediterranean.

• There is a difference between the genetic histories of men and women in Britain and Ireland. The matrilineages show a mixture of original Mesolithic inhabitants and later Neolithic arrivals from Iberia, whereas the patrilineages are much more strongly correlated with Iberia. This suggests (though Sykes does not emphasize this point) replacement of much of the original male population by new arrivals with a more powerful social organization.

• There is evidence for a "Genghis Khan effect", whereby some male lineages in ancient times were much more successful than others in leaving large numbers of descendants; e.g. Niall of the Nine Hostages in 4th and 5th century Ireland and Somerled in 12th century Scotland.

Some quotations from the book follow. (Note that Sykes uses the terms "Celts" and "Picts" to designate the pre-Roman inhabitants of the Isles who spoke Celtic and does not mean the people known as Celts in central Europe.) “

[T]he presence of large numbers of Jasmine’s Oceanic clan … says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic seaboard north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. …The mere presence of Oceanic Jasmines indicates that this was most definitely a family based settlement rather that the sort of male-led invasions of later millennia.[4] ” “The Celts of Ireland and the Western Isles are not, as far as I can see from the genetic evidence, related to the Celts who spread south and east to Italy, Greece and Turkey from the heartlands of Hallstadt and La Tene...during the first millennium BC…The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or about the same time as farming reached the Isles. (…)

The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus…. This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland. (…)

They [the Picts] are from the same mixture of Iberian and European Mesolithic ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructure of the Isles.[5] ” “Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantis chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes…I can find no evidence at all of a large-scale arrival from the heartland of the Celts of central Europe amongst the paternic genetic ancestry of the Isles… can[6] (Something smells rotten in the sate of Wikipedia: Nordicists?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.42.143 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sykes and Oppenheimer's popular books are now out of date for anything contentious in such a fast moving field. Having said that, ideas of connections between Iberia and Britain continue to be discussed here and there, even if the evidence is now considered much weaker than it once was. The challenge then is to give WP:DUE weight to ideas which are expressed in only some research papers, but not in others. FWIW, without embedding myself in the sources in order to write this post, my impression is that the problem the field movement between these two places, and movement to these two places from a common source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Earliest people

First sentence of above section says (bold mine):

In 2007 Bryan Sykes produced an analysis of 6000 samples from the OGAP project in his book Blood of the Isles.[3] Later, Stephen Oppenheimer in his 2006 book The Origins of the British used the data from Weale et al. (2002), Capelli et al. (2003) and Rosser et al. (2000) for Europe.

Either the word 'later' is wrong, or the years are the wrong way round --Dab14763 (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

More evidence on the Iberian hypothesis

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2656.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article needs to be bought.

Still here are some parts of the text:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/04/mtdna-haplogroup-h-and-origin-of.html

Here is part of the text:

From around 2800 BC, the LNE Bell Beaker culture emerged from the Iberian Peninsula to form one of the first pan-European archaeological complexes. This cultural phenomenon is recognised by a distinctive package of rich grave goods including the eponymous bell-shaped ceramic beakers. The genetic affinities between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberian populations (Fig. 2) is striking and throws fresh light on long-disputed archaeological models3. We suggest these data indicate a considerable genetic influx from the West during the LNE. These far-Western genetic affinities of Mittelelbe-Saale’s Bell Beaker folk may also have intriguing linguistic implications, as the archaeologically-identified eastward movement of the Bell Beaker culture has recently been linked to the initial spread of the Celtic language family across Western Europe39. This hypothesis suggests that early members of the Celtic language family (for example, Tartessian)40 initially developed from Indo-European precursors in Iberia and subsequently spread throughout the Atlantic Zone; before a period of rapid mobility, reflected by the Beaker phenomenon, carried Celtic languages across much of Western Europe. This idea not only challenges traditional views of a linguistic spread of Celtic westwards from Central Europe during the Iron Age, but also implies that Indo-European languages arrived in Western Europe substantially earlier, presumably with the arrival of farming from the Near East41.

It seems that genetic evidence supporting the Iberian hypothesis, paired with archaelogy, is ever-growing. A lot has been already published concerning the Iberian-Basque-British Isles connection. Now this seems to continue in other European areas like Germnay.

The study is all over the press. Just google in news Genetics in Europe or someting like that. Just one link and a piece of text cut and pasted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22252099

"The origins of the "Beaker folk" are the subject of much debate. Despite having been excavated from the Mittelelbe Saale region of Germany, the Beaker individuals in this study showed close genetic similarities with people from modern Spain and Portugal"

It seems a lot is being discussed about the dating: Paleolithic, Neolitich, Calcolithic, but the Iberian origins of most Europeans, Including Britons, seems to be supported by more and more evidence, using modern Iberian populations as a reference in these studies.

All this is certainly very important because it is really a new discovery since the first studies were made at the end of the 20th century with Rb1 and now with H. History will be not only rewritten but also a lot of loopholes will be filled.

Sorry but contributors like Lancaster are beginning to look a bit suspicious, by the way!

Pipo.

Well gee thanks for the personal attack suspicious-seeming anonymous person! :) Seriously, this is a new source you are referring to, which might be interesting. But does it mention the British Isles at all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read the talk page and I cannot think that you are really so limited in cognitive abilities, and you are supposed to know what you are talking about, that is why I think that your position on this issue is quite suspicious, sorry:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2313677/Why-did-Europeans-suddenly-disappear-4-000-years-ago-Experts-reveal-evolutionary-mystery--say-makers-Stonehenge-hold-key.html

Cut and pasted from this article:

"Beaker folk lived about 4,500 years ago in the temperate zones of Europe and received their name from their distinctive bell-shaped beakers, decorated in horizontal zones by finely toothed stamps.

A warlike race, they were primarily bowmen and their extensive search for copper and gold greatly accelerated the spread of bronze metallurgy in Europe. Believed top be originally from Spain, the Beaker folk soon spread into central and western Europe in their search for metals.

In central Europe they came into contact with the Battle-Ax culture and gradually intermixed and later spread from central Europe to eastern England, where it may have been responsible for erecting some of the megaliths at Stonehenge".

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we need to cite the Daily Mail and BBC in order to "understand" the genetics better? Perhaps also please propose an edit that you want in this article. If I understand correctly the article is about mitochondrial haplogroup H in central Europe, which is a subject I do not recall ever expressing an opinion about. But please be careful about drawing conclusions which are not in the actual published article. The Bell Beaker culture is a big and widespread culture which might have had different origins in different regions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Vow, here we have it, the REAL expert. I wonder why it is not you the one in all those articles and newspapers!What are you doing here man, in this petty and manipulated article! Forget about it. Write whatever you want! Im the hell outta here! Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as Beaker folk from a genetic or linguistic point of view. Beaker folk are groups which show a similar material culture in the archaeological record. This is one of the many basic archaeological ideas Oppenheimer mangles. Talking about beaker culture in the ethnic sense is borderline on the level of talking about people who wear jeans as an ethnic group. 216.252.74.122 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. From the Daily Mail: ...believed to be originally from Spain, the Beaker folk soon spread into.... Actually, it is bell-shaped burial beakers that are believed to have spread, not Völker and Stämme. 84.227.241.98 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

International Watershed

"An international watershed in the publication and discussion of genetic evidence for ancient movements of people"

An unintentionally funny clash of metaphors here. What exactly is an international watershed? Is it wet? Is it a boundary? Rubicon? Alps? Next we'll be hearing that someone's work is a watershed stroke of genius.

In any case, the language is so puffy that I already don't believe the claim, even if it's true. 84.227.241.98 (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not only is the language a bit puffy but the archaeology and the genetics are getting hard to reconcile with the claims pushed by a certain number of pop geneticists, particularly the idea that a small elite of barely literate germans would somehow have assimilated a much greater population (yet failed to do so 200 years later in Ireland, failed to do so in much larger number twice in the Gauls, etc). And honestly why wouldn't it be, population genetics based on people who live here now or people who lived there, maybe, 400 years ago isn't going to get us anywhere when talking of many thousands of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.180.97.156 (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Video clips on the origins of the British.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEL7nCM5itg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFQiuGvxMd0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Leslie, S. et al. Nature

copied from Talk:English people per Johnbod's suggestion:

A genetic study has been published in Nature:

• Leslie, S. et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14230 (18 March 2015) — (see review here)

and has been widely reported in the British press. For example:

• Genetic study reveals 30% of white British DNA has German ancestry The Guardian (Wednesday 18 March 2015).

Has any one access to the full Nature article and the expertise to summarise it. If so does the "Historical origins and identity" may need tweaking? -- PBS (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We should include this, though it mostly confirms the trend of other genetic studies. Actually it seems to allow a greater Anglo-Saxon genetic contribution than many recent studies. Genetic history of the British Isles is the most relevant article, and a fairly thorough account there should be summarized at other relevant articles like this. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm here via a similar discussion at Talk:United Kingdom. A good introduction to the study's findings is this feature with the lead author on last night's Inside Science on BBC Radio 4. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not yet seen the original paper, but the closest relations of the English people appear to be the French (40% identity). This is ascribed to a folk-movement "sometime after the end of the last Ice Age". The German contribution (considerably less than the French! Vive l'entente cordiale!) is wholly ascribed to the historically reported Anglo-Saxon adventus. How the authors have arrived at this chronology I do not know - but seems a bit fishy to me. The idea that no genes crossed the North Sea before c.450, or after it for that matter, seems unlikely in the extreme. Urselius (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a BBC text account here. The Anglo-Saxons I think do "better" as progenitors than in some other studies, but the Vikings seem to do much worse. Talk:Celts is also discussing. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A quote on Celts from the Inside Science interview, additional to what is discussed in the BBC article: "In terms of Celtic culture, what it shows is that being Celtic is a cultural phenomenon and it has to do with linguistics; it's not really a genetic or a racial phenomenon". Of course, for the purposes of the ethnic groups section of the United Kingdom article, ethnicity isn't all about genetics. For that section, we need to consider how this relates to ethnicity, if at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I now have a PDF of the full paper. In reference to my earlier comments the following quotation from the paper is very telling, "‘Old’ and ‘recent’ here are relative terms—we can infer the order of some events in this way but not their absolute times. Although we refer to migration events, we cannot distinguish between movements of reasonable numbers of people over a short time or ongoing movements of smaller numbers over longer periods." I expect that a lot of the pronouncements in the press are exaggerations of what the authors have actually claimed, sensationalised by rather ignorant press hacks. Urselius (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The paper uses an algorithm they have called GLOBETROTTER to assign dating, it models the rate at which decay of shared haplotype segments ocurrs, to test for recent admixture, to identify external groups contributing, and then to assign a date to the admixture. The results are only as good as the programming of this analytical tool. They admit that they make an assumption that the entry of genetic markers into Britain took place as a single pulse of admixture - this, in my opinion a huge assumption. Therefore, a movement of people that might have taken perhaps a millennium is resolved to a single event. Their estimate for the "Anglo-Saxon admixture" date is 802-914AD. They rationalise this discrepancy by claiming a time-lag before incomers and natives started to interbreed. This sort of 'Apartheid' theory does not fit with human nature, as the "coloured" population of South Africa (Dutch and Khoi-San), the Anglo-Indian community (British and Indian) and many other ethnically mixed communities around the world testify. BTW their estimate for the "Anglo-Saxon" component in South and Central England is in the range of 10% to 40%. The 30% in the press is just journalists counting on their fingers.Urselius (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in from this related discussion to see if there's been any progress on deciding what of this (if any) should be added to article. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Another study pointing to the Iberian, Spanish origins of most Europeans, including Britons.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/bronze-age-forefathers-genetics-live-out-2-out-every-3-european-men-333996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:F1B9:C304:51FF:F51 (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Cut and pasted from there: (Bronze Age skeletal remains found in Northern Spain.) Nearly two out of every three modern European men descend from just three Bronze Age forefathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:F1B9:C304:51FF:F51 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

What is especially interesting in this study is the map showing markers as pie charts. The English pie chart is markedly different from both the Frisian and Danish charts, and seems intermediate between the Irish and French charts. Urselius (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain‎: New paper with ancient DNA

See Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain‎#New paper with ancient DNA -- PBS (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

British Isles have Germanic DNA, no they DO NOT!. http://postimg.org/image/bq0i2lvzh/ Germany R1a1 (M17) Average 38.9%

http://postimg.org/image/tlv7j1pi5/ http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html This is taken from Iran's own website for DNA. Notice the small amounts of R1a and equal amount of R1b. Your history is wrong. Language has no effect on DNA. https://www.docdroid.net/Whu2X9Q/scn-0004.pdf.html German/Czech/Iranian DNA Haplogroup ratios. Germans in this DNA haplogroup test had R1a1 M-17 and showed 38.9% out of 1215 people. Please tell me because from what I know Germany does not have a DNA project. Would you be trying to change history?. So many British people do claim Germanic ancestry but most have no evidence, maybe when you say Saxon you mean the little town called Saxon north of the opening of the river Elbe and the ocean taken from Ptolemaeus map 2nd century AD. See Manga Germania, Germania Slavica http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Ptolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg . Your mass migration theory is far exaggerated as people of the British Isles average 85% and have R1b ( See stephen oppenheimer dna). Quote me but don't the 95% of the Spanish Basque people have R1b. I do also know that all people have many different types of Haplogroups and not just one. https://www.docdroid.net/Whu2X9Q/scn-0004.pdf.html German/Czech/Iranian DNA Haplogroup ratios. https://www.docdroid.net/5yJP41W/428-443.pdf.html Erasmus University medicial Centre Rotterdam https://www.docdroid.net/Il3qmAy/journalpone0041252pdf-plosoneorg-p1.pdf.html R1b-M269 shows its highest frequency in the Assyrians (29.2%, averaged on Tehran and Azerbaijan Gharbi groups amd in Lorestan 24%. Note R1b not R1a http://docdro.id/Il3qmAy http://postimg.org/image/vskfk1k5l/ R1a in Europe http://postimg.org/image/qnvxukqed/ R1b in Europe http://postimg.org/image/bq0i2lvzh/ Germany R1a1 (M17) Average 38.9% http://postimg.org/image/wgha45x3b/ Gugarat Bhils Brahmins India R1a1.png http://postimg.org/image/tlv7j1pi5/ http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html http://postimg.org/image/66kafwjax/ Iranian DNA Project as above http://postimg.org/image/a0fxec1ul/ Iran has more R1b than R1a "History is wrong?. http://postimg.org/image/m8mewd8kr/ Lichtenstein cave "Germany Hapogroup findings from 3000 years ago. Show twice as much R1a than R1b.

http://postimg.org/image/66tgipqup/ R1a 27% R1b11.1% Uzbeks, Afghanistan. Chuvash Russia R1a 27.9% R1b 2.3%

http://postimg.org/image/72ocenohx/ Kazakhstan R1a 15% R1b 7% http://postimg.org/image/7uh2tx3h3/ Tuymazinsky Tatars Russia Note R1b 16%, R1a 14%. Kazan Tatars Tatarstan Russia R1a 20.%, R1b 1.9% http://postimg.org/image/adn65ad15/ Lithuanian Tatars R1a 54%. Hazara Afghanistan R1a 6.6% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C-M217 Mongolians have highest C-M217 not R1a http://www.welcome2mongolia.com/archives/matching-genghis-khan/ Haplogroup C3 Mongolian http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/11/ancient-dna-from-malta-and-afontova-gora-a-full-account/ Prior to as in before R1a/r1b just maybe there was the Ma-1 an ancestral haplogroup of the R. Malta boy in Russia carbon dated 24,000 years http://mehriran.tv/article_read.php?a=481 Haplogroup R* originated in North Asia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years before present). This haplogroup has been identified in the 24,000 year-old remains of the so-called "Mal'ta boy" from the Altai region, in south-central Siberia (Raghavan et al. 2013) http://www.donsmaps.com/dolnivi.html Note Dolni Vestonice Carbon datings in artical. Also at least one piece of irovy that was hand carved was also dated in America 1988 at 26,0000+years same as Czech number and note they found two isotopes carbon C-14 and local uranium was also found and this very hard to fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.191.133.244 (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Lineage

There have been waves of people migrating between Great Britain and Ireland for centuries. It should be understood that when we examine the Y-DNA and Mitochondrial DNA all we are checking is 2 lines of descent: the direct paternal line of descent and the direct maternal line of descent respectfully. Niall of the Nine Hostages lived roughly between 30 and 40 generations ago. There are over a billion (1,073,741,824) lines of descent to 30 generations and over a trillion (1,099,511,627,776) lines of descent to 40 generations for each and every one of us. It is likely that everyone in Great Britain and Ireland, apart from some recent immigrants from far away, descend directly from Niall of the Nine Hostages. Because of the destuction of a lot of Irish historical records in the early 20th century it is easier for most English people to obtain documentary evidence that indicates descent from Brian Boru and therefore his ancestor Niall of the Nine Hostages than it is for most Irish. See this site for a clearer explaination: http://humphrysfamilytree.com/famous.descents.html AlwynJPie (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

British?

The word 'Welsh' appears just once on this page - the words 'Cornish', 'Cumbrian' and 'Devonian' do not appear at all yet the most current (Oxford University first published 2012, republished ) mapgenetic studies indicate that these peoples are more distinct from each other than, for example, the Scots and the English, or the Vikings and the Saxons - why no mention? http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-03-19-who-do-you-think-you-really-are-genetic-map-british-islesTruth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 21:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenniu (talk • contribs)

Another study pointing to the Southern European Origins, Iberian origins, of the ancient and modern British population.

Insights into British and European population history from ancient DNA sequencing of Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon samples from East England

Schiffels et al.

British population history is shaped by a series of immigration periods and associated changes in population structure. It is an open question to what extent these changes affect the genetic composition of the current British population. Here we present whole genome sequences generated from 10 individuals, found in archaeological excavations in Hinxton, Oakington and Linton, close to Cambridge, and ranging from 2,300 years before present (Iron Age) until 1,200 years before present (Anglo-Saxon period). We use modern genetic samples from the 1000 Genomes Project and additional external data from Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark to characterize the relationship of these ancient samples with contemporary British and other European populations. By analyzing the distribution of shared rare variants across ancient and modern individuals, we find that samples from the Anglo-Saxon period are relatively more closely related to central northern Europe, while earlier samples and contemporary British samples are relatively more closely related to Southern European populations. To quantify this series of relationships further, we developed a new method, rarecoal, that fits a demographic model parameterized by split times, population sizes and migration rates to the distribution of shared rare variants across a large number of modern and ancient individuals. We use rarecoal to estimate the history of European population structure within the last 10,000 years and to map our ancient samples onto the European population tree. Our approach provides a unique picture of population history in Europe, and in particular helps characterizing the complex genetic impact of Anglo-Saxon immigrations into Britain.

"while the Iron Age samples share ancestors with multiple Northern European populations including Britain."

The iron age (Celt) samples plot more north Europe than present day English. This has been noted for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5ec0:f1b9:c304:51ff:f51 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

What a mess

This article is junk. Whoever heard of Bronze Age Celts or Germans? No mention of newer studies, findings of U106 in Britons from early Roman Era samples from York, differences between modern English and their more northern Europe plotting Celtic and Anglo Saxon fore bearers etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.160.57 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Influx of Gaels

Copied from IP's talk page at IP's suggestion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 21:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Genetic history of the British Isles.

There are two reasons why this shouldn't be in the WP:LEAD. " Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Is it a basic fact that there have been genetic studies of a Gaelic influx? And what is a Gaelic influx into the British Isles? Where did they come from? None of this is in the article.

Secondly, I removed it in part as unsourced. Unsourced material shouldn't be replaced. This is basic policy, see WP:UNSOURCED. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Doug Weller talk 19:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem: the arrival of Gaels in Ireland is a hugely significant part of the history of the British Isles, and should be included. Major differences in culture (though apparently not much change in genetics) between the people of Ireland and the people of Great Britain stem from this time period. Further, the spread of the Gaelic culture northward and eventually into Scotland, led to further cultural differences between northern and southern Great Britain.

This information is indeed not covered in the article - it is missing from the article. It needs to be inserted. The article appears to be biased toward the larger of the two main islands of the British Isles.

As it relates to genetics, the Gaels had perhaps a similar genetic input to the native population of Ireland as the Normans, Angles and Saxons had on England (much less than was previously assumed), from what I have read.

It is generally suggested that the Gaels came from continental Europe (most likely from modern-day northern Spain).

A surname/DNA correlation study has been attempted (though it may be seriously flawed with the assumption of what 'Gaelic' really is - cultural domination versus population domination - at any given period of time). Another study (with a potentially misleading title) is really interesting with regard to local Y-DNA haplogroup variation in Ireland, which appears to correspond to the O'Neill surname/dynasty. However, as with the other study, the flaw may lie in making an assumption that the O'Neills were genetically 'Gaelic' rather than, for example, having been assimilated by Gaelic culture. O'Neill have their origin in the early fifth century. But the Gaels were known to have invaded Ireland at least four hundred years prior to that. Plenty of time for a dominant culture to have spread throughout. What the latter article seems to prove is that the O'Neil became quite genetically dominant in Ireland, and particularly in the north west.

Anyway, the point is that there is certainly rich material here, even if thee are ambiguities and uncertainties (it's a relatively young science). It should certainly be added to the article.

Just because something isn't already included in an article doesn't mean it shouldn't be included.

To put it another way, perhaps the article is broken, and not the contributor. ;)

--24.182.92.247 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Genetic history of the British Isles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206203915/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367572-ancient-britons-come-mainly-from-spain.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367572-ancient-britons-come-mainly-from-spain.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907082930/http://homepage.eircom.net/~ihdp/ihdp/documents/SurnamesForWeb.pdf to http://homepage.eircom.net/~ihdp/ihdp/documents/SurnamesForWeb.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204164507/http://homepage.eircom.net/~ihdp/ihdp/documents/Jobling-NRG.Review.pdf to http://homepage.eircom.net/~ihdp/ihdp/documents/Jobling-NRG.Review.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1601/2651.full.pdflast2=Stumpf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Why not more maps.

An image is worth a thousand words:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe#/media/File:Percentage_of_major_Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_Europe.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.89.95 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yamnaya or Beaker replacement?

[4] Doug Weller talk 20:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• The wiki article mentions the Yamnaya origin of the Beaker people. The New Scientist article seems to be a sensationalist slant on a two year old story. It says almost every Briton wiped out by the Beakers and they were "most murderous people of all time". It was 90%, much higher than on the Continent, for unknown reasons, but not almost every Briton. Violence was probably one of the factors but other suggestions are disease and a lower Neolithic population than on the Continent which was overwhelmed by the number of incomers. Julian Richards suggested at a conference I attended that the geneticists are not picking up Neolithic people because their burial practices did not leave behind bones to be DNA tested. Tom Booth of the Natural History Museum replied that even if this was true the Neolithics must have largely died out as we inherit so little of their DNA. Richards obviously did not believe it although Booth's reply seemed to me convincing. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: Thanks. I've liked what I've read by Richards but I agree with you about the DNA. What I'm not clear about, and perhaps I've not read the sources well enough, is the dates. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

New DNA study

BBC story on the actual article.[5]

"Our analyses reveal persistent genetic affinities between Mesolithic British and Western European hunter-gatherers. We find overwhelming support for agriculture being introduced to Britain by incoming continental farmers, with small, geographically structured levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry. Unlike other European Neolithic populations, we detect no resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry at any time during the Neolithic in Britain. Genetic affinities with Iberian Neolithic individuals indicate that British Neolithic people were mostly descended from Aegean farmers who followed the Mediterranean route of dispersal. We also infer considerable variation in pigmentation levels in Europe by circa 6000 bc."

This seems to be a new study by more or less the same people we are already using as a source.

Doug Weller talk 11:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be a follow up to a 2018 article at [6] which is already covered in our article. Both sources refer to a sample of 6 Mesolithic people and 67 Neolithic and draw similar conclusions. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)