Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Oppenheimer + Sykes

Time to get rid of that section regarding the out of Iberia hypothesis, seeing as it has now been disproved and de-bunked, British people are more closely related to Russians than Spaniards or those from the south of France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.170.161 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I have added a section dismissing all that out of iberia nonsense away, There is no Baque - British/Irish genetic relation, that is one of the most annoying genetic myths still pervasive to this day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell beakerman (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It is still in the scholarship. It needs to be mentioned, Wikipedia must reflect the available scholarship. The work on Bell Beaker People has glaring problems, no single Ancient DNA or population genetics paper can be taken as irrefutably correct, they all have problems. Urselius (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Beakers had mixed with continental neolithics, the dutch beakers where only 60% steppe or so. There was also a resurgance of neolithic dna at a later point according to reich: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43712587 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell beakerman (talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Reich is fully aware of the HAAK paper, he explains quite clearly in the large olade study that they where not fully steppe, and that at a later date there was a resurgance of Neolithic DNA. No one formally has offered critisism of the bell beaker behemoth paper, I would delete that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell beakerman (talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Pagan burials in 9th century England would yield remains that were predominantly of people of Scandinavian origins or ancestry. I can't help thinking that looking at burials containing Bell Beaker artefacts may represent a similar level of predestination, especially in the early phases of Bell Beaker culture in Britain. It seems unclear to what extent, at any single time period, inhumations with Bell Beaker artefacts represented the whole population of Britain. Are you on some sort of crusade?Urselius (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

David Reich was one of the Authors of the Haak et al paper. Why would he write that paper and then write the Beaker one two years later if they where contradictory? Your scandinavian critism is silly, because one could just check later british samples (e.g modern white british samples) to see if there is continuity. Reich finds that there is, those bell beakers are almost identical to modern brits in terms of steppe dna (if you account for the neolithic ressurgance in se england only). I am not crusading, just want accuracy. The Haak paper is a good addition though, so thankyou for your contribution.

Also you say the oppenheimer and sykes stuff is still in the scholarship, but is it really if they have redacted their claims, no one believes R1b came from Iberia any more, why keep that stuff in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell beakerman (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

There are limitations to the basic accuracy of all Ancient DNA publications at present - the main ones being the size of the data set and bias due to the unavoidable tendency for prominent burials to be oversampled in comparison to poorer burials, which leave less trace. If you are looking at burials in barrows, you will find the remains of upper-class people predominantly. Nazi Germany murdered around 88% of the Jewish population of Germany/Austria, they had industrial means of killing and the documentary resources of a modern state to encompass their atrocity. I have grave doubts as to the abilities of pre-modern societies to encompass, or desire, to replace or wipe out whole populations. I suspect that there will be some revision of the initial Beaker DNA findings. Urselius (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Strongly agree - this whole area is still in its early stages, and we should be cautious in reporting this year's (or decade's) fashions. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There are, however, current scientific viewpoints that need to be covered. Oppenheimer's interpretation, for example, of the limited data that was available in the early 2000s is out of date in view of the advances of genome wide studies that have taken place in the last decade. The article needs a considerable degree of rewriting by someone who understands population genetics. I am happy to do that, but it will take a while.

In terms of sampling accuracy, we can only work with the data we have. There is no reason to suspect that there was an elite that were genetically distinct from the general population. Also, there is no reason to suspect that population replacement would have involved deliberate use of violence. Take for example the decimation of native American peoples in the USA from the 16th century onwards. While there are documented instances of deliberate genocide, the vast majority of deaths (estimated at greater than 90% of the population) were due to epidemics introduced by Europeans. 72.4% of Americans are "white" with an average of 0.18% Native American DNA. For "black" Americans (12.6%) the figure is 0.8% Native American DNA. Native Americans themselves make up 0.9% of the population. Population replacement of the order inferred by population geneticists in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain is not unreasonable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No one is advocating ignoring recent research. However, the jury is still out, one or two papers are not proof positive, as one very active editor would have everyone believe. As a counterargument, there is no proof that a genetically distinct elite was not present. Your arguments concerning population replacement are based on the juxtaposition of populations with huge discrepancies in technology and disease burden/disease susceptibility. The technological distance between Neolithic Britons and Chalcolithic Beaker People was extremely small and we know that trade in late Neolithic times was widespread, limiting the likelihood of pandemic incidence on an immunologically naive population. Urselius (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you give a reference for Oppenheimer redacting his claim? Just put it here please. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No one believes that R1b came from the Neolithics anymore, anyone that does should not be considered credible, I will email Oppenheimer to confirm. here is David Reich's slide on the British and Spanish genetic turnover http://www.r1b.org/imgs/David_Reich_Lecture.png. We have samples from Ireland and Britain in the bronze age, iron age, that all show continuity with Reichs Beaker samples. E.g the Hixton samples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell beakerman (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

'As a counterargument, there is no proof that a genetically distinct elite was not present.'Urselius

Of course there is, just look at modern DNA: Irish Pre Beakers and post beakers have been entered into GEDmatch by forum users: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?212933-Bronze-Age-Irish-GEDmatch-result. The contrast between neolithic and bronze age is stark. How does scotland and ireland have 50% yamnaya DNA to this day (haak et al) ? The Rhine beakers where only 60% or so Steppe. Anyway I don't want to dominate the page or be a crusading editor, so I will leave the page for now, I haven't seen any formal criticism of Reichs work yet ragarding the British, so please include it if it comes out.

Furthermore we know that the Indo-Europeans where a war like people, and waves of them traveled to Britain over the course of centuries. How do you explain the complete turn-over of Spanish Y-DNA that coincides with the Rhine beakers expansion? It is also possible that the Neolithic population of Britian just wasn't that large, and significant continental migration, without much homicide, is all that was necessary to overturn the population. This kind of population disparity was a significant factor in the overturn of the populations of the Americas for example.

There is evidence for Germs facilitating IE expansion http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/10/plague-germs-may-have-facilitated.html, there is also evidence of warlike violence with the indigenous europeans being on the receiving end http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/10/on-wrong-end-of-steppe-herders-cudgel.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell beakerman (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

David Reich had the same concerns as yourself around 2017, that his samples where not representative, but he appears to be pretty confident now that they match the british modern gene pool. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/20/dutch-invaders-stonehenge-ancient-britons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell beakerman (talk • contribs) 00:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

From the article referenced and linked above: "“There is no doubt that ancient DNA studies are redefining our prehistory, but this work is based on a fairly small sample." “The conclusion that there was almost complete replacement of DNA at this time is pushing the data a bit too far. However, this has certainly triggered a renewed debate about the Beaker. We just need more data.” This point was backed by Linden. “This apparent replacement is very striking, but it is possible our results are being skewed. In particular, the introduction of cremation at this time could have destroyed bones that would otherwise have provided DNA samples and which could change results. This is certainly not the end of the story.”"

At this point in time caution is necessary in the treatment of these Ancient DNA results, this has been my argument all along, and the article shows that this is the informed opinion of experts in this field. Urselius (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been cautious on this article as I'm unfamiliar with the literature. But now that it's spilling into articles where I'm a little more comfortable, I'm concerned that an agenda is being pushed through original research. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, caution is always advisable when dealing with primary sources. Enthusiasts can place undue emphasis on apparently revolutionary papers that have yet to see review treatment by other experts. Urselius (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I will take care to ensure that it is clear that recent findings are not definitive, and may change with further research. But Reich's work is of much higher caliber to previous assumptions about haplogroups and should be considered the best research on the subject of the genetic history of the British Isles thus far. I will include papers that go against his work, if/when they come out. Bell beakerman (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that R1b Haplogroup came to the Iberian peninsula after it arrived in Britain, (this isn't contested) hence the out of Iberia theory was replaced with an out of the Balkans theory, its now a Steppe origin theory. But the out of Iberia theory simply isn't tenable.

Arguably, Oppenheimer and Sykes were never reliable sources in the first place. I think they have to be mentioned in order not to confuse people, but they were (when they were still widely cited) popularizers, not specialists. The real specialists have been very bad at writing up good reviews and explanations of the implications. In any case the kinds of tests O and S used are no longer the relevant ones, and there are lots of good reasons that they should certainly not be dominating the article still.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)