GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211309787


From: Alan R <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:56:27 +0000 (GMT)


I think major population displacements by a dominant lineage arriving from somewhere else is unlikely not to leave ANY archaeological, linguistic or historical trace/influence at all. I also would say that it has to be remembered that if R1b didn't arrive in some areas until the later Bronze Age or later then what is being suggested is (eventually) an average c. 70% population replacement in much of a western Europe which had been densely settled for many 1000s of years and probably had a population of millions. Could an elite achieve a 70% replacement of most of the population of western Europe from a standing start in the late Bronze Age? The elites of western Europe were of course changed forever by Roman conquest so that has to be the upper limit of any hypothetical period of unchallenged reproductive advantage, giving them say a maximum of 1500 years to achieve their dominance.

If some relatively late elites achieved what amounted to majority population replacement in most of western Europe from Portugal to the Elbe in the 1500 year or less period between the later Bronze Age and the Roman Empire, then it is impossible to believe it left no archaeological trace. This is my reasoning. Even if it was achieved from small beginnings and by reproductive success, any lineage with such an advantage must have held a very high elite position of power and/or wealth. Ordinary Joes are the archaeologically invisible guys. The elites are usually the highly visible ones. Most people agree that reproductive advantage lay with the elites So, IMO, any such population replacement in the late prehistoric period would have had to have been down to a network of related elites and these should be archaeologically visible in some way.

I have major doubts about the late spread of R1b scenario but I am prepared to run with it to see if it could be reconciled with the archaeological evidence. By the time of the MRCA of the S21 and S28 we are knocking on the door of the proto-Celtic later Bronze Age period of west-central Europe. The S116 mutation that separates them must be even later, implying a later Bronze Age or later spread of S116 +ve R1b after the emergence of dominant lineages of this from an older S116-ve R1b population. If this was the case then only the spread of the Celts could possibly match the spread of S116+ve R1b. If one was looking for a late prehistoric match for the apparent distribution of S116+ve R1b then it would be insane to throw out Occam's Razor and not link it with the Celts (although the Basques are a problem). The correlation is undoubtedly rather good even if the idea that the Celts largely displaced the existing population is very out of favour and
apparently only weakly reflected in the archaeology. It is possible that small elites of a few hundred could have generation after generation knocked out other local elites, replaced them, absorbed much of the vanguished's culture then carried on piecemeal conquest without spreading an undiluted version of their original culture. That would certainly dim their visibility. Their genetic dominance could then have been gradually achieved through reproductive advantage through elite status over many generations. There is no part of the Celtic world that did not at least show substantial cultural echoes at least one of the various cultures of the west-central European powerhouse. This area is the classic Celtic heartland (pre-Oppenheimer) but it stood out long before the La Tene, Hallstatt and the Urnfield periods. The dominance and wealth of this area extended into the tumulous culture and back to the Unetice culture of the early-mid Bronze Age.
This area (which is hard not to call proto-Celtic) was a huge dominant influence for at least 2000 years throughout the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age. If an elite spread S116+ve R1b in the later Bronze Age period then it simply has to have been the Celts.
.
If this scenario is followed then the S116-ve folk could be seen as the loser lineages of the original common R1b stock who held on in the periphery. There is actually a very good generalised fit for this - north Germany, Scandinavia etc became a marginal and idiosyncratic backwater in the Bronze Age compared to the west-central European powerhouse to the south. This northern area remained a backwards backwater until the last couple of centuries BC when the first grumblings of Germanic wanderings were heard as the Celts went into decline. Perhaps this phase saw a belated expansion of the old S112-ve people out of their bolthole.

I am by no means saying that I am convinced with the late dating of the MRCA but if one is to run with it this is the only explanation that could fit it. Even this involves a huge volte face back to the archaeological ideas of a generation ot two ago and an admittance that the archaeological record only very dimly echos major population changes giving a false impression of continuity. Suddenly we are all central European derived late prehistoric Celts and all this stuff about us all being pre-Celtic Iberian refugia hunter gatherers is gone. If accepted this would be an incredible reverse and resumption of a previously rejected position. I am keeping an open mind on this.

Alan.

This thread: