The Origins of the British: The New Prehistory of Britain (72 page)

72
. Analysis in the present study of the oldest I1c sub-cluster, I1c-2 (rooted on Ht. 346), shows, for all of north-west Europe, an age of 15,700 years
(n
= 50, SD ±4,140) and for the British Isles only, 14,200 years
(n
= 19, SD ±3,880). Compare the age of I1c STR variation determined by Rootsi et al. (2004), of 13,200 (±2,700) years; time since population divergence, 11,200 (±2,300) years. Note that the Rootsi group use the new, more realistic Zhivotovsy Y-clock calibration and an appropriate date method in their estimation.

73
. Age analysis in the present study of the two younger sub-clusters of I1c shows for I1c-1 a British age of 12,800 years (estimate) or less; and for I1c-3 (rooted on Ht. 363) 12,200 years
(n
= 40, SD ±4,090) from the entire dataset and a British age of 11,700 years
(n
= 25, SD ±5,470).

74
. I1c follows the British pattern of I1a distribution in some ways, but not all. This older entrant to north-west Europe is less common generally than I1a, but characterizes Germany and Frisia on the mainland and is much less common in Scandinavia. However, I1c has an eastern British distribution and is again relatively common in non-Welsh, non-Irish parts of the British Isles at about half the rate at which it is found on the nearby Continent.

75
. From European frequencies and data tables 1 and 3 in Rootsi et al. (2004). Looking at British dates/ages in the present study, we see rather younger (i.e. mainly Neolithic and later) dates for I1a clusters than for I1c ones (I1c clusters given in note 73): (1) I1a (whole branch rooted on Ht. 393), 14,900 years
(n =
458, SD ±6,430); (2) I1a-2′1 (rooted on Ht. 393), 5,800 years
(n
= 75, SD ±3,020); (3) I1a-3 (rooted on Ht. 398), 1,200 years
(n = 68,
SD ±400); (4) I1a-4′1 (rooted on Ht. 401), 7,700 years
(n
= 20, SD ±4,440); (5) I1a-6a (rooted on Ht.-424), 3,800 years
(n
= 10, SD ±2,870); (6) I1a-6b (rooted on Ht. 430), 16,000 years (
n
-= 4, SD ±9,610); (7) I1a7 (rooted on Ht. 461), 3,940 years
(n
= 13, SD ±2,240). Note that numbers used for founder calculations include only uniquely British derived haplotypes – i.e. less than total number of immigrants for each cluster (see Appendix C).
For comparison, ages estimated by Rootsi et al. (2004) for I1a: time since sub-clade divergence (i.e. whole branch), 15,900 (±5,200) years; age of STR variation, 8,800 (±3,200) years; time since population divergence, 6,800 (±1,900) years.

76
. Mesolithic I1a + I1c (
n
= 58/2,082).

77
. McEvoy et al. (2004), Pereira et al. (2005). And there is some negative evidence for massive Continental gene flow into England in terms of the relative absence in England of a female marker – the ‘Saxon’ mtDNA marker (H/16189) – for the Saxon homeland (see the next chapter).

78
. Present study.

79
. The East European line R1a1 (Rostov), which probably arrived in Scandinavia in the Neolithic, accounts for nearly half of male lines in Trondheim in northern Norway, but has a limited and patchy distribution in the British Isles, including Ireland. The gene types and age of several Rostov clusters within Britain suggest that Scandinavians were already arriving on the east coast of Britain and Scotland during the Neolithic. As we shall see in
Chapter 12
, the high spots of the Rostov distribution also correspond to places visited by Norwegian Vikings from the Trondheim region much later.

By contrast, I1a, which characterizes southern Scandinavia, in particular Denmark and Oslo, and to a lesser extent extreme north-west Germany, is relatively common throughout Britain and its smaller islands (
Figure 4.11a
in this book). Data from present study and also table 1 and figure 1D in Rootsi et al. (2004).

Group I1a is found in the British Isles generally at about half the Continental rate, namely around 10–20%, with the notable Atlantic-fringe exceptions of north and south Wales and Ireland, where rates are only 0–4%. The highest British rates for Ian are on the east coast of England around the Wash and in York at 20–30% (
Figure 4.11a
). However, this does not necessarily mean that Danish Vikings flooded all over England, Cornwall and Scotland like Carlsberg beer, since Scandinavian gene lines were arriving long before the Vikings. I1a is evenly distributed throughout those parts of Britain, like Heineken beer, occupying parts that the Danes – and even the Frisians and Anglo-Saxons, who would also have brought their own I1a – never reached. Genetic dating reveals that I1a clusters in Britain are mainly Neolithic and later than those for I1c.

80
. Available from relevant papers in the public domain – see the Appendices.

81
. For the Anglo-Saxon replacement view, see e.g. Weale et al. (2002) and Hill et al. (2000).

82
. The external Mesolithic contribution to the British Isles is 46.8% (979/2,082); the southern component is 95.6% (936/979). Source: present study.

83
. This is reflected in the distribution of mitochondrial DNA lineages, as noted in a recent paper which focused on the relationships between Ireland and its neighbours: ‘The recol onization of western Europe from an Iberian refugium after the retreat of the ice sheets 15,000 years ago could explain the common genetic legacy in the area. An alternative but not mutually exclusive model would place Atlantic fringe populations at the “Mesolithic” extreme of a Neolithic demic expansion into Europe from the Near East. In any event, the preservation of this signal within the Atlantic arc suggests that this region was relatively undisturbed by subsequent migrations across the continent. The identification of likely dispersal points for some Irish haplotypes in northern Spain and western France is further evidence for links between Atlantic populations’ (McEvoy et al. 2004).

84
. In one of the only attempts to date R1b along the Atlantic coast, a group led by Dan Bradley of Trinity College, Dublin acknowledge the possibility of an ‘agriculturally facilitated population expansion, which, at the fringe of Europe, may have taken place in an insular Mesolithic population of hg 1 [R1b] genotype’ (Hill et al. 2000).

1
. Reviewed in Richards (2003).

2
. The traditional view of the Near Eastern Neolithic is described by e.g. Piggott (1965), but slower and earlier origins are now argued: see e.g. Pringle (1998). For the earliest British Neolithic see Cunliffe (2004), pp.153–4.

3
. Cunliffe (2004), p.153.

4
. Cunliffe (2004), pp.153–4.

5
. Cunliffe (2004), p. 154.

6
. Mesolithic: R1b-14b age 8,440 years (
n
=40, SD ±4,060). Neolithic: R1b-14c age 6,541 years (
n
= 53, SD ±4,614); R1b-14a age 5,449 years (
n
= 83, SD ±2,090).

7
. Zohary and Hopf (2000), p. 86. This theme of an early Far Eastern Neolithic is developed in Oppenheimer (1998), pp. 78–112.

8
. Gronenborn (2003).

9
. Gronenborn (2003).

10
. Cunliffe (2004), figures 4.23 and 4.25; see also Gronenborn (2003).

11
. Gronenborn (2003).

12
. Cunliffe (2004), pp. 140–4.

13
. Cunliffe (2004), pp. 140–4.

14
. Cunliffe (2004), pp. 140–4.

15
. Gronenborn (2003).

16
. Oppenheimer (2003), pp. 203–4.

17
. Cohen (1989), Hoppa and FitzGerald (1999), Ulijaszek (2000), Cohen and Armelagos (1984), Hladik et al. (1993).

18
. Bailey et al. (1989).

19
. Cunliffe (2004), p. 141.

20
. Richards (2003).

21
. As I mentioned earlier, the most careful and extensive analysis of maternal migrations into Europe from the Near East is undoubtedly the one carried out by Leeds geneticist Martin Richards and collaborators, using data from many sources. In 2002 they stated further on this: ‘Neolithic lines: The mtDNA founder analysis can also be drawn upon to gloss the PC analysis further. The founder analysis suggested that the main Neolithic founder haplotypes were members of mtDNA haplogroups J, T1, and U3. None of these haplogroups contribute substantially to the first PC of mtDNAs in Europe. Rather, the first PC is mainly shaped by haplogroups H, pre-V, and U5, which the founder analysis suggests either originated in Europe or spread into Europe during the Upper Paleolithic period. The haplogroup (pre-HV)1, by contrast, may have spread along the Mediterranean either during the Neolithic period or in more recent times or both. Thus, we seem to be witnessing, in the mtDNA data (and perhaps in the autosomal and Y chromosome data as well), the results of a palimpsest of processes, some possibly more recent than the Neolithic period and some much more ancient’ (Richards et al. 2002).

22
. Richards et al. (2000).

23
. Richards et al. (2000).

24
. See e.g. Adams and Otte (1999).

25
. J1a (J-16231): as the ‘LBK line’, see Richards (2003); as the ‘Germanic line’, see Forster et al. (2004).

26
. ‘J1a’/J-16231 age: 5,000 years, SE ±3,000 (7,000 ± 1,600 years overall but 5,000 years for the 16189 ‘Saxon’ sub-branch) in Forster et al. (2004). 7,000 years (
n
= 58, SD ±1,600) in Tambets et al. (2003), who note that the age of 7,000 years ‘might be an overestimate: subtracting a putative sub-clade [‘Saxon’] node at np 16,189, the coalescence age drops to about 5000
BP
’.

27
. 2% vs 4% (Forster et al. 2004).

28
. In support of this hypothesis, the putative Anglo-Saxon homeland also possesses a female H gene type known as the ‘Saxon’ marker at rates of about 25%. ‘Low-German-speaking (“Saxon”) areas of the North German Plain harbour a “Saxon” mtDNA marker H/16189 at about 25 per cent (16/61, updated from Richards et al. 1995)’ (Forster et al. 2004). This female Saxon marker is rare in England, which it would not have been had the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ invasion carried significant numbers of women.

29
. Age of J1a in Europe: 5,000 years (SE ±3,000) according to Forster et al. (2004). Age of J1a in Northern Europe according to Tambets et al. (2003): 7,000 years (SE ±1,600). Age of J1a without an additional sub-clade 16189: 5,000 years (Tambets et al. 2003).

30
. Forster gives several estimates for the age of J2 in Europe, using different approaches, but his favoured 7,000 years has an SE of ±2,000 (Forster et al. 2004).

31
. J1b1-16192 is called ‘Celtic’ in Forster et al. (2004) on the basis of distribution, but this does not seem to be appropriate.

32
. i.e. formerly Brythonic celtic-speaking.

33
. Found at rates of around 3–6% in Scotland, Wales (5.4%) and Cornwall (3%), J1b1-16192 is notably absent from England and originally Goidelic-speaking areas such as Ireland. The distribution of the immediate J1b1 ancestor (without the 16192 mutation) in the rest of Europe is diffuse, although it is rare in non-Scandinavian Germanic-speaking areas. Tantalizingly, there is no obvious Continental source for the specific British 16192 mutation on J1b1
except
Norway, the only other part of the European mainland known to have the type (see
Figure 5.3b
in this book).

34
. Forster et al. (2004).

35
. In spite of its immediate link to Norway, J1b1 derives ultimately from the Near East via Iberia and along the Atlantic façade. Richards (2003).

36
. Present study. I1a-5 is 5.2% of British I1a (12/233). Absolute rate in Western Isles 5.7% (5/88); age 5,700 years (
n
= 9, SD ±2,010). R1a1-2b: age in
Norway 5,700 years (rooted on Ht. 87,
n
= 37, SD ±2,160), in British Isles 5,600 years (rooted on Ht. 87,
n
= 38, SD ±2,650).

37
. Norwegian clusters founding in Scotland/Shetland/Orkney during the Neolithic are I1a-5 and R1a1-2. I1a-5: 5.7% in Western Isles, age in Britain 5,700 years (
n
= 9, SD ±2,010), age in Norway 8,800 years (
n
= 18, SD ±3,760). R1a1-2 (rooted on Ht. 87), age in Britain 5,590 years (
n
= 38, SD ±2,650), age in Norway 5,740 years (
n
= 37, SD ±2,160), frequency in Shetland 14.1%, Orkney 8.3%, Penrith 5.6%, Oban 4.8%, Stonehaven 4.5%.

38
. Note Forster’s ‘Celtic’ appellation (Forster et al. 2004). An alternative Semitic language association might be suggested by Theo Vennemann, who sees Semitic languages as spreading up the Atlantic coast as far as Scandinavia and the British Isles during the Neolithic. See Vennemann (2003).