PDA

View Full Version : The Atlantic Megalith cultures were R1b.



Lehwos
13-07-18, 01:09
I've read before on this website of how the Atlantic Megalithic cultures of Europe were of the Caucasian Y-haplogroup G2a. This is ridiculous. This haplogroup has a minor presence in Iberia and a tiny presence in Britannia in modern day. The "real" R1b Europeans some speak of must have been experts on total genocide, because it seems that's what they would have had to carry out to so thoroughly replace the "real" Megalithic peoples. And to claim that Caucasus Neolithics were the majority of a developed culture spanning from Scotland to Iberia because of ONE mtdna sample from Brittany is absolutely absurd.

The two subclades R1b-DF27 and R1b-L21 are almost exclusively strong in former Megalithic lands, especially along the coast. They are closely related to one another and the borders of their influence almost perfectly match those of the old Megalithic civilization. Are we really to give most of the credit of these civilizations to G2a, whose influence lies strongly only in the highlands of Iberia and only weakly in the highlands of Wales? Really? Cultures change and so do gene pools, but such a thorough genocide of so populous an old a civilization, as the current leading hypothesis suggests happened, is completely unheard of.

Edit: I have since done a fair few hours of research and have come to the realization that I have been rather foolishly mistaken. To my mind, it seemed that there were only two possibilities on the issue: that G2a was dominant or that R1b was. I have since discovered that it is much more likely than either that I2 was dominant, with G2a beside it. That this was the case quite easily explains why so much I2b is present in Ulster and the Lowlands of Scotland, and it does provide a consistent theme between Atlantic and Nuragic peoples, both of whom loved their megaliths.

Anyway, I think I'll leave this post at that. It was made in frustration after reading claims that G2a was surely the dominant haplogroup among the megalith builders, and I had been under the impression that far fewer studies had been made as actually were and that I only had the two possibilities before me. With that said, I can only hope it doesn't cause too much trouble in the future.

(Post-Edit)

I'm just going to include the quote from the website that inspired this post:

"Most of these regions (except central Europe) were already somehwat linked to each others as members of the Megalithic culture, which evolved from the Early Neolithic cultures. Although no Megalithic Y-DNA has been tested yet, Megalithic mtDNA from Brittany is a typical blend of Mesolithic (U5b) and Neolithic (K1a, N1a, X2) lineages, in direct continuity of the Cardium Pottery and Linear Pottery cultures. Consequently, Megalithic people were predominantly G2a people, with minorities of I2a1a, E1b1b and perhaps also J or T."

(found here: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/spain_portugal_dna.shtml)

Of course I now know this was false and that there are many tested samples, but I assumed that the site was telling the truth. So I thought that the it making a baseless assertion. And so I made my own to counter it.

MOESAN
16-07-18, 00:05
Have you clairvoyance skills? Or brandy new studies published about this matter? Have you not red the papers about the dates of "baby booms" for Y-R1a and Y-R1b? Toda ng ty percentages are not everytime a good picture of past percentage, as you should know.
To date, I confess the samples are still tiny, but we don't have too much Y-R1b (whatever the subclade) among the Atlantic megalithic societies studied to date, except if you can produce new papers? In my current knowledge, the Y-I2a2 + some Y-I2a1 haplos seem having taken the strong side upon the neolithical Y-G2a in the megalithic cultures, not Y-R1b for I know... I made this hypothesis about a R1b-megalithic culture on Atlantic: I don't abandon it completely but I strongly doubt; at least, if some R1b clan could have taken part in these western megalithic cultures, it would have taken place relatively late and in North Europe firstable; I had thought in the Long Barrows by instance but it seems R1b came in force at BB times only (what is not to say that FIRST southern BBs were by force Y-R1b people).
Maybe you have some new clues?

Lehwos
16-07-18, 02:45
Maybe you have some new clues?

Indeed I do - in the form of a post titled "Bell Beakers from Germany: R1b."

I cannot post links, so I'll just leave you with that.

Feel free to let me know what you think of it, because I do find this topic very interesting, as brash as I may be about it.

Angela
16-07-18, 02:48
Indeed I do - in the form of a post titled "Bell Beakers from Germany: R1b."

I cannot post links, so I'll just leave you with that.

Feel free to let me know what you think of it, because I do find this topic very interesting, as brash as I may be about it.

The Bell Beakers have nothing to do with the Megalith buildings of Atlantic Europe, which is long before the time of the Bell Beakeres.

Lehwos
16-07-18, 02:49
I know that Germany is beyond the bounds of the Atlantic Megalithic culture, but that it is present there in the Chalcolithic is promising to me.

Lehwos
16-07-18, 02:51
The Bell Beakers have nothing to do with the Megalith buildings of Atlantic Europe, which is long before the time of the Bell Beakeres.

But that we have NO samples of G2a by the Atlantic from this era, meanwhile R1b is present in nearby Germany at so early a time, is more of a confirmation than a damnation.

Ygorcs
16-07-18, 03:14
I've read before on this website of how the Atlantic Megalithic cultures of Europe were of the Caucasian Y-haplogroup G2a. This is ridiculous. This haplogroup has a minor presence in Iberia and a tiny presence in Britannia in modern day. The "real" R1b Europeans some speak of must have been experts on total genocide, because it seems that's what they would have had to carry out to so thoroughly replace the "real" Megalithic peoples. And to claim that Caucasus Neolithics were the majority of a developed culture spanning from Scotland to Iberia because of ONE mtdna sample from Brittany is absolutely absurd.

The two subclades R1b-DF27 and R1b-L21 are almost exclusively strong in former Megalithic lands, especially along the coast. They are closely related to one another and the borders of their influence almost perfectly match those of the old Megalithic civilization. Are we really to give most of the credit of these civilizations to G2a, whose influence lies strongly only in the highlands of Iberia and only weakly in the highlands of Wales? Really? Cultures change and so do gene pools, but such a thorough genocide of so populous an old a civilization, as the current leading hypothesis suggests happened, is completely unheard of.

You're making an anachronic upside-down analysis, judging how societies were based on the modern genetic/ethnic makeup of people living in the same territory. The thing is that we already have dozens of ancient DNA samples, and R1b only appears in significant proportions after the Bell Beaker expansion. If it existed there before, it was clearly not dominant as it is today. Also, there is no "R1b people", no "G2a people": there are people who carry the Y-DNA haplogroup R1b, and that haplogroup can infiltrate even into a population that ultimately remained autosomally closer to the original indigenous population. It's easy to demonstrate how even in the absence of any massive genocide that kind of Y-DNA replacement could happen in a few centuries even if the foreign males were initially a minority of the male population of the region (not that massive slaughters, which obviously affected males much more than women, were unheard of in past societies, quite on the contrary). Even a "modest" advantage in favor of men carrying a new haplogroup (e.g. R1b) could have a very intense cumulative effect centuries later.

If for example in year 0 the R1b immigrant men were 10% of the males, and then they conquered the region and had a 4x higher reproductive success (e.g. 0.4% per year versus 0.1%) for many social, economic, cultural, demographic (emigration, fertility rate etc.) and even criminal reasons (including killings, why would you think that didn't happen often?), 1000 years later the R1b men would amount to 69% (yes!!!) of the regional male population. Look, that doesn't even require any genocide to have happened, just local men having less children (and possibily having a bit shorter lives due to lower socio-economic status) than the new dominant males.

You really can't infer the genetic makeup of people 5000 years ago based on their frequency and distribution nowadays. Many people move, get displaced, are enslaved, become dominant (and thus have more offspring than others) or oppressed (thus leaving fewer descendants) - many demographic and historic events happened since then.

Lehwos
16-07-18, 04:52
You're making an anachronic upside-down analysis, judging how societies of . The thing is that we already have dozens of ancient DNA samples, and R1b only appears in significant proportions after the Bell Beaker expansion. If it existed there before, it was clearly not dominant as it is today. Also, there is no "R1b people", no "G2a people": there are people who carry the Y-DNA haplogroup R1b, and that haplogroup can infiltrate even into a population that ultimately remained autosomally closer to the original indigenous population. It's easy to demonstrate how even in the absence of any massive genocide that kind of Y-DNA replacement could happen in a few centuries even if the foreign males were initially a minority of the male population of the region (not that massive slaughters, which obviously affected males much more than women, were unheard of in past societies, quite on the contrary). Even a "modest" advantage in favor of men carrying a new haplogroup (e.g. R1b) could have a very intense cumulative effect centuries later.

If for example in year 0 the R1b immigrant men were 10% of the males, and then they conquered the region and had a 4x higher reproductive success (e.g. 0.4% per year versus 0.1%) for many social, economic, cultural, demographic (emigration, fertility rate etc.) and even criminal reasons (including killings, why would you think that didn't happen often?), 500 years later the R1b men would amount to 69% (yes!!!) of the regional male population. Look, that doesn't even require any genocide to have happened, just local men having less children (and possibily having a bit shorter lives due to lower socio-economic status) than the new dominant males.

You really can't infer the genetic makeup of people 5000 years ago based on their frequency and distribution nowadays. Many people move, get displaced, are enslaved, become dominant (and thus have more offspring than others) or oppressed (thus leaving fewer descendants) - many demographic and historic events happened since then.

You completely forget that the MATERNAL haplogroup J, which likely belonged with G2a, is at its strongest ONLY FIFTEEN PERCENT in Britannia and Iberia. And I'd expect that more of the original inhabitants would remain than just a measly ~5% in Wales, and almost nothing anywhere else in Britannia, given how other ancient haplogroups have almost always fared far better under foreign occupation.

What I want to see is actual firm evidence that G2a WAS dominant, instead of this theorizing on how R1b wasn't. The fact is that we don't have any male samples from the time and that most historical evidence points against the G2a HYPOTHESIS.

Angela
16-07-18, 05:43
But that we have NO samples of G2a by the Atlantic from this era, meanwhile R1b is present in nearby Germany at so early a time, is more of a confirmation than a damnation.

There are numerous academic papers on the subject presenting ample proof for the presence of G2a in Neolithic Europe, and for I2a EEF Neolithic farmers all over the western part of Europe. It's called ANCIENT DNA. Who do you think built Stonehenge?

You really should take advantage of a thread here which lists all the important papers on these topics.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34850-Important-papers-for-newbies-to-Population-Genetics

To the best of my recollection there is no downstream R1b in Megalithic sites. Some of our knowledgeable members can correct me if I am wrong.

The samples we have may carry yDna I2a, but they are completely unremarkable EEF men autosomally. Unless you can prove otherwise I don't know what you're disputing.

A lot has changed in Europe in the last 5,000 years. What yDna is present in present day Atlantic Europe is irrelevant. People move, Y dna changes, mtDna not so much, the autosomes show admixture. If we've learned nothing else from ancient dna we've learned that.

Oh, and for the record, the ancestors of the EEF came to Europe from ANATOLIA.

Angela
16-07-18, 05:55
Berun, one of our members, posted the ancient dna results for Megalithic samples in a dedicated thread:

"



With the recent papers about BB, Balkans and Portugal, a more clear picture about the people that spread the Megalithic culture in the Late Neolithic / Chalcolithic could be displayed.



Portugal_LN/Chalco

I2a1b x2, G2a2, I2a1a1a1b


SE_Iberia_Chalco

I x2, CF


Central_Iberia_Chalco

I2, I2a2(a) x9, G2a2 (x2), I x2, I2a1a1a


UK_Neo

I2a2(a1) x10, I2a1b(1) x12


France_MLN

I2a1b x2


Remedello

I x3


GAC

I2a2(a1b) x8, I, I2, BT, CT




The old Anatolian EEF wave linked to G2a seems passed away, and I2a clades take over Western Europe from Portugal or Britanny, delivering a 25% WHG to such pops.

It's quite interesting the possibility to link also GAC (Globular Amphora Culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_Amphora_culture)) with such I2a wave: they were not using so much megaliths but instead pits and cists, but as their territory (RDA, Poland, west Ukraine) coincides greatly with that of the Funnelbeaker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funnelbeaker_culture) culture (TRB), and such culture provided the megalithism in north Europe, it could be though that the GAC pop had it's origin in such culture. By the way the collpase of GAC coincides with the apparition of the CWC and the R1a clades by 2900 BC."


"Cheking the samples of the BB paper they have tested French Neolithic and Chalcolithic samples near Marseilles: La Couronne-Martigues collective tumulus (?) dated to 3500-3100 BC provided mtDNA U3a1, in Clos de Roque 3 pre-Chasséen pits (4700-4500 BC) with a female with mtDNA H3 and two males being I2a1b. The progression of I2a was going on by then...

With that it's very interesting the case of Treilles, with some 20 G2a and 2 I2a found in a collective burial cave (3000-2900 BC) for herders. It seems as if G2a pockets survided amidst I2a populations (Treilles Culture)."

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34095-The-Y-DNA-of-the-megalithic-people

Elizabeth60
16-07-18, 07:18
I've read before on this website of how the Atlantic Megalithic cultures of Europe were of the Caucasian Y-haplogroup G2a. This is ridiculous. This haplogroup has a minor presence in Iberia and a tiny presence in Britannia in modern day. The "real" R1b Europeans some speak of must have been experts on total genocide, because it seems that's what they would have had to carry out to so thoroughly replace the "real" Megalithic peoples. And to claim that Caucasus Neolithics were the majority of a developed culture spanning from Scotland to Iberia because of ONE mtdna sample from Brittany is absolutely absurd.

The two subclades R1b-DF27 and R1b-L21 are almost exclusively strong in former Megalithic lands, especially along the coast. They are closely related to one another and the borders of their influence almost perfectly match those of the old Megalithic civilization. Are we really to give most of the credit of these civilizations to G2a, whose influence lies strongly only in the highlands of Iberia and only weakly in the highlands of Wales? Really? Cultures change and so do gene pools, but such a thorough genocide of so populous an old a civilization, as the current leading hypothesis suggests happened, is completely unheard of.

From what I've read U152 and DF27 are brother clades but L21 is an Uncle. The near total population replacement in places like Ireland and Britain could possibly be because of a declining neolithic population due to changing weather conditions so not much of that population left to begin with. Iberia had a much larger neolithic population so Bell Beakers didn't have quite the same impact there.

Ygorcs
16-07-18, 08:42
Bell Beakers in Germany are a post-Megalithic, Bronze Age cultural phenomenon. And, you know, they're in Germany - and even there, much closer to the sources where R1b is found the earliest (Eastern & Southeastern Europe), it only appears by the Bell Beaker Bronze Age times. That evidence you provide is, well, not an evidence at all.

Ygorcs
16-07-18, 08:48
You completely forget that the MATERNAL haplogroup J, which likely belonged with G2a, is at its strongest ONLY FIFTEEN PERCENT in Britannia and Iberia. And I'd expect that more of the original inhabitants would remain than just a measly ~5% in Wales, and almost nothing anywhere else in Britannia, given how other ancient haplogroups have almost always fared far better under foreign occupation.

What I want to see is actual firm evidence that G2a WAS dominant, instead of this theorizing on how R1b wasn't. The fact is that we don't have any male samples from the time and that most historical evidence points against the G2a HYPOTHESIS.

Well, well, 15% is actually a HUGE percentage for most Mt-DNA haplogroups, the makeup of which is in most populations much more varied, diverse and less subject to massive expansions or declines. J didn't "belong with" G2a, it may be correlated with it just like other Mt-DNA lineages. So, I don't know how that percentage really matters a lot. Even 10% may be a lot for many maternal lineages, especially if you're comparing populations separated by thousands of years and especially lots of large-scale migrations (attested and unattested). Besides, it is obvious, even considering the first Neolithic EEF and ANF samples from Anatolia and Sutheastern Europe, that there were several Mt-DNA haplogroups (and even, yes, several Y-DNA haplogroups too, though G2a was most prevalent) among the waves of ANF-derived Neolithic farmers.

Oh, and of course you must know that the EEF gradually mixed with WHG populations (in Late Neolithic times often as much as 20%), so legitimately Old European, almost fully EEF populations by the time of the Atlantic Megalithism had an array of WHG-related Mt-DNA and Y-DNA haplogroups, too. Nobody claims that Atlantic Megalithism was mainly correlated with G2a men. It may well have been mainly I2a with just earlier remnants of G2a and other EEF-related haplogroups. These are haplogroups, not "peoples", not "cultures", and in fact we already know through ancient DNA that in the Late Neolithic there were many I2 males who were overwhelmingly EEF in terms of autosomal DNA.

Lehwos
16-07-18, 09:23
"Cheking the samples of the BB paper they have tested French Neolithic and Chalcolithic samples near Marseilles: La Couronne-Martigues collective tumulus (?) dated to 3500-3100 BC provided mtDNA U3a1, in Clos de Roque 3 pre-Chasséen pits (4700-4500 BC) with a female with mtDNA H3 and two males being I2a1b. The progression of I2a was going on by then...

With that it's very interesting the case of Treilles, with some 20 G2a and 2 I2a found in a collective burial cave (3000-2900 BC) for herders. It seems as if G2a pockets survided amidst I2a populations (Treilles Culture)."

Could you potentially provide me with the primary sources for these analyses? I find it often rather difficult to find decisive information in a sea of search results and paragraphs in sources which only might contain that which I seek, and if you have them on hand, it'd be great to know.

Lehwos
16-07-18, 09:27
From what I've read U152 and DF27 are brother clades but L21 is an Uncle. The near total population replacement in places like Ireland and Britain could possibly be because of a declining neolithic population due to changing weather conditions so not much of that population left to begin with. Iberia had a much larger neolithic population so Bell Beakers didn't have quite the same impact there.

Remember that my whole point here is that the "Bell Beaker" haplogroup of R1b radiates from the coastline and not from the Rhine or anywhere east of there. Now this observation is of course not definitive, and I am currently looking for firm sources on haplogroup origins, but my point was that I believed it to be unlikely for them to have their origins in recent arrivals.

Lehwos
16-07-18, 09:33
Well, well, 15% is actually a HUGE percentage for most Mt-DNA haplogroups, the makeup of which is in most populations much more varied, diverse and less subject to massive expansions or declines. J didn't "belong with" G2a, it may be correlated with it just like other Mt-DNA lineages. So, I don't know how that percentage really matters a lot. Even 10% may be a lot for many maternal lineages, especially if you're comparing populations separated by thousands of years and especially lots of large-scale migrations (attested and unattested). Besides, it is obvious, even considering the first Neolithic EEF and ANF samples from Anatolia and Sutheastern Europe, that there were several Mt-DNA haplogroups (and even, yes, several Y-DNA haplogroups too, though G2a was most prevalent) among the waves of ANF-derived Neolithic farmers.

Oh, and of course you must know that the EEF gradually mixed with WHG populations (in Late Neolithic times often as much as 20%), so legitimately Old European, almost fully EEF populations by the time of the Atlantic Megalithism had an array of WHG-related Mt-DNA and Y-DNA haplogroups, too. Nobody claims that Atlantic Megalithism was mainly correlated with G2a men. It may well have been mainly I2a with just earlier remnants of G2a and other EEF-related haplogroups. These are haplogroups, not "peoples", not "cultures", and in fact we already know through ancient DNA that in the Late Neolithic there were many I2 males who were overwhelmingly EEF in terms of autosomal DNA.

What is it with this attitude of seeing things only as numbers? We understand numbers so that we understand our peoples, our history. Otherwise they have no purpose.

And if 15% of J is huge, then 30%-40%+ of H1 and H3 must be titanic.

Believe it or not, but women tend to not miraculously fly about the world on their own, and they tend to accompany men of their own kin group/origins. Now often these mix and new sort of combined groups emerge, but my point is that R1b is so incredibly dense along the coast, where invasion is more difficult of a task. The same can be said of H1 and H3, both of which tend to accompany the presence of R1b.

Ygorcs
16-07-18, 10:14
Believe it or not, but women tend to not miraculously fly about the world on their own, and they tend to accompany men of their own kin group/origins.

Well, believe it or not widespread female exogamy, higher female mobility in patrilocal societies, more local preservation of maternal lineages than paternal ones (usually by intermarriage with the conquerors), and sex-biased (usually male-biased) migrations were very common fare in ancient times. Y-DNA and Mt-DNA haplogroups didn't go hand in hand all the time, the migrations were not always of entire clans or tribes.Those are actually some of the reasons why the Mt-DNA distribution is usually more varied and diverse than the Y-DNA one.

AFAIK ~40-50% is the proportion usually found for all H clades together in most of Europe (including Western Europe), but then you remember that H is very ancient and the proportions are as high as 20% even in the Near East and Caucasus, too. H1 and H3 are actually too ancient (early Holocene, some 13000 years ago) and waaaay too widespread (reaching even Asia and especially Africa, and not just along the Mediterranean coast) to be linked specifically or exclusively with the much more recent (mostly dating to the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age) R1b subclades that form 99% of the R1b in Europe and only have indications of a large expansion in the last 4500-5500 years.

As for your main point, I got it. It makes sense initially... but unfortunately the paleogenetic evidences we have as of now (it may all change next year, who knows?) is exactly on the contrary.

Ygorcs
16-07-18, 10:21
What is it with this attitude of seeing things only as numbers? We understand numbers so that we understand our peoples, our history. Otherwise they have no purpose.

I didn't get your point. Should we overlook the numbers and data in order to provide a more "interesting" or maybe "convenient" narrative to explain "our peoples, our history"? Actually, those numbers have a very relevant purpose, which is exactly to allow us to come a bit closer to what really happened, and not to what we consciously or unconsciously wish were true for some reason, or what we think or were led to think that the history of "our people" (or any other people) was like.

Lehwos
16-07-18, 10:24
Well, believe it or not widespread female exogamy, higher female mobility in patrilocal societies and sex-biased (usually male-biased) migrations were pretty common fare in ancient times. Those are actually some of the reasons why the Mt-DNA distribution is usually more varied and diverse than the Y-DNA one. H1 and H3 are actually too ancient (early Holocene, some 13000 years ago) and waaaay too widespread (reaching even Asia and especially Africa, and not just along the Mediterranean coast) to be linked specifically or exclusively with the much more recent (mostly dating to the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age) R1b subclades that form 99% of the R1b in Europe and only have indications of a large expansion in the last 4500-5500 years.

As for your main point, I got it. It makes sense initially... but unfortunately the paleogenetic evidences we have as of now (it may all change next year, who knows?) is exactly on the contrary.

The fact about H1 and H3 is that nowhere in Europe are they as dense as along the Atlantic coast, corresponding perfectly to R1b, and they are much less dense just about anywhere inland of there, whether or not the haplogroup is widespread in general.

And I will admit that we cannot know too much with complete at the moment. It is for this reason that I will continue to search for evidence for one way or the other, as I thought that there was almost no backing at all to opposing theories, when this is now clearly not the case to me.

Lehwos
16-07-18, 11:06
I didn't get your point. Should we overlook the numbers and data in order to provide a more "interesting" or maybe "convenient" narrative to explain "our peoples, our history"? Actually, those numbers have a very relevant purpose, which is exactly to allow us to come a bit closer to what really happened, and not to what we consciously or unconsciously wish were true for some reason, or what we think or were led to think that the history of "our people" (or any other people) was like.

I mean to say that these haplogroups are an excellent way of representing various lineages among the races and subraces of our world.

For instance, we know the Nords are a mixture of indigenous, western, and eastern Europeans; that the Brythonic Celts are quite unilateral in their lineage; that western Slavs, or Wends, split from eastern Slavs and differ from them thusly; that Bosnians are an isolated and relatively unmixed remnant of the indigenous Balkan peoples; and that Ukrainians have a far higher mixture of indigenous blood than Russians, making them indeed racially different.

The point is that we aren't just a collection of people who happen to be similar, but rather a living legacy of those who came before, and that haplogroups are a useful way of measuring this legacy on a grand scale.

Individuals' haplogroups are not useful for measuring this, but take them by the thousands or millions, and they indeed are.

Why should I care what tiny variants a group of families bears in their genetic code if I do not know the context of their histories or their phenotypes?

nuno77
16-07-18, 11:16
Mountains really close to Porto:
- likely to have been built between the fourth millennium and the first half of the third millennium BC.10339

https://imgur.com/a/sUtNAb4

Jovialis
16-07-18, 11:47
I mean to say that these haplogroups are an excellent way of representing various lineages among the races and subraces of our world.

For instance, we know the Nords are a mixture of indigenous, western, and eastern Europeans; that the Brythonic Celts are quite unilateral in their lineage; that western Slavs, or Wends, split from eastern Slavs and differ from them thusly; that Bosnians are an isolated and relatively unmixed remnant of the indigenous Balkan peoples; and that Ukrainians have a far higher mixture of indigenous blood than Russians, making them indeed racially different.

The point is that we aren't just a collection of people who happen to be similar, but rather a living legacy of those who came before, and that haplogroups are a useful way of measuring this legacy on a grand scale.

Individuals' haplogroups are not useful for measuring this, but take them by the thousands or millions, and they indeed are.

Why should I care what tiny variants a group of families bears in their genetic code if I do not know the context of their histories or their phenotypes?

Based on these conclusions, and terminology you're using, I seriously think you need to read up on genetic papers.

Angela
16-07-18, 13:42
Guys, I think it's time to hit that "Ignore" button.

berun
16-07-18, 14:50
The Bell Beakers have nothing to do with the Megalith buildings of Atlantic Europe, which is long before the time of the Bell Beakeres.
In Catalonia and IIRC other areas the BB were making megaliths, it was a second wave (here the 3rth)

berun
16-07-18, 15:29
BB is linked with megalithism in Majorca, Sardinia, and Basque Country.......

Lehwos
16-07-18, 21:22
Guys, I think it's time to hit that "Ignore" button.

I've asked you to share some primary sources, you come back and see what I've said to Ygorcs, and you seem to assume I have misguided intentions with this post. I told him what I believe to be true: that understanding history is the most important thing here, and you seem to think I'm some kind of out there crazy, when I'm just a guy whose been reading for many hours on different theories and wanted to present my own. This incredible sense of superiority I see among senior members of this website is unbearable.

Ygorcs
16-07-18, 21:48
I mean to say that these haplogroups are an excellent way of representing various lineages among the races and subraces of our world.

For instance, we know the Nords are a mixture of indigenous, western, and eastern Europeans; that the Brythonic Celts are quite unilateral in their lineage; that western Slavs, or Wends, split from eastern Slavs and differ from them thusly; that Bosnians are an isolated and relatively unmixed remnant of the indigenous Balkan peoples; and that Ukrainians have a far higher mixture of indigenous blood than Russians, making them indeed racially different.

The point is that we aren't just a collection of people who happen to be similar, but rather a living legacy of those who came before, and that haplogroups are a useful way of measuring this legacy on a grand scale.

Individuals' haplogroups are not useful for measuring this, but take them by the thousands or millions, and they indeed are.

Why should I care what tiny variants a group of families bears in their genetic code if I do not know the context of their histories or their phenotypes?

Haplogroups are indeed useful to track ancient migrations, but still VERY insufficient and certainly less relevant than autosomal DNA admixtures, especially if your goal is not to understand the ancient movements of peoples, but to understand the most relevant population admixtures that contributed to what a certain population is like nowadays. In just 6-8 generations (less than 200 years), provided that the men with a certain Y-DNA haplogroup are surrounded mostly by women from another population structure, it's totally feasible that you end up having men belonging to the typical Y-DNA haplogroup of an ancient people A while at the same time the bulk, i.e. 90%+, of their ancestry (autosomal DNA) comes from the ancient people B. Yet if all you care about is Y-DNA haplogroups you won't see the true and muuuch bigger picture. Also, Y-DNA haplogroups of course don't tell us much about the "other" decisive 50% of a people's ancestry, because women don't have them. Let me just give you one small example, maybe you'll see what you got wrong in your observations of the genetic history of some peoples:

1860 - Han Chinese man (Y-DNA O3) has a child with an English (100% Northwest European) woman: John (Y-DNA O3, typically East Asian; ~50% East Asia, ~50% European)
1885 - John has a child with his Scottish (100% European) wife: it's a boy, Richard (Y-DNA O3; ~75% European, ~25% Asian)
1915 - Richard has a child with his English (100% European) wife: it's again a boy, Phillip (Y-DNA O3; ~87.5% European, ~12.5% Asian)
1940 - Philipp has a child with his Iris (100% European) wife, Sean (Y-DNA O3; ~93.3% European; ~6.7% Asian) ----- In 80 years, you have an overwhelmingly European male (> 93%) with an East Asian Y-DNA haplogroup. Is he "Han Chinese"? No, of course not. He had some non-interrupted male lineage starting in a Chinese man, that's what it means.

What I say can be demonstrated very typically with the haplogroup R1b: R1b-V88 probably came from Europe or the Near East, yet if you go to Chad or even Mali you'll see millions of men carrying R1b haplogroup, but with a really minor West Eurasian/European-like admixture, the bulk of their ancestry, what really makes them what they are, is Subsaharan African. The same process of autosomal dilution combined with a clear dominance of some Y-DNA haplogroups happened much more recently in the Americas, where you can now find millions of mainly Native American and/or African people with "European" Y-DNA subclades of R1b, I1, I2 or J2.

I really think that you're making one of the most common mistakes that newbies in population genetics do (I myself did that a lot a couple of years ago), which is overestimating the relevance and the historical/genetic meaning of Y-DNA haplogroups. The way you're interpreting genetic data and Y-DNA haplogroups in particular is undeniably leading you to wrong conclusions. Just to give you one example, no, modern Balkanic peoples like Bosnians are not the remnants of indigenous Balkanic tribes from many thousands of years ago. You're again conflating overall ancestry and paternal lineages (not that Bosnian males all belong to truly Mesolithic haplogroup I, anyway). That won't help you to see the whole thing. Without any intention to offend you, just an advice, let me say: you should need some of the fundamental genetic studies, many of them linked in the post Angela provided some posts above in this topic. You'd benefit a lot from learning more about population genetics and gradually realize your misconceptions.

Also, I fail to see the connection between your points above and Atlantic Megalithism being necessarily related to R1b men. We are not denying to understand the history of peoples when we point out that probably (not certainly) the Atlantic Megalithic cultures were not peopled mostly by R1b men, and that that region of Europe underwent profound demographic changes since then. That's not erasing history, that's trying to see it as it really was, irrespective of the desires and interests of present-day people. Would those populations be less connected to their ancient history if they suddenly found that in a cumulative process along thousands of years the males that transmitted their Y-DNA haplogroups mostly came from abroad as immigrants? Would it somehow be offensive or demeaning to them? That sounds like, firstly, underestimating the genetic contribution from women, and secondly a certain kind of wishful thinking very common in nationalistic circles, where people desperately want to believe that their people are primordial, indigenous, with very ancient roots in their present-day lands, even when that is totally contrary to the archaeological and genetic evidence.

Angela
16-07-18, 22:09
I personally posted the yDna of ancient samples from Megalithic tombs from PRIMARY SOURCES. I directed you to a thread that discusses the topic and lists sources. I pointed you to the thread which contains links to all the important papers.

I'm not going to read them all again for the umpteenth time and provide you with a detailed summary of each of them, especially when you came here not with questions, but with arrogantly proposed theories, and dispute the consensus among population geneticists, all the while clearly never having read the academic literature. I mean, where do you get off starting a thread called " The Atlantic Megalith Cultures were R1b" when all the ancient dna results show that isn't true?

It's great that you're interested in this topic, and we welcome new members, but you have to do the hard work of reading the papers before doing this sort of thing. I've been studying this discipline for more than ten years. Most respected posters here have also put years into it. There's no substitute for that. There are no shortcuts to an understanding of this subject.

Once again, this is a thread where we discuss the Atlantic Megalithic.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34095-The-Y-DNA-of-the-megalithic-people
In it you can see the list of the yDna found in those graves.

Maciamo also lists them here:
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/ancient_european_dna.shtml


Neolithic Greece (c. 9,000 to 5,200 ybp): G2a2a1b
Starčevo–Kőrös–Criş Culture (https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/starcevo_culture.shtml) (c. 8,000 to 6,500 ybp ; Southeast Europe): F (x2), G2, G2a (x5), G2a2b (x2), H2, I, I2a, I2a1
Linear Pottery Culture (https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/linear_pottery_culture.shtml) (aka LBK, c. 8,000 to 6,500 ybp ; Central Europe): C1a2 (x2), F (x2), G2a2a (x3), G2a2a1 (x2), G2a2b (x3), I1, T1a (x2)
Sopot & Lengyel Cultures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengyel_culture) (7000 to 5400 ybp ; Central Europe): E1b1b-M78, I2a, J2
Cardium Pottery Culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardium_Pottery) (c. 8,400 to 4,700 ybp ; Mediterranean Europe): E1b1b-V13, G2a (x3), I2a1b1, R1b1c-V88
Atlantic Megalithic Culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalith) (c. 7,000 to 4,000 ybp ; Western Europe): CT (x1), G2a (x20); H2, I (x4), I2 (x1), I2a1 (x4), I2a1b-CTS1293 (x9), I2a1b1-L161.1 (x6), I2a2-L35 (x2), I2a2a (x4), I2a2a1-CTS9183 (x2), I2a2a1a1a-L1195 (x3), I2a2a1a1a1-L126 (x1), I2a2a1a1a2-L1193 (x2), I2a2a1b2 (x1), I2a2a1b-CTS10100 (x1)
Funnelbeaker Culture (https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/funnelbeaker_culture.shtml) (aka TRB, c. 6,000 to 4,700 ybp ; Northern Europe):

Baalberge group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalberge_group) (c. 5,800 to 5,350 ybp ; central Germany): I, R1
Salzmünde group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salzm%C3%BCnde_group) (5,400 to 5,000 ybp : East Germany): G2a2a (x2), I2a1b1a (x2)



To the Board: if some results are missing, we should inform Maciamo.

Olalde et al is essential reading.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962

We discussed the paper here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34016-The-Bell-Beaker-by-Olalde-and-Reich-et-al-2017?highlight=Olalde

What more do you want?

Lehwos
16-07-18, 22:42
Haplogroups are indeed useful to track ancient migrations, but still VERY insufficient and certainly less relevant than autosomal DNA admixtures, especially if your goal is not to understand the ancient movements of peoples, but to understand the most relevant population admixtures that contributed to what a certain population is like nowadays. In just 6-8 generations (less than 200 years), provided that the men with a certain Y-DNA haplogroup are surrounded mostly by women from another population structure, it's totally feasible that you end up having men belonging to the typical Y-DNA haplogroup of an ancient people A while at the same time the bulk, i.e. 90%+, of their ancestry (autosomal DNA) comes from the ancient people B. Yet if all you care about is Y-DNA haplogroups you won't see the true and muuuch bigger picture. Also, Y-DNA haplogroups of course don't tell us much about the "other" decisive 50% of a people's ancestry, because women don't have them. Let me just give you one small example, maybe you'll see what you got wrong in your observations of the genetic history of some peoples:

1860 - Han Chinese man (Y-DNA O3) has a child with an English (100% Northwest European) woman: John (Y-DNA O3, typically East Asian; ~50% East Asia, ~50% European)
1885 - John has a child with his Scottish (100% European) wife: it's a boy, Richard (Y-DNA O3; ~75% European, ~25% Asian)
1915 - Richard has a child with his English (100% European) wife: it's again a boy, Phillip (Y-DNA O3; ~87.5% European, ~12.5% Asian)
1940 - Philipp has a child with his Iris (100% European) wife, Sean (Y-DNA O3; ~93.3% European; ~6.7% Asian) ----- In 80 years, you have an overwhelmingly European male (> 93%) with an East Asian Y-DNA haplogroup. Is he "Han Chinese"? No, of course not. He had some non-interrupted male lineage starting in a Chinese man, that's what it means.

What I say can be demonstrated very typically with the haplogroup R1b: R1b-V88 probably came from Europe or the Near East, yet if you go to Chad or even Mali you'll see millions of men carrying R1b haplogroup, but with a really minor West Eurasian/European-like admixture, the bulk of their ancestry, what really makes them what they are, is Subsaharan African. The same process of autosomal dilution combined with a clear dominance of some Y-DNA haplogroups happened much more recently in the Americas, where you can now find millions of mainly Native American and/or African people with "European" Y-DNA subclades of R1b, I1, I2 or J2.

I really think that you're making one of the most common mistakes that newbies in population genetics do (I myself did that a lot a couple of years ago), which is overestimating the relevance and the historical/genetic meaning of Y-DNA haplogroups. The way you're interpreting genetic data and Y-DNA haplogroups in particular is undeniably leading you to wrong conclusions. Just to give you one example, no, modern Balkanic peoples like Bosnians are not the remnants of indigenous Balkanic tribes from many thousands of years ago. You're again conflating overall ancestry and paternal lineages (not that Bosnian males all belong to truly Mesolithic haplogroup I, anyway). That won't help you to see the whole thing. Without any intention to offend you, just an advice, let me say: you should need some of the fundamental genetic studies, many of them linked in the post Angela provided some posts above in this topic. You'd benefit a lot from learning more about population genetics and gradually realize your misconceptions.

Also, I fail to see the connection between your points above and Atlantic Megalithism being necessarily related to R1b men. We are not denying to understand the history of peoples when we point out that probably (not certainly) the Atlantic Megalithic cultures were not peopled mostly by R1b men, and that that region of Europe underwent profound demographic changes since then. That's not erasing history, that's trying to see it as it really was, irrespective of the desires and interests of present-day people. Would those populations be less connected to their ancient history if they suddenly found that in a cumulative process along thousands of years the males that transmitted their Y-DNA haplogroups mostly came from abroad as immigrants? Would it somehow be offensive or demeaning to them? That sounds like, firstly, underestimating the genetic contribution from women, and secondly a certain kind of wishful thinking very common in nationalistic circles, where people desperately want to believe that their people are primordial, indigenous, with very ancient roots in their present-day lands, even when that is totally contrary to the archaeological and genetic evidence.

I understand everything that you've said, and, truth be told, I've had to change majorly my views on these matters every so often. My main problem with autosomal DNA is that it almost assumes that some ancient sample inherently belongs to one group and that group alone. For example, in one Eupedia map, Scotland was shown as being 30% Neolithic farmer, when it seems to me more likely that the Neolithic farmers are a certain percent "Scottish" or rather northwest European.

Anyway, yes, I'll need to do more reading to come to a more concise conclusion rather than perceiving counter ideas as unlikely and going by that alone.

Lehwos
16-07-18, 22:50
I personally posted the yDna of ancient samples from Megalithic tombs from PRIMARY SOURCES. I directed you to a thread that discusses the topic and lists sources. I pointed you to the thread which contains links to all the important papers.

I'm not going to read them all again for the umpteenth time and provide you with a detailed summary of each of them, especially when you came here not with questions, but with arrogantly proposed theories, and dispute the consensus among population geneticists, all the while clearly never having read the academic literature. I mean, where do you get off starting a thread called " The Atlantic Megalith Cultures were R1b" when all the ancient dna results show that isn't true?

It's great that you're interested in this topic, and we welcome new members, but you have to do the hard work of reading the papers before doing this sort of thing. I've been studying this discipline for more than ten years. Most respected posters here have also put years into it. There's no substitute for that. There are no shortcuts to an understanding of this subject.

What I was looking for was an actual primary source paper on the on-ground results of the studies, but, if you don't have that or don't wish to go digging to find it, then that's fine. I'll just need to do some thorough digging myself. My focus was to find out where these claims come from, because the primary article on the Megalithic cultures claims that we don't have a single sample of G2a from the era and from those peoples. If this is the case, but there are samples of I2 or some other haplogroup, then that'd be very interesting to me as well. But it seems from your source that G2a was indeed found among ancient samples, which should be incredibly informative. My confusion was and is whether this is actually the case, because I'd love to read the findings that claim so. I entered this with the belief that there were none. Anywho, whether or not you can get back to me on that is your own completely free choice, and I'll go do some more digging in the meantime.

davef
16-07-18, 23:13
I understand everything that you've said, and, truth be told, I've had to change majorly my views on these matters every so often. My main problem with autosomal DNA is that it almost assumes that some ancient sample inherently belongs to one group and that group alone. For example, in one Eupedia map, Scotland was shown as being 30% Neolithic farmer, when it seems to me more likely that the Neolithic farmers are a certain percent "Scottish" or rather northwest European.

Anyway, yes, I'll need to do more reading to come to a more concise conclusion rather than perceiving counter ideas as unlikely and going by that alone.
Scottish people didn't exist during the Neolithic, nor didany other modern population. It's a matter of Scotland partly descending from Neolithic farmers, as do other European populations.

Lehwos
16-07-18, 23:23
Scottish people didn't exist during the Neolithic, nor didany other modern population. It's a matter of Scotland partly descending from Neolithic farmers, as do other European populations.

It's a matter of Scotland being related to one mammoth hunter found in Siberia. This is like a Mexican telling a Spaniard that Spaniards are 25% Aztec. (Just as a crude example.) They likely are descended in part from them, yes, but to compare the nation of Scotland to one man in Siberia and act as if it's a matter of being linearly descended from one or the other is just silly.

Angela
17-07-18, 00:07
What I was looking for was an actual primary source paper on the on-ground results of the studies, but, if you don't have that or don't wish to go digging to find it, then that's fine. I'll just need to do some thorough digging myself. My focus was to find out where these claims come from, because the primary article on the Megalithic cultures claims that we don't have a single sample of G2a from the era and from those peoples. If this is the case, but there are samples of I2 or some other haplogroup, then that'd be very interesting to me as well. But it seems from your source that G2a was indeed found among ancient samples, which should be incredibly informative. My confusion was and is whether this is actually the case, because I'd love to read the findings that claim so. I entered this with the belief that there were none. Anywho, whether or not you can get back to me on that is your own completely free choice, and I'll go do some more digging in the meantime.


The results I listed are published results from tests conducted on samples from Megalithic graves. How much more "on the ground" results can you possibly get?

Read Olalde et al, a lot of the samples can be found there.

Do you honestly think we'd be lying about such things?

Also, read the Haak and Lazardis papes on the Neolithic. You seem to be very confused about who the farmers were and where they came from.

Angela
17-07-18, 00:12
Also take a look at this. Yamnaya is from 40-50% CHG/Caucasus. This is why I told you to carefully read Haak et al.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5JmDoHWM1ao/WG-JWyN6TTI/AAAAAAAAFKk/ETXf3bVu23Yx3wQMIvltjH70mdb91DE5QCLcB/s1132/Haak_et_al_Fig_3.png

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 00:36
I understand everything that you've said, and, truth be told, I've had to change majorly my views on these matters every so often. My main problem with autosomal DNA is that it almost assumes that some ancient sample inherently belongs to one group and that group alone. For example, in one Eupedia map, Scotland was shown as being 30% Neolithic farmer, when it seems to me more likely that the Neolithic farmers are a certain percent "Scottish" or rather northwest European.

Anyway, yes, I'll need to do more reading to come to a more concise conclusion rather than perceiving counter ideas as unlikely and going by that alone.

Those admixtures are made on the basis of several samples and are complemented by other admixtures (well, we alreadyhave the ancient DNA of several indigenous, Mesolithic Northwest Europeans - and, no, it wasn't them the main contributors to Neolithic Anatolian farmers). Also, you know, they have one great advantage over modern biogeographical clusters like "Northwest European": they're actually the genetic makeup of individuals from ancient populations, not present-day genetic structures that are being anachronically projected onto the past milennia ago. I'm pretty confident it's much more likely that, e.g., 1 or 2 Scottish individuals who lived 4000 years ago were more representative of how their people was like genetically than 1 or 2 individuals living in present-day Scotland 4000 years later.

I honestly don't see any concrete reason why you'd think that it's more likely that Northwest European or even "Scottish" primitive hunter-gatherers would have contributed heavily to Neolithic farmers, instead of much more advanced farming populations expanding all over Northwest Europe. Plausibility iis not on your side, but forgive me if I'm feeling some slight sense of aversion to the very idea that the people and culture of ancient Northwest Europe probably came mainly from Anatolia/Southeast Euroope. Maybe I'm getting paranoid due to so many former encounter with badly disguised racists or ultra-nationalists. LOL!

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 00:41
It's a matter of Scotland being related to one mammoth hunter found in Siberia. This is like a Mexican telling a Spaniard that Spaniards are 25% Aztec. (Just as a crude example.) They likely are descended in part from them, yes, but to compare the nation of Scotland to one man in Siberia and act as if it's a matter of being linearly descended from one or the other is just silly.

Well, I may be misunderstanding your point, but if we find (as we do) that modern Mexicans are around 40-50% similar to an autosomal admixture found much earlier and in much less admixed form in the population of Spain, and if we found (as we do) samples from centuries ago that show none of that Spaniard-like admixture, we wouldn't be wrong at all in assuming that, yes, Mexicans are linearly descended from Spaniards, too, among other sources of ancestry. That'd be in fact what happened in Mexico between 500 and 100 years ago. I see no good reason why that wouldn't have happened in Scotland or elsewhere, especially in earlier time when the competition was not between the Aztec Empire and Spain, but between scattered hunter-gatherer clans with a tiny population density and Neolithic farmers and pastoralists.

One final point is that no geneticist compares "the nation of Scotland" to one man in Paleolithic Siberia (actually you're referring to ANE, not the much later Early European Farmers, who came from Anatolia, a totally different place far away from Siberia. That's confusing). The nation of Scotland is a socio-cultural entity, it doesn't exist objectively in genetic terms though there are imperfect correlations between genetics and cultural identity. What scientists may do is compare the genetic structure of populations that self-declare ethnically as Scottish to ancient populations and track its formation and history. I hope you don't really delude yourself believing that a recognizable Scottish (or any other) ethnicity existed thousands of years ago and it remained intact, untouched by migrations, displacements and conquests, for thousands of years.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 01:49
The results I listed are published results from tests conducted on samples from Megalithic graves. How much more "on the ground" results can you possibly get?

Read Olalde et al, a lot of the samples can be found there.

Do you honestly think we'd be lying about such things?

Also, read the Haak and Lazardis papes on the Neolithic. You seem to be very confused about who the farmers were and where they came from.

Thank you for giving me some direction to search with. That is my main concern at the moment.

I never said that I thought you were lying, but it's incredibly frustrating to find most of the results for most of my searches to be secondhand without much of a reference to the source material. I just wanted to see the source material, and that I shall do. You can never be too sure regarding the location of the digs, the era, etc as well as all other information.

The main point of confusion for me is the fact that the mtDNA results for the Megalithic peoples are incredibly mixed and have a very high frequency of H, which one might expect to be accompanied by on the of Indo-European haplogroups, as well as J, K, and U, which are to be expected from Neolithic farmers. On this website, for example, the only directly referenced tests and diggings in regard to the Megalithic peoples were that done with female subjects, and I just want to pinpoint the source of all this talk I hear of the studies on the ancient males.

That said, I'll look into what you have shared and try to find some things on my own.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 01:57
Those admixtures are made on the basis of several samples and are complemented by other admixtures (well, we alreadyhave the ancient DNA of several indigenous, Mesolithic Northwest Europeans - and, no, it wasn't them the main contributors to Neolithic Anatolian farmers). Also, you know, they have one great advantage over modern biogeographical clusters like "Northwest European": they're actually the genetic makeup of individuals from ancient populations, not present-day genetic structures that are being anachronically projected onto the past milennia ago. I'm pretty confident it's much more likely that, e.g., 1 or 2 Scottish individuals who lived 4000 years ago were more representative of how their people was like genetically than 1 or 2 individuals living in present-day Scotland 4000 years later.

I honestly don't see any concrete reason why you'd think that it's more likely that Northwest European or even "Scottish" primitive hunter-gatherers would have contributed heavily to Neolithic farmers, instead of much more advanced farming populations expanding all over Northwest Europe. Plausibility iis not on your side, but forgive me if I'm feeling some slight sense of aversion to the very idea that the people and culture of ancient Northwest Europe probably came mainly from Anatolia/Southeast Euroope. Maybe I'm getting paranoid due to so many former encounter with badly disguised racists or ultra-nationalists. LOL!

My point was not that northwestern Europeans would have more of an effect, but that the individual sources for our knowledge, like the sample from the Siberian man, might well have had, as a random example, 20% of their ancestors coming from northwestern Europe. Thus it makes sense that he is related to people from a region to far from him: he is not just descended from one group alone.

For example, it's kind of like having a man who is 75% European and 25% African and saying that Europeans have 25% autosomal similarity with Africans as a result.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 02:07
Well, I may be misunderstanding your point, but if we find (as we do) that modern Mexicans are around 40-50% similar to an autosomal admixture found much earlier and in much less admixed form in the population of Spain, and if we found (as we do) samples from centuries ago that show none of that Spaniard-like admixture, we wouldn't be wrong at all in assuming that, yes, Mexicans are linearly descended from Spaniards, too, among other sources of ancestry. That'd be in fact what happened in Mexico between 500 and 100 years ago. I see no good reason why that wouldn't have happened in Scotland or elsewhere, especially in earlier time when the competition was not between the Aztec Empire and Spain, but between scattered hunter-gatherer clans with a tiny population density and Neolithic farmers and pastoralists.

One final point is that no geneticist compares "the nation of Scotland" to one man in Paleolithic Siberia (actually you're referring to ANE, not the much later Early European Farmers, who came from Anatolia, a totally different place far away from Siberia. That's confusing). The nation of Scotland is a socio-cultural entity, it doesn't exist objectively in genetic terms though there are imperfect correlations between genetics and cultural identity. What scientists may do is compare the genetic structure of populations that self-declare ethnically as Scottish to ancient populations and track its formation and history. I hope you don't really delude yourself believing that a recognizable Scottish (or any other) ethnicity existed thousands of years ago and it remained intact, untouched by migrations, displacements and conquests, for thousands of years.

I am completely aware that Scotland is not a genetic unit unto itself. Hence why I put "Scottish" in quotes. Northwestern Europeans, on the other hand, are their own genetic grouping, with many subgroups therein of course.

As for the comment on Mexicans and Spaniards, I was implying that the two have ~50% continuity of lineage between them. So, using sample of Mexican DNA, one might then create a "Mexican" autosomal grouping and find, to their great surprise, that Spaniards are 50% Mexican, or 25% Mesoamerican.

But we know better, because we're aware that Spaniards are the contributors to the 50% of the lineage that is NOT Mesoamerican and that Mexicans are just a mixture of the two sources.

Similarly, as I replied just a few minutes ago, we might assume that the samples for some of the Early Europeans are partly northern European, and that this might explain why they have as much as they do in common.

(My apologies if I did indeed reference the wrong group to which the Siberian hunter belonged, but the corresponding map seemed to well match the density of Neolithic farmer lineage, so I just went with that for the sake of my example after only giving it a brief look.)

davef
17-07-18, 02:17
My point was not that northwestern Europeans would have more of an effect, but that the individual sources for our knowledge, like the sample from the Siberian man, might well have had, as a random example, 20% of their ancestors coming from northwestern Europe. Thus it makes sense that he is related to people from a region to far from him: he is not just descended from one group alone.

For example, it's kind of like having a man who is 75% European and 25% African and saying that Europeans have 25% autosomal similarity with Africans as a result.
Northwest Europeans didn't exist during his time. He didn't have a combination of Neolithic, western hunter gatherer and indo European that all northwestern Europeans have.

Sile
17-07-18, 02:27
missing is neolithic Bulgaria
Varna culture belongs to the late Chalcolithic of northeastern Bulgaria
Starcevo is also Cris Culture
with
https://s20.postimg.cc/zdksiu2rh/Malek.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
.
mathieson 2017 paper

https://s20.postimg.cc/am4vaawf1/t1a_malek.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Lehwos
17-07-18, 02:48
Northwest Europeans didn't exist during his time. He didn't have a combination of Neolithic, western hunter gatherer and indo European that all northwestern Europeans have.

I mean to say that he likely had some of the blood of those from whom western Europeans descend in his veins. Remember that the densest concentration of R1b beyond western Europe is in Tataria in Russia, either arguably within Siberia or just beyond it.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 03:59
So I've done some looking, and I've found that the finding at Saint-Jean-et-Saint-Paul of G2a individuals is one of the strongest sources for the concept of G2a and the megaliths. This is interesting to me because this seems to fall within the borderland of influence between Atlantic Megalithic and Cardium Pottery, which was undoubtably G2a in the north. Was this perhaps why there seems to be some hesitancy on making firm conclusions about the Megalithic people - because this was a bit of a debatable area?

I'm not going to use this as an excuse to dismiss claims against the original point of this post, but I would like to know others' opinions if they have them.

Were there to be some equal-sized finding deep within the Atlantic Megalithic sphere of influence, I would have to make a more major reconsideration, and if such a thing exists, I'd like to know of it, if anyone is willing to share information.

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 04:20
I am completely aware that Scotland is not a genetic unit unto itself. Hence why I put "Scottish" in quotes. Northwestern Europeans, on the other hand, are their own genetic grouping, with many subgroups therein of course.

Yeah, I know you don't think Scotland is not a genetic unit unto itself, but I used the word "Scotland/Scottish" just as a generic example. The same holds for any other country or area, including Northwest Europe as a whole.

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 04:26
The main point of confusion for me is the fact that the mtDNA results for the Megalithic peoples are incredibly mixed and have a very high frequency of H, which one might expect to be accompanied by on the of Indo-European haplogroups, as well as J, K, and U, which are to be expected from Neolithic farmers. On this website, for example, the only directly referenced tests and diggings in regard to the Megalithic peoples were that done with female subjects, and I just want to pinpoint the source of all this talk I hear of the studies on the ancient males.

Why do you think H would be necessarily expected to be accompanied by one of the Indo-European-related haplogroup subclades? H is literally dozens of thousands of years earlier as a haplogroup than any of the specifically IE-related subclades (e.g. not R1b, not R1a as a whole, but R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51 etc.), and H is in fact very common throughout all of Europe and also found in high frequency (~20%) even in the Near East and North Africa. Early European farmers not only did come from Anatolia and the Aegean region (Southeast Europe), but also had absorbed WHG along the way as they colonized the rest of the continent. They would've carried a lot of H too. I'm pretty sure H was just too old and too widespread to be anything, unless you mean some very specific downstream subclades of H (even subclades like H1 and H3 are too old and expansive to be Indo-European-like).

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 04:30
My point was not that northwestern Europeans would have more of an effect, but that the individual sources for our knowledge, like the sample from the Siberian man, might well have had, as a random example, 20% of their ancestors coming from northwestern Europe. Thus it makes sense that he is related to people from a region to far from him: he is not just descended from one group alone.

For example, it's kind of like having a man who is 75% European and 25% African and saying that Europeans have 25% autosomal similarity with Africans as a result.
That's really a risk, no doubt about that... unless we have literally dozens and dozens of different ancient DNA samples to analyze and make sure that we're not dealing with a clear outlier and what the average genetic makeup of that ancient population was like. That's precisely what scientists have already done to describe ANF and EEF people genetically.

In the specific case you're talking about, we know that he did not have "20% of his ancestors coming from northwestern Europe" because we fortunately also have Mesolithic DNA from Northwestern European individuals - and they were not nearly as much related to that Siberian man as present-day Northwestern Europeans, and from their genetic data we can try to fit them as a people related to a possible source of ancestry to that Siberian mammoth hunter, but the thing is that it doesn't work, the results will clearly show that there was no (non-negligible) gene flow from Mesolithic Northwestern Europeans into Siberian people at that time, and that the ANE affinity in Northwestern Europeans came later.

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 04:39
So I've done some looking, and I've found that the finding at Saint-Jean-et-Saint-Paul of G2a individuals is one of the strongest sources for the concept of G2a and the megaliths. This is interesting to me because this seems to fall within the borderland of influence between Atlantic Megalithic and Cardium Pottery, which was undoubtably G2a in the north. Was this perhaps why there seems to be some hesitancy on making firm conclusions about the Megalithic people - because this was a bit of a debatable area?

I'm not going to use this as an excuse to dismiss claims against the original point of this post, but I would like to know others' opinions if they have them.

Were there to be some equal-sized finding deep within the Atlantic Megalithic sphere of influence, I would have to make a more major reconsideration, and if such a thing exists, I'd like to know of it, if anyone is willing to share information.

What about all the I2a, which was regularly found in areas associated with Megalithism and we know it became a very important Early European Farmer lineage in the Late Neolithic after the "WHG revival"? It's not like there is a "G2a or R1b" situation here. It in fact looks likely to me that the Atlantic Megalithic was an autosomally EEF population with I2 as its main Y-DNA haplogroup, but of course also other less prevalent ones.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 04:42
Why do you think H would be necessarily expected to be accompanied by one of the Indo-European-related haplogroup subclades? H is literally dozens of thousands of years earlier as a haplogroup than any of the specifically IE-related subclades (e.g. not R1b, not R1a as a whole, but R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51 etc.), and H is in fact very common throughout all of Europe and also found in high frequency (~20%) even in the Near East and North Africa. Early European farmers not only did come from Anatolia and the Aegean region (Southeast Europe), but also had absorbed WHG along the way as they colonized the rest of the continent. They would've carried a lot of H too. I'm pretty sure H was just too old and too widespread to be anything, unless you mean some very specific downstream subclades of H (even subclades like H1 and H3 are too old and expansive to be Indo-European-like).

I mention H as a haplogroup to be associated with R1b because it is generally denser in areas where R1b is denser, and generally less so in areas where more "Middle Eastern" and Caucasus haplogroups are stronger. Therefore, I see its strong presence as a potentially promising sign for the moment before more evidence is found by or revealed to me.

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 04:48
I am completely aware that Scotland is not a genetic unit unto itself. Hence why I put "Scottish" in quotes. Northwestern Europeans, on the other hand, are their own genetic grouping, with many subgroups therein of course.

As for the comment on Mexicans and Spaniards, I was implying that the two have ~50% continuity of lineage between them. So, using sample of Mexican DNA, one might then create a "Mexican" autosomal grouping and find, to their great surprise, that Spaniards are 50% Mexican, or 25% Mesoamerican.

No, I'm pretty sure that would not happen at all, because if you ran the results of Spaniards comparing them to that "Mexican" autosomal admixture based on Mexican individuals you would never ever get "50% Mexican" or "25% Mesoamerican", simply because the Mexican autosomal admixture, having ~50% Amerindian components not found in Spaniards, would not be a good fit at all, the error margins would be too high and indicate there's something wrong in using Mexican admixture as a proxy for ancient ancestry in Spaniards. For Spaniards to be reliably modeled as "50% Mexican", they'd have to have some 20-25% of Amerindian ancestry too, which they don't. At best what an expert geneticist would find out is that the Mexican autosomal admixture does not fit the Spaniard samples, but that admixture does have a high ancestral affinity with that different genetic structure found in Spaniards. And they would be totally right: the Mexican admixture would have strong affinities to the Spaniard one, but it was different enough to be confidently demonstrated as not being a source of ancestry into the Spaniard admixture.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 04:51
That's really a risk, no doubt about that... unless we have literally dozens and dozens of different ancient DNA samples to analyze and make sure that we're not dealing with a clear outlier and what the average genetic makeup of that ancient population was like. That's precisely what scientists have already done to describe ANF and EEF people genetically.

In the specific case you're talking about, we know that he did not have "20% of his ancestors coming from northwestern Europe" because we fortunately also have Mesolithic DNA from Northwestern European individuals - and they were not nearly as much related to that Siberian man as present-day Northwestern Europeans, and from their genetic data we can try to fit them as a people related to a possible source of ancestry to that Siberian mammoth hunter, but the thing is that it doesn't work, the results will clearly show that there was no (non-negligible) gene flow from Mesolithic Northwestern Europeans into Siberian people at that time, and that the ANE affinity in Northwestern Europeans came later.

For your comments on the Siberian man himself, I'd have to investigate that further myself to really come to understand how thoroughly he differs from northwestern Europeans. I do have my doubts. For instance, parts of Britannia are more than 60% "Northwest European" as well as being a large percent many other things, so it seems almost a necessity to have a good degree of overlap with the Siberian man, whose similarity is at at 30-40% throughout Britannia. And seeing as R1b is so strong in Tataria, I would not strike out the potential for early mixture in Siberia from that source.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 05:00
No, I'm pretty sure that would not happen at all, because if you ran the results of Spaniards comparing them to that "Mexican" autosomal admixture based on Mexican individuals you would never ever get "50% Mexican" or "25% Mesoamerican", simply because the Mexican autosomal admixture, having ~50% Amerindian components not found in Spaniards, would not be a good fit at all, the error margins would be too high and indicate there's something wrong in using Mexican admixture as a proxy for ancient ancestry in Spaniards. For Spaniards to be reliably modeled as "50% Mexican", they'd have to have some 20-25% of Amerindian ancestry too, which they don't. At best what an expert geneticist would find out is that the Mexican autosomal admixture does not fit the Spaniard samples, but that admixture does have a high ancestral affinity with that different genetic structure found in Spaniards. And they would be totally right: the Mexican admixture would have strong affinities to the Spaniard one, but it was different enough to be confidently demonstrated as not being a source of ancestry into the Spaniard admixture.

I am aware it was a bit of a silly example, and it was meant to be just that. We do know quite well of the differences between the Spaniards and Mesoamericans. They come from entirely different continents and we have perfect context about where their divisions lie, so we can easily test those similar or different to them. Things are not so easy with early European peoples.

The concern here was whether the Siberian man had a minority of northwestern European continuity, and I used to unusual 50/50 scenario of Mexico as an example.

We know about many of the differences between Neolithic farmers and northwestern Europeans, but the area is much more gray there, especially if we take also the indigenous I2 people, as you mentioned above. After all, their influence extended wide, but how firmly entrenched they were is highly debatable, especially in the highlands of Scotland and considering the context that this man was found in Siberia and not around the Mediterranean or somewhere else where we know more of the spread of the Neolithic farmers.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 05:07
What about all the I2a, which was regularly found in areas associated with Megalithism and we know it became a very important Early European Farmer lineage in the Late Neolithic after the "WHG revival"? It's not like there is a "G2a or R1b" situation here. It in fact looks likely to me that the Atlantic Megalithic was an autosomally EEF population with I2 as its main Y-DNA haplogroup, but of course also other less prevalent ones.

This is very interesting as well, and again, I still wonder whether the location of the find could be equated to having any effect. For the moment, of course, I'll just have to do more looking. An I2-centered theory would be probable as well, and another possibility to investigate.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 07:01
Well, I have finished my latest research expedition and have changed my mind completely.

I was of the assumption when I first posted this that the issue of the Megalithic Culture was one of G2a or R1b. To my mind, the former was impossible, and I still believe it to likely not be the case.

However, upon seeing the findings of I2 among samples from this culture, with none from R1b, I have come to the conclusion that this was indeed dominant.

This also solves my own personal mystery of why I2b is so prominent in the lowlands of Scotland and Ulster and why I2a is as strong as it is in Iberia.

It also makes sense in regard to other predominantly I2 civilizations, as the Sardinian Nuragics too had megaliths and it would seem that this might be a common theme.

Anyway, I've done my research, compared results, spent a while thinking, and have some to this conclusion at last.

I still disagree with the notion that G2a was most prominent among the megalith builders, as it is not as prominent as I2 and certainly not prominent enough in samples west of the Rhone in my own opinion.

That said, I think I'll leave it here, admittedly embarrassed but still firm in my original rejection of the G2a hypothesis.

I'm at least glad that I learned as much as I did from putting my hypothesis forward and learning about all the evidence against it.

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 07:20
For your comments on the Siberian man himself, I'd have to investigate that further myself to really come to understand how thoroughly he differs from northwestern Europeans. I do have my doubts. For instance, parts of Britannia are more than 60% "Northwest European" as well as being a large percent many other things, so it seems almost a necessity to have a good degree of overlap with the Siberian man, whose similarity is at at 30-40% throughout Britannia. And seeing as R1b is so strong in Tataria, I would not strike out the potential for early mixture in Siberia from that source.

You're mixing things up. You can't compare proportions calculated on the basis of ancient admixtures (in the case of that "Siberian man", a Paleolithic one from ~20-25 kya) with a Northwestern European admixture that is based on the genetic architecture of present-day people inhabiting Northwest Europe nowadays, in our contemporary era. Those are totally different things and are not necessarily directly correlated. Northwest European is the final outcome of thousands of years of admixture events, it's like an umbrella term that includes a bit of everything, including ANE-derived ancestry, and then underwent its own genetic drift, making it slightly distinctive in relation to other European admixtures. That "chronological mess" in your analysis is probably what's leading you to wrong impressions about this issue. You're deducing that a Northwest European admixture in the present-day sense, referring to the modern Europeans, already existed somewhere even thousands of years ago, but, no, probably no ancient population had an admixture even similar to that of Northwest Europeans now. This is like a "new race" if you wish. Northwest European in Neolithic and, even more strongly, in Mesolithic times would refer to a completely different population structure, which does not exist nowadays because it's been heavily diluted among other ancestries.

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 07:24
Well, I have finished my latest research expedition and have changed my mind completely.

I was of the assumption when I first posted this that the issue of the Megalithic Culture was one of G2a or R1b. To my mind, the former was impossible, and I still believe it to likely not be the case.

However, upon seeing the findings of I2 among samples from this culture, with none from R1b, I have come to the conclusion that this was indeed dominant.

This also solves my own personal mystery of why I2b is so prominent in the lowlands of Scotland and Ulster and why I2a is as strong as it is in Iberia.

It also makes sense in regard to other predominantly I2 civilizations, as the Sardinian Nuragics too had megaliths and it would seem that this might be a common theme.

Anyway, I've done my research, compared results, spent a while thinking, and have some to this conclusion at last.

I still disagree with the notion that G2a was most prominent among the megalith builders, as it is not as prominent as I2 and certainly not prominent enough in samples west of the Rhone in my own opinion.

That said, I think I'll leave it here, admittedly embarrassed but still firm in my original rejection of the G2a hypothesis.

I'm at least glad that I learned as much as I did from putting my hypothesis forward and learning about all the evidence against it.

I'm glad you reached your own rational conclusions and was willing to rethink and improve on your previous ideas, with no fears to change them as you learned about new information and evidences. That's nice to read. ;-)

Lehwos
17-07-18, 07:54
You're mixing things up. You can't compare proportions calculated on the basis of ancient admixtures (in the case of that "Siberian man", a Paleolithic one from ~20-25 kya) with a Northwestern European admixture that is based on the genetic architecture of present-day people inhabiting Northwest Europe nowadays, in our contemporary era. Those are totally different things and are not necessarily directly correlated. Northwest European is the final outcome of thousands of years of admixture events, it's like an umbrella term that includes a bit of everything, including ANE-derived ancestry, and then underwent its own genetic drift, making it slightly distinctive in relation to other European admixtures. That "chronological mess" in your analysis is probably what's leading you to wrong impressions about this issue. You're deducing that a Northwest European admixture in the present-day sense, referring to the modern Europeans, already existed somewhere even thousands of years ago, but, no, probably no ancient population had an admixture even similar to that of Northwest Europeans now. This is like a "new race" if you wish. Northwest European in Neolithic and, even more strongly, in Mesolithic times would refer to a completely different population structure, which does not exist nowadays because it's been heavily diluted among other ancestries.

Indeed. I don't quite know what to call the less Asiatic among the Tatars (from Altaic migrations), so I just used the term "northwest European" as a broad way to refer to R1b peoples.

My main disagreement is that R1b is incredibly dense along the coast, and that the people to whom it belongs have not changed so drastically, as "northwest Europeans" or any group for that matter, have not evolved a whole lot recently.

Thus I would think that Britannia being 40% Neolithic farmer would be incredibly unlikely, if not impossible. There would be very little room whatsoever for other groups to exist which do exist in force in that region.

And on a phenotypic level, let us remember that light eyes are generally a recessive trait and to be 40% descending from a near 100% dark-eyed people would be nigh-impossible for a 70-80% light-eyed region.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 07:57
I'm glad you reached your own rational conclusions and was willing to rethink and improve on your previous ideas, with no fears to change them as you learned about new information and evidences. That's nice to read. ;-)

Yes, I'm only glad I came to see my error as early as I did. Hopefully I shall not make so large-scale of errors in the future.

nordicwarrior
17-07-18, 10:48
Lehwos I commend your ability to alter your line of thinking when presented with new facts.

Your initial questions take me back to a thread I started years ago titled "haplogroup bias"... if you have a few moments you should check it out. Interesting to see how much we have learned since the origin of that post thread. Also noteworthy-- how many things we were spot on about...

That being said, I've come to realize that over thinking genealogy isn't all that helpful. I read it in a book. In a good book.

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 20:34
My main disagreement is that R1b is incredibly dense along the coast, and that the people to whom it belongs have not changed so drastically, as "northwest Europeans" or any group for that matter, have not evolved a whole lot recently.

Thus I would think that Britannia being 40% Neolithic farmer would be incredibly unlikely, if not impossible. There would be very little room whatsoever for other groups to exist which do exist in force in that region.

And on a phenotypic level, let us remember that light eyes are generally a recessive trait and to be 40% descending from a near 100% dark-eyed people would be nigh-impossible for a 70-80% light-eyed region.

I still think you're mixing some things up. When genetic calculators estimate British to be ~40% EEF that does not mean that ~40% of their direct ancestors were pre-IE Neolithic farmers. It's a genetic admixture, not a coherent ethnic group per se. People's ethnicity and culture are not transmitted through it, especially if you consider how common female exogamy, conquest (assimilating the remnant population) and migration was back then. The Bell Beaker people who probably brought lighter hair/eye features and IE languages to Britain was already heavily admixed with EEF (even the Late PIE peoples in Yamnaya already had at least ~10% EEF-related ancestry, Bell Beaker had much more than that), so they themselves contributed to that ~40% EEF proportion, they didn't need to be non-IE Neolithic farmers to do that. Also, the Bell Beakers had a lot of EHG-derived ancestry that may have contributed to their graduall increasing rate of blondism. None of those factors depend on Neolithic Northwestern Europeans having mostly light eyes (well, they, the WHG, did, but their admixture became a definite minority by the mid/late Neolithic) and light hair unlike the EEF.

Also, on a phenotypic level, I think you're overlooking some details of this story. Lighter hair/eye are a combination of features that were not found in high frequency simply anywhere before the Late Neolithic/Copper Age era. This phenotype is the result of, firstly, a massive migration from people who already had a higher frequency of those traits (Central European BB), as well as a gradual but definite positive selection for those traits in Northern Europe in the last ~6000 years, and genetic drift.

We know that the pre-IE EEF (rich in haplogroups like G2a, T1a and I2) and even, in a tiny minority, their Anatolian Farmer (ANF) forebears did have those genes for blue eyes and blonde hair. Those genes just had to slowly but firmly rise in frequency along hundreds of generations. It's not that difficult. It'd be improbable (but not nigh impossible, because there has been later massive introgression into the local EEF population) if that people did not have those mutations to be selected for in the first place.

The first culture where light hair + light eye are predicted to have existed in high frequency was actually one that was mostly Early Europen Farmer (EEF) autosomally - that was Globular Amphora Culture -, so it's totally possible and even probable that a largely EEF population may have undergone strong positive selection (and maybe some random genetic drift too) for light eyes and light hair along the milennia.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 22:33
I still think you're mixing some things up. When genetic calculators estimate British to be ~40% EEF that does not mean that ~40% of their direct ancestors were pre-IE Neolithic farmers. It's a genetic admixture, not a coherent ethnic group per se. People's ethnicity and culture are not transmitted through it, especially if you consider how common female exogamy, conquest (assimilating the remnant population) and migration was back then. The Bell Beaker people who probably brought lighter hair/eye features and IE languages to Britain was already heavily admixed with EEF (even the Late PIE peoples in Yamnaya already had at least ~10% EEF-related ancestry, Bell Beaker had much more than that), so they themselves contributed to that ~40% EEF proportion, they didn't need to be non-IE Neolithic farmers to do that. Also, the Bell Beakers had a lot of EHG-derived ancestry that may have contributed to their graduall increasing rate of blondism. None of those factors depend on Neolithic Northwestern Europeans having mostly light eyes (well, they, the WHG, did, but their admixture became a definite minority by the mid/late Neolithic) and light hair unlike the EEF.

Also, on a phenotypic level, I think you're overlooking some details of this story. Lighter hair/eye are a combination of features that were not found in high frequency simply anywhere before the Late Neolithic/Copper Age era. This phenotype is the result of, firstly, a massive migration from people who already had a higher frequency of those traits (Central European BB), as well as a gradual but definite positive selection for those traits in Northern Europe in the last ~6000 years, and genetic drift.

We know that the pre-IE EEF (rich in haplogroups like G2a, T1a and I2) and even, in a tiny minority, their Anatolian Farmer (ANF) forebears did have those genes for blue eyes and blonde hair. Those genes just had to slowly but firmly rise in frequency along hundreds of generations. It's not that difficult. It'd be improbable (but not nigh impossible, because there has been later massive introgression into the local EEF population) if that people did not have those mutations to be selected for in the first place.

The first culture where light hair + light eye are predicted to have existed in high frequency was actually one that was mostly Early Europen Farmer (EEF) autosomally - that was Globular Amphora Culture -, so it's totally possible and even probable that a largely EEF population may have undergone strong positive selection (and maybe some random genetic drift too) for light eyes and light hair along the milennia.

"This map compares the genes of modern people to the DNA of a Central Siberian mammoth hunter (known as MA-1), who lived 24,000 years ago and belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R* and mtDNA haplogroup U*"

A hunter in Siberia with Y haplogroup R. I really don't think this is a prime example for EEF.

According to Eupedia maps of Scotland, that region has about:

~35% EEF
~25% ANE
~35% Atlantic
~60% Northwest European
~10% East European
~25% Mediterranean
~5% West Asian
~5% Gedrosian

For a grand total of 200%

So I'm guessing that there is a fair level of overlap.

And judging by the fact that R1b is about 60%, corresponding well to the high amount of West/Northwest European admixture, I again voice my doubt that all 40% of EEF is from non-northwestern sources.

I'm sorry, but after the thriving of the Atlantic Megalithic culture and after the influx of Bell Beakers, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the people of far off and isolated Scotland are ~40% related to the EEF.

And the source map itself admits to its own invalidity by the mention of its source sample alone.

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 22:41
"This map compares the genes of modern people to the DNA of a Central Siberian mammoth hunter (known as MA-1), who lived 24,000 years ago and belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R* and mtDNA haplogroup U*"

A hunter in Siberia with Y haplogroup R. I really don't think this is a prime example for EEF.

According to Eupedia maps of Scotland, that region has about:

~35% EEF
~25% ANE
~35% Atlantic
~60% Northwest European
~10% East European
~25% Mediterranean
~5% West Asian
~5% Gedrosian

For a grand total of 200%

So I'm guessing that there is a fair level of overlap.

And judging by the fact that R1b is about 60%, corresponding well to the high amount of West/Northwest European admixture, I again voice my doubt that all 40% of EEF is from non-northwestern sources.

I'm sorry, but after the thriving of the Atlantic Megalithic culture and after the influx of Bell Beakers, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the people of far off and isolated Scotland are ~40% related to the EEF.

And the source map itself admits to its own invalidity by the mention of its source sample alone.

What does a mammoth hunter in Siberia when haplogroup R1b didn't even exist yet has to do with EEF (or to any other population structure) more than 15000 years later? That "Siberian man" was related to ANE, not to EEF. I think you're again confused about the chronology under discussion here and about what EEF actually means. EEF was not "far off" from Scotland: it was mainly a mix of Anatolian-derived European farmers with Western/Central European hunter-gatherers. It's not a huge feat to settle in Britain when you're in Germany or France, really. As for Bell Beakers and the Atlantic Megalithic culture, well, it's totally likely that far off Scotland is ~40% EEF (again, EEF is a genetic admixture, not "the EEF" as if they were all just one coherent ethnic group) considering that Bell Beakers also had ~30-40% EEF admixture and the former Atlantic Megalithic culture probably had mostly EEF autosomally, considering the I2 samples found in Western Europe, all of them with a very high EEF proportion. What you're saying does not make sense, honestly.

Ygorcs
17-07-18, 22:54
According to Eupedia maps of Scotland, that region has about:

~35% EEF
~25% ANE
~35% Atlantic
~60% Northwest European
~10% East European
~25% Mediterranean
~5% West Asian
~5% Gedrosian

For a grand total of 200%

So I'm guessing that there is a fair level of overlap.

Of course there is. You just can't analyze any people's genetic admixtures conflating ANCIENT admixtures like EEF and ANE with MODERN admixtures like "West Asian" and "Northwest European". That's why the total is much more than 100%. All of those modern admixtures are themselves composed of several ancient admixtures, often including a bit of the same ones like ANF, EHG, CHG etc. If Bell Beakers were one admixture in one calculator they'd show up as, for example (just a hypothesis), "50% Bell Beaker", but that would hide the fact that the "BB admixture" itself is composed of earlier admixtures e.g. "35% EHG, 35% CHG, 30% EEF".

Lehwos
17-07-18, 23:37
What does a mammoth hunter in Siberia when haplogroup R1b didn't even exist yet has to do with EEF (or to any other population structure) more than 15000 years later? That "Siberian man" was related to ANE, not to EEF. I think you're again confused about the chronology under discussion here and about what EEF actually means. EEF was not "far off" from Scotland: it was mainly a mix of Anatolian-derived European farmers with Western/Central European hunter-gatherers. It's not a huge feat to settle in Britain when you're in Germany or France, really. As for Bell Beakers and the Atlantic Megalithic culture, well, it's totally likely that far off Scotland is ~40% EEF (again, EEF is a genetic admixture, not "the EEF" as if they were all just one coherent ethnic group) considering that Bell Beakers also had ~30-40% EEF admixture and the former Atlantic Megalithic culture probably had mostly EEF autosomally, considering the I2 samples found in Western Europe, all of them with a very high EEF proportion. What you're saying does not make sense, honestly.

The point is that the Siberian man bears haplogroup R. Scotland also bears haplogroup R. Whatever percentage of his ancestry is R, it's quite clear that he indeed DOES have ancestry in common with modern western Europeans.

Furthermore, why should we expect that a culture which left so very little behind could have had more of an effect on the gene pool of Scotland than those which gave us great megaliths and bronze weapons plenty? The EEF were clearly not as developed or populous as those who came later. Here we are attributing more than half of European admixture to them.

A man found in Siberia with the haplogroup R is being treated like a typical example of EEF. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 23:42
Of course there is. You just can't analyze any people's genetic admixtures conflating ANCIENT admixtures like EEF and ANE with MODERN admixtures like "West Asian" and "Northwest European". That's why the total is much more than 100%. All of those modern admixtures are themselves composed of several ancient admixtures, often including a bit of the same ones like ANF, EHG, CHG etc. If Bell Beakers were one admixture in one calculator they'd show up as, for example (just a hypothesis), "50% Bell Beaker", but that would hide the fact that the "BB admixture" itself is composed of earlier admixtures e.g. "35% EHG, 35% CHG, 30% EEF".

I see; that was rather confusing. But I do hold to everything else I said.

Lehwos
17-07-18, 23:46
Of course there is. You just can't analyze any people's genetic admixtures conflating ANCIENT admixtures like EEF and ANE with MODERN admixtures like "West Asian" and "Northwest European". That's why the total is much more than 100%. All of those modern admixtures are themselves composed of several ancient admixtures, often including a bit of the same ones like ANF, EHG, CHG etc. If Bell Beakers were one admixture in one calculator they'd show up as, for example (just a hypothesis), "50% Bell Beaker", but that would hide the fact that the "BB admixture" itself is composed of earlier admixtures e.g. "35% EHG, 35% CHG, 30% EEF".

Actually, I've just had a second look at the maps, and have curiously noticed this in Mesopotamia:
~>90% EEF
~15-20% ANE

So it seems to me that the Siberian Man has a certain amount of ANE admixture himself.

Lehwos
18-07-18, 00:25
Actually, I've just had a second look at the maps, and have curiously noticed this in Mesopotamia:
~>90% EEF
~15-20% ANE

So it seems to me that the Siberian Man has a certain amount of ANE admixture himself.

Oh shoot, my bad; I've gone and referenced the wrong group again. The entire reference to the Siberian man was actually me reading the wrong description for the wrong map, as the descriptions seem to be placed above rather than below the maps. Entirely my fault and I believe this has made everything above quite a confusing mess.

Rather, I meant to refer to the Stuttgart man of EEF, who supposedly belongs very strongly with modern Sicilians and Mesopotamians at >90%.

However, note again that these areas have a certain degree of similarity with ANE, at ~10% in Sicily, ~15% in Mesopotamia, and ~20% in Kurdistan and Iran.

The second two should be impossible were ANE and EEF to be mutually exclusive and not overlapping in any way. Thus I repeat again that there must be some overlap.

Ygorcs
18-07-18, 00:54
The point is that the Siberian man bears haplogroup R. Scotland also bears haplogroup R. Whatever percentage of his ancestry is R, it's quite clear that he indeed DOES have ancestry in common with modern western Europeans.

Furthermore, why should we expect that a culture which left so very little behind could have had more of an effect on the gene pool of Scotland than those which gave us great megaliths and bronze weapons plenty? The EEF were clearly not as developed or populous as those who came later. Here we are attributing more than half of European admixture to them.

A man found in Siberia with the haplogroup R is being treated like a typical example of EEF. That is absolutely ridiculous.

No, he is not. He is considered a typical example of ANE. Nobody, not even amateur fans of genetics, thinks that. Also, the EEF-rich populations were clearly the most developed Neolithic people in Europe during their own time - and the populations that came later and were more developed and populous than them were also partially descended, in large percentages, from the earlier EEF. And it wasn't the culture of a Paleolithic ANE-rich Siberian hunter that left a big impact on the gene pool of Scotland - but the fact is still that the bronze-wielding populations of the Bronze Age that colonized simply had a significant ANE-like ancestry in their autosomal DNA, so that genetic impact was totally indirect, but nonetheless considerable.

You're clearly very confused about the chronology of European/West Eurasian genetic history and the whole subject of ancient population genetics, because what you're saying is either nonsense, or simply untrue. No problem about that, it's just that you seem to lack some basic knowledge on these issues so you end up being unable to devise correct conclusions about more complex knowledge. I'd again suggest you to read the fundamental genetic studies in the topic indicated above by Angela.

Ygorcs
18-07-18, 01:03
Oh shoot, my bad; I've gone and referenced the wrong group again. The entire reference to the Siberian man was actually me reading the wrong description for the wrong map, as the descriptions seem to be placed above rather than below the maps. Entirely my fault and I believe this has made everything above quite a confusing mess.

Rather, I meant to refer to the Stuttgart man of EEF, who supposedly belongs very strongly with modern Sicilians and Mesopotamians at >90%.

However, note again that these areas have a certain degree of similarity with ANE, at ~10% in Sicily, ~15% in Mesopotamia, and ~20% in Kurdistan and Iran.

The second two should be impossible were ANE and EEF to be mutually exclusive and not overlapping in any way. Thus I repeat again that there must be some overlap.

Yes, there is probably some really small overlap between ANE and EEF, especially if you keep in mind that ANE is a Paleolithic admixture from ~20000-25000 years ago, while EEF is the admixture resulting from a mainly ANF+WHG mixing dating to only ~8000 years ago. EEF and ANE are not directly comparable to each other because they have more than 10,000 years of population movements separating them. If you want to understand the Neolithic European genetic makeup, you should compare EEF with its roughly contemporary admixtures, like for example Iran Neolithic, Eastern Hunter-Gatherer, Levantine Neolithic or Steppe Neolithic.

Lehwos
18-07-18, 03:22
Yes, there is probably some really small overlap between ANE and EEF, especially if you keep in mind that ANE is a Paleolithic admixture from ~20000-25000 years ago, while EEF is the admixture resulting from a mainly ANF+WHG mixing dating to only ~8000 years ago. EEF and ANE are not directly comparable to each other because they have more than 10,000 years of population movements separating them. If you want to understand the Neolithic European genetic makeup, you should compare EEF with its roughly contemporary admixtures, like for example Iran Neolithic, Eastern Hunter-Gatherer, Levantine Neolithic or Steppe Neolithic.

Really small overlap? I've never heard of a people with 120% total admixture before, so I'd have to assume it'd be more than "really small."

I will admit to not being overly knowledgeable on the matter of autosomal DNA, as you can see, but I must say that I see it as quite plain that there is indeed quite a considerable amount of overlap here.

I will sum up the people of Kurdistan as the map displays them:
~95% EEF
~20% ANE
~<5% EHG
~<5% others

How could this be physically possible if there was not a good degree of overlap?

Edit: I originally accidentally showed EHG and others to be >5% rather than <5%.

davef
18-07-18, 03:33
Where did you get "Kurds are 95 % EEF" from?

Lehwos
18-07-18, 03:47
Where did you get "Kurds are 95 % EEF" from?

From this map from the website.

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Neolithic_farmer_admixture.png

The article is here: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml

Ygorcs
18-07-18, 05:30
Really small overlap? I've never heard of a people with 120% total admixture before, so I'd have to assume it'd be more than "really small."

I will admit to not being overly knowledgeable on the matter of autosomal DNA, as you can see, but I must say that I see it as quite plain that there is indeed quite a considerable amount of overlap here.

I will sum up the people of Kurdistan as the map displays them:
~95% EEF
~20% ANE
~<5% EHG
~<5% others

How could this be physically possible if there was not a good degree of overlap?

Edit: I originally accidentally showed EHG and others to be >5% rather than <5%.

We can't take those numbers as precise and objective truth. They are general guidelines, but everything may change if you just take into account other ancient admixture, too. That ~90% EEF and ~25% ANE may in fact be an overestimation due to the lack of a more proximate, closer source of ancestral admixture in that population. For example, if the calculator didn't have a West Asian-like source of ancestry that was not EEF (e.g. CHG, Neolithic Iranian/Zagros, Neolithic Levantine etc.), the bits of other West Asian-like admixtures can be assigned to EEF because that's the admixture that despite everything is still most similar to it. When you don't have all the best proxies to estimate the ancestral makeup of a population, that kind of thing can happen easily, because the calculator will try to find the best result according to the options you provided. With all the well known presence of CHG, Iranian_Neo and Levant_Neo influence in modern Mesopotamian populations, I doubt very much they are 90%+ EEF. Those maps must've taken into account just a few basic admixtures representing starkly different ancient population clusters (e.g. one from West Asia, other from Europe, other from North Asia), so EEF could be better understood as "broadly native to Neolithic West Asia".

Lehwos
18-07-18, 05:57
We can't take those numbers as precise and objective truth. They are general guidelines, but everything may change if you just take into account other ancient admixture, too. That ~90% EEF and ~25% ANE may in fact be an overestimation due to the lack of a more proximate, closer source of ancestral admixture in that population. For example, if the calculator didn't have a West Asian-like source of ancestry that was not EEF (e.g. CHG, Neolithic Iranian/Zagros, Neolithic Levantine etc.), the bits of other West Asian-like admixtures can be assigned to EEF because that's the admixture that despite everything is still most similar to it. When you don't have all the best proxies to estimate the ancestral makeup of a population, that kind of thing can happen easily, because the calculator will try to find the best result according to the options you provided. With all the well known presence of CHG, Iranian_Neo and Levant_Neo influence in modern Mesopotamian populations, I doubt very much they are 90%+ EEF. Those maps must've taken into account just a few basic admixtures representing starkly different ancient population clusters (e.g. one from West Asia, other from Europe, other from North Asia), so EEF could be better understood as "broadly native to Neolithic West Asia".

It shouldn't matter regardless.

Whatever we call the group they labeled as EEF, it was still >90% in that region.

If, as you say, there is no overlap, then it would still be impossible for there to also be 20-25% ANE admixture.

I think it's pretty safe to say that they found a sample which had some ANE ancestry alongside some EEF ancestry. It's a far simpler explanation, it follows mathematical sense, and it seems completely reasonable that there should be some overlap, especially when we consider that the Stuttgart man comes from, well, Stuttgart - right south of the point of spread of the Bell Beakers.

Aaron1981
18-07-18, 17:54
I've read before on this website of how the Atlantic Megalithic cultures of Europe were of the Caucasian Y-haplogroup G2a. This is ridiculous. This haplogroup has a minor presence in Iberia and a tiny presence in Britannia in modern day. The "real" R1b Europeans some speak of must have been experts on total genocide, because it seems that's what they would have had to carry out to so thoroughly replace the "real" Megalithic peoples. And to claim that Caucasus Neolithics were the majority of a developed culture spanning from Scotland to Iberia because of ONE mtdna sample from Brittany is absolutely absurd.

The two subclades R1b-DF27 and R1b-L21 are almost exclusively strong in former Megalithic lands, especially along the coast. They are closely related to one another and the borders of their influence almost perfectly match those of the old Megalithic civilization. Are we really to give most of the credit of these civilizations to G2a, whose influence lies strongly only in the highlands of Iberia and only weakly in the highlands of Wales? Really? Cultures change and so do gene pools, but such a thorough genocide of so populous an old a civilization, as the current leading hypothesis suggests happened, is completely unheard of.

Edit: I have since done a fair few hours of research and have come to the realization that I have been rather foolishly mistaken. To my mind, it seemed that there were only two possibilities on the issue: that G2a was dominant or that R1b was. I have since discovered that it is much more likely than either that I2 was dominant, with G2a beside it. That this was the case quite easily explains why so much I2b is present in Ulster and the Lowlands of Scotland, and it does provide a consistent theme between Atlantic and Nuragic peoples, both of whom loved their megaliths.

Anyway, I think I'll leave this post at that. It was made in frustration after reading claims that G2a was surely the dominant haplogroup among the megalith builders, and I had been under the impression that far fewer studies had been made as actually were and that I only had the two possibilities before me. With that said, I can only hope it doesn't cause too much trouble in the future.

What's frustrating is how you arrived at this conclusion without evidence.
Based on the EVIDENCE, the Mediterranean Neolithic was spread initially by G2a, followed by local adaptation of European I2 men. R1b-V88 may have been restricted to central Europe and the Balkans.

Also, don't lump in nuraghics with the practice of erecting dolmens. Maybe castles should fall into this same grouping? /sarcasm off The nuraghic practice in Sardinia is quite late and already involved metalworking and the central European Bell Beaker was already in full spread. Those men are candidates for R1b.

If we're strictly talking of the early European farmers, they were G2a based on evidence, and local I2 men adapted these practices. R1b-V88 does fit in somehow but appears to be a little more complex.

Aaron1981
18-07-18, 18:24
So I've done some looking, and I've found that the finding at Saint-Jean-et-Saint-Paul of G2a individuals is one of the strongest sources for the concept of G2a and the megaliths. This is interesting to me because this seems to fall within the borderland of influence between Atlantic Megalithic and Cardium Pottery, which was undoubtably G2a in the north. Was this perhaps why there seems to be some hesitancy on making firm conclusions about the Megalithic people - because this was a bit of a debatable area?

I'm not going to use this as an excuse to dismiss claims against the original point of this post, but I would like to know others' opinions if they have them.

Were there to be some equal-sized finding deep within the Atlantic Megalithic sphere of influence, I would have to make a more major reconsideration, and if such a thing exists, I'd like to know of it, if anyone is willing to share information.

People have given you several papers to read and tried to guide you in the right direction, but your refusal to accept new information has left you ignorant. Within the last two years a paper came out on the Iberian Neolithic and its spread to Britain, this is a good candidate for the spread of your "Atlantic Megalithism". (unfortunately I don't recall the authors, but I'm certain it can be easily sourced) It demonstrated that the earliest stages of the Iberian Neolithic were G2a on the male side, and they absorbed local WHG (European hunter gatherer) admixture over time. During the middle and later stages, the YDNA was predominantly I2 (M223, M26, M423..etc). During this period of local adaptation, they spread northwards into France and Britain. Why did local male lines die out? (A good question I am also seeking to know as well)As you can see, most French and all British neolithic males are I2 derived.

In terms of M269+, represented by 99% of European R1b males, it is not found until the post-Neolithic period in west-central Europe. Prior periods show R1b-L754, V88, and M269-, and are largely confined to central or eastern Europe.

EDIT: Word of advice, don't compare anything to ANE. He's not really that relevant from an admixture point of view. We still don't have all the puzzle pieces on how he impacted modern populations (if at all). He has some similarity to Siberians, Native Americans, and the EHG group.

Lehwos
18-07-18, 18:31
What's frustrating is how you arrived at this conclusion without evidence.
Based on the EVIDENCE, the Mediterranean Neolithic was spread initially by G2a, followed by local adaptation of European I2 men. R1b-V88 may have been restricted to central Europe and the Balkans.

Also, don't lump in nuraghics with the practice of erecting dolmens. Maybe castles should fall into this same grouping? /sarcasm off The nuraghic practice in Sardinia is quite late and already involved metalworking and the central European Bell Beaker was already in full spread. Those men are candidates for R1b.

If we're strictly talking of the early European farmers, they were G2a based on evidence, and local I2 men adapted these practices. R1b-V88 does fit in somehow but appears to be a little more complex.

I reached my conclusion after reading a Eupedia article saying there was no G2a found from the Megalithic Culture. Yes, it was foolish of me to rush head in, but from seeing this I assumed we hadn't found very much at all. After all, why would they make such a claim if they admit to no evidence? Of course there is evidence, but I took what I read as full truth and went with that.

Lehwos
18-07-18, 18:38
People have given you several papers to read and tried to guide you in the right direction, but your refusal to accept new information has left you ignorant. Within the last two years a paper came out on the Iberian Neolithic and its spread to Britain, this is a good candidate for the spread of your "Atlantic Megalithism". (unfortunately I don't recall the authors, but I'm certain it can be easily sourced) It demonstrated that the earliest stages of the Iberian Neolithic were G2a on the male side, and they absorbed local WHG (European hunter gatherer) admixture over time. During the middle and later stages, the YDNA was predominantly I2 (M223, M26, M423..etc). During this period of local adaptation, they spread northwards into France and Britain. Why did local male lines die out? (A good question I am also seeking to know as well)As you can see, most French and all British neolithic males are I2 derived.

In terms of M269+, represented by 99% of European R1b males, it is not found until the post-Neolithic period in west-central Europe. Prior periods show R1b-L754, V88, and M269-, and are largely confined to central or eastern Europe.

What in the world are you talking about? I'm well aware now that I2 and G2a were predominant, with the former moreso than the latter. Also, no, I was not granted papers but rather guides towards potential sources, which I took gratefully. I was shown to a post which claimed to have valid results, and I just wanted to know where it came from. We'd be foolish if we accepted everything handed to us with no questions. Doesn't mean I thought there were any falsehoods, but rather that I wanted to know the context of the find, as you can never have too much of that.

Aaron1981
18-07-18, 18:38
I reached my conclusion after reading a Eupedia article saying there was no G2a found from the Megalithic Culture. Yes, it was foolish of me to rush head in, but from seeing this I assumed we hadn't found very much at all. After all, why would they make such a claim if they admit to no evidence? Of course there is evidence, but I took what I read as full truth and went with that.

In 2018, we still don't have an answer why G2a levels dropped so drastically though. This appears to be the case in LBK, but also apparently in the Iberian Neolithic with a reflux of local I2 lineages. The mtDNA shows continuity.

Pygmalion
18-07-18, 19:10
BB is linked with megalithism in Majorca, Sardinia, and Basque Country.......
No, in Sardinia the megaliths predate the arrival of Bell beakers by several centuries, the first dolmen and menhir date to at least 3300 bc whereas beaker pottery doesn't appear in Sardinia before 2100 bc
Dolmen at Luras 3500-2700 bc
https://www.sardegnaturismo.it/sites/default/files/styles/larghezza_contenitore/public/galleria/luras_dolmen_bilella_arturo_serra.jpg?itok=ThZG_Zj _
Menhir at Villa Sant'Antionio 3200-2850 bc
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Menhir_Monte_Corru_Tundu_Sardinia.png
Monte Baranta 2700 bc
http://www.comune.olmedo.ss.it/galleria/foto/1302902275copia_di_partic._m.baranta3.jpg
http://www.sardegnadies.it/wp-content/gallery/olmedo/MonteBarantaEvento3.jpg
The menhirs at Sorgono date back to 3300 bc
http://www.sardegnasoprattutto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/800px-sardinien_goni_pranu_muttedu_menhir-reihe.jpg
Sa Covecada, 2900 bc
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/5091688.jpg

Angela
18-07-18, 20:40
Some people just aren't ready for primetime. People should have enough sense not to go posting theories when they haven't educated themselves, and that means READING THE APPROPRIATE papers.

Even after all the requests, I don't see any indication that's been done.

Continuing to engage arguments of that calibre might wind up confusing newbies into thinking there's some intellectual worth to them.

I strongly suggest that such posts be ignored.

Moi-même
18-07-18, 20:49
In 2018, we still don't have an answer why G2a levels dropped so drastically though. This appears to be the case in LBK, but also apparently in the Iberian Neolithic with a reflux of local I2 lineages. The mtDNA shows continuity.

My take would be men are more dependent of their fathers' lifestyle and women more dependent of their husbands' lifestyle. Let take a bloodless, monogamous, consensual sex, without epidemics, without competition for land scenario, as family friendly as it could have been.

Weather get bad in Europe, a village of 100 families of farmers barely manage to keep their number from one generation to the next, with an average of 1 son and 1 daughter per family. Pushed by the same bad weathers, 10 families of herders come by and find some poor land farmers didn't find suitable for their crops. They settle there, the farmer welcome these new neighbors, on who they could rely on in times of need. To seal their new friendship, all the herders daughters and sons and to marry farmer kids. The herders' live stock fare well and they manage to have on average 2 sons and 2 daughters. For then on, herders and farmers will only marry between themselves.

At first generation we have:
100 farmer families and 10 herder families

On second generation we have:
100 farmer families and 20 herder families

On third generation we have:
100 farmer families and 40 herder families

On fourth generation we have:
100 farmer families and 80 herder families

On fifth generation we have:
100 farmer families and 160 herder families

On sixth generation we have:
100 farmer families and 320 herder families

On seventh generation we have:
100 farmer families and 640 herder families

After 150 years, the weather finally get better, farmers now have 1,5 son and 1,5 daughter on average. On the farmer's end they now have crowded the best land for livestock and can only get 1,5 son and 1,5 daughter on average. Their numbers will now rise together. Herders' Y-DNA moved from a small 9% minority to a 86% majority. Farmers' Y-DNA passed from 91% to 14% even though their number stay the same for 150 years. On the mt-DNA side, since the first generation of herders marry exclusively farmer girls, all their descendants have farmers' mt-DNA. Also, most of 90% of the original families of farmers had farmers' mt-DNA, so 86% + 12% = 98% of this population is now farmers and only 2% are herders.

It took 6 generations with this family friendly model, but add epidemics, land competition, polygamy, negative population growth, massacres and you can get the same result in a one to three generations.

I would guess the R1b men's lifestyle was more successful at first and gave them an advantage early on which the locals could only equal after a few generations. That difference wasn't as significant when they entered Southern Europe, maybe the climate wasn't to their advantage or the local population was too dense and the new comers couldn't catch up their numbers.

Lehwos
18-07-18, 21:23
Some people just aren't ready for primetime. People should have enough sense not to go posting theories when they haven't educated themselves, and that means READING THE APPROPRIATE papers.

Even after all the requests, I don't see any indication that's been done.

Continuing to engage arguments of that calibre might wind up confusing newbies into thinking there's some intellectual worth to them.

I strongly suggest that such posts be ignored.

Honestly I didn't want or believe I would get nearly as much attention as I have on this post. If anything, I put it here to test myself on these sort of matters, and I have learned a good deal from it. I'll be sure to better vent my ideas in the future.

However, I would like to remind you again that this thread was created after reading this:

"Most of these regions (except central Europe) were already somehwat linked to each others as members of the Megalithic culture, which evolved from the Early Neolithic cultures. Although no Megalithic Y-DNA has been tested yet, Megalithic mtDNA from Brittany is a typical blend of Mesolithic (U5b) and Neolithic (K1a, N1a, X2) lineages, in direct continuity of the Cardium Pottery and Linear Pottery cultures. Consequently, Megalithic people were predominantly G2a people, with minorities of I2a1a, E1b1b and perhaps also J or T."

found here: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/spain_portugal_dna.shtml

The site claimed that no Y-DNA was tested, and yet claims that G2a was dominant, which I found to be ridiculous, were they to be telling the truth.

Ironically, I made this thread originally because I found what I thought was to be a claim with no evidence.

Angela
18-07-18, 21:33
The questions have been asked and answered. Nothing remains but to read and COMPREHEND the papers.

The thread is now closed.