Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 83

Thread: The Atlantic Megalith cultures were R1b.

  1. #26
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-18
    Posts
    52
    Points
    211
    Level
    2
    Points: 211, Level: 2
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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.

  2. #27
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lehwos View Post
    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.

  3. #28
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,522
    Points
    290,596
    Level
    100
    Points: 290,596, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    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/thread...alithic-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/ancie...pean_dna.shtml

    • Neolithic Greece (c. 9,000 to 5,200 ybp): G2a2a1b
    • Starčevo–Kőrös–Criş Culture (c. 8,000 to 6,500 ybp ; Southeast Europe): F (x2), G2, G2a (x5), G2a2b (x2), H2, I, I2a, I2a1
    • Linear Pottery Culture (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 (7000 to 5400 ybp ; Central Europe): E1b1b-M78, I2a, J2
    • Cardium Pottery Culture (c. 8,400 to 4,700 ybp ; Mediterranean Europe): E1b1b-V13, G2a (x3), I2a1b1, R1b1c-V88
    • Atlantic Megalithic Culture (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 (aka TRB, c. 6,000 to 4,700 ybp ; Northern Europe):


    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/thread...ghlight=Olalde

    What more do you want?


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  4. #29
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-18
    Posts
    52
    Points
    211
    Level
    2
    Points: 211, Level: 2
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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.

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-18
    Posts
    52
    Points
    211
    Level
    2
    Points: 211, Level: 2
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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.

  6. #31
    Princess Achievements:
    Overdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteranThree Friends
    davef's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-06-16
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,228
    Points
    11,543
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,543, Level: 32
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 407
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian,Irish,Jewish
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Lehwos View Post
    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.
    mmmmmmmmm dooouuughhhnuuuutz

  7. #32
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-18
    Posts
    52
    Points
    211
    Level
    2
    Points: 211, Level: 2
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    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.

  8. #33
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,522
    Points
    290,596
    Level
    100
    Points: 290,596, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Lehwos View Post
    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.

  9. #34
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,522
    Points
    290,596
    Level
    100
    Points: 290,596, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    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.


  10. #35
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Lehwos View Post
    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!

  11. #36
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Lehwos View Post
    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.

  12. #37
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-18
    Posts
    52
    Points
    211
    Level
    2
    Points: 211, Level: 2
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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.

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-18
    Posts
    52
    Points
    211
    Level
    2
    Points: 211, Level: 2
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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.

  14. #39
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-18
    Posts
    52
    Points
    211
    Level
    2
    Points: 211, Level: 2
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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.)

  15. #40
    Princess Achievements:
    Overdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteranThree Friends
    davef's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-06-16
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,228
    Points
    11,543
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,543, Level: 32
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 407
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italian,Irish,Jewish
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Lehwos View Post
    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.

  16. #41
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,119
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    missing is neolithic Bulgaria
    Varna culture belongs to the late Chalcolithic of northeastern Bulgaria
    Starcevo is also Cris Culture
    with

    .
    mathieson 2017 paper

    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  17. #42
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-18
    Posts
    52
    Points
    211
    Level
    2
    Points: 211, Level: 2
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    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.

  18. #43
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-18
    Posts
    52
    Points
    211
    Level
    2
    Points: 211, Level: 2
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    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.

  19. #44
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Lehwos View Post
    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.

  20. #45
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lehwos View Post
    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).

  21. #46
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Lehwos View Post
    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.

  22. #47
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Lehwos View Post
    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.

  23. #48
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-18
    Posts
    52
    Points
    211
    Level
    2
    Points: 211, Level: 2
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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.

  24. #49
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,727
    Points
    26,994
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,994, Level: 50
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 556
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Lehwos View Post
    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.

  25. #50
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-18
    Posts
    52
    Points
    211
    Level
    2
    Points: 211, Level: 2
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •