The Atlantic Megalith cultures were R1b.

[Lehwos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Where did you get "Kurds are 95 % EEF" from?

[Lehwos]

Where did you get "Kurds are 95 % EEF" from?

From this map from the website.



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

[Ygorcs]

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]

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]

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]

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.