The Atlantic Megalith cultures were R1b.

[Lehwos]

The Atlantic Megalith cultures were R1b. (Revised)

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

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

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

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

(Post-Edit)

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

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

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

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

 

[MOESAN]

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

 

[Lehwos]

Maybe you have some new clues?

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

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

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

 

[Angela]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lehwos]

I know that Germany is beyond the bounds of the Atlantic Megalithic culture, but that it is present there in the Chalcolithic is promising to me.

 

[Lehwos]

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

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

 

[Ygorcs]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lehwos]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Angela]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Angela]

Berun, one of our members, posted the ancient dna results for Megalithic samples in a dedicated thread:

"

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

[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD]Portugal_LN/Chalco[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="width: 694"]I2a1b x2, G2a2, I2a1a1a1b[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]SE_Iberia_Chalco[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]I x2, CF[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Central_Iberia_Chalco[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]I2, I2a2(a) x9, G2a2 (x2), I x2, I2a1a1a[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]UK_Neo[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]I2a2(a1) x10, I2a1b(1) x12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]France_MLN[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]I2a1b x2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Remedello[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]I x3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]GAC[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]I2a2(a1b) x8, I, I2, BT, CT[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


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

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

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

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

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

 

[Elizabeth60]

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

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

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

 

[Ygorcs]

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

 

[Ygorcs]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lehwos]

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

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

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

 

[Lehwos]

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

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

 

[Lehwos]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ygorcs]

Believe it or not, but women tend to not miraculously fly about the world on their own, and they tend to accompany men of their own kin group/origins.

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

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

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

 

[Ygorcs]

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

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

 

[Lehwos]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lehwos]

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

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

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

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

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

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