Stevo,
I have to give you a lot of credit for posting those two theories. Bravo!
If I understand you correctly, you believe either:
(1) The theory on I-M26.blogspot.com could apply to the megaliths found in Sardinia, Spain, Portugal, France and England but likely not in Scandinavia.
(2) Alternatively, I1b2 could be a Vandal marker.
(3) The theory there is wrong.
I think those are all potentially valid and make sense. A few notes though:
As for (1): I see a high concentration of I1b2 in NorthEast Germany. Even a quick search of STR data confirms that. It doesn't take a genius to know Sweden and NE Germany invaded each other often during the post-Renaissance era, so that could explain the presence of I1b2 in Sweden.
BUT, you realize this doesn't detract from that blog's theory. There are lots of megaliths in... Northeast Germany. Very few in Sweden. The theory does not claim to be perfect or explain all areas (read what Mr or Mrs Gatto posted on Corsica and Malta, for example).
I guess what I am trying to say is, even if that blog just has posted a good explanation linking the megalith builders of Ireland and England (and other areas, but not Scandinavia as you raise) to those of Spain and Portugal, isn't that by itself extraordinary? I was pretty impressed.
As for (2) A great possibility too. The version of the web page I saw had a bit about the Vandals on it. But it appears to have been taken down. Not sure why, but it could be the supposed "age" of the markers, or the time of most recent common ancestors. It says something about that on the Norman and Visgoth parts, something about the different areas showing MRCA a long time ago.
As for (3) - I should not that blog refutes just about everything I have posted here, or elsewhere. I have always been a proponent of the theory that I1b2 just tracked R1b.
It was humbling to read that blog, but I have to be honest with myself and all of you, that theory there makes a lot of sense. I always swore I would never be one of those scientists who clings to MY theories because they are MINE. What makes us differ from everyone else is our application of facts to theories. Basically, those theories, though they contrast everything I have stood for, make a lot of sense, and I have to admit that.
Finally, one more note on (1). I went back and re-read the Rootsi paper, and it clearly notes that I1b2 likely played a role, albeit minimal, in the colonization of Scandinavia...
I have to give you a lot of credit for posting those two theories. Bravo!
If I understand you correctly, you believe either:
(1) The theory on I-M26.blogspot.com could apply to the megaliths found in Sardinia, Spain, Portugal, France and England but likely not in Scandinavia.
(2) Alternatively, I1b2 could be a Vandal marker.
(3) The theory there is wrong.
I think those are all potentially valid and make sense. A few notes though:
As for (1): I see a high concentration of I1b2 in NorthEast Germany. Even a quick search of STR data confirms that. It doesn't take a genius to know Sweden and NE Germany invaded each other often during the post-Renaissance era, so that could explain the presence of I1b2 in Sweden.
BUT, you realize this doesn't detract from that blog's theory. There are lots of megaliths in... Northeast Germany. Very few in Sweden. The theory does not claim to be perfect or explain all areas (read what Mr or Mrs Gatto posted on Corsica and Malta, for example).
I guess what I am trying to say is, even if that blog just has posted a good explanation linking the megalith builders of Ireland and England (and other areas, but not Scandinavia as you raise) to those of Spain and Portugal, isn't that by itself extraordinary? I was pretty impressed.
As for (2) A great possibility too. The version of the web page I saw had a bit about the Vandals on it. But it appears to have been taken down. Not sure why, but it could be the supposed "age" of the markers, or the time of most recent common ancestors. It says something about that on the Norman and Visgoth parts, something about the different areas showing MRCA a long time ago.
As for (3) - I should not that blog refutes just about everything I have posted here, or elsewhere. I have always been a proponent of the theory that I1b2 just tracked R1b.
It was humbling to read that blog, but I have to be honest with myself and all of you, that theory there makes a lot of sense. I always swore I would never be one of those scientists who clings to MY theories because they are MINE. What makes us differ from everyone else is our application of facts to theories. Basically, those theories, though they contrast everything I have stood for, make a lot of sense, and I have to admit that.
Finally, one more note on (1). I went back and re-read the Rootsi paper, and it clearly notes that I1b2 likely played a role, albeit minimal, in the colonization of Scandinavia...
Comment