Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You Have to Visit This Site

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by YCCHgI
    A note on statistics

    The people making much ado about a 1/168 figure for Sweden must think Gallup calls all Americans when it does a presidential poll.

    Look again at the Rootsie paper. While they have larger samples for SOME lands (and by larger, not much), the sample size for this study, and most others in the world of science and DNA is quite small.

    1/168 is a figure the authors must have viewed as valid, or they would not have published it. Presumably if the sample size were doubled, we'd have two.
    Of course they published their 1/168 finding for I1b2. That is why Rootsi, et al, said that there is an "extremely low frequency of I1b2 in the Scandinavian peninsula" (p.7).

    One I1b2 out of a sample of 168 persons is just not statistically meaningful, except perhaps to establish that there are not very many I1b2s in Scandinavia - which is basically what Rootsi, et al, concluded (and what most people would conclude from looking at Rootsi's stats).

    Originally posted by YCCHgI
    I cannot believe anyone should need to defend the notion of SAMPLING in scientific studies.
    No one is attacking the notion of sampling. In fact, we are defending it.

    When such sampling finds only one of a certain kind in a sample of 168, that is an "extremely low frequency," just like Rootsi, et al, says.

    When one claims that a group of I1b2 mariners settled in southern Sweden and is responsible for the megaliths found there, the burden of proof is on him to provide evidence for that claim.

    As far as I can see, there is no such evidence.

    The case is stronger for the western Mediterranean and Britain. In fact, it is somewhat compelling for those areas.

    Originally posted by YCCHgI
    Oh, and by the way: there is STR data for Swedish I1b2. Try SMGF.org or YHRD.org.
    How much? Enough to be statistically signigicant?

    What accounts for the modern presence of I1b2s in Sweden? Are they found out in rural areas among the long-standing native population or in places like Stockholm that are teeming with immigrants and visitors?

    Why did Rootsi, et al, say that I1b2 occurs in "extremely low frequency" in Scandinavia if what you say is true?

    Originally posted by YCCHgI
    Now a note on the spread of megalithic culture

    Stevo, if you buy the link between Iberia/Sardinia and the British Isles, you should buy it for all or at least most of Europe.
    I've already told you why I do not buy it for Sweden and North Germany.

    1) There is not enough I1b2 in Scandinavia and North Germany to support Mr. Gatto's theory concerning those areas.

    2) The megaliths of Scandinavia and North Germany are of a different type from those of the western Mediterranean and Britain.

    3) The skeletal remains associated with the megaliths of Scandinavia and North Germany are different from those associated with the megaliths of the western Mediterranean and Britain.

    4) The grave goods associated with the megaliths of Scandinavia and North Germany are different from those associated with the megaliths of the western Mediterranean and Britain.

    Conclusion: One set of people built the megaliths of Scandinavia and North Germany. Another and different set built the megaliths of the western Mediterranean and Britain.

    Originally posted by YCCHgI
    What I found absolutely compelling about that web site - what made me do a complete 180 on my personal views - is the fact that I1b2 is found in Baden Baden Germany near the megalithic sites. (Baden Baden is extreme South West Germany, so your stuff on the northerly sites likely wouldn't apply).

    And - the fact that I1b2 is found in Belgium, again near megalithic sites, and Normandy, etc.
    I do not know enough about the megaliths in Baden Baden to comment on them.

    From what I saw in Rootsi, et al, there is no really significant I1b2 presence there either. If you have some evidence that shows otherwise, it would be interesting to hear about it.

    Originally posted by YCCHgI
    Now on to your comments about the extreme northern sites:

    The way I see it, this theory is similar to the theories on J2 and farming or N3 and the Uralic languages. The idea of a demic diffusion of Neolithic farmers originating in the Near East has been widely accepted.

    Yet the further you get from the Near East, you have

    -different farming techniques

    -different grace goods

    -different skeletal morphology

    -smaller frequency of J2.

    I ask you in all seriousness, wouldn't that at least be POSSIBLE for the spread of I1b2 also? After all, the numbers of I1b2 are SO small everywhere, and no one really knows why the megaliths were built.

    My little brain has all kinds of possibilities, and I am sure you all can think of more: Everything from a proseletyzing religion to traveling druidlike bards to elite dominance to a rise in maritime culture to astrology to a fear of invasion to copycats.

    The only thing necessary under any theory of why perhaps CONTACT. And as we know, humans being humans, with contact you will have some gene flow. Cue the cheasy 70s music!
    While that is possible, there is no hard evidence to indicate that Gatto's I1b2 mariners were responsible for the megaliths in Scandinavia and North Germany.

    Personally, I don't think they made it to Scandinavia.

    Just the same, I think Mr. Gatto is a bright guy who is to be commended for coming up with the notion that I1b2s were responsible for the megaliths of the westerm Mediterranean and Britain. I think he may really have something there, something that further study may confirm.

    What I know about genetics would fill a thimble (maybe). But I do know a little about history, archaeology, and anthropology. The megaliths of Scandinavia and North Germany - and those who built them - are different from the megaliths - and those who built them - in the western Mediterranean and Britain.

    My impression of haplogroup I is that it spread from a Balkans Urheimat to the north into Scandinavia, where it is represented mostly by the various kinds of I1a, and to the west, into the western Mediterranean and Britain, where it is represented by I1b2. In its original homeland and in Eastern Europe, it is mostly represented by the East European type of I1b. According to Rootsi, et al, both I1b2 and I1b are rarely found in Scandinavia, I1b2 at an "extremely low frequency" (p.7) and I1b in a state of "virtual absence" there (p.2).

    Leave a comment:


  • YCCHgI
    replied
    A note on statistics

    The people making much ado about a 1/168 figure for Sweden must think Gallup calls all Americans when it does a presidential poll.

    Look again at the Rootsie paper. While they have larger samples for SOME lands (and by larger, not much), the sample size for this study, and most others in the world of science and DNA is quite small.

    1/168 is a figure the authors must have viewed as valid, or they would not have published it. Presumably if the sample size were doubled, we'd have two.

    I cannot believe anyone should need to defend the notion of SAMPLING in scientific studies.

    Oh, and by the way: there is STR data for Swedish I1b2. Try SMGF.org or YHRD.org.

    Now a note on the spread of megalithic culture

    Stevo, if you buy the link between Iberia/Sardinia and the British Isles, you should buy it for all or at least most of Europe.

    What I found absolutely compelling about that web site - what made me do a complete 180 on my personal views - is the fact that I1b2 is found in Baden Baden Germany near the megalithic sites. (Baden Baden is extreme South West Germany, so your stuff on the northerly sites likely wouldn't apply).

    And - the fact that I1b2 is found in Belgium, again near megalithic sites, and Normandy, etc.

    Now on to your comments about the extreme northern sites:

    The way I see it, this theory is similar to the theories on J2 and farming or N3 and the Uralic languages. The idea of a demic diffusion of Neolithic farmers originating in the Near East has been widely accepted.

    Yet the further you get from the Near East, you have

    -different farming techniques

    -different grace goods

    -different skeletal morphology

    -smaller frequency of J2.

    I ask you in all seriousness, wouldn't that at least be POSSIBLE for the spread of I1b2 also? After all, the numbers of I1b2 are SO small everywhere, and no one really knows why the megaliths were built.

    My little brain has all kinds of possibilities, and I am sure you all can think of more: Everything from a proseletyzing religion to traveling druidlike bards to elite dominance to a rise in maritime culture to astrology to a fear of invasion to copycats.

    The only thing necessary under any theory of why perhaps CONTACT. And as we know, humans being humans, with contact you will have some gene flow. Cue the cheasy 70s music!
    Last edited by YCCHgI; 9 April 2006, 09:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by NormanGalway
    that I1b2 is not found in Sweden, or if it is, it is an "immigrant" or statistical anomaly.

    I personally could care less if I1b2 is found in Sweden. But what bugs me -- in fact, what I find inexplicable -- is the repeated tendency of some to try to "explain away" facts from scientific papers with their own pet theories for no reason that i can discern.
    I don't think it is necessary to "explain away" one I1b2 in a 168-person Swedish sample.

    It is not statistically significant and that is all there is to it.

    Originally posted by NormanGalway
    For the record, Rootsi's study was about haplogroup I, which I1b2 is a part of. He (they) found an individual in southern Sweden. He noted this fact in the study.
    From that the researchers concluded that I1b2 is found in "extremely low frequency in the Scandinavian peninsula" (p.7).

    The only reason it is necessary to emphasize that fact is because Mr. Gatto's theory has I1b2 mariners settling southern Sweden. And Mr. Gatto's theory is what this thread is about.

    1) There isn't enough I1b2 in Scandinavia to support Mr. Gatto's theory.

    2) The megaliths of Scandinavia and North Germany are of a different type from those of the western Mediterranean and Britain.

    3) The skeletal remains associated with the megaliths of Scandinavia and North Germany are different from those associated with the megaliths of the western Mediterranean and Britain.

    4) The grave goods of the megalith builders of Scandinavia and North Germany are different from those of the megalith builders of the western Mediterranean and Britain.

    Conclusion: The people who built the megaliths in Scandinavia and North Germany were not the same people who built the megaliths of the western Mediterranean and Britain.

    In other words, Mr. Gatto is wrong about Scandinavia and North Germany.

    Originally posted by NormanGalway
    Other studies (cf Capelli) have found I1b2 in Orkney (hardly a hotspot of Mediterranean migration) and coastal areas of England and Ireland that -- again -- are hardly modern crossroads for Sardinians.

    This is Northwestern Europe. Capelli notes that I1b2 is found in areas of England that are NOT associated with recent influxes -- eg, that the population there is ancient (paleolithic). If you're interested, you can read the relevant paper on the FTDNA site.
    There are megaliths on Orkney (passage graves and the like) similar to the megaliths of nearby Britain and of the western Mediterranean, right?

    It isn't much of a stretch to imagine the megalith builders of Britain making their way to Orkney.

    But that isn't Scandinavia.

    Originally posted by NormanGalway
    In addition, I1b2's are found in Denmark, Germany, southern Sweden, and yes, Norway. I know this because the relevant individuals are in the FTDNA database, but have chosen not to make their names public through ysearch.
    Okay, but Rootsi, et al, does not support that.

    Are they found in sufficient numbers to be statistically signifcant?

    Originally posted by NormanGalway
    I personally have not had a deep clade test, so it hardly matters to me whether anyone wants to believe this. I am agnostic. However, these are not Sardinian immigrants.
    I did not argue that the one I1b2 Rootsi, et al, found in Sweden is the descendant of a Sardinian immigrant. I mentioned the possibility in passing simply because, with only one such person found, any explanation is as plausible as another.

    Originally posted by NormanGalway
    I personally have no theory and no idea why I1b2 is spread like a thin layer of jam from Orkney to Sardinia. Even in Basque country (french or spanish), I1b2 is in single digits (%-wise)! As it is in Britain and Normandy.
    I don't either. I just don't think Mr. Gatto is right when he extends his mariners out beyond the British Isles.

    Not enough evidence that a statistically meaningful number of I1b2s ever got that far.

    Originally posted by NormanGalway
    I find the Vandal, Norman, and Visigoth theories interesting, but I hardly have enough evidence to believe any of them.
    Me either.

    Originally posted by NormanGalway
    The megalithic thing is interesting to me chiefly because Sardinia is riddled with megaliths, and clearly the people who lived there dearly loved to build them for whatever reason.

    the "Mariner" idea seems beyond dispute to me because how else could these I1b2's settle so many coasts and islands?

    There is a deeper point here which I am trying to make -- instead of desperately trying to explain away the presence of an unusual subclade in minute quantities, why not use its presence as a "marker" for something we do not yet understand, or have enough evidence to understand?

    I1b2 could be an interesting marker for paleolithic (or later) settlement patterns by some of Europe's oldest people.

    I suspect that time and further studies will make this clear. In the meantime, I would not jump to any conclusions about how long I1b2 has been in Scandinavia.
    Given the present evidence, I think Gatto may be right about the western Mediterranean and Britain.

    Based on that evidence, he is wrong about Scandinavia, however.
    Last edited by Stevo; 9 April 2006, 07:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • YCCHgI
    replied
    Wefpam,

    I'm pretty sure the blog/web site refers only to the M26 marker, which USED to be called I1b2 and if one searches the web and reads all the scholarly articles, that is the term they use, so the term I use.

    The new charts, as you indicate, call M26 I1b1.

    I don't think anyone has tried to connect diverse markers (e.g. M26 and 223), just track the spread of M26.

    I know it's confusing.

    To Normangalway,

    I was most definitely not implying that YOUR posts indicated a lean one way or another in regards to Scandinavia. Quite the opposite (hope it didn't come out wrong).

    I agree wholeheartedly that the Orkneys, S. Sweden and the Baltic Coast of North East Germany are hardly the hotspots for Sardinian immigration!

    As for the extreme N Germans, there are many many examples in STR databases of I1b2 people with origins there, and their STR data is so different from Sardinians and Spaniards' that they could not have been recently related.

    That's precisely why this web site impressed me so, despite the fact that it goes against everything I have ever posted which is a bit humbling.

    The only explanation, it seems to me, is a migration deep in prehistory and not modern. However, it must have come from a time where people had boats good enough to get from places like Sardinia, which is not visible from the European shore and England and Ireland, etc.

    So I think your post was well-reasoned. Mariner must be undisputed, as the grouping is so clearly along coastal regions, with few exceptions.

    In conclusion, these people, whoever they were, must have set sail long enough ago for their other STR data to diversify over time.

    The time frame, trusting the web site, matches with the time frame when megaliths were built.

    The megalith map clearly matches the spread of the hg.

    The migration was pre-ethnic and pre-national, and the inhabitants of the lands they found, if any, were likely descendants of Paleolithic Euros.

    These people then went on to become PART of the "foundation" bloodlines of their new countries
    - i.e., Romans/Italici in Italy, Scandinavians in Scandinavia and Britons in England. The mixes in each, were, of course, different. (E3b, J2 in Italy, other clades of I in Scandinavia and R1b in Britain, for example).
    Last edited by YCCHgI; 9 April 2006, 12:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • wefpam
    replied
    YCCHGI, I think I have seen the blog idea on T.V. I think it may have been on a program about Stonehenge. On the new charts their seems to be a real gap between I1b1s and I1b2. One has M-26 and the other has M-223. Could this be too deep a divide for a close Briton/Norse relationship?

    Leave a comment:


  • NormanGalway
    replied
    this is an interesting, and to me, inexplicable idea...

    that I1b2 is not found in Sweden, or if it is, it is an "immigrant" or statistical anomaly.

    I personally could care less if I1b2 is found in Sweden. But what bugs me -- in fact, what I find inexplicable -- is the repeated tendency of some to try to "explain away" facts from scientific papers with their own pet theories for no reason that i can discern.

    For the record, Rootsi's study was about haplogroup I, which I1b2 is a part of. He (they) found an individual in southern Sweden. He noted this fact in the study.

    Other studies (cf Capelli) have found I1b2 in Orkney (hardly a hotspot of Mediterranean migration) and coastal areas of England and Ireland that -- again -- are hardly modern crossroads for Sardinians.

    This is Northwestern Europe. Capelli notes that I1b2 is found in areas of England that are NOT associated with recent influxes -- eg, that the population there is ancient (paleolithic). If you're interested, you can read the relevant paper on the FTDNA site.

    In addition, I1b2's are found in Denmark, Germany, southern Sweden, and yes, Norway. I know this because the relevant individuals are in the FTDNA database, but have chosen not to make their names public through ysearch.

    I personally have not had a deep clade test, so it hardly matters to me whether anyone wants to believe this. I am agnostic. However, these are not Sardinian immigrants.

    I personally have no theory and no idea why I1b2 is spread like a thin layer of jam from Orkney to Sardinia. Even in Basque country (french or spanish), I1b2 is in single digits (%-wise)! As it is in Britain and Normandy.

    I find the Vandal, Norman, and Visigoth theories interesting, but I hardly have enough evidence to believe any of them.

    The megalithic thing is interesting to me chiefly because Sardinia is riddled with megaliths, and clearly the people who lived there dearly loved to build them for whatever reason.

    the "Mariner" idea seems beyond dispute to me because how else could these I1b2's settle so many coasts and islands?

    There is a deeper point here which I am trying to make -- instead of desperately trying to explain away the presence of an unusual subclade in minute quantities, why not use its presence as a "marker" for something we do not yet understand, or have enough evidence to understand?

    I1b2 could be an interesting marker for paleolithic (or later) settlement patterns by some of Europe's oldest people.

    I suspect that time and further studies will make this clear. In the meantime, I would not jump to any conclusions about how long I1b2 has been in Scandinavia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gene'sGenes
    Guest replied
    A Newbie's Question.

    So let me see if I have this correct.

    The dominent viewpoint on many web sites and listservs is that:

    (1) The original farmers in Near East mostly bore J2

    (2) The horse domesticaters in Eastern Europe mostly bore R1a

    (3) The Uralic speakers of the far north mostly bore N

    (4) The Aurignacs / Cro-Magnons mostly bore R1b

    (5) The domesticaters of rice in the Orient mostly bore O3

    And that mapping the genes shows this?

    Is there now the possebility to add:

    (6) The megalithic builders mostly bore I1b2?

    It seems thats what the maps show.

    Leave a comment:


  • YCCHgI
    replied
    One More Thought

    With all this focus on Sweden, one may think that certain posters have a Viking fetish!

    It's come to obscure what I think are pretty amazing things on that site: namely that other regions:

    Canary Islands, Baden Baden Germany, Portugal, Certain Counties in Britain, Ireland, Spain, Sardinia, Latium Italy, The Orkney Islands, Belgium, Hamburg Germany, Normandy France, Sicily, etc.

    are the only areas in the world with an I1b2 presence.

    And ALL of the above are where megaliths exist.

    Let's not focus too much on Sweden! Those other locales are pretty impressive set of coinky-dinkies....

    Leave a comment:


  • YCCHgI
    replied
    Hi Mike,

    It was not my intent to mislead anyone by leaving out the word extremely. As I wrote, I emphasized certain things and summarized others.

    Lest anyone take her quote about "extremely low frequency" to mean anything else than the SECOND clause (or conclusion) of that sentence (that M26 played a role in the colonization), I paraphrased so the meaning was clear.

    If you look in the paper, which we all have access to, it is a very long, run-on sentence, with the grammar typical of a science publication.

    Whether she said extremely low frequency or low frequency, the her point remains how I characterized it: that the presence is there, and it played a minor role in colonization of Sweden...

    Her use of modifiers (extremely) and (minor) are just so no one gets the wrong idea.

    My apologies if my blurb had the opposite effect!

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    You left out a word

    [QUOTE=YCCHgI]Stevo - The phrasing is on page 7 of Rootsi's paper. It's confusing, because she wrote M26 instead of I1b2. I'll quote, but I will emphasize:

    "The ... low frequency of I1b2 in the Scandinavian peninsula [where I1a is the norm] suggests IN ADDITION that the ancestral Western European population(S) CHARACTERIZED BY THE M26 MUTATION probably played a minor role in the colonization of that region."[QUOTE]

    I've been a lurker on this thread and am finding the discussion of the blogspot theory fascinating. I have no stake in any of the competing theories. I'm of Sicilian descent, so my ethnicity has nothing to do with the theories being discussed here, and I'm R1b1c, so I have no personal interest in any of the I haplogroups.

    I do find Stevo's postings here about the "extremely low frequency" of I1b2 in Sweden compelling. This concerns both his citing the general conclusions of the Rootsi study and the fact that only 1 out of 168 people in the study was found to be I1b2. You quote above from Rootsi's study to say that the study actually supports your interpretation of the question of I1b2 in Sweden, rather than Stevo's. So, enjoying a good debate, I decided to look at the study for the full quote, since you left out a word or words - see above, "The ... low frequency."

    It turns out that the word you decided to leave out was "extremely." So what the full quote actually says is that "The extremely low frequency of I1b2 in the Scandinavian peninsula", etc. I think that gives more support to Stevo on this than you.

    I understand how people just want certain things to be true about their own haplogroup or ethnic group, but we have to go by some sort of scientific method. As Steve does, I think the blog you cited has a very interesting and possibly correct theory about the megalithic builders and their connection to a maritime society that spanned Sardinia, France, Spain and England. But I don't think it's the case that you can extend that theory to Sweden.

    Mike Maddi

    Leave a comment:


  • YCCHgI
    replied
    Sterlingnote - great post. I've often wondered the same thing. It will be interesting to get the definitive idea of who was ancestral to whom, but I think you are on the right track.

    Stevo - The phrasing is on page 7 of Rootsi's paper. It's confusing, because she wrote M26 instead of I1b2. I'll quote, but I will emphasize:

    "The ... low frequency of I1b2 in the Scandinavian peninsula [where I1a is the norm] suggests IN ADDITION that the ancestral Western European population(S) CHARACTERIZED BY THE M26 MUTATION probably played a minor role in the colonization of that region."

    I take this to mean (1) that I1b2 is VERY small in Scandinavia, but still present; (2) Rootsi thought I1b2 and R1b are inextricably linked (see her comments on them weathering the LGM together) and that (3) just like we KNOW R1b (e.g. the ancestral, Paleolithic Euro population) played a role in colonizing Scandinavia, that (4) M26 or I1b2 also did.

    In sum, it was the theory I favored before reading that blog that is the subject of this thread. I used to call it the "Motorcycle and Sidecar" analogy. Stated quite simply, its that I1b2 is found in small numbers bc it is a small clade. It weathered the LGM in Iberia with R1b, then the surviving group that spread out bore similar ratios and settled Western Europe.

    The one hole in my theory is Sardinia - how could a pop. that was, say 95% R1b and 5% I1b2 become 40% I1b2 in Sardinia?

    Incidentally, it is doubtful Rootsi, et. al. tested migrant families - they always control for those things (bloodgivers need to show 400+ years of history in a region). These are bright scientists, remember....

    Leave a comment:


  • sterlingnotes
    replied
    I1b2a (a.k.a. I1c) decendents of I1b2

    I find it interesting that I1c was recently reclassified as I1b2a which is a decendant of an I1b2 somewhere along the line, and they are found in the UK, Germany, and Scandinavia.

    What if instead of the common assumption that the I1c got to the UK from Scandinavian viking invasions, they actually spread from the UK to Scandinavia and Germany. It looks like I1b2 was already a sea going Haplogroup... I don't think it's much of a stretch to think their decendants (I1c) were to become the Vikings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by YCCHgI
    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...
    YCCHgI -

    I read Rootsi, et al, and it does not say I1b2 played a role in the settlement of Scandinavia. On the contrary, the paper reports on the "extremely low frequency of I1b2 in the Scandinavian peninsula" (p.7) and the "virtual absence" of I1b there (p.2).

    Where are you finding reports of any statistically relevant presence of I1b2s in northeast Germany?

    The megaliths in northern Germany are part of the Northern European Megalithic Culture and differ significantly from the megaliths of the western Mediterranean and Britain. The skeletal remains associated with them are also very different from those in the western Mediterranean and Britain, as are the artifacts (e.g., pottery, etc.). The folks responsible for the megaliths in northern Germany were not the same people who built the megaltihs in the western Mediterranean and Britain.

    I think Mr. Gatto might have something when it comes to the western Med and Britain but is dead wrong on Scandinavia and northern Germany.

    I offered the Vandal theory as a possibility. I think there are big problems with it (like little evidence I1b2s were ever in Scandinavia), but it is a possibility. The fact that the Vandals controlled Sardinia and used it as a base to raid Italy by sea could be significant, since Sardinia has the heaviest concentration of I1b2s anywhere. There is also a corresponding I1b2 population in the central and western North African littoral, which was also controlled by the Vandals.

    If the Vandals left Vendel in Sweden en masse - the way the Angles left Angeln in southern Denmark to invade what became England (Angle-land) - that would explain the "extremely low frequency of I1b2 in the Scandinavian peninsula" (Rootsi, p. 7) and its presence in places settled by the Vandals, like Sardinia, Spain, and North Africa.

    Intriguing possibility . . .
    Last edited by Stevo; 8 April 2006, 02:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Check out the routes of the Vandals on the map here (click on the map to enlarge it): http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_histo...s/image13.html . Compare it to Map F in Figure 1 of the Rootsi, et al, study.

    Check out this map: http://www.ku.edu/kansas/medieval/10...justinian.html . It shows the Vandal Kingdom, which included - significantly, I think - Sardinia.

    Leave a comment:


  • YCCHgI
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X