You Have to Visit This Site

[YCCHgI]

here's a intriguing site that develops a theory i have never heard before. of interest to all of us with european origins.

I-M26.blogspot.com

[Stevo]

Interesting blog, to say the least.

Just a comment. The map on the blog's home page seems a bit misleading to me. The Rootsi, et al, report on haplogroup I that is linked from there speaks of "the virtual absence in Scandinavia" of haplogroup I1b, yet southern Sweden is shaded in orange as if I1b2 were well represented there.

The I1b2 map in Figure 1 (Map F) of the Rootsi, et al paper seems to me to unravel the mystery. It shows I1b2 focused on Sardinia and the western Mediterranean, spreading to the west into the Pyrenees (Basque country) and the rest of Spain, to the northwest into the British Isles, and to the south into the north African littoral.

Rootsi postulates a place of origin for I1b2 as the Iberian peninsula or southern France, which makes a great deal of sense given what Map F shows.

[Rossi]

Other locations.

Interesting blog, to say the least.

Just a comment. The map on the blog's home page seems a bit misleading to me. The Rootsi, et al, report on haplogroup I that is linked from there speaks of "the virtual absence in Scandinavia" of haplogroup I1b, yet southern Sweden is shaded in orange as if I1b2 were well represented there.

The I1b2 map in Figure 1 (Map F) of the Rootsi, et al paper seems to me to unravel the mystery. It shows I1b2 focused on Sardinia and the western Mediterranean, spreading to the west into the Pyrenees (Basque country) and the rest of Spain, to the northwest into the British Isles, and to the south into the north African littoral.

Rootsi postulates a place of origin for I1b2 as the Iberian peninsula or southern France, which makes a great deal of sense given what Map F shows.

There are many other locations of Megaliths, such as North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean area that do not correspond to what is purported to be the only areas of distribution of this haplogroup.

[Stevo]

There are many other locations of Megaliths, such as North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean area that do not correspond to what is purported to be the only areas of distribution of this haplogroup.

There are different types of megalithic cultures, as well, and I seriously doubt they can all be attributed to any single haplogroup.

Piling up big stones (when they were available) was probably an idea that occurred to more than one kind of people.

[Stevo]

It is interesting to note that the archaeological evidence associates the Brit and Iberian megaliths with a short, swarthy, dolichocephalic (longheaded) people, apparently pre-Indo-European. The Scandinavian megaliths are associated with what is called the Northern European Megalithic culture. Its skeletal remains are thought of as Nordic: tall, predominately dolichocephalic to mesocephalic (see Owen, Francis, The Germanic People: Their Expansion & Culture; Barnes and Noble Books, reprint 1993 [1960], pp. 26-41).

There are also considerable differences between the Iberian and Brit megaliths and the Northern European megaliths.

It makes some sense to tie the west Mediterranean and British Isle megaliths to the I1b2s, perhaps, but not at all for the Northern European ones.

[NormanGalway]

"Brit" is northern Europe...

Stevo,

I am inclined to agree with you that megalithic culture is unlikely to be the product of a single haplogroup.

However,

1) physical traits are determined by autosomal DNA. Your "short, swarthy" comment is therefore entirely misplaced... if you are trying to suggest that I1b2 is linked to those features.
2) I1B2 is not only found in southern Sweden, but also Orkney, Denmark and Germany. It is indigenous to Northern Europe, and is found in low concentrations virtually everywhere that it is found -- except Sardinia, possibly because of the "founder effect."
3) Remember that I1B2 is a subclade of I (specifically, I1B) as is I1a.

For some reason, there is a tendency on these boards on the part of some to try to hang discredited 19th century racial theories on specific haplogroups. This is fallacious for a number of reasons, not least of which is the discovery that ethnic groups are composed of a number of haplogroups. And yes, that includes Scandinavians, as every genetic study shows. Like every other European people, they are a mix.

I am not accusing you of using racialist theories inappropriately, by the way. But your skull shape comment is out of place.

[Stevo]

Stevo,

I am inclined to agree with you that megalithic culture is unlikely to be the product of a single haplogroup.

However,

1) physical traits are determined by autosomal DNA. Your "short, swarthy" comment is therefore entirely misplaced... if you are trying to suggest that I1b2 is linked to those features.
2) I1B2 is not only found in southern Sweden, but also Orkney, Denmark and Germany. It is indigenous to Northern Europe, and is found in low concentrations virtually everywhere that it is found -- except Sardinia, possibly because of the "founder effect."
3) Remember that I1B2 is a subclade of I (specifically, I1B) as is I1a.

For some reason, there is a tendency on these boards on the part of some to try to hang discredited 19th century racial theories on specific haplogroups. This is fallacious for a number of reasons, not least of which is the discovery that ethnic groups are composed of a number of haplogroups. And yes, that includes Scandinavians, as every genetic study shows. Like every other European people, they are a mix.

I am not accusing you of using racialist theories inappropriately, by the way. But your skull shape comment is out of place.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I was commenting on the theory expounded on the blog to which the OP directs us. In terms of stone age skeletons and haplogroups, physical traits may indeed be important clues. Stone age cultures tended in many cases to be associated with a particular, identifiable physical type, and it is a fact that the megalithic people of Iberia and Britain were short, dark white, and long skulled. To what haplogroup or groups they belonged, however, is anyone's guess. If that blogger's theory is correct, then they were I1b2s, at least to some extent.

It is also true that the skeletons found associated with the Northern European Megalithic culture were tall, and dolichocephalic to mesocephalic. To what haplogroups did they belong? I don't know, but later inhabitants of the same area tend to be I1a, R1b, and R1a mostly.

Modern humans are of course an incredible jumble. One could I1b2 and look like just about anything, which is true of every other haplogroup.

[NormanGalway]

I1b2=I

The issue, for me, is this:

As y-chromosomes, I1b and I1b2 are closer genetically to I1a (and vice versa) than any of them are to (for example) R1b or R1a. They are all, by definition, part of I. This is an obvious point that barely needs making, but it has a clear implication:

When talking about stone age populations, which were more isolated and even bottlenecked (a la Sardinia) than in today's world, to try to split a group like I into distinct physical types by subclade leads to the fallacy that, for instance, a "tall" R1b and a "tall" I1a have more in common, y-chromosome wise, than a "tall" I1a with a "short" I1b2. They don't. The I-subclades are more closely related (literally, in the sense of having common ancestors more recently in the past).

What I find interesting about the blog linked above is the emphasis on coasts/islands, which is striking.

[Stevo]

The issue, for me, is this:

As y-chromosomes, I1b and I1b2 are closer genetically to I1a (and vice versa) than any of them are to (for example) R1b or R1a. They are all, by definition, part of I. This is an obvious point that barely needs making, but it has a clear implication:

When talking about stone age populations, which were more isolated and even bottlenecked (a la Sardinia) than in today's world, to try to split a group like I into distinct physical types by subclade leads to the fallacy that, for instance, a "tall" R1b and a "tall" I1a have more in common, y-chromosome wise, than a "tall" I1a with a "short" I1b2. They don't. The I-subclades are more closely related (literally, in the sense of having common ancestors more recently in the past).

What I find interesting about the blog linked above is the emphasis on coasts/islands, which is striking.

You have a point, to be sure, but in terms of the theory of the blogger whose site is the subject of the OP, physical anthropology is significant. The skeletal remains associated with the megalithic cultures of the western Mediterranean, Iberia, and Britain are of the short, dolichocephalic type I mentioned. If he is right, then either his I1b2 mariners were short and long skulled or there was already an indigneous short-statured, long-skulled population upon which they had little impact, except to leave Y-chromosomes.

While it is true that all Is will have more in common, y-chromosome wise, with each other than with R1bs or R1as, members of a population whose males are predominantly of I1as, R1bs, and R1as, will have more in common with other members of that same population genetically and physically than they will with Is of a different subclade and broader population. In other words, a person who descends from a population whose males are I1a, R1b, and R1a might look differently and have a different skeleton than someone who descends from a group that was solely I1b2 or whose males were, say, I1b2, R1b, E3b, and J2.

Until they find a way to extract DNA from old bones, we may never know the haplogroups of the British and Iberian megalith builders.

By the way, I have no hapolgroup axe to grind. I don't even know my own haplogroup yet. I only just submitted my Y-DNA 37 test kit last week. I probably won't see any results until the end of May, if that soon. The wait is already killing me!

[NormanGalway]

his is just a theory

a creative one, and an interesting blog.

But as I said before, it is fanciful to try to assign a specific physical "type" to a subclade such as I1b2, which is found from Sweden to Sardinia, then or now.

If you would like to post any genetic study that links skull shape or height to I1b2 (or any other haplogroup), I am all ears.

His blog is about a haplogroup that is extremely rare -- it constitutes hardly more than a few % of the population most places it is found. So even if, for example, the population of Briton was "short and swarthy," it does not follow that a relative handful of "megalithic mariners" (his term) are, too. He is not talking about the majority population -- whatever that was. For example, take a look at R1b, which dominates Spain and Ireland (among other countries) -- yet is also found in Scandinavia.

The whole concept of "indigenous" is problemantic over the span of thousands of years. What is the cutoff point? How many millenia does it take?

[YCCHgI]

Good input, all.

Stevo - unfortunately, you fell into the common practice of refuting an explanation, yet not offering one of your own.

The most striking feature of the theory on that blog - whether the conclusion is wrong or not - is that scientists MUST come up with an explanation on why I1b2 is so randomly distributed, and along coastal cities mostly (and islands) WHEREAS most other haplogroups like R1b and R1a are distributed pretty evenly from the point of origin.

If you don't buy the theory on that blog, how do you explain that Stevo?

[YCCHgI]

Three more nits:

the shading explanation on the blog states in cases of overlap of SNP and STR shading, the SNP won out. I have heard of other I1b2s in Sweden, so I am sure there were more than just the study to which Stevo refers!

Secondly, where did you get your data that certain peoples living 40,000 years ago were "swarthy?" Did they find a skeleton with hair and not tell the rest of us?

Third, in defense of the blog, I don't think it tries to bust a Thor Heyerdahl and connect the megaliths of the New World (easter island, etc.) with those in Europe.

When I saw the overlays on all those maps - it was pretty compelling. Was this just me? Those are some pretty exact overlays...

[Stevo]

a creative one, and an interesting blog.

But as I said before, it is fanciful to try to assign a specific physical "type" to a subclade such as I1b2, which is found from Sweden to Sardinia, then or now.

If you would like to post any genetic study that links skull shape or height to I1b2 (or any other haplogroup), I am all ears.

His blog is about a haplogroup that is extremely rare -- it constitutes hardly more than a few % of the population most places it is found. So even if, for example, the population of Briton was "short and swarthy," it does not follow that a relative handful of "megalithic mariners" (his term) are, too. He is not talking about the majority population -- whatever that was. For example, take a look at R1b, which dominates Spain and Ireland (among other countries) -- yet is also found in Scandinavia.

The whole concept of "indigenous" is problemantic over the span of thousands of years. What is the cutoff point? How many millenia does it take?

You all say I1b2 is found in Sweden, but that is not what the Rootsi study says. I read that other thread (I forget the title) that discussed that issue. One I1b2 was found in a 168-person sample, and that in a modern country - Sweden - teeming with immigrants. Hardly compelling statistical evidence of an ancient - even Stone Age - I1b2 presence there. The Rootsi, et al study says I1b2 is "virtually absent" in Scandinavia. Did you read that study? Take a look at Map F in Figure 1 of Rootsi, et al. I1b2 is concentrated in the western Mediterranean, the Iberian Peninsula, and the Pyrenees, with some spread into the British Isles.

I do not need to post a genetic study that links haplogroup to height and skull length when the blog to which the OP refers links a haplogroup - I1b2 - to the builders of the British megaliths. The skeletal remains associated with those megaliths are short in stature and long skulled (dolichocephalic). His own theory ties I1b2 to the physical antropology of the megalith builders via logical inference. The same is true of the megalith builders of the western Mediterranean: short in stature and dolichocephalic. They seem to be the same physcial type as the megalith builders of Britain. Either those I1b2 megalith builders were short in stature and had long skulls, or they are not represented among the people buried in some of them.

There is always the distinct possibility that the theory of that blog is wrong, that I1b2s were not responsible for the megaliths of the western Mediterranean and Britain. The megaliths in Scandinavia are of a different type, as are the skeletal remains associated with them. That and the fact that there is no statistically meaningful I1b2 presence in Scandinavia refute at least part of that blog's theory - the Swedish part.

[Stevo]

Good input, all.

Stevo - unfortunately, you fell into the common practice of refuting an explanation, yet not offering one of your own.

The most striking feature of the theory on that blog - whether the conclusion is wrong or not - is that scientists MUST come up with an explanation on why I1b2 is so randomly distributed, and along coastal cities mostly (and islands) WHEREAS most other haplogroups like R1b and R1a are distributed pretty evenly from the point of origin.

If you don't buy the theory on that blog, how do you explain that Stevo?

YCCHgI - The burden of proof is on the one proposing a theory. It is not necessary for those critiquing it to offer full-blown explanations of their own. They are not proposing solutions; they are offering critiques of one. They can remain agnostic on the issue.

My own opinion is that that blogger - Mr. Gatto - may be right about the megalith builders of the western Mediterranean (including Iberia) and Britain but is wrong about those of Scandinavia, for the reasons I have already given.

According to Rootsi, et al, a study cited and lauded on Mr. Gatto's blog, I1b2s are not so "randomly distributed," not in any statistically meaningful sense anyway. A glance at Map F in Figure 1 of the Rootsi, et al study makes that pretty clear: I1b2 is focused on Sardinia, the western Mediterranean, the Pyrenees, and the Iberian Peninsula, with some spread to the north into the British Isles and some to the south into the North African littoral.

It seems to me that either the Rootsi study was seriously flawed or that Mr. Gatto is wrong when he tries to extend his I1b2 mariners out beyond the British Isles.

Do you have some genetic studies to refute Rootsi, et al? Are there studies that show a statistically meaningful presence of I1b2s outside the areas indicated by Rootsi?

[Stevo]

An Alternative

YCCHgI -

Since you asked for an alternative explanation, I will offer you one, even though it is not necessary to do so when critiquing a theory.

Mind you, I don't really believe the theory I am about to offer, but it is interesting to consider.

Assuming for a minute that the single I1b2 found in that 168-person Swedish sample was a not a statistical fluke (or the evidence of the amours of some Sardinian immigrant or visitor), then perhaps the Vandals are a better explanation of the I1b2 pattern than the megalith builders are.

The Vandals originated in the Wendel (or Vendel) district of Sweden. If they left Sweden en masse during the Voelkerwanderung of the 3rd through the 6th centuries A.D., that would explain their relative statistical absence in Scandinavia and their presence elsewhere.

It is fairly well known that the Vandals invaded all of the areas (except Britain) shown on Map F of Figure 1 of the Rootsi, et al, study, including Sardinia. The British presence could be explained by positing the presence of individual Vandals among the Gefolge (comitatus) of the Anglo-Saxon chiefs who invaded England. How they got to Ireland (with Cromwell?) is another matter, but not an insoluble one, I suppose.

The Visigoths are not good candidates in my opinion, since, as far as I know, they did not control Sardinia, as the Vandals did.

Were the I1b2s really Vandals?

Hmmm . . . maybe.