GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-06 > 1180898756


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Megalith Builders
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <REME20070603140258@alum.mit.edu>


John:

I think you are right on the mark. It makes about as
much sense to attribute R1b=megalith builders or any
other haplogroup as it does to attribute R1b to centum
IE language origins in Europe.

For those interested in the subject of the megaliths,
a book that is expansive on the subject is Alex
Gibsons, "Stonehenge and Timber Circles," 2005. He is
a writer for Current Archaeology and is a Reader in
British Prehistory at the University of Bradford.

For those who don't have access to this book (or funds
to purchase it), Bradford dates the timber megaliths
to approximately 3000 BC, unlike the earlier long
barrows and causewayed enclosures, which date to the
earlier Neolithic period. He connects their origins
to the first farmers of Britain, who began to arrive
approximately one thousand years earlier. He presents
abundant archaeological data supporting the mechanics
of at least some migration of peoples into the British
Isles, though be also supports the idea of some local
adoption; nor does he asserts a large scale violent
invasion scenario. The rapidity with which farming
was adopted suggested migration of people bringing new
tools, architectural styles, fully developed ceramics,
dairying and mixed agriculture. He believes, to a
certain (unknown) extent, the Mesolithic
hunter-gatherers adopted this new economic base.

Shortly after this time period, the earlier long
barrows and causewayed enclosures were largely
abandoned in favor of more elaborate burial customs
and more formalized enclosures. They become
associated with a distinctive pottery styles -
Peterborough Ware, and later the Bell Beaker pottery
package.

The book is good reading if you are interested in the
archaeological information available on the British
Isles during this time period and in the building of
ritualized monuments like Stonehenge. However, the
picture of this time in history is quite complex and
attempting to simplify it by attaching a singular
genetic group to the creation of monuments like
Stonehenge not only ignores the complexity of that
evidence, but presents a genetic scenario that is not
supported by any type of scientific data (at least
that I am aware of).


Ellen Coffman




____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
that gives answers, not web links.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

This thread: