Dozens of women want Bronze Age hunter's babies

[Drooperdoo]

Why don't you guys read?

I said in my post that Oetzi was not "Italian," nor did I call him Austrian. I said that he was a prehistoric "Alpine" man, whose ancestors seem to be north of the alps not south. The haplogroups he had are still common in Austria, but not so much so among Italian populations.

Go re-read my post. Sheesh!

P.S.--Crimson Guard, regarding the Etruscans, check out this link: In Conclusion, the geneticists wrote: "Etruscans differ in two aspects [from modern Italians]: they show closer relationships both to North Africans and to Turks than any contemporary population. In particular, the Turkish component in their gene pool appears three times as large as in the other populations. These admixture estimates are not to be taken at their face value, for numerous assumptions underlie their estimation."

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181945

So basically they're from what Spencer Wells called "the earlier Mediterranean sub-stratum," when all the pre-Aryans circled the Mediterranean basin, and were more or less brothers. Fascinating! No wonder their language is non-Indo-European. It's probably incredibly old--like Basque.

[Crimson Guard]

Droop mis-spoke their. "extreme" Northern Italy has always had Italic Speakers including Raetians & Lingurians. I think he's confusing some of the small German communities that have migrated to Italy in modern times.

[Crimson Guard]

Droop!

Etruscans= Turks? LOL ,come now!

I have to laugh as this..didnt they also call the real St.Nick a Turk,meanwhile he was Greek?!hahaha!

[Drooperdoo]

Crimson Guard,
By "Turk," they obviously mean Anatolian--not people from Turkmenistan in Central Asia.
So you're right: Etruscans would have been extremely closely related to Greeks, who also had roots and city-states in Anatolia.
Regarding your generous construction on my statement regarding German-speakers in Northern Italy, thanks--- But that's not what I meant. What I meant was this: Modern Italy is a recent construct. As recent as the 19th century, Italy was made up of a dozen smaller states. It had been like that since the fall of Rome and the rise of Feudalism.
When Garibaldi patched it all together and created a modern state, some non-Italian regions were annexed. It wasn't that Germans moved down from Austria. They had always lived there. It was that the modern Italian state reached up and grabbed land that wasn't historically Italian.
Just like France with the Alsace region.
Modern states had these land-grabs and they struck out and annexed regions that were never historically French, or Italian, for instance.

All I'm saying is that Oetzi's dna is still common in Austria, but is wholly unrelated to Etruscans [who cluster close to North Africans and Anatolians] or to modern Italian populations.

[Crimson Guard]

Droop did you read this part?

<<Genetic distances and sequence comparisons show closer evolutionary relationships with the eastern Mediterranean shores for the Etruscans than for modern Italian populations. All mitochondrial lineages observed among the Etruscans appear typically European or West Asian, but only a few haplotypes were found to have an exact match in a modern mitochondrial database, raising new questions about the Etruscans’ fate after their assimilation into the Roman state.>>

So in other words they don't seem to know a thing,LoL!

[everythingisalie]

Turks are caucasoid.

Its political reasons and their choosen religion that greeks/italians and other european eastern groups dont like them.Greeks and Truks have lots in commen.

[Crimson Guard]

Droop,mostve the Tyrol region was historically Raetian territory not Germanic. The Alps where moslty inhabintat by Italics and Gauls. Most of the Germanic migrations came from the North East,where the slavs would later come.

Wasnt it first Marius who stopped one of the Earliest Germanic invasions into Italy during the Early Republic.Most of modern Germany by the way was historically a Gaulish/celtic people,culture and land.Germanic's came from North Eastern Europe,as they where always being pushed West and South by the Slavs,Huns and other peoples of the course of hundreds of years on and off.

The Italian Peninsula though was always known as Italy though,which it gives one of biggest distinctions .

[Drooperdoo]

Crimson Guard,
Yes, during the Roman empire Italia was known as "Vitalia," if I'm not mistaken. Somewhere along the way, they dropped the "V". So, yes, I know: The peninsula has always been Italic. But the modern Italian state is comprimsed of more than the peninsula. There are regions further north that were annexed that weren't traditionally Italic.

P.S.--Yes, I also know that Germanic peoples were confined to Scandinavia and extreme Northern Germany. All of Central Europe was originally "Gaulish". Or, at least, it was for about a millennium. When Caesar wrote his classic on the Gauls, he had no idea that they were relatively new to the area--and had only a few centuries left.
So, if we go by conventional archaeology and history, Oetzi pre-dates that period.
So he was neither "Italian" nor "Germanic". If you read my earliest posts on this thread, I said that modern Austria is comprised of two main elements: The later Nordics who came and the earlier paleolithic aborigines. Oetzi--like my wife's grandfather--would have been one of these: a non-Nordic Alpine type, with origins stretching back to the pre-Aryan age.

* Oetzi's haplogroup K, by the way, is largely concentrated among the Alpine peoples--and has never left.

[asdf]

What do your terms mean though? "Nordic"."Alpine" This is why suffixes are less confusing. "Nordics" and Germanic langauge AFAIK first appeared in Central Europe.

If you actually think Oetzi is Alpinid, please state your reasoning, as he's far, far from it.

[Drooperdoo]

You think Oetzi's "far from Alpinid"?

My basis for calling him Alpinid is simple: He was from the Alps, lived in the Alps and his halpogroup [Haplogroup K] is largely confined to modern Alpine populations and is largely absent in Italy and in "Nordic populations".

Explain in what way he's not Alpinid.

[asdf]

Alpinid is a specific racial specialisation named after the Alps... He is far from Alpinid.

[Drooperdoo]

He has haplogroup K, which is largely confined to "Alpine populations". It's a very persuasive indicator that the descedants of the people in the Alps in Oetzi's day are still there--if one believes at all in dna.

I take it you believe in dna?

My position: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has the dna of a duck, it's probably a duck. Likewise, if Oetzi lived in the Alps, his corpse was found in the Alps and his haplogroup is largely confined to modern Alpine populations, it's probably safe to call him an "Alpine man".

When dealing with a peevish and argumentative person like yourself, though, I'm sure none of this will satisfy you. So never mind.

Despite his location, population-group and dna, we'll call him . . . um . . . Chinese, if that will please you.

P.S.--If you're talking about the "Alpine skull type," however, it's far from clear what he looked like. You're going by a reconstruction. Those are notoriously unreliable. I saw a Discovery Channel documentary and they left the reconstruction of a Roman mummy found in Egypt to an "artist" with no scientific background. She turned the Roman into a "sub-Saharan" based on the word "Africa" she heard. So she gave the fully Caucasoid skull a wide nose, thick lips, kinky hair and a brown skin. --So you'll forgive me if I hold the reconstructions of forensic artists in low esteem.

[asdf]

You misunderstand me... He is from the Alps, yes, and his "Alpine" geographically, but this forum often uses Coon's "Alpine" etc, (especially since you said "Alpine type"--almost everyone I assume would have thought you meant Alpinid) which has nothing to do with Oetzi, but how could I have been sure what you meant? So I asked...

Although judging from your responses you don't understand that "Alpinid" is not a geographical term...

P.S.--If you're talking about the "Alpine skull type," however, it's far from clear what he looked like. You're going by a reconstruction. Those are notoriously unreliable. I saw a Discovery Channel documentary and they left the reconstruction of a Roman mummy found in Egypt to an "artist" with no scientific background. She turned the Roman into a "sub-Saharan" based on the word "Africa" she heard. So she gave the fully Caucasoid skull a wide nose, thick lips, kinky hair and a brown skin. --So you'll forgive me if I hold the reconstructions of forensic artists in low esteem.

Um, hello, I can see his skull right there on the first page.

[curiousman]

drooperdoo said:

You think Oetzi's "far from Alpinid"?

My basis for calling him Alpinid is simple: He was from the Alps, lived in the Alps and his halpogroup [Haplogroup K] is largely confined to modern Alpine populations and is largely absent in Italy and in "Nordic populations".

Explain in what way he's not Alpinid.

Drooperdoo, I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to accept the simple fact that "to be a modern Alpine population" it's not in contradiction with "to be modern (northern)Italian".

Perhaps you don't know that there are modern Italian populations who are genuinely "Alpine". They live in Liguria, Piedmont, Lombardy, Trentino, Veneto and Friuli Venezia Giulia regions.
Their ancestors lived there before the arrival of the Romans, who deeply romanized them (and so we have the modern romance-speaking alpine populations).

After the collapse of the Roman Empire there arrived German and Slavic populations who partly germanized and slavized them, but (whether you like it or not) there are still Alpine population who:
1) are direct descendant of prehistoric Alpine populations,
2) speak romance languages,
3) are modern Italians.

[Drooperdoo]

First of all, when you butted into the conversation, the discussion centered on dna, not skull-shape. I know you wanted to intrude and sound smart. But by bringing up "skull-shape" you weren't adding anything germane to a discussion that was about "genetic population groups"--Italic, Alpine, Nordic, etc.

"Italic" isn't a skull-shape, either--but it's a genetic, linguistic and cultural group . . . and that's what we were talking about. Whether Oetzi was from the Italic groups to the South or the Alpine groups to the North.

No one brought up skull shape till you did--irrelevantly.

So drop the pompous know-it-all attitude, especially when you're bringing up subjects that weren't in discussion.

Skull-shape?

Come on!

No one was even talking about that until you did.

By the way, looking at other reconstructions of Oetzi, I'd say that his skull was Alpinid, too. Look at this picture of Oetzi (Before and After):



Compare the "living face" of Oetzi to this photo of the "Alpine type" from an anthropology book:



The only difference between the two men is nasal type--and that was largely left to the guess-work of the forensic expert. So Oetzi's nose may not have been so fleshy. In either case, he's clearly not Nordic and clearly not Mediterranean or Dinaric. He's "Alpinid".

Next time you want to butt in and look smart by attacking me, stop, take two breaths and think: Reconstructions change from artist to artist. The reconstruction on the first page of this thread is what you were going by. But the reconstruction I posted was from a professor of forensics, not an "artist". So the second reconstruction (the one that is more Alpine) is probably the more accurate. So please refrain from your almost childish desire to attack people without thinking first. You come off as so dogmatic, irascible and--in this case, clownish.