|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 22, 2005 9:44:57 GMT -5
Interestingly this area on the map is rather Baltid than Nordid, and how reliable it is, is another question ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 22, 2005 15:29:57 GMT -5
If there were any Danubians, they were E3b and J carriers, and they were southern Europeans. The Danubians must have been E3b, J2, and I1b carriers, given that they originated in southeastern Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 22, 2005 21:45:02 GMT -5
If there were any Danubians, they were E3b and J carriers, and they were southern Europeans. The Danubians must have been E3b, J2, and I1b carriers, given that they originated in southeastern Europe. I wouldn't lump all three haplogoroups together. They all have their seperate origins and arrived in Europe with different populations (I1b is more Balkan, while the others Middle Eastern). It's debatable whether all three came together to form a group of so called Danubians...who then mixed with Corded types and became Halstatts. I don't see any scientific proof of any of that...and the latest reports on J tell us there was no mas migration north. And for anyone to call Danubian proto-Nordic is just hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 23, 2005 6:08:37 GMT -5
Just out of interest, who do you think was "protonordic", especially who were the ancestral groups to Cordeds? There was continuity from a certain point on but various possible influences...
|
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 23, 2005 7:18:53 GMT -5
Just out of interest, who do you think was "protonordic", especially who were the ancestral groups to Cordeds? There was continuity from a certain point on but various possible influences... I think Nordic types in northern Europe (north west and north east) came about as a result of mixture between Cro-Magnid types and more southern Med types. In the west we had the Atlantic types, in the east the Pontic types. Of course, a certain amount of gracilization also took place. I think the classic Irano-Nordic (eastern Corded type) shows very clear Cro-Magnid tendencies. Not sure whether the north west Corded types are more gracile, but they could be due to the influence of Atlanic fringe populations. The main haplogorups involved in these mixtures would be R1a1 (eastern steppe Cro-Magnid and Nordid), R1b (Atlantic Med and British type Nordid), and I1a and I1c (Germanic Nordid and UP types, and everything in between). Populations of I1b also played a role...but not exactly sure what they contribued. I think the Alpine and Dinaric types have a lot to do with enviornmental factors. But in the north east Finno-Ugric (Tat-C) admixture was certainly responsible for the East Baltic look. But this was different from the steppe Cro-Magnid which many people here, and many other forums, call Baltid as well. Of course, these are my own speculations, and I only have very sketchy proof to back them up. We'll know more when more ancient skeletons are tested....hopefully. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 23, 2005 7:29:13 GMT -5
I think the classic Irano-Nordic (eastern Corded type) shows very clear Cro-Magnid tendencies. There is nothing Cro-Magnoid about the Iranian type. Actually it is contrasted in almost every aspect from the Cro-Magnoids: high head, narrow face, high-rooted narrow and beaky nose. |
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 23, 2005 8:36:41 GMT -5
I think the classic Irano-Nordic (eastern Corded type) shows very clear Cro-Magnid tendencies. There is nothing Cro-Magnoid about the Iranian type. Actually it is contrasted in almost every aspect from the Cro-Magnoids: high head, narrow face, high-rooted narrow and beaky nose. Well I've been reading there are similarities between the eastern Corded types and Cro-Magnids. I thought that if the Cro-Magnids were gracilized enough, you might come out with something like the Corded...especially with Pontic influence there as well. "Nordic-Iranians have long and high heads with peculiarly deep occiputs, smooth ovoid-ellipsoid contour, sharply-cut muscle impressions, strong browridges, and tilted and capacious foreheads. Marked facial height and narrowness of cheeks compared to wide forehead and jowls makes a rectangular, horse-faced impression. Large but slightly retreating cheekbones enclose drooping orbits, and big, salient, and aquiline noses, long-arched palates, muscular jaws wide at the angles, and cleft chins lacking prominence all add to the same effect. Nordic-Iranians were tall and muscular, strong-necked, and probably included tawny-haired blue- or green-eyed blonds as well as brunets." |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 23, 2005 8:39:07 GMT -5
I saw from Schwidetzky a clustering of Corded Ware groups from Central Europe with Battle Axe of the Balticum and Fatjanowo, the Cromagnids are distinct from them. There is a thread about the Kurgan-Corded relations on Skadi: forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=37593If looking at examples of more progressive Bandkeramiker I get the impression, if comparing them with Schnurkeramiker/Corded Ware people that there is some continuity, but with slight Cromagnid admixture in the later which produced an even more specialised type. My personal impression is that there was a more or less Pontid influence in them, a mixture out of (Northern) Eastmediterranid/Pontid and gracialised (Eastern) Cromagnid - the result was re-selected and produced this highly specialised variant. Similar results we can see in Norway (Troender), Frisia and parts of Anglo-Saxon areas. On the other hand we could argue that this is just a case of reemergence of typical Corded features and not the result of mixture. The mixture-reselection idea is at least a possibility because where can we trace a northern flank of real Iranoids in the respective areas? There is just a very ancient relation, but the Corded type seems to be a later specialisation happening in Europe. If we are about that, where do Danubians fit in?  Primitive ancestors of Pontids which evolved on? Just a different breed or with a fluent border, development from more protomorphic Danubians to Pontids... |
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Aug 23, 2005 9:17:05 GMT -5
If we are about that, where do Danubians fit in? Primitive ancestors of Pontids which evolved on? Just a different breed or with a fluent border, development from more protomorphic Danubians to Pontids... J lawrence Angel separates Pontics and Danubians, fitting the latter as a smaller variant of the general Irano-Med-Nordic type, link 2 dienekes website. (Type D) dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/greekmorphological/I would like to know if the Danubians made their way to Europe, through the Bosphorus or through the Ukrainian plains. |
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 23, 2005 9:56:18 GMT -5
I think middle eastern influence on north/central/east Europe was low...J and Eb3. I also think that I1b spread a long time before any waves of agricultiralists came up from southeastern Europe...so I can't associate I1b with any Danubians. On the other hand, it's possible that the Med types in southern Russia that helped to form local Cordeds from Cro-Magnids also carried J...  But these people certainly weren't Danubians in Coon's sense. I mean, we're talking about Med influence from the southern steppes here...not from the Danube. The Cordeds of Central Europe formed primarily from I1a and R1b folk I guess...with a bit of J and Eb3 thrown in later. They then mixed with the Atlantic R1b folk in the north west (modern day Brits, Dutch). So I have to say AGAIN that the whole Danubian theory as explained by Coon is seriously flawed....and that's putting it mildly. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 23, 2005 9:59:55 GMT -5
Its not the fact that the Baltic region is as blond-blueeyed as it is, but the EXACT drawing of the map. Though I agree with you on what you said.
Dunno, but my impression is that his system is one of the worst and most imprecise I saw - after WW2-1990 in the literatur I know of. However, he has some points, but I wouldnt rely on him.
I'd say through the Bosporus. Mesolithic Europe had a height, a peak, certain types which came in the early Neolithicum showed quite primitive, some not even fully Europid features. It seems they were absorbed, because there was a healthy selection, just features of some use were kept, others bred out. You dont find such extreme types in the Mesolithic Ukraine from what I know and the genetic markers point to a rather Asia minor origin too, at least for the earlist "settlers".
|
|
yhrax
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by yhrax on Aug 23, 2005 22:38:25 GMT -5
Well, not quite true. Progressivity does have meaning in biology and evolution, the concept is simply grotesquely missapplied to normal human physical variation.
Similarly 'Caucasian' has limited value as a folk-ethnic term. As a race category it is more propaganda ploy by way of granstanding than an actual biological construct.
In Dodona-speak, both terms are good for girl-fight comedy and not much else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Aug 24, 2005 2:20:33 GMT -5
Why "interestingly"? It's no big secret or news that people of the Baltic area have the highest frequency of blondism, etc. They also have the highest amounts of UP mtDNA.. The irony is that people of the region still seem to have a chip on their shoulders, if postings on here can be evident. The thing is people outside this region still is incredibly ignorant regarding our region, it's history, languages and people. Many of the views presented here come straight from the early 20th century text books. I personally don't have any problem accepting any theory regarding the origins of the Finns in particular and Baltic peoples in general as long as it's based to the latest scientific studies. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Aug 24, 2005 5:00:44 GMT -5
Well, not quite true. Progressivity does have meaning in biology and evolution, the concept is simply grotesquely missapplied to normal human physical variation. Similarly 'Caucasian' has limited value as a folk-ethnic term. As a race category it is more propaganda ploy by way of granstanding than an actual biological construct. In Dodona-speak, both terms are good for girl-fight comedy and not much else. Well, I have to agree with you but certain things depend not just on one side, sometimes not even on both because its an emotional topic. Europid/Caucasoid is clearly defined, some use it right, others dont but its for sure a usable biological construct. |
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Aug 24, 2005 5:26:30 GMT -5
Similarly 'Caucasian' has limited value as a folk-ethnic term. As a race category it is more propaganda ploy by way of granstanding than an actual biological construct. You should inform C. Sforza and all those clueless scientists in Princeton University lest they keep making fools of themselves. |
|
But these people certainly weren't Danubians in Coon's sense. I mean, we're talking about Med influence from the southern steppes here...not from the Danube.