1. Ukraine/Don basin: c. 3500 (Serednij-Stog II)
   
2. Eastern Germany and Poland: c. 3300 (Baalberge and others)
   
3. First presence in the Eastern Balcans: c. 3100
4. Consolidation in Central Europe and expansion to Scandinavia and Mid-Danubian basin: c. 2400 (Corded Ware)
   
5. Greece and Anatolia: c. 2000-1600 (a little obscure yet)
   
6. Western Europe (three main waves):
   
1. Urnfields: c. 1300 (limited areas)
2. Hallstatt: c. 700 much deeper (Iberian Celts, Italics)
   
3. La T�ne: c. 400-200 most of Britain and consolidation in Gaul
7. Roman Empire: assimilation of most other pre-IEs (Etruscans, Iberians...)

According to the established expertise on Neanderthals they were basicly tropic/subtropic - and not able to survive (successfully)  under plain arctic conditions. This also corresponds with the archeological conclusions explaining their massive disapearance from Northern Europe during the beginning of the last glaciation  - some 30.000 yrs ago.

Thus the series of NEW, enigmatic discoveries along the arctic oceans - have established a new basis of facts and arguments, placing modern man in the Baltic and Barent regions already 40.000 years ago. We can't change that - without disqualifying the series of Russian, Finnish, Scandinavian, German and Anglo-American institutes that have participated in this research.  

Consequently we have to deal with the origin of the arctical cultures and populations of Eurasia - such as the Fenno-Ugrians and Pan-Europeans - in the ligth of these new facts.

This may eventually help the geneticans to explain their basic revelations of genetic stems and branches too. But they must be given ample time to get, comprehend and understand these discoveries - before they are able to revise the (principal) time-lines of the Eurasian populations. Consequently we cant use their present lack of understanding - about the refered discoveries - as an argument "against" the prescence and impact of this Balto-Barent population. We need to be counscious and honest about this, otherwise not even the brightest of logic won't help.

As the final and conclusive repports of these enigmata have arrived -these newly discovered populations of "Hyperboreans" HAVE to be taken into any equation trying to explain the origins of the first, arctic cultures of Northern Europe, Northern Asia and Northern America.  The reffered history of haplogroup X is yet again a new, strong indication of this relevance.

Originating in Northern Europe haplogroup X is today seen in two subgroups (X1 + X2).  X1 have spread eastwards, as far as Altai.  It's twin subgroup X2 appears only in the west - from NW Europe to the Alonquian and Obijiwa Indians of mid-west America,  where it is estimated to have arrived more than 10.000 years ago. Thus there is an amazing paralell between your "spread-chart" of haplogrou p H/V and the spread of haplogroup X.  Both showing the highest density - of the present demographics - in the area between the North Sea and the Baltics...

In 2001 the famous Dr. Thor Heyerdahl published his last book, where some of these results were elaborated.  In a retrospect to the "fundamentalistic" reactions from Scandinavian sceptics he responded; "Contrary to what many academians think, the history of Northern Europe is still far from completed.  But, with time, the truth of these matters will certainly prevail."  One year later we got the results from the European Genome Project (Richards, et al) stating that the present Scandinavians and the Basques BOTH still belong to the oldest genology of Europe, perceived as the "indigenous hunter-gatheres" that arrived already during the end of ice-time.  

Due to the present updates from European genetics (above) the major part of  the Anglo-Saxons and the Fenno-Ugrians seem to be part of that same origin. Faced with that concordiance between etnology, antropology and genetics we have to view both old and new archeological results in a sligthly new ligth. A principal novelty should not disturb anyone, as long as it is well documented and duely conceptualized. Not even when the alternative view may change our angle of perception with just about 180 degrees.  The only change that is implicated by that change is the question of WHERE and WHEN modern man entered Eurasia. An new ligth shedded on that old question should be most welcomed - since the roots of modern man in Europe and the consequent spread of Caucasians and Indo-European languages - are still unsolved. The Balto-Barent discoveries simply offers a new answer to the question of the EurAsian (or Caucasian) origin.  All other significant facts of Eurasian history still remains intact, relevant and valid...

To bad Hitler and his gang didnt get to understand that they actually were descendants of the Eusk-Arians...

---

1. What you call "Eastern" may very well be "Northern".  And thus - based on your theory - from who/where did the Eus-kar-ians originate?!

2. Since the Baltic population is at least 40.000 yrs old - they could very well be the origin of the coastal culture spreading south - to Biscay and beyond - first time already 35.000 yrs ago. How can you outrule that - principally?

3. Modern genetics doesn't say anything about races, because it can't. Thus it follows classic etnology/antropology - which have already defined the cathegories of etnicity - as well as the basic time-lines of hman evolution. Based on archeological results only.  Bio-molecular structures can tell something about division of genetical lines - in sub-groups. But it has NO way of defining TIME.

When Cavalli-Sforza, P��bo, Adams, et. al relates their discoveries to times and migrations - they borrow their entire frame-work (of the time-lines) from the classic THEORIES of modern archeology and etnology, supported by the cathegories of modern linguistics. Thus they are bound to folow the "Out of Africa-theory", - since there is no established alternative.

This gives the "genetical time-lines" a very scarce basis - with an obvious lack of integrity.  Thus we see that they may misintepretate their own data - from time to time. Moreover,  as the profession of genetics matures is have been starting to prove results that actually contradicts their borrowed points of views - as well. See the row of articles quoted above.

50 years ago our history books were still telling people that the "long-skulls" - being farmers, was "taking over Europe" in a "massive migration", at the expense of the "short-skulls"; the "more primitive hunter/gatherers" from old stone age. In the 1963 an American palentologist found some bones of an higher primate - in the Rift Valley. Thus we got the first POSSIBLE explanation to the origin of humankind. But still today - 43 years later - the "OoA-theory" is nothing but a hypothesis.  Valid, as an hypothesis - but far from completed - as a proven explanation. (Unless you mix some apples in with the oranges - to make the gradiants fit to an objected pattern...)

The multi-regional theory have an alltogether different way of dealing with time. (See K. Hirsts article, above). It keeps the possibility open for a very early, common origin - but states that the age of the various etninc groups (that some call races) - are much older than presumed and have been living in isolation - regionally - a lot longer than the OoA-theory may accept.  The many skulls and bones found, that exceeds both 100.000 and 1.000.000 years - seem to favour this hypothesis.

At the end of the day we still don't KNOW the exact answers to these questions - and modern genetics haven't even dealt with the fundamental issues of that question yet. Simply beacuse the mainstream antropologists have told them that Africa via Trans-Caucasia IS the origin of mankind, - as well as "modern man". Prof. Hawks is one of the first antropologists that have dealt with the new findings in the north - as a part of the discussion about the first populations of Europe. Thus I found it relevant to bring his basic views into this discussion. But - off course - I understand that you may choose not to relate to it. Staying ignorant is anyone's option.

Racist? What the heck is racistic with the sources I refer to?

It is rather pathologic that you keep clinging to such OFFENSES to defend your views.  YOU are the one keeping the RACIST view on these things - and its saddening to see that you still dont seem to understand the difference between reaction and response.

Your reactionary expressions have started to turn demagogic - which simply put YOU in the facists cathegory. If I were to relate to your kind of arguments I could easily state that you are suffering from the influence of false gods, devil-worship and other fanatic exercises...

Trying to repress good science with political/religous propaganda just doesn't make any real difference. But I must say it is both embarrasing and saddening to learn that you need to short-sell your arguments by accusing me - as a person - of such political views.  Everybody knowing me knows the case is quite the oposite. Which makes your unjust and unrightful accussations doble offensive. But I guess that is your techique of discussion, whenever you feel insecure about a matter.

But be my guest, Bully; just KEEP SHOUTING, INSULTING, OFFENDING, INCRIMINATING, ANTAGONIZING AND STIGMATIZING. Any view that doesnt corresond with your foggy model are obviously nothing but plain rubbish, utter garbage and downrigth bunk. Loosing sigth of TRUTH doesn't seem to bother you - as long as you get to be "rigth".  Even if you need to offend and stigmatize honest people, - you don't seem to mind - as long as you get to keep YOUR predjudice. You havent even notified that these predjudice are explained, already, as outdated beliefs.  

Then you turn to play politics - fine. Just don't disguise it in scientific forms, formats and forums.  There are a lot of other threads for that - you do NOT have to stigmatize this entire thread - and the question about the German origin - with that kind of dirty arguments and "educated" bluntness.  Wiki's readers should be warned - one of their self-nominated experts" obviously have a hidden agenda, behind his scientifical appearance. Sorry to say - but I am both embarrasad and agonized by your repetition of this weird, racial bias. 

How do you "know"? Or are you better informed than the crews that did the jobs up there? How many of their full repports have you read?!

I may help you answer - because your argument gave you away already. On the other hand - cathing arguments and point of views out of thin air an nail-soup, fitting them to a "convincing" agenda, seem to be one of your talents. But again - this has northing to do with scientific thruth - however "convinced" you are. Deception often starts with self-deception.

That is what I call "a foggy model". Maybe "airy-fairy" is a better word. But I guess it may fit with your form of political correctness. Maybe we could simply settle the question of the origins of the Germans - or the Caucasioans in general - by a referendum?!

I guess we all come from Biscaya, and have the Basques as the ideal reference group.  And we do understand that YOU find that one entertaining and - consequently - other views to be "boring".

Please apologize me for misunderstanding your motives, ethics and values, for a moment. My guide-line for this and relevant discussions have always been to keep it free of sentiments and personal freelings - such as "likes" and "dislikes", "boring" and "entertaining".  Scientific research is most often hard work - and thus tentatively "boring".

Bringing up what location I happen to reside is another inuendo,  but - sorry again - completly missing its objected aim. Not to mention the ramafications of the German question.

BETWEEN THE WOLF AND THE DOG
St. Petersburg , Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences 25.04.2003	When performing archeological dig in the upper palaeolithic settlement called Eliseyevichi 1 in the Bryansk Region, Mikhail Sablin, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, and Gennady Khlopachev, Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg), found two intact dogs' skulls. These are apparently the most ancient dogs' skulls known to researchers: they date back to 13 through 17 thousand years. The research has been financed via the Russian Foundation for Basic Research.
	Scientist: M.V. Sablin , St. Petersburg For additional information: msablin@yandex.ru
	Photo, pictures: ">
	Keywords:
The dog was the first animal domesticated by human beings. However, domestication took more than one step: people and dogs used to adjust to each other within numerous generations of coexistence. Biochemical and genetic researches have proved quite definitely that the dog's ancestor was the big predatory wolf, but not its smaller relative - the omnivorous jackal. However, it is impossible to determine when human beings first domesticated the wolves, as their domestication could not be recorded in archeological materials. Only when primitive dogs started to reliably differ from their wild ancestors, it became possible to distinguish their bones from wolf's remains. Not long ago a group of American geneticists (Vila et al. 1997) came forward with an assertion that the wolf domestication began more than 100 thousand years ago, nevertheless, palaeontologists and archaeologists feel skeptical about such dating. Even the most ancient dogs' remains date back to the paleolith, their age making about 14 thousand years; while their mass findings belong to the mesolite, which began in Europe approximately 10 thousand years ago. However, the overwhelming majority of finds are more ancient than 12 thousand years - they are primarily minor bone fragments that can tell little about the owner's life. In this context, the discovery of two intact dogs' skulls in the course of archeological dig in Eliseyevichi 1 settlement is of undoubted interest. The dogs from Eliseyevichi 1 had lived in severe conditions of the ice age: their bones lie next to those of the mammoth, polar fox and reindeer. Their exterior reminded that of enormously big huskies, Tibetan mastiffs or Caucasian sheep dogs: their height at withers was as much as 70 centimeters! They were shorter and wider in the muzzle, than the contemporary huskies, this particular feature enabling to reliably distinguish the primitive dogs from wild wolves. The dog's short and wide muzzle apparently results from the so-called neoteny, i.e. adult individuals preserving features of the young. A similar process took place in the course of the human being's evolution: the flat face in contrast to the elongated muzzle of a chimpanzee or gorilla is the obvious indication of neoteny. On the other hand, ancient people used often the dogs for cooking purposes. The sinciput of one of the skulls bears distinctive holes evidently made for extraction of the dog's brain for culinary purposes. Dogs' skulls with similar injuries can be often found in the settlements dating back to the late Stone Age and the Bronze Age, however this is the first evidence of such kind dating back to the upper palaeolith. Evidently it was then, in the age of the upper palaeolith, that the conditions were established for the primitives and the wolves hunting for the same animals. This laid a good foundation for their symbiosis, i.e. mutually beneficial relations. The more so, as the social structure and some peculiarities of both species' behavior are rather similar. In ancient era the dog played a key role in improving human beings' hunting skills, and therefore, in establishing primeval engineering and culture. ***

Note; The discovery of a 10.300 yrs old dog-sledge in Finnish Carelia further tells that the old paleolittic population also used the dog for transportation.

http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2003/2003-04-25-03_354_e.htm

Maju,

Good points - and according to the well established discoveries of modern archaology. 10 years ago I would agree - without much doubt, if any. But, as I already have tried to substantiate, today we have to count a few new, recent discoveries into the equation. Thus I - and a few more - have started to look at the 36.000 old population - of homo sapiens sapiens - that dwelled within the Baltics, from that time on...

As you are aware of already, the precise maps of the Eurasian glacials and inter-glacials of Eurasia are still in the process of reassesment and modifaction. After the complete documentation of the Wolf Cave (15.000 - 120.000 yrs BP) the need to revise the standard opinions are obvious. See repport above.

1. Aurignacian
2. Partly Gravettian (though in the West it was replaced by Solutrean later)
3. Magdalenian (descendent of Aurignacian)
4. Epi-Paleolithic post-Magdalenian microlithism: first separated then reunified