Who were ancestors of Germanic tribes and where did they come fr

http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/paint.html
http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/norse.html

Maju, Zargos

Dr. Cavalli-Sforza was a practical man. Consequently he linked his entire frame-work of genetical haplogroups to the "Out of Africa-theory".

Dr. Spencer Wells was one of his best students/co-workers. Today his into a large project with National Geographic - trying to trace down the whereavouts of the human migrations.

Today Wells is a famous jet-set-researcher/publisher/writer. In one of his maps he even concludes that the haplogroup 18b arrived in Europe some 40.000 years ago - inside the Cro-Magnons.

Zargos seem to believe that we Lapps and the Eskimos descends from the Cro-Magnons. 

Maju seem to believe that the same gen-marker created the west-coast populations of Europe. They are both sure that the present working-model of Dr. Wells are presenting irrefutible facts.

---

Among genticians Cavalli-Sforza's work is commonly regarded. As one of many.  But there are still a lot left to do before the genetical field - by themselves - can decide on the real-time values of genetical abrevations and mutations within the human genome. Consequently the base ALL their timelines on Archeological results - and their consequent hypothesis'.

Within antropology the "Out-of-Africa-theory" is highly - and increasingly - disputed. Evry reader of Scientific American knows that. 

Get some headbashers, Zargosus, and rip their brains apart. MAYBE that will give you some new knowledge - for a change.  Unless you've already found the eternal enligthment of wisdom, that is.

 

Originally posted by Paul Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by Paul Could be refering to the first Europeans who entered into Northern Europe in small numbers before the big freeze. Most retreated south to southern Europe when the big freeze happened but smaller numbers remained north. When the thawing began the southern groups who had multiplied greately moved north and absorded the few descendants of those who remained. There was nobody living in the north: it was plainly frozen. Polar bears surely but nothing else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creswell_Crags

I meant more north: like Scotland, Denmark and Sweden. England had an ice-free region so much north... but they are related with continental Magdalenian tradition, as do the first colonists of Northern Germany and Denmark, as the meltdown frees land over there. Anyhow these people were living in the very edges of inhabitability.

Originally posted by Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creswell_Crags

Britain was occupied between glaciations ... not during. It's suspected that humans were driven out at least once, only to return later.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_ britainrepopulation2.html

Edited by edgewaters

Zargos seem to believe that we Lapps and the Eskimos descends from the Cro-Magnons.

No, I don't, you just have no idea what i am talking about because you don't have a  deep enough knowledge on the matter or are just imbittered and are skewing my words--- Just because i state Central Asia as the migratory origin, you seem to assume by that I mean the migrants were Mongoloid. Look at that weblink i posted a while ago, it is compiled from Dr. Spencer Wells' research and everything I have said is based on my itnerpretation of his work.

Lapps, Inuits etc are Arctic people but they had nothing to with modern Euros north of the regions YOU mentioned.  The part of Central Asia I refer to were inhabited by Caucasoids and the r1b who migrated to Europe were defiantely Caucasoid, but NOT Arctic people, Arctic people are archetypally, as Maju stated, Inuits, they are, physiologically,  the best adapted to the conditons of such a clime.

Some Lapps:

These are the Inuit types of which I speak who have mixed in with Caucasoids in N Europe, to varying degrees.

Edited by Zagros

Maju i don't understand the problem with the milk-digesting, last milennia isn't possible, the classical greek peasants eat cheese and the celts butter, so... they couldn't eat that milk? No possible, was their food.

boreas-is wrote: Zagros, The habitats in question are early examples of the culture that came to populate the northern hemisphere, as the glaciers of ice-time receeded. 20.000 yrs BP they are found in the White Sea and the Baltic. 12.-15.000 yrs BP they are in Scandinavia and Northern Europe. At the same time they appear in the arctic part of America.

Quote Zagros:

Yes, Inuit types as mentioned, they are by far the best adapted to Arctic climates, physiologically.  Short and stout, their limbs are shorter for better heat retention, thicker skin and thin layer of fat beneath the skin for the same.  These people still thrive in the Arctic, if Europeans did, there would be at least pre-modern (2-500 years) evidence of it (i.e. Europeans with a very similar lifestyle as those described in the articles you pasted - there isn't

Quote: 10.000 BP they had populated the islands of the North Atlantic. 8.500 BP they had already created the first known "megalithic civilisation" of Northern Europe  (Germany-Balkans).

Quote Zargos;

Lapps

Quote Boreas: According to present results from the European Genome Project the Scandinvian population, as well as the islanders - haven't changed notably over the last 10.000 years. Same with the Basques, - which are also explained to "originate from the first migrational wave of hunter-gathers".

Quote Zargos;

Uhuh, and that strangely enough co-incides with the receding of the glaciers and the movements of M383 (R1b) into the same regions.

Quote Stephen Wells;

"Western Europe's major line is the M383(R1b) are directly descended from the Cro-Magnon people who became the continents first human beings 35.000 years ago"

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

Quote Boreas: Zargos seem to believe that we Lapps and the Eskimos descends from the Cro-Magnons.

Quote Zargos;

No, I don't, you just have no idea what i am talking about because you don't have a  deep enough knowledge on the matter or are just imbittered and are skewing my words--- Just because i state Central Asia as the migratory origin, you seem to assume by that I mean the migrants were Mongoloid. Look at that weblink i posted a while ago, it is compiled from Dr. Spencer Wells' research and everything I have said is based on my itnerpretation of his work. 

---

Btw; Where - according to Your interpretation - do we find the origin of the Mongloids?!?!

 

 

 

Edited by boreas-is

Originally posted by Maju The single-origin theory is nowadays fully proven, I believe precisely by the application of genetics to the problem (genetic Adam and Eve, lack of relation with Neanderthal). Multirregional is what is totally against the ropes. Not at all. The recent survey you refer to is only ONE. And there are a number of limitations and some outrigth problems with it to. Like it's lack of explanation about modern people in America more than 13-14.000 years ago. Moreover it havent the results havent met any real professional parity yet, so it is far from clear - yet. Sorry again. And anyhow it's not relevant. You are moving from here to there: which is your paradigm? That a mutant race evolved in Scandinavia under the thick layer of ice (that crumbled under the feet of the inexistent polar bears) and that these have nothing to do with the rest of the world? Sorry but that's not the reality.

Do I really have to ask you re-read my former posts?!

Like this passage;

"Most anthropologists say modern people�our direct ancestors�were just arriving in Europe from the south at the time and didn't colonize the far north until near the end of the last Ice Age 13,000 or 14,000 years ago. Neanderthals, the original "cavemen" who occupied Europe for at least 150,000 years before modern humans arrived, were certainly capable of producing the simple implements found at Mamontovaya Kurya. But all previous evidence puts them much farther south. "It could have been Neanderthals," says Jan Mangerud, a Norwegian geologist who works with the Mamontovaya Kurya team. "But no one thought they could live that far north."

Further evidence came up already 2004. See above.

No need to move here and there, Maju. My axiom is very clear - and you do already know it. Then please just look - and observe what your eyes are telling you - before you close them again.  Ice-age Europe didnt really look the way we all thought - when these and other new results started appearing some 15 years ago.

Today this new paradigm of paleolithic time have been verified - times over. Even students of antropology have to face this in their present curriculums. Still it may take a year or two before the geneticians are able to cope with it. So you may have some time for bashing and ridicule - until the National Wells Fargo-express are able to run the revised models of the human migration-patterns on global media.

Edited by boreas-is

Originally posted by Paul Were the really southern Europeans or a more northerly people retreating on to northern France?

This is yet to be answered and, apart of any "miraculously significant" archaeological finding, only careful genetical studies can find - if they can at all.

Yet we do know that the proportion of population in Europe was largest in the Franco-Cantabric, Nord-Pyrenenan or Basco-Aquitanian area. The other major regions were Central Europe (Nord-Alpine area) and Eastern Europe (Pontic area), with some no disdainable pockets in Mediterranean Spain and Italy and maybe also in the Balcans.

Yet, I see no specific genetic difference between Central Euros and Western Euros, apart of those that seem to come from the East in later periods. In fact Central Euros as Germans seem slightly less Western than Danes, for instance, meaning surely a stronger Eastern inmigration in the Chalcolithic and later on.

So my idea is that Western and Central European aborigines are genetically the same or very simmilar and that only a greater ammount of flow from the East (IEs specially) accounts for most of the differences. The same can be said regarding Southern Europeans of Iberia and Italy, they have little Eastern (NE) input but they have more Mediterranean (SE) input,. probably brought in the Neolithic period specially with some ramifications going up to the NW.

Anyhow, your question is relevant, I believe, but a little too subtle to be answered with our present knowledge. All I can say is that "purest" British populations are almost identical for male lineages with Basques, yet, when it comes to maternal lineages, they seem more related to Northern Europe, whatecer it means.

In any case the genetic differences between Northern and Southern Europe are just of shade: both Italy and Denmark have about 50% R1b for male ancestry and the same can be said on H for female ancestry. Such homogeneity accounts for a single Western European population, even in Danes are more mixed with Eastern groups (I) and Italians with SE ones (J, E3).

Originally posted by Ikki Maju i don't understand the problem with the milk-digesting, last milennia isn't possible, the classical greek peasants eat cheese and the celts butter, so... they couldn't eat that milk? No possible, was their food.

I believe I just said that milk-digesting mutation must have happened after domestication, so it must be recent, in the last eight milennia - as there was no doestic cattle in Europe before.

Another possibility is that the mutation is merely random (at first) or that we are ignoring something else. In any case, if such mutation would have helped people to survive and reproduce (as it probably did - but only in a Neolithic context) it would be selected quite quickly. You can see one of those specially favorable mutations become general in relatively few generations, if it truly gives better chances of survival and reproduction.