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

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...

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...)

   (an unsubstantiated opinion)

 do you reckon it's possible pre ice age nomadic steppe peoples populated those northern areas and were then forced south due to climatic changes. ice and tundra forcing a lot of blonde/blue eyed northern peoples into a small area of northern china hence common language and similar culture amongst a multitude of iranian/turkic speaking peoples of a latter era.

        i read somewhere that the ice & tundra areas had supposed receded and re emerged three times giving cause to those areas being thought scrubbed clean of previous civilisation.  yet only now has some of that lost civilisation being brought to light with the melting of the modern day ice caps.

 i also read that northern europe etc could not feed a major fixed populace at that time thus a nomadic steppe way of life. these peoples were constantly looking for new pastures and roamed across vast areas over an extended period of time.

       would it not seem right that after the ice age peoples that had previously habited northern areas be the first to re populate them.

     in latter years a lot of the tribal peeps in northern china got themselves displaced due to the unification of china and the building of the great wall.  this displacement didn't happen overnight but would be the major cause of the mass migration of self same previously northern  peeps across europe in latter years.

      anyway enough said cause i'm probably way off the mark! lol

Scorpion,

There's sure is room for a lot of speculations over these matters. especially since the archelogical sitings have been almost non-existant, prior to 1980.

Over the last two decades the number of discoveries have been rocketting - and since the sites here described have been unearthened the picture of the changed dramatically.

There are some mummies found in NW China - 4.200 yrs old - that obviously connects to the Schytian population. Due to Chinese "nationalism" they were kept secret, but tx to people like the late Dr. Heyerdahl these 1.90 metres tall mummies were made public by 1998.  One of the most funny parts of that find was their massive amounts of red-ochre, giving a distinct paralell to the Baltic and the North Sea culture. In the years 1998-2002 Swedish archeologers excavated a large city from the same age.  Between the mounds of two major rivers of Northern Sweden - conecting the Botnic Bay to the North Atlantic they dug out an area of 1,1 x 1,8 km - where a complete town had been built - in a period of 300 years - between 4.800 and 4.500 yrs ago.

The substatial city-structure proved to be very well planned and constructed, where a number of quarters had served a variety of purposes - from cattle-houses and living-quarters to "industrial" production-areas, workshops and warehouses. Some 37.000 different items proved long-distance trade - including the North Atlantic as well as the entire Baltic Ocean down to Germany and over to Russia and the eastern river-routes.

It is obvious that the Baltic culture reached much wider than previously thougth. But, - we're pretty sure that they - somehow - had survived the critical period between 10.000-12.000 - when the glaciers moved over large land-areas - somewhere within or close to the Baltic Ocean.  Some Swedish and Finno-Ugrian myths both points to Gotland as the "white island".  Thus there is a legend saying that the north Europeans survived the cataclysmic end of ice-time on this island - when the Fenno-Scandian ice-cap broke up and "flooded over the lands".  Strange enough, modern geology confirms that this peculiar island is the largest area of Northern Eurasia that wasnt affected by the moving glaciers - while the rest of Northern Russia, Fenno-Scandia, Denmark/N-Germany and the Brittish isles were submerged - at one point or another.

The other possibiltity would be the southern end of the Uralian mountians - getting close to the areas you describe. From what we know the Mongol populations (Saamis, Samojeds, Inuits, Eskimos) came that way, along the Urals - after ice-age. But the Fenno-Ugrian/Scandinavians seem to have settled in the baltic already well before that - DURING ice-time, which is why we first have to look in the Balto-Barent area for the first settlers of Northern Europe.

Their spread eastwards (as Fenno-Ugric, Kassaks and Scytians) finally reached the Chinese kingdom, wherefore they built the wall to prevent political misconceptions or etnical mistakes - but further organised trade and reflected inter-action - through regulated ports.  

Boreaz

     seems time will tell

                                       thanks for the info

                                               Scorpian

Scorpian,

Agree. Tx for the honest reflection.

Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool

Founder analysis is a method for analysis of nonrecombining DNA sequence data, with the aim of identification and dating of migrations into new territory. The method picks out founder sequence types in potential source populations and dates lineage clusters deriving from them in the settlement zone of interest. Here, using mtDNA, we apply the approach to the colonization of Europe, to estimate the proportion of modern lineages whose ancestors arrived during each major phase of settlement. To estimate the Palaeolithic and Neolithic contributions to European mtDNA diversity more accurately than was previously achievable, we have now extended the Near Eastern, European, and northern-Caucasus databases to 1,234, 2,804, and 208 samples, respectively. Both back-migration into the source population and recurrent mutation in the source and derived populations represent major obstacles to this approach. We have developed phylogenetic criteria to take account of both these factors, and we suggest a way to account for multiple dispersals of common sequence types. We conclude that (i) there has been substantial back-migration into the Near East, (ii) the majority of extant mtDNA lineages entered Europe in several waves during the Upper Palaeolithic, (iii) there was a founder effect or bottleneck associated with the Last Glacial Maximum, 20,000 years ago, from which derives the largest fraction of surviving lineages, and (iv) the immigrant Neolithic component is likely to comprise less than one-quarter of the mtDNA pool of modern Europeans.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v67n5/0 01799/001799.html?erFrom=5029671054132280471Guest

'*********************************************************** *************************

Maju,

Above some old, but very significant news from Richards et al. Note the genetic "bottleneck", a term introduced - as of 20.000 yrs ago -  to explain the present state of the European Genome.

That preceeds the Erteb�lle with some millenias already - and plays rigth into the discovery of the small but highly adapted population - found in the Balto-Barent region, continously inhabitting these coastlines from 40.000 to 11.000 yrs ago.

Some 11.000 yrs ago (+-  aprox. 10 % calibration) these fishers/gathers starts spreading - very fast - througout the coastal regions of all of Scandinavia and Northern Europe. The cultures you are reffering to - Maglemose, etc. - are the early results of their spread. Dont forget that the well-known sites along the coasts and rivers of Northern Europe, from Gardar to Garonne, have a paralell spread of the exact same fishing/boating-culture around the Baltic, the North Sea and the entire coast of Fenno-Scandia - 11.000-9.500 yrs ago. It may seem that the eastern branch from this origin populated the east-European rivers, down to the northern shores of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

This time-frame is very well documented - and proves that Mr. Hawks point of view may be worth a considerate review. Thus I can't understand why you insist that these major genetic contribuitors of the present European genome must have been non-IE. Especially since the major invective of the IE languages seems to reside within this region, - along with the HV haplogroups...

The Red Paint People

Red Ochre - was a color characteristic of the early North Sea fisher/gather population - already 8.000 years ago. Moreover it is found in textiles and chambers/mounds in distant places such as the Northern US, Scandinavia, the Baltics, Europe, Russia and NW China - already before the Neolithicum. Places like "Rauma", meaning "Red Land" are still found in Scandinavia and Finland - where the same genetics and language are still present.

In 1989 an American film-company, run by native American descendants, made a pioneering film which received due awards, called

"THE MYSTERY OF THE LOST RED PAINT PEOPLE".

"The film follows U.S., Canadian, and European scientists from the barrens of Labrador - where archaeologists uncover an ancient stone burial mound - to sites in the U.S., France, England, and Denmark, and to the vast fjords of northernmost Norway where monumental standing stones testify to links among seafaring cultures across immense distances.

This film represents the first publication in any medium that has synthesized these new discoveries and attempted to draw a picture of the northeastern sea peoples, whom scientists refer to as the Maritime Archaic."

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