PDA

View Full Version : The Mediterranean Myth



Siegfried
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 09:04 PM
http://web.archive.org/web/20020817163715/www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/med.htm

What do you think?

Gesta Bellica
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 10:02 PM
I can only agree with the above mentioned article. It's quite evident that South Europeans are not similar to Indians or Bangladeshis.

morfrain_encilgar
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 10:03 PM
http://web.archive.org/web/20020817163715/www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/med.htm

What do you think?


Mediterranid types have different descent in different regions, but most or all of them, also seem to have a robust Natufian-type origin. Mediterranean types emerged from from such robust ancestors independantly.

In certain regions there is genetic evidence for this. U6 lineages ultimately from West Asia, are found in North Africa and Iberia as well. They mignt reveal a common western Mediterranean, Capsian, gracilisation.

So the old idea of a Mediterranean race hasn't been disproved, it's still one way of looking at the evidence.

Because the history of these types, has been the assimilation of northern immigrants, it's no wonder that some Mediterranids are close (genetically) to north-western Europe.

Graeme
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 02:32 PM
I don't buy the Mediterranean stuff. Coon thought the Arabs of Yemen to be pure Mediterranids. What tosh. Anyone who has travelled about the south of Europe can see that those people are not Mediterranids but mixtures of Alpinids or Dinarids with the older populations that existed there thousands of years ago. I don't buy the Nordid stuff either. Coon's Corded reemergence comes closest to what I think is Nordid.

Siegfried
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 02:43 PM
I don't buy the Mediterranean stuff. Coon thought the Arabs of Yemen to be pure Mediterranids. What tosh. Anyone who has travelled about the south of Europe can see that those people are not Mediterranids but mixtures of Alpinids or Dinarids with the older populations that existed there thousands of years ago.

IIRC, these older populations you mentioned were of Mediterranid stock. IIRC, Coon stated that the Mediterranid type is, with the exception of Iberia, not common in Europe (not in a relatively pure form, anyway). In most Southern European countries, it is mixed up with, for example, Alpine (Dinarics being the product of a Med-Alpine blend, IIRC).
Ignoring traits like pigmentation, Coon then saw a band of relative morphological homogeneity that stretched from Iberia, across North-Africa, into the near East. However, this homogeneity is of a purely morphological nature, and does not mean the Spanish have nowadays more affinity with North Africans than with other Europeans.

http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=12030&stc=1

It is, however, important to realise that North Africa used to be Europid territory and to a certain degree still is; because of divergent evolution and mongrelisation they have moved away from the Europeans however. Ancient North African admixture should therefore not be treated as an indication of non-White admixture.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 07:25 PM
It is, however, important to realise that North Africa used to be Europid territory and to a certain degree still is; because of divergent evolution and mongrelisation they have moved away from the Europeans however. Ancient North African admixture should therefore not be treated as an indication of non-White admixture.


Actually, the trend has been to an increased northern genetic influence in North Africa, and the rest of the Mediterranean.

North Africa is as Europoid as Iberia.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 07:30 PM
So can one conclude from that statement that you believe Iberia as a whole is Europoid and not Europid? If, why is it so?



Actually, the trend has been to an increased northern genetic influence in North Africa, and the rest of the Mediterranean.

North Africa is as Europoid as Iberia.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 07:33 PM
So can one conclude from that statement that you believe Iberia as a whole is Europoid and not Europid? If, why is it so?


Isn't Europid the same as Europoid (ie Caucasoid)?

Iberians and North Africans are both obviously Europoid.

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 07:38 PM
Actually, the trend has been to an increased northern genetic influence in North Africa, and the rest of the Mediterranean.

North Africa is as Europoid as Iberia.

In which way?
Spaniards and Portugueses are totally different from Algerians or Moroccans, there's no way they can be confused

Glenlivet
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 07:42 PM
Well, fine if you mean it as such. I understand then, however, Greek suffix -oid (from -oeides) is "like" or "resembling".



Isn't Europid the same as Europoid (ie Caucasoid)?

Iberians and North Africans are both obviously Europoid.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 07:50 PM
In which way?
Spaniards and Portugueses are totally different from Algerians or Moroccans, there's no way they can be confused


But they're of a similar Mediterranean type, and there is strong genetic evidence, which links them to a North African origin from the U6 lineages. Both the Mechtoid and Capsian lineages are found in Iberia.

I do know the Iberid type is distinct from other Mediterranid types.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 08:08 PM
Well, fine if you mean it as such. I understand then, however, Greek suffix -oid (from -oeides) is "like" or "resembling".


Normally a subrace ends like Iberid, but a "major" race ends like Caucasoid or Europoid.

I presumed he meant Europoid, because Europid doesn't describe a subtype.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 08:10 PM
I read suggestions that Grimaldi played a role in the genesis of Iberian Mediterranids. What do you think?

Are you by Mechtoid claiming that Iberian Mediterranids have a Eurafrican, Saharan, proto-Negroid (partial?) origin? Also by Iberid, are you talking about the short and thick-set, foetalised, Berid type?



But they're of a similar Mediterranean type, and there is strong genetic evidence, which links them to a North African origin from the U6 lineages. Both the Mechtoid and Capsian lineages are found in Iberia.

I do know the Iberid type is distinct from other Mediterranid types.

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 08:53 PM
But they're of a similar Mediterranean type, and there is strong genetic evidence, which links them to a North African origin from the U6 lineages. Both the Mechtoid and Capsian lineages are found in Iberia.

I do know the Iberid type is distinct from other Mediterranid types.

Similar in which way?
if you are talking about physycal appearance they are similar as swedes look similar to tatars.
A single common allele or a single common lineage found in 2% of a sample of population is not a strong genetical bond for me.
Do you like football?
Post the pictures of the Spanish national team and the Morocco national team and tell me if they look similar

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 08:57 PM
I read suggestions that Grimaldi played a role in the genesis of Iberian Mediterranids. What do you think?

Im sure it would have left a small contribution, but the type hasn't obviously played a major role. But at Kostenki, there appears to be a Grimaldi element, according to Frans.


Are you by Mechtoid claiming that Iberian Mediterranids have a Eurafrican, Saharan, proto-Negroid (partial?) origin? Also by Iberid, are you talking about the short and thick-set, foetalised, Berid type?

When I said Iberid, I meant the low-vaulted Ibero-Insular Mediterranid type of Iberia, but I was using the Iberids as an example, of how the Eurafrican element is more diluted there.

The similarities found between Eurafricans and Negroids are mostly from a tropical origin, and are also shared with Austraolids.

All Mediterranids seem to share at least a partially Eurafrican origin. The disappearence of the Euraricans by assimilation, folows geography. To the south of the Sahara, the isolated Eurafricans became absorbed into the populations there. But to the north they assimilated into the Caucasoid race.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 09:12 PM
Similar in which way?
if you are talking about physycal appearance they are similar as swedes look similar to tatars.

I think this is an exaggeration. The Mediterranid types do share some real physical similarities to each other.


A single common allele or a single common lineage found in 2% of a sample of population is not a strong genetical bond for me.

But the lineages are still a real trace of ancestry. And dont forget that these lineages can be lost over time, so the percentage isn't important to the level of contribution at the time, from North Africa.

And there is evidence, for migrations from North Africa to Iberia, as early as the Aterian tool industry.

Vojvoda
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 09:50 PM
Post the pictures of the Spanish national team and the Morocco national team and tell me if they look similar
http://www.soccer999.com/football/worldcup/2002/team/Spain/team.jpg


http://sunsite.tus.ac.jp/wc94/images/Team_photos/TEAM.MOR2.gif

Glenlivet
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:09 PM
I see the point, Saharid in Spain and significantly Negroid in Morocco. I do not think they represent Morroco well. Arab countries have always more Negroid players than the population at large. It is the same if you look at the team of Oman. They are in fact racist when it comes to such things.

The Berbers are more Europid and some are even blondish.

Moroccan Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Mohamed Benaissa:

http://www.maroc-hebdo.press.ma/MHinternet/Archives_425/photo425/benaissa.jpg

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:09 PM
Thanx Vojvoda.
I don't think is acceptable to say that those 2 teams are composed by people of the same racial stock

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:16 PM
I see the point, Saharid in Spain and significantly Negroid in Morocco. I do not think they represent Morroco well. Arab countries have always more Negroid players than the population at large. It is the same if you look at the team of Oman. They are in fact racist when it comes to such things.

The Berbers are more Europid and some are even blondish.



Posting a single Minister is not a proof, i can find nordid Spaniards if i want but that's not the point.

Football players usally represents pretty well the lower substrates of a population as they are not usually noblemen or businessmen sons but normal people.
Also the less negroid among Moroccans players would be out of place in the spanish team.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:22 PM
What is the point of using these pictures? There are two problems.

Not all of the players are native, some of them are Negroid, or at least they have Negroid admixture.

And, without a non-Mediterranid team for comparison, you cant see how similar their types are.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:24 PM
I am not saying the people are exactly the same. Just an example.

As for the football team, we must find out their ethnicity.

I agree that the Spaniard football team got Europid characteristics and almost none in the Morroccan got it.

Even the Italian anthropologist Renato Biasutti place some Northern African populations as Mediterranid with even Nordid pockets (one can see the same from Deniker, v. Eickstedt, Backman and so on). Northern Morroco and Algeria are basically Mediterranid, and there are also some robust (Coon studied some, like the Riffians) and partially rufous men. The Guanches on the Canary Islans, now extinct, are described as being similar to Phalian. More south in Algeria we can find the same Berid as is also found in NW Spain and north of Huesca near the French border.



Football players usally represents pretty well the lower substrates of a population as they are not usually noblemen or businessmen sons but normal people.
Also the less negroid among Moroccans players would be out of place in the spanish team.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:27 PM
Posting a single Minister is not a proof, i can find nordid Spaniards if i want but that's not the point.

Football players usally represents pretty well the lower substrates of a population as they are not usually noblemen or businessmen sons but normal people.
Also the less negroid among Moroccans players would be out of place in the spanish team.


Theres a low class population, from Sudanid origin, in North Africa (where they were imported as slaves).

All this shows is that you cant judge a nation from a football team.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:45 PM
I don't see the point of posting pictures of athletes, when Negroids tend to be athletes if they're in the population. It's not necessarily representative. Like in America, even though 80+% of the basketball team is black, 80+% of the paying audience is white.

According to genetic studies North Africans have significant Negroid (at least 10% if I remember correctly). I think I posted this at Skadi last year. Whether they can be deemed Europid or Europoid, they certainly are not purely so. I think the American Census Bureau classifies North Africans as white. :D

Vojvoda
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:49 PM
Well, then someone should try to post pictures of common folk if athletes,models and upper-class politicians are not representatives of a population :D

Siegfried
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:50 PM
So far, our analyses have allowed a clear dissection of almost all NW African...paternal lineages into several components with distinct historical origins. In this way, the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (H35, H36, and H38), 13% Neolithic (H58 and H71), 4% historic European gene flow (group IX, H50, H52), and 8% recent sub-Saharan African (H22 and H28).
Bosch et al., Am J Hum Genet, 2001

[source (http://racialreality.shorturl.com)]

Berbers are very Caucasoid, but NW Africa as a whole has significant admixture, IMHO. Also note the map I posted, showing estimated genetic distances:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=12030&stc=1

I don't think we should ignore the differences between Europe and North Africa, even though the average North African is predominantly Caucasoid.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:57 PM
From corbis.com

COMBO OF UNDATED FILE PICTURES OF MADRID BOMBINGS SUSPECTS RELEASED BY SPANISH INTERIOR MINISTRY
Original caption: This combo picture shows undated file pictures of six man suspected to be linked with Madrid bombings released by Spanish Interior Ministry March 31, 2004. Spanish judge Juan del Olmo, who is investigating the Madrid train bombings, issued worldwide arrest warrants of six people and asked the public to call with any information about them, officials said. (top L-R) Morrocan Jamal Ahmidan, Morrocan Said Berraj, Tunisian Sarhane Ben Abdelmajid Fakhet, (bottom L-R) Morrocan Abdennabi Kounjaa, Morrocan Mohammed Oulad Akcha and Morrocan Rachid Oulad Akcha.

#2,5 and 6 are clearly gracile Mediterranids. Grooming is an issue among some of these. We should not overlook cultural factors.



Well, then someone should try to post pictures of common folk if athletes,models and upper-class politicians are not representatives of a population :D

Vestmannr
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 11:01 PM
Nordhammer wrote: " I think the American Census Bureau classifies North Africans as white."

Yes, at least in suggesting them for the category on official forms. However, self-identification is the key to racial classification in the American system. I have yet to meet a North African who does check 'white'. There is, as well, an organization of North Africans, Middle Easterners, Jews, and SE Europeans lobbying for a new category to differentiate themselves from American Whites, Blacks, and Asians (which they normally identify themselves in these three groups now.)

Siegfried
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 11:05 PM
I think the American Census Bureau classifies North Africans as white. :D

Yes, I read that somewhere too (:o Near Easterners are also 'White'. Apparently they define White as 'predominantly Caucasoid'.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 11:10 PM
Whatever it is "whiteness" is relative and individuals differ way too much. As far as America is concerned the original Europeans and the most numerous ones were Northern-Central European. You can correct me if I am wrong but "white" in USA is as I, and probably how many Americans see it, NW European (characteristics common there, whatever it may be) or individuals who resemble these, thus some average type of a folk stock on the British Isles.



Nordhammer wrote: " I think the American Census Bureau classifies North Africans as white."

Glenlivet
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 11:12 PM
Well, most Lebanese and Syrians are in fact Europid, inasmuch as many Italians and Greeks are probably seen in New York City. I do not see anything odd about it. I wonder what e.g. a Punjabi from NW India would put on that census.



Yes, I read that somewhere too (:o Near Easterners are also 'White'. Apparently they define White as 'predominantly Caucasoid'.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 11:15 PM
I don't think we should ignore the differences between Europe and North Africa, even though the average North African is predominantly Caucasoid.


Thats a diagram of the Y-chromosome, not of overall genetic similarity.

North Africans (without recent Negroid admixture) are still Caucasoid. They just diverged early from other Caucasoid types.

Even if 10% of North Africans are mixed, most of them aren't.

Vestmannr
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 11:18 PM
Punjabis, and those of 'South Asian' origin, ie 'the Indian Subcontinent' are directed to mark themselves as 'Asian'. Sure, like they do. I know Kashmiris and Kurds that are more 'White American' looking than some folk further West in the Old World. There obviously needs to be a change in how the American government counts racial groups. Rather, I think the Census Ancestry figures should be used instead.

Frans_Jozef
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 11:29 PM
I find it hard to believe that Europe was kind of a prostitute that took any customer who entered by the Street of Gibraltar or using the islands in the Mediterrenean as stepping-stone to invade the Midi and North Italia(remember the Cardials?).
Why just an one-way route from south to north, when in the Bronze Age a contingent of Bell Beaker folk spread over Sicily, Sardinia and even made it to North Africa.
This would explain the presence of stocky, squat-faced alpinoids and Borreby types in the Magreb, more than fancyful accounts of relics of Cromagnoid descendants lingering around as montagnards in remote unhospitable regions and occupying the oases in more gracilized forms.
I am today more inclined than ever before to pronounce the Berbers in one breath with the *Berids* in Europe or as reduced Paleo-Atlantids.
I have come across with many Maroccons in the mine industry zone of my home province, and barring a few exceptions with more European traits, I never encounter the blond or ruddy Riffian of acclaimed reputation.
The distinction between Berbers and Arabs in North Africa is ethnical and cultural, but less a result of racial difference.
Both could be best described as a Magrebid race, basically an offshoot of the Arabid or South Orientalid race with in its wake a reduced and sturdier type.
Whatever has been Eurafrican must have been pushed away, probably it's last haven were the Canary Islands.
Others found another refuge area in Iberia.
The Eurafrican in North Africa evolved perhaps into the Touareg type and in Spain to something in the same league which we a bit clumsy call the Saharid.
Probably some branches of the same Eurafricans produced reduced, infantilized types which only make the general history of racial compositions, movements and mongrelisation despondently intricate.

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 11:38 PM
Even the non-negroid players in the Marocco team would be totally alien in Spain, that's the point in posting those pictures.
You can't say that all the players in that team have negroid admistures that would drop them down for being representative of Moroccans
And black football players are not superior in any way to white players, so they haven't more chances to emerge with it..this is not basketball.

I find the non-negroid individuals pretty similar to the thousands that are infesting my country, while i still gotta meet a perfectly european Berber with a Maghreb nation passport and totally europid features.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 11:48 PM
Even the non-negroid players in the Marocco team would be totally alien in Spain, that's the point in posting those pictures.

But who said there weren't differences? All anyone's saying, is that there are (Mediterranid) similarities.

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 11:50 PM
But who said there weren't differences? All anyone's saying, is that there are (Mediterranid) similarities.

Well for me a Mediterranid Anglo-Saxon from Wales or Cornwall is far more similar to a Spaniards than a Berber.
I have at least more difficulties to distinguish the formers than the latter

Glenlivet
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 12:03 AM
Sure, why would the upper class migrate when they have it well? People who migrate from Morrocoo tend to be darker than the average population back home. You will find the same situation with Turks in Northern Europe who are almost exclusively from the less Turkish regions of Eastern Turkey. Western Turks that I have seen are much, much blonder than the neighbouring Greeks. One should talk about realities, not what is most popular. In the same way there are definitely North Africans who are much lighter than many Southern Europeans. The tendency is of course there with a larger non-Europid element in Northern Africa. But how much larger is it than say compared with Portugal?

Ethnic minorities abroad associate (or at least we assume that they represent the majority ethnicity while they often do not) themselves with the majority although they might be of a minority group.





I find the non-negroid individuals pretty similar to the thousands that are infesting my country, while i still gotta meet a perfectly european Berber with a Maghreb nation passport and totally europid features.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 12:04 AM
Whatever it is "whiteness" is relative and individuals differ way too much. As far as America is concerned the original Europeans and the most numerous ones were Northern-Central European. You can correct me if I am wrong but "white" in USA is as I, and probably how many Americans see it, NW European (characteristics common there, whatever it may be) or individuals who resemble these, thus some average type of a folk stock on the British Isles.

That is true. The government's classification of white is contrary to the average American's belief, much like their foreign policy. Our government has changed a lot. It used to be that immigration was confined to Europe and preferred from Northern European sources. Even an old law that said being Southern European didn't automatically make someone white.

Distinct Mediterraneans are foreign to the average white American. Such faces like these would be questionably white in comparison:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=12057

Glenlivet
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 12:20 AM
In a map that I have of R. Biasutti Cornwall is more or less Nordid (Razza Nordica 2, aree di maggiore miscela). Northwestern Spain is put as Mediterranea, "aree di maggiore miscela", and the interior except the south (which is more like northwest) is Mediterranea, "territorio di predominio".

People can correct me here, but in my humble opinion an Anglo-Saxon Mediterranid is contradictory. Some with Mediterranid features may have taken up English speech but that is another issue. Even more strange would be to talk about Anglo-Saxon in most of Wales. See what I mean on English origins:
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=11339

Please show us an example of such a comparison.




Well for me a Mediterranid Anglo-Saxon from Wales or Cornwall is far more similar to a Spaniards than a Berber.
I have at least more difficulties to distinguish the formers than the latter

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 12:27 AM
The first guy looks totally non-European,
the second one looks like a north African half-arabian or something.
The third photo is impossible to classify.
The fourth guy looks like Rowan Atkinson.
The fifth guy could pass as native in the Balkans, although his hair and eyes look to dark.
The sixth guy could pass as a native Brit.

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 12:32 AM
Native Brit? Are you kidding? Everyone of those would pass for Arab, Jewish, or Italian here in the States. Nordhammer was spot on, on this one.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 12:43 AM
#5 and #6 look Saharid, common among Hamites of the north, and they resemble Pontids among e.g. Serbs who in turn are gracile like the North Atlantid in the moorlands of Western Britain. I wound not mistake them for native Brits though. #5 has an extremely high vault, which look even more out of place with the very dark pigmentation and weak features. #3 and #4 are more typical for Berids in Northern Africa. I do not know what #1 is. The overal impression is the most important.

Maybe Italian in USA. I think that San Francisco had emigrants from Northern Italy (Tuscany?)? Do you have information about the regions the Italians emigrated from? Italy is too heterogeneous, the regional differences seem greater than many other European countries.



Native Brit? Are you kidding? Everyone of those would pass for Arab, Jewish, or Italian here in the States. Nordhammer was spot on, on this one.

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 12:53 AM
"Maybe Italian in USA. I think that San Francisco had emigrants from Northern Italy (Tuscany?)? Do you have information about the regions the Italians emigrated from? Italy is too heterogeneous, the regional differences seem greater than many other European countries."

That has been part of my contention all along. The USA seems to have gotten very few folk from the North of Italy. Some, as a cousin of mine has Tuscan ancestors. But, by far the Italian-Americans tend to be Sicilian, Calabrian, Amalfian, Romans ... mostly to the South. I've met one fair Italian (a girl I dated), family was from Venice and had a Greek name. However, by far the Italians that settled in most of the areas I've lived or visited seem to be the same types as those in the Mafia. IOW, many who look like Joe Pesci, etc. In many urban areas in the North, there is much intermarriage between American Jews and Italian-Americans: similarity in looks and social/familial structure seem to help that.

Maybe if there was further information... they are the largest segregated European minority outside of the mainstream American White culture.

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:39 AM
Sure, why would the upper class migrate when they have it well? People who migrate from Morrocoo tend to be darker than the average population back home. You will find the same situation with Turks in Northern Europe who are almost exclusively from the less Turkish regions of Eastern Turkey. Western Turks that I have seen are much, much blonder than the neighbouring Greeks. One should talk about realities, not what is most popular. In the same way there are definitely North Africans who are much lighter than many Southern Europeans. The tendency is of course there with a larger non-Europid element in Northern Africa. But how much larger is it than say compared with Portugal?

Ethnic minorities abroad associate (or at least we assume that they represent the majority ethnicity while they often do not) themselves with the majority although they might be of a minority group.

A lot of my friends have been in Morocco and Tunisie and, after my specific questions, they reported me that people there looks exactly like the immigrants here.
If this upper class" really exists must be exceptionally exclusiv and numericaly reducted as they don't show themsleves in public places.

Turkey is another pair of shoes and surely it can't be compared with Morocco as those countries have a different racial background.
I have met Turkish people that looked definitely "white", can't say the same for Maghrebins.

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:42 AM
In a map that I have of R. Biasutti Cornwall is more or less Nordid (Razza Nordica 2, aree di maggiore miscela). Northwestern Spain is put as Mediterranea, "aree di maggiore miscela", and the interior except the south (which is more like northwest) is Mediterranea, "territorio di predominio".

People can correct me here, but in my humble opinion an Anglo-Saxon Mediterranid is contradictory. Some with Mediterranid features may have taken up English speech but that is another issue. Even more strange would be to talk about Anglo-Saxon in most of Wales. See what I mean on English origins:
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=11339

Please show us an example of such a comparison.

This is Gordon Banks, an old football player..just to stay in the same field

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2002/world_cup/hof/banks/t1_banks_all.jpg
http://www.goalkeepersaredifferent.com/images/banks_great.jpg
You can take as examples also Billy Ward and Geezer Butler from Black Sabbath, of course there are many more but surely the average spaniards look more like tham than like an average Moroccan

Siegfried
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 10:12 AM
Even if 10% of North Africans are mixed, most of them aren't.

If 10% of North Africans are mixed, North Africa is not as 'Europid as Iberia', as you stated earlier in this thread. I haven't seen much of Northern Africa in real life, but I did visit Egypt. I would be surprised if a mere 10% of the people there were mixed; I'd rather expect the majority of them to have significant admixture, with an average level of 10% non-Caucasoid ancestry in each individual. But then again; I don't think Egypt is representative of North Africa as a whole.

Frans_Jozef
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 10:45 AM
If 10% of North Africans are mixed, North Africa is not as 'Europid as Iberia', as you stated earlier in this thread. I haven't seen much of Northern Africa in real life, but I did visit Egypt. I would be surprised if a mere 10% of the people there were mixed; I'd rather expect the majority of them to have significant admixture, with an average level of 10% non-Caucasoid ancestry in each individual. But then again; I don't think Egypt is representative of North Africa as a whole.

Yes, however I think she was working into another direction and minimized the importance of recent admixture to shape the present North Africans as they are.
Based on Coon, Weinert, her own research and some of my entries, North Africa becomes a potential breeding ground of one branch of the Eurafrican race, and like Barma Grande/Grimaldi on the threshold to sprout off pre-Negrid races and mixed with the Atherians, it leads to the Bushmen on one hand and in Europe to the brachymorphic UP races(unreduced/reduced).
Between Libya and Zimbabwe populations show traces of Capoid origin or admixture.
The extinct Strandloopers in South Africa were taller and larger-headed than the actual Bushmen, etc.

The *mongoloid* eye shape in Magrebids is not unlikely a relict trait from times when an unreduced, still mainly undifferentiated ancestral race to the Capoids co-existed in North Africa with the Eurafricans.

Hidalgo
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 12:22 PM
they are of a similar Mediterranean type, and there is strong genetic evidence, which links them to a North African origin

I would rather say there is a strong genetic evidence, which separates them from North Africans

Besides the map Siegfried posted....

Am J Phys Anthropol. 2003 Oct;122(2):147-61.

To investigate the diversity of Y chromosomes in the Iberian Peninsula and the North African population of Maghreb, we constructed superhaplotypes on the basis of 10 biallelic markers, 7 microsatellites, and 1 minisatellite located in the nonrecombining portion of the human Y chromosome. The analysis of extremely high MSY1 variability was performed by reducing the MVR-codes to modular structures. Y-STRs and MSY1 data provide information about the relationship between closely related populations such as those of Iberia. Analysis of biallelic markers allowed us to identify 7 of 12 haplogroups defined by those polymorphisms. The haplogroup background showed clear differences between Iberian populations and the North African one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12949835

HG E and its subclades are found in the study below at a frequency of 82.7-87.5% in Moroccan Berber. We can see HG E as kind of "Euroafrican marker".

The frequency among some european groups i as follows

Andalusians(2 samples combined) 9.7
Catalan 6.1
Hungarian 9.4
Croatian 8.8
Ukrainian 8.6
http://home.ripway.com/2004-1/62802/hapej.pdf

Why does nobody speaks about a Euroafrican/Saharid element among Croatians, Hungarians or Ukrainians since they have nearly the same or more amount of Euroafrican blood??


All Mediterranids seem to share at least a partially Eurafrican origin.

All Europeans share at least a partially Eurafrican origin.(HG E) Ukrainians, Hungarians, Croatians, Poles...


from the U6 lineages.

The presence of this NW African mtDNA haplogroup in Iberia can be used as an indicator of NW Africanfemale contribution. Such a contribution seems to be small, since haplogroup U6 is found at very low frequencies: it has been found in 3 of 54 Portuguese and in 2 of 96 Galicians and is absent in Andalusians and in 162 other Iberians (Bertranpetit et al. 1995; Côrte-Real et al. 1996; Pinto et al. 1996; Salas et al. 1998).
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v68n4/002582/002582.html

The NW Africanfemale contribution is even less important than the paternal one. Besides that haplgroup is more common among Galicians than among Berberid/Saharid/Euro-African Andalusians. You just contradict yourself here.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 01:44 PM
So the average Spaniard look like a very atypical Brit? Is it something good if Spaniards have faces like him? I do not deny their existence in Britain. I myself sometimes bring up such examples. However, I do not when we are talking about the big picture. Most of Britain is predominantly Nordid, of course more so in the eastern parts of Scotland and England. Spain and NW Africa are Insular, Saharid and Berid. Northern Portugal and NW Spain are supposed to have a small Nordid and North Atlantid (according to Lundman, which is probably the Atlanto-Mediterranid of Coon, e.g. among Basques, alongside a Baskid that got a very low skull, low forehead, cleft chin and a Dinaroid nose) element.



of course there are many more but surely the average spaniards look more like tham than like an average Moroccan

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 02:04 PM
If 10% of North Africans are mixed, North Africa is not as 'Europid as Iberia', as you stated earlier in this thread. I haven't seen much of Northern Africa in real life, but I did visit Egypt. I would be surprised if a mere 10% of the people there were mixed; I'd rather expect the majority of them to have significant admixture, with an average level of 10% non-Caucasoid ancestry in each individual. But then again; I don't think Egypt is representative of North Africa as a whole.


Upper Egypt is noticably mixed, and some among the Upper Egyptians were dispalced north by the Aswan Dam, so if you went to Egypt, you mignt have seen Upper Egyptian fellahin.

Most Egyptians are robust meds leaning back to a Eurafrican origin, not recent hybrids. Over time the racial history of Egypt, (according to Coon), was for the northern type to become dominant there.

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 02:13 PM
So the average Spaniard look like a very atypical Brit? Is it something good if Spaniards have faces like him? I do not deny their existence in Britain. I myself sometimes bring up such examples. However, I do not when we are talking about the big picture. Most of Britain is predominantly Nordid, of course more so in the eastern parts of Scotland and England. Spain and NW Africa are Insular, Saharid and Berid. Northern Portugal and NW Spain are supposed to have a small Nordid and North Atlantid (according to Lundman, which is probably the Atlanto-Mediterranid of Coon, e.g. among Basques, alongside a Baskid that got a very low skull, low forehead, cleft chin and a Dinaroid nose) element.

I did not say that.

I said that an average Spaniard is more similar to the dark haired Brits that
u can find there in some extent than to the typical Moroccan.
Is not "good" or "bad", it's just what i think after looking at the Brits, Spaniards and Moroccans i have met in my life.

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 02:21 PM
I would rather say there is a strong genetic evidence, which separates them from North Africans

And this is not really relevant to hoe the Iberians got a Mediterranid type.

The common origin was Mesolithic, and there has been more northern immigration into Iberia than into North Africa, so I would expect a large genetic difference.


Why does nobody speaks about a Euroafrican/Saharid element among Croatians, Hungarians or Ukrainians since they have nearly the same or more amount of Euroafrican blood??

Its because genetic differencce doesnt always reflect the origins of physical types. Genetic evidence is subject to the loss of maternal and paternal lineages, and its even more misleading to use overall genetic distance, because of hybridisation. Genetic evidence can prove an ancestral element was present, but not really disprove one.


All Europeans share at least a partially Eurafrican origin.(HG E) Ukrainians, Hungarians, Croatians, Poles...

Yes, there was a Natufian-likel element around Europe in the Mesolithic and Neolithic. But I don't see what youre point is?


The NW Africanfemale contribution is even less important than the paternal one. Besides that haplgroup is more common among Galicians than among Berberid/Saharid/Euro-African Andalusians. You just contradict yourself here.

Because of the way haplogroups can be lost over time, this can still be used to support an early Mechtoid and Capsian element in Iberia.

Graeme
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 02:27 PM
Why are you so concerned about what Americans think is Europoid or white. I can tell you that Europeans think Americans are colonial trash and don't care what you look like. Black, white, amerindian, mixed Euros, mixed race, Americanoid it is all irrelevent to Europeans.

I can tell you that as a European that North Africans are not considered as Mediterraneans just North Africans. As for their looks they can approximate Europeans, but not intirely no matter how they dress. I am talking about living breathing people not skeletons from thousands of years ago. The North Africans parted company from the European caucasians thousands of years ago and were significantly different by the times of Muslim expansion to preclude interbreeding.

Vetinari
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 04:51 PM
Recent genetic research shows that the southern Italians and the Greeks are closely related to Middle Eastern populations. Also these pictures of southern Italian-American actor Ray Romano shows that southern Italians have significant non-European ancestry.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jan-20-Mon-2003/photos/romano.jpg

http://www.realjudo.net/images/club/new_photos/RayRomano.jpg

http://www.amarillonet.com/images/headlines/082203/2aromano.jpg

http://www.dinair.com/images/TVGuide/emmy3RayRomano.jpg

nemo
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 04:53 PM
Native Brit? Are you kidding? Everyone of those would pass for Arab, Jewish, or Italian here in the States. Nordhammer was spot on, on this one.

None of those pictures look like any Italians I know, can people that look like those 6! have children who look like this?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=259639&messageid=1064063269

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 05:26 PM
Recent genetic research shows that the southern Italians and the Greeks are closely related to Middle Eastern populations. Also these pictures of southern Italian-American actor Ray Romano shows that southern Italians have significant non-European ancestry.


South-Eastern Europeans (Greeks, at least most of the South Slavs, Romanians and Albanians) are genetically closest to the highland West Asians. This corresponds with certain racial types around the Black Sea.

Siegfried
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:10 PM
Recent genetic research shows that the southern Italians and the Greeks are closely related to Middle Eastern populations.


South-Eastern Europeans (Greeks, at least most of the South Slavs, Romanians and Albanians) are genetically closest to the highland West Asians. This corresponds with certain racial types around the Black Sea.

Interesting. What are your sources?

Gesta Bellica
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:16 PM
Recent genetic research shows that the southern Italians and the Greeks are closely related to Middle Eastern populations. Also these pictures of southern Italian-American actor Ray Romano shows that southern Italians have significant non-European ancestry.
]

Ok you have convinced me..
Now i'll go and search for some pictures of mestizo guys but with Anglo-Saxon names and after posting them here i'll claim that dark haired people from Cornwall and Wales have significant amerindian ancestry :oanieyes

Southern Italians and Greeks are probably closer to Middle Easteners than Brits but this is another pair of shoes than saying they are closely related

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:32 PM
The Balkans was settled by Neolithic cultures. It's basically home to the ( I ) haplogroup since the last ice-age, but it has later been 'invaded' by Neolithic peoples ( who have come from the fertile crescent and anatolia, and left a significant impact especially in Greece and Albania ) even later it's been under the R1b and R1a invasions from west and east.

But even then, the Neolithic component isn't as significant in the Balkans as the other components are.

Vetinari
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:37 PM
Interesting. What are your sources?

This first paper shows that Calabrians (southern Italians) are more closely related to Turks, Lebanese and Syrians than they are to Europeans:

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf

This second paper shows that Greeks are closely related to Turks and are also more closely related to North Africans than any other European population:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v67n6/002082/002082.text.html

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:37 PM
Ray Romano has non-European ancestry which is probably as old as any other non-European ancestry found anywhere in Europe ( not accounting for recent race-mixes ).

If you think that after more than 8000 years, the Neolithic influences in Europe are to be called non-European, then the only thing we can do is proclaim that there is no such thing as a European, since everyone arrived to Europe from somewhere else.

Siegfried
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:47 PM
This first paper shows that Calabrians (southern Italians) are more closely related to Turks, Lebanese and Syrians than they are to Europeans:

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf

This second paper shows that Greeks are closely related to Turks and are also more closely related to North Africans than any other European population:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v67n6/002082/002082.text.html

Thank you for those links. :thumbup

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:48 PM
"If you think that after more than 8000 years, the Neolithic influences in Europe are to be called non-European, then the only thing we can do is proclaim that there is no such thing as a European, since everyone arrived to Europe from somewhere else."

- and there was much rejoicing.... amongst the Nigerians in Amsterdam. ;)

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:50 PM
This first paper shows that Calabrians (southern Italians) are more closely related to Turks, Lebanese and Syrians than they are to Europeans:

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf

This second paper shows that Greeks are closely related to Turks and are also more closely related to North Africans than any other European population:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v67n6/002082/002082.text.html

Okeydokey, if you completely disregard the fact that parts of Southeastern Europe and most of Anatolia was populated once by Neolithic peoples who 'invented' agriculture, then YOU MUST acknowledge that what is today Turkey, Liban and Syria was for some 1500 years a part of the Roman empire.

The main area of the eastern Roman empire AKA Byzantium was Anatolia, and it was populated by Greek-speakers. The Turks of central Asia conquered and Turkified the people of Anatolia and brought Islam.

Thus, modern Turks are predominantly Turkified Greeks and Turkified Armenians. That's plenty reason to understand exactly why Greeks are related to Turks and why Turks are not really related to Central Asiatic Turks AKA Original Turks :)

The near east ( Liban and Syria ) have been colonized by Greeks and conquered by Greeks on many occasions...

The ancient inhabitants of Anatolia, the Armenians and Phrygians are also said to be immigrants who originated in the Balkans.

You can find all of this in literature.

Vetinari
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:51 PM
Ray Romano has non-European ancestry which is probably as old as any other non-European ancestry found anywhere in Europe ( not accounting for recent race-mixes ).

If you think that after more than 8000 years, the Neolithic influences in Europe are to be called non-European, then the only thing we can do is proclaim that there is no such thing as a European, since everyone arrived to Europe from somewhere else.

To be precise I should have said that he has non-Paleolithic European ancestry which is common in southern Italy and Greece. In other words, he has ancestors who came to Europe during the Neolithic or even later.

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:52 PM
- and there was much rejoicing.... amongst the Nigerians in Amsterdam. ;)

Unfortunately, the true Europeans: Homo Erectus and Neanderthals weren't present to join the party :P

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:54 PM
To be precise I should have said that he has non-Paleolithic European ancestry which is common in southern Italy and Greece. In other words, he has ancestors who came to Europe during the Neolithic or even later.

That's quite probable, since Greeks are largely neolithic, and southern Italy and Sicily were colonized and held by Greeks for thousands of years.

Vetinari
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 06:56 PM
If you think that after more than 8000 years, the Neolithic influences in Europe are to be called non-European, then the only thing we can do is proclaim that there is no such thing as a European, since everyone arrived to Europe from somewhere else.

Actually I think that the people who arrived in Europe during the Paleolithic are the true Europeans. These people generally belong to Y-chromosome Haplogroups R and I.

Vojvoda
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:03 PM
That's quite probable, since Greeks are largely neolithic, and southern Italy and Sicily were colonized and held by Greeks for thousands of years.
Those non-native Europeans called Greeks nowadays gave us the word Europe (:o

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:04 PM
Actually I think that the people who arrived in Europe during the Paleolithic are the true Europeans. These people generally belong to Y-chromosome Haplogroups R and I.

That's cool, but how can you say that someone is NOT European because his ancestors have been in Europe only for the last 8000 years, while Palaeolithics were in Europe for 4000 years more than Neolithics?

Also, the Uralic and Uralic-influenced people.... like Scandinavians, Balts, Eastern Slavs.... are they any less European because they have ancestors who have came to their current location some 4500 years ago.

I mean, it's pre-history we're talking about here...

Prince Eugen
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:05 PM
Okeydokey, if you completely disregard the fact that parts of Southeastern Europe and most of Anatolia was populated once by Neolithic peoples who 'invented' agriculture, then YOU MUST acknowledge that what is today Turkey, Liban and Syria was for some 1500 years a part of the Roman empire.

The main area of the eastern Roman empire AKA Byzantium was Anatolia, and it was populated by Greek-speakers. The Turks of central Asia conquered and Turkified the people of Anatolia and brought Islam.

Thus, modern Turks are predominantly Turkified Greeks and Turkified Armenians. That's plenty reason to understand exactly why Greeks are related to Turks and why Turks are not really related to Central Asiatic Turks AKA Original Turks :)

The near east ( Liban and Syria ) have been colonized by Greeks and conquered by Greeks on many occasions...

The ancient inhabitants of Anatolia, the Armenians and Phrygians are also said to be immigrants who originated in the Balkans.

You can find all of this in literature.
A very good answer to all nordicists that S.Europeans especially Greeks are no whites!!!!

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:08 PM
Those non-native Europeans called Greeks nowadays gave us the word Europe (:o

I think the word 'Europe' isn't even Greek, it originated in the middle east as 'Ereb' meaning 'west', and 'Asu' meaning 'east' ( Asia ).

If it weren't for the Neolithic spread of agriculture, which originated in the middle east, then...... what would Europe be? The Palaeolithic peoples didn't really make the best of their 4000 years they spent more inside Europe.

Vetinari
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:12 PM
That's cool, but how can you say that someone is NOT European because his ancestors have been in Europe only for the last 8000 years, while Palaeolithics were in Europe for 4000 years more than Neolithics?

Also, the Uralic and Uralic-influenced people.... like Scandinavians, Balts, Eastern Slavs.... are they any less European because they have ancestors who have came to their current location some 4500 years ago.

I mean, it's pre-history we're talking about here...

Where did you get the idea that Paleolithic peoples have only been living in Europe for only 4,000 years longer than Neolithics? According to Semino's paper, Haplogroups R and I (which she calls M173 and M170) have been in Europe for over 20,000 years.

When people use terms like "Native" and "Aborigine" they are usually talking about the people who have lived in a place for the longest period of time (e.g. Native Americans and Australian Aborigines). Since Paleolithic Europeans (Haplogroups R and I) have been in Europe for the longest time they are the ones that would be designated as native or aboriginal.

Vojvoda
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:14 PM
I meant the word Evropi.As far as I know ereb means sunset.

Vetinari
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:15 PM
I think the word 'Europe' isn't even Greek, it originated in the middle east as 'Ereb' meaning 'west', and 'Asu' meaning 'east' ( Asia ).

If it weren't for the Neolithic spread of agriculture, which originated in the middle east, then...... what would Europe be? The Palaeolithic peoples didn't really make the best of their 4000 years they spent more inside Europe.

Why do you keep insisting that Paleolithics have only been living in Europe for about 4,000 years longer than Neolithics?

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:15 PM
Neolithic Near Eastern immigrants and related haplotypes -

"Haplogroup E3a is an Africa lineage. It is currently hypothesized that this haplogroup dispersed south from northern Africa within the last 3,000 years, by the Bantu agricultural expansion. E3a is also the most common lineage among African Americans.

Haplogroup E3b is believed to have evolved in the Middle East. It expanded into the Mediterranean during the Pleistocene Neolithic expansion. It is currently distributed around the Mediterranean, southern Europe, and in north and east Africa."

Haplogroup F is believed to have origins in the Middle East, and migrated to SouthWest Asia.

"Haplogroup G may have originated in India or Pakistan, and has dispersed into central Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. The G2 branch of this lineage (containing the P15 mutation) is found most often in Europe and the Middle East.

Haplogroup J is found at highest frequencies in Middle Eastern and north African populations where it most likely evolved. This marker has been carried by Middle Eastern traders into Europe, central Asia, India, and Pakistan.

Haplogroup J2 originated in the northern portion of the Fertile Crescent where it later spread throughout central Asia, the Mediterranean, and south into India. As with other populations with Mediterranean ancestry this lineage is found within Jewish populations. The Cohen modal lineage is found in Haplogroup J2."

Haplogroup N is associated with the Uralic/Altaic areas, and is found only in Finno-Ugrian speaking areas of Europe.

Paleolithic - European settlers

"Haplogroup R1a is believed to have originated in the Eurasian Steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas. This lineage is believed to have originated in a population of the Kurgan culture, known for the domestication of the horse (approximately 3000 B.C.E.). These people were also believed to be the first speakers of the Indo-European language group. This lineage is currently found in central and western Asia, India, and in Slavic populations of Eastern Europe.

Haplogroup R1b is the most common haplogroup in European populations. It is believed to have expanded throughout Europe as humans re-colonized after the last glacial maximum 10-12 thousand years ago. This lineage is also the haplogroup containing the Atlantic modal haplotype (HG1).

Haplogroups I, I1, and I1a are nearly completely restricted to northwestern Europe. These would most likely have been common within Viking populations. One lineage of this group extends down into central Europe.

Haplogroup I1b was derived within Viking/Scandinavian populations in northwest Europe and has since spread down into southern Europe where it is present at low frequencies."

- thumbnails from FamilyTreeDNA, the company I use - shameless plug ;) map from DNAheritage.com

of course, we can count the mtDNA lineages as well.. ;) The point is, the Paleolithic groups had time to evolve in Europe, entering as the first Homo Sapiens in the area, then developing the distinctive European characteristics in Europe. Linguistic origins of the word Europe are of no relevance. Neither are discussions of agriculture (arguments have been made in the past that the coming of agriculture was the coming of crime as well, and that the two are connected by the process of urbanization .. ie Agriculture>Urbanisation>Crime ;) )

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:18 PM
It's even worse then.... we were in Europe for over 20.000 years doing nothing, until the ice began to retreat, then we populated most of todays Europe, and then we did nothing of importance until the Neolithic ideas and peoples arrived...

Anyway... what would you do with those who have Neolithic Y-chromosomes..... deport them to where they came from 8000 years ago? How many people in Europe have some male Neolithic ancestry? How many of them in northern Europe?

Vetinari
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:22 PM
It's even worse then.... we were in Europe for over 20.000 years doing nothing, until the ice began to retreat, then we populated most of todays Europe, and then we did nothing of importance until the Neolithic ideas and peoples arrived...

Anyway... what would you do with those who have Neolithic Y-chromosomes..... deport them to where they came from 8000 years ago? How many people in Europe have some male Neolithic ancestry? How many of them in northern Europe?

Who said anything about deporting anyone? All I am saying is that southern Italians and Greeks are largely descended from people who arrived in Europe during the Neolithic and afterwards.

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:22 PM
Haplogroups I, I1, and I1a are nearly completely restricted to northwestern Europe. These would most likely have been common within Viking populations. One lineage of this group extends down into central Europe.

Haplogroup I1b was derived within Viking/Scandinavian populations in northwest Europe and has since spread down into southern Europe where it is present at low frequencies."

:lol therefore Vikings are Balkanoids :P

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:23 PM
Who said anything about deporting anyone? All I am saying is that southern Italians and Greeks are largely descended from people who arrived in Europe during the Neolithic and afterwards.

So, how does that make them NON-EUROPEAN?

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:27 PM
"It's even worse then.... we were in Europe for over 20.000 years doing nothing, until the ice began to retreat, then we populated most of todays Europe, and then we did nothing of importance until the Neolithic ideas and peoples arrived..."

Oh, far from nothing. I believe that Franz Josef recently started another thread in another area about the artistic achievements, and the inheritance of symbology that we have from our Paleolithic ancestors. Doing 'nothing' means: mostly living in peace: after we destroyed the Neanderthals. All the trouble started with the immigrants ;)

"Anyway... what would you do with those who have Neolithic Y-chromosomes..... deport them to where they came from 8000 years ago? How many people in Europe have some male Neolithic ancestry? How many of them in northern Europe?"

Leave them there. My point is not to say they are not European, but that there is no cause for such groups being 'proud' about being European, over and against the original Europeans. As for how many have some male Neolithic ancestry? Very few... and they are mostly in the Mediterranean area. By far, R1b is the largest haplogroup today: the great bulk of Europeans are descended from the R and I haplogroups. N is only concentrated in Finland, Karelia, Estonia, and Hungary ... fine by me. F, G, J2, E3b - mostly in Greece, Turkey, Albania, S. Italy, and S. Spain (E3b in that case.) No problem. I think they are firmly established there historically, and even spiritually :)

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:41 PM
Hehe... so the people who created the basis for modern European civilization are supposed to "not feel proud about being European" :giggle

So, according to you, who has the most reason to feel "European"?

Someone whose ancestors achieved making some pottery and having really large heads ....according to you.... can be "proud of being European", while someone from the area that gave us everything else ( until the late medieval ) ...according to you... cannot be "proud of being European".

Then, using that logic, you can be a "proud American" only in the distant future ( say some 20.000 years ), because ...according to you... bringing the basis of progressive civilization..... doesn't mean anything.

:wtf

Vetinari
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:43 PM
So, how does that make them NON-EUROPEAN?

As I said, I should have called them non-Paleolithic Europeans. Technically, anyone born in Europe is a European. I was just distinguishing between native/indigenous/aboriginal Europeans and the rest.

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:48 PM
As I said, I should have called them non-Paleolithic Europeans. Technically, anyone born in Europe is a European. I was just distinguishing between native/indigenous/aboriginal Europeans and the rest.

I disagree :D Nigerians are out of the question, even if they are born in Amsterdam ;)

Vetinari
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:49 PM
Hehe... so the people who created the basis for modern European civilization are supposed to "not feel proud about being European" :giggle

So, according to you, who has the most reason to feel "European"?

Someone whose ancestors achieved making some pottery and having really large heads ....according to you.... can be "proud of being European", while someone from the area that gave us everything else ( until the late medieval ) ...according to you... cannot be "proud of being European".

Then, using that logic, you can be a "proud American" only in the distant future ( say some 20.000 years ), because ...according to you... bringing the basis of progressive civilization..... doesn't mean anything.

:wtf

Thank you for pointing out that it was the Neolithics who gave the world agriculture! Because of them we now have global warming according to modern research:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3307891.stm

http://www.nature.com/nsu/031208/031208-7.html

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:51 PM
"Hehe... so the people who created the basis for modern European civilization are supposed to "not feel proud about being European" "

Well, first ... you badly misquote me. You removed the important part of the sentence ... that of pride over and above, or rather hatred of, those of Paleolithic European descent. (Remember? Xenos? Barbarians?)

"So, according to you, who has the most reason to feel "European"? "

Europeans feel European. I'm beginning to think you have sidestepped what I have said with exactitude. Nowhere did I say those of Neolithic descent should not be considered Europeans. I have pointed out that their attempts to portray themselves as superior to original Europeans is divisive, deceptive, and damaging to themselves.

"Someone whose ancestors achieved making some pottery and having really large heads ....according to you.... can be "proud of being European", while someone from the area that gave us everything else ( until the late medieval ) ...according to you... cannot be "proud of being European"."

No, you grossly abuse my statements with selective quotation! I mentioned no pottery or 'really large heads'. As for 'gave us everything else' - of course they did not. Europe had a high cultural achievement before the coming of the Neolithics. The Neolithics, when they did come, did not operate in a vacuum. They added their genius to that of the Europe already present and both contributed. That is part of the hubris: the 'Atlantis' myth of those who think the enlightened Neolithics brought all arts and culture to the 'snow apes' of Europe a la Farrakhan.

"Then, using that logic, you can be a "proud American" only in the distant future ( say some 20.000 years ), because ...according to you... bringing the basis of progressive civilization..... doesn't mean anything"

The Neolithic migrations are not comparable to the European colonization of America. In any case, 'proud Americans' are folk not cut off from their European roots. Only a few foolish folk think of themselves as having nothing to do with Europe: we know where our customs, values, and genes come from. Those proud of being 'Native American' and this continent are less than 1 million. Another millenium may see no 'Native Americans' left.

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:54 PM
"I disagree Nigerians are out of the question, even if they are born in Amsterdam"

What is the difference? If Neolithics are E haplogroup, and some Nigerians are... what is the difference? ;) After all, agriculture begets urbanisation begets crime... and Nigerians are operating in that tradition. They are an agricultural people, urbanized, and operating crime syndicates in Europe. They sound positively Neolithic! ;) (I hope you can see this is tongue in cheek.)

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 07:57 PM
Thank you for pointing out that it was the Neolithics who gave the world agriculture! Because of them we now have global warming according to modern research:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3307891.stm

http://www.nature.com/nsu/031208/031208-7.html

Well... it was either adopting agriculture or ending up as the neanderthals... :)

If Europe hadn't developed as much as it did on the basis that was brought by the neolithics, someone else would develop and simply overrun us, like we overran other less civilized folk.

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:03 PM
"Well... it was either adopting agriculture or ending up as the neanderthals... "

Nah. We wiped out the Neanderthals anyways. They were no match for Paleo-European culture. ;)

"If Europe hadn't developed as much as it did on the basis that was brought by the neolithics, someone else would develop and simply overrun us, like we overran other less civilized folk."

Nah, we would have continued to develop with or without them. All these propositions are mere hypothetical speculation.

In any case, one of the charactistics of the Paleo-European populations is their adaptability (I'm not sure the same can be said of Neo-European populations?) Sure, we did borrow some from the Neolithics ... not so much their genes, but methods and technology. Trade has always been our strongest relationship to the Neolithic populations (East Mediterranean, I'm not sure how to categorize our relationship with the Finno-Ugrics.) But, we would have been fine and held our own without the Neolithics Middle Easterners.

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:08 PM
Well, first ... you badly misquote me. You removed the important part of the sentence ... that of pride over and above, or rather hatred of, those of Paleolithic European descent. (Remember? Xenos? Barbarians?)

Actually, the Greeks are not 100% Neolithic, they're probably not even directly descending from the 'Neolithic invaders', I think the people known as Pelasgians and others who were overrun by Greek IE tribes were.

The original Greek tribes were probably of the I haplogroup or perhaps even R1a...

My ancestors were the 'Barbarians' and 'Xenos' to the Greeks... Both my lineages :)


Europeans feel European. I'm beginning to think you have sidestepped what I have said with exactitude. Nowhere did I say those of Neolithic descent should not be considered Europeans. I have pointed out that their attempts to portray themselves as superior to original Europeans is divisive, deceptive, and damaging to themselves.

Actually, I don't thin Neolithics were superior or anything like that, they just came from a region that was more suitable for developing a superior ( more efficient ) culture.



No, you grossly abuse my statements with selective quotation! I mentioned no pottery or 'really large heads'. As for 'gave us everything else' - of course they did not. Europe had a high cultural achievement before the coming of the Neolithics. The Neolithics, when they did come, did not operate in a vacuum. They added their genius to that of the Europe already present and both contributed. That is part of the hubris: the 'Atlantis' myth of those who think the enlightened Neolithics brought all arts and culture to the 'snow apes' of Europe a la Farrakhan.

Yes, I too think that both contributed.... after all, I have a 'really large head' :D



The Neolithic migrations are not comparable to the European colonization of America. In any case, 'proud Americans' are folk not cut off from their European roots. Only a few foolish folk think of themselves as having nothing to do with Europe: we know where our customs, values, and genes come from. Those proud of being 'Native American' and this continent are less than 1 million. Another millenium may see no 'Native Americans' left.

But, who knows what will happen in the Americas in the next 20.000 years.
South and Central America is also populated by 'natives'... they do multiply more than Europeans.

Vojvoda
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:13 PM
Nordics-

Descendants of the Danubian culture-bearers of the Neolithic; Nordics brought agriculture and the Indo-European language to northwestern Europe ca. 3,500 B.C.

North-Atlantids-

Re-emergence of Mesolithic-Neolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean racial type through a Nordish chrysalis; the Mediterranean strain, initially associated with the western European culture of the Megaliths, is one of the locally oldest racial strains in Britain.

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/

Those damn Neolithics ruined everything! :D :jk

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:14 PM
Nah. We wiped out the Neanderthals anyways. They were no match for Paleo-European culture. ;)

Well.... nobody's entirely sure of what happened with Neanderthals. Maybe they lived in Europe for too long, got soft and sloppy, made a NEU ( Neanderthal European Union ), started importing UP immigrants from non-European regions :D :D :D



"If Europe hadn't developed as much as it did on the basis that was brought by the neolithics, someone else would develop and simply overrun us, like we overran other less civilized folk."

Nah, we would have continued to develop with or without them. All these propositions are mere hypothetical speculation.

In any case, one of the charactistics of the Paleo-European populations is their adaptability (I'm not sure the same can be said of Neo-European populations?) Sure, we did borrow some from the Neolithics ... not so much their genes, but methods and technology. Trade has always been our strongest relationship to the Neolithic populations (East Mediterranean, I'm not sure how to categorize our relationship with the Finno-Ugrics.) But, we would have been fine and held our own without the Neolithics Middle Easterners.

I'll answer everything you said here with something you said:


All these propositions are mere hypothetical speculation.

Because we do know what happened due to Neolithic influences, what would have happened without these influences IS speculation.

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:23 PM
"Actually, the Greeks are not 100% Neolithic, they're probably not even directly descending from the 'Neolithic invaders', I think the people known as Pelasgians and others who were overrun by Greek IE tribes were.
The original Greek tribes were probably of the I haplogroup or perhaps even R1a... My ancestors were the 'Barbarians' and 'Xenos' to the Greeks... Both my lineages"

Same here. A Classics professor I know pointed out to me that the classical Greeks as we know them only became so advanced after being conquered/overrun by the Dorians - a Balkan people. That is the point: the Neolithics did not move into uninhabited territory. Maybe they just liked the women ;)

"Actually, I don't thin Neolithics were superior or anything like that, they just came from a region that was more suitable for developing a superior ( more efficient ) culture. "

I have difficulty seeing it that way. Agriculture produces an abundance of food, then specialization in industry, then increased childbirth ... and increased survival of children. It runs to the excess til one has a society of fat, over-specialized (even those who do nothing), and overpopulated society. Crime and disease run rampant in such societies, and they also tend to be predatory towards their neighbours. I have a tough time seeing that as superior :) Efficient, yes ... I'm one wants the quickest way to destroy the environment and humanity with it.

"Yes, I too think that both contributed.... after all, I have a 'really large head' "

I'm pretty sure 'large heads' are only proper to Brunn and Borreby types. R1b, I, and R1a also include Atlantids, Nordics, Alpines: folk that predominate in W. Europe, N. Europe, E. Europe. I think by measurement, my head is the same size as the average for Iron Age Celts. However, by looks most seem to think I have a small head.

"But, who knows what will happen in the Americas in the next 20.000 years. South and Central America is also populated by 'natives'... they do multiply more than Europeans."

Yes, who does know? However, they do tend to die off as we destroy their habitats. They cant handle our lifestyle, pace of life, or diseases very well. As 'American' culture spreads to Latin America, we'll see the European genes come out on top as obesity, diabetes, alcoholism, depression, TB, and other fatal disorders take hold as they have in our Native American/First Nations population in North America. Thats why I'm not so sure the Hispanic migration to the USA will have such an impact. They are taking on the American (Euro-origin) culture, and as that happens we'll see if their bodies can physically handle it.

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:32 PM
Interesting. What are your sources?


The overall genetic distance is (I think) from Cavalli-Sforza. As to the important subtypes that seem to correspond with this group, they include the Taurid, and the Pontid.

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:33 PM
"Descendants of the Danubian culture-bearers of the Neolithic; Nordics brought agriculture and the Indo-European language to northwestern Europe ca. 3,500 B.C."

I lineage, however.

"North-Atlantids-
Re-emergence of Mesolithic-Neolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean racial type through a Nordish chrysalis; the Mediterranean strain, initially associated with the western European culture of the Megaliths, is one of the locally oldest racial strains in Britain."

Mesolithic-Neolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean does not mean Neolithic Agriculturalists, as in Greece and Turkey. Atlantids (Paelo/North/Atlanto-'Med') are still the core R1b folk. Megalithic/Long Barrow folk are not Neolithic Near Eastern Agriculturalists... they are our Atlantic Paleo-European ancestors. 'Mesolithic-Neolithic' in this case means they were the development during those periods in W. Europe from the old inhabitants of W. Europe/N. Africa during the Paleolithic.

"Well.... nobody's entirely sure of what happened with Neanderthals. Maybe they lived in Europe for too long, got soft and sloppy, made a NEU ( Neanderthal European Union ), started importing UP immigrants from non-European regions "

Yes, we just know they died violently ... and we R1b folk and I folk were about the only folks around (did I say 'about' ? - hehe). Seems pretty clear to me that it was a competition for resources, and we didnt like how they looked. We wiped them out. We did it in Tasmania as well. Same with most of Eastern North America.

"Because we do know what happened due to Neolithic influences, what would have happened without these influences IS speculation."

So much is assumed because of the influences of the Neo-Classical movement and the Renaissance as to the actual effects of the 'glorious East' upon Europe. We dont really know what happened due to Neolithic influences. The scholars and researchers are still arguing that out. The best I can say with the evidence is that they made some technological advances in certain fields, and when we acquired them in Europe: we took the ball and ran with it... eventually using those technologies far better than their originators. So, yes ... even that much is still speculation. :)

Awar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 08:42 PM
Same here. A Classics professor I know pointed out to me that the classical Greeks as we know them only became so advanced after being conquered/overrun by the Dorians - a Balkan people. That is the point: the Neolithics did not move into uninhabited territory. Maybe they just liked the women ;)

That's what I said... the Dorians were most probably NOT Neolithic, but they also weren't as civilized as Myceneans, Pelasgians and other Neolithic peoples who lived in what later became Greece.

However, the Dorians proved to be more efficient militants, and once they intermixed with the Neolithic population, this gave way to Greece's further progress.



I have difficulty seeing it that way. Agriculture produces an abundance of food, then specialization in industry, then increased childbirth ... and increased survival of children. It runs to the excess til one has a society of fat, over-specialized (even those who do nothing), and overpopulated society. Crime and disease run rampant in such societies, and they also tend to be predatory towards their neighbours. I have a tough time seeing that as superior :) Efficient, yes ... I'm one wants the quickest way to destroy the environment and humanity with it.

That's why I said "more efficient" in my original post. I'm one of those people who would've chosen the barbarian lifestyle over citizenship.



I'm pretty sure 'large heads' are only proper to Brunn and Borreby types. R1b, I, and R1a also include Atlantids, Nordics, Alpines: folk that predominate in W. Europe, N. Europe, E. Europe. I think by measurement, my head is the same size as the average for Iron Age Celts. However, by looks most seem to think I have a small head.

I'm 205x160 with an extremely tall vault. I'm predominantly a UP.
Most probably a Balkan Borreby ( let's say: I ) mixed with eastern European ( R1a ) tall-headedness :) Though, my measurements also coincide with an Irish Brunn from Coon's races of Europe.

If my cheek swabs ever get past my post office, I'll tell you what I am ( I sent the samples to a DNA-ancestry firm in Britain over a week ago, but these are probably held in the post office ).



Yes, who does know? However, they do tend to die off as we destroy their habitats. They cant handle our lifestyle, pace of life, or diseases very well. As 'American' culture spreads to Latin America, we'll see the European genes come out on top as obesity, diabetes, alcoholism, depression, TB, and other fatal disorders take hold as they have in our Native American/First Nations population in North America. Thats why I'm not so sure the Hispanic migration to the USA will have such an impact. They are taking on the American (Euro-origin) culture, and as that happens we'll see if their bodies can physically handle it.

If the European-American culture doesn't change before that. Who knows, maybe they start living healthy :D When Jane Fonda becomes the president of Mexico :lol

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 09:19 PM
"That's what I said... the Dorians were most probably NOT Neolithic, but they also weren't as civilized as Myceneans, Pelasgians and other Neolithic peoples who lived in what later became Greece.
However, the Dorians proved to be more efficient militants, and once they intermixed with the Neolithic population, this gave way to Greece's further progress."

Or, the Dorians rather were able to do with the Mycenaen 'toys' what they themselves could not. Like Chinese gunpowder, and European development of that technology :)

"I'm 205x160 with an extremely tall vault. I'm predominantly a UP.
Most probably a Balkan Borreby ( let's say: I ) mixed with eastern European ( R1a ) tall-headedness Though, my measurements also coincide with an Irish Brunn from Coon's races of Europe.

If my cheek swabs ever get past my post office, I'll tell you what I am ( I sent the samples to a DNA-ancestry firm in Britain over a week ago, but these are probably held in the post office )."

Then you probably arent Brunn, though you may be. There are German Brunns, and I wouldnt be surprised if there were in the Balkans. That has not been my area of expertise. I do know that R1b is found all the way across Europe even towards the Urals (and even a variant in the Near East) ... though far rarer than it is in the core areas of Cornwall and the Basque country. One's measurements can be more similar to another group of which they have no relation, as their is a good amount of variation within phenotypes. Genetic tests help clarify that: phenotype, along with maternal and paternal descent, deep ancestry/haplogroup testing, and SNP.

My own theory is that things are much more complicated than previous classifiers of race have supposed. That within major genetic families there is a diverse morphology dependent upon isolation, admixture, and environment. And that often we have similar morphologies that have no genetic relation due to similar environmental factors, or similar processes of selection.

"If the European-American culture doesn't change before that. Who knows, maybe they start living healthy When Jane Fonda becomes the president of Mexico"

LOL. Maybe! Of course, many Americans do live healthy... though not per capita as do the French (their lifestyle is the way my mother raised me.) However, many of the things us European folk can handle is hard on other races: alcohol, dairy, lots of red meat, lots of grains (ie, bread). And some of what other races eat are difficult on us. 'White' obesity in America tends to go along with large consumption of potatoes/mashed potatoes/corn (maize) .... as well as a larger dependence on pork than other meats. And especially the sugar: sugar on everything, or in everything. IOW, if one removes the elements from our diet that our ancestors have not had for the past millenium, we remove all the foods that have become our danger.

Hidalgo
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 11:09 PM
The common origin was Mesolithic, and there has been more northern immigration into Iberia than into North Africa, so I would expect a large genetic difference.

You suggest the frequency of HG E was in Mesolithic times in Iberia as high as it is today in NorthWestAfrica(common origin = common lineages) but northern immigration brought new lineages into Iberia and the frequency of HG E sinked to 6-10%. The only migrations from the north to Iberia were those of the Iron-Age and Germanic tribes. The questions are: Were these migrations so strong that we can make them responsible for over 90% of Iberians DNA. The frequency of the most common Iberian lineage R1b is higher than among the territories the northern migrants came from. It is hard to believe that Iberians would look like they look today if 90% of their ancestry comes from Central Europe and Sweden.


And dont forget that these lineages can be lost over time, so the percentage isn't important to the level of contribution at the time, from North Africa.

You mean genetic evidence indicates 6-10% of North African DNA in Iberians but in reality they have a much higher amount of Norh African blood(like 30% or 70%?) If you are having your doubts in DNA analysis you should not talk about it and use it as evidence.

Hidalgo
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 11:43 PM
Spain and NW Africa are Insular, Saharid and Berid. Northern Portugal and NW Spain are supposed to have a small Nordid and North Atlantid (according to Lundman, which is probably the Atlanto-Mediterranid of Coon, e.g. among Basques, alongside a Baskid that got a very low skull, low forehead, cleft chin and a Dinaroid nose) element.

I don't understand how Lundman put North Africans and Spaniards into one category and Basques into another with Northwesteuropeans.

Leaders of the Federation of Basque Boxing
http://www.wbaeurope.com/Boxeo_Euskadi/FOTOS_DE_ARCHIVO.htm

Players of Athletic Bilbao(only full blooded Basques are allowed to play in that team)
http://www.athletic-club.net/cantera.asp?equipo=Athletic&idi=1

If someone would told me they are spaniards or italians i would believe it easily. But most of those individuals dont look like dark Brits. Grouping Spaniards and Basques into one category and North Africans into another would have made more sense.

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 11:46 PM
You suggest the frequency of HG E was in Mesolithic times in Iberia as high as it is today in NorthWestAfrica(common origin = common lineages) but northern immigration brought new lineages into Iberia and the frequency of HG E sinked to 6-10%. The only migrations from the north to Iberia were those of the Iron-Age and Germanic tribes.

I wouldn't think they were that isolated. There were contacts along the Atlantic as early as the Mesolithic (which is what distributed R1b up the Atlantic, outside Iberia).


The questions are: Were these migrations so strong that we can make them responsible for over 90% of Iberians DNA. The frequency of the most common Iberian lineage R1b is higher than among the territories the northern migrants came from. It is hard to believe that Iberians would look like they look today if 90% of their ancestry comes from Central Europe and Sweden.

Im suggesting that the immigration into Iberia was constant and over a length of time, that the original lineages were mostly lost there. This has actually happened in North Africa too (but to a lesser degree).


You mean genetic evidence indicates 6-10% of North African DNA in Iberians but in reality they have a higher amount of Norh African blood(like 30% or 70%?) If you are having your doubts in DNA analysis you should not talk about it and use it as evidence.

But the presence of the U6 lineages there, fits with the racial type, and with the archeology.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 11:49 PM
He did not put them with NW Europeans. Any Nordid in N Spain is weak, a strain and not of great importance. It is not mainly found among the Basques who are essentially Atlanto-Mediterranid (according to Coon also Dinarid, which is probably similar to the Baskid of Lundman).

"The Keltic Iron Age racial type of Britain, which the living Spanish Basques so closely resemble, was produced originally in southern Germany from a combination of Nordics with Bell Beaker or other Dinarics, and imported into England where Mediterranean and Atlanto-Mediterranean elements, as well as some Bronze Age Dinaric factors, were already present."

CS Coon, The Races of Europe, chapter XI, section 17, The Basques, , Macmillan, New York, 1939

They resemble the "Keltic Iron age" type described by Coon. It is probably slightly different.

Lundman describe the Basques as lighter than their surrounding.

The mountains of Asturia got Alpinid and down towards N Spain Berid. SW Spain got a lot of Armenoid.





I don't understand how Lundman put North Africans and Spaniards into one category and Basques into another with Northwesteuropeans.

Vestmannr
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 11:49 PM
"If someone would told me they are spaniards or italians i would believe it easily. But most of those individuals dont look like dark Brits."

I looked at those pictures, and for the life of me cannot see a resemblance to southern Italians or southern Spaniards. Many indeed on the Bilbao team, and the older men in the boxing leadership would not be out of place in Ireland, France, the Rhineland, Wales, Scotland, or even most of England (well, maybe out of place in Yorkshire and Northumberland.) A few of those Basque players seemed even to have some strong Cro-Magnon features. Handsome faces.

I have no Basque blood, Spanish blood so far back it doesnt count ... yet, some of those Bilbao players could be my cousins. In fact, one of them looks like my half-Italian/half-English cousin ... though his Italian family are darker and more Med looking than any of those players.

Now. Where are pictures of the Basque girls? ;)

Glenlivet
Wednesday, May 12th, 2004, 11:59 PM
Many indeed on the Bilbao team, and the older men in the boxing leadership would not be out of place in Ireland, France, the Rhineland, Wales, Scotland, or even most of England (well, maybe out of place in Yorkshire and Northumberland.) A few of those Basque players seemed even to have some strong Cro-Magnon features. Handsome faces.

I disagree with the British Isles as such complexions are rare in North Western Europe. Also the dimensions of the head seem too small. #9, #11 and #20 are even olive-skinned. The ones with blondish tawny hair do not differ facially from the individuals who have dark brown hair.

I think that only #1 and #5 could be mistaken for Brits.


Now. Where are pictures of the Basque girls? ;)

I would also like to see more Basques.

Vestmannr
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 12:15 AM
Felipe definitely could pass for English. Tiko looks Celtic (and like my cousin), and Orbaiz might be able to fit in as well in Celtic parts of Britain, or in SE Ireland.

nemo
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 12:15 AM
Recent genetic research shows that the southern Italians and the Greeks are closely related to Middle Eastern populations. Also these pictures of southern Italian-American actor Ray Romano shows that southern Italians have significant non-European ancestry.


And the mongrel looking features that many northern europeans show, shows that many northern Europeans have significant non-European ancestry, and not all Southern Italians have the same phenotype, I have blue eyes and fair skin, and I have seen british and even Germans who show more non-European feature then Ray Romano, if you nordics think you are so pure? your living in your own world, their are many Northern Europeans who show non european mixture.

nemo
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 12:21 AM
Felipe definitely could pass for English. Tiko looks Celtic (and like my cousin), and Orbaiz might be able to fit in as well in Celtic parts of Britain, or in SE Ireland.

Sure they could! you sure are trying to whiten the Spanish up aren't you? why don't you try clorox, your evaluatins are all objective, that's all they are.

Med
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 01:46 PM
This first paper shows that Calabrians (southern Italians) are more closely related to Turks, Lebanese and Syrians than they are to Europeans:

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publicatio..._v290_p1155.pdf

That study is flawed, as shown by Chikhi et al. 2002:


"We analyzed a large dataset of 22 binary markers from the non-recombining region of the Y chromosome.... The results reveal a significantly larger genetic contribution from Neolithic farmers than did previous indirect approaches based on the distribution of haplotypes selected by using post hoc criteria.... We also argue that local hunter-gatherers contributed less than 30% in the original settlements. This finding leads us to reject a predominantly cultural transmission of agriculture.

"We found an average Neolithic contribution of 50% across all samples, 56% for the Mediterranean subset and 44% in non-Mediterranean samples. Thus, whichever region of Europe is considered, we find that the average value is more than twice that suggested by Semino et al. (2000) on the basis of the more readily apparent trends."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12167671&dopt=Abstract

Also, you're forgetting about the Neolithic mtDNA component, which is higher in Northern Europe according to Richards et al. 2000:


Britons/Frenchmen.......22%
Bulgars/Romanians.......20%
Russians/Finns..........18%
N Germanics/Slavs.......17%
S Germanics.............15%
Iberians................12%
Scandinavians...........12%
Greeks/Albanians........11%
Italians.................9%
Basques..................7%

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v67n5/001799/tb5.gif


This second paper shows that Greeks are closely related to Turks

Indeed:


"The fourth [principal component] is strongly reminiscent of Greek colonization in the first millennium B.C." (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997)

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9584/PC4.jpg


Actually I think that the people who arrived in Europe during the Paleolithic are the true Europeans. These people generally belong to Y-chromosome Haplogroups R and I.

It's absurd to speak of 'European' and 'non-European' when dealing with pre-history. All of the pre-historic Migration Events that contributed to Europe's gene pool were non-European. Here are the major ones, with their estimated points of origin and approximate time periods:


Paleolithic - Near East - 40,000 YBP
Mesolithic - Near East - 25,000 YBP
Neolithic - Near East - 10,000 YBP
Kurgan - Central Asia - 6000 YBP
Finno-Ugrian - Siberia - 4000 YBP


Also these pictures of southern Italian-American actor Ray Romano shows that southern Italians have significant non-European ancestry.

The only thing those pictures show is that the sun is hot, and that you don't understand the concept of tanning. Ray Romano is simply Dinaric. Here's his natural skin tone:

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/5397/romano.jpg

And here are his parents:

http://www.dizthewiz.com/interviews/arinterview/images/alchair.jpghttp://www.dizthewiz.com/interviews/lrinterview/images/mom4.jpg

And his twin sons (with an Italian woman):

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20030112/450pchoice35.jpg


Finally, here are some pure Paleolithic Europeans for comparison:

http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/basques.html#photos

Med
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 02:23 PM
In many urban areas in the North, there is much intermarriage between American Jews and Italian-Americans: similarity in looks and social/familial structure seem to help that.

Evidence? Italians have always tended to marry Europeans who share their Catholic heritage and working class background. That's why Italian-Irish unions are so common -- much more so Italian-Jewish ones. Jews tend to intermarry with educated, liberal WASPs.

Further, Jews either look typically Armenoid, and thus vaguely like Dinaricized Europeans, or they belong to the various subraces of their European host populations. Apart from that, I see no phenotypic link between Jews and Italians specifically.


Maybe if there was further information... they are the largest segregated European minority outside of the mainstream American White culture.

Evidence? You could argue that Italians who make up the majority of the population in certain areas of New York and New Jersey are "segregated", but what ethnic group doesn't have a stronghold like that in some part of the country? However, as with other groups, Italians who've spread to Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Florida, California, Nevada etc. are not segregated, either physically or culturally.

Also, what's "mainstream American White culture"? Are Midwestern Germans and Poles who eat kielbasa and dance the polka "mainstream"? How about Cajuns who speak a French-influenced patois and have their own French-Spanish-Creole culture? Or maybe the epitome of "mainstream White America" is some Nord watching The Sopranos while eating a pepperoni pizza.


I've met one fair Italian (a girl I dated), family was from Venice and had a Greek name.

Please keep your Atlantid hands off of my Mediterranean women. Thanks.


However, by far the Italians that settled in most of the areas I've lived or visited seem to be the same types as those in the Mafia. IOW, many who look like Joe Pesci, etc.

Uh, there's no "Mafia type". There are typically Italian/Southern European types that predominate in all strata of Italian society. That could explain why the gangsters, actors and the Italians you've encountered all look similar.

Tell me, is there an "Alcoholic type" among the Irish? Because by far the Irishmen that settled in most of the areas I've lived or visited seem to be the same types as those who frequent bars and vomit green beer on St. Patrick's Day.

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 02:48 PM
Also, you're forgetting about the Neolithic mtDNA component, which is higher in Northern Europe according to Richards et al. 2000:

Then this is obviously because the Neolithic maternal lines were replaced in the south. There was Neolithic and Bronze Age immigration to Italy, from Asia Minor and the Balkans.

Hidalgo
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 03:19 PM
I wouldn't think they were that isolated. There were contacts along the Atlantic as early as the Mesolithic. Im suggesting that the immigration into Iberia was constant and over a length of time

Coon does not agree with you.


Toward the beginning of the second millennium B.C., if not earlier, these agricultural colonists were reënforced by a people of much higher culture, the megalith-building tall Mediterraneans, who came by sea, and many of whom went on from Spain as far as the British Isles and Scandinavia. Their settlements in Spain were located mostly upon the eastern seaboard, and on the northern Atlantic coast, particularly in the region of the Bay of Biscay. They are followed by other peoples of a general Mediterranean type, but coming from Asia Minor, as their exaggerated nasal form in-dicates. These new invaders brought the knowledge of metal with them from the east, and were the first of the prospectors to visit this metal-rich peninsula. They in turn were followed by round-headed compatriots with the same nasal peculiarities, who introduced the Dinaric racial type to western Europe. These Dinaric brachycephals, who settled in the same regions as their maritime predecessors, probably left Spain in large numbers after a brief sojourn, in favor of countries farther north. From Bronze Age time until the Roman conquest, there were only two known movements which may have affected Spain racially. One was that of the Phoenicians, a continuation of the prehistoric invasions from the eastern Mediterranean; the other was that of the Kelts into the north, to form the mixed nation of Kelto-Iberians known to the Roman& Many of the Kelts, however, also used Spain merely as a stopping place on their wanderings. In post-Roman times Germanic invaders, the Goths and Vandals, brought a second Nordic infusion to the peninsula. but the Vandals soon moved on to Algeria, thence to Carthage, and finally to Byzantium

He mentions just 2 movements from the north to Iberia, that of the Celts and that of the Germanic tribes. No other migrations from the north.

I think you know your theory is wrong but you want to separate Iberians from Western europeans to the "Mediterreanean myth" alive.


He did not put them with NW Europeans.

He said they are "close" to the North-Atlantid subrace.


The Spanish Basques belong predominantly to a Mediterranean subrace, which is also rather closely related to the North-Atlantid subrace


They resemble the "Keltic Iron age" type described by Coon. It is probably slightly different.
I think that only #1 and #5 could be mistaken for Brits.

There is a contradiction if you say they resemble the Keltic Iron age type(very common in the British Isles) and then you say they do not look like Brits. Do you think their faces and skull resemble metrically the Keltic Iron age type? Could be, but as you admitted their appearance is different from Northwesteuropeans. I think what really matters if we classify people is their overall appearance. I dont think these Basques i posted look like Hugh Grants, Tony Blairs, Liz Hurleys( Keltic Iron age types)brother, sister, son or daughter. They look more related to to these spanish footballers you classified as "Saharid". Just curious, what do you think of what subrace #9, #11 and #20 are?

Some more pictures of Basques
Bilbao Females
http://www.athletic-club.net/cantera.asp?equipo=Femenino&idi=1

Basque swimming national team
http://www.eif-fvn.org/eiffvn/fotos/Dscf0017.jpg
Basque swimming national junior team
http://www.eif-fvn.org/eiffvn/fotos/IMG_0270.jpg

Basque Waterpolo national team
http://www.clubaskartza.com/fotof1.htm


I have no Basque blood

Well, if you are descended from Ferdinand you will have some since there were marriages between the kings of Aragón and Navarra.

Frans_Jozef
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 03:21 PM
Then this is obviously because the Neolithic maternal lines were replaced in the south. There was Neolithic and Bronze Age immigration to Italy, from Asia Minor and the Balkans.

Neolithic NW Italy shows more affinity with eastern and northern groups, mind you it was with Catalonia a stronghold of the Atlanto-Mediterrenean race, later Danubian groups must have entered Liguria, which cranial shape is very allerting in their approximity to the Danubian type in Northeast France.

On the other hand, the distribution of gracile Meds covers France(except the Atlantic coast), Switzerland and Belgium, but in the Parisian Basin the SOM complex will introduce a portly Alpinid and Séquanian element which roots only can be traced back in the mesolithics, also in the Michelsberg complex various older strains happen to re-emerge.

The Bronze Age is more notable for the appearance of the Bell Beaker type with its Dinaroid features, but it's anthropological origin resides in the North European Plains, it's cultural roots was probably Iberian; in fact, they were more custodians than initiators.

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, May 13th, 2004, 04:05 PM
I think you know your theory is wrong but for some reason you want to separate Iberians from other europeans.


Races arent fixed and there wasn't yet a Caucasoid race in the Mesolithic. However, its possible to tell the origins of the Mediterranean type among modern Caucasoids, and to trace it back to a Eurafrican element.

In the western Mediterranean, the trend from Eurafrican to Mediterranean was associated with the Capsians, and Capsians entered Iberia from North Africa. (The Capsian is present in the archeological record there)

I think the genetic evidence, can only be interpreted, as the assimilation of the North Africans in Iberia by northern immigrants. How else could Iberia become genetically European, but physically Capsian?

Vestmannr
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 12:39 AM
Nemo says: "and not all Southern Italians have the same phenotype, I have blue eyes and fair skin,"

Then you are not a Med, most probably. Most probably of Celtic, Germanic, or Slavic descent. You know, us folk who conquered Rome several times? ;)

and also: "Sure they could! you sure are trying to whiten the Spanish up aren't you? why don't you try clorox, your evaluatins are all objective, that's all they are."

No, I've never had children with a Spaniard. And 'subjective' is the word you were trying for, I tend to give a mix of subjective and objective. As for clorox, you really shouldnt be mixing it with ammonia like that.

Medhammer: "Evidence? Italians have always tended to marry Europeans who share their Catholic heritage and working class background."

Sure, and Poles, etc. However, still not so much as they marry other Italians... and Italian-Jewish individuals are far from rare in the USA. As for WASPs and Jews intermarrying, far less likely: WASPs and Jews share far less similarities in culture, looks, values, and self-expression than do Jews and Southern Europeans. Again, proves my point: hatred of WASPs, Americans, Anglos, Celts, Germans, Nordics, etc. can cause one to make errors in judgement: by exaggeration, omission, transference, or any other number of pathologies of communication and logic.

"Further, Jews either look typically Armenoid, and thus vaguely like Dinaricized Europeans, or they belong to the various subraces of their European host populations. Apart from that, I see no phenotypic link between Jews and Italians specifically."

I know many Italian Jews. :) I think I've met far more Jews of Alpinid or Mediterranean looks in the States than Armenoid, though the latter do exist mostly in the Old World. As for a Phenotypic link? There must be, not only from historical reasons (large numbers of Jewish converts in the Early Church of Rome and Italy, from whence many Italian Roman Catholics descend), but for many other reasons. Conversion to Catholicism by Jews was far more common than conversion to Judaism by Europeans.

"Evidence? You could argue that Italians who make up the majority of the population in certain areas of New York and New Jersey are "segregated", but what ethnic group doesn't have a stronghold like that in some part of the country?"

The mainstream population does not have a local 'stronghold', but holds the majority of the country.

" However, as with other groups, Italians who've spread to Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Florida, California, Nevada etc. are not segregated, either physically or culturally."

Oh, they are segregated. In Chicago (Illinois), Detroit (Michigan), Las Vegas (Nevada) they are physically and culturally noticeable as Italian/Italian-American. Many have assimilated by inter-marriage and adoption of the American identity. Rather, they are not Italian-Americans at that point, but Americans of primarily Anglo identity.

"Also, what's "mainstream American White culture"? Are Midwestern Germans and Poles who eat kielbasa and dance the polka "mainstream"? "

Most Midwesterners of whatever origin eat kielbasa and dance polka. That is a regionalism. However, German culture/values/race was and is far closer to mainstream American ... their assimilation was two-way. Germans are far more American than Italians, and have contributed far more (and are far more Anglo as well.)

"How about Cajuns who speak a French-influenced patois and have their own French-Spanish-Creole culture?"

About one million Cajuns. I know many, and they are localized in a specific area.. much as the Highland Scots of Cape Fear, NC. As for 'French influenced patois', rather Cajun French is a local dialect of French based upon the French of Maine and the Acadian colony of Canada. Again, Cajuns are not mainstream... they are a regional minority. Many have Cajun descent that are mainstream though... still not enough to influence the majority, however.

" Or maybe the epitome of "mainstream White America" is some Nord watching The Sopranos while eating a pepperoni pizza."

Yes, we do eat pizza. Mostly in our Adolescence. Most of us, however, do not watch the Sopranos (well, maybe the one episode with Fairuza Balk). Americans, however, are most likely not watching Sopranos or flying foreign flags, or speaking a language besides English, etc.

"Please keep your Atlantid hands off of my Mediterranean women. Thanks."

Ah, you admit we exist! Use us for political reasons, then cast us away when it gets serious :) The girl mentioned never had my hands on her ... I'm not some pig that has to paw every woman I take out more than thrice. She was a good friend, an accomplished musician, and an artist. Good for her. Either way, she was not 'Mediterranean' but rather more of an Alpine/Dinaric.

"Uh, there's no "Mafia type". There are typically Italian/Southern European types that predominate in all strata of Italian society. That could explain why the gangsters, actors and the Italians you've encountered all look similar."

Sure, there is a Mafia type. Its a type of social behavior modeled by Italian-Americans for reasons of mystique, group cohesion, etc. Why every young Italian-American male gushes over 'Goodfellas' in ways the rest of us just dont understand (along with always announcing how they have such and such familial connection to the Mafia. yay.) Though, you have admitted what I've said all along ... the racial types predominate in all strata of Italian society. Of course there is not a 'Mafia' racial type, but a Mafia behavior type.

"Tell me, is there an "Alcoholic type" among the Irish? Because by far the Irishmen that settled in most of the areas I've lived or visited seem to be the same types as those who frequent bars and vomit green beer on St. Patrick's Day."

Most who celebrate St. Paddy's day in America arent Irish... its Americans, Germans, Italians, Swedes, Blacks, and everyone else vomiting :) A true Irishman goes to Mass on St. Paddy's day. As for Alcoholism, that is no distinguishing trait of the Irish. There are many Italian alcoholics as well... though the Irish Mafia is much smaller, less a part of Irish-American society, and has less influence on the behavior of non-Mafia Irish. ;)

Hidalgo wrote: "Well, if you are descended from Ferdinand you will have some since there were marriages between the kings of Aragón and Navarra."

Ah. I have little knowledge of that beyond geneaology, and my connection to King Ferdinand is through the French and English royals. Doesnt bother me if I do have a little Basque blood then, but I cant claim to be 'Basque' with that little either. I'm an Anglo-Celt primarily.

Glenlivet
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 12:58 AM
I should have formulated my sentence so I would be understood in the way that I wanted. What I actually wanted to convey is that Coon said they resemble the Keltic Iron Age racial type of Britain. Coon described the Basques as mainly Atlanto-Mediterranid and Dinarid. The type that some Basques resemble is probably a local form similar to certain Brits. Two individuals from those regions may not share a family lineage or cluster in the same haplogroup and so forth. There are many parallel types in Europe derived from partially similar ancient stocks.

Hugh Grant strike me as closer to the description of Anglo-Saxon. It was Loki who enlightened me on the matter. One should not focus on his intermediate pigmentation that is shared by so many Keltic Nordics. Perhaps another example of a darker Anglo-Saxon is George Bush senior.

It is mainly the lower segment of the Keltic Nordic that is more shallow, especially the jaw. The type is usually leaner and not as long-faced. The features tend to be finer. The mandible is not as deep. As for Anglo-Saxon examples I am pretty sure about Ben Fogle, Noel Coward, Alex Guinness and Rex Harrison. Peter Cushing is a good representive of what I think of as Keltic Nordic.

Do you want my opinion on the male footballers, #9, #11 and #20 ?




There is a contradiction if you say they resemble the Keltic Iron age type(very common in the British Isles) and then you say they do not look like Brits. Do you think their faces and skull resemble metrically the Keltic Iron age type? Could be, but as you admitted their appearance is different from Northwesteuropeans. I think what really matters if we classify people is their overall appearance. I dont think these Basques i posted look like Hugh Grants, Tony Blairs, Liz Hurleys( Keltic Iron age types)brother, sister, son or daughter. They look more related to to these spanish footballers you classified as "Saharid". Just curious, what do you think of what subrace #9, #11 and #20 are?

Some more pictures of Basques
Bilbao Females
http://www.athletic-club.net/cantera.asp?equipo=Femenino&idi=1

Awar
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 03:13 AM
Then you are not a Med, most probably. Most probably of Celtic, Germanic, or Slavic descent. You know, us folk who conquered Rome several times? ;)

Actually, meds, and I mean med-proper are known to have blondism. It's in no way a Celtic, Germanic and Slavic exclusive trait.

Vestmannr
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 03:24 AM
"Actually, meds, and I mean med-proper are known to have blondism. It's in no way a Celtic, Germanic and Slavic exclusive trait."

Depends on whom is constructing the classifications, what they mean by 'Mediterranean', and what their boundaries are for classification. Rare blondism, sure.. of course, we dont know what Nemo looks like.

Med
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 12:45 PM
@Frontiersman

There's nothing worse than someone who's extremely long-winded, says absolutely nothing of value, and doesn't know how to use the forum's "quote text" feature. I don't think I can take much more of this...


Italian-Jewish individuals are far from rare in the USA. As for WASPs and Jews intermarrying, far less likely: WASPs and Jews share far less similarities in culture, looks, values, and self-expression than do Jews and Southern Europeans.

Prove it. Do something that you've never done before: Show me some statistics that Italian-Jewish unions are more common than 1) Italian unions with other ethnic groups, and 2) Jewish unions with other ethnic groups.


I know many Italian Jews.

Yeah, and I know many German Jews and Russian Jews and Hungarian Jews.... What the hell are you talking about?


As for a Phenotypic link [between Jews and Italians]? There must be

Really? Different than that between Jews and this English Dinaric?

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7171/english_dinaric.jpg

Or this German Noric?

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5975/sub_noric.jpg


Conversion to Catholicism by Jews was far more common than conversion to Judaism by Europeans.

What does that have to do with anything? Let alone with Italians? Let alone with the issue of Italian-Jewish unions? Do you even know who you're talking to, and what we're talking about?


Ah, you admit we exist! Use us for political reasons, then cast us away when it gets serious

Actually, I was making fun of your crazy ideas.


Of course there is not a 'Mafia' racial type, but a Mafia behavior type.

That's not what you said. You said: "I've met one fair Italian by far the Italians that settled in most of the areas I've lived or visited seem to be the same types as those in the Mafia". You clearly implied a 'Mafia' racial type. You should really start listening to yourself more. It might help you avoid saying such strange and irrelevant things.


As for Alcoholism, that is no distinguishing trait of the Irish. There are many Italian alcoholics as well...

Oh, look. Here's me using evidence to prove you wrong yet again. Will it ever end?



[b]"...Irish-Americans in Boston were seven times as likely to become alcoholic as Italian-Americans."

http://www.peele.net/lib/atlcgene.html

"...it is common knowledge that the Irish, Russians and American Indians have historic problems with alcoholism, while Asians, Jews and Italians have no alcoholism to speak of...."

http://killdevilhill.com/bookchat/read.php?f=133&i=5664&t=5664

"...statistics from Knickerbocker, Charles B. Townes, and St. John's Hospitals in New York City...show that out of 12,000 alcoholics treated in the past five years, 80 per cent were of Irish-American descent."

http://silkworth.net/silkworth/prevention.html

"About five per cent of the Irish adult population suffers from alcohol dependence, seven per cent from alcohol abuse, and eight per cent from heavy alcohol consumption; a total of 20 per cent of the population in the territory of alcohol problems."

http://www.irishmedicalnews.ie/articles.asp?Category=clinfoc&ArticleID=11036

"Drinking forms a huge part of Irish culture and psyche and the country has a high rate of alcoholism and, linked to alcoholism, depression."

http://www.executiveplanet.com/business-culture-in/132356821166.html

Had enough?

Med
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 10:21 AM
Neolithic Gene Frequencies in Europeans

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=11538

nemo
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 03:08 PM
" we dont know what Nemo looks like.

And we don't know what you look like either, I look the way I say I look, I don't have to lie to strangers, not only am I very fair skinned, but in all modesty, I have been told by countless woman, and many just strangers, and countless woman customers where I work that I have the most beautiful blue eyes they ever saw, so put that in your knish and swallow it
:P

Hidalgo
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 04:05 PM
In the western Mediterranean, the trend from Eurafrican to Mediterranean was associated with the Capsians, and Capsians entered Iberia from North Africa. (The Capsian is present in the archeological record there)

Here is the conclusion from the study you posted

We find no evidence for biological discontinuity amongst human groups in Portugal across the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition; all our biological data argue against the model of demic diffusion and corroborate more recent interpretations based on mtDNA
http://intarch.ac.uk/antiquity/jackes/printed.html

According to you there was a big population change in the Iberian peninsula during the Capsian period 7000-5000 BC. That anthropological study found no differences in the Iberian population during the period 8000-4500 BC. According to that study the Upper Paleolithic Iberian population is the same as the post-neolithic one.

Your theory was refuted with the study you posted. Good work.

How Iberia got their "Mediteranid" phenotype? From its different(from central and northern europe) climate and environmental conditions during Paleolithic times. You seem to be very sure that "Mediterranid types" are not native to Europe. You have no evidence to prove this. The genetic and anthropological evidence can only be interpreted, as the persistence of Upper Paleolithic Mediterrean types in the Iberian peninsula that received unsignificantly gene flow from Neolithic migrants

"Neolithic immigrants are unlikely to have contributed significantly to the later Iberian gene pool"
http://intarch.ac.uk/antiquity/jackes/printed.html

And a later (in my opinion) significant gene flow from Central/Northern Europe.
This is what modern day Iberians are.

morfrain_encilgar
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 05:01 PM
Here is the conclusion from the study you posted

We find no evidence for biological discontinuity amongst human groups in Portugal across the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition; all our biological data argue against the model of demic diffusion and corroborate more recent interpretations based on mtDNA
http://intarch.ac.uk/antiquity/jackes/printed.html

According to you there was a big population change in the Iberian peninsula during the Capsian period 7000-5000 BC. That anthropological study found no differences in the Iberian population during the period 8000-4500 BC.

I never said there was a big population change just a gradual one.

But a Capsian origin for Mesolithic Iberians, is supported from maternal (U6) evidence.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=270091

"In Europe, U6 lineages have been consistently sampled only in the Iberian Peninsula. It has been mentioned that U6 nucleotide diversity is higher in Iberia than in Africa. This has been confirmed here. However, S is greater in West Africa. Considering the isolation of the different Berber groups we think that, in this case, the latter is a better diversity measure. The absence of U6 representatives in the rest of Europe, is also an argument against the hypothesis that these lineages could have migrated to North Africa from Europe. Naturally, this does not exclude that other mitochondrial lineages could have followed this route. Most probably, the presence of these African lineages in Iberia is the result of northward expansions from Africa. The time of this expansion has been predominantly attributed to either the Arab/Berber occupation that lasted seven centuries or to prehistoric immigrations of North Africans to Iberia. Both processes could have contributed to model the U6 landscape in Iberia. First, haplotype matches show that 10 of the 19 U6 lineages detected in Iberia are not present in Africa, which points against only one recent immigration. Second, the geographic distribution of the U6 lineages in Iberia is puzzling. Whereas the U6b lineages, nowadays very scarce in Africa, are mainly detected in the Northwest, the U6 lineages found in highest frequencies in Africa are predominant in the south, where the Islamic rule lasted longer. At the light of these results we propose that U6b in Iberia is the signal of a prehistoric North African immigration that could have also brought some U6a lineages. Its actual northern range could be the result of a forced retreat due to the arrival of new southern incomers to Iberia. However, the U6a distribution is better explained as the result of more recent gene flow from North Africa. The age of U6b (approx. 10,000 ya) might be considered as an upper bound for the prehistoric wave. Curiously, around this time the Iberomaurusians began to be displaced by the incoming Capsian culture in the Maghrib. On archaeological grounds, it has been proposed that Iberomaurusians slowly retreated towards the Atlantic coast from where they sailed to the Canary Islands and southwards to the Malinese Sahara. Coincidentally, these are the same places where the U6b lineages have been spotted"


How Iberia got their "Mediteranid" phenotype? From its different(from central and northern europe) climate and environmental conditions. You seem to be very sure that "Mediterranid types" are not native to Europe. You have no evidence to prove this.

Then why are Mesolithic Iberians racially identical to Capsians in Africa (apart from a Teviec type, which was Natufid meaning Middle Eastern)? In the Mesolithic the racial types and tool industry were the same. I can't see, how an identical racial type, can emerge just from similar conditions.

Frans_Jozef
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 06:52 PM
Then why are Mesolithic Iberians racially identical to Capsians in Africa (apart from a Teviec type, which was Natufid meaning Middle Eastern)? In the Mesolithic the racial types and tool industry were the same. I can't see, how an identical racial type, can emerge just from similar conditions.

Correction: Téviec is unrelated to Natufians and contemporary to the Capsians(6500 - 7000 BCE), its origin predates the wandering of Capsians in SW Europe:

http://www.qub.ac.uk/arcpal/Rick%20Research/brittany.html

http://members.aol.com/teviec0001/discussi.htm

The Mesolithic was still strongly restricted in interregional contacts, perhaps even more than previous in the UP due to technological innovations and better local exploitation of natural resources which enforced territorial delimitations.

morfrain_encilgar
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 08:03 PM
Correction: Téviec is unrelated to Natufians and contemporary to the Capsians(6500 - 7000 BCE), its origin predates the wandering of Capsians in SW Europe:

http://www.qub.ac.uk/arcpal/Rick%20Research/brittany.html

http://members.aol.com/teviec0001/discussi.htm

The Mesolithic was still strongly restricted in interregional contacts, perhaps even more than previous in the UP due to technological innovations and better local exploitation of natural resources which enforced territorial delimitations.

Youre own post, about the Mesolithic, stated Natufids.

Frans_Jozef
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 08:59 PM
Youre own post, about the Mesolithic, stated Natufids.

Same probable origin, not same cultural identity:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=11033

Frans_Jozef
Sunday, May 16th, 2004, 09:40 PM
The Capsians were small build people, throughout West Europe moderate and small-sized statured was the norm, rarely one finds tall individuals.
The Natufians were moderate to tall.

The Younger Dryas, though occuring during the final deglacialisation of the UP, was a rapacious, sudden cold period that lasted for over ten centuries , but unlike Renato Biasutti suggest, the LMG period was in lesser extent responsible for an emergence reduction of body size( plus favouring stunted, lateral build) and other more boreal features than the YD which sets off the Mesolithic(9600BC).

The Capsian forebearers were probably also influenced by the LMG, even if they had the advantage of living in more hospitable, lush North Africa.
However, the following Holocene inflicted drought in the Levant and the Sahara became a desert, habitable lands were found north.

Hidalgo
Tuesday, May 18th, 2004, 04:52 PM
never said there was a big population change just a gradual one.

They did not found evidence for any "gradual" population change they found evidence for biological continuity. No evidence for a replacement by incoming groups(Capsians) No evidence for your theory. This study refutes your theory.


But a Capsian origin for Mesolithic Iberians, is supported from maternal (U6) evidence

The only thing this lineages support is the existence of Neolithic gene flow from North Africa. Such gene flow is also acknowledged by the authors of that anthropological study but as they camed to conclusion such gene flow did not changed the racial type of the authoctonous population.


Then why are Mesolithic Iberians racially identical to Capsians in Africa (apart from a Teviec type, which was Natufid meaning Middle Eastern)? In the Mesolithic the racial types and tool industry were the same. I can't see, how an identical racial type, can emerge just from similar conditions.

You rely on Coon when you say that Iberians and Capsians were similar. Good, he says the same for Basques and the Keltic Iron Age racial type of Britain.

Do you have cousins and uncles that look like that?

http://www.clubaskartza.com/fotof1.htm
http://www.wbaeurope.com/Boxeo_Euskadi/FOTOS_DE_ARCHIVO.htm

Are there many Brits that look like that?
Do you think they are of the same racial type as this individuals?

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/troe294.htm
http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/troe293.htm

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 18th, 2004, 07:38 PM
They did not found evidence for any "gradual" population change they found evidence for biological continuity. No evidence for a replacement by incoming groups(Capsians) No evidence for your theory. This study refutes your theory.

Youre right that they didnt support any population change, but a gradual admixture can be hard to identify. I doubt it refutes what Im sayng, because of the similarities between Mesolithic North Africa and Iberia, being greater than those between these proto-Meds and the robust Magdalenians to their north.

Id still like to see you explain how Iberia today is genetically within a European group (excluding Southeastern Europe, Sardinia and Lapland). I think it can only be explained by some outside admixture, because this genetic group was formed by the exchange of genes between lineages.


The only thing this lineages support is the existence of Neolithic gene flow from North Africa. Such gene flow is also acknowledged by the authors of that anthropological study but as they camed to conclusion such gene flow did not changed the racial type of the authoctonous population.

But the distribution of the older Mechtoid lineage in northern Iberia, indicates that it was pushed to the north, like it was to the south, as the Mechtoids were assimilated by Capsians. Why else, would an older lineage be restricted to the north of Iberia?


You rely on Coon when you say that Iberians and Capsians were similar. Good, he says the same for Basques and the Keltic Iron Age racial type of Britain.

Im not relying entirely on Coon here. A lot of sources (ie Bosch-Gimpera), do describe the same existence of the Capsian culture and racial type in the south of Iberia and the Magdalenians in the north. Muge has also been compared to recent North Africans, as well.

Even Frans says the Mesolithic North Africans and Iberians are difficult to tell apart from each other.


Do you have cousins and uncles that look like that?

http://www.clubaskartza.com/fotof1.htm
http://www.wbaeurope.com/Boxeo_Euskadi/FOTOS_DE_ARCHIVO.htm

Are there many Brits that look like that?
Do you think they are of the same racial type as this individuals?

Id say no, but I'd also say their ancestors contributed an element, especially in western Britain.


http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/troe294.htm
http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/troe293.htm

I think that although the border of the second man's eye sockets would be unusual in any part of Britain, but his facial appearence, from the front and side, is sometimes found in parts of Britain. The first man, could more easily be from Britain, although he wouldnt be typical.

Hidalgo
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 08:55 AM
I think that although the border of the second man's eye sockets would be unusual in any part of Britain, but his facial appearence, from the front and side, is sometimes found in parts of Britain. The first man, could more easily be from Britain, although he wouldnt be typical

You thought those individuals are Basques? Those individuals are Brits. They are according to Coon perfect examples of the Keltic Iron Age type in Britain. I posted them in order to show the differences with Basques. At first you say Basques and Keltic Iron Age types are different and now you are saying those individuals are very untypical/unusual Brits. Dont quote Coon if you dont agree with him.


Youre right that they didnt support any population change, but a gradual admixture can be hard to identify.

A population change is a population change not matter if it happens "rapid" or gradually/slowly. Im still trying to understand why you posted that study even though you knew it refutes your theory.:scratch


because of the similarities between Mesolithic North Africa and Iberia, being greater than those between these proto-Meds and the robust Magdalenians to their north

robust Magdalenians to their north = Basques? Are the similarities today between North Africans and Spaniards greater than between Spaniards and Basques?


Id still like to see you explain how Iberia today is genetically within a European group

Because they descend(as Brits, French, Dutch etc.) from first seetlers that came to Europe from West asia in Paleolithic times. They belong to a race that evolve in Europe thats why they have european haplogroups. That is what geneticist agree with.


Im not relying entirely on Coon here. A lot of sources (ie Bosch-Gimpera), do describe the same existence of the Capsian culture and racial type in the south of Iberia and the Magdalenians in the north. Muge has also been compared to recent North Africans, as well.
Even Frans says the Mesolithic North Africans and Iberians are difficult to tell apart from each other

Coon, Bosch-Gimpera, Frans...they did their researches decades ago. Now they are using new methods and analysing new traits. To rely more on what the old anthropologists say on the results of that anthropological study would be like relying more on old blood group studies than one haplogroups.

But DNA analysis is more reliable as anthropology if we want to find research population history. I think this does definiely refute your theory:

Mesolithic-Neolithic population relationships in Portugal: the evidence from ancient mitochondrial DNA

Our hypothesis was that evidence of continuity of the Neolithic and Mesolithic in Portugal would be demonstrated if the same distribution of mtDNA haplogroups were present in the Mesolithic and Neolithic samples examined. The appearance of new haplogroups or a difference in distribution of haplogroups in the Neolithic samples might be evidence migration from outside.

None of 21 samples, both Neolithic and Mesolithic, belonged to haplogroup U6.

Thus, in view of the current discussion about the ways in which the Neolithic was introduced to western Iberia, this preliminary evidence is most intriguing because it suggests biological continuity along the female line (at least) between Mesolithic and Neolithic populations

The absence of haplogroup I and U6 in our samples is not surprising. Haplogroup I is predominantly found in North and East Europe (Simoni 2000) and U6 is mainly North African (Macaulay et al. 1999).

We will continue our analysis, but results at present suggest genetic continuity between the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Portugal
http://www.ualberta.ca/~mjackes/MESO2001final.htm

Again, no evidence for a migration from outside. The "ultimate Capsian lineage" U6 was completely absent meaning it was in that time as uncommon in Iberia as it is today. But i guess that "gradual admixture can be hard to identify with genetics".

Frans_Jozef
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 10:38 AM
Coon, Bosch-Gimpera, Frans...they did their researches decades ago. Now they are using new methods and analysing new traits. To rely more on what the old anthropologists say on the results of that anthropological study would be like relying more on old blood group studies than one haplogroups.



Erm, I am not that old, my involvement in racial anthropology and archaeology is therefore of more recent date. :)
She was refering to me, frans_jozef.

My postings advocate always regional continuity with but a minimal and exclusive gene flow and subsequent hybridisation of populations, while supporting the idea that physical change occurs due to micro-evolutionary trends and other agents.

A good knowledge of the archaeological record and a good understanding of the socio-economic and ecological situation of those eras is a requirement in reading into anthropological data, either in its pure physical aspect as well genetic history.
Often ideas and toolkits have a greater pull-in impact on cultures than a mere presence and newly arrived foreign population stock.

Getorix
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 04:54 AM
For example, Arabs are Semites with a Middle-Eastern origin.From the link in the first post.

Stipid. The terms "Arabs" and "Semitea" are linguistic terms and are not valid in racial classification at all. Fact is the majority of the Mid East, and all of the western part, aren't recognizable from the representative part of South Europeans.

And of course i don't include Blondness as it isn't an original factor amongst mediterraneans.

lahun-ok
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 01:53 PM
I think it´s relationated with usko-mediterranean or preindoeuropean (protonordic) cultures.

http://http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=18489&highlight=atlantis

No Code
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 09:24 PM
in history everybody had intercourse with everybody. there is no pure race.

Strengthandhonour
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 04:21 AM
blah blah blah
that's the biggest load of crap I have heard in a long time.
So can you back your statement up with some sort of proof? I would like to see how true it is that a pure African from Nigeria has Mongoloid blood? or a native from Afghanistan has Central American native blood?
haha..you make me laugh.

Siegfried
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 08:10 AM
in history everybody had intercourse with everybody. there is no pure race.

Just because one of my ancestors centuries ago may have shared knickers with a Hun or whatever, does not necessarily mean this has an impact on my genetic constitution. Ancestral-wise, there are indeed no pure races - but there are no pure species either. If you go back far enough, you'll find ape-like creatures, and swimming beasts, and amphibious monsters among your ancestors.

Awar
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 02:44 PM
I read somewhere that Humans and Jellyfish ( medusa ) share 85% of their DNA :)

Germaniathane
Sunday, May 21st, 2017, 02:05 PM
Actually, the trend has been to an increased northern genetic influence in North Africa, and the rest of the Mediterranean.

North Africa is as Europoid as Iberia.

No! North Africa is not as Europoid as Iberia, never will.

Germaniathane
Sunday, May 21st, 2017, 02:07 PM
blah blah blah
that's the biggest load of crap I have heard in a long time.
So can you back your statement up with some sort of proof? I would like to see how true it is that a pure African from Nigeria has Mongoloid blood? or a native from Afghanistan has Central American native blood?
haha..you make me laugh.

Well due to migrations, there were trade routes between Asians and Africans well before colonization. The Chinese had already drawn the map of Africa well before European colonization.

Wulfaz
Sunday, May 21st, 2017, 02:31 PM
The Mediterranid type has conquered Europe 9'000 years ago. They have mixed with the local Cromagnonids that they have maden the nowadays European inhabitants. Before them the continente was pure unreduced Cromagnid. They have brought the Indo-European language, the neolithic civilistation into Europe. The only place that the Cromagnonid have be able to reserve that are the mountain and the desert areas. We are the Mediterraneans, but we ate not halfly. We have double rout, these are the Mediterranid and the Cromagnonid.