Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Aryans & Germanics

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    hornedhelm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Friday, January 17th, 2020 @ 08:02 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scottish, Irish, English, German, Danish
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Arkansas Arkansas
    Gender
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    48
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ocko View Post
    The connection of Mongols to asiatic people is just a trick to steal and hide our history.

    The mongols in Mongolia do not know a Dschinghis Khan in their lore nor their history. they got this from the outside hundred years or so ago. The statue in Ulan Bator of Dschinghis Khan still shows a men with a full beard, something asian do not have, if they have a beard it is mostly flimsy.

    The Aryan moghuls used support troops with asian people but at the core it was white. In our history they turn it the other way around and say Mongols were asian in nature but had white support troops.

    From Marco Polo's reports we also know that the Moghuls controlled China, then called Khatay. The pictures in the above post shows Tocharians who most likely initiated the culture which we now know as chinese.

    The false history uses the similarity of names between mongols and Moghuls.

    another remnant of white people ruling the area at the today's border russia/china is the mummy of Princessa Ukoka, belonging to the Skyth.

    http://www.archaeologyinmarlow.org.u...the-ice-mummy/
    I'm trying to find the source but I remember reading of a few ancient chinese and mongolian legends that claimed the early rulers were tall and red haired. They were believed to just be myth until these tocharian and other mummies were found in Asia, lending them more credence. I heard that the Chinese government attempted to conceal them because it was a threat to their nationalism.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to hornedhelm For This Useful Post:


  3. #22
    Senior Member
    Plantagenet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, September 2nd, 2019 @ 09:27 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    British-German
    Subrace
    Nordid-Cromagnid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Gender
    Politics
    Throne and Altar
    Religion
    Aryajnana
    Posts
    719
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ocko View Post
    The mongols in Mongolia do not know a Dschinghis Khan in their lore nor their history. they got this from the outside hundred years or so ago. The statue in Ulan Bator of Dschinghis Khan still shows a men with a full beard, something asian do not have, if they have a beard it is mostly flimsy.
    Guan Yu wants to have a word with you:



    Quote Originally Posted by Ocko View Post
    The Aryan moghuls used support troops with asian people but at the core it was white. In our history they turn it the other way around and say Mongols were asian in nature but had white support troops.
    There is most certainly an Indo-European or racially European element to Mongols and other Central Asian people (Uighurs, etc.) due to the presence of people like the Scythians, Tocharians, etc. in those areas and these elements survive strongly to this day in certain Mongol groups (Oirats, etc.), but I sincerely doubt the entire core of the Mongols were completely Caucasoid/Europid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ocko View Post
    From Marco Polo's reports we also know that the Moghuls controlled China, then called Khatay. The pictures in the above post shows Tocharians who most likely initiated the culture which we now know as chinese.
    It seems that there may have been influences of the Tocharians on early Chinese civilization (technological introductions, possible spiritual transmission of Aryan spirituality into Daoism, and much later certain transmission of Buddhism into China via the Tocharians, etc.) but Chinese culture predates their interaction with the Tocharians and hence the latter certainly weren't the initiators or origin of Chinese culture, especially since all the core cultural figures (Confucius, Laozi, etc.) were Chinese.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Plantagenet For This Useful Post:


  5. #23
    Senior Member
    Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,197
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    48
    Thanked in
    48 Posts
    There was most certainly a western (in this context, IE) influence upon early China as seen on the one hand in technology such as chariots and, on the other hand, examples of pre-Buddhist religious and other terminology that are clearly borrowings. See shuma (=soma), *tees (=*dyaus) etc.


    On the whole though China resisted 'Aryanisation' very well whereas neighbouring Japan has far deeper influence from the steppes.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Catterick For This Useful Post:


  7. #24
    Eala Freia Fresena
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ocko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2020 @ 07:31 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Friese
    Ancestry
    Friesland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Montana Montana
    Location
    Glacier park
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    rightwing
    Religion
    none/pagan
    Posts
    2,926
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    77
    Thanked in
    75 Posts
    The slavianic aryan Veda reports that China was Aryan, then asiatic people moved in and took over. There has been a big war between China and the Aryan Empire about 7,000 years ago. The Aryans won and made a peace treaty with Chinese invaders. (the old calenders an historical events in Russia showed the year counting from that event)

    A lasting symbol is the hero who fights the dragon (symbol of China), Like St. Georg killing the Dragon with a lance.

    Later on the chinese wall was built by the Aryan empire to contain chinese people in China (another reversal of history). The defense structures on the wall facing China, not the other way around. Which proofs that the wall was against the chinese.
    weel nich will dieken dej mot wieken

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Ocko For This Useful Post:


  9. #25
    Senior Member
    Oslaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    Monday, September 19th, 2016 @ 05:07 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Subrace
    Keltic-Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    256
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ocko View Post
    The slavianic aryan Veda reports that China was Aryan, then asiatic people moved in and took over.
    Sure...

  10. #26
    Richmondshireman
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    American English
    Ancestry
    British English
    Y-DNA
    R-BY30613
    mtDNA
    K2a5a
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Richmond
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Muleskinner / Teamster
    Politics
    Proprietary Palatinate
    Religion
    bapt. Anglican, conf. Catholic
    Posts
    3,999
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,993
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    439
    Thanked in
    384 Posts
    Most here in this thread have a piece of the pie, but the full flavour only comes from combining all together into an overall coherent narrative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ţoreiđar View Post
    The vast majority of ancestry of the Proto-Germanics stemmed from Paleo-Nordics, by all likelyhood, considering the currently available evidence. So not particularily close related, I would think.
    Well dude, being I1 hg of course you are Palaeo-'Nordic' from Stone Age Northern Europe, but this is not the majority of Proto-Germanics, who were R1 from Stone Age Southern Asia; even though Sweden itself has the highest IJ hg of Germanics, they still don't really trump K--even Finns (and Chinese) are closer genetically to Germanic than almost half of Swedes with Mediterranean descent. I recall many tidbits of this on ABF (Forumbiodiversity), written by Finns who understood some genetic overlap on both sides of Botten going back to prehistory and not simply from the Viking, Baltic Crusades or later periods.

    https://www.eupedia.com/europe/europ...logroups.shtml
    Sweden

    Haplogroup K: 47
    R 37.5, Q 2.5, N 7, T 0

    Haplogroup IJ: 44.5
    I 42, J 2.5

    G 1

    E 3

    Bronze Age sexual conquest changed everything, so R1 split up into two camps, with R1a in the East and R1b in the West, but a common Germanic heritage was in both, although increasingly divergent into separate metaethnicities, even as Indian R2 hg remained behind and did not mutate much at all.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation

    Their common Aryan Y-DNA in R was from Siberia, but it split only once setting up on top of the Indus Valley Civilisation, because this is where the least nuanced clades of R hg are still extant, as Siberia now only has subclades of those. This last means a reverse migration, because most of the Y-DNA lineage in Siberia on the East side of Lake Baikal has long meant variants of Q hg, into the Americas, although some of this also has gone West as far as Sweden and further as a result of the Vikings, although both are forms of P hg Y-DNA. P, of course, belongs to K hg alongside N hg found mostly among Uralics and T hg with no apparent ethnolinguistic basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Rutilism and forms of Blondism can occur in peoples all around the world, regardless of any European ancestry.
    Merely because Genghis Khan had a red beard, the whole of the Mongol peoples were European, in your opinion? Could you point me to the passages where Marco Polo, the authenticity of his alledged travels is still disputed anyway, or "others" describe the Mongol peoples as Europid?
    It's already impossible due to the natural conditions and circumstances at the Northpole or anywhere near it, I don’t think our ancestors lived like Inuit.

    Personally I go with the hypothesis that the Indo-European “invasion” from the Russian steppes was mostly a cultural superiority by an Indo-European superstratum over an Old European substratum and that most of our ancestry, especially in the maternal line, actually stems from the latter.
    In any case though, there's enough evidence that the original homeland of the early Indo-Europeans or Proto-Indo-Europeans lay somewhere in southern to southwestern Russia.
    Rutilism and blondism primarily accompany R1b and R1a respective ancestry, but traces of them remain behind in Asian populations from whence we sprung. Turks might be some vector for R & Q overlap, thus Turks likely the missing link between East and West Indians, but Mongols assuredly are of C hg, not F hg as they and we are. It is the Mongols who have the Inuit DNA relationship and thus, the distinction you're referring to, but there's a bit of confusion between Turks and Mongols.

    The Old European substratum is IJ, with J the Arab variant. I'm antisemitic but it must be accepted that Semites are in fact, the original East European and that linguistically, 'Arabia' the toponym is just the Eastern version of 'Europa', because the Y-DNA proves it, so a link between Basque (from I hg) and Afroasiatic must be established. This really just means that Abrahamic religions are European, after all, but most Y-DNA in Indo-Europa is NOT Old European (but Old Indian), even if the mtDNA is (European). K hg ultimately derives from Indochina, which is even exemplified by the name itself, since it is the junction of K2b (Indo) and K2a (China), a perfect dispersal point before the differentiation into P's Indogermanic R and Amerindian Q, Australoid M & S on one hand; Uralic N and Sinic O on the other. I'm perfectly comfortable being more closely related to Amerindians and Australoids, Finns and Chinese, before any Basque or Semite--at least on a paternal level, even if it is true that we're all closer maternally to Basques and Semites. All of IJK, along with Caucasian G hg and Dravidian H hg, are still closer paternally than with Mongol/Inuit C hg, but Eurasian CF hg is still closer than with North African DE hg (Japanese D hg and African E hg). All this shows the major division of 'European' and 'Asian' DNA is not paternal, but maternal, as Indogermanics are only distinct from Amerindians maternally, NOT paternally--the reverse is true between Indogermanics and Semites. In fact, the maternal differences between East and West Indians are the only thing striking genetically, except of course, that both are NOT African, yet 'European' mtDNA appears Neanderthal and 'Asian' mtDNA appears Denisovan, as the oldest correlations--despite Afrocentric insanity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indomalayan_realm

    Just because Africans are as primitive as having adapted to be at the mercy of their environment, doesn't mean they are most primitive, since this is an outgrowth of earlier primate evolution in the Pacific. When I look at tropical Indo-Malaya, I see what naturally appears to be serenity, but don't feel any ancestral pull towards African landscapes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euarchontoglires

    My personal theory is that not all primates, apes or homo sapiens migrated to Africa, but a number of which remained behind in tropical Eurasia, where Euarchontoglires earlier evolved and split into Euarchonta (treeshrews, colugos and primates) and Glires (lagomorphs and rodents). Euarchontoglires itself belongs to Boreoeutheria, along with Laurasiatheria, which generally are the mammals most domesticated by mankind. Boreoeutheria is dated about simultaneous to the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, thereby becoming the major half of the megafauna replacing dinosauria, although birds survived the extinction as lone dinosaur species, itself a type of reptile alongside crocodilians on one hand, lizards and snakes, turtles another.

  11. #27
    The Germanic Orthodoxy
    Juthunge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    8 Minutes Ago @ 05:46 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordid-CM
    Gender
    Religion
    Religion of the Blood
    Posts
    1,678
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    581
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    816
    Thanked in
    380 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodskarl Dubhgall View Post
    Most here in this thread have a piece of the pie, but the full flavour only comes from combining all together into an overall coherent narrative.

    Well dude, being I1 hg of course you are Palaeo-'Nordic' from Stone Age Northern Europe, but this is not the majority of Proto-Germanics, who were R1 from Stone Age Southern Asia; even though Sweden itself has the highest IJ hg of Germanics, they still don't really trump K--even Finns (and Chinese) are closer genetically to Germanic than almost half of Swedes with Mediterranean descent.
    [more illiterate gibberish]
    ”Coherent narrative”
    I do not usually reply to your ramblings anymore but this has to be addressed because you are either straightforwardly trolling at this point or mentally retarded and you actually believe the nonsense that you write. But that you know jack shit about genetics, at least anything newer than from a decade ago and even to that you add your mere personal opinions, is obvious at this point. It’s not even wrong anymore.

    So the following is actually not addressed to you but to anyone unfamiliar with population genetics who might read your post:
    1. Haplogroups, respectively Y-DNA (paternal side, inherited only by men from their fathers) or mtDNA (maternal side, inherited by both men and women from the maternal side) are minuscule amounts of ones overall genome, in the range of 1-3%.
    2. Due to founder effects, especially patrilineal, Y-DNA and mtDNA can be rapidly decoupled from the overall genomic genetics of an individual. Individuals with different haplogroups within a modern population are more related to each other than either is to someone outside of that population with a similar or the same haplogroup. Exceptions might be historically closely related neighbouring populations.
    3. R1 is not from South Asia but arose geographically in Siberia in a mostly Western Eurasian-like population (although that haplogroup is so old it precedes “current” races anyway).
    4. I1 has not been found in Scandinavian Hunter Gatherer or Middle Neolithic Farmer populations. Its origins are still enigmatic but starts to appear in Scandinavia after the coming of the Indo-Europeans in the form of the Corded Ware Culture. But nothing can be said until we find earlier samples because of the mentioned decoupling between Y-DNA and genomics.
    And the day they sold us out, Our hearts grew cold
    'Cause we were never asked, No brother, we were told!
    What do they know of Europe, Who only Europe know?



    Ancient DNA: List of All Studies analyzing DNA of Ancient Tribes and Ethnicities(post-2010)


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Juthunge For This Useful Post:


  13. #28
    Richmondshireman
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    American English
    Ancestry
    British English
    Y-DNA
    R-BY30613
    mtDNA
    K2a5a
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Richmond
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Muleskinner / Teamster
    Politics
    Proprietary Palatinate
    Religion
    bapt. Anglican, conf. Catholic
    Posts
    3,999
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,993
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    439
    Thanked in
    384 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    ”Coherent narrative”

    I do not usually reply to your ramblings anymore but this has to be addressed because you are either straightforwardly trolling at this point or mentally retarded and you actually believe the nonsense that you write. But that you know jack shit about genetics, at least anything newer than from a decade ago and even to that you add your mere personal opinions, is obvious at this point. It’s not even wrong anymore.
    How about 'complementary narrative'?

    You don't agree that everybody involved in this thread added pieces to a puzzle that, together, show the forest for the trees? Maybe I should have used that phrase, if the other instigated you to troll in reply. Gaslighting is so awesome! Anyway, I did in fact state that it is my theory where a multi-regional rebuttal to Afrocentric evolution is involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    So the following is actually not addressed to you but to anyone unfamiliar with population genetics who might read your post:

    Haplogroups, respectively Y-DNA (paternal side, inherited only by men from their fathers) or mtDNA (maternal side, inherited by both men and women from the maternal side) are minuscule amounts of ones overall genome, in the range of 1-3%.
    You want to do a hit and run, then close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and stick your tongue out whilst going 'nananana!' How mature and capable too, lol!

    Autosomal admixture can change the distance of relations, but they do not change the origins of one's paternal and maternal DNA. The rest is more 'tabula rasa' junk DNA, not used for tracing ancient descent, even if traits are passed on through them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Due to founder effects, especially patrilineal, Y-DNA and mtDNA can be rapidly decoupled from the overall genomic genetics of an individual. Individuals with different haplogroups within a modern population are more related to each other than either is to someone outside of that population with a similar or the same haplogroup. Exceptions might be historically closely related neighbouring populations.
    I NEVER said that I've no relationship to my fellow English with I1 or I2 paternity, only verified that the most meaningful one is that we are uterine brothers. I'm fully aware that admixture can rapidly separate offspring down the generations, as contemporary miscegenation trends validate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    R1 is not from South Asia but arose geographically in Siberia in a mostly Western Eurasian-like population (although that haplogroup is so old it precedes “current” races anyway).
    R, R1 and R2 are all found in Burusho and related populations with language isolates in the India-Pakistan region, whereas their descendant clades are not only found there, but also in Central Asia, but no extant trisection of them in their baseline has been found that far north, even if all originate there in the fossil record. This means that the Siberian origin moved south and then went back, probably as a result of Ice Age conditions retreating. R1 is from R, from P, from K, so if you want to say they are 'Western Eurasian', you must include Amerindians and Australoids, Finns and Chinese, all of whose older Y-DNA variant is traced to living populations in the Philippines, not Western Eurasia, unless you think Filipinos are a Western Eurasian-like population (aside from the Hispanic and Anglo-American influences). Western Eurasia did and does include IJ as well as G and H, so in your opinion, all F Y-DNA should be West Eurasian/Neanderthal and all C Y-DNA should be East Eurasian/Denisovan.

    Therefore, you have some racial hang-ups preventing objectivity, so pervert the science for emotionalism. Maybe you wish to argue that I1 haplogroup is the originator of Germanics, that this placement in Sweden is evidence of home base for dissemination elsewhere, but its relationship is mostly a Balkanite and Anatolian one. Sweden is also where Q hg is highest in Europe, but Q comes from the same Siberian root as R hg, so Scandinavia cannot be congruent with the theory of Germanics originally as I hg, since that was pre-existing, unless you dismiss Germanics as Indogermanics. The idea that Germanics are Old Europeans and not Aryans is very much in the minority as a conspiracy theory, but it's obviously tied to the origin of the Germanic substrate. Maybe Germanics having I1 helps bring about some bit of character distinction from other R1 folks, but Germanics are the least nuanced of them for a reason, as the Ur-Volk of Bronze Age CWC or Yamnaya. We are not Old Europeans, nor a cross-section of Balto-Slavs and Celts. If you think so, you deprive us of our actual heritage, to embrace that of the thralls whose I1 paternity fits perfectly within the sphere of AR1an conquest. Are Germanics thralls or Steppe conquerors? Pick your identity and run with it. What gall you have to attack me for validating everybody else in this thread, as I have liked every post including your older contributions until yours in reply now.

    Your psychologically-projecting hypocrisy is not helpful to fleshing out other comments for further enlightenment. Perhaps you are I1 or I2 and resent the implied relations with Jews and Muslims? Maybe you think because I advance the R1 and R2 nature of Indogermanics, that is in fact my dilemma? Well, if Germanics were to be I hg, you would have no escape from a biological paternity test with J hg Semites, regardless of the cultural BS assimilation fantasy you adhere to. Say in your theory that R1b is Celt and R1a is Balto-Slav without a Germanic intermediary, then that would leave I1 'Germanics' in a minority and only most related to Mediterraneans, part of the Nord I1-Med I2 duopoly idea and that R1 is a Western Alpine extension with R2 the Eastern Himalayan end of that spectrum. Either way, you can have your I haplogroup, because I will never acclaim it as founder of my heritage, cultural association or not. Let that be for the 'good Christian' associates of the Semites as part of their common heritage, that has nothing to do with the Aryan race and paganism. Maybe you think Afroasiatics are E hg, which could make sense if inclusive of D hg, with E African and D Asian, so somebody should check for linguistic relations with Japonic in that scenario. It still wouldn't account for J hg, or at least those J hg countries could hardly not be European if I hg are, but then at least A hg and B hg aren't found outside Africa and would be the purest ones there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    I1 has not been found in Scandinavian Hunter Gatherer or Middle Neolithic Farmer populations. Its origins are still enigmatic but starts to appear in Scandinavia after the coming of the Indo-Europeans in the form of the Corded Ware Culture. But nothing can be said until we find earlier samples because of the mentioned decoupling between Y-DNA and genomics.
    I1 may have been found in the soil at the time of the Bronze Age, but all megalithic monuments have I2 samples and this is the baseline Old European paternal DNA in I haplogroup, dislodged by the CWC R1 haplogroup from the Indus Valley. I hg did not arrive with CWC; you have pulled that fantasy out of your arse. You're also peddling the culture > genes (nurture > nature) BS and pushing civic nationalism, whereby multiple disparate ethnic groups coalesce into inorganic statehood, i.e jus solis in place of traditional nation-state jus sanguinis standards. One wonders if you're not French instead of German, or maybe Alsace-Lorraine is a confusing issue for you; your conception of ethnogenesis is the equivalent of 'Swiss nationalism' somehow being legit.

  14. #29
    Richmondshireman
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    American English
    Ancestry
    British English
    Y-DNA
    R-BY30613
    mtDNA
    K2a5a
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Richmond
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Muleskinner / Teamster
    Politics
    Proprietary Palatinate
    Religion
    bapt. Anglican, conf. Catholic
    Posts
    3,999
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,993
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    439
    Thanked in
    384 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodskarl Dubhgall View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indomalayan_realm

    Just because Africans are as primitive as having adapted to be at the mercy of their environment, doesn't mean they are most primitive, since this is an outgrowth of earlier primate evolution in the Pacific. When I look at tropical Indo-Malaya, I see what naturally appears to be serenity, but don't feel any ancestral pull towards African landscapes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euarchontoglires

    My personal theory is that not all primates, apes or homo sapiens migrated to Africa, but a number of which remained behind in tropical Eurasia, where Euarchontoglires earlier evolved and split into Euarchonta (treeshrews, colugos and primates) and Glires (lagomorphs and rodents). Euarchontoglires itself belongs to Boreoeutheria, along with Laurasiatheria, which generally are the mammals most domesticated by mankind. Boreoeutheria is dated about simultaneous to the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, thereby becoming the major half of the megafauna replacing dinosauria, although birds survived the extinction as lone dinosaur species, itself a type of reptile alongside crocodilians on one hand, lizards and snakes, turtles another.
    https://www.pnas.org/content/109/26/10293.abstract

    https://www.livescience.com/20738-pr...gins-asia.html

    Interesting that primates should first arise in Asia and this is where the majority still live, between the Y-DNA homelands of K2b hg India and K2a hg China.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Dinarids & Germanics
    By Lissu in forum Dinarid
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: Monday, September 10th, 2007, 01:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •