PDA

View Full Version : Giants and I haplogroup



iapodos
22-05-10, 09:56
I have been reading a few interesting articles about Fomorians, giant race from irish mitology and their connection with haplogroup I. They are described as population which lived in Ireland before arriving of Celts.
Is there any possibility that arriving Indoeuropeans have seen domestic Mesolitic population as giants and that's how giants as creatures appeared in european mythology. Mesolitic hunter gatherers must be much larger in body size than newcomers, because they lived in harsh climatic conditions. That actually normal difference in size could be very easily transformed into mythological dimensions, as we know how myths are produced. There is also one more thing. Indoeuropeans could not find explanation what way the monumental stones (dolmens, menhirs etc.) in Europe was built. They believed that only race of giants could made it. There is lot of ancient sources which describes that kind of opinion.
What is most interesting a lot of Celtic and Germanic legends describes mixing and interbreeding people and giants. Fomorians through marriages became part of goidelic society, the first irish king Bres was half Fomorian. In Norse mythology, giant race Jotuns also are mixing with Nordic gods and have children with them. In Slavic legends, superior God Svarog had a wife, giant women, Koleda which gave birth to all known slavic gods: Perun, Svantevid and Tatomir. The similar stories are found in Greek, Baltic, Basque mythologies. Giants are described as old population, different race which are confronted with Gods (Greek Gygantomachia) but later after defeat became incorporated into Panteon.
This could easily explained R1a and R1b domination in Europe and also combinations I1 and R1b, I2a and R1a, I2a and R1b... So, could old haplogroup I population of Europe be connected with mythological giants?
This is, of course, only hypothesis but possible one.

Maciamo
22-05-10, 13:22
It depends what you call "giants". Northern Europeans are among the tallest people in the world. There may be some inheritance from paleolithic hunter-gatherers (hg I). All mamals have a tendency to grow bigger in colder climates. It's a natural adaptation. Bigger bodies carry more energy to warm up one's body. However I am unaware that Paleolithic northern Europeans were spectacularly bigger than their southern relatives. I think that they were usually shorter than modern people.

Eireannach
25-05-10, 12:30
There was a body of a man found in a bog in central Ireland. He is called Old Croghan man and is over 2000 years old. His estimated height is at 6'6" (198cm).

iapodos
25-05-10, 21:53
Look carefully at table of human height on the link bellow. World tallest people is found exactly in the regions where haplogroup I is typical or dominant haplogroup (Dinaric Alps, Scandinavia). I don´t believe it could be coincidance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

Herzegovinians and Montenegrins are well known as tallest people in Europe.

iapodos
25-05-10, 22:03
There was a body of a man found in a bog in central Ireland. He is called Old Croghan man and is over 2000 years old. His estimated height is at 6'6" (198cm).

Interesting story. It would be good if we knew his haplogroup.

Sprinkles
26-05-10, 01:15
The tallest people of Europe are in the Balkans, haplogroup I2a2 - and height correlates with IQ.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

In the late nineteenth century, the Netherlands was a land renowned for its short population, but today it has the tallest average in the world, with young men averaging 183 cm (6'0 ft) tall and in Europe are only shorter than the peoples of the Dinaric Alps (a section largely within the former Yugoslavia), where males average 185.6 cm (6 ft 1.1 in) tall.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/NationalIQs.aspx



Country City Mean IQ
Holland Amsterdam 109.4
Germany Hamburg 109.3
Poland Warsaw 108.3
Sweden Stockholm 105.8
Yugoslavia Zagreb 105.7
Italy Rome 103.8
Austria Vienna 103.5
Switzerland Zurich 102.8
Portugal Lisbon 102.6
Great Britain London 102.0
Norway Oslo 101.8
Denmark Copenhagen 100.7
Hungary Budapest 100.5
Czechoslovakia Bratislava 100.4
Spain Madrid 100.3
Belgium Brussels 99.7
Greece Athens 99.4
Ireland Dublin 99.2
Finland Helsinki 98.1
Bulgaria Sofia 96.3
France Paris 96.1
From V. Buj, Person. & Individ. Diff., Vol. 2, pp. 168 to 169, 1981
Subjects >16 yrs. old tested on the Cattell Culture Fair Test 3 (16 SD), standardized in the USA (IQ=100).

Sprinkles
26-05-10, 01:28
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12466

Stature and Status: Height, Ability, and Labor Market Outcomes


It has long been recognized that taller adults hold jobs of higher status and, on average, earn more than other workers. A large number of hypotheses have been put forward to explain the association between height and earnings. In developed countries, researchers have emphasized factors such as self esteem, social dominance, and discrimination. In this paper, we offer a simpler explanation: On average, taller people earn more because they are smarter. As early as age 3 — before schooling has had a chance to play a role — and throughout childhood, taller children perform significantly better on cognitive tests. The correlation between height in childhood and adulthood is approximately 0.7 for both men and women, so that tall children are much more likely to become tall adults. As adults, taller individuals are more likely to select into higher paying occupations that require more advanced verbal and numerical skills and greater intelligence, for which they earn handsome returns. Using four data sets from the US and the UK, we find that the height premium in adult earnings can be explained by childhood scores on cognitive tests. Furthermore, we show that taller adults select into occupations that have higher cognitive skill requirements and lower physical skill demands.

Eireannach
26-05-10, 10:12
Interesting story. It would be good if we knew his haplogroup.

Here is some links to the story:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0117_060117_irish_bogmen.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Croghan_Man

http://www.archaeology.org/1005/bogbodies/clonycavan_croghan.html

watta
26-05-10, 19:51
that´s simply not true, that´s just mythology, not ancient, but current. neandrthals lived in such a "bad" clima for a very longtime, they were well adapted, and they weren´t giants, on the contrary. so the reason for their height is not so simple. but I don´t see nothing mysterious in it - we don´t know yet all groups which contributed to the human genom - it is much larger than on is insisted now. some were giants, some were more intelligent, some were less able to adapt itself - that´s normal evolution. the rests of these groups were found centuries ago in european and asian forests. Finally, Perun and other slavonic gods are not slavonic, they are by origin hittite (anatolia). slavonic tribes adopted more cultural effects from their asian forerunners. I am sorry, but what exactly on the hypothesis of giants explains R1a and R1b domination? I can´t see it. Thank you.
Veronika

iapodos
26-05-10, 20:29
that´s simply not true, that´s just mythology, not ancient, but current. neandrthals lived in such a "bad" clima for a very longtime, they were well adapted, and they weren´t giants, on the contrary. so the reason for their height is not so simple. but I don´t see nothing mysterious in it - we don´t know yet all groups which contributed to the human genom - it is much larger than on is insisted now. some were giants, some were more intelligent, some were less able to adapt itself - that´s normal evolution. the rests of these groups were found centuries ago in european and asian forests. Finally, Perun and other slavonic gods are not slavonic, they are by origin hittite (anatolia). slavonic tribes adopted more cultural effects from their asian forerunners. I am sorry, but what exactly on the hypothesis of giants explains R1a and R1b domination? I can´t see it. Thank you.
Veronika

I would try to answer you as you post the questions:

1. Nobody was talking about neadrenthals at all. I was talking about Homo
Sapiens, Paleolitic and Mesolitic hunter-gatherers which were carriers of
haplogroup I.
2. This is for first time for me to hear that Perun and other Slavonic Gods
were of Hittite origin. What facts prove that?
3. Mythological story that giants were defeated race explain R1a and R1b
domination in Europe

Myths are created by people, usually by exaggarating things that actually happened. All what I was trying is to give posibility how giant myth was created. I am definetely not claiming that real giants once existed.

LeBrok
27-05-10, 01:57
Veronika, you think faster than you type, hehe, can you elaborate on your points some more?

The good point is, why the smarter and stronger giants, the I, succumbed to less smart and smaller R1 peoples? Maybe they don't like sex and got overpopulated as such, lol?

iapodos
27-05-10, 09:43
Veronika, you think faster than you type, hehe, can you elaborate on your points some more?

The good point is, why the smarter and stronger giants, the I, succumbed to less smart and smaller R1 peoples? Maybe they don't like sex and got overpopulated as such, lol?

Well it is question were they smarter or not. If we just remember David and Goliath.
And yes, maybe the lack of sex was reason. I think that Maciamo wrote something on that topic, or a posibility that they have mostly daughters.

LeBrok
27-05-10, 16:27
These are the nuances that we'll probably never learn, "What the heck really happened?".
R1a mingled and coexisted more with I peoples, and we see big enclaves of Is in east and south. R1b exterminated Is more than anyone else, except in central and north Europe where the 3 haplogroups are nicely mixed.

Segia
27-05-10, 18:31
There is no proof of exterminions, massacres or massive migrations in prehistoric Europe.

Cambrius (The Red)
27-05-10, 19:26
"Exterminated"?

LeBrok
27-05-10, 22:42
There is no proof of exterminions, massacres or massive migrations in prehistoric Europe.
Maybe because they couldn't write, and do a nice documentary movies for us to see. There are examples from recent history, so we know what people are able to do to each other. Do you think that in past people were more humane and civilized?

Segia
27-05-10, 23:07
Maybe because they couldn't write, and do a nice documentary movies for us to see. There are examples from recent history, so we know what people are able to do to each other. Do you think that in past people were more humane and civilized?

There aren't archaeological records, simple as that. If you support that such a kind of epysodes took place, you'll have to prove it.

With that kind of technology, population density and low development of superstructural organization I can't imagine a genocide in half a continent.

More human? No, obviously equal. More civilized? Less, of course (civilization doesn't implies cruelty or benevolence, it's another matter)

Wilhelm
27-05-10, 23:15
Maybe because they couldn't write, and do a nice documentary movies for us to see. There are examples from recent history, so we know what people are able to do to each other. Do you think that in past people were more humane and civilized?
They were not exterminated, since today the most common mtDNA haplogroup in Europe is H, which was here before R1b people

Haganus
27-05-10, 23:24
I understand that the Upper-Palaeolithic people like the Bruenn and Cro-Magnons
(Borreby) were tall giants. It is thought that they had some Neanderthaler ancestors.
But the Neanderthalers were rather small.

Each people has its dwarfs and giants. The Slavic people are small and sometimes
graciles. But even in Russian you can meet big and robust men!

iapodos
27-05-10, 23:45
There aren't archaeological records, simple as that. If you support that such a kind of epysodes took place, you'll have to prove it.

I don´t see what kind of proves are expected for such ancient period.
What happens with American Indians just hundred years ago. And today nobody is talking about genocide. And what kind of archeological proves can show how they were sistemicaticallly exterminated and their land usurped.
Maybe Western Europe wasn`t so densely populated in that time. However I believe that it was two confronted races, I and R.

iapodos
27-05-10, 23:56
There aren't archaeological records, simple as that. If you support that such a kind of epysodes took place, you'll have to prove it.

I don´t see what kind of proves are expected for such ancient period.
What happens with American Indians just hundred years ago. And today nobody is talking about genocide. And what kind of archeological proves can show how they were sistemicaticallly exterminated and their land usurped.
Maybe Western Europe wasn`t so densely populated in that time. However I believe that it was two confronted races, I and R.

Segia
28-05-10, 00:14
I don´t see what kind of proves are expected for such ancient period.
What happens with American Indians just hundred years ago. And today nobody is talking about genocide. And what kind of archeological proves can show how they were sistemicaticallly exterminated and their land usurped.
Maybe Western Europe wasn`t so densely populated in that time. However I believe that it was two confronted races, I and R.

In northern America most of the native societies were tribal and paleolithic in front of modern estatal armies.

In Iberoamerica most of the peoples were agricultural states with a relatively high population density, in front of a post-medieval army.

The second group is very visible today -"pure" or "mixed"- and wasn't sistematically exterminated.

Obviously europeans knew writing, then archaeology isn't so necessary. I'd like to add that a haplogroup isn't a race indicator and human groups use to carry more than one hg, today and thousands of years ago. People intermix: yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Human histoy is more complex than Tolkien's style paradigmas. When you affirm something in a positive way -that took place- the burden of the proof lies on your roof. Imagine that I say that megalithism was product of an alien invasion. You'd ask me for proofs....

iapodos
28-05-10, 00:54
Human histoy is more complex than Tolkien's style paradigmas. When you affirm something in a positive way -that took place- the burden of the proof lies on your roof. Imagine that I say that megalithism was product of an alien invasion. You'd ask me for proofs....

Yes, there are not proves to say if it was extermination or peacefully replacement of population, but I understood that we here are talking about possibilities and hypotethical statements, as we can not say that all this story about haplogroups are real at all. We can only give some possible conclusions on the basis of facts we have. If you ask for proves, most of posts on this forum wouldn´t survive.

LeBrok
28-05-10, 07:29
I'll go with probabilities. We know that "exterminations, massacres or massive migrations" happened countless times on all continents during recorded history of last couple of thousands of years. It's highly unlikely that same things didn't happen in Europe during couple of thousand of years at the time of migration and settlements of R people. Is it possible that R1b gets 80-90% population by only peaceful outbreeding? Yes, but chance of it is extremely low, probably one in a million.
No one gives away land without a fight, I people didn't just pack and leave, they needed a lot of persuasion.
Who knows, after energetic persuasion of R1bs hordes, I tribes left in panic in great migration and hid in Scandinavia.
And no I don't have a historic record of it either, but it can give you a hit why western Europe is an I haplotype desert, but I is very common in rest of Europe.
Other hint is what Wilhelm said. H mtDNa is still present, just I males are gone. So just I men vanished, H women were assimilated. Maybe I men went hunting and got lost in the forest?

Segia
28-05-10, 09:43
I'll go with probabilities. We know that "exterminations, massacres or massive migrations" happened countless times on all continents during recorded history of last couple of thousands of years. It's highly unlikely that same things didn't happen in Europe during couple of thousand of years at the time of migration and settlements of R people. Is it possible that R1b gets 80-90% population by only peaceful outbreeding? Yes, but chance of it is extremely low, probably one in a million.
No one gives away land without a fight, I people didn't just pack and leave, they needed a lot of persuasion.
Who knows, after energetic persuasion of R1bs hordes, I tribes left in panic in great migration and hid in Scandinavia.
And no I don't have a historic record of it either, but it can give you a hit why western Europe is an I haplotype desert, but I is very common in rest of Europe.

Other hint is what Wilhelm said. H mtDNa is still present, just I males are gone. So just I men vanished, H women were assimilated. Maybe I men went hunting and got lost in the forest?

Obviously we don't share the same concept of what probabilities are.

You assume R1bs were organized in massive hordes
You assume those hordes weren't mixed
You assume all I's predate all R1b's in Europe and equally weren't mixed.
You assume those hordes were massive killers
You assume I's were hunters and R1b's were.....?
You assume that I is more dense in Scandinavia and southern-eastern/eastern Europe than in western/south-western Europe is because their supposed invaders weren't as "efficient" as the western ones, or even could be refugia zones -from Iberia or France to the Balkans and Scandinavia it only takes a few hours...by plane- from the impetuous attacks of the -sic- R race.

Maybe R1bs came in UFO's

By the way, what languages spoke "the different races"? Klingon and hobbit? j/k

willy
29-05-10, 03:01
R1b came with vegetables 8000 years ago from Anatolia

LeBrok
29-05-10, 03:26
I don't really care how they came to dominate in western Europe, Segia. In about 10 years when enough of ancient bones are analyzed for dna will know how things unfolded. I'm pretty sure though that your peaceful expansion of beloved R1bs, and your romantic views of them will be shuttered to smithereens.

Segia
29-05-10, 16:39
I don't really care how they came to dominate in western Europe, Segia. In about 10 years when enough of ancient bones are analyzed for dna will know how things unfolded. I'm pretty sure though that your peaceful expansion of beloved R1bs, and your romantic views of them will be shuttered to smithereens.

I wasn't giving a personal opinion about how it took place. I was putting an emphasis on your opinion's weak points, on your simplistic -and plenty of assumptions- views.

I'm familiarized with all the patterns of Europe population and precisaly not since yesterday.

Neander
05-06-10, 08:47
It was my idea long time ago. I think "I" carry some neanderthal genes, in the way they are described in mythology they resemble neanderthals, if you saw "Grendel and Bowulf"

But for I2a2, forget that, you must know that they came during the Dark Ages, from Moldova and Ukraine and Belorusia.

Kardu
26-04-12, 12:58
Giants were elsewhere too :)
Here is a recent discovery in central Georgia. According to archaeologists about - 25 000 years old (coincides more or less with HG I ages does not it? :):)) I wish they'd do a paleo-dna test...
Unfortunately the video and the text are only in Russian.
http://www.1tv.ru/news/world/29635

nordicwarrior
11-06-13, 12:25
...R1b exterminated Is more than anyone else...

Hmm, eases my guilt about the whole Viking invasion thing. Maybe it's O.K. that France, Ireland, and England felt some hg. I "payback"?

I found an interesting article on height, puberty, adiposity and genome connections; but I had to stop here and give Lebrok a slight thumping behind the ears for this one! Will post more on a more tangential thread.

For now see Human Molecular Genetics Volume 22 Issue 13. July 1, 2013 (Oxford University).

albanopolis
11-06-13, 17:59
Look carefully at table of human height on the link bellow. World tallest people is found exactly in the regions where haplogroup I is typical or dominant haplogroup (Dinaric Alps, Scandinavia). I don´t believe it could be coincidance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

Herzegovinians and Montenegrins are well known as tallest people in Europe.

Montenegrins, in all 250 000 inhabitants are Slavisized albanians. High presence of haplogroups E, J is in line with Dna of Albanian areas. The rest of Montenegro are Serbs, I don't know which side is taller, but if Serbs of Montenegro are taller then I could be responsable, If Slavisized Albanians Montenegrins are taller then I is not responsable, but some combination of all this haplogroups could be. Kosovo Albanians are also among the tallest people in Europe and I2a is not present at all.

Engel
08-03-14, 09:03
so what would be the most likely haplogroup of the nephilims

Aberdeen
08-03-14, 16:30
so what would be the most likely haplogroup of the nephilims

I don't know but I suspect that hobbits were largely G2 (peaceful little early farmers).

MOESAN
10-03-14, 17:32
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12466

Stature and Status: Height, Ability, and Labor Market Outcomes

Very funny thread even if the concept of giants (genuine or imaginated) and myths is interesting -

concerning stature I can check here the problematic escapes to a lot of people:
more than a bias:


global states populations very often without any geographic, ethnic or social background taken in account – different periods of History -

no knowledge about the different AND CONTRADICTORY factors modifying stature: climate adaptation, food, inter-«racial» crossings or/and mating circles enlarging with more or less lasting effects on generations, physical way of life (sport at DIFFERENT AGES with DIFFERENT EFFECTS upon skeleton (and face), more or less hard hand work...) being the result that low OR high body stature can reflect EITHER AN INCREASE IN FORCE AND HEALTH OR THE OPPOSITE! A better and richer food can at first give better health than lack of food, when too much an too rich food can provide the opposite result -

economical and social (linked) conditions can modify the level stature in a country even with the same population (over generations), but as a whole it appears the European countries known for their high stature are still the higher ones today -
I already posted concerning this problem: the newly arrived immigrants in a foreign country CANNOT be taken as a good sample of their country original population (bias: social / regional / ethnic...) and it concerns every aspect of antrhopology -
the rude climatic conditions favorizing hight statures??? where are the proofs??? we could rather see the contrary in some cases: Inuits (Eskimos), Saami, Samoyeds and the opposite: the Touareg epople – don't confuse the one direction aspect of stature with a plural directions aspect of body and limbs thickness – and don't forget the nature give the living beings more than a way to adapt oneself; the «UNIQUE-LAW» system is very rare in Nature... by the way, the Mesolithic people of western and north Europe were loosing height as time was passing... maybe some new crossings, but?... (crossings are rather supposed to encrease stature) -
&&&: always the surveys (biased for I think) about IQ linked to physical heredity:! The «old Lochie»: I suppose the most or these studies were made in the USA? They produce with great regularity and in a very short time the opposite results about everything! («papers» business?) -
I DON'T DENY any genetic aspect in IQ, but what I know is that the surveys are very often biased: social origins not taken in account, and it has a BIG IMPUT! I smile (a bit bitter!!!) when I read something like «...children about 3 years age, before going to school...» and let's devine which ones are the higher IQ-ed? The taller ones! What a surprise! But WE KNOW TODAY the «education» - and it comprises the physical treatment and affective attentions given to the babies – has a big impact even just after the birth, and maybe before, and the way of life of parents, the education and the money they have influence the baby developpement in a huge proportion! When other parameters are the same ones, who is taller among the young children: the higher social classes ones: it is very amazing, isn't it? The occupational success?: a) you have a first explanation just above: social classes + b) the ridiculous or not but apparently real prejudices concerning authority linked to stature: in the french banks I think I noticed the managerial employees were taller as a mean than the inferior categories of clerks – the intermediate managerial ones indeed, because at an higher level, when other qualities and more proofs are required the average stature seemed not so different: so the physical look play a role – it is true that a high stature can confer more confidence in oneself -
the taller men would be more intelligent than the smaller ones?: never thought! (in a same context, evidently)

andrewqazx
13-01-15, 14:29
Would explain the story of the aesir conquering the jotuns from norse mythology

Degredado
13-01-15, 18:23
The esoteric, witchcraft-loving Vanir farmers could be associated with the mesolithic and neolithic haplogroups (I1, I2, G2a, E1b1b); the aggressive Aesir would represent the R1a and R1b newcomers. Eventually they stopped fighting and merged to form one people, collectively known as Aesir (Indo-European cultural domination). The Giants (who weren't always necessarily bigger than the Aesir) could symbolize the Finno-Baltic enemies from the East.

Templar
13-01-15, 18:48
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X14000665

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/male-height-in-europe.html