PDA

View Full Version : The concep of a "mediterranean" race/mediterranean genetics



julia90
22-03-11, 00:54
Mediterranean race (physical anthropometric concept)

The Mediterranean race was one of the three sub-categories into which the Caucasian race and the people of Europe were divided by anthropologists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, following the publication of William Z. Ripley's book "The Races of Europe" (1899). The others were Nordic and Alpine.
The Mediterranean race was thought to be prevalent in southern Europe, parts of Eastern Europe, most of North Africa, Northeast Africa, West Asia and parts of South Asia, Parts of Wales, Southern Scotland,[1] as well as parts of southwestern Ireland and western Great Britain,[2] and was characterized by moderate to short stature, long (dolichocephalic) or moderate (mesocephalic) skull, aquiline nose, dark hair, dark eyes and olive complexion.

These differentiations occurred following long-standing claims about the alleged differences between the Nordic and the Mediterranean people. Such debates arose from responses to ancient writers who had commented on differences between northern and southern Europeans. For the Greeks and Romans, Germanic and Celtic peoples were often stereotyped as wild red haired barbarians. Pseudo-Aristotle argued that the Greeks were an ideal race because they possessed a medium skin-tone, in contrast to pale northerners and dark southerners. However Tacitus argued that the Germanic tribes were an "unmixed" people, who had preserved their ancient language and race.[3] By the nineteenth century long-standing cultural and religious differences between Protestant northern Europe and the Catholic south were being reinterpreted in racial terms.[4]

n the nineteenth century the division of humanity into distinct races became a matter for scientific debate. In 1870, Thomas Huxley argued that there were four basic racial categories (Xanthocroic, Mongoloid, Australioid and Negroid). The Xanthocroic race were the "fair whites" of north and Central Europe. According to Huxley,
On the south and west this type comes into contact and mixes with the "Melanochroi," or "dark whites"...In these regions are found, more or less mixed with Xanthochroi and Mongoloids, and extending to a greater or less distance into the conterminous Xanthochroic, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australioid areas, the men whom I have termed Melanochroi, or dark whites. Under its best form this type is exhibited by many Irishmen, Welshmen, and Bretons, by Spaniards, South Italians, Greeks, South Slavs, Armenians, Arabs, and high-caste Brahmins...I am much disposed to think that the Melanochroi are the result of an intermixture between the Xanthochroi and the Australioids. It is to the Xanthochroi and Melanochroi, taken together, that the absurd denomination of "Caucasian" is usually applied.[5]
By the late nineteenth century Huxley's Xanthocroic group had been redefined as the "Nordic" race, while his Melanochroi became the Mediterranean race.
William Z. Ripley The Races of Europe (1899) [6] created a tripartite model that was later popularised by Madison Grant. It divided Europeans into three main subcategories: Teutonic, Alpine and Mediterranean.

Germany, Britain and the USA, it became common for white supremacists to promote the merits of the blond, blue-eyed Nordic race as the most advanced of human population groups: the "master race". Southern/Eastern Europeans were deemed to be inferior, an argument that dated back to Arthur de Gobineau's claims that racial mixing was responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire.[8] However, in southern Europe itself alternative models were developed which stressed the merits of Mediterranean peoples, drawing on established traditions dating from ancient and Renaissance claims about the superiority of civilization in the south. Some of these arguments were taken up by African-American writers to counter the arguments of Nordicists who considered any deviation from "pure" whiteness to be a taint.
The fact that Mediterranean peoples were responsible for the most important of ancient western civilizations was a problem for the promoters of Nordic superiority. Giuseppe Sergi's much-debated book The Mediterranean Race (1901) argued that the Mediterranean race had in fact originated in Africa, probably in the Sahara region, and that it also included a number of dark-skinned peoples from the African continent, such as Ethiopians and Somalis. Sergi added that the Mediterranean race "in its external characters is a brown human variety, neither white nor negroid, but pure in its elements, that is to say not a product of the mixture of Whites with Negroes or negroid peoples."[9] In his book The Mediterranean Race, Sergi also hypothesized that the Mediterranean, the African and the Nordic races all originated from an original Eurafrican species.[10][11] According to Sergi, the Mediterranean race was the "greatest race of the world" and was singularly responsible for the most accomplished civilizations of ancient times, including those of Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, India, Carthage, Greece and Rome. To Sergi, the Semites were a branch of the Eurafricans who were closely related to the Mediterraneans.[12]
C. G. Seligman also stated that "it must, I think, be recognized that the Mediterranean race has actually more achievement to its credit than any other, since it is responsible for by far the greater part of Mediterranean civilization, certainly before 1000 B.C. (and probably much later), and so shaped not only the Aegean cultures, but those of Western as well as the greater part of Eastern Mediterranean lands, while the culture of their near relatives, the Hamitic pre-dynastic Egyptians, formed the basis of that of Egypt."[13]
In the USA, the idea that the Mediterranean race included certain populations on the African continent was taken up in the early twentieth century by African-American writers such as W. E. B. Du Bois, who used it to attack white supremacist ideas about racial "purity". Such publications as the Journal of Negro History stressed the cross-fertilization of cultures between Africa and Europe, and adopted Sergi's view that the "civilizing" race had originated in Africa itself.[14]
H.G. Wells referred to the Mediterranean race as the Iberian race.[15]

According to C. S. Coon, typically marked Mediterranean features include skin color ranging "from pink or peaches-and-cream to a light brown", a relatively prominent and aquiline nose, considerable body hair, and dark brown to black hair.[16]
According to Renato Biasutti: "Skin color 'matte'-white or brunet-white, chestnut or dark chestnut eyes and hair, not excessive pilosity; medium-low stature (162), body of moderately longilinear forms; dolichomorphic skull (78) with rounded occiput; oval face; leptorrhine nose (68) with straight spine, horizontal or inclined downwards base of the septum; large open eyes."[17]

The Mediterranean race was divided into various subtypes by different authors, such as "Mediterranean proper"/Gracile Mediterranean"/"Ibero-Insular", "West Mediterranean", "Atlantid"/"Atlanto-Mediterranean", "Pontic"/"East Mediterranean", "Berberid", and sometimes the "Orientalid" race was included too, which referred to the Arabid and Iranid races.

Later in the 20th century the concept of a distinctive Mediterranean race was still considered useful by theorists such as Earnest Hooton in Up From the Ape (1931) and Carleton S. Coon in his revised edition of Ripley's Races of Europe (1939). These writers thought the Nordic race was the northern variety of Mediterraneans that lost pigmentation through natural selection due to the environment.
Hooton argued that even a skilled anthropologist would have a difficult time separating a Nordic from Mediterranean skeleton. He thought a destabilized blend of the two existed mostly in Britain that he labeled "Nordic-Mediterranean", with hazel eyes (rather than pure brown), dark hair color (mainly dark brown) and dolichocephalic skull.
According to Carleton Coon the "homeland and cradle" of the Mediterranean race is in North Africa and Southwest Asia, in the area from Morocco to Afghanistan.[18] Coon argued that smaller Mediterraneans traveled by land from the Mediterranean basin north into Europe in the Mesolithic era. Taller Mediterraneans (Atlanto-Mediterraneans) were Neolithic seafarers who sailed in reed-type boats and colonized the Mediterranean basin from a Near Eastern origin. He argued that they also colonized Britain where their descendants may be seen today, characterized by dark brown hair, dark eyes and robust features. He stressed the central role of the Mediterraneans in his works, claiming "The Mediterraneans occupy the center of the stage; their areas of greatest concentration are precisely those where civilization is the oldest. This is to be expected, since it was they who produced it and it, in a sense, that produced them".[18]
After the 1960s the concept of an exact Mediterranean race fell out of favor, though the distinctive features of Mediterranean populations continued to be recognized

Wilhelm
22-03-11, 01:13
From a genetic point of view there is no such thnig as mediterranean race. The iberians cluster with french, basques and north-italians. There is more genetic affinity between iberians and belgians than with greeks. Also, the distribution of haplogroups is vastly different from Iberia to other parts of the mediterranean.

julia90
22-03-11, 02:16
Europe is thought to have been colonized by northwest bound migrants from Central Asia and the Middle East.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Clines.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Cardial_map.png

julia90
22-03-11, 02:19
From a genetic point of view there is no such thnig as mediterranean race. The iberians cluster with french, basques and north-italians. There is more genetic affinity between iberians and belgians than with greeks. Also, the distribution of haplogroups is vastly different from Iberia to other parts of the mediterranean.

i tend to agree with what you have said, for central and northern spain. however southern spain (the third of spain that is Iberian) has mediterranean affinities.
as the ancient iberians were descriped by classical autors as short, dark haired, different from the other people (celts) who inhabitated central and northern iberia

julia90
22-03-11, 02:23
here some useful maps about migrations in europe from wester asia-middle east

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Cro-Magnon_range_37,500_ybp.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Cro-Magnon_range_35,000_ybp.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Cro-Magnon_range_32,500_ybp.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Cro-Magnon_range_30,000_ybp.svg

Carlitos
22-03-11, 03:13
I do not think that the Celts who came into Spain were of 1.90 cm, blond and blue eyes, because there are no phenotypic differences between southern and northern Spain, do not move to Spain's beliefs about the south of Italy, it does not work, the rest of Spanish Andalusia defends death, keep in mind that it took them 8 centuries to conquer us and love us.

Wilhelm
22-03-11, 03:14
i tend to agree with what you have said, for central and northern spain. however southern spain (the third of spain that is Iberian) has mediterranean affinities.
as the ancient iberians were descriped by classical autors as short, dark haired, different from the other people (celts) who inhabitated central and northern iberia
What ? Andalusians are genetically the same as the rest of Spaniards. In fact, the sample of spaniards of the Behar et al. study included only Andalusians and Catalans, and they clustered together, between France and North-Italians. That Behar sample is the one used also by the Dodecad and Eurogenese projects. But see also this intra-spanish study :


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x6Y4ZgFsZdY/S_07tdszhII/AAAAAAAAATQ/8zH-_Sy5kb0/s1600/PCgraphEuro.png

Carlitos
22-03-11, 03:23
Julia please do not move to Spain, their fears and insecurities over southern Italy.

Carlitos
22-03-11, 03:43
In this selection of Spanish personalities I think I see the Iberians authentic, I can be wrong, who knows.

http://www.tusfamosos.com/i/802x.jpg
Catalu˝a
http://www.valencia.es/ayuntamiento/semanasanta2008.nsf/0/CB192CEFCF638903C125728F003B7EA7/$FILE/RitaBarbera.jpg
Valencia
http://todopera.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/caballe4.jpg
Catalu˝a

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zEiTqHBE6yY/SUeedbxzpcI/AAAAAAAADKg/6N7iosW2lEQ/s320/ana_belen_calle.jpg
Madrid.

http://www.fundacionpilates.org/images/Premios/Tamara_rojo-200.jpg
Madrid

http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20020906elpepicul_1/XXLCO/Ies/Dulce_Chacon.jpg
Extremadura.

http://www.hola.com/famosos/especiales/missespana2004/votacion/images/jaen-1a.jpg
AndalucÝa.

julia90
22-03-11, 08:04
i think it's safe to say that spain saw a process of great intermixing with its people. So in every spaniard there is a drop of iberian and celt. And the ancient division on iberian celt doesn't exist anymore. However besides the question on the origins of iberians, i think the mediterranean genes of south europeans comes from the fertile crescent. Has anyone some info on neolitic place of origin?

julia90
22-03-11, 08:11
for example it is known that italy was before the entering of italic tribes, inhabitated in a stable manner from only neolitic people who were the first to arrive. It s logical to say that med look on italians derives from this fist inhabitants.

julia90
22-03-11, 08:19
i think italic tribes weren't of med stock. First because they entered italy fron north east (veneto friuli), before they were stantiated in pannonia near the celts (language affinities due to arial territorial contact). So they were one of those people that came in europe not from the south east

Mzungu mchagga
22-03-11, 13:10
I just stumbled over this sort of classification of alleged European races very recently. Not that I've never heard of it before, but I was kinda surprized to find so much enthusiasm for it on the 21. century internet.

For my part I have to say that I don't give much credit to it, although I have to admit it can turn into some kind of fun thing to classify people or look at distributions. But the craziest thing is when people start to link certain phenotypes with character traits, or even give some cultural advantages or disadvantages to them.

When you look at the spread of civilization of Europe, it becomes quite clear that it is highly linked to trade routes, especially water routes. Living at the river, and even more at the sea, has enormous advantages in many aspects: it is an insurance against famine and epidemics (fishing and fresh water), it is a trade route to other peoples, supporting economy, leading to wealth and giving more inspiration for culture, arts and science.

So when the people of the Middle East (whose civilzation arouse around rivers!!) entered the Mediterranean Sea, it was clear that civilization will spread around those Mediterranean coastlines first and created a new cradle of culture and science. [--> that's where the idea got started the Mediterranean race is superior to all the others]

Despite the fact that during the Middle Ages research of natural sciences got neglected, some technologies like seafaring/navigation improved. Hanseatic cities arouse around the North and Baltic sea, slowly catching up to Mediterranean cities in terms of trade and science. Later on, cities and regions bordering the Atlantic Ocean were in advantage over Mediterranean cities, as they were closer to the "New World" and trade with regions vast overseas became more lucrative over trade with the Middle East. Western Europe and North Europe became suddenly richer than the South. [--> that's where the idea got started the Nordic and/or the Atlantic race is superior to all the others]

The Alpine region was always in disadvance towards other regions of Europe. No access to the sea, and uncomfortable trade routes through the vast mountain ranges. That's why this region wasn't really affected by outside influences, subsequently through lack of inspiration not producing much arts and science either. [--> that's where the idea got started the Alpinoid race is a little phlegmatic and narrow-minded]

Well, today Austria, Switzerland, Southern Germany, Eastern France and Northern Italy combined would provide the richest and most prosperous region of Europe, as well as leaders in scientific technology. Despite not living at the sea. Why?? Because they don't need water routes: they have highways, trains, planes and online-banking :laughing::laughing:

julia90
22-03-11, 14:58
i agree with mzungu mchagga, but there are clines of genes that are more present in certain areas, and they define also physical pheatures.

Europe without the region of the alpine chain would be poorer, with heavy industrialization only in england, ruhr, scandinavia and catalonia.
althought on the italian side of the alpine chain people are wealthy not because of industrializations and entreprises, but for the third sector and social right policies.
also people who live in the alps are loyal, honest, and great workers, this is true for all the people who lives there (germans, french, italians, austrians, etc..), because life in the mountain is not easy, in the past people lived on the valley between the mountains and a certain spirit of protection among the people of the valley is what makes this people with balls, mussolini said that the hardest workers and loyal people were the italians who lived in the alps.

Carlitos
22-03-11, 16:46
History shows that no worker is more than anyone and in the case of Spain, the industrial supremacy of certain regions, Barcelona, Euskadi, Madrid serving and protectionist policies to the detriment of other regions that were sentenced to farming. Protections remain today as the privileges of Navarra, the whole face and is the main reason for the existence of nazionale regionalist who want to maintain state privileges, and I think that times have changed and those privileges to certain regions have been obsolete.

Cambrius (The Red)
22-03-11, 16:52
In this selection of Spanish personalities I think I see the Iberians authentic, I can be wrong, who knows.

http://www.tusfamosos.com/i/802x.jpg
Catalu´┐Ża
http://www.valencia.es/ayuntamiento/semanasanta2008.nsf/0/CB192CEFCF638903C125728F003B7EA7/$FILE/RitaBarbera.jpg
Valencia
http://todopera.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/caballe4.jpg
Catalu´┐Ża

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zEiTqHBE6yY/SUeedbxzpcI/AAAAAAAADKg/6N7iosW2lEQ/s320/ana_belen_calle.jpg
Madrid.

http://www.fundacionpilates.org/images/Premios/Tamara_rojo-200.jpg
Madrid

http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20020906elpepicul_1/XXLCO/Ies/Dulce_Chacon.jpg
Extremadura.

http://www.hola.com/famosos/especiales/missespana2004/votacion/images/jaen-1a.jpg
Andaluc´┐Ża.

They fit in the representative range for Spaniards (and Portuguese), but that range includes some other types as well, not shown in your photo groupings.

Carlitos
22-03-11, 16:55
^^
I do not understand what he has done 1 / 2 ?

Canek
22-03-11, 16:58
i don't know why europeans are so interested in making racial clasifications (esp certain countries :rolleyes2:)... the world population is destined to interbreed more and more, just like neanderthals interbreed with other humans in the past. some day all these useless racial clasifications will be obsolete.

Cambrius (The Red)
22-03-11, 17:00
i think it's safe to say that spain saw a process of great intermixing with its people. So in every spaniard there is a drop of iberian and celt. And the ancient division on iberian celt doesn't exist anymore. However besides the question on the origins of iberians, i think the mediterranean genes of south europeans comes from the fertile crescent. Has anyone some info on neolitic place of origin?

The majority of Iberians trend Paleolithic.

It's quite difficult to define the Celts genetically (although geneticists continue to try) since they were not heterogeneous. That said, some regions of Spain and Portugal presently have a higher level of Celticity than others - North, Northwest and Central West for certain. Celticity is defined more by cultural practices...

Carlitos
22-03-11, 17:02
i don't know why europeans are so interested in making racial clasifications (esp certain countries :rolleyes2:)... the world population is destined to interbreed more and more, just like neanderthals interbreed with other humans in the past. some day all these useless racial clasifications will be obsolete.

It is interesting, fun and meet new people.

Cambrius (The Red)
22-03-11, 17:23
i don't know why europeans are so interested in making racial clasifications (esp certain countries :rolleyes2:)... the world population is destined to interbreed more and more, just like neanderthals interbreed with other humans in the past. some day all these useless racial clasifications will be obsolete.
The truth is that people are continuing to marry within their own race in great part, despite the high level of interracial semiotics being projected by mass media. I doubt there will ever be massive racial interbreeding as the primal mind gravitates towards what is most familiar corporeally. In social psychological research, participants tend to perceive physical characteristics similar to theirs more favorably than those that are dissimilar. The notion of race will always be with us, in one form or another. Unfortunately, there will always be "The Other".

Antigone
22-03-11, 17:39
i don't know why europeans are so interested in making racial clasifications (esp certain countries :rolleyes2:)... the world population is destined to interbreed more and more, just like neanderthals interbreed with other humans in the past. some day all these useless racial clasifications will be obsolete.

That is a bit of a generalisation, SOME are interested in making racial classifications but not ALL. However, I think you will find those with the inherent need to classify all and sundry wherever you go, not just Europe.

I agree with the rest of your comment though, people have done and will continue to intermarry and breed. At the basic level, people are people the world over and ethnicity, culture etc is merely a window dressing.

Wilhelm
22-03-11, 17:45
i think it's safe to say that spain saw a process of great intermixing with its people. So in every spaniard there is a drop of iberian and celt. And the ancient division on iberian celt doesn't exist anymore. However besides the question on the origins of iberians, i think the mediterranean genes of south europeans comes from the fertile crescent. Has anyone some info on neolitic place of origin?
Palaeolithic contribution in Europe, Andalusia has the most after Sardinia :

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/1232/paleolithic.png

Triskel
22-03-11, 17:46
Celts were R1b like Italics. The Mediterranean component is related to I2 imo (Sardinian, Basque, Iberian, Paleolithic). J2 is more dinarid. Iberia is a mix of R1b (paternal line predominally) and I2 (maternal), with other minimal influences.

Wilhelm
22-03-11, 18:14
Celts were R1b like Italics. The Mediterranean component is related to I2 imo (Sardinian, Basque, Iberian, Paleolithic). J2 is more dinarid. Iberia is a mix of R1b (paternal line predominally) and I2 (maternal), with other minimal influences.
The R1b distribution follows an Western pattern, there is not such thing as mediterranean :

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b.gif

sparkey
22-03-11, 18:21
I2 (maternal)

Uh... :thinking:

Cambrius (The Red)
22-03-11, 18:30
I2 is a Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroup. I mt-DNA is maternal.

Triskel
22-03-11, 18:35
The R1b distribution follows an Western pattern, there is not such thing as mediterranean :

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b.gif

Yeah, I don┬┤t said it. R1b is principally Atlantic/celtic, probably braquicephally (Alpine types). Sardinians are the most Mediterranean people, they have a considerable percentage of I2, and in autosomal are very european and very paleolithic.

Triskel
22-03-11, 18:37
I said that R1b males procreate with local females (daughters of I2 fathers). I know that females havent┬┤t Y chromosome.

Cambrius (The Red)
22-03-11, 18:49
The R1b distribution follows an Western pattern, there is not such thing as mediterranean :

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b.gif

I'm not really sanguine with this latest map but the bottom line is that R1b peaks / saturates in the west.

sparkey
22-03-11, 18:51
I said that R1b males procreate with local females (daughters of I2 fathers). I know that females havent┬┤t Y chromosome.

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. I was thinking that you couldn't have meant maternal Y-DNA, because that obviously doesn't exist, and Iberians don't have significant haplogroup I mtDNA, either. So, you're getting at a certain truth... namely, that Iberians are much more recently European on their patrilines than on their matrilines. Although I will make one more comment, re: Basques: Basques are overwhelmingly R1b, not I2... IIRC, the only ethnic group that has higher R1b than the Basques are the Welsh. I don't know of a good reason to assume that the Basque culture is directly related to Paleolithic Europeans, as opposed to having been brought over alongside Italo-Celtic culture, or sometime in-between.

Mzungu mchagga
22-03-11, 18:52
i agree with mzungu mchagga, but there are clines of genes that are more present in certain areas, and they define also physical pheatures.

Europe without the region of the alpine chain would be poorer, with heavy industrialization only in england, ruhr, scandinavia and catalonia.
althought on the italian side of the alpine chain people are wealthy not because of industrializations and entreprises, but for the third sector and social right policies.
also people who live in the alps are loyal, honest, and great workers, this is true for all the people who lives there (germans, french, italians, austrians, etc..), because life in the mountain is not easy, in the past people lived on the valley between the mountains and a certain spirit of protection among the people of the valley is what makes this people with balls, mussolini said that the hardest workers and loyal people were the italians who lived in the alps.

It's not that I deny physical differences between populations. It's just that:

1. different average phenotypes between different populations often don't correlate with their autosomal DNA and real degree of relation (as already explained by Wilhelm)

2. correlations between those phenotypes and character traits are nonsense, as those characteristics were historically usually influenced by geographic environment, subsequent nutrition and social systems and then socialisation. In today's world of globalisation they are getting outdated. (as I explained in my previous post)

3. therefore I see no sense or practical usage of this kind of classification, except for the fun factor

Mzungu mchagga
22-03-11, 18:57
i don't know why europeans are so interested in making racial clasifications (esp certain countries :rolleyes2:)... the world population is destined to interbreed more and more, just like neanderthals interbreed with other humans in the past. some day all these useless racial clasifications will be obsolete.

Theoretically I think you are right. However, I fear before humanity has reached the one-world-race in a few hundred or more years, we've already got extinct (for other reasons). :sad-2:

Triskel
22-03-11, 19:12
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TMVdaRebw5I/AAAAAAAACxE/QuyuSf-JWgk/s1600/ADMIXTURE10.png

See Sardinians. They┬┤re very homogeneous. They┬┤ve a considerable percentage of I2. Sardinian pre-indoeuropean language had a clear link with basque. I2 only could be native paleolithic because south european component is different of West Asian (Neolithic farmers), and second major percentage is among basques, the third spaniards... (it increases to the west from Sardinia). Sardinia and Euskadi were isolated places where I2 native cro-magnon descendant culture and genetic survived better than in other places.

The bigger component in basques are south european too (related to I2 imo). In Spain the bigger percentages of paternal I2 are in the tradicional iberian/basque/preindoeuropean zones too. Basques are a matriarcal culture, their maternal line (I2 daughters imo) is more representative than the paternal r1b.

sparkey
22-03-11, 19:33
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TMVdaRebw5I/AAAAAAAACxE/QuyuSf-JWgk/s1600/ADMIXTURE10.png

See Sardinians. They┬┤re very homogeneous. They┬┤ve a considerable percentage of I2. Sardinian pre-indoeuropean language had a clear link with basque. I2 only could be native paleolithic because south european component is different of West Asian (Neolithic farmers), and second major percentage is among basques, the third spaniards... (it increases to the west from Sardinia). Sardinia and Euskadi were isolated places where I2 native cro-magnon descendant culture and genetic survived better than in other places.

I agree that Sardinians are unusually paleolithic... even their branch of I2 is unusually ancient among haplogroup I branches. But the pre-IE Sardinian language is unknown. Why assume that it was related to Basque?


The bigger component in basques are south european too (related to I2 imo). In Spain the bigger percentages of paternal I2 are in the tradicional iberian/basque/preindoeuropean zones too. Basques are a matriarcal culture, their maternal line (I2 daughters imo) is more representative than the paternal r1b.

The Basques are quite paleolithic in non-patrilines and group OK with Sardinians (but better with Spaniards). But we still see a lack of evidence regarding where Basque language and culture originated, and if we assume that it's paleolithically European, we're breaking the pattern that we see with Celtic language and culture in particular. For Celtic language and culture, it appears to be the Y-DNA haplogroup spread that correlates best with its spread.

Wilhelm
22-03-11, 19:37
The bigger component in basques are south european too (related to I2 imo). In Spain the bigger percentages of paternal I2 are in the tradicional iberian/basque/preindoeuropean zones too. Basques are a matriarcal culture, their maternal line (I2 daughters imo) is more representative than the paternal r1b.
No, the bigger percentage of I2 in Spain is in Arag├│n/Castilla, and the highest maternal line of the Basques is the H1 ,which is authoctnous of the area, see the I2 :

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif

Cambrius (The Red)
22-03-11, 19:54
It's not that I deny physical differences between populations. It's just that:

1. different average phenotypes between different populations often don't correlate with their autosomal DNA and real degree of relation (as already explained by Wilhelm)

2. correlations between those phenotypes and character traits are nonsense, as those characteristics were historically usually influenced by geographic environment, subsequent nutrition and social systems and then socialisation. In today's world of globalisation they are getting outdated. (as I explained in my previous post)

3. therefore I see no sense or practical usage of this kind of classification, except for the fun factor

There is a level of correlation between autosomal DNA and phenotypes. However, that's not the case with respect to haplogroups.

Triskel
22-03-11, 19:56
I agree that Sardinians are unusually paleolithic... even their branch of I2 is unusually ancient among haplogroup I branches. But the pre-IE Sardinian language is unknown. Why assume that it was related to Basque?



The Basques are quite paleolithic in non-patrilines and group OK with Sardinians (but better with Spaniards). But we still see a lack of evidence regarding where Basque language and culture originated, and if we assume that it's paleolithically European, we're breaking the pattern that we see with Celtic language and culture in particular. For Celtic language and culture, it appears to be the Y-DNA haplogroup spread that correlates best with its spread.

Actual sardinian has a clear basque substrate. See this... http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/03/paleo-sardinian-language-relative-of.html

Other map:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-RsQ43YBqyEk/TW1jTY-pfmI/AAAAAAAAAg0/hifLhj0oauM/s400/Y-DNA_I2a.gif

See the pyrennes (basques)

Yeah H1 is related to I2. Both are authoctonous paleolithic. In general terms, in my opinion H and V is related to I (Y-DNA), U and K related to R1b and R1a. J (m-dna and Y-dna) and T are neolithic. But mt-dna is difficult to associate with their Y-DNA lines...

Wilhelm
22-03-11, 20:18
There is a level of correlation between autosomal DNA and phenotypes. However, that's not the case with respect to haplogroups.
Exactly. Because the autosomal includes the SNP's that make your phenotype, such as pigmentation, but not the case with haplogrups.

Mzungu mchagga
22-03-11, 20:32
Ah ok...
Just for interest, is there any study on that?

I thought to have read somewhere, but I can't recall where, that SNPs don't necessarily correlate with phenotypes of populations. SNPs might be very different, but due to convergent development in a similar environment phenotypes look very close to each other, or the other way round. What is it like with Europeans?

sparkey
22-03-11, 20:34
Actual sardinian has a clear basque substrate. See this... http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/03/paleo-sardinian-language-relative-of.html

Other map:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-RsQ43YBqyEk/TW1jTY-pfmI/AAAAAAAAAg0/hifLhj0oauM/s400/Y-DNA_I2a.gif

See the pyrennes (basques)

Yeah H1 is related to I2. Both are authoctonous paleolithic. In general terms, in my opinion H and V is related to I (Y-DNA), U and K related to R1b and R1a. J (m-dna and Y-dna) and T are neolithic. But mt-dna is difficult to associate with their Y-DNA lines...

That's not a very good map, for example, where is the I2a in the Balkans? I wouldn't really trust it. Grabbing quickly from Maciamo's tables, he has that Basques have 9% I2a, which is typical for Iberia and not the maximum in the area. They do have the maximum of R1b, 86%, which actually appears to be the highest in Europe. Interestingly, they have rather unique R1b subclades, indicating a split early on in R1b's (relatively recent) migration into Europe. So, quite unlike Sardinians, they are among the most recent arrivals in Europe on the patriline. It seems unlikely to me that there would be no connection between R1b and Basque if the Basques have the highest R1b, and the typical pattern is a correlation between culture/language and Y-DNA haplogroups. mtDNA correlates much more poorly.

I will defer to those who are better with linguistics at interpreting the attempt to link Sardinian place names with Basque. The linked article didn't explain enough to satisfy my curiosity. Like, what about the place names places them as clearly related to Basque? The comments on that page offer some insight but some also throw doubt on the whole thing.

Mzungu mchagga
22-03-11, 20:36
Ah ok...
Just for interest, is there any study on that?

I thought to have read somewhere, but I can't recall where, that SNPs don't necessarily correlate with phenotypes of populations. SNPs might be very different, but due to convergent development in a similar environment phenotypes look very close to each other, or the other way round. What is it like with Europeans?



e.g. radiation level is higher in the South, so people there have more pigmentation for protection than people from the North. Which in the end doesn't necessarily mean that all people from the South are closer related to each other than to the people in the North?

Mzungu mchagga
22-03-11, 21:19
Or by getting more precise now:

Is a differentiation of races in Europe (Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpinoid etc...) from a genetic point of view justified? And if yes or no, why?

Wilhelm
22-03-11, 21:30
That's not a very good map, for example, where is the I2a in the Balkans?
The I2a is not frequent in the Balkans.


Or by getting more precise now:

Is a differentiation of races in Europe (Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpinoid etc...) from a genetic point of view justified? And if yes or no, why?
No. From a genetic point view there is no such divisions. Why ? Because for example the iberians are closer genetically to Belgians or English than they are to Greeks. Another example is that a blonde and blue-eyed spaniard would cluster with spanairds, not with northern-europeans, and vice versa, a southern-looking Swede is genetically swedish and cluster with his counterparts.

Mzungu mchagga
22-03-11, 21:41
No. From a genetic point view there is no such divisions. Why ? Because for example the iberians are closer genetically to Belgians or English than they are to Greeks. Another example is that a blonde and blue-eyed spaniard would cluster with spanairds, not with northern-europeans, and vice versa, a southern-looking Swede is genetically swedish and cluster with his counterparts.

That is actually what I meant and wanted to be confirmed. Thank you!

Cambrius (The Red)
22-03-11, 21:57
Or by getting more precise now:

Is a differentiation of races in Europe (Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpinoid etc...) from a genetic point of view justified? And if yes or no, why?

Nordic, Med, etc. aren't "races" but European population categories. A couple of ways to describe an indigenous European racially are White-Caucasoid or Europid-Caucasoid.

Triskel
22-03-11, 22:07
That's not a very good map, for example, where is the I2a in the Balkans? I wouldn't really trust it. Grabbing quickly from Maciamo's tables, he has that Basques have 9% I2a, which is typical for Iberia and not the maximum in the area. They do have the maximum of R1b, 86%, which actually appears to be the highest in Europe. Interestingly, they have rather unique R1b subclades, indicating a split early on in R1b's (relatively recent) migration into Europe. So, quite unlike Sardinians, they are among the most recent arrivals in Europe on the patriline. It seems unlikely to me that there would be no connection between R1b and Basque if the Basques have the highest R1b, and the typical pattern is a correlation between culture/language and Y-DNA haplogroups. mtDNA correlates much more poorly.

I will defer to those who are better with linguistics at interpreting the attempt to link Sardinian place names with Basque. The linked article didn't explain enough to satisfy my curiosity. Like, what about the place names places them as clearly related to Basque? The comments on that page offer some insight but some also throw doubt on the whole thing.

The map shows I2a1 haplogroup i think...
Basques are the result of the mixture of two populations. R1b and I2. In autosomal they┬┤re arround 55% SE and 45% NE. R1b can┬┤t be related with the south european component, it┬┤s very low in Ireland or Wales. The only haplogroup which could fit is I2 (high percentage in Sardinia-Sardinia is the maximum of SE).

Basques are practically half NE half SE but in Y-DNA is very R1b (NE), so in mt-dna they should be very different (SE-Cromagnon I2).

Yeah you┬┤re right, the culture tend to correlate with the Y-DNA. For example, There are a lot of R1b in Mexico (there are a lot of R1b in Cameroon too, proof that only Y-DNA doesn┬┤t mean anything). But you forgot something. Basques, opposite at the majority of cultures are matriarcal and matrilocal. The maternal line is more important than the paternal.

Anyway, if basque is a R1b language, what┬┤s the haplogroup related to celtic? what┬┤s the family language of the I haplogroup?

sparkey
22-03-11, 22:38
The map shows I2a1 haplogroup i think...

Interesting... that could be more telling. Although the source says that the map is from 2004... that's too old, more data has been collected since then. Does anyone have a reliable I2a1 map that we can use to add to this discussion?


Basques are the result of the mixture of two populations. R1b and I2. In autosomal they┬┤re arround 55% SE and 45% NE. R1b can┬┤t be related with the south european component, it┬┤s very low in Ireland or Wales. The only haplogroup which could fit is I2 (high percentage in Sardinia-Sardinia is the maximum of SE).

I'm still uncomfortable with calling non-patrilines by their supposed former Y-DNA haplogroups, because that's mixing what is known with what is speculative. I think it's more accurate to say that Basques are mixes of R1b patrilines with the mtDNA haplogroups they have, like H. Undoubtedly, they cluster autosomally as a distinct group that is contiguous with Spanish, French, and Italian people.


Basques are practically half NE half SE but in Y-DNA is very R1b (NE), so in mt-dna they should be very different (SE-Cromagnon I2).

Being more paleolithic on the matriline than the patriline is not unique to the Basques, it is true in general of Western Europe, so I don't think you can say R1b=NE.


Yeah you┬┤re right, the culture tend to correlate with the Y-DNA. For example, There are a lot of R1b in Mexico (there are a lot of R1b in Cameroon too, proof that only Y-DNA doesn┬┤t mean anything).

The R1b in Cameroon is a different subclade entirely (R1b1a). Culture and language changes relatively quickly and can be spread amongst admixed populations that can then have their relative haplogroup frequencies change. So I don't think that we would really expect the R1b people in Cameroon to share a culture or language with the R1b in Europe. And of course, the rapid movement of people in the modern era has changed everything.


But you forgot something. Basques, opposite at the majority of cultures are matriarcal and matrilocal. The maternal line is more important than the paternal.

That could explain it if you're right. Italo-Celtic culture is certainly patriarchal in comparison. I question how ancient that tradition is though, and why that pattern doesn't seem to have made a difference in the cultural dispersion in Europe outside of the Basques.


Anyway, if basque is a R1b language, what┬┤s the haplogroup related to celtic?

Basque = R1b-M153 & R1b-M65.
Celtic = R1b-S1126*, R1b-L21, etc.
Split is circa 3,500 years ago.


what┬┤s the family language of the I haplogroup?

There were probably a bunch of them pre-Neolithic expansion. The I MRCA is over 20,000 years ago. Probably, they are all extinct, unless Basque happens to be one, in which case it may be a descendant of an ancestral I2a1 language, which has a more comfortably recent MRCA of about 7,000 years ago. I am still hesitant to draw conclusions on Basque.

(Sorry for breaking up your argument into so many little points, you made a lot of different points).

Triskel
22-03-11, 23:10
Interesting... that could be more telling. Although the source says that the map is from 2004... that's too old, more data has been collected since then. Does anyone have a reliable I2a1 map that we can use to add to this discussion?


The Maciamo map of I2a is similar, I2a1 in West Europe and I2a2 in the east.



I'm still uncomfortable with calling non-patrilines by their supposed former Y-DNA haplogroups, because that's mixing what is known with what is speculative. I think it's more accurate to say that Basques are mixes of R1b patrilines with the mtDNA haplogroups they have, like H. Undoubtedly, they cluster autosomally as a distinct group that is contiguous with Spanish, French, and Italian people.


Basque mt-dna (H and V) are paleolithic, like Y-DNA I. (Europe in general too but less paleolithic than basques)



Being more paleolithic on the matriline than the patriline is not unique to the Basques, it is true in general of Western Europe, so I don't think you can say R1b=NE.


Yes. I didn┬┤t deny it. Basques are a mixture of two different populations. Or R1b is NE or it┬┤s SE. Other zones with high R1b have a very low SE percentage. Sardinia has the maximum of SE (arround 98%) and they┬┤ve high percentage of I2. Haplogroup I2 is the only with a considerable percentage among basques apart from R1b.



The R1b in Cameroon is a different subclade entirely (R1b1a). Culture and language changes relatively quickly and can be spread amongst admixed populations that can then have their relative haplogroup frequencies change. So I don't think that we would really expect the R1b people in Cameroon to share a culture or language with the R1b in Europe. And of course, the rapid movement of people in the modern era has changed everything.


Yeah, but the first Cameroon R1bs were very different than their paternal line descendency. Sure. In the phenotypical and genetical sense.



That could explain it if you're right. Italo-Celtic culture is certainly patriarchal in comparison. I question how ancient that tradition is though, and why that pattern doesn't seem to have made a difference in the cultural dispersion in Europe outside of the Basques.


Iberians, ligurians.... (Celts were more matriarcal than other indoeuropeans) preindoeuropean influence/cultural exchange/mixture?



Basque = R1b-M153 & R1b-M65.
Celtic = R1b-S1126*, R1b-L21, etc.
Split is circa 3,500 years ago.


Basque is too different of indo european languages. Impossible to explain with a split only 3500 years ago imo.



There were probably a bunch of them pre-Neolithic expansion. The I MRCA is over 20,000 years ago. Probably, they are all extinct, unless Basque happens to be one, in which case it may be a descendant of an ancestral I2a1 language, which has a more comfortably recent MRCA of about 7,000 years ago. I am still hesitant to draw conclusions on Basque.

(Sorry for breaking up your argument into so many little points, you made a lot of different points).

Basque is I language or R1b language. I would bet to I.

sparkey
22-03-11, 23:26
Basque is too different of indo european languages. Impossible to explain with a split only 3500 years ago imo.

Yeah, I agree that the genetic split is younger than the cultural split, it's impossible to explain otherwise. I think it is possible that IE culture originated with R1a people rather than R1b people, and that R1b people were originally culturally Basque (or at least a small component was). Cultural transmission from R1a to R1b could have occurred, and subsequent expansion of the IE-ized R1b people caused the Italo-Celtic language and culture spread in Western Europe. In fact, it seems hard to explain the IE commonalities between R1a and R1b peoples without granting that there was transmission, because their continuity in culture is closer than their continuity in genetics. Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility that R1b was originally something other than Basque, and that Basque is a direct descendant of paleolithic European culture... In fact, I don't know of anything to preclude the possibility that IE originated with someone other than R1a, they just seem to be the most-likely suspects. But my point is that all of these are still possibilities...

I will grant you this: I think your best point so far was about the long-held matrilineal transmission of Basque culture. I did a little follow-up research and it seems to be substantiated; I didn't even know about that beforehand.


Basque is I language or R1b language. I would bet to I.

I agree, almost. I wouldn't bet one way or another, for one. And for two, it's possible that it was transmitted pre-IE during the Neolithic... although your observation about the lack of non-R1b/I holds and makes it the least likely scenario. Likelihood of R1b vs. I vs. Neolithic origin of Basque culture seems like 1:1:0.001 odds to me. But we know so little that nothing would surprise me.

I am curious, how do you suppose Basque people became so R1b so quickly? I can imagine bottlenecking of the gene pool with subsequent gene flow from R1b peoples followed by expansion.

Triskel
22-03-11, 23:45
Yeah, it┬┤s the other possibility. Finally i agree with you. We can┬┤t be 100% sure about it. Anyway R1a is practically inexistent in italo-celtic areas. I think that cultural and genetic expansion are related.

My explication: Probably I2 males fought against R1b and they lost. R1b survivors kill males, form an aristocracy and procreate with local females (there were much more females than males sure) and they adopt her culture. I think that in Cameroon was the same history (or similar) and latin america is a good example too, but they adopt our culture (patriarcal). Why R1b males left their patriarcal society and they integrate in the matricarcal local basque society? Probably the number of R1b males could explain it. I don┬┤t know. It┬┤s a good and important question.

Wilhelm
22-03-11, 23:45
Yeah, I agree that the genetic split is younger than the cultural split, it's impossible to explain otherwise. I think it is possible that IE culture originated with R1a people rather than R1b people, and that R1b people were originally culturally Basque (or at least a small component was). Cultural transmission from R1a to R1b could have occurred, and subsequent expansion of the IE-ized R1b people caused the Italo-Celtic language and culture spread in Western Europe. In fact, it seems hard to explain the IE commonalities between R1a and R1b peoples without granting that there was transmission, because their continuity in culture is closer than their continuity in genetics. Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility that R1b was originally something other than Basque, and that Basque is a direct descendant of paleolithic European culture... In fact, I don't know of anything to preclude the possibility that IE originated with someone other than R1a, they just seem to be the most-likely suspects. But my point is that all of these are still possibilities...

No, the basques, maternally, have been living in the area since the paleolithic, because the mtDNA H1, H3 and V originated in the Franco-Cantabrian region, and today H1 peaks in Basques, so we must think the basque people, and their culture, is authoctonous, at least maternally.

sparkey
22-03-11, 23:58
No, the basques, maternally, have been living in the area since the paleolithic, because the mtDNA H1, H3 and V originated in the Franco-Cantabrian region, and today H1 peaks in Basques, so we must think the basque people, and their culture, is authoctonous, at least maternally.

I don't disagree about the paleolithic origin of Basque mtDNA, but their Y-DNA is just as extremely recent. As I explained, it's not clear whether the culture and language came out of their paleolithic-origin matrilines or their very recent patrilines. We don't really have a reference point for the Basques (although Triskel thinks that the Sardinians are a good reference point, which would indicate paleolithic origins).

Some more good reading on this topic: The Basques: Not So Unusual (http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/basques.shtml).

Alonzo
29-04-11, 21:55
From a genetic point of view there is no such thnig as mediterranean race.

Thats wrong, Dienekes in his last ADMIXTURE study "Genetic structure of West Eurasians"

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/genetic-structure-of-west-eurasians.html

showed that there is clearly a Mediterranean cluster (similar to a "race") in Caucasians.

"At K=5, a new Mediterranean component emerges. This is highly represented in populations to the North, South, and East of the Mediterranean sea. This component is noteworthy for its absence in India and Northeastern Europe. In Northeastern Europe, the Mediterranean component is hardly represented at all..."

Look at K=5 at https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedHdNWjA5SzZVZ0VGZ19YNElZMTRxN Gc&hl=en&authkey=CKPVjOMP#gid=5

Its distribution almost perfectly matches the description of the Mediterrean race described by anthropologists in the 20th century. For example Carleton Coon :

"Our area, from Morocco to Afghanistan, is the homeland and cradle of the Mediterranean race. Mediterraneans are found also in Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean islands, and in all these places, as in the Middle East, they form the major genetic element in the local populations... Who, then, are these Mediterraneans? Nearly all the Arabs, practically all the oriental Jews, most of the inhabitants of Egypt whatever their religion, most of the Berbers, most of the Persians proper, many of the Kurds, most of the Baluchis, a large number of the Afghans and many of the Turks of Anatolia and Azerbaijan. Nearly 80% of the individuals living in the Middle East and participating in its civilization (excluding Europeans) are Mediterraneans of one variety or another; of the other twenty per cent at least half probably show an increment of Mediterranean genes. The Mediterranean race, then, is indigenous to, and the principal element in, the Middle East, and the greatest concentration of a highly evolved Mediterranean type falls among two of the most ancient Semitic-speaking peoples, notably the Arabs and the Jews. (Although it may please neither party, this is the truth.) "

Distribution from Dienekes (k=5) where Maghrebis, Arabs and Jews have highest percentages as described by Coon ... Striking, isn't it ? As usual, genetics very often confirms what antropologist said.

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5550/dienikes2.jpg

Wilhelm
29-04-11, 22:16
Thats wrong, Dienekes in his last ADMIXTURE study "Genetic structure of West Eurasians"

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/genetic-structure-of-west-eurasians.html

showed that there is clearly a Mediterranean cluster (similar to a "race") in Caucasians.

"At K=5, a new Mediterranean component emerges. This is highly represented in populations to the North, South, and East of the Mediterranean sea. This component is noteworthy for its absence in India and Northeastern Europe. In Northeastern Europe, the Mediterranean component is hardly represented at all..."

Look at K=5 at https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedHdNWjA5SzZVZ0VGZ19YNElZMTRxN Gc&hl=en&authkey=CKPVjOMP#gid=5

Its distribution almost perfectly matches the description of the Mediterrean race described by anthropologists in the 20th century. For example Careleton Coon :

"Our area, from Morocco to Afghanistan, is the homeland and cradle of the Mediterranean race. Mediterraneans are found also in Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean islands, and in all these places, as in the Middle East, they form the major genetic element in the local populations... Who, then, are these Mediterraneans? Nearly all the Arabs, practically all the oriental Jews, most of the inhabitants of Egypt whatever their religion, most of the Berbers, most of the Persians proper, many of the Kurds, most of the Baluchis, a large number of the Afghans and many of the Turks of Anatolia and Azerbaijan. Nearly 80% of the individuals living in the Middle East and participating in its civilization (excluding Europeans) are Mediterraneans of one variety or another; of the other twenty per cent at least half probably show an increment of Mediterranean genes. The Mediterranean race, then, is indigenous to, and the principal element in, the Middle East, and the greatest concentration of a highly evolved Mediterranean type falls among two of the most ancient Semitic-speaking peoples, notably the Arabs and the Jews. (Although it may please neither party, this is the truth.) "

As usual, genetics very often confirms what antropologist said.
LOL, why did you stop at K=5 ? He made until K=11, in which the mediterranean cluster disappears and splitts between Basque and Sardinian. There is no mediterranean race, this has nothing to do with race.

Alonzo
30-04-11, 09:33
LOL, why did you stop at K=5 ? He made until K=11, in which the mediterranean cluster disappears and splitts between Basque and Sardinian. There is no mediterranean race, this has nothing to do with race.

Each cluster defined at a given K IS a "race". Higher K only split a given race into sub-races... you can ask Dienekes, he will confirm... There is definitely a mediterranean race as proven by Dienekes

observatrix
24-05-11, 00:44
i think italic tribes weren't of med stock. First because they entered italy fron north east (veneto friuli), before they were stantiated in pannonia near the celts (language affinities due to arial territorial contact). So they were one of those people that came in europe not from the south east

Their appearance wouldn't have differed much from for example the people you will find in Lazio.
Besides Mediterannoids can even found in Russia (Pontids) and as far as in India skullwise (Eastern Med type)
J2b map:

4835

archaiocapilos
05-06-11, 18:05
From a genetic point of view there is no such thing as mediterranean race. The iberians cluster with french, basques and north-italians. There is more genetic affinity between iberians and belgians than with greeks. Also, the distribution of haplogroups is vastly different from Iberia to other parts of the mediterranean.

But from a phenotypic point of view they do look like mediterraneans don't they? Perhaps Y-DNA is not that important when we are dealing with how people look like

archaiocapilos
05-06-11, 18:08
Their appearance wouldn't have differed much from for example the people you will find in Lazio.
Besides Mediterannoids can even found in Russia (Pontids) and as far as in India skullwise (Eastern Med type)
J2b map:

4835
Your map of J2b seems like it is related to Indo-Europeans

Dorianfinder
26-11-11, 16:45
Palaeolithic contribution in Europe, Andalusia has the most after Sardinia :

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/1232/paleolithic.png

This makes sense considering that Albania is said to have the lowest levels of Neanderthal admixture in Europe.

Knovas
29-11-11, 13:28
I personally disagree with the figures if the focus is autosomal DNA. Ethnic Catalans are surely, by far, the most Paleolithic due to the huge I2a1a* influence not reflected in the haplogroup frequencies. We have discussed this many times in different threads why Sardinia has a lot of I2a1a*, and why Catalonia shows such huge percent for R1b (recent replacements). I must say considering the present haplogroup frequencies, the figure for Catalans it's "quite" generous, but not enough in my opinion.

Sardinians are overestimated in regards for their Paleolithic ancestry. Several admixture experiments showed they have many influences, as for example the v3 run and the Euro7 Calculator . They are Isolated and very homogeneous due to this, but it doesn't mean anything else: running a bunch of cousins produces similar effects in genetic plots for what I have read.

To make a sumary: the most Paleolithic people you can find in Europe is, almost sure, in the Southwest and in the Northernmost, which has been curiously excluded in the paper. These are the places where it's likely to find reasonable influence of haplogroup I: I2a's in the Southwest (specially Northeast Iberia, but also substantial in the rest) and I1 in the Northernmost (although other types could fit).

And about the so called Mediterranean, I agree that it's more a phenotypic idea than a genetic category. I prefer to use Southern European or Southwest/Southeast when refering to genetics. I find it very useful when this has been done, and also the same division in Northern Europe produces good results.

Jovialis
30-10-20, 02:20
*9 years of genetic research later:

FYI

Analyzing the Mediterranean Cluster C6 from Antonio M et al. 2019 (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/40429-Analyzing-the-Mediterranean-Cluster-C6-from-Antonio-M-et-al-2019)

Carlos
30-10-20, 14:17
I've never heard of anyone living in the Mediterranean, I think only fish live. What continent are we talking about?
Firm land that can be walked on, only Jesus Christ walked through the sea.

Jovialis
16-11-20, 06:10
*9 years of genetic research later:

FYI

Analyzing the Mediterranean Cluster C6 from Antonio M et al. 2019 (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/40429-Analyzing-the-Mediterranean-Cluster-C6-from-Antonio-M-et-al-2019)

https://i.imgur.com/BO323XQ.png

Here are my top 5 samples...

The C6 Mediterranean cluster is predominately Anatolian_N, with about 1/5 CHG, and 1/5 WHG/EHG.

There are some small traces of Natufian for some samples.

At least according to the coordinates I made for this analysis:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39783-Dodecad-K12b-Ancient-West-Eurasia-by-Eupedia-Team/page11?p=615220#post615220

Jovialis
16-11-20, 06:18
https://i.imgur.com/BO323XQ.png

Here are my top 5 samples...

The C6 Mediterranean cluster is predominately Anatolian_N, with about 1/5 CHG, and 1/5 WHG/EHG.

There are some small traces of Natufian for some samples.

At least according to the coordinates I made for this analysis:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39783-Dodecad-K12b-Ancient-West-Eurasia-by-Eupedia-Team/page11?p=615220#post615220

https://i.imgur.com/REocdyq.png

Jovialis
16-11-20, 15:17
I've never heard of anyone living in the Mediterranean, I think only fish live. What continent are we talking about?
Firm land that can be walked on, only Jesus Christ walked through the sea.

Jesus Christ would have been substantially Natufian-admixed, thus, not part of the Mediterranean cluster, C6.

Carlos
17-11-20, 22:15
Jesus Christ would have been substantially Natufian-admixed, thus, not part of the Mediterranean cluster, C6.

Ohhh what a pity, as an honorary Mediterranean; although the honor is ours. :smile:

binx
28-11-20, 15:50
The concept of a "mediterranean" race is pseudoscience.

Jovialis
28-11-20, 16:15
The concept of a "Mediterranean" race is pseudoscience.

As a race, it is indeed outmoded and pseudoscience at this point. But as a genetic cluster, you can say it is a construct fixed to a time and place. Just as "Eastern Mediterranean", or "Nordic_BA", can be a distinguishable cluster, and construct from it. They are all used in modern academic nomenclature, in the research papers the samples are cited from.

Ailchu
05-12-20, 23:50
The concept of a "mediterranean" race is pseudoscience.

honest question, which concept of "race" isn't pseudoscience?

Henrique
08-12-20, 18:45
Regardless of phenotype, there are no 'separate races' in Europe and anywhere in the world actually. All Europe is a result of the mixture of different populations, only the proportions vary.

Henrique
08-12-20, 18:55
They want to transport stereotypes to Iberia that don't even work in Italy. I was watching a documentary about Friuli in the far northeast of Italy and most of them look as 'Mediterranean' as any other Italian in any other region. In Iberia, the 'north' and 'south' thing doesn't even make sense in groupings. The only difference in grouping in Iberia is between the western part and Catalonia (both grouping closer to the central French) while other areas (such as Aragon) are closer to the Basques.

It is easy to understand: all Europe is the result of a mixture and there is no genetic basis for a 'race' division. The varied phenotypes are also found in all countries despite the difference in frequencies. That is all.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RITKnwRzc0&t=1690s&ab_channel=HERNUSASAPI DECV

Henrique
08-12-20, 19:33
[QUOTE = Wilhelm; 368670] O I2a n├úo ├ę frequente nos Balc├ús.


N├úo. Do ponto de vista gen├ętico, essas divis├Áes n├úo existem. Por qu├¬ ? Porque, por exemplo, os ib├ęricos s├úo geneticamente mais pr├│ximos dos belgas ou ingleses do que dos gregos. Outro exemplo ├ę que um espanhol loiro e de olhos azuis se aglomeraria com espanh├│is, n├úo com europeus do norte, e vice-versa, um sueco com apar├¬ncia do sul ├ę geneticamente sueco e se aglomeraria com seus hom├│logos. [/ QUOTE]

Exactly. Blond Iberians group with other Iberians regardless of phenotype. Just as a 'dark' Dutch or German will continue to group with other Germans.

Angela
09-12-20, 01:00
We're not the apricity. No one is interested in long discussions about how many blondes are in which countries. Who cares?