PDA

View Full Version : "Baskid" and "Keltic-Nordid" types in Europe, are they related?



oreo_cookie
19-10-14, 21:39
The look we call "Baskid" in Iberia, is it related in any way to what we call "Keltic-Nordid" in the British isles?

People in the British Isles do share some genetic elements with Basques and other Iberians. Is it possible that Keltic-Nordid is just Baskid mixed with Hallstadt Nordid?

Mars
19-10-14, 22:09
The look we call "Baskid" in Iberia, is it related in any way to what we call "Keltic-Nordid" in the British isles?

People in the British Isles do share some genetic elements with Basques and other Iberians. Is it possible that Keltic-Nordid is just Baskid mixed with Hallstadt Nordid?
What stuff is that? Baskid? Keltic nordid?

oreo_cookie
19-10-14, 22:45
Phenotypical classifications by anthropologists of old.

ElHorsto
20-10-14, 00:04
The look we call "Baskid" in Iberia, is it related in any way to what we call "Keltic-Nordid" in the British isles?

People in the British Isles do share some genetic elements with Basques and other Iberians. Is it possible that Keltic-Nordid is just Baskid mixed with Hallstadt Nordid?

Possible, but not very likely, I think. If I recall correctly from Coon and anthro-blogs (and my own classification ambitions), basques are in majority mediterranean looking with a few alpinids, and nordic is almost absent.
Keltic-Nordid is AFAIK very different. According to Coon it has even a tad dinaric, and I think he is right, assuming his plates are serious. I often disagree with Coon but here I agree. Keltic-Nordid is probably one of the few phenotypes in Britain which might show a slightly visible eastern admixture, probably representing the iron age celt migration from the continent (Edward Norton probably might be an example, but not entirely sure.). Another visibly eastern (e.g. corded) admixed British phenotype is "Anglo-Saxon" (Helen Mirren is a strong example, maybe too strong, because her father actually is a real east european).

What "Baskid" and Keltic-Nordics might have in common is a tendency towards lower skulls, which is a general tendency in western europe (long and low skulls vs. high and short skulls in eastern europe). And then of course the mediterranean looking individuals of Britain. Britain is the place in northern europe with the highest amount of mediterranean looking people. Coon later believed that the "Mediterranean race" originated there, but I think this is nonsense.

I'm really no expert, just wanted to fertilize this thread with more thoughts because it is interesting.

oreo_cookie
25-10-14, 19:40
Possible, but not very likely, I think. If I recall correctly from Coon and anthro-blogs (and my own classification ambitions), basques are in majority mediterranean looking with a few alpinids, and nordic is almost absent.

I'm not asking about Basques specifically, but about the phenotype that has been labeled "Baskid". Not all Basques have it, though. It bears some resemblance to what is called "Keltic-Nordid", but without the Hallstadt Nordic influence.

ElHorsto
31-10-14, 13:43
I'm not asking about Basques specifically, but about the phenotype that has been labeled "Baskid". Not all Basques have it, though. It bears some resemblance to what is called "Keltic-Nordid", but without the Hallstadt Nordic influence.

Oh I see. Then maybe baskid influence made the continental celtics more altantic or british looking, I don't know. But I think "Keltic-Nordid" should also have something other than just "Hallstatt", in addition to "Baskid".

MOESAN
01-11-14, 21:08
Possible, but not very likely, I think. If I recall correctly from Coon and anthro-blogs (and my own classification ambitions), basques are in majority mediterranean looking with a few alpinids, and nordic is almost absent.
Keltic-Nordid is AFAIK very different. According to Coon it has even a tad dinaric, and I think he is right, assuming his plates are serious. I often disagree with Coon but here I agree. Keltic-Nordid is probably one of the few phenotypes in Britain which might show a slightly visible eastern admixture, probably representing the iron age celt migration from the continent (Edward Norton probably might be an example, but not entirely sure.). Another visibly eastern (e.g. corded) admixed British phenotype is "Anglo-Saxon" (Helen Mirren is a strong example, maybe too strong, because her father actually is a real east european).

What "Baskid" and Keltic-Nordics might have in common is a tendency towards lower skulls, which is a general tendency in western europe (long and low skulls vs. high and short skulls in eastern europe). And then of course the mediterranean looking individuals of Britain. Britain is the place in northern europe with the highest amount of mediterranean looking people. Coon later believed that the "Mediterranean race" originated there, but I think this is nonsense.

I'm really no expert, just wanted to fertilize this thread with more thoughts because it is interesting.


I disagree for a part:
Basques have a strong imput of basic 'mediterranean' type, but they show vivible accretion of diverses other types: some 'nordic', some cromagnoid remnants, and capelloid (or brünnoid) remnants, and 'alpine', and even a little bit of 'dinaric' -
but their means are variable according to subregions; french Basques have more 'alpine' (and maybe 'dinaric' - Guipuzcoa more 'mediterranean' (and 'atlanto-mediterranean') Vitoria: 'alpine' + 'dinaric' again more visible - as a whole they lack the 'eastern-med' or 'cappadocian' imput that have eastern Spanyards and Italians and Greeks -
here I guess some component but Basques after crossings as others, lived more secluded and developped peculiar types from their crossings (in France particuliarly), but the phenomenon begun early, between their earlier components: cromagnoid, capelloid and alpine producing an abnormal (statistically) tendancy towards narrow inferior jaw, low crania tending toward sub-brachycephally,(herited from both 'cromagnoid' and 'alpine', and some abormal developpements of teeths (short endogamy?)
for colour, they show a high level of broadly spanned brown hues of hair concurrencing black and blackish dark brown, and brownishgreen, green eyes - I thin the intermediary stabile tendancy for pigmentation could be partly an archaic inheritage in Europe adding to the result of instable mix colours based on crossings fair-dark - Celts and some Slavs and Balts present the same case I think -
the 'atlanto-med' type (not to well analysed, surely more a mean than a true basic type) appeared at the megaliths period (see Long Barrows and some Passage Graves cultures)-
Keltic Iron type is not more a basic type, as you say adn as ay Coon: I never found five men presenting a very complete diagnosis of this MEANS type: it's as 'basquid' type a composite means type so defined: subdolichocephalic (so partial brachycephally), very LOW cylindric skull, but with HIGH orbits, receding foreheard with strong enough browridge, high glabella, longer upper face than 'nordic', shallower inferior jaw but broader than 'mediter', profiled nose:
I tried to analyse the basic components and fail to explain everything! COON said some of the old Slavs and Scythians and even some Iron Age Armenians have skulls close enough to this mean - surely a long process or partial re-raciation after compliacted crossings ('nordic' = 'corded' without 'brünnoid' + 'alpine' + dinaricized 'borreby' (3000/2500 BC : Bell Beakers to Round Barrows period) + 'cromagnoid' stayed dolichocephalic? (at Mesolithic, Rhine Germany presented 'cromanoid' enough people BUT with a bit higher orbits so ???):
to say: these "types" are means constructions and COON says that Basques often presented bones means close to his "Iron Age Celtic" type ("Kymric" of someones):
all the way, this celtic hotchpot' was a bit fairer pigmented for more 'nordic' (and maybe others depigmented people) were in the formule -
what we have is subdolichocephally + low skull + heavy enough archaic components, more on the 'cromagnoid' partly gracilized side, I think -




contrary to what you say,
there is no direct link between cephalic index and height of skulls: all the Europans were dolichocephalic in ancient times (say: before 7000 BC) and alreday there were different types and crossings: 'cromagnoids' were low skulled, 'brünnoids'/'capelloids' high enough, 'chancelade' very high skulled, all that prducing local crossings and means "subtypes" -
the brachycephally SEEMS appeared about the 6000 BC in Alps, rather among the 'cro-magnon' phylum and the mutation seems having progressed northwards at first, producing 'alpines' we could consider as partly feotalized and the less brachycephallic and more robust 'borreby' (I call 'borreby A' because the brutal 'borreby B' seems very unstable between this 'borreby A' and the dolichocephalic 'brünnoid' (came from East only about the 9000 BC apparently) - it would be only after that brachycephally (european) gained ground eastwards and southeastwards (late Neolithic in North? - Chalcolithic in South-East?)
the correlation between these phenotypes and their evolution by time and the invisible autosomals groups they were part of is a question!
sorry for being so long!
cheers!

ElHorsto
04-11-14, 00:50
I disagree for a part:
Basques have a strong imput of basic 'mediterranean' type, but they show vivible accretion of diverses other types: some 'nordic', some cromagnoid remnants, and capelloid (or brünnoid) remnants, and 'alpine', and even a little bit of 'dinaric' -
but their means are variable according to subregions; french Basques have more 'alpine' (and maybe 'dinaric' - Guipuzcoa more 'mediterranean' (and 'atlanto-mediterranean') Vitoria: 'alpine' + 'dinaric' again more visible - as a whole they lack the 'eastern-med' or 'cappadocian' imput that have eastern Spanyards and Italians and Greeks -

I see, basques are more diverse than I thought. But they also have that 'baskid' phenotype mentioned by oreo_cookie, although it is not at all exclusive to basques only.
I looked a bit around in the internet and quite many people seem to think that 'baskid' is a kind of 'dinaric'. That's very surprising for me and I still don't quite believe it. I rather see a strong similarity to atlanto-meds, which some authors still link to 'dinaric', however.
But if 'baskid' really is a kind of 'dinaric' then maybe 'nordic-keltic' aquired it's dinaric traits from 'baskid'? But even then there is still the question from where 'baskid' (assuming it is kind of 'dinarid') came from. Maybe it is a remnant of dinarid-looking metal-workers from the east like original Bell-Beakers, some R1b guys or whoever, or it is an independent local evolution of the pyreneés, probably similar to the other mountains in the east? Or maybe just randomness, which should not be forgotten in all discussions about phenotypes, haplogroups, lactose lolerance etc. Just some thoughts and questions. I don't know.
I also think that phenotypes, like haplogroups etc., develop independently from autosomals in the long run, that's the point of evolutionary selection.

Melancon
04-11-14, 13:26
I think, according to Maciamo's theory; the Basques are mostly Celtiberians on the paternal side. Their original Y-DNA was probably I2a. (Mesolithic) and to a lesser extent, G2a and I1.

The reason that Basques probably have no resemblance to Irish, Scottish or Welsh Celts is possibly because of mixture of indigenous people; and a divergent Celtic tribe, that migrated into Iberia. (which had plenty of time to evolve different looks from Northern Celts.)

However; I must admit that despite the Celto-Basque admixture; many Basques do look as Celtic as an Irish or Breton. They usually are shorter than most Europeans, and have small features and round faces.


I've noticed that most Basques and most Celts tend to lack prominent cheekbones, and usually have a rounded chin.

Melancon
05-11-14, 07:30
I see, basques are more diverse than I thought. But they also have that 'baskid' phenotype mentioned by oreo_cookie, although it is not at all exclusive to basques only.
I looked a bit around in the internet and quite many people seem to think that 'baskid' is a kind of 'dinaric'. That's very surprising for me and I still don't quite believe it. I rather see a strong similarity to atlanto-meds, which some authors still link to 'dinaric', however.
But if 'baskid' really is a kind of 'dinaric' then maybe 'nordic-keltic' aquired it's dinaric traits from 'baskid'? But even then there is still the question from where 'baskid' (assuming it is kind of 'dinarid') came from. Maybe it is a remnant of dinarid-looking metal-workers from the east like original Bell-Beakers, some R1b guys or whoever, or it is an independent local evolution of the pyreneés, probably similar to the other mountains in the east? Or maybe just randomness, which should not be forgotten in all discussions about phenotypes, haplogroups, lactose lolerance etc. Just some thoughts and questions. I don't know.
I also think that phenotypes, like haplogroups etc., develop independently from autosomals in the long run, that's the point of evolutionary selection.Well, if the Basque people's original paternal haplogroup was Y-DNA I2a (Mesolithic) it is very possible that they are related to other populations', who's Y-DNA was originally I2a. Like Bosnians, Bosnian Croats and especially Sardinians.

So, I could therefore see how they (Basques) could fit into the "Dinaric" subcategory.

I2a seems to be the oldest lineage in the Basque population; second most common (behind Bronze Age R1b) and is probably the original. The Basque people have also been rumored to be relative to the Sardinians; and the Sardinians have always been thought that their pre-Indo-European indigenous language was somehow related to Basque.


6825

If you notice closely, near the Basque country. Between France and Spain ... There seems to be a little trail of I2a. I2a peeks in the Iberian peninsula at 14% in the population of Aragon. It also seems to be very prevalent amongst the Catalans; where the Gascon-Iberian R1b is also found as the main Y-DNA marker; beside the Basque country.

6826

ElHorsto
05-11-14, 18:48
Well, if the Basque people's original paternal haplogroup was Y-DNA I2a (Mesolithic) it is very possible that they are related to other populations', who's Y-DNA was originally I2a. Like Bosnians, Bosnian Croats and especially Sardinians.

So, I could therefore see how they (Basques) could fit into the "Dinaric" subcategory.

I2a seems to be the oldest lineage in the Basque population; second most common (behind Bronze Age R1b) and is probably the original. The Basque people have also been rumored to be relative to the Sardinians; and the Sardinians have always been thought that their pre-Indo-European indigenous language was somehow related to Basque.


6825

If you notice closely, near the Basque country. Between France and Spain ... There seems to be a little trail of I2a. I2a peeks in the Iberian peninsula at 14% in the population of Aragon. It also seems to be very prevalent amongst the Catalans; where the Gascon-Iberian R1b is also found as the main Y-DNA marker; beside the Basque country.

6826

A link between I2a and 'dinaric' is possible, but the problem is that AFAIK 'dinaric' was always considered by anthropologists to be a recent migrant into europe from the near-east. Another problem is that no older 'dinarid' skeletons have been found in (West?-)Europe except the Bell-Beaker ones. I'm not sure about the Balkans though. If 'dinarid' is a mixed phenotype ('Atlanto-Med'+'eastern Alpine' for example), then both can be true simultaneously.
Is 'dinaric' significant among Sardinians? I thought it is absent there. I think mainland Italians, where there is much R1b, are way more 'dinarid' than Sardinians.

Angela
05-11-14, 22:13
El Horsto: Maybe it is a remnant of dinarid-looking metal-workers from the east like original Bell-Beakers, some R1b guys or whoever, or it is an independent local evolution of the pyreneés, probably similar to the other mountains in the east? Or maybe just randomness, which should not be forgotten in all discussions about phenotypes, haplogroups, lactose lolerance etc. Just some thoughts and questions. I don't know.
I also think that phenotypes, like haplogroups etc., develop independently from autosomals in the long run, that's the point of evolutionary selection.

I think you've laid the issue out very clearly. If this phenotype is the result of an actual migration of people, and not the result of local "crossings". it seems to me that it is tied to the Bell Beaker arrival in central Europe, and thus to the Indo-European Metal Ages migrations into Europe. From my readings, that seems to be what the old physical anthropologists thought. Modern genetics may be providing support for that view. We already know that the original Indo-Europeans can be modeled as half Ancient Karelian and half Armenian like. Now we have a J2a1 late Bronze Age sample from Central Europe. I think the pieces are starting to fall into place.

I don't think it's dispositive that the French Basque don't show very much "West Asian" in some calculators and yet some of them show some Dinaric influences. Their Gedrosia numbers are respectable. Plus, phenotype and autosomals don't necessarily correlate, given that phenotype is controlled by only a few genes. A small group of founders. some of whom carried a certain phenotype and then massively expanded would explain, it in my opinion.

As to Sardinians versus Northern Italians, there's a lot more Dinarid influence in northern Italy than there is in Sardinia, and Sardinia is virtually a genetic snapshot of pre-Bronze Age Europe.

All of that said, that "Dinaric" terminology is thrown around every time an Italian has anything other than a button nose, and in people from other countries (other than places like Albania or Serbia, for example) with obviously "Dinaric" traits, it is routinely ignored. People on the internet obviously can't tell the difference between a Mediterranean nose and a Dinaric one. That's not to mention, of course, the outright dishonesty and cherry picking that goes on.

I also don't see why "Keltics" would get their Dinaric influences from the Basque. Rather, they would both have gotten them from the Indo-Europeans. The fact that Iberians have so little Dinaric, although they have some of it, might reflect the fact that by the time the "Celts" got to Iberia they didn't have much Indo-European left in them. So, although northern Iberians are 72% EEF, and southern Iberians 83%, I think most of it is from Neolithic era migrations, and very little is from the Indo-Europeans. (Of course, North Africans also have EEF, so that would have played a part in the final numbers as well.)

FWIW, here is a map of France supposedly outlining the various phenotypes:
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/france_races.jpg

(I would agree with most of it; I don't, however, think that Littoral is Greco-Roman.)

Some of the "Dinaric" could have leaked in from their neighbors.

Melancon
05-11-14, 22:40
FWIW, here is a map of France supposedly outlining the various phenotypes:
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/france_races.jpg

(I would agree with most of it; I don't, however, think that Littoral is Greco-Roman.)

Some of the "Dinaric" could have leaked in from their neighbors.

I really enjoy that map a lot. I have Cajun (Acadian) French ancestry, and most of my ancestors came from the West part of France. People tell me I look Breton or Basque by appearance. So France is a country of many races. I am a bit homogeneous too. (probably more than the French) so I wouldn't be surprised if most of my ancestors were Western Gaulish, Aquitanians (related to Basques), and Bretons. I consider myself a Celto-Germanic. But I have been told that I look Breton, Basque and Irish by appearance.

I also agree and think that Greco-Roman is taking it too far. French people actually have very little Greek blood, and it is mostly centered around the area of the city of Marseille. (an old ancient Greek trading post) A lot of Southern French people are different from the Northern French people; and are more related to West Italians as well as Basques and Catalans. (they were originally Occitans before France conquered that territory.) French people of Brittany and Normandy to the Northwest are more related to English people.

Angela
05-11-14, 23:28
I really enjoy that map a lot. I have Cajun (Acadian) French ancestry, and most of my ancestors came from the West part of France. People tell me I look Breton or Basque by appearance. So France is a country of many races. I am a bit homogeneous too. (probably more than the French) so I wouldn't be surprised if most of my ancestors were Western Gaulish, Aquitanians (related to Basques), and Bretons. I consider myself a Celto-Germanic. But I have been told that I look Breton, Basque and Irish by appearance.

I also agree and think that Greco-Roman is taking it too far. French people actually have very little Greek blood, and it is mostly centered around the area of the city of Marseille. (an old ancient Greek trading post) A lot of Southern French people are different from the Northern French people; and are more related to West Italians as well as Basques and Catalans. (they were originally Occitans before France conquered that territory.) French people of Brittany and Normandy to the Northwest are more related to English people.


I also agree and think that Greco-Roman is taking it too far. French people actually have very little Greek blood, and it is mostly centered around the area of the city of Marseille. (an old ancient Greek trading post) A lot of Southern French people are different from the Northern French people; and are more related to West Italians as well as Basques and Catalans. (they were originally Occitans before France conquered that territory.) French people of Brittany and Normandy to the Northwest are more related to English people.[/QUOTE]

I would be rather wary of what people, particularly Americans, tell you "you look like". Most of them don't have a clue. Just in regards to the Irish, you won't find all that many Alpines there, and they may be the most numerous group in France.

As for ultimate ancestry, one can, of course, look at the three ancient population divisions as per Lazaridis et al:

Percentages listed by EEF/WHG/ANE:

English: .495, .364, .141

French: .554, .311,.135

French Basque: .593, .293, .114

Southwestern French: .675, .195, .13

Northern Spanish: .713, .125,.163

Northern Italian: .715, .177, .108

It may be a coincidence, but northern Spain scores .163 in ANE, supposedly brought by the Indo-Europeans, southern Spain scores .123, and from what I remember, the Dinarid outposts in Spain are mostly in the north.

At the same time it must be said that northern Italy has quite a bit of Dinard, but not very high ANE scores. Bergamo might be a little anamalous in that respect, however.

Melancon
06-11-14, 00:10
I would be rather wary of what people, particularly Americans, tell you "you look like". Most of them don't have a clue. Angela; I have European friends and acquaintances; who also travel around. I'm sure that they would know.

ElHorsto
06-11-14, 01:22
I think you've laid the issue out very clearly. If this phenotype is the result of an actual migration of people, and not the result of local "crossings". it seems to me that it is tied to the Bell Beaker arrival in central Europe, and thus to the Indo-European Metal Ages migrations into Europe. From my readings, that seems to be what the old physical anthropologists thought. Modern genetics may be providing support for that view. We already know that the original Indo-Europeans can be modeled as half Ancient Karelian and half Armenian like. Now we have a J2a1 late Bronze Age sample from Central Europe. I think the pieces are starting to fall into place.


Looks like.



I don't think it's dispositive that the French Basque don't show very much "West Asian" in some calculators and yet some of them show some Dinaric influences. Their Gedrosia numbers are respectable. Plus, phenotype and autosomals don't necessarily correlate, given that phenotype is controlled by only a few genes. A small group of founders. some of whom carried a certain phenotype and then massively expanded would explain, it in my opinion.

As to Sardinians versus Northern Italians, there's a lot more Dinarid influence in northern Italy than there is in Sardinia, and Sardinia is virtually a genetic snapshot of pre-Bronze Age Europe.

All of that said, that "Dinaric" terminology is thrown around every time an Italian has anything other than a button nose, and in people from other countries (other than places like Albania or Serbia, for example) with obviously "Dinaric" traits, it is routinely ignored. People on the internet obviously can't tell the difference between a Mediterranean nose and a Dinaric one. That's not to mention, of course, the outright dishonesty and cherry picking that goes on.

I also don't see why "Keltics" would get their Dinaric influences from the Basque. Rather, they would both have gotten them from the Indo-Europeans. The fact that Iberians have so little Dinaric, although they have some of it, might reflect the fact that by the time the "Celts" got to Iberia they didn't have much Indo-European left in them. So, although northern Iberians are 72% EEF, and southern Iberians 83%, I think most of it is from Neolithic era migrations, and very little is from the Indo-Europeans. (Of course, North Africans also have EEF, so that would have played a part in the final numbers as well.)


That's also my current model. There is no need to see a stumbling block in Basques.
And the north Italians are more Dinaric than the south perhaps because there are also other phenotypes which are lacking in the south and which are rather 'recessive' compared to Dinaric-like traits. It could be possible for instance, that mediterranid traits in the south are more 'dominant' compared with dinaric - at least visually - than others like 'alpine' for instance.
Afterall, phenotypes are much more fuzzy and vague than volatile haplogroups, so occasional lack or presence of a phenotype should be no obstacle.

MOESAN
06-11-14, 15:27
I see, basques are more diverse than I thought. But they also have that 'baskid' phenotype mentioned by oreo_cookie, although it is not at all exclusive to basques only.
I looked a bit around in the internet and quite many people seem to think that 'baskid' is a kind of 'dinaric'. That's very surprising for me and I still don't quite believe it. I rather see a strong similarity to atlanto-meds, which some authors still link to 'dinaric', however.
But if 'baskid' really is a kind of 'dinaric' then maybe 'nordic-keltic' aquired it's dinaric traits from 'baskid'? But even then there is still the question from where 'baskid' (assuming it is kind of 'dinarid') came from. Maybe it is a remnant of dinarid-looking metal-workers from the east like original Bell-Beakers, some R1b guys or whoever, or it is an independent local evolution of the pyreneés, probably similar to the other mountains in the east? Or maybe just randomness, which should not be forgotten in all discussions about phenotypes, haplogroups, lactose lolerance etc. Just some thoughts and questions. I don't know.
I also think that phenotypes, like haplogroups etc., develop independently from autosomals in the long run, that's the point of evolutionary selection.


'I was not clear enough in my try for explanations:
when I say 'dinaric' or 'dinaroid' is more visible among a subregion of basques countrieS, I mean "compared to other basque regions" but that doesn't mask the fact that AS A WHOLE BASQUE HAVE VERY FEW DINARIC IMPACT IN THEM, AS HAD CELTS TOO - 'dinaric'like people were seen in some parts of future celtic lands, for the most around Bohemia, Baviera, Rhine during Chalcolithic and in BBs settlements - in North Germany Netherlands Denmark BBs came soon enough in contact of 'borreby'like people of everykind (A,B) creating the so called "Lorrain type" present among South germany Celts, later but not the dominant type among them -
as a whole, final Celts had mix of some dolichocephalic types where high skulled 'Corded' nordics' and high skulled 'Danubians mediterraneans' were almost absent, and, surprising or not in a lot of places of historical celtic culture we find also 'alpine' type, surely akin in some way to the 'Borreby' A, but more reduced in the more southern countries -
so I suppose first Celts (gentry) were more dolichocephalic but during their final genesis in Alpine regions they acquired a lot of local 'alpine' precedent people, surely a Mesolithic remnant (?) - the 'dinaroid' imput stayed in what I suppose less celticized valleys, as in Bohemia and Eastern Baviera but very mixed, just a component of a kind of osmosis -
concerning Basques, they are less 'mediterraneanlike' than the most of Southern Europeans and comparing them to Celts, don't forget some mix 'mesolithic remnants-western mediterraneans' are VERY VISIBLE among Irish people and Scottish people, as well as among Welsh people and even some English people, whatever the popular believings -

MOESAN
06-11-14, 15:37
Looks like.



That's also my current model. There is no need to see a stumbling block in Basques.
And the north Italians are more Dinaric than the south perhaps because there are also other phenotypes which are lacking in the south and which are rather 'recessive' compared to Dinaric-like traits. It could be possible for instance, that mediterranid traits in the south are more 'dominant' compared with dinaric - at least visually - than others like 'alpine' for instance.
Afterall, phenotypes are much more fuzzy and vague than volatile haplogroups, so occasional lack or presence of a phenotype should be no obstacle.

I 'll answer both of yours;
if a dominant class passes its phenotypes (external) to subsequent generations by the elite "mating" process SO IT PASSES ALSO OTHER AUTOSOMALS!!! so phenotypes are always of some worth - phenotypes can abuse us in a small population (drift, sexual choices and yet...) - it's why I'm still looking for an explanation concerning 'mediterranean' autosomals so high among North Italians and other EUropeans -

if 'dinaric' is only the result of a CERTAIN SPECIFIC crossing, it could appear dominant because yes it 's formed by the mix of dominant traits inherited from the TWO parts of the crossing (not the same, it's evident: say: hypothesis: a long nose concerning the fleshy tip associated to a deep 'beak' nasal root, and brachycephally (+ planoccipitally) associated to a high narrower face - this type, heterozygotous, can break in a puzzle among individuals the next generation! (not statistically)

ElHorsto
06-11-14, 19:32
'I was not clear enough in my try for explanations:
when I say 'dinaric' or 'dinaroid' is more visible among a subregion of basques countrieS, I mean "compared to other basque regions" but that doesn't mask the fact that AS A WHOLE BASQUE HAVE VERY FEW DINARIC IMPACT IN THEM, AS HAD CELTS TOO - 'dinaric'like people were seen in some parts of future celtic lands, for the most around Bohemia, Baviera, Rhine during Chalcolithic and in BBs settlements - in North Germany Netherlands Denmark BBs came soon enough in contact of 'borreby'like people of everykind (A,B) creating the so called "Lorrain type" present among South germany Celts, later but not the dominant type among them -
as a whole, final Celts had mix of some dolichocephalic types where high skulled 'Corded' nordics' and high skulled 'Danubians mediterraneans' were almost absent, and, surprising or not in a lot of places of historical celtic culture we find also 'alpine' type, surely akin in some way to the 'Borreby' A, but more reduced in the more southern countries -
so I suppose first Celts (gentry) were more dolichocephalic but during their final genesis in Alpine regions they acquired a lot of local 'alpine' precedent people, surely a Mesolithic remnant (?) - the 'dinaroid' imput stayed in what I suppose less celticized valleys, as in Bohemia and Eastern Baviera but very mixed, just a component of a kind of osmosis -
concerning Basques, they are less 'mediterraneanlike' than the most of Southern Europeans and comparing them to Celts, don't forget some mix 'mesolithic remnants-western mediterraneans' are VERY VISIBLE among Irish people and Scottish people, as well as among Welsh people and even some English people, whatever the popular believings -

Thanks for the clarification. For me it is difficult to talk precisely about such fuzzy categories. However, I focused on 'baskid' only (what oreo_cookie stressed), not Basques in general. And I was not at all claiming that 'dinaric' is strong in Basques and Celts, quite contrary. I actually somewhat question even the dinaric nature of 'baskid'. Yet there are at least traces of 'dinaric', and this is interesting. Of course obviously mesolithic, mediterranean and other is much stronger in (West) Europe, but I don't find this fact so interesting at the moment.

Angela
06-11-14, 21:01
Moesan: that doesn't mask the fact that AS A WHOLE BASQUE HAVE VERY FEW DINARIC IMPACT IN THEM

I'm not sure about "very few", but I certainly agree it's not a major component. That's why I said, " I don't think it's dispositive that the French Basque don't show very much "West Asian" in some calculators and yet some of them show some Dinaric influences."

All of my speculations based on tying "Dinaric" traits to migrations are predicated on a hypothetical, to wit: "If this phenotype is the result of an actual migration of people, and not the result of local "crossings". it seems to me that it is tied to the Bell Beaker arrival in central Europe, and thus to the Indo-European Metal Ages migrations into Europe."

As to the "look" of the Celts of the historical era (i.e. as described by the Romans etc), if we've learned nothing else, I think we have learned through many recent papers that we don't look like our remote ancestors, and I would speculate that those Celts didn't look much like the Indo-Eurpeans who first came off the steppe, not if those original people can be modeled as "half ancient Karelian like and half Armenian like". (Of course, it may turn out that the western steppe had a slightly different type of Indo-European, or those people were the result of a further mixing, so all these opinions are very provisional.)

As things stand right now, however, I am getting the feeling that perhaps BR1 wasn't very Indo-European like at all, even though it was the Bronze Age, although contrary to uninformed analysis, he did have a trace of the West Asian which I think to some degree, helps in tracking it. (I feel as if I have to italicize, if not bold my qualifying statements, as they seem to get lost, somehow. :))



if 'dinaric' is only the result of a CERTAIN SPECIFIC crossing, it could appear dominant because yes it 's formed by the mix of dominant traits inherited from the TWO parts of the crossing (not the same, it's evident: say: hypothesis: a long nose concerning the fleshy tip associated to a deep 'beak' nasal root, and brachycephally (+ planoccipitally) associated to a high narrower face - this type, heterozygotous, can break in a puzzle among individuals the next generation! (not statistically)

I'm quite interested in your comment here, and I hope you don't mind clarifying it a bit. First of all, what would you consider the source population for the two "nasal" traits?

Also, I get what you mean by the long nose with a fleshy tip, but a high root doesn't equate to a "beak" to me.

For example, these are Greek statues or Roman copies of Greek originals. I see a long nose with a fleshy tip, and I also see a high root. It doesn't look very "beak like" to me, however.
http://hcf.arizona.edu/sites/hcf.arizona.edu/files/greek-statue.png
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8366/8430355471_bdd35585f9_z.jpg
http://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/3106.jpg

It's definitely a phenotype trait that has persisted. Pauline Bonaparte...
http://www.french-engravings.com/images/artworks/ART-8315/details/03.jpg

It's a different nose than this type:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7003/6586667199_7b5424c3bf.jpg
http://booksontrial.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bust-of-cicero.jpg

Or these, which are supposedly the Dinaric type noses, at least if google search isn't flawed, and the "old" physical anthropologists knew anything at all about it.
http://s653.photobucket.com/user/Tyranos/media/Dinaric-1.jpg.html
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/czdynarski.jpg
http://z3.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p455554/troe393.jpg

Oh, when I googled for Balkan Dinarics, this also came up. Is this what you mean?
http://i3.cn.cz/14/1209457013_huba2.jpg

Maybe I don't know what you mean by a high "root". These roots look pretty low to me. It's the bridge and the downward tip that look distinctive to me.

I have to also add that I've looked at all the old "racial" maps of Europe. Leaving aside that they're not "races", and that some of the creators were unambiguously racist, it doesn't inspire confidence that they so disagreed with one another. Just in the case of Italy, you can look at Deniker's map, and he saw Dinarics everywhere, to others who saw it nowhere except in the areas in the northeast adjacent to the Balkans.

MOESAN
07-11-14, 21:00
I'll try to answer you and to clarify my english - concerning old maps of "races", if I worship physical anthropology as a mean among others, I have not too much comfidence in the works of the majority of ancient anhtropologists; twenty years ago I tried to represent on maps the imput of "types" in Europe and I never coloured uniformly a region but only put points of colours representing mixings of diverse components, what was a progress yet (naive personal work in a way but not without signification nevertheless, based on a mix of metric data and personal numerous observations for the most concerning pigmentation but not only)
buona sera

Angela
07-11-14, 21:39
Moesan, I'm counting on you for guidance about the "Dinaric" nose, so...a domani...:)

MOESAN
08-11-14, 19:57
I think you've laid the issue out very clearly. If this phenotype is the result of an actual migration of people, and not the result of local "crossings". it seems to me that it is tied to the Bell Beaker arrival in central Europe, and thus to the Indo-European Metal Ages migrations into Europe. From my readings, that seems to be what the old physical anthropologists thought. Modern genetics may be providing support for that view. We already know that the original Indo-Europeans can be modeled as half Ancient Karelian and half Armenian like. Now we have a J2a1 late Bronze Age sample from Central Europe. I think the pieces are starting to fall into place.

I don't think it's dispositive that the French Basque don't show very much "West Asian" in some calculators and yet some of them show some Dinaric influences. Their Gedrosia numbers are respectable. Plus, phenotype and autosomals don't necessarily correlate, given that phenotype is controlled by only a few genes. A small group of founders. some of whom carried a certain phenotype and then massively expanded would explain, it in my opinion.

As to Sardinians versus Northern Italians, there's a lot more Dinarid influence in northern Italy than there is in Sardinia, and Sardinia is virtually a genetic snapshot of pre-Bronze Age Europe.

All of that said, that "Dinaric" terminology is thrown around every time an Italian has anything other than a button nose, and in people from other countries (other than places like Albania or Serbia, for example) with obviously "Dinaric" traits, it is routinely ignored. People on the internet obviously can't tell the difference between a Mediterranean nose and a Dinaric one. That's not to mention, of course, the outright dishonesty and cherry picking that goes on.

I also don't see why "Keltics" would get their Dinaric influences from the Basque. Rather, they would both have gotten them from the Indo-Europeans. The fact that Iberians have so little Dinaric, although they have some of it, might reflect the fact that by the time the "Celts" got to Iberia they didn't have much Indo-European left in them. So, although northern Iberians are 72% EEF, and southern Iberians 83%, I think most of it is from Neolithic era migrations, and very little is from the Indo-Europeans. (Of course, North Africans also have EEF, so that would have played a part in the final numbers as well.)

FWIW, here is a map of France supposedly outlining the various phenotypes:
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/france_races.jpg

(I would agree with most of it; I don't, however, think that Littoral is Greco-Roman.)

Some of the "Dinaric" could have leaked in from their neighbors.

I'm late concerning this map: its ririculous: There is not of this sort of sharp oppositions in France, even if History is easy to guess under types means - serious maps ought to show mixtures (different in percentages, it's true!) not this intrication of supposed dominent elements :very more gradual changes - I could go into the details but I think I'll disgust everybody here -
even taken as shwoing a dominant element, this map is wrong: a lot of regions in France have no collective type over the 40% (it's the case also in a lot of other countries

Angela
08-11-14, 21:50
I'm late concerning this map: its ririculous: There is not of this sort of sharp oppositions in France, even if History is easy to guess under types means - serious maps ought to show mixtures (different in percentages, it's true!) not this intrication of supposed dominent elements :very more gradual changes - I could go into the details but I think I'll disgust everybody here -
even taken as shwoing a dominant element, this map is wrong: a lot of regions in France have no collective type over the 40% (it's the case also in a lot of other countries

This is why you make more sense to me than most people posting about this topic.

oreo_cookie
22-11-14, 04:29
When HumanPhenotypes returns there will be morphs of various types and as such we can more accurately compare them, I think.

MOESAN
22-11-14, 18:13
HERE UNDER my spotted knowledge about brachycephals in Europe some time ago: it can be linked to topics as: BBs or others, halfway to anthropology, linguistic and history (you choose the drawer)

Iwrote 'supposedly'because a more recent survey I red about Baden culture populations ofHungary mentions brachycephals, of 'alpine' type for the most butwith some rare planoccipital men, in some places, even if as a wholethis brachycephals never and nowhere exceeded the 20% - but whatdatations ? Baden perdured 3600 to 2900 BC ? But thepresence today of well settled 'alpine' predominant population inAlbania-Epirus doesn't seem the result of recent history or West toEast maritime trip there, so I suppose the 'alpine' expansion towardsEast is ancient enough – surely reinforced by Celts rushes towardsEast after La Tene (400 BC) – the meso-to-sub-brachycephalisationof neolithical 'danubians' in eastern Europe is perhaps just acontinual gradual crossing with 'alpine' types (and 'borreby' onestoo) and not only a mesoligical internal process due to diet and wayof life – the today central-eastern Europe show a majority ofindividuals with traits inherited from 'alpine', 'borreby' and'danubian' types (this last small statured but with very high evolvedskull), beside 'nordic, 'dinaroid' an diverse 'mediterranian' types - the internal surely complicated process of brachycephalisation sincethe Middle Age had increased the CI I suppose, of 3% : byinstance (projection): bone crania (dead!) : 76 >> alive :77/77,5 at beginning of our era >> 80,5 alive in 1930 – butin 1930 you could find populations(not individuals!)at 88 or 89 of CI, when others had 72 ! Too much for the dietexplanation ! These populations were hidden somewhere : inThrace, in the past century, populations about 85-86 wereneighbouring others about 76-77... these brachycephaly bearers arenot arrived yesterday in southeastern Europe, and there are notliving in too different ways compared ot their neighbours...


sothe BB phenomenon was evolving what is not so amazing, as contactswere multiplied and new tribes at least partly acculturated withperhaps some moves of populations -
Itseems that this sub-brachycephallic complex had contacts with themore dolichocephalic pre-Unetice mix of people (were 'cordeds' playeda big role upon a neolithical population)
&:Coon thought the 'corded' elements and roughly said the 'dinaroid'elements appeared lately enough in today Croatia, at metals ages –I doubt but without any proof for me, because we can suggest the'alpine' elements were pushed southwards by these newcomers amongwhom the previously hyperdolichocephalic brutal element could havebeen an Illyrian elite, the same which is supposed having penetratedthe celtic elites since early Iron Ages ? -
&& :the Hungarian Sz. Zoffmann seemed thinking the true Celts were forthe most of 'alpine' and 'dinaric' stock (I don't think so, but Irepeat here Celts in their movements push 'alpinelike' tribes(accultured, maybe of a previous close enough western I-Ean language)with them and before them Urnfield people did the same in some places(proto-Celts Urnfields?)- if 'alpine' is one of the needed element toproduce a dinaric-like model, it would not be too surprising –'alpine' people were the majority among the old people of EasternFrance, places of Switzerland (in the places not occupied by diverse'mediterraneans' of Neolithic times) or Southern Germany, were theproto-Celts formed themselves – that said, 'alpine' doesn't seemproducing 'dinaroid' with every kind of dolichocephal type (needed ahigh statured brutal dolichocephalic type more ? It thethought of some scholars but the precise process is maybe not sosimple, look above)
thefirst elites were perhaps not of the 'alpine' type tribes but theyruled the lands of these last ones – the same for Ligurians -
whateverthe influence of way of life, diet and geography, the brachycephalygained the whole Central Europe, not only by evolution but by demicmoves – and the picture we have of the anthropologic situation ofthe « epic » Europe is biased I think by the effect ofelite sepultures being better conserved than the basic European« citizens » ones of these times – what is SURE is thatafter demographic problems during Bronze Age, the Urnfield period andIron Ages sended some changes and moves in tribes localizations evenif not everywhere – In Gaul at least but not only :
&:a hidden old population reappeared after Bronze Age in CentralEurope I think and is not only due to Slavic East to West moves(question of the avaliable sepultures?) - the first Slavs of EarlyMiddle Age were meso-subdolicho's of two kinds, someones on the'corded' pattern other on the 'kymric' or 'celtic iton age' pattern,not overwhelmingly brachycephal then (I think some brachycephals -'dinaroid' or not - were taken by Slavs in Carpathians heights)
Ired here and there brachycephals, 'dinaroid' and sometimes 'alpine',appeared among dominantly dolichocephalic populations in the BronzeAge Steppes culture supposed to have been I-Ean at some stage – thetoday Tajiks populations are dominantly brachycephalic if not pureand of overmedium stature, what, taken in account they showsome light crossings with 'mongoloid' people, cannot be explained byan heavy pure 'alpine' element : their high not too broad facesconfirm it too : surely some 'dinaric' element – where werethese brachycephals coming from ? Cucuteni-Tripolje towardsEast? Or a move around Caspian towards North-East ? The« gracile mediterraneanlike » descriptions of somescholars in vulgarizing papersare very boring, and challenged by others concerning Samaraand « I-Ean » pontic sites – no cranial nor facialindex, no typologic description, only graphic based on 'penrose'means for us, poor profanes (they keep the details for them) –that said, some brachycephals of the ancient Steppes were broadfacedwhat recall more a kind 'borreby' or robust 'alpine' than a classical'dinaric' type -
&:if my 'borreby' A (gentle frontal) is a more robust northern form of'alpine' (face broader than short compared to it) we could have asCoon suggested 2 sorts of 'dinarics', more or less robust andthin-faced and what I see in today european populations suggest to methe brachycephals of eastern Europe were more on the robuste patternso... (helas I've nothing in front of my eyes)
-
supposedlybrachycephalic populations are not old in Caucasus-Anatolia (2000BC?), so (spite Coon here) a local origin of brachycephaly seemsirrelevant at first sight – a partly brachycephalic ormesocephalic (???) population was found in Cyprus during earlyNeolithic (7000 BC) and it was put on the account of shortinbreeding, they were short statured, pedomorphic ? – I don'tknow longer -
Hittitswere described (I know it's stereotypes, somewhat) as roundfaced thick featured people, evocating more 'alpinelike' people thanany other – and they were supposed to come from North into SouthAnatolia – the today sub-brachycephalic populations of partsof Syria-Lebanon were attributed to Caucasus tribes or Anatolia ones(from North, dating from the Sea People wars, by instance) – itseems possible, the semitic speaking Anshiares of Syria Mountains(near Lebanon?) were described of last century as short headedenough, high statured (more 'dinaroid') plus some lighter pigmentatedminority compared to neighbours ; today as a whole AnatoliaWestern Caucasus are more brachycephalic than dolichocephalic andphysically even some Syrian individuals show central european traits– as pointed out Coon some Maghrebins and even some Southern Arabs(Yemen) of towns areas (sedentary) show an heavy brachycephaliccomponent, with something of 'borreby' in someones and a touch of'dinaric' in others... Are they the descendants of northern colonsfrom South Caucasus ??? or later traders groups ??? becauseas a whole Bedwins and other semitic nomads are very moredolichocephalic -
boringquestions !
Ifwe leave the Cyprus not too well determined PPN population aside, wehave brachycepahly confirmed as appearing in Anatolia and NorthNear-Eastern only about the 2000 BC, and about 3000 BC maybe soonerin some spots of the Steppes (but here brachycephal is maybe notalways synonymous of 'europoid'.


Theeastern brachycephals could be the result of a colonization of theSteppes by former people of the Cucuteni-Tripolje area, of diversesorts and periods dolichocephalic 'mediterranean' stock, roughlysaid, as it seems confirmed today by autosomals, taking with them acarpathian « autochtonous » population on the way tobrachycephalization and 'dinaricization », all that mixing with the older mix of the Steppes people '(without speaking about languahe origin) - it is maybeonly speculation about to less data – the today sub-brachycephalicregions of the Steppes knew so numerous moves of populationsandcrossings and changes of languages that we cannot make comparisons toancient steppic populations – I-Ean speakers Tadjiks by exampleshow a very intricated mix where more recent moves have brought newtypes, and the 'mongoloid' features are not so rare -

THE HARDEST IS TO LINK ALL THAT PRECISELY TO HISTORIC MOVES AND CULTURES!

Angela
22-11-14, 19:14
^^Yes, it's very difficult to disentangle it all, especially because, as you point out, it's not settled how much these phenotypes are related to a combination of "alpine" and "Mediterranean" acting upon one another, and environmental effects (and whether there were different phenotypes of "Mediterranean) and how that affected the process, and how much is because of specific migrations of a specific phenotype.

My take away is that it may be impossible to disentangle it because there has been too much admixture.

I think the Steppe peoples are a case in point. It was easier, in a way, when there was no data on the Yamnaya horizon. People could just state they were blonde, light eyed, looked like "X". Now, we know they were a mix too. I'll be interested to finally see the upcoming paper on the genetics, and what that leak about them being half Armenian like and half ancient Karelian like actually means.

That will effect our interpretation of Corded Ware as well, if they still maintain, when the paper comes out, that Corded Ware is 75% Yamnaya. That's certainly not how I interpreted the archaeology, but we'll see what they say.

It's disappointing that you think that the papers on the anthropology of the Steppe groups are not complete. (Do you have a link to any of those papers, btw?)

We at least know their pigmentation though, and they certainly weren't "European fair".
See:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fcontent%2F111%2F13 %2F4832.full&ei=GMRwVIGHOIvCsATA14LYCQ&usg=AFQjCNEtrP5dAvXPEDCgrckKOYYuqRCXJw&bvm=bv.80185997,d.cWc

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/03/dark-pigmentation-of-eneolithic-and.html

I don't know...I've been doing some reading on and off in Coon, and I think he makes a lot of sense, sometimes. Not always, of course! :)

oreo_cookie
23-11-14, 06:31
I don't know...I've been doing some reading on and off in Coon, and I think he makes a lot of sense, sometimes. Not always, of course! :)

He did very well for the time period in which he lived, and he certainly traveled about a lot!