PDA

View Full Version : The Passing of the Great Race - Madison Grant



motzart
11-01-15, 02:29
Has anyone else read this book?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CTuAkF%2BpL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

You can read the full thing online here. http://www.europeanamericansunited.org/school1/WesternPhilosophy/MadisonGrant/pgr-2.-01.html

It is a very controversial book that has an ugly connection to the American Eugenics era, however that aside I am amazed at how accurate a lot of the theories are pertaining to the origins of modern Europeans given that this is all based on anthropology and they had no access to DNA at the time. If you can get past the racialist bit there is a lot of very interesting stuff.

The Nordic/Alpine/Mediterranean 3 way model presented in this book is an almost exact representation of the ANE/EEF/WHG model currently popularized by the study of ancient DNA. In this book he describes the Alpine race as having originated in south east Asia and having arrived in Europe in in the late neolithic, which is exactly true based on what we now know about the R1a/b clades, he also describes them as having a round head shape which corresponds to the R1 relationship to Mongoloid/Brachycephalic East Asia. The Nordic race he describes as being tall/robust and having originated with the Paleolithic races of Europe, this is also true based on what we know about Cro Magnon, Y DNA I, and their increased stature. The Mediterranean race originated in the Near east and North Africa which is true of what we know about Neolithic farmers, interestingly he places the original inhabitants of the British Isles under the Mediterranean Race and not the Alpine Race as we would expect for an R1 group, I see this as some foresight into what we will see from the Bell Beaker Admixtures, e.g. that the R1b bell beakers are much more related to EEF than R1a ANE, likewise his placement of the Alpine race overlaps with R1a but not R1b.

Fire Haired14
11-01-15, 07:10
motzart, Alphine does not correlate with ANE.

ANE has no connections with east Asia. ANE is most related to genomes from Mesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic Europe. ANE exists everywhere in the world except Africa and east Asia, and no one in the world is over 50% ANE, add to that evolution, there's no way to know what ANE features were like, except maybe with bones. Exactly what ANE is still a mystery, but academics and Eurogenes tend to think it's a very robust form of ancestry like WHG, and if not that does reveal pretty much everyone in the world has ancestry from a population related to MA-1.

Fire Haired14
11-01-15, 07:32
ANE and near eastern are the main differences between north and south Europeans, and might line up with what pre-DNA anthropologist have said. The only south Europeans who have far less WHG than north Europeans are ones in the south Balkans and Italy. South euro pops are mostly a remnant of Neolithic central-west Europe, and north Europe is mostly a result of bronze age migrants from Russia(Mostly of Indo European speakers), who mixed with WHG and SHG types, and south Euro-types.

I don't think the Balkans and Italy should be put on the same scale as the rest of Europe, because they might have a different population history. The pre-farming inhabitants of Greece had near eastern-specific ancestry, while this form of ancestry was absent in pretty much all other parts of Europe. We don't know whether WHG, something related to WHG-ANE, something near eastern-like, etc. existed in Italy before the Neolithic. There's a possible Mesolithic mtDNA HV1 sample from Sicily, which lines up with the near east not Mesolithic western Europe.

Fire Haired14
11-01-15, 07:35
I'm always skeptical about anthropologist because alot of them are racially-driven and ethnocentric, not objective.

Fire Haired14
11-01-15, 07:39
Motzardt, Reich has already said Bell beaker from Germany was very similar to Corded ware and Unetice. Most of their ancestry came from Yamna-types, which could mean they spoke an Indo European language.

After the Neolithic Europe didn't become more EEF-like, it became more WHG and ANE-like. It's unlikely that a widespread EEF-like culture existed in Europe 4,000 years ago, and much more likely a Yamna-type Indo European one did.

Most of western Europe was repopulated in the bronze age by immigrants from central-east Europe, which is why today Lithuanians, Poles, Belorussians, Russians, and Czechs are very similar to Scandinavians, British-Irish, and Germans. Iberia and Italy are mostly what west Europe was in the Neolithic, with some recent ancestry from the near east.

Templar
11-01-15, 12:11
Has anyone else read this book?



Yup I read it during my summer break. It was an interesting read because it explains the mindset of racialist people of that era. For example, I've always wondered why old-school anthropologists were so adamant about consider the PIE people to be racially Nordic, and not for example Baltid or Alpine (which modern genetics seems to point to). I think most of his evidence for them being nordic is based on there being light-haired elites all over europe and the middle east, but this ofcourse ignores the possibility of Baltids being the ones spreading those light features. Some of his other evidence is based on skeletal remains in the Ukraine, but I think those skeletons would have already been pretty mixed with surrounding WHG people and therefore shouldn't be considered representative of the original PIEs.

Overall it is a pretty interesting read. Ironically the book I read right after this one was: The Mediterranean Race by Giuseppe Sergi. You might want to check it out if you haven't already.

Angela
11-01-15, 15:25
ANE and near eastern are the main differences between north and south Europeans, and might line up with what pre-DNA anthropologist have said. The only south Europeans who have far less WHG than north Europeans are ones in the south Balkans and Italy. South euro pops are mostly a remnant of Neolithic central-west Europe, and north Europe is mostly a result of bronze age migrants from Russia(Mostly of Indo European speakers), who mixed with WHG and SHG types, and south Euro-types.

I don't think the Balkans and Italy should be put on the same scale as the rest of Europe, because they might have a different population history. The pre-farming inhabitants of Greece had near eastern-specific ancestry, while this form of ancestry was absent in pretty much all other parts of Europe. We don't know whether WHG, something related to WHG-ANE, something near eastern-like, etc. existed in Italy before the Neolithic. There's a possible Mesolithic mtDNA HV1 sample from Sicily, which lines up with the near east not Mesolithic western Europe.

Europe is a genetic sink...everyone came from somewhere else...it's just a question of when they arrived. Take a look at the Gravettians from whom the WHG probably descended. They arrived from the Middle East. Yes, they arrived before the other groups, so far as we now know, but does that mean that "Europeanness" is determined by the level of WHG? Can you really believe that?

It seems that ANE is from Asia. We don't know when the small amount that is present in the SHG arrived, but I would think it was likely in the late Mesolithic. Certainly, most of it arrived in Europe very late, not until the Bronze Age in most cases. So, by your criteria, this should be the least "European" ancestral group.

So far as we now know, another group moved into Europe from the Middle East 8,000 years ago bringing agriculture and animal husbandry. This may have been contemporaneous with or even earlier than the small movement of ANE into the northeastern fringe. If, in fact, it turns out that an EEF like population was present in certain areas of southern Europe from after the LGM, say, then they would definitely have been here before any ANE arrived. Depending on the timing, they might have been in Europe first. So, that would turn your "theory" head over heels.

It is the mixing in various proportions of these groups which has created the "Europeans". You are looking at Europe from a northern European perspective, to put it as politely as I can. Therefore, you judge it from that perspective. Northern Europeans and their ethnogenesis are your standard for "Europeanness" and all the data and information you have acquired is fit into that pre-existing model. You are not alone. An entire blog and most of the analysis done on it exists almost entirely, in my opinion, to promote and prove this very idea, and, in fact, to locate "Europeanness" in a specific area of eastern Europe.

It is an entirely wrong headed and, from my perspective, illogical point of view. I could, if I chose, create an opposing model which is southern European centric and paints northern Europeans, and, in particular, perhaps, far northeastern Europeans as outliers. They're certainly a minority in terms of their percentages of EEF. If you weight the EEF/ WHG/ANE by population numbers, I think the average EEF in Europe is over 60%. It is by fhat measure the most successful ancestral group of the three. It all depends on where you're standing, FireHaired. However, I would never do such a thing because I would consider it a misuse of genetic data and just as wrong headed and illogical.

What you fail to see is that "Europe" is a construct. As you pointed out on another thread, wandering Gravettian fisher/hunters and migrating Neolithic farmers and highly ANE admixed herders, for that matter, weren't "European". "Europeanness" is a function of a shared cultural and political history. It is most emphatically not based on the possession of certain components in certain percentages. Therefore, I would never say that the Finns, for example, are not "European" because they are about 7% Siberian, or that the Portuguese are not "European" because they might by some measures and in some areas be 4% SSA. These things are irrelevant for this discussion.

I will say this, however: if "Europeanness" is indeed, as I believe, a cultural concept more than it is even a geographic one, and certainly more than it is an "ethnic" one, then, my dear Fire Haired, absolutely no one is as European as the Italians. We made Europe...twice...It is true, however, that we are finding that making the Italians is more difficult. :)

motzart
11-01-15, 17:23
Europe is a genetic sink...everyone came from somewhere else...it's just a question of when they arrived. Take a look at the Gravettians from whom the WHG probably descended. They arrived from the Middle East. Yes, they arrived before the other groups, so far as we now know, but does that mean that "Europeanness" is determined by the level of WHG? Can you really believe that?

It seems that ANE is from Asia. We don't know when the small amount that is present in the SHG arrived, but I would think it was likely in the late Mesolithic. Certainly, most of it arrived in Europe very late, not until the Bronze Age in most cases. So, by your criteria, this should be the least "European" ancestral group.

So far as we now know, another group moved into Europe from the Middle East 8,000 years ago bringing agriculture and animal husbandry. This may have been contemporaneous with or even earlier than the small movement of ANE into the northeastern fringe. If, in fact, it turns out that an EEF like population was present in certain areas of southern Europe from after the LGM, say, then they would definitely have been here before any ANE arrived. Depending on the timing, they might have been in Europe first. So, that would turn your "theory" head over heels.

It is the mixing in various proportions of these groups which has created the "Europeans". You are looking at Europe from a northern European perspective, to put it as politely as I can. Therefore, you judge it from that perspective. Northern Europeans and their ethnogenesis are your standard for "Europeanness" and all the data and information you have acquired is fit into that pre-existing model. You are not alone. An entire blog and most of the analysis done on it exists almost entirely, in my opinion, to promote and prove this very idea, and, in fact, to locate "Europeanness" in a specific area of eastern Europe.

It is an entirely wrong headed and, from my perspective, illogical point of view. I could, if I chose, create an opposing model which is southern European centric and paints northern Europeans, and, in particular, perhaps, far northeastern Europeans as outliers. They're certainly a minority in terms of their percentages of EEF. If you weight the EEF/ WHG/ANE by population numbers, I think the average EEF in Europe is over 60%. It is by fhat measure the most successful ancestral group of the three. It all depends on where you're standing, FireHaired. However, I would never do such a thing because I would consider it a misuse of genetic data and just as wrong headed and illogical.

What you fail to see is that "Europe" is a construct. As you pointed out on another thread, wandering Gravettian fisher/hunters and migrating Neolithic farmers and highly ANE admixed herders, for that matter, weren't "European". "Europeanness" is a function of a shared cultural and political history. It is most emphatically not based on the possession of certain components in certain percentages. Therefore, I would never say that the Finns, for example, are not "European" because they are about 7% Siberian, or that the Portuguese are not "European" because they might by some measures and in some areas be 4% SSA. These things are irrelevant for this discussion.

I will say this, however: if "Europeanness" is indeed, as I believe, a cultural concept more than it is even a geographic one, and certainly more than it is an "ethnic" one, then, my dear Fire Haired, absolutely no one is as European as the Italians. We made Europe...twice...It is true, however, that we are finding that making the Italians is more difficult. :)

wow really great post

MOESAN
11-01-15, 22:56
this too superficial division of Europoids in 'nordic'/'alpine'/'mediterranean' is for me a superb mistake, to be polite - things are a bit more complicated - 'alpines' are far from 'mongoloids' (what subgroup of 'mongoloid'?) - 'nordic' came from East, lately enough, for i think - 'alpines' formed in central-south Europe, apparently - 'mediterranean' is a term masking a lot of different types, in anthropology - there is a dynamic, so the phenotypes we try to define, sometimes with some success, are formed upon older more common and less specialized types - from ancient times, the types, supported by genetic background, tend to multipliate by mutation-isolation-selection process as time pass, before the demographic increase and deplacements give way to crossings-recrossings - to day the racialization process is no more possible because of easy circulation but in past even some crossings could have given birth by the same mutation-isolation-selection process to new types (phenotypes) spite a lot of their OTHER autosomals keep on common enough - already in Mesolithic, two principal phyla (phylum's) Cro-Magnon and Brünn (and Combe-Capelle surely akin to Brünn) were sharing Europe, and at the mergins they mated one together producing regional pseudo-subtypes according to the % of every parent race in the crossings and some beginnings of racialization by partial isolation - everyone of this two "primary" types can have produced by the known process to modern phenotypes, the big difficulty being in the determination of the intermiedary forms and their localization - at first sight, by example, the so called 'irano-afghan' type could be a far descendant of southern 'capelloids' or 'brünnoids' - for other 'mediterraneans', well distinct between them, the part of 'cro-magnonoid' and 'capelloid' is very uneasy to see: they could as well be descendants of ignored old forms having preceded the differenciation of 'Cro-Magnon' and 'C-Capelle' - the Ust-Ishim man, by example, seems for bones closer to our western 'Cro-Magnon' but did not present the so typical reduced face height - perhaps one day we 'll find an apparent ancestor of 'Brünn' but less brutal? closer to Ust-Ishim??? (just an hypothesis for the reasoning) - at first sight, 'Brünn' or 'Combe-Capelle' are closer to the 'Australoid' archaïc aborigenes but evolution is not always straightforward and some "archaïc" traits can exagerate themselves in place of disappearing by time -
&: brachycephals' in Europe appeared in Central-West before appearing in Near-Eastern or Anatolia (an exception maybe, among Neolithic people of Cyprus, an isolate - but perhaps I lack data concerning East?

bicicleur
11-01-15, 22:57
Europe is a genetic sink...everyone came from somewhere else...it's just a question of when they arrived. Take a look at the Gravettians from whom the WHG probably descended. They arrived from the Middle East. Yes, they arrived before the other groups, so far as we now know, but does that mean that "Europeanness" is determined by the level of WHG? Can you really believe that?

It seems that ANE is from Asia. We don't know when the small amount that is present in the SHG arrived, but I would think it was likely in the late Mesolithic. Certainly, most of it arrived in Europe very late, not until the Bronze Age in most cases. So, by your criteria, this should be the least "European" ancestral group.

So far as we now know, another group moved into Europe from the Middle East 8,000 years ago bringing agriculture and animal husbandry. This may have been contemporaneous with or even earlier than the small movement of ANE into the northeastern fringe. If, in fact, it turns out that an EEF like population was present in certain areas of southern Europe from after the LGM, say, then they would definitely have been here before any ANE arrived. Depending on the timing, they might have been in Europe first. So, that would turn your "theory" head over heels.

It is the mixing in various proportions of these groups which has created the "Europeans". You are looking at Europe from a northern European perspective, to put it as politely as I can. Therefore, you judge it from that perspective. Northern Europeans and their ethnogenesis are your standard for "Europeanness" and all the data and information you have acquired is fit into that pre-existing model. You are not alone. An entire blog and most of the analysis done on it exists almost entirely, in my opinion, to promote and prove this very idea, and, in fact, to locate "Europeanness" in a specific area of eastern Europe.

It is an entirely wrong headed and, from my perspective, illogical point of view. I could, if I chose, create an opposing model which is southern European centric and paints northern Europeans, and, in particular, perhaps, far northeastern Europeans as outliers. They're certainly a minority in terms of their percentages of EEF. If you weight the EEF/ WHG/ANE by population numbers, I think the average EEF in Europe is over 60%. It is by fhat measure the most successful ancestral group of the three. It all depends on where you're standing, FireHaired. However, I would never do such a thing because I would consider it a misuse of genetic data and just as wrong headed and illogical.

What you fail to see is that "Europe" is a construct. As you pointed out on another thread, wandering Gravettian fisher/hunters and migrating Neolithic farmers and highly ANE admixed herders, for that matter, weren't "European". "Europeanness" is a function of a shared cultural and political history. It is most emphatically not based on the possession of certain components in certain percentages. Therefore, I would never say that the Finns, for example, are not "European" because they are about 7% Siberian, or that the Portuguese are not "European" because they might by some measures and in some areas be 4% SSA. These things are irrelevant for this discussion.

I will say this, however: if "Europeanness" is indeed, as I believe, a cultural concept more than it is even a geographic one, and certainly more than it is an "ethnic" one, then, my dear Fire Haired, absolutely no one is as European as the Italians. We made Europe...twice...It is true, however, that we are finding that making the Italians is more difficult. :)

Europe, Asia and Africa were invented by the Hellenic Greeks, who lived on both sides of the Aegean Sea.
What was to the north and west, they called Europe, to the east Asia and south, across the Mediterranean Africa.
The Greeks must have considered themselves in the center of the world ..
And so did all people.

MOESAN
11-01-15, 23:15
some old anthropologists (not all of them, Thanks God) were focalizing on light pigmentation and high stature to decern the naming "nordic" to types -
it doesn' t hold: the true 'nordic' type was surely fair haired, but rather on the darker blond- lighter brown hues side, was dolichocephalic (far from 'borreby' of any kind if these types are basic ones, what is not completely sure) and gracile enough even if less gracile than the most of 'mediterraneans' - 'nordic' type is long legged short chested, even if half robust, contrary to mesolithic descendants (the shorter legged would not be the 'Cro-Magnon' phylum but the 'Brünn'-'C-Capelle' phylum)- the most of its body bones are very different from the two big predecessors lignages (what doesn't discard a far common ancestor, all of us have far common ancestor, but when and where!!!) - the COON classification as "depigmented mediterranean" is not completely false -
stature is one of the worst criteria, even if of some value on a short space of time: the same phyla gave shorter men in western hunters-gatherers than in eastern ones, without too noticeable diffenrences on other aspects -
just some precision: for an anthropologist, these tall robust flaxen blond straight haired snub nosed men are not 'nordics' (the term his geographic, a bad choice, because the mesolithical 'non-nordic' men are of North too, and maybe were there before the classical 'nordic'...

MOESAN
11-01-15, 23:18
I think the autosomes category 'north-sea' of Eurogenes could be attached to the 'nordic' type I see came from East, more or less - just a bet -