PDA

View Full Version : I2a-Din in Motala12?



Syky
21-05-17, 21:25
I don't know exactly the history of discussion about migration of I2a-Din here on forum, so I am sorry if I say something old.
The new Mathieson's paper (http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135616.full.pdf) does not bring more light to history of this subclade. Or maybe yes, because the only sample with L147.2 mutation is not from Balkans, but it is Motala12 (http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/40047/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/135616-2.xlsx) (is this a new information?). If I understand it well, this is the first aDNA evidence for I2a-Din. For me, this completely changes the concept of how this haplogroup arised and migrated.

I am not a very big fan of physical anthropology, I think we have now more sophisticated methods for studying human populations. But I always asked about how is it possible that tall "Borrebies" are so frequent variant in Northern Europe and Balkans? What does connect these autosomally different places? Both of them have Borreby crania and both of them are tallest populations in Europe, but common ancestor of northern I1 and southern I2 is too old to connect these places and phenotypes. HGs in Eastern Europe were significantly taller than WHGs, for example in this abstract (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10074386). This was probably due to sharing more alleles with ANEs, which is also the case of Latvian HGs, SHGs and new Iron Gates HGs that were predominantly I2a2 and R1b with some I2a1, but not I2a-Din.

So, can't be Motala12-like (SHG) population the answer for this phenotype in Balkans? I2a-Din men migrated (God knows why and how) to Dinaric Alps from the north carrying autosomal variants for tallness and specific cranial structure and were replaced by I1 men in the north.

I realize this is only a speculation with no evidence, but very interesting I must say.:good_job: So, let's discuss.

Megalophias
21-05-17, 21:29
Motala12 doesn't have I2a-Din, he has a recurrent SNP (L147). Actually, according to genetiker's analysis, he has pre-I2a1b-M423, which Loschbour also carried.

Syky
21-05-17, 21:33
I2a1b2a1 is not I2a-Din? Look at the Mathieson's sample list.

Miroslav
22-05-17, 16:20
I will repost the comments by Crovata and Dmytro from "Steppe invaders in the Bronze Age Balkans" (Eurogenes Blog) because they higlight/resolve two problems with Motala samples:

"Dymtro, something is not right with the three Motala-HG samples dating. They are dated 5964-5638 BCE (I2a1b-M423), 5964-5629 BCE (I2a1-P37.2), 5721-5631 BCE (I2a1b2a1-L147.2), implying that all three probably are I2a1b2a1-L147.2 (I-CTS10228), however at YFull Tree this haplogroup subclade was formed 5300 YBP, with the oldest sample 6258 YBP, which if calculated YBP (6258 minus 1950), it results with the non-average oldest sample of I2a1b2a1-L147.2 to be 4308 BCE. The conclusion is that the samples "can not" be I-CTS10228 or happened archaeological mistake in dating method (i.e. the skeletons are at least 1000 years younger), because the archaeological dating of skeletons correlates (somewhat) with older haplogroup I-CTS4002, in short, there is an error by or archaeologists or geneticists, and I wonder if such case of discrepancies is also prevalent in other samples, and could these genetic results be used for correction of archaeological dating."

"It seems that the problem is simpler. There was a discussion about this on Anthrogenica. Motala 12 was wrongly identified as I2a1b2a1 by the Mathieson/Reich 2017 paper simply because of the presence of L147.2, which ISOGG still considers a typical CTS10228 marker. ISOGG is only partly right, in that L147 does distinguish CTS10228 from full fledged L621 and also from CTS 4002. But L147 is otherwise a completely unstable marker, which appears all over the place. Motala 12, as properly analyzed by Genetiker, is now considered to be "pre-M423". Genetiker actually thought it might have been L621 (he found some SNP's usually associated with that level). But subsequent analysis by Yfull of another genome which was L161 ALSO found these allegedly L621 markers which proved beyond doubt that they belonged to an earlier level (M423). All in all then it seems that the L147 found in Motala 12 indicates that L147 was also present in a now defunct I2a1b clade which is "pre-M423" (it does not have all the expected M 423 markers but is "on the way". So it is very much a complete sub-branch of I2a1b and completely distinct from the groups which evolved into CTS 10228."

As far I am aware until now was not found an ancient sample of I-CTS10228, actually, when you make a list of ancient I2a1-P37.2 it indicates that I2a1 spread after LGM from central-southern-eastern refugia to the west-north, and from certain period was widespread all over the Europe, but nothing more than that:

11,820-11,610 Switzerland I2a1a2a-L1286
8,753-8,351 Serbia I2a1
8,280-7,967 Ukraine I2a1
6,210-5,990 Luxembourg I2a1b-M423
6,000-5100 Latvia I2a1
6,000-5100 Latvia I2a1
6,000-4,500 Croatia I2a1
5,964-5,638 Sweden I2a1b-M423
5,964-5,629 Sweden I2a1
5,780-5,640 Hungary I2a1
5,721-5,631 Sweden I2a1b2a1-L147.2
5,310-5,206 Spain I2a1b1 (L161+, CTS1293+)
5,310-5,078 Spain I2a1b1-L161.1
5,000-4,500 Hungary I2a1
4,491-4,357 Hungary I2a1
4,038-3,532 Germany I2a1
3,360-3,086 Germany I2a1b1a1-S2703
3,000 France I2a1
2,900-2,346 Spain I2a1a1a-L672
2750-2725 France I2a1

As for Dinaric and North European height generally related to I-M170 (not specifically to, but both I1 and I2) recently was released a study "The mountains of giants: an anthropometric survey of male youths in Bosnia and Herzegovina":

"These results fill a long-term gap in the anthropological research of the Western Balkans and confirm older reports that the population of the Dinaric Alps is distinguished by extraordinary physical stature. Together with the Dutch, Montenegrins and Dalmatians, men from Herzegovina (183.4 cm) can be regarded as the tallest in the world. Because both nutritional standards and socioeconomic conditions are still deeply suboptimal, the most likely explanation of this exceptional height lies in specific genetic factors associated with the spread of Y haplogroup I-M170." (Abstract)

"Considering that I-M170 is associated with tall statures not only in the Balkans but also in Central and Northern Europe, the roots of this phenomenon are deeper and probably date back to the Upper Paleolithic (the Gravettian culture). The link between I-M170 and the Gravettian culture is based primarily on the fact that the Balkans served as a glacial refugium for Gravettian populations from Central Europe. Indeed, the oldest sample of I-M170 documented in Europe belongs to a Gravettian male from Paglicci in Italy (34 580–31 120 calibrated years ago). Even more importantly, the unusually tall stature of Upper Paleolithic males from the Gravettian culture has been documented by archaeological findings. Dočkalova & Vančata estimated a mean height of 176.3 cm in Gravettian males from Moravia (n = 15) and 182.7 cm in Gravettian males from the Central Mediterranean (n = 11). These are values that men from highly developed European countries reached only after the advance of the industrial revolution during the twentieth century." (Discussion)

"Figure 5 shows that the frequency of Y haplogroup I-M170 in Herzegovina predicts a much higher value than that documented in the present study—over 185 cm and possibly close to 190 cm. These numbers would be by far the highest in the world, markedly surpassing even the well-nourished and wealthy Dutch, and as already mentioned, values over 185 cm can already be documented in some regions of southwestern Herzegovina and in students from elite high schools." (Discussion)

Syky
23-05-17, 22:07
Thanks for you great comment, Miroslav! So it seems that I2a-Din in SHG is some kind of mistake.
For fun, I uploaded some ancients to DNA.Land and watched their predicted height. Motala12 and Ajvide58 (med admixed) were "genetically smaller" (166 and 160! cm) than WHGs (171 cm for KO1, 171 cm for Villabruna, 170 cm for Bichon). So I think my hypothesis is no longer supported.
I also tried two Yamna samples (I0231 is 170 cm, second one 169 cm). My predicted height is 179 cm, real is 185 cm.
The Gravettian question is more difficult, since it seems that Gravettian peoples contributed less to modern European gene pool than Villabruna people if I understand Fu et al. study well...

clintCG
24-05-17, 00:24
Regardless of whether Motala12 was I2a1b "Dinaric" or not, it does come from northwest, as parent clade of Dinaric, Disles, is still most present in NW Europe.

I think there is no doubt that I2a1b brought specific Cro-Magnon "Borreby" phenotype (today most commonly found in fringe areas of NW Europe and in Montenegro and Herzegovina). The thing is, Upper Palaeolithic-like types are absent from both Illyrian and early Slavic skeletal series, so no one knows how they ended up being dominant in those areas. One theory I proposed is that I2a1b-Din was originally carried by East Germanic tribes (mainly Goths), who were supposed to be Germanicized natives of northern Europe, and that they brought Palaeolithic phenotype to Balkans.

This type is not minor in concentration at all. According to Carleton Coon's "The Races of Europe", Montenegrins have several most extreme measures in Europe: height (177/8cm), weight (160 lbs), bizygomatic breadth (147mm), minimum frontal width, etc, which connect these parts very strongly to physical types of Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Europeans.

Another mistake that should be avoided is connecting results of autosomal analyses to share of UP/Neolithic/IE ancestry, as it is still very inaccurate and obviously not connected to physical types at all (for example, Balts and Basques have high WHG percentages, yet they are physically quite far removed from unreduced Palaeolithic/Mesolithic types). I've seen "phenotype SNP reconstruction" of Loschbour's face, and it is glaringly inaccurate, it doesn't look like Loschbour did (since we have his skull) at all.

Miroslav
24-05-17, 01:22
...Upper Palaeolithic-like types are absent from both Illyrian and early Slavic skeletal series, so no one knows how they ended up being dominant in those areas. One theory I proposed is that I2a1b-Din was originally carried by East Germanic tribes (mainly Goths), who were supposed to be Germanicized natives of northern Europe, and that they brought Palaeolithic phenotype to Balkans.

Another mistake that should be avoided is connecting results of autosomal analyses to share of UP/Neolithic/IE ancestry, as it is still very inaccurate and obviously not connected to physical types at all...

In which research/book you read that Upper Palaeolithic-like types are absent from Illyrian skeletal series? In the book by A. Stipčević "Iliri" (1991, pg. 64-66) is mentioned that Greek writer Herodian (Historiarum Libri VIII, II, 9) recorded that Illyrians were very strong and tall. In continuation is written that according to anthropological measuring (but pretty unpresentative as they are mainly skeletons from Istrian and Slovenian littoral, and Macedonia) had average height 1,65 m (male) and 1,53 (female) like in J. Wilkes "The Illyrians", which imply that foreign people were ridiculously smaller, i.e. the average height of the Illyrians had to be taller. The craniometrical measurements showed they were predominantly dolichocephalic, while less frequent brachycephalic type was similar to modern Albanians (short stature, dark colour of hair and eyes). This type was different compared to that of Illyrian Roman Emperors who were of high stature, blue eyes and hair, however that in the mountainous part of Western Balkan live people of high stature, but dark colour elements from older, pre-Indo-European population. I will try to find some more recent analysis.

The Germanic tribes theory doesn't hold the theory very well, if they are replaced with Celts it could be more plausible because, as I stated in one of my posts from March (#1189 at "How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?", the "sudden formation of I-S17250 (2,331 YBP: 381 BCE) directly corresponds to the Celtic invasion/settlement of Southeastern Europe in the 4th century BCE and political degradation of the many Illyrian tribes in the hinterland". It still could be the very opposite - to be Dinaric autochthonous haplogroup and type.

Think that at this point we have very little empirical evidence, yet venture in theorizing. I agree with your remark about autosomal DNA from the perspective it recombinates in each generation.

LeBrok
24-05-17, 05:48
No, no, I think God created Adam with I2a-Dinaric! The tallest and most handsome in the world!

More facts please, less fiction and self admiration, and stop travel through time like it doesn't mean anything and has no consequences.

Apsurdistan
24-05-17, 06:40
No, no, I think God created Adam with I2a-Dinaric! The tallest and most handsome in the world!

More facts please, less fiction and self admiration, and stop travel through time like it doesn't mean anything and has no consequences.

You can add tough fighters to that list too, current UFC HW champ. And I think he's of Dalmatian Croat ancestry cuz his name Stipe is most common there, a major Hotspot of I2a-Din.

gyms
24-05-17, 11:20
"when you make a list of ancient I2a1-P37.2 it indicates that I2a1 spread after LGM from central-southern-eastern refugia to the west-north"

Could you make a list?

clintCG
24-05-17, 11:31
In which research/book you read that Upper Palaeolithic-like types are absent from Illyrian skeletal series? In the book by A. Stipčević "Iliri" (1991, pg. 64-66) is mentioned that Greek writer Herodian (Historiarum Libri VIII, II, 9) recorded that Illyrians were very strong and tall. In continuation is written that according to anthropological measuring (but pretty unpresentative as they are mainly skeletons from Istrian and Slovenian littoral, and Macedonia) had average height 1,65 m (male) and 1,53 (female) like in J. Wilkes "The Illyrians", which imply that foreign people were ridiculously smaller, i.e. the average height of the Illyrians had to be taller. The craniometrical measurements showed they were predominantly dolichocephalic, while less frequent brachycephalic type was similar to modern Albanians (short stature, dark colour of hair and eyes). This type was different compared to that of Illyrian Roman Emperors who were of high stature, blue eyes and hair, however that in the mountainous part of Western Balkan live people of high stature, but dark colour elements from older, pre-Indo-European population. I will try to find some more recent analysis.
And what does height of Illyrians, or their cephalic index, show us? Absolutely nothing. Height alone doesn't make you descendant of Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Europeans. Cranial index also doesn't have much to do with it, as indices in Upper Palaeolithic varied from 65 to 85 (from hyperdolichocephalic to hyperbrachycephalic), even though in other regards they were very homogenous.
What matters is mostly cranial structure. And that includes myriad of traits, some of them being:
-High cranial capacity and degree of encephalization.
-Low and wide, square eye sockets (in most of, but not all, skulls).
-"Midfacial prognathism", that is, recession of zygomata towards auricular.
-Great bizygomatic distance (sometimes even exceeding head breadth), with zigyomata excessively flaring sideways.
-Strong muscular attachments on skull.
-Lambdoidal flattening.
-Wide, deep and heavy jaw.
-Strongly developed browridges.
-Posteriorly positioned foramen magnum.
-Upper facial index most commonly euryprosopic.
-Etc...

These traits are rarely observable among skeletal series of Illyrians (from Glasinac, for example), which mainly belong to Nordic (both Hallstatt and proto-IE "Corded"), Mediterranean, and Dinaric types:
In Bosnia, we come to the famous site of Glasinac, where a comparatively large series of relatively late Illyrian remains contains again a mixture of types. The majority of the skulls are long headed and these show the same mixture of Danubian and Corded elements which we have already seen at Hallstatt itself. A few of the individual crania are very large, and reproduce the Corded prototype quite accurately. The brachycephalic skulls, although in the minority, are numerous enough to permit one to determine their racial affiliation with some accuracy. Almost all belong to what might be called a modern Dinaric racial type.
(C.S. Coon, The Races of Europe, chapter VI, section 2)

Types of Upper Palaeolithic origin weren't found among early Slavs either.

Check for yourself where Palaeolithic-survivor types (Brunn and Borreby on the map) occur most commonly today:
http://i.imgur.com/W9wv95b.jpg





The Germanic tribes theory doesn't hold the theory very well, if they are replaced with Celts it could be more plausible because, as I stated in one of my posts from March (#1189 at "How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?", the "sudden formation of I-S17250 (2,331 YBP: 381 BCE) directly corresponds to the Celtic invasion/settlement of Southeastern Europe in the 4th century BCE and political degradation of the many Illyrian tribes in the hinterland". It still could be the very opposite - to be Dinaric autochthonous haplogroup and type.

True, Dinaric was formed back in then, but you have to give it atleast several hundred years to multiply in order for your theory to be plausible, and that's why Celtic one doesn't hold any water. Ken Nordtvedt places TMRCA of Dinaric in Poland in 500 B.C. , and most of transitional clades of Dinaric are found mostly in Poland and Germany. As we know, Poland was mentioned as inhabited by East Germanic tribes shortly after that.
It is not questionable at all if I2a1b "Dinaric" was Germanicized first, but the question is: when did it get incorporated into Slavs? Probably somewhere around Ukraine, but possibly even on Balkans. Upcoming DNA research of Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures (it was supposed to come out 6 months ago) may cast more light on this matter.

It is not possible at all that it is native Balkan haplogroup. It is absent from recent Bronze Age Balkan samples, in which haplogroups typical for modern Albanians, like J2b2 and R1b BY611, were found. And clades of "Dinaric" found among northern Slavs are typically older than those found among southern Slavs, which clearly supports north-south migration route.

Miroslav
24-05-17, 14:29
"when you make a list of ancient I2a1-P37.2 it indicates that I2a1 spread after LGM from central-southern-eastern refugia to the west-north"

Could you make a list?

The current list probably looks something like this, with those with * as possible read:

11,820-11,610 BCE; Switzerland / Bichon; I2a1a2a-L1286
8,753-8,351; Serbia / I5236; I2a1-P37.2
8,280-7,967; Ukraine / I1763; I2a1-PF4004
6,210-5,990; Luxembourg / Loschbour; I2a1b-M423, L178
6,000-5,100; Latvia / I4438; I2a1-P37.2
6,000-5,100; Latvia / I4440; I2a1-P37.2
6,000-4,500; Croatia / VINJ 4; I2a1
5,964-5,638; Sweden / I0013; I2a1b-M423
5,964-5,629; Sweden / I0015; I2a1-P37.2
5,964-5,629; Sweden / I0016; I2a1-P38
5,780-5,640; Hungary / I1507; I2a1-P37.2
5,721-5,631; Sweden / I0017; I2a1b2a1-L147.2
5,500/5,300-3,100/2,900; Lithuania / Kretuonas [2]; I2a1b
5,310-5,206/5,078; Spain / I0412; I2a1b1-L161.1
5,000-4,500; Hungary / I0449; I2a1
4,900-4,600 / 2800-2000 BC; Sweden / Ajvide58; I2a1-P37.2
4,710-4,540; France / I4304; I2a1b-M423
4,680-4,460; France / I4303; I2a1b-M423
4,440-4,240; Lithuania / Spiginas [1]; I2a1a2a1a-L233
4,038-3,532; Germany / I1565; I2a1
3,900-3,600; Spain / I0405; I2a1a1/H2 (probably H2)
3,800-3,200; Scotland / I3133; I2a1b1-L161.1
3,704-3,535; Scotland / I2634; I2a1b
3,700-3,380; Scotland / I2796; I2a1b
3,653-3,390; Scotland / I2635; I2a1b1-L161.1
3,510-3,340; Scotland / I2637; I2a1b
*3,438-3,107; Italy / RISE487; I2a1a1
3,360-3,100; England / I0519; I2a1b
3,360-3,086; Germany / I0172; I2a1b1a1-S2703
3,336-3,024; Scotland / I2978; I2a1b
3,336-3,012; Scotland / I2935; I2a1b1-L161.1
3,334-2,942; Scotland / I2979; I2a1b1-L161.1
3,098-2,907; Scotland / I2631; I2a1b
3,011-2,886; Scotland / I2933; I2a2a1a1a2
3,030-2,890; France / Treilles-596; I2a1-P37.2
3,000; France / Treilles-577; I2a1-P37.2
*2,908-2,578; Italy / RISE489; I2a1a1
2,900-2,346; Spain / I1303; I2a1a1a-L672
2,880-2,630; Spain / I1303; I2a1a1-L158
2,750-2,725; France / LPF 27 / LPF 36; I2a1
2,581-2,464; Scotland / I2630; I2a1b1-L161.1
2,571-2,348; Scotland / I2932; I2a1b
2,458-2,154; Hungary / I2741; I2a1a1-L158
2,289-2,135; Portugal / I4229; I2a1a1
2,280-1,790; Portugal / CM364; I2a1b
*2,134-1,773; Italy / RISE486; I2a1a1
*2,128-1,909; Hungary / RISE254; I2a1


(C.S. Coon, The Races of Europe, chapter VI, section 2) ... Ken Nordtvedt places TMRCA of Dinaric in Poland in 500 B.C. ... and most of transitional clades of Dinaric are found mostly in Poland and Germany ... Poland was mentioned as inhabited by East Germanic tribes shortly after that ... It is not questionable at all if I2a1b "Dinaric" was Germanicized first, but the question is: when did it get incorporated into Slavs? Probably somewhere around Ukraine, but possibly even on Balkans ... It is not possible at all that it is native Balkan haplogroup. It is absent from recent Bronze Age Balkan samples ... And clades of "Dinaric" found among northern Slavs are typically older than those found among southern Slavs, which clearly supports north-south migration route.

Basically, your theorizing does not hold water better anyhow. I hoped to read some recent or more contemporary source, but you cited one from 1939 and picture of old anthropology. Nordtvedt or anyone can place something somewhere, but the fact is there is still no evidence for such hypothesis. The hypothesis that I2a1b-Dinaric was firstly Germanicized is one of better nonsense I read so far about the subclade. You say that it's not native because the subclade is absent from Bronze Age Balkan samples, but are you aware that there were so few samples from Croatia from that period, and which generated Y-DNA result, it is premature to take it as a valid argument?

clintCG
25-05-17, 00:52
Basically, your theorizing does not hold water better anyhow. I hoped to read some recent or more contemporary source, but you cited one from 1939 and picture of old anthropology.
Pythagoras' work is outdated.
Isaac Newton's work is outdated.
Albert Einstein's work is outdated.
That's exactly your train of thought.
You proved your minimal knowledge of anthropology by making a "UP phenotype=height" equation, yet you feel you are credible enough to dismiss one of greatest works on metric anthropology of Europe ever composed?
Coon's work was highly prized in 80s and 90s. Sadly, in last two to three decades, physical anthropology as we know it barely exists, thanks to politically-correct science.

The hypothesis that I2a1b-Dinaric was firstly Germanicized is one of better nonsense I read so far about the subclade. You say that it's not native because the subclade is absent from Bronze Age Balkan samples, but are you aware that there were so few samples from Croatia from that period, and which generated Y-DNA result, it is premature to take it as a valid argument?
What I said is in perfect accord with calculated TMRCA and place of origin of I2a1b "Dinaric". Much more than Celtic theory.
Theory of Balkan continuity is absolutely disproven. But autistic autochtonists will never be satisfied.
1) Parent clade of Dinaric, Disles, is found mainly in NW Europe.
2) Ancient I2a1b samples were found in northern and western Europe, definitely not in southeast.
3) According to various estimates, TMRCA of Dinaric lived 2500-2200 ybp. Considering that almost all Dinaric among northern Slavs is Dinaric "North" (older clade of Dinaric), while 70% of Dinaric among Yugoslavs is Dinaric "South" (younger clade), it is certain that Dinaric came to Balkans during Migration Era.

Nik
25-05-17, 07:41
The craniometrical measurements showed they were predominantly dolichocephalic, while less frequent brachycephalic type was similar to modern Albanians (short stature, dark colour of hair and eyes). This type was different compared to that of Illyrian Roman Emperors who were of high stature, blue eyes and hair, however that in the mountainous part of Western Balkan live people of high stature, but dark colour elements from older, pre-Indo-European population. I will try to find some more recent analysis. U still believe in that crap about the Albanians? On average (all Albanians) they aren't as tall as their northern neighbours, but they definitely have lighter eyes than Montenegrins, Herzegovinians, Dalmatians and Serbs which have mostly brown eyes while Albanians fall mostly on the green-hazel group. Green-hazel could still be considered dark or intermediate, but my point is that they're more light eyed and haired on average. As for the height, when such studies are done in Albania like in Herzegovina (especially on students from middle income families or elite) then we can come to conclusions, because in another study in 2005 Montenegrins appeared to be 178cm and the 25th tallest in the world, so people dont know what to believe anymore.

Regarding I-Din, I strongly believed that the clade started to spread from within the Roman Empire or in very close proximity and was later pushed inside the Roman Empire borders of the Balkans due to its frequency among Vlachs, so it had to be from a already Romanized population (Dacians and Pannonians come to mind).

And by the way, the Borreby-like type in Montenegro is mostly present in Old Montenegro and Brda, where E-V13 is very prevalent and I-Din isn't as numerous as u guys think.

Miroslav
25-05-17, 09:50
You proved your minimal knowledge of anthropology by making a "UP phenotype=height" equation... Theory of Balkan continuity is absolutely disproven. But autistic autochtonists will never be satisfied.

Are you aware that what I did was to quote a recent research in which was considered a relation between Y-DNA haplogroup and height? That I quoted a source from 1990s, while you did from 1930s? That I did not dismiss that source nor give myself any credibility? Actually, you're the one who gives yourself the credibility to consider some arguments which are not unquestionable as you think to be, and in frustration because someone is opposing them you're calling others to be autistic? Well, that's your train of thought, good luck in the future.

Syky
25-05-17, 10:43
Stay cool guys. I have somewhere found a table with some pre-neolithic European cranial measurements and Danish late mesolithic/early neolithic are really significantly more often brachycephalic than others, mean CI of Danish skulls is 0,77 with some 0,9 ones. But it seems it is a late mesolithic/early neolithic phenomenon, because UP crania are much more often dolichocephalic. Coon also describes Borrebies in chapter about Scandinavian neolithic. So I think at least some clades of I2a1b are related to Borreby physical type, although probably not with SHG cluster. It would be fine to have haplogroups from these Danish LM/EN people.

MOESAN
25-05-17, 20:09
some things about phenotypes and generalizations -
paleo CI : indivivduals from 70,05 to 78, 49, mean 74,44: but it's genralization too
eneolthic so called cromagnoid group, evolved and surely mixed (transition period between Meso and Neolithic): indivivduals 64 to 92! peakes: 73/74, 77/79, 82/83 - so more dolicho's on a side, but new tendancy to neat brachycephaly IN SOME PLACES (alpines)-
so called atlantic group, in fact more on the capelloid/brünnoid side: individuals 64 to 81, peak: 72/73
first dinaroids: 80/97, peakes 82/83, 85/86, 89/90
the paleo's of COON were not homogenous, he avowed - the first ones were divided into two evident groups, and before LGM certainly other groups, maybe of one or another stock but evolved farther, joined them here and there; all the way local endogamies and local recombinations AND selectionS produced several smaller groups, all of them showing evident common archaïc traits, but all of them with differences in phénotypes; the ancient admixtures were no more easily separated and their AuDNA is for hte most put in the same big bag to date - we see the hard work that scientists have to produce 1 or more basic pop: someones show them as 1 group, other as admixtures of more than one ancient pop, someones consider EHG different from WHG, others EHG as WHG+ANE and so one -
considering height, two opposite tendancies at the end of Mesolithic: reducing in West, no reducing in East, mean in the middle - so we cannot speake of A "paleo" type; and somones confuse the so called 'borreby' types with 'dinaric'; a link can exist between them, not proved to date, but they are not exactly the same thing so if genetic ties, the proportions are not the same ones -
considering eye colour in Balkans, I red here curious affirmations, when we know this aspect is one of the worst studied in ancient times, one of the more arbitrary or less homogenously studied - even scientists of today are in the fog when they try to link genes and colour phenotypes (the middle hues causes are not well known if I don't mistake -
and I repeat, there are links between auDNA and phenotypes, but they are loose, not absolute because the number of genes concerned is little compared to the whole genome -

clintCG
26-05-17, 18:33
U still believe in that crap about the Albanians? On average (all Albanians) they aren't as tall as their northern neighbours, but they definitely have lighter eyes than Montenegrins, Herzegovinians, Dalmatians and Serbs which have mostly brown eyes while Albanians fall mostly on the green-hazel group. Green-hazel could still be considered dark or intermediate, but my point is that they're more light eyed and haired on average.
You haven't quoted a single anthropological study to back up your claims about pigmentation. Go and read chapters "The Races of Europe" concerning Balkans. Author himself measured over 1100 Albanians, and it seems your claims are not really true.

As for the height, when such studies are done in Albania like in Herzegovina (especially on students from middle income families or elite) then we can come to conclusions, because in another study in 2005 Montenegrins appeared to be 178cm and the 25th tallest in the world, so people dont know what to believe anymore.
Why are you inventing stuff like this straight out of your ass? Montenegrins and Bosnians are tallest according to studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide
In Coon's time (1930s) Montenegrins were taller than next-tallest nation in Europe (Iceland) by full 4cm, but since then western nations started to eat food full of growth hormones, so their height increased, but not enough to match that of western Balkan Dinaric Alps.


And by the way, the Borreby-like type in Montenegro is mostly present in Old Montenegro and Brda, where E-V13 is very prevalent and I-Din isn't as numerous as u guys think.
No. Core of the type is Old Montenegro, extending towards Herzegovina and Brda. And Old Montenegro is mostly I2a1b-Din, as well as rest of western Montenegro. Even Brda have considerable amount of I2a1b-Din.

clintCG
26-05-17, 18:50
Are you aware that what I did was to quote a recent research in which was considered a relation between Y-DNA haplogroup and height? That I quoted a source from 1990s, while you did from 1930s? That I did not dismiss that source nor give myself any credibility? Actually, you're the one who gives yourself the credibility to consider some arguments which are not unquestionable as you think to be, and in frustration because someone is opposing them you're calling others to be autistic? Well, that's your train of thought, good luck in the future.
Are you aware of the fact that I posted source which deals with complete morphology of human body, while you posted a source which deals only with height?
And what was your point with research from 1990s? To prove with tall height that there were Palaeolithic types among Illyrians (note that it says Illyrians were not tall at all by present data, but it assumes their height out of nowhere. Also, lol @ claims of ancient Greek historians, who list all "barbarians" as "tall")?
Listen, you can be a 250cm giant, and still have nothing in common with Palaeolithic Europeans. You need to have many, many characteristics, mostly cranial. Old Indo-Europeans were also tall, yet they belonged to Corded Nordic type and looked nothing like Cro-Magnons. I assume you are now going to tell me that African Masai are close to Palaeolithic Europeans because they are tall as well?
And why does it matter if it is from 1930s? Is Einstein's work outdated compared to modern science because it is from same era? Coon's work was respected well into 80s and 90s- go read what William Howells wrote about him. "The Races of Europe" still remains most comprehensive work on physical anthropology of Europe ever made.

slodok
30-05-17, 18:41
Do you know that Dinaric brahicranial type has dramatic fall during migration era 9 to 12 century AD by anthropological finds from graves and leptodolimorphic slavic dolihocranial type is up from 0 to 30% in same period?Or you just pull data from nothing...Coon's work? Are you serious?