Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 25 of 101

Thread: shapes and collective classifications: attempt

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #39
    Elite member
    Join Date

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands

    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    (your words in italics)

    I guess that the communis opinion of the laste years is that the European population , with an emphasis on the NW Europe, is derived from three major groups:
    - WHG, West European Hunter Gartherers
    - EEF Early European Farmers
    - Steppe, alle kind of groups coming from Eastern Europe, like EHG, ANE, Uralic etc.
    Their percentages for modern NW Europeans is about this:
    - WHG: about 15-20%
    - EEF: about 35%
    - Yamna/Steppe: about 45-50%

    Firstable, I prefer to base myself on ancient pop’s. So, ‘Yamna/steppe’ could be broken down into
    EHG and CHG, roughly said. EHG and CHG themselves have a respectable input of ANE, as have ‘uralic’ and CHG is less precise than ‘IranNeo’ and more admixed, or less homogeneised/drifted ; but EHG respectively to EEF and CHG stays very far, and very closer to WHG, I think.
    I would say for modern NW Europeans :
    - WHG+EHG : 45-50 %
    - EEF : 30-35 %
    - CHG : 20 %-25 %

    More towards SW Europe especially the EEF amount rises and the Steppe amount lowers. And what also is a difference is for example in Northern Europe GAC/TRB Poland and Sweden has had about 70-80% EEF whereas TRB-West Northern Germany/ North Dutch had Blatterhöhle MN percentages 60-70% HG!

    I had not these figures ; I read somewhere the bones types of some of the TRB and even some GAC had rather robust features compared to pure EEF (It seems it’s more the case for the NW ones, maybe recolonisation of Ertebölle/Swifterbant people? They have had also some ‘long barrow’ people input in their most megalithical parts) ;

    Of course genotype is not phenotype. It is not equivalent or 1:1. Still it makes some sense that where there is for example low Steppe and high EEF like in Sardinia the EEF "Med" phenotypes have left a greater footprint than the Steppe ones.
    Of course when these three flows mixed since the Bronze Age and beyond the circumstances, like diet change and sexual/natural selection have had their impact and still have their impact.
    But I guess in our potpourri of phenotypes the 'originals' still shimmers through.
    So you expect in Northern Germany/ North Dutch mostly Single Grave/Yamna phenotypes (in your concepts Croma/ Brünn/Corded/Danubian(imo) mixes? Sweden in some places, besides Croma/ Brünn/Corded/Danubian higher EEF/ med?
    And towards the SW of Europe definitely more EEF derived? With some influences brought in form example by the Visogoths or the Longobards?
    Just some impressions, correct me if you think I'm wrong.....

    We and me are like one eyed peope rambling in the dark !
    We know phenotypes have heavy genomic basis if not the only factor ; but as external aspect is based on a relative small number of genes compared to allover autosome making, we may have quickly drifts between ancient and new pop’s and the decoupling phenotype/complete genotype occur (as for uniparent markers) easily in small pop’s, without speak of selection on some phenotypical markers (***mentation, for instance, among others).
    At the skeletic level, you are not too far from truth. ;

    I ‘ll try it for more precision (risky!): ‘brünnoid’ (most frequent) and ‘cromagnoid’ aspects can be put on the general HG’s account ; ‘Yamna’ were of this precedent « mix » (in fact, become one pop’ at those times) + ‘east-mediterranean’ (« eurafrican »?) ; here we see genetics and physical anthropology can converge (some confirmation by non-metric anthropology, if less precise) , showing some kind of links with old pop’s of Armenia ; this mediterranean subtype was present in Anatolia along gracile ‘mediter’ in Anatolia, their proportions varying according to places and times (gracile : surely often of the EEF type, proto-’danubian’) ; in South we may find some ties between genetics and phenotypes too : ‘mediter’ (EEF+ taste of ‘natufian’) and robust ‘east-mediter’ (CHG > ‘iran’like) ; by the way I guess one and another are not so long-legged as posited by theory for all ‘mediters’ ; and it introduces the ‘nordic’ type question : more long-legged than surroundings other types, robust spite dolichomorphic, and cranialogically not « brutal » as ‘brünnoid’ or ‘capelloid’ (more short-legged than it, I suppose) ; too oftenly associated with fair ***mentation to be pure hazard and it asks for a specific cradle place. Its weight among North Germanic people and ancient Germanics make me suppose that this type spans over EEF and WHG/EHG global auDNA.
    Robust dolichocephalic/leptopropic (high-narrow faces) people have been signaled between Eastern Baltic and Ladoga at Mesolithic ages before CCC (I recall Villanova man was supposed to have some dolichimorphic trends too¤ ; some Russian scientists speak even of a « gracile dolicho type » there ; I wonder when appeared really the first broadly said ‘mediter’ types in far North?) ; around Latvia it took the place of the classical archaic broad-faced people, but I have not the clues for origins so soon. For ***mentation I thought in some of the GAC people and EHG to; as a whole Germanics are always fairer than Celts for hair, and I had supposed they were richer for eastern EEF (‘danubian’like) than are Celts ; both had two kinds of EEF, but Celts have more the western sort, « ibericlike » (Cardial and Chassey), less LBTKlike ; GAC could be the transmettor of this eastern partly modified EEF component.
    Finally, typical ‘corded’ type could be resumed to this robust dolichomorphic type, with ‘brünnoid’ and ‘east-mediter’ inputs. (CWC & GAC crossed one another in some way)
    If we can say proto-Celts (more than achieved Celts) and Germanics were very close for ancient components, in the detail, they didn’t take exactly the same dosis of the variants of these ancient components, what is explicable by history.
    & : besides, I read presence of some « old » Y-R1b-L151 (-P312/-U106, not yet) among some CWC settlements of Poland, so in a rather central-north-eastern area ; I wonder if they were not pre-U106’s we found later among Germanics ? A previous local BB to CWC shift ?

    Apart: agree with you: in mixed stable pop's the allover auDNA in more homogenous and usedful than phenotypes which are more individual;
    Thanks, insightfull.

    Just some thoughts. In general those old skool classifiers were imo pretty biased. Most of them used an (implicit) kind of hierarchy, with 'Nordic' on top. Even in postwar times someone like Coon had that kind of bias....

    They confused even "morphs" with "races"! All outdated of course. But I guess those old labels....still have some echo. I also think that, at least speaking for myself, that for the region you are living in you are able to detect some morphs. Some "Idealtypes". Most people are mixtures I guess. What makes a difference is when the 'hierarchy' is dropped we get a less biased view. I guess the 'strict' Nordic phenotype is somewhat 'overrated' in Northern Europe....

    The central point for Northern Europa, or Europe above the Alps, is that Northern Europeans are basically Steppe/ Corded Ware variants with a shot Funnelbeaker or GAC. The Y-DNA is de facto fully from the Steppe horizon (R1a/R1b) on the M-DNA side we got some more Funnelbeaker residu's. I guess the statement of someone like Kristian Kristiansen that the "young male populations" of the Steppe horizon dominated the scene, even with signs of what can be described as a kind of 'ethnic cleansing':

    So when it comes to phenotypes, I guess the dominant phenotype in the North has it's basis on the Steppe horizon. Through the woman lines, some Funnelbeaker/GAC introgessed and made the local adaption.

    I guess from the Steppe horizon there were, roughly two kinds of, phenotypes:
    One component, resembling the robust (Cro-Magnon) variety observed in many Andronovo groups, would appear to have been introduced by migrants from the Kazakhstan steppes. Another component – Mediterranean, i.e., characterized by dolichocrany and narrow face, stemmed from the pre-Andronovo Bronze Age populations of southwestern Siberia, being especially noticeable in Andronovo (Fedorovka) groups of Rudny Altai and decreasing in the eastern and northern directions.

    The connection with your labels:
    - Cromagnon like, in your labels 'croma/borreby' and 'brünn';
    - Mediterranean like in your labels 'nordic/corded' and 'danubian'

    For Northern Europe a complete picture?
    I don't know what kind of "extra" or "deviating" phenotype the introgression (or 'creolization' dixit Kristian Kristiansen) Corded with Funnelbeaker/GAC would deliver? Would Ertbølle/Funnelbeaker or Blatterhöhle MN fall outside the 'croma' brünn/borreby category?

    And about the Danubians what's in a name...
    I read presence of some « old » Y-R1b-L151 (-P312/-U106, not yet) among some CWC settlements of Poland, so in a rather central-north-eastern area ; I wonder if they were not pre-U106’s we found later among Germanics ? A previous local BB to CWC shift ?
    I guess may be Frits Kortlandt (2018) has a point here:
    When considering the way the Indo-Europeans took to the west, it is important to realize that mountains, forests and marshlands were prohibitive impediments. Moreover, people need fresh water, all the more so when traveling with horses. The natural way from the Russian steppe to the west is therefore along the northern bank of the river Danube. This leads to the hypothesis that the western Indo- Europeans represent successive waves of migration along the Danube and its tributaries. The Celts evidently followed the Danube all the way into southern Germany. The ancestors of the Italic tribes, including the Veneti, may have followed the river Sava towards northern Italy. The ancestors of Germanic speakers apparently moved into Moravia and Bohemia and followed the Elbe into Saxony. A part of the Veneti may have followed them into Moravia and moved along the Oder through the Moravian Gate into Silesia. The hypothetical speakers of Temematic probably moved through Slovakia along the river Orava into western Galicia. The ancestors of speakers of Balkan languages crossed the lower Danube and moved to the south. This scenario is in agreement with the generally accepted view of the earliest relations between these branches of Indo-European (cf. Holzer 1989: 165 on Temematic).
    I guess in the case of Germanics and R1b U106 with the samples we now have this influx came after Single Grave and Battle Axe a likely candidate is Unetice, one of the oldest R1b U106 samples is from Jimonice near Prague about 2000 BC. Where these also a mixture of 'croma' (borreby/brunn) and 'med' ('nordic'/ 'danubian')?
    Last edited by Northener; 01-05-21 at 16:48.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts