"Baskid" and "Keltic-Nordid" types in Europe, are they related?

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
 
Moesan, I'm counting on you for guidance about the "Dinaric" nose, so...a domani...:)
 
Angela said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
MOESAN said:
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
Click to expand...

This is why you make more sense to me than most people posting about this topic.
 
When HumanPhenotypes returns there will be morphs of various types and as such we can more accurately compare them, I think.
 
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]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 [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]'supposedly'[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]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 [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]populations(not individuals!)[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]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...[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]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 - [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]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)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]&: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 ? -[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]&& :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) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]thefirst elites were perhaps not of the 'alpine' type tribes but theyruled the lands of these last ones – the same for Ligurians - [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]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 : [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]&: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)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]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 -[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]&: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) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]-[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]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 - [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]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 - [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]boringquestions ![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]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'.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]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 - [/FONT]

THE HARDEST IS TO LINK ALL THAT PRECISELY TO HISTORIC MOVES AND CULTURES!
 
^^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=...dAvXPEDCgrckKOYYuqRCXJw&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! :)
 
Angela said:
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! :)
Click to expand...

He did very well for the time period in which he lived, and he certainly traveled about a lot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 15369 times.

Back
Top