Who were ancestors of Germanic tribes and where did they come fr

Maju,

quote;

"Europeans aren't "Arctic". Most Europeans lived in the area near the Pyrenees before the north melted. Some lived elsewhere (Central Europe, Ukraine, Mediterranean) but never in the extreme north.

The most "Arctic" peoples are, as you say, Mongoloids like Inuits or Yakuts.

Also, Caucasoids only colonized Europe very late in time, being original of Southern and SW Asia actually. And, as I said before, once in Europe they remained in a relatively southern belt. Most representative of these early Europeans (we assume they have remain mostly unchanged) are Basques who show quite a variability."

This is basically based on assumptions. The results of Eurasian archeology - over the last two decades - have led to entirely new models of the first migration-patterns. See above.

---

Your comment on the difference between the Danes and the Swedes are very significant, as it proves that the Scandinavians (also) were divided in sub-groups, who enjoyed different inter-national relations respectively.

For obvious reasons there are intimate links between the Danes and the German/Celtic tribes of continental Europe. The Swedish had closer ties to the east - where several inter-marriages occured. Thus the Danes traded towards along the inland of Europe - reaching the Mediterranean already 7000 BP,- while the Swedes traded with the east - reaching  the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. The best maritime culture were (already then)  the Norwegians (that time called Gots) - who populated the Atlanten Islands as they become inhabittable. Today there are several universities in the US relating the paralell cultures between west-caost Europe and east-coast Ameroica already during Paeolithic time.  From the Mesolithic era the point especially to the identical constructs and patterns fround in east-coast America and Norway - already 5.000 years before Leif Eriksson.

Which accord to a logic time-line of - what I call - "artic culture", simply becaue that defines it quite clear and still correct. Unless you are able to prove that the Vikings actually were descendants of the Eskimos.

Best regards,

Yes, Inuit types as mentioned, they are by far the best adapted to Arctic climates, physiologically.  Short and stout, their limbs are shorter for better heat retention, thicker skin and thin layer of fat beneath the skin for the same.  These people still thrive in the Arctic, if Europeans did, there would be at least pre-modern (2-500 years) evidence of it (i.e. Europeans with a very similar lifestyle as those described in the articles you pasted - there isn't

Lapps

Uhuh, and that strangely enough co-incides with the receding of the glaciers and the movements of M383 (R1b) into the same regions.

Mhm, and I have seen how Inuit like these people look.

Neither am I.  I am stating that the present populations of the areas you mentioned are Caucasoids from Central Asia who moved into Lappish/Finno-Ugrians territory, and thus largely mixed with and assimilated them, changing most of th eregions languages to the Indo-European type.

Discoveries do not upset me, dis-interpretation thereof does, to a purely academic level. You are the one bringing Africans and such into the fray, where no one previously mentioned them, I think it is you who is upset at the facts of human evolution and are thus exploiting every available piece which you belive differentiates, what you no doubt see as your kind, from others.

Genetic mapping states otherwise, sorry to disappoint you.

Paul,

Your suggestion doesnt stick - genetically. Since the pale Caucasian os a mutant  (from mankinds common, brown-eyed/complexed ancestor) the "southern branch" you suggest would have had to be isolated too. For a very high number of generations.

To create that kind of isolation you need a cataclysmic disaster of some sort - otherwise you wouldnt get the boys to leave the girls back home, ye'  know. Even less so - if there were only tundra and ice - up north, there.

The nature phenomenon we need to be able to explain the actic proto-type actually happened - when a sudden occurance of ice-time blocked an wntire group of people - to a northern isolation. Today we know that a complete habitat - of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people - were separated from their southern relatives - as ice-time made any crossing of the Eurasian continents impossible. Thus we find the isolated hunter-gathers up north, along the ocean of the Gulf Stream - that (obviously) was able to survive the first shocks - and then grew "arctical features" - as they have had to endure a high-arctic winter - and hardly any summer.

It is not that complicated. And it is not that  strange. Unless you�re winded up in some old explanation you're afraid to "loose".

 Best regards,   

Official history? and how far back does this official history go? 40,000 years? I don't think so somehow.

Finno-Ugrians  (the original ones) not the ones mixed in with modern Europeans, in my opinion, were most similar to Mongoloid in appearance, like Lapps, this conclusion is corroberated with the oriental features often seen in Northern Germanics.  I cite Bismarck as a prime example.

My opinion: The two latter have come from CA on earlier migrations (carrying M343), Magdelalian came from Turkey (M170). I made a mistake easlier with my timings for the first Turkey migrations, which actually correspond with Magdelalian archaelogical finds.

Maju,

Your theory on "progressive blondism" - from "health reasons" - dont stick I am afraid. Neither do a presumption that "mutation have been exisiting from time origin". Biology just doesnt work that way - unless you bring an higher intelligence into the equation...

The original geno-type of the first human population would easily catch up with any major abrevation as long as there are contacts between the major population and any sub-group. Thus we need a long-term isolation to explain major genetical differences, where the sub-groups have developed into typological sub-groups, with genetic markers and biological characteristics.

(I dont magnify any mutation, thats already done - by nature...) 

If the Australian aboriginals were all pale we would immdeiatly explain it as a result of "isolationism". And rigthly so. When the sub-continent of India is etnically different from China we have a similar phenomenon - on each respective side of the Himalayas. When Africans are different form Amerindians we also explain that with simple logic and traditional etnography. Lately bio-chemistry have given us the nitty-gritties as well.

Now, all these etnic groups shows differences in "typological features" - from which thye major part can be reffered to by modern genetics as well. But they all have similarities that also tells of a common origin, right?When it comes to colors they vary, but they all have a clear percentage of pigmentation. What the northern popualtion have not. And it is exactly this phenomenon that makes the characteristics of the northern populations distinctly specific. Even if it is only skin-deep it is linked to other genetic markers that - together - tells of a long time in isolation - from ANY southern ancestors. (Remenber that if only one tropical lover would arrive - but in every 5th-10th generation - the dominant genes from their off-springs would radically change the entire process - keeping it off any typological mutation)

Add that these Caucasoids also have developed a distinctive culture - based on the arctic nature and the arctic climate - and you have what I called "the arctic condition".

Today we know that they came out of ice-time with these characteristics - populating the arctic Eurasia incredibly fast - we have to re-consider the origin of the northern populations. Even if we feel that Trans-Caucasia should be the navel of the civilized world.

Thus we have arctical popualtions that still have characteristics indowed in their etnicity, language and  culture. Just as the aborigninals, - on the other fringe of the world. Moreover, just as Aboriginals still exist across the Australian continent - you still find the Caucasians along the northern hemisphere of Eurasia. There shouldnt be any cause to deny that - as little as there should be any doubt that the old tribes of Northern Europe were - once - branches from a common, arctic origin.