Scandinavia was originally inhabited by a mix of paleolithic peoples migrating from Central/Eastern and Western Europe. They would later have been joined by smaller Neolithic people migrating from the East.

I think Denmark is more a part of Germany than Scandinavia, prehistorically speaking. 

1. In the 4th milennium BCE, pre-IE peoples from Ukraine move northwards to the Baltic shores and then to Denamrk and Sweden creating a hybrid culture (central Sweden is colonized then)
2. In the 3rd milennium BCE, IE peoples known variously as the Battle Axe peoples and the Corded Ware people expand into all Central Europe from Belarus to Western Germany. A variation of them (the Individual Burials culture) takes over the Scandinavian region. This is one of the moments that can be considered at the origin of Germanic linguistic group.
3. In the Bronze Age (c. 1300 BCE) the IE peoples of the Urnfields culture, stabilished north of the Alps expand in deferent directions, influencing the Nordic and East-Central European (IE) cultures. I'm uncertain if this influence can be considered as a invasion or not. If so, it could be another startpoint of Germanization.
   

The Franks ancestors didn't originate from scandinavia but the caucasus. Only the Goths I think were nordic.

Greece may have the leap on the rest of Europe in many areas, but when it comes to inventing fiction histories, the Greek goverment is a mere upstart, less than 150 years. In the rest of Europe it's been going on in some parts for a millenia.

Actually there is nothing that truly decisively showed that the Franks actually conquered territories from the Gallo-romans other than kingdom of Syagrius. Below is the ultimate proof that the Franks represented a considerable proportion of the population of northern Gaul prior to the fall of rome.

The vast majority of Frankish graves were in fact in northern France although it is traditionally believed the Franks came from the exterior as an invader. There are evidences the Franks weren't like any other barbarians and weren't much like a foreign entity, foreign to northern Gaul (graves of 20% or more of Frankish mingled with the Gauls were frequent prior to the barbarian in northern Gaul). It could actually have been a rebellion in northern France, the Franks no longer accepting romans rule. The Frank didn't overun Northern gaul but shielded it. The Franks in fact were an obscure tribe during the barbarian invasion. Remember Clovis Capital was in tournai (Wallonia, a celtic stronghold) before he moved it to Paris. It is now believed that Syagrius lasted only that long because of the Franks shielded them from the barbarian.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v286/TemplarX2/?">

http://photobucket.com/albums/v286/TemplarX2/?">

How else would you explain, all tribes of northern Gaul rallied behind the Franks and not the burgunds, Goth or any other clan. How else can you explain the north and south divide of France where all agricultural tools in the north have Frankish name  while in the south they have romans name.

How else would explain tyhe Franks favoured wine production over beer production and have law to protect vineyard from raid?

The Franks being Germanic is propaganda bullsh!t  by celtophobes and the enemies of France. Although I don't deny their germanic culture, racially anything near western germany or eastern France proved to have a high frequency of "Celtic" genes.

Race over culture. 

My post is coherent; it is you that isn't getting the point. He claimed the Franks overran Northern Gauls, when in reality the Franks were already embedded into the Gallic society prior to the barbarian invasion. Northern Gaul readily rallied behind the Franks. Why would that be? Why didn't they rally behind the Goths, burgundian or behind even Syagrius. This was because the people could relate to the Franks and not the Goths, burgundians or even the romans.

The simple fact that all agricultural tools in northern gaul have Frankish names proved that even the peasantry were of Frankish or more precisely of Franco-Gallic origin.

Saying the Franks were merely germanic is an abomination and degradation of the French heritage which includes our beloved franks (make no mistake about that.) That anti-french propaganda must cease. History is well known to be little more than a lie, time to re-establish the truth.

My point is the Frank is nothing like the other barbarians for the follwoing reason:

1. They preferred wine over beer and had laws that protect vineyard.

2. The Franks was the from areas that had strong celtic population.

3. The Franks had been labelled as Galli by the romans.

 I do not deny the Franks were culturally germanic, but racially they were more akin to the Gaul as every tribes that bordered the Franco-Germans regions were and their ultimate origin isn't scandinavia. They picked the culture when they transited through germany.

THe sicambri (most rulers of the Frank claimed the decend from) were original a scythian tribe not an scandinavian tribe. get that straight. Germanic isn't a race but a mosaic of races from all other a wide area.

Extract

The Sicambri (var. Sicambres, Sigambrer, Sugumbrer, Sugambri) were originally a Scythian or Cimmerian tribe who once inhabited the mouth of the river Danube. The Merovingian kings claimed their descent from the Sicambri, asserting that this tribe had changed their name to "Franks" in 11 BC under the leadership of a certain chieftain called "Franko". The Merovingians traced their Sicambrian origins from Marcomir I, king of the Cimmerians (died 412 BC), and ultimately to the kings of Troy, but this list of rulers is not accepted as historical.

The West Germanic tribe of the Sigambrer (Sicambri) appear around 55 BC, during the time of the Roman Empire, on the right bank of the Rhine between the rivers Ruhr and Sieg, in an area that is today part of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The river Sieg, as well as the city of Siegen, were said to be named for this tribe.

In 11 BC, they were forced by Nero Claudius Drusus to move to the left side of the Rhine, where they evidently formed a central component of the confederacy of Franks. Their new homeland was located in what is now the region of Gelderland in the Netherlands, on the lower Rhine river.

Gregory of Tours states that the Frankish leader Clovis, on the occasion of his baptism into the Catholic faith in 496, was referred to as Sicamber by the officiating bishop of Rheims -- recalling again the link between the Sugambri and Clovis' ancestors, the Merovingian royal house of the Franks.

The Sicambri (var. Sicambres, Sigambrer, Sugumbrer, Sugambri) were originally a Scythian or Cimmerian tribe who once inhabited the mouth of the river Danube. The Merovingian kings claimed their descent from the Sicambri, asserting that this tribe had changed their name to "Franks" in 11 BC under the leadership of a certain chieftain called "Franko". The Merovingians traced their Sicambrian origins from Marcomir I, king of the Cimmerians (died 412 BC), and ultimately to the kings of Troy, but this list of rulers is not accepted as historical.

The West Germanic tribe of the Sigambrer (Sicambri) appear around 55 BC, during the time of the Roman Empire, on the right bank of the Rhine between the rivers Ruhr and Sieg, in an area that is today part of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The river Sieg, as well as the city of Siegen, were said to be named for this tribe.

In 11 BC, they were forced by Nero Claudius Drusus to move to the left side of the Rhine, where they evidently formed a central component of the confederacy of Franks. Their new homeland was located in what is now the region of Gelderland in the Netherlands, on the lower Rhine river.

Gregory of Tours states that the Frankish leader Clovis, on the occasion of his baptism into the Catholic faith in 496, was referred to as Sicamber by the officiating bishop of Rheims -- recalling again the link between the Sugambri and Clovis' ancestors, the Merovingian royal house of the Franks.

It is you that is clearly confused and incapable of grasping the nuance in my argument.

Yes they were allowed to settle in Northern Gaul prior to the barbarian invasion, and who is denying that? Tell me who. So during the barbarian invasion, there were a large already a large population of Franks inhabiting Northern Gaul (The Frankish impact on Northern French agriculture proved so). IF the Franks (or Franco-Gauls by the time of the Barbarian invasion) were insiders, how can you truly speak of invasion? And the Franks fought hard against the first wave of barbarians, preventing the kingdom of Syagrius from collapsing. Are you getting that? Here is how Gaul looked like after the first wave of barbarians. Took note how Gaul collapsed in the south but not in the north. When the Franks took control of Gaul, their first objective was to clear the barbarian from the land. They suceeded against the Goth but not against the burgundians -- which was a mistake since the Burgundians were a pain in the @ss of France for a long long time.

 After the Franks (no barbarians)

Franc = Frank

Wisigoth = Visigoth

Burgondie = burgundy

1) First you say that Franks were culturally distinct, then you say that cultural identification isn't important.

Again you are confused. Yes, I said they were culturally distinct, but for race matters most over culture. Norman clans are like Family and blood over everything else.

2) First you say that Franks were Celtic and then you say that Franks are Scythian. The last time I checked, Scythians weren't Celtic.

More confusion from your part. I said the Frank were racially celtic overwhemingly and that on racial term, since they resided in areas that were traditionally by celts. And their ultimate origins (ultimate as as far as they could remember is scythian, how hard is that to understand.

Celtic Genes ???????????

I take it you're using 19th century genetic science.

But Franks were  ''brothers'' of those that you call barbarians.They were both germanics.They had germanic names,germanic customs.The only thing that differentiated them from their Burgundian or Gothic ''brothers'' was the fact that they were foederati  which means that they were in the service of Rome,they were allies of Rome.Nothing else.On the contrary,the Burgundians and the Goths were not allies of Rome

In my opinion culture matters over race.Especially in France there were so many people who invaded this place that it is not very wise to speak only about celtic genes and celtic racial purity.
If as you say race is more important than culture then why you regard the Normans as Franks,since they were Scandinavians?

This is science fiction.You remind me of a forumer who was trying to prove that the slavs always existed in the Balkans with various names even  in antiquity.
These theories are absurd.They have no logical basis.
Francs can't have been celts.

Reading the head-title of this topic - it seems that this discussion is trapped in the confusion of the tid-bit opinions of various, ancient Mediterranean texts, combined with the interpretation of traces from neolittic ceramics.

Maybe another angle can be helpful, which is this;

Germans - along with other groups north of the Pyrenees, Alps, Balkans and Caucasia - are certainly arctic. All these people have adapted - and specialized -  to an arctic climate,  to the extent that it has endowed in their very genetic material.  Further they have developed a life-form that makes it possible to survive in the arctic nature.

Given the premisses of a long-term habitation all these people have been developing certain culture,  - and even some specific physical features - such as; 1. An improved ability to absorb sun-rays (pale skin), 2. A specific ability to digest milk-protein and sugar  3. An extraordianry amount of blody-hair.

This is a set of features are today genetical, which prives that the arctic conditions have evolved into a mutation. Genes dont jump out of their settings - to mutate. Only a specific and long-term change of surroundings can make a body start mutating. The process leading up to permanently changed genotypes - do indeed require a large number of generations. Especially with the complex animals, such as mammals and primates.

Moreover, for the Caucasians to evolve it would require a permanent isolation. Otherwise the cross-breeding with any tropical relatives would stop the specific mutation from proceeding. Still today we see that tropical genes are dominant to arctical. When a tropical and an artical inter-breed their children will be dominantly tropic. Even when to caucasians breed, and one of them have "tropical", brown eyes; 3 of 4 children will have brown eyes and only one will have blue or green.

(A study from England recently made headlines, prognosing that - due to the present globalisation - the last blue-eyed blondie will probably be born about two geberations from now... 

The reason for the dominance of "tropical genes" have alwasy puzzeled etnologists. Until they came to think of the obvious, that  once upon the time we were all tropical.  Pale people just didnt exist - before a smal subgroup were stricitly isolated - under arctic conditions.

To be able to explain the arctic populus we have to find a place and a time, where a limited group of the original Eurasian,  was forced to endure a strict, long-term isolation. This will require a far look back, into the realms of the Euraisan ice-time, and the very first traces of modern man in Europe.

That done, we may explain the origin the arctic proto-population, that in time spread - like branches along the northern hemisphere - becomming "Schytians", "Roski", "Ugrian", "Finns", "Swedes", "Gots", "Danes", "Germans", "Francs", "Celts", "Basques", "Berbers", "Anglons", Saxons", "Welsh", "Picts" and "Scots". Not to forget the rest of the Atantic islanders.

Thus I suggest that you may have a search for the results from modern archeology, signifying where the populations of the Upper Paleolittic and the Mesolittic cultures - of the northen hemisphere - did occur. There are already a row of results from Northern Europe and Caucasia, so it should definitly be possible to determine where the first traces of modern man -of the northern hemifphere  - is to be found. That were the Germans, too, would have to come from...  

Maju,

So how do you explain the arctical characteristics?

yes and people south of those regions are uberer since they can withstand and thrive in the conditions of the mentioned PLUS endure a hot climate without turning into beetroot and suffering sun stroke.

Kermanshah - -20 c in winter + 40c in the summer = ubermenchen.

genetic mapping shows that most euros are descended from Central Asian migrations and others from Asia Minor via the Balkans (which would be the group you are describing).

The view based upon evidential archaeological and paleontological finds is that Europeans took the shortest route from Africa, through Palestine, Turkey and the Balkans and went nowhere near central Asia.

The UK DNA-Bioscience centre's genetic migration map seems to support their view too.

How old is that? 

This is what i am referring to; You see M173, I put the mouse cursor over it, that is the marker r1a from which r1b (most common in western and north western Europe) emerged.  You can also see two routes incomming from Turkey, who are thought to be the neolithic farmers.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html - https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

R1a also shoots down into India from Central Asia and one branch goes off into deep Siberia and over the barrents straight into North America, almost all Amerindian males descend from this line too.

Isn't this "old news" by now?

September 06, 2001
Humans Lived North of the Arctic Circle During Last Ice Age

http://codesign.scu.edu/anthroweb2/027/page7.html - http://codesign.scu.edu/anthroweb2/027/page7.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;303/5654/52 - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;303/5654/ 52

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleoamericans.html - http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleoamericans.html

*************

PS: I would really apreciate if you could be able to keep Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg and their collegues out of this discussion.

As far as I know they are all dead - and long gone from modern academia. If Komnenos insists to discuss his "ringing bells" - please take that in another forum, if the intention is to keep this somewhat scientific.

Best regards

Zagros,

The habitats in question are early examples of the culture that came to populate the northern hemisphere, as the glaciers of ice-time receeded.

20.000 yrs BP they are found in the White Sea and the Baltic.

12.-15.000 yrs BP they are in Scandinavia and Northern Europe. At the same time they appear in the arctic part of America.

10.000 BP they had populated the islands of the North Atlantic.

8.500 BP they had already created the first known "megalithic civilisation" of Northern Europe  (Germany-Balkans).

---

According to present results from the European Genome Project the Scandinvian population, as well as the islanders - haven't changed notably over the last 10.000 years. Same with the Basques, - which are also explained to "originate from the first migrational wave of hunter-gathers".

---

Since Mesolithic time we see two mainlines of culture spreading in Eurasia, one western and one eastern. The border line is clearly related to the river Wizla (Weichsel) in todays Poland. Curiously we find the same divisional line in Scandinavia - between the Finns (east) and the Swedes/Norwegians.

This east-west border - from Scandinavia to Transylvania - is still seen in the etnographical and linguistical characteristics of Northern Europe. The Scandinavian Torne is still dividing Scandinavians and Finno-Ugrians - establishing that they have co-existed - as neigbours - for the last 10.000 years.

---

A third group of people are the "Mongul" populations, who originated  in the area of Tibet. As the Eurasian ice-cap meltetd along the Ural mountain-chain they migrated northwards - finally arriving at the Arctic Ocean. From where they spread both east and west, creating 12 tribes (!) around the arctic area. Thus we have Lappish people in Scandinavia, Samojeds (etc) in Russia, Inuits (etc.) in Cananda and Eskimos on Greenland.

Still there is no scientist suggesting that the arctical Europeans descended from monguls. The reasons why are simple, plain and obvious - to anyone with a  basic understanding of the possible models for early Eurasian migrations.

---

You may still choose to believe otherwise - but arctical Eurasians are far better fit - both physically and culturally - to endure the arctic winters than are any African tribe. Because they were - once upon the time - forced to adjust to it.

I am sorry if these discoveries should upset you emotionally or otherwise - but I guess we have to learn to live with the results modern science are proving before us. If new pictures show new and unknown forms and features of an old, misty landscape, we may benefit from adjusting the old maps rather than the new photos.

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.

The genetic evidence (so far, check time meter on genographic site) suggests that the first migrations were from Central Asia, the ones through Turkey appear to only be between 5-10k years old.

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,   

Zagros,

1. So your suggestion is that the Lapps actually invented the Solutrean artefacts?

2. Where are the proofs hereof?

3. Why does all official Scandinavian history (the Fenno-Ugrian included) tell us otherwise?

So you'd say Maqdalenian culture came from Central Asia. How about Solutrean and Gravettian.

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.

Zagros,

Quote;

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

Whats the signinficance of M383? Please explain - or give a link that does.

---

2. Official history of N. Europe and Scandinavia starts with the first settlers from Paleolithic time.  Off course. Today we even have to include the pre-boreal populations - that lived here 120.000 years ago already.

The new discoveries I have reffered to are obviusly part of that history - although it is still limited to academical documents and discussions. But ALL the results I have reffered to are official - of course.

What you think is - I am afraid - not that significant. What you further think about my possible motives, etc. is rather speculative - congruating insults.

quote, Zagros:

"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."

That kind of remark are nothing but outrigth slander - from which you should refrain in an open forum. Moreover; It doesnt even touch the issue if this discussion. Speak for youself - and stop ducking my questions.

---

3. Genetical surveys of the Fenno-Ugrian population states - very clearly - that it is NOT Mongloid - but "Central European".  Besides, where are the genealogocal ties between Bismarck and Finno-Ugians?!

Outright slander? hardly... they were conclusions based on what you yourself wrote, dunno why you're so touchy, you went off topic with some silly remark about me being upset by the theories you purported.

I can tear apart what you said and pull out the ambiguous comments which led me to say what I did, if you like, and if i am slandering, then there is veritas in the defamation.

And I will look over what you said again and see what I ducked, after dinner, if I have the time.

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. 

shortly founded pics and mosaics of the rhine-area

or did they really come from spain ?

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.engelchen.de/lucia/bilder/lucia0203.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.engelchen.de/lucia/lucia02.htm&h=217&w=194&sz=6&tbnid=bmY9jQOdnv3NiM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=90&hl=de&start=61&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2Bgermanen%26start%3D60%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN -

or from spain,however ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creswell_Crags - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creswell_Crags

Maju, Zargos

Dr. Cavalli-Sforza was a practical man. Consequently he linked his entire frame-work of genetical haplogroups to the "Out of Africa-theory".

Dr. Spencer Wells was one of his best students/co-workers. Today his into a large project with National Geographic - trying to trace down the whereavouts of the human migrations.

Today Wells is a famous jet-set-researcher/publisher/writer. In one of his maps he even concludes that the haplogroup 18b arrived in Europe some 40.000 years ago - inside the Cro-Magnons.

Zargos seem to believe that we Lapps and the Eskimos descends from the Cro-Magnons. 

Maju seem to believe that the same gen-marker created the west-coast populations of Europe. They are both sure that the present working-model of Dr. Wells are presenting irrefutible facts.

---

Among genticians Cavalli-Sforza's work is commonly regarded. As one of many.  But there are still a lot left to do before the genetical field - by themselves - can decide on the real-time values of genetical abrevations and mutations within the human genome. Consequently the base ALL their timelines on Archeological results - and their consequent hypothesis'.

Within antropology the "Out-of-Africa-theory" is highly - and increasingly - disputed. Evry reader of Scientific American knows that. 

Get some headbashers, Zargosus, and rip their brains apart. MAYBE that will give you some new knowledge - for a change.  Unless you've already found the eternal enligthment of wisdom, that is.

Before Creswell Crags came along the line was "humans were driven out and no habitation during the big freeze". Now it's being rewritten year by year and discovery by discovery, who knows where it will lead. At first the dig showed habitation continued long after the big freeze. Now it seems to show rehabitation began long before the big ice age ended. However the break in habitation for tens of thousands of years still exists, just it's been snipped away at the edges. I doubt if Creswell Crags will ever close it either, but may shorten it more. So I think after Creswell Crags we can modify "humans were driven out and no habitation during the big freeze" to "humans were driven out and no habitation in the middle of the big freeze"

Unanswered questions though and whats really interesting is why did the rehabitants settle at Creswell Crags again after thousands of years of absences ? Coincidence? Or a continued habitation connection? And where dig the exodus go to and the pre-end of ice age reinhabitants come from. Were the really southern Europeans or a more northerly people retreating on to northern France?

No, I don't, you just have no idea what i am talking about because you don't have a  deep enough knowledge on the matter or are just imbittered and are skewing my words--- Just because i state Central Asia as the migratory origin, you seem to assume by that I mean the migrants were Mongoloid. Look at that weblink i posted a while ago, it is compiled from Dr. Spencer Wells' research and everything I have said is based on my itnerpretation of his work.

Lapps, Inuits etc are Arctic people but they had nothing to with modern Euros north of the regions YOU mentioned.  The part of Central Asia I refer to were inhabited by Caucasoids and the r1b who migrated to Europe were defiantely Caucasoid, but NOT Arctic people, Arctic people are archetypally, as Maju stated, Inuits, they are, physiologically,  the best adapted to the conditons of such a clime.

Some Lapps:

These are the Inuit types of which I speak who have mixed in with Caucasoids in N Europe, to varying degrees.

I have no doubt they could have been inhabited at the edge of a glaciation ... as I mentioned, it is possible to inhabit where there is access to water, or where seasonal melting occurs. But it is simply not possible for year-round glaciation, such as at the pole, to support anything other than micro-organisms. There are no plants, and access to liquid water is not possible due to the thickness of the ice. Exodus did occur in Britain during glaciation.

I don't think a connection is supported. They must just be a good site. The site was inhabited in Roman times, and even in post-medieval times. I strongly doubt it's connected to the habitation of 10 000 BC, even though, it is closer in time to the habitation of 30 000 BC.

Sorry Maju,

It's your OPINION against presented, well-documented proofs of archaology. Try again.

Quote Zagros:

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

Quote Zargos;

Lapps

Quote Zargos;

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

Quote Stephen Wells;

"Western Europe's major line is the M383(R1b) are directly descended from the Cro-Magnon people who became the continents first human beings 35.000 years ago"

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html - https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

Quote Zargos;

No, I don't, you just have no idea what i am talking about because you don't have a  deep enough knowledge on the matter or are just imbittered and are skewing my words--- Just because i state Central Asia as the migratory origin, you seem to assume by that I mean the migrants were Mongoloid. Look at that weblink i posted a while ago, it is compiled from Dr. Spencer Wells' research and everything I have said is based on my itnerpretation of his work. 

---

Btw; Where - according to Your interpretation - do we find the origin of the Mongloids?!?!

Do I really have to ask you re-read my former posts?!

Like this passage;

"Most anthropologists say modern people–our direct ancestors–were just arriving in Europe from the south at the time and didn't colonize the far north until near the end of the last Ice Age 13,000 or 14,000 years ago. Neanderthals, the original "cavemen" who occupied Europe for at least 150,000 years before modern humans arrived, were certainly capable of producing the simple implements found at Mamontovaya Kurya. But all previous evidence puts them much farther south. "It could have been Neanderthals," says Jan Mangerud, a Norwegian geologist who works with the Mamontovaya Kurya team. "But no one thought they could live that far north."

Further evidence came up already 2004. See above.

No need to move here and there, Maju. My axiom is very clear - and you do already know it. Then please just look - and observe what your eyes are telling you - before you close them again.  Ice-age Europe didnt really look the way we all thought - when these and other new results started appearing some 15 years ago.

Today this new paradigm of paleolithic time have been verified - times over. Even students of antropology have to face this in their present curriculums. Still it may take a year or two before the geneticians are able to cope with it. So you may have some time for bashing and ridicule - until the National Wells Fargo-express are able to run the revised models of the human migration-patterns on global media.

Mjau,

I am sorry, but I didnt know that you could know the thruth of these matters better than every other archeologist. And I am still surprised that not even reality can make you change one of your preconceived opinions.

quote, Maju:

"You're saying nonsense: that some artifacts have been found in a pre-glaciar period in Scandinavia means nothing: H. Sapiens was then still in Africa! That's the date of "mithocodrial Eve"! There are no human (H. Sapiens) remains out of Africa until at least 90,000 BCE (Palestine)!"

Once more; Do you really think that this is a case where all factors are known, PROVEN and completed?!  In case how-when-where, and to what extent?

Mjau, quote:

"If those weren't Neanders and they are actual arctifacts it must have been some other branch of H. Erectus... But I bet for Neanders, as they seem very well adapted to cold."

 Anyhow, you're building a castle of air on nothing. You can't just bring ahead a weird theory on a mutant Nordic race on a handful of stone tools only. That's just smoke-writting: it can't stand."

"Weird" - what  kind of term is that? And, btw. this is no theory of mine. (Unfortunately I cant even take credit for any part of it...)

Placing bets are off course another matter - just don't call it science, fact and proof.  Just remember the old rule; don*t speak to soon - while the wheel is still in spin. This one has actually just started moving - and it is obvious that these discoveries represents a new facade to your window of competence. Including the matter of milk-digestion.

Edgewaters wrote;

"You're misinterpreting the data. They are correct to say our ancestors are from the c. 13000 BP era. Sites like Yana refer to one of many inhabitations of the north during interglacial periods, sites which were abandoned during glacial events. Given its location, it is further likely that this was inhabited by Mongoloids, not Caucasians."

And on what grounds do you build such an assumption, Sir?

My interpretations are basicly conclusions reached from various faculties -Russian, English, American and Scandinavian. There are none of them reffering these Mesolittic or Paleolithic sites to the mongloid culture. Because the items and structures found simply point in the oposite durection. You havent even viewed the material in question - or the repports thereof - and still you think that you are able to postulate the origin of these items and this culture? 

On top of that you place the next presumption, that I am the one "mis-interpretating the data".  Why should your "interpretation" be more valid than the one I prescribed? Except from being "yours"?!

You sure are such a cutie, Mjau.

These are all VERY convincing arguments. You just brougth this conversation - as well as this topic and this forum - to a new level. Much like Hitler did - when he ran out of arguments. He turned demagogical and started shouting. Sorry I just didnt understand that you were that desperate to defend your "superior position" as a Guru around here. This is nothing but nasty agression - to overrun an argument that dont fit with your lower self. Completly out of ethics.

Moreover, it plays the entire discussion - about these discoveries - rigth into the hands of the Neo-nazies. It's frightening to see that you dont understand that - unless you side with the neo-facists?!

---

The purpose of this thread is to have a serious discussion about the origin of the German tribes. That neccesarily includes the question about the north-europeans in general, which consequently require a closer look at the oldest civilisations or cultures known to have been inhabitting the arctic and sub-arctic hemisphere.

Thus an update on the most recent discoveries are obviously due. Any serious participant knows that it is imminent to discuss this issue without the presence of old, twisted paraphrases - or new-born demagogics - both serving as political arguments. Modern German science do not deserve that kind of treatment - and sure not the Scandinvian.

More mongloids?

http://www.susiluola.fi/eng/archaeology.php - http://www.susiluola.fi/eng/archaeology.php

More non-existing mutants?

http://sydaby.eget.net/eng/wolf/wolf_ralf.htm - http://sydaby.eget.net/eng/wolf/wolf_ralf.htm

Originally posted by Maju Schulz closed his article in Populär Arkeologi by pointing out that many years ago people in Central Europe found the remains of a neanderthal man who lived more than 250,000 years ago. "With this background one can perhaps guess that these visitors to the Wolf Cave were an earlier edition of the neanderthal man." Neanderthal-thal-thal-thal...!!! Why are you making us waste our time?!

Judging from your latest posts (above) you certainly don't waste time in producing contempt.  Basing your outlines on premature conclusions, heresay and guesses. Just look at the way you used the last quote - to start your infameous bashing again - with no other substance than Mr. Schultz' hintful suggestion. Taken out of it's rigthful context - of course.

You better ask yourself why you keep using time offending other people's intelligence and common sense - not to say your own ditto. Insisting on a point of view doesn't make it more true.

They gonna keep wondering - because the enigmatic discoveries here reffered - have led leading antropologists to seriously question the present paradigms, based on the OoA-theory. 

Thus I presented these repports - in due order,  so that the readers of this forum-thread should know about them, rather than not.  Inbetween I state what they all point to, - in terms of Nordic and North-European origin. Which are imminently relevant to any adequate analyzis concerning the possible genesis of IE man.

These findings are new facts. Your rabulations are all based on the old/well-known theories. What do you really KNOW about the time-line of Homo Sapies? How much history of science have you studied in order to understand the origin and true basis of these time-lines? In other words; what is the qualitative proofs for h.s.sapiens being 150.000 Yrs? Where are the references of the three independant, double-checked lab-works establishing this time-line? And what are your proof that no older remain of h.s.s. lays hidden around somewhere? How can you exclude such a possibility - by bluntly stating that H.s.s. did not exist - before he showed up in the Levant some 90.000 yrs ago.

Two example more - could possibly make you understand the right question - at least.

In the summer of 2000, when the world press arrived in Sydney for the Olympics - the Australians gave them a dossier on Australian history, starting with the Aboriginals. There they explained that only a year prior to the games a team of Australian antropologers and archologist had completed a six year project - concluding that the oldest site with Aborginal Yeti-items were TL-dated to 140.000 yrs BP.

35 years ago Virginnia Steen-McIntyre, Dr. of Geology, repported a discovery of arrow-heads, tusks and animal bones in the geological strata of Valsequillo Bassin. In 1967 already. 11 years later she was as sure as sure could be - and she went on to publish the evidences - even if they were "way out of the ordinary"; namely 240.000-360.000 years old.  

Mainstream science were shocked. "Horrendously incredible, off course. "Nonsense. Utter garbage. Dangerously misleading of the public. Deceptive!" Etc., etc. Thus she was sacked from her position, and banned among the leading universities - even if she was one of Anericas top ten geologists - only a year before. And those sackers - defending their positions and salaries first - are the ones you trust, unto fundamental proportions?!   http://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/ - http://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/

At the end of the day you need to explain your frame of reference by yourself.  Then how are you incorporating;

1) The 130-140.000 years old Yetis of Australia and Tasmania? As erectus, heidelbegensis or sapiens?

2) The 40.000 years old Amerindians? Their 340.000 years old ancestors?

What have Dr. Wells told you about this - and where does he place them demograpically?

Warkany reports that while most persons with caudal appendages showed normal general development. How can evolutionary theory and modern gentics help us explain that? 

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=210 - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view &ID=210

The Human Genetics

“Humbling” was the prevalent adjective used by the scientific teams and the media to describe the principal finding – that the human genome contains not the anticipated 100,000 - 140,000 genes (the stretches of DNA that direct the production of amino-acids and proteins) but only some 30,000+ -- little more than double the 13,601 genes of a fruit fly and barely fifty percent more than the roundworm’s 19,098. What a comedown from the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life!

Moreover, there was hardly any uniqueness to the human genes. They are comparative to not the presumed 95 percent but to almost 99 percent of the chimpanzees, and 70 percent of the mouse. Human genes, with the same functions, were found to be identical to genes of other vertebrates, as well as invertebrates, plants, fungi, even yeast. The findings not only confirmed that there was one source of DNA for all life on Earth, but also enabled the scientists to trace the evolutionary process – how more complex organisms evolved, genetically, from simpler ones, adopting at each stage the genes of a lower life form to create a more complex higher life form – culminating with Homo sapiens.

But; Darwinian evolution relies on random point mutations to produce evolved organisms. As mathematician David Belinski points out, Darwinian theories appear far too weak to have brought about the remarkable structures evident in living creatures. If one assumes that all life arose out of random generations of proteins then there’s a problem.

First of all, every known example of genetic mutation either produces no noticeable change or causes death (or in rare cases undoes the mistake of a past mutation). Yet, Darwinian evolution relies on random point mutations creating lots of biological advantages. The ratio of useful proteins to possible random proteins is 1:10500. Therefore, barring incredible luck, it would take about 10500 trials to produce one useful protein when a cell needs a minimum of one to two thousand proteins. Hence, life appeared on earth (and evolved) far too quickly for the present timelines - based on Darwinian theory of evolution - to be completely correct.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web1/baird.html - http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web1/baird.htm l

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------

Tropic Origin - Arctic Culture

A very important point in case is raised by cell-biologist Stephen Rothman, pin-pointing that adaptive qualities belong to organisms, not genes. It’s the animal that must cope with jungle, desert or ocean, not the genome tucked away in its cozy nuclear compartment. Darwinian evolution makes sense because it places the organism, not DNA, at the center of the action.

"Neo-Darwinism" - on the other hand - is reductionistic. As with machines, the most easy way to understand an organism is to “reduce” it — level it, you might say — recasting it in terms of its parts. Then, in turn, they are “reduced” to their separate parts, and describes as parts. Then the overall functioning do not require an explanation - because once the exact nature of the parts and their interactions is accounted for, the whole picture automatically falls into place.

Evolution exists, but pinning down timelines is complicated and difficult. Moreover,  the basic understanding of genetics is still fresh and incomplete. Thus we need to be very careful about drawing conclusive answers about the causes, as well as the structure and its effects - concerning the human genome. Concluding time-lines, speciation and possible locations and migrations of different (etnic) genotypes - based on bio-chemistry alone - is nothing but premature. 

To establish relevant time-lines we are still entirely dependant on archeological results  - and the adquate dating, respectively. These dating-techniques are, per se, a pretty new and still not well confirmed - although they are improving. Consequently we still don't have no simple or absolute timelines to neither the origin of man, nor the orgin of the respective etnicities. Besides the classical etnology, the new archeological evidence and their proximate dating.

Thus there are no scientific basis for cathegoric conclusions regarding the origin of man - as there are no conclusive evidents about the time or place for the genesis of the Eurasian populations. Except for the plain and obvious demographic fact that they have adapted to the arctic hemisphere - both physically and culturally - and the massive amount of archeological sites that have thouroughly established that this happened well before the end of ice-time. 

There are no reason to let outdated theories, etnic interests, twisted politics or fundamental convictions stand in the way of that reality. 

Rebuilding Germany's Temple of

the Sun

Ancient farmers may have used the observatory to check the seasons

A project to faithfully reconstruct a 7,000 year-old solar observatory, the oldest of its kind in Europe, began this week at Goseck in the German state of Saxony.

1. Not my imagination. Not even my suggestion. But one I find well worth considering -  see my introductory reply. I think we all understand that you dont find it relevant. Your thoughts about it are overwhelmingly exposed already. The pics above still tells whose body.temperature -

2.  The mammal apendages was a curious comment to your former report from "Nowhereland". My point was that the article argues that the present timeline of evolution if the higher mammals are way off - if evolutionary genetics is to explain the origin and speciation of primates.

3. Unless you find the article seriously relevant - indicating that the human ancestors are a cross-breed between a male monkey and a female dolphin, whale or goat. According to the present genetical context...

Please feel free to further that case wherever you FEEL like...

4. Known for long? The article above were posted last year.

 A) It is no more than a handfull of years since the megalths of Northern Europe were duely mapped - giving an outline overview. The word "civilisation" was not used before Renfrew published his monumnental works 2000 and 2002.  The understanding of this complex-matter is still growing - quite rapidly - as old information is reconsidered, dated and understood, while new sites are discovered and excavated.  We have MUCH more to learn here - before we are anywhere near the conclusive matters. Thus it is obviously premature to conclude the way you do.

Besides (quote) "... known for a long time already", isn't that much of an argument really. The sun have been known even longer and our understanding about it is still tiny. But I know all about it - I even know that it always shine, - yes,yes, yes - even when it rains.

B) I guess you have a waterproof line of evidence that NONE of these megaliths were ever touched by "germans", but by "celts". I guess you have Caesar's and Aenid*s word for that? Or Jordanes, perhaps?

So where did the "German" tribes occur - and when did they arrive in "Germania" - accordong to your opinion?! I guessl you can present a "Celtic genotype", genuinly different from a consequent "German genotype" to substantiate your imaginative claims.

---

Meanwhile I migth see you jogging, between "Pan-Celtia" and "The Eleusian Fields". Have a Snickers sometime.

This Boreas guy is good for a laugh.

The only people who adhere to Multiregionalism nowdays are racists, and cranks like Wolpoff who ignore very good genetic evidence and instead rely on skelatal "evidence" that I consider a case of seeing what they want to see. Multiregionalism also goes against evolutionary biology and population genetics, The Old World was too big for pre-modern hominids to stay one species. The mtDNA found in Neandertal remains show that the African and Eurasian populations of H. heidelbergensis had already become isolated into  pre-Neandertal (in Eurasia) and pre-modern (in Africa) populations respectively by 500,000 years ago, the populations were reproductively isolated from then on.

The "mongoloid" features of the Sami don't seem that strong, prehaps their features are the result of thouroughly caucasian Finno-Ugric speakers migrating northward from central and eastern Europe at the end of the last ice age mixing with "mongoloid" arctic hunters and fishermen from Siberia (the same expansion of arctic people that gave rise to the Inuit, prehaps?).

Modern Germanic people are decendants of mesolithic Finnic people that "converted" to Indo-European religion, customs, and language. The sound shift known as Grimm's Law may be a result of Finnic speakers taking up Late PIE. Proto-Germanic also seems to have taken up a huge amount of Finnic vocabulary, king, knight, north, south, east, west, and sea, for example, all seem to be derived from Finnic languages (look up "Germanic Substrate Hypothesis" on Wiki for more info).

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much difference in physical difference between Finns and, say, Norwegians. Also, as I posted in the Finno-Ugric thread, Uralic may not have a tree pattern like IE, but be like a braided river, with the Y marker being from Ugrians moving west into Finnic territory, with Finnic and Ugric speakers becoming more similar to each other through borrowing (and Lapps and Samoyeds switching to Uralic tonges from previous languages). I'm guessing Germans are different genetically from scandinavians since thier ancestors were part of the Madelanian sphere of influence, eventually becoming the central European Celts when the IEians came through, and then were Germanized when the Proto-West Germanic speakers moved into the region during the classical period (I remeber reading that the cultural transition zone between Germanic and Celtic was quite wide, maybe representing recent Germanization).