Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

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

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
Author
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who were ancestors of Germanic tribes and where did they come fr
    Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 07:50

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

France proved to have a high frequency of "Celtic" genes.

 

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

 

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



Edited by Paul
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
RomiosArktos View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
  Quote RomiosArktos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 09:36
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl



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.


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


Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl


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.

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?



Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl



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.


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.

 

 





Edited by RomiosArktos
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 10:10
So just because the Franks fought for the Romans it means that they were Celtic? A lot of Huns fought for the Romans too. Does that mean the Huns must have been Celtic too?

Race is something that people like to fantasize about to support their historical fantasies.

What matters is the culture because culture is how people looked at others in the past and can be deduced from records.

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.


Tell me how you change from Scythian to Cetic. Not understandable at all
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 14:21
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

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.



As we are playing copy and paste, with no means of verifying the sources, here is another explanation of the origins of the Sicambri/Sugambri, one that might surprise you.

When the Roman general Julius Caesar reached the Rhine in the summer of 58 BCE, he accepted this river as the frontier between his conquests in Gaul and the region that he left to the Germanic tribes. This suggests that the river was a real border between the Celtic culture of Gaul and the Germanic culture across the Rhine. This is wrong. The tribes on the eastern bank spoke a language that resembled Celtic and, archaeologically speaking, belonged to a culture that was close to the Celtic La Tne-culture. If we call these tribes "Germanic", it is only because Caesar had used this word to describe all inhabitants One of these tribes was that of the Sugambri, who lived in the area of the rivers Ruhr and Lippe. They are the "parent tribe" of the Cugerni.......

One final remark: what happened to those Sugambri who were not transferred to the west bank of the Rhine?
They are probably identical to the tribe of the Marsi that is known from several sources. Like other tribes on the Rhine's east bank, they were weakened by the forced migrations, and fell victim to the Germanic tribes.
By the mid-third century, a new ethnic group was living in the former Sugambrian country: the Franks.
Unlike the Sugambri, which had belonged to the Celtic La Tne-culture, the Franks were a "real" Germanic tribe.
Caesar had once made as distinction between the more or less civilized Gallic and the barbaric Germanic tribes to the west and east of the Rhine; three centuries later, the situation started to resemble its description.


Source

Although I'd rather sad to see the Sigambri go from the Germanic firmament, the Gallic version seems a lot more convincing than the Scythian.

Edited by Komnenos
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 14:26
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

The Franks being Germanic is propaganda bullsh!t byceltophobesand 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.



Is it a symptom of a persecution complex, or has the entire academic establishment, both in history and archaeology, really come together in one giant conspiracy to deny the French their "racial" origin.
I think we should be told.

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. (From Wikipedia.)



This might explain a bit:


Such was the fame of the Trojan story in Roman and medieval times that it was built upon to provide a starting point for various legends of national origin. The most famous is undoubtedly that promulgated by Virgil in the Aeneid, tracing the ancestry of the founders of Rome, and more specifically the Julio-Claudian dynasty, to the Trojan prince Aeneas. Similarly Geoffrey of Monmouth traces the legendary Kings of the Britons to a supposed descendant of Aeneas called Brutus.(From Wikipedia)





Edited by Komnenos
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 21:31
Those maps are horrible: they have just wiped out the Basques from all the scene! There were never Visigoths in Vasconia, at least for long...

Quetzacoatl: you have some strange ideas. Anyhow, whatever the supposed origin of the Sugambri, there is no such thing as "Celtic genes". If for those you mean Y-chr haplogroup R1b, that's 100% pre-Celtic (Paleolithic). Celts, like all those migrating groups that we know collectively as Indo-Europeans, got once and again diluted among natives.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Boreas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 22-Mar-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
  Quote Boreas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 14:44

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...  

 

 



Edited by Boreas
Be good - or be gone.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 23:00
Caucasoids have never been truly isolated and the milk-digesting ability can only have appeared in the last milennia - after sheep and cows started to be milked.

I doubt much of what you say makes any sense.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Boreas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 22-Mar-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
  Quote Boreas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2006 at 02:59

Maju,

So how do you explain the arctical characteristics?

Be good - or be gone.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2006 at 06:42
I can't go with the arctic premise either. The body hair idea doesn't make sense, for one thing - northern Europeans are, in general, less hairy than southern Europeans. Moreover, true arctic peoples such as the Inuit or the Lapp, tend to have entirely different features. They have epicanthic folds to prevent becoming snow-blind, and they are not as pale, in many cases, as northern European peoples.

If Europeans are an arctic people where are their epicanthic folds? Why do they not retain body fat in the same manner as Arctic peoples? Why do they not have the fleshy cheeks of Arctic peoples? The extremity cold stress of Europeans is not particularly notable; Inuit maintain the world's highest peripheral skin temperature under cold conditions, and even Native Americans of relatively temperate climes tend to maintain a higher hand or foot temperature during cold exposure than do Europeans. Inuit at the same time are not well-adapted to warm conditions, sometimes suffocating to death under conditions Europeans endure without much difficulty at all.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2006 at 06:43
Originally posted by Boreas

Maju,

So how do you explain the arctical characteristics?



What do you mean? Blondisms?

I think such features were always among the Caucasoids (and even among some non-caucasoids) as can be seen in what could be a sample population of Paleolithic Europe: Basques - or even among Asian and Africa Caucasoids. Blondisms were there all the time, yet they were selected somehow in the northernmost areas, particularly because of the need of producing vitamin D without eating much fish (the Mongoloid alternative).

The milk-digesting capability can even give us a hint on the age of such selection: they are probably very evry recent. The genetics of pygmentation are not fully known yet but they seem to be limited to a few genes - some have suggested that any population would evolve into dark or pale in the adquate climatic circumstances in just 50 generations (c. 1000 years). This may be exaggerate... but in any case makes relevant that such skin-deep diferences are not very significative genetically speaking.

Apart of all those considerations, I'm thinking that maybe the strongest blondist selection happened not among fishermen "Danes" but among cowboy "Russians". Swedes seem more related to Eastern Europe than Danes genetically and they also seem more extreme in their blondism. What do you think about this?


Edited by Maju

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2006 at 06:50
Originally posted by edgewaters

I can't go with the arctic premise either. The body hair idea doesn't make sense, for one thing - northern Europeans are, in general, less hairy than southern Europeans.


That's an excellent point. But in fact one could say that iced hair can be a problem too...

Moreover, true arctic peoples such as the Inuit or the Lapp, tend to have entirely different features. They have epicanthic folds to prevent becoming snow-blind, and they are not as pale, in many cases, as northern European peoples.


Lapps are the most Mongoloid of Caucasoids. Inuit are clearly Mongoloid - archetypically I would say.


If Europeans are an arctic people where are their epicanthic folds? Why do they not retain body fat in the same manner as Arctic peoples? Why do they not have the fleshy cheeks of Arctic peoples? The extremity cold stress of Europeans is not particularly notable; Inuit maintain the world's highest peripheral skin temperature under cold conditions, and even Native Americans of relatively temperate climes tend to maintain a higher hand or foot temperature during cold exposure than do Europeans. Inuit at the same time are not well-adapted to warm conditions, sometimes suffocating to death under conditions Europeans endure without much difficulty at all.


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.


Edited by Maju

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2006 at 17:21
Originally posted by Boreas

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



Without wanting to accuse anybody of anything, the theory of the alleged "artic" origin of the Germans (surely Germanics !) rings a certain bell. One of the many diffuse ideas the Nazis came up with, was the "masterrace" originated from the legendary continent of Thule, somewhere up in the artic regions.

A new books informs on the Nazis search for the lost land:
" The institute's first president, the peculiar Herman Wirth, believed that the Nordic race had evolved in an Arctic homeland before founding a civilisation on the lost continent of Atlantis, somewhere in the North Atlantic.
Pringle's eye for detail means that The Master Plan is rich in such bizarre characters, ridiculous theories and colourful anecdotes. Some of her findings are almost too good to be true: when Himmler tells his scientists to go looking for evidence of "the thunderbolt, Thor's hammer", which he believed to be "an early, highly developed form of war weapon of our forefathers", it is hard to stifle a laugh. And the tales of the various expeditions are riveting reading, making the adventures of Indiana Jones (another archaeologist mixed up with the Nazis) look tame by comparison.
(From: "The Master Plan", by Heather Pringle. Review here)

In the meantime, I rather stick with the conventional theories that the Germanic people are a mix of a migrating Indo-European with pre-Indo-European indigenous Scandinavian culture.
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2006 at 17:40
Originally posted by Boreas

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.

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.

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2006 at 17:43

Originally posted by Maju


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.

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).



Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2006 at 18:30

Originally posted by Zagros

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.



Edited by Paul
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 06:32

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

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.



Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
Boreas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 22-Mar-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
  Quote Boreas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 08:42

Isn't this "old news" by now?

September 06, 2001

 

Humans Lived North of the Arctic Circle During Last Ice Age

A team of Russian and Norwegian archaeologists reports today in Nature that early humans actually lived north of the Arctic Circle during the last ice age nearly 40,000 years ago. Pavel Pavlov of the Komi Scientific Center and John Inge Svendsen and Svein Indrelid of the University of Bergen discovered traces of human occupation at a Paleolithic site in the European part of the Russian Arctic called Mamontovaya Kurya. In addition to hundreds of mammalian bones, they found stone tools and a mammoth tusk that appears to have been cut by those tools.

Based on these artifacts, the researchers cannot say whether Mamontovaya Kurya's early inhabitants were Neandertals or anatomically modern humansbut either way, the discovery is remarkable. If these settlers were Neandertal, it indicates that they were more capable humans than has previously been suggested. To adapt to such a cold environment would have required fairly robust technology and social organization. On the other hand, were these Arctic dwellers modern humans, it means that they traveled north with tremendous speed. According to other evidence, modern humans had only recently moved into southeast Europe some 40,000 years ago.

The authors tend to believe that these pioneers were modern humans. Whoever they were, though, they had an incredible ability to withstand the cold. Although the temperature is thought to have fluctuated wildly at the time, it was consistently colder in the Arctic than it is today. In an accompanying article, University of Liverpool archaeologist John Gowlett describes an annual average temperature of -1 degrees Celsius. "The new finds show that humans had a hold on the north, if only for a short time," Gowlett writes. "Although there are questions to be answered, the artifacts illustrate both the capacity of early humans to do the unexpected, and the value of archaeologists researching in unlikely areas." --Kristin Leutwyler

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000409A4-5E02-1C6 1-B882809EC588ED9F

 

U.S.News Cover Story 9/10/01
Early humans may have followed game north to the Arctic nearly 40,000 years before Gore-Tex

BY THOMAS HAYDEN

Picture Arctic Russia. Beautiful, sure, but also isolated, wind-swept, and justifiably famous for some of the longest, coldest winters anywhere. Now picture living there 40,000 years ago, with temperatures 20 degrees below today's and nothing to keep the Ice Age chill at bay except crude fur clothing and a campfireif you could find something to burn on the treeless steppes.

It sounds impossible. But, writing in the journal Nature last week, Russian and Norwegian scientists say they've found evidence that humans lived at the Arctic Circle more than 20,000 years earlier than previously believed.

The team of archaeologists and geologists uncovered the remains of mammoths, reindeer, horses, and wolves along a riverbank on the western flank of the Ural Mountains. No surprise thereMamontovaya Kurya, the local name for the site, translates loosely as "bend in the river where mammoth bones are found." But the scientists also unearthed a smattering of stone artifacts, including a scraper and what might be a knife. And one mammoth tusk, carbon-dated at about 36,000 years old, is scored by dozens of parallel scratches, as if a Paleolithic short-order cook had used it for a chopping board. The tusk and the tools, say the researchers, could only be the work of human hands. The question is, what sort of humans?

Most anthropologists say modern peopleour direct ancestorswere 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."

The researchers favor modern humans, but recent excavations in southern Europe have resulted in dramatic revisions to the Neanderthals' brutish reputation. Erik Trinkaus, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis, says that by 36,000 years ago, Neanderthals probably had both the technology and the social organization for Arctic survival. But he's not convinced theyor anyone elsewere really there so long ago. The scratched mammoth tusk is "tantalizing," he says, "but lots of marks can be made by washing around in the water." And the stone tools could have started out in a more recent deposit and been washed into the site by erosion. "I'm willing to be convinced," says Trinkaus, "but we need more evidence."

He may not have to wait long. Arctic permafrost is melting and ancient glaciers across the north are receding, exposing previously covered artifacts. Excavations will continue, says Mangerud, and if early people really did colonize the Arctic, "there are no real hurdles to finding evidence even further north."

<<<>>>

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

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

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



Edited by Boreas
Be good - or be gone.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 09:38
Probably ancestors of Lapps, who at that time were undoubtedly Mongoloid. And your arguments that Euroes, north of the mentioned areas, are more suited to Arctic conditions hold no water, as unequivacally described by other members, the best suited to such conditions are Mongoloids, specifically of the Arctic Inuit type.

Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2006 at 10:55

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.

 

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.