Farmers and shepherds ftw! :cool::cool:
Printable View
Farmers and shepherds ftw! :cool::cool:
Fair enough. I won't lie, my grasp of pre- {British} Bronze Age history is quite vague.Quote:
Well, that depends on the case in question, again I simply don't see a general "Neolithic Near Eastern" vs. "Mesolithic European" scheme, things are more complicated than that.
But if looking at regions in which the distance between the Mesolithic local type and the Neolithic new forms was huge, that is simply and absolutely impossible. It is NO OPTION.
Neither for the culture, nor for the transmission of it, nor for the traits and racial qualities. It is absolutely out of question that we deal with local continuity.
Just to mention some facts: The change happened quite often in just a very limited time span, much to short for any selection or deep modification changing the traits of a whole population so completely. Especially in the more drastic cases, we speak of totally antagonistic types and traits, which can be only explained by longer term isolation or different development, alternatively relatively long and hard directional selection.
We deal here with differences of the complete skeleton, proportional but also detail traits changing so completely, that they are sometimes AT THE EXTREMES of what is known, TO THIS DAY in the Europid normal racial variation.
And where the foragers survived, co-existed or mixed, we see that in the record as well. They don't disappear, but we deal with two different people in a lot of cases, especially in the Northern fringe regions.
They do claim cultures were spread by small migrations but downplay the size and portray the incomers as a very small minority elite with the bulk of the population continuing since the post LGM recolonisation.Quote:
Well, in post 1968's times those people which I named before tried to ignore the reality of life and human nature. They are morons if they think they can go on that way.
Actually C.S. Coon and many other authors, all which dealt with the subject thoroughly noted the huge changes taking place, foreign (to the region) variants entering the isles and so on.
How can anybody who knows something about Mesolithic skulls and then the Neolithic new comers or typical Central European Bell Beakers for example say there was no demic diffusion?
They must be liars, blind or idiots.
Agreed.Quote:
Also consider all the branches. If one branch was in the West earlier, this doesn't mean new waves couldn't be brought into the region afterwards!
How are sub-races passed on exactly? You get elements of your looks from both parents so I'd presume if you looked back far enough you'd probably find direct ancestors who looked nothing like yourself. Or are they largely inherited through generations from either mother or farther (depending on gender) with minor alterations from the other parent (such as eye and hair colour)?Quote:
I think a major group came from the areas North of the Caucasus or Western Anatolia-South Eastern Europe. There we can find, this is important to note, leptodolichomorphic and more progressive (Proto-Mediterranoid to Proto-Nordoid?) variants in the Mesolithic period already (!) and in a higher frequency than in Central or even less North and North Eastern Europe at that time.
Yes. The megaliths and barrows are quite symbolically important to me, they're really the first things which the inhabitants built and which still survive today. If you go back further it's all just archaeology, no monuments visible to the public. A few very minor and well hidden cave paintings beforehand and that's it.Quote:
In any case, both would mean a later Neolithic/Post Neolithic expansions.
In a way they're our equivalent of Egypt's pyramids, so linking the current population to them is very desirable.
Yes. My example presumes that they were still largely similar though.Quote:
That would be a quite drastic and significant change as well and nothing of a continuity.
Agreed.Quote:
Me neither, I just wanted to point out that even if it seems to be unlikely and we both agree it is most likekly not the case, we don't know it for sure and if they would test with a high certainty some bones for that and find it, we would have to adjust our view on the issue to the facts and results.
G2a is associated with hill farmers throughout Europe. I see that as a 99% safe bet at least.
It is largely individual inheritance, because both is possible and it depends on the genetic recombination process.Quote:
How are sub-races passed on exactly? You get elements of your looks from both parents so I'd presume if you looked back far enough you'd probably find direct ancestors who looked nothing like yourself. Or are they largely inherited through generations from either mother or farther (depending on gender) with minor alterations from the other parent (such as eye and hair colour)?
Anyway, the most important factor for the past was selection once a complete type or new traits were introduced. So if f.e. archaic Mesolithics mixed with more progressive Neolithic variants, in a couple of generations a new type but closer to the Neolithics could have emerged from recombinations and selection afterwards. This means a limited original impact would have produced a wave of expansion by selection, since the new way of life and selective regime would have expanded TOGETHER.
It is really best understood in a wave model in which I would assume that primarily the males moved as compact groups quite often, especially in later times.
In such a model it is quite possible that the total genetic impact at the other end of this geographical expansion is rather low, while the male lineages and type still expanded there. This is possible, but if looking at what we know so far rather unlikely. Longer range migrations of complete groups of colonists seem to have happened all the time, often even in a rather planned manner, like searching for concrete pastures, ressources, new territory. Sending scouts around and so on.
They were no primitives which just went here or there quite often, but real colonists which did a planned colonisation most of the time. It is, for many regions, really comparable to the American situation when the Europeans expanded later. Don't forget, the small scale replacement happened quite often by smaller to medium sized settler groups as well, which just reproduced faster, more successfully, and were able to defend themselves while doing so.
When the climate and habitat as a whole did not allow that, we see European colonies, but not settlement colonies in which the indigenous being replaced.
Same here: There were woodland and boreal regions, into which the newcomers only scouted and went for hunting parties at time, but never lived there, settled down. Those regions and the respective fringe regions, which were at the same time often quite favourable for specialised foragers, are the North and North East - North of a certain line, and even parts of Britain probably. There we can see the survival of foragers at a higher rate and a slower acculturation process, like I said, not the complete package, but for example pottery without farming and animal breeding.
It seems they came by the see and introduced for the first time and in larger numbers Mediterranoid forms, rather Atlantomediterranid to North Atlantid, if we consult C.S. Coon:Quote:
Yes. The megaliths and barrows are quite symbolically important to me, they're really the first things which the inhabitants built and which still survive today. If you go back further it's all just archaeology, no monuments visible to the public. A few very minor and well hidden cave paintings beforehand and that's it.
In a way they're our equivalent of Egypt's pyramids, so linking the current population to them is very desirable.
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-IV10.htmQuote:
One is, therefore, led to conclude that the Megalithic cult was not merely a complex of burial rites which diffused without visible carriers; and also that the bearers of this complex avoided mixture by coming by sea.
In stature and bodily build, the Megalithic people belong to a large variety of Mediterranean. The stature for a large number of males58 from England ranges about a mean of 167 or 168 cm.; which is not contraverted by the meager evidence from Scotland and Ireland. Four male skeletons from a single burial in Kent59 may represent, more nearly than most, the Windmill Hill group; they are somewhat shorter than the rest.
typical