U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Europe
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-03-2013, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,668,990 times
Reputation: 5580

Advertisements

I have been interested in the genetic history of Ireland for a number of years. I am familiar with the studies that show that all British Island populations show relatively strong linkages with populations of northern Spain, especially the Galicians and Basque.

Blood of the Irish: DNA Proves Ancestry of the People of Ireland

However, looking further back, I am wondering if there was not a large source population of red-haired people that evolved in the mountain refuges of southwest Asia. I say this because descriptions of the Scythians, Khazar,etc. describe a ruddy, stout, nomadic people from the region north of the Black Sea that existed for thousands of years. Also, this region is where the Ashkenazi jews seemed to pick up their red hair, such that some actually have a somewhat Irish look. I should add that the descriptions of these people by the ancient Greeks (large, fair, red haired, inordinately fierce) match pretty well with the Roman descriptions of the Scottish and Picts.

This has led me to wonder if the proto-Irish (and ancient English/Scottish/Pict peoples) were part of a larger pool or depigmented peoples who had evolved a bit differently than the more blond germanic peoples of north central Europe. I have lived in both Ireland and Sweden, and my impression has always been that the paler, stockier, shorter Irish seem to show a stronger cold adaptation in their form. The complete loss of tanning ability, tendency toward corpulence (thrifty genes like Native Americans), vulnerability to alcoholism (no evolved tolerance, like say Italians), etc., also hint as an aboriginal purity in the Irish. I have never been able to fully understand the scandinavian type as having evolved in the very coldest climates. They are just too lanky and lean (but very good looking!). Also the fiery, impulsive temperament and alcohol use of the Irish/Scottish seems to show some similarities with the southern Russian peoples. The Baltic/German peoples tend to be cooler and less impulsive. Having lived both places, the differences in temperament are striking (One can see a gradient in extroversion from the reserved, blond,cerebral eastern Swedes (near Stockholm) to the friendlier, ruddier, freckled w. Swedes (near Gothenburg), to the super friendly, bubbly, chatty folks of Ireland-very interesting).


I recently came over this site the develops similar ideas:

EUROPA SOBERANA

The site separates White Nordids (like the Swedes) from Red Nordids (like the Irish), suggesting the latter evolved under stronger climatic selection in central Asia, and migrated west north of the alps and south of the white nordids (the later Baltic/Germanic peoples)

This is a cool article on red hair causes and distribution:

The genetic causes, ethnic origins and history of red hair - Eupedia

If this is the case, and Germanic and other Mediterranean peoples (and their genes) moved north through central Europe over prehistoric and early historic times, you might expect to see red-haired peoples at the far western and eastern extremes of Europe, where mixing was least. Of course the eastern group would have mixed with Armenian/Mediterranean as well as Mongolian peoples, but the signature would probably pop up here and there, like in the Udmurts of Russia.

So, are the British Islands redheads simply a less diluted form of people who originally evolved in central Asia, and have since changed through admixture with various peoples? Might they be among the last obvious remnants of the fair, often red haired peoples who were later known as the Scythians?

Just curious. Also, I am not doing this for any racist reasons. Just curious about origins and connections in the development of Europe's populations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2013, 01:50 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
78,509 posts, read 70,430,585 times
Reputation: 76472
These are good things to wonder about. However, the Khazar/Turkic/Ashkenazi Jew connection has unfortunately been disproven by DNA testing. (See Bryan Sykes.) The Askhkenazis have no Turkic genetic heritage. Too bad, it was a great story while it lasted.

Also, early Germanic peoples were described as fierce, stocky, and red-haired. I'm not aware that the Scythians had ever been thus described (many are depicted as dark-haired on Greek pottery), and I thought the Picts were thought to be dark-haired. Does anyone really know anything for sure about the Picts?

Victor Mair, who studied the European mummies in China's Xingiang Province feels that they (the Tocharians) were proto-Celts, being blond and red-haired, and wearing plaid wool twill garments. I'm not sure this has been proven genetically, or historically, though.

Speaking of "red nordids", don't forget that Norway used to be full of red-haired people, some of whom went on to populate Iceland and Greenland (Eric the Red), as well as parts of Scotland. Red hair is a recessive gene, so it seems to have been lost in those regions, except for Scotland.

What "signature" among the Udmurts? They're a Finno-Ugrian people, historically dark-haired. I've never seen a red-haired Udmurt. There may have been some admixture from Indo-Europeans migrating back and forth from the Steppes into Asia and back. But again; red hair is a recessive gene. It's completely gone in Norway and Iceland. So it would be a surprise to find it among the Udmurts. Though stranger things have happened. (Red-brown hair among Koreans and some Manchurian peoples.)

By all means, post more info, more sources, and let's have a go at it. From what I've been reading lately, the jury is still out on some of these genetic issues. Some experts say, for example, that the R1b marker didn't exist in Europe until about 5000 years ago. And some are saying that the people who settled the British Isles from Spain originated in the Middle East. It may be too early to answer some of these questions, as the science of genetic analysis continues to evolve.

Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 01-04-2013 at 01:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2013, 05:40 AM
 
190 posts, read 462,676 times
Reputation: 115
Ruth

The first Homo Sapiens Sapiens that arrived into Europe some 38.000 came from the Middle East. But it seems they might have travelled all around before entering into continental Europe. Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared 200.000 years ago and it took them 170.000 years to arrive to Europe. They probably had been all around the Eurasian continent.

Why did they they take so long? It seems now proven that a volcanic eruption, the Tuba, wiped 99 percent of all Homo Sapiens. Red or Blonde hair is irrelevant in those times since it's a recent mutation that ocurred around the Caucasus 10.000 years ago.

In fact, all Homo Sapiens are very closely related because of the mass extinction that took place 70.000 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2013, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,668,990 times
Reputation: 5580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montpensier View Post
Ruth

The first Homo Sapiens Sapiens that arrived into Europe some 38.000 came from the Middle East. But it seems they might have travelled all around before entering into continental Europe. Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared 200.000 years ago and it took them 170.000 years to arrive to Europe. They probably had been all around the Eurasian continent.

Why did they they take so long? It seems now proven that a volcanic eruption, the Tuba, wiped 99 percent of all Homo Sapiens. Red or Blonde hair is irrelevant in those times since it's a recent mutation that ocurred around the Caucasus 10.000 years ago.

In fact, all Homo Sapiens are very closely related because of the mass extinction that took place 70.000 years ago.
I agree with most of this. However, I personally believe that the out of Africa/bottleneck hypothesis, while reasonable, does not account for the interaction of anatomically modern humans with archaic for or relictual populations that occurred in the last 70,000 years.

Personally,I believe African H. sapiens interacted with archaic hominid types extant in Eurasia. For instance, Caucasian and Asiatic populations may have been influenced by H. sapiens interactions with Neanderthal and Denisovan populations in the Caucasus and Altai regions, respectively. So, while the broad current of modern humanity certainly came from Africa, there was almost certainly some interaction between regionally-evolved forms as the reproductive isolation was not complete (brain growth was explosive at this time, but I don't think the bodies changed as rapidly). I will concede the Africa itself has so much variability that a lot of these "archaic" ypes might have occurred in Africa too. However, the Neanderthal DNA in Africa is very low, suggesting a Eurasian source area. Bottom line, I have never seen multi-source or out of Africa hypotheses as mutually exclusive.

I think the archaic DNA was minor in proportion, but quite important. My most controversial hypothesis is that the Ashkenazi Jews and Armenians have the highest degree of Neanderthal DNA, which was centered on the Caucasus. The Caucusus is a well known ice age refugium for many species, and I suspect it could have been for archaic humans, like Neanderthals. Armenian and Jewish skulls are sometimes closer in Neanderthal form to than are African, European, or Asiatic skulls (longer, lower, with very large nasal region, receding forehead and jaws, large brains). This is intriguing, because it suggests that a truly exotic archaic element went into the formation of the Armenian type peoples, who in turn have been involved with most of mankind's most advanced civilizations and highest achievements, from Sumeria onward. Would these have been the original Indo-European peoples? Or where they a more localized group? I don't know, but they were certainly important. I will try to find Brian Sykes work to see if these hypotheses have any basis at all. I don't think these peoples were Turkic, nor were they strictly Mediterranean, they preceded both, and may have been important influences on both.

As for the Russians and Irish, I was just exploring the notion that deep in the past, they may share a common red haired ancestor (proto-Scythian?) that spread from the Tarim Basin to the British Isles in early Neolithic times, and many of the other peoples who have sprung up in between (Germanics,Slavs, etc.) are also related (as Ruth says they all have red hair, freckles in minor amount..those recessive genes), but have been more central to later invasions, whereas the relictual red hair, pale skin,etc. is still most visible at the far eastern and western edges of Europe. As for Germany, I think that southern Germany is just plain diverse, so more likely a mix. Northern Germany seems more like Scandinavia, with a tendency towards tall, blonder folks, like Baltics. Interestingly, the Ice Man Otsi of the Tyrol seemed to be one of these folks, with higher levels of Neanderthal DNA than we have today.

I am no expert on this, but simply a curious amateur. I must say it is very fascinating stuff to contemplate and learn about.

Last edited by Fiddlehead; 01-04-2013 at 10:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2013, 12:16 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
78,509 posts, read 70,430,585 times
Reputation: 76472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montpensier View Post
Red or Blonde hair is irrelevant in those times since it's a recent mutation that ocurred around the Caucasus 10.000 years ago.
I haven't heard this. Could you recommend an article on this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2013, 11:48 PM
 
639 posts, read 939,125 times
Reputation: 711
Irish looks are intriguing. When I visited Ireland I noticed many of them had dark brown hair. Many people perceive the Irish to be mostly red hair or lighter hair. My friend's uncle, who knows a lot about European history, told me that red hair is actually a Norwegian trait and the few number of red-heads in Ireland is a result of Vikings who invaded and settled in Ireland. Anyone know more about that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2013, 04:18 AM
 
190 posts, read 462,676 times
Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
I agree with most of this. However, I personally believe that the out of Africa/bottleneck hypothesis, while reasonable, does not account for the interaction of anatomically modern humans with archaic for or relictual populations that occurred in the last 70,000 years.

Personally,I believe African H. sapiens interacted with archaic hominid types extant in Eurasia. For instance, Caucasian and Asiatic populations may have been influenced by H. sapiens interactions with Neanderthal and Denisovan populations in the Caucasus and Altai regions, respectively. So, while the broad current of modern humanity certainly came from Africa, there was almost certainly some interaction between regionally-evolved forms as the reproductive isolation was not complete (brain growth was explosive at this time, but I don't think the bodies changed as rapidly). I will concede the Africa itself has so much variability that a lot of these "archaic" ypes might have occurred in Africa too. However, the Neanderthal DNA in Africa is very low, suggesting a Eurasian source area. Bottom line, I have never seen multi-source or out of Africa hypotheses as mutually exclusive.

I think the archaic DNA was minor in proportion, but quite important. My most controversial hypothesis is that the Ashkenazi Jews and Armenians have the highest degree of Neanderthal DNA, which was centered on the Caucasus. The Caucusus is a well known ice age refugium for many species, and I suspect it could have been for archaic humans, like Neanderthals. Armenian and Jewish skulls are sometimes closer in Neanderthal form to than are African, European, or Asiatic skulls (longer, lower, with very large nasal region, receding forehead and jaws, large brains). This is intriguing, because it suggests that a truly exotic archaic element went into the formation of the Armenian type peoples, who in turn have been involved with most of mankind's most advanced civilizations and highest achievements, from Sumeria onward. Would these have been the original Indo-European peoples? Or where they a more localized group? I don't know, but they were certainly important. I will try to find Brian Sykes work to see if these hypotheses have any basis at all. I don't think these peoples were Turkic, nor were they strictly Mediterranean, they preceded both, and may have been important influences on both.

As for the Russians and Irish, I was just exploring the notion that deep in the past, they may share a common red haired ancestor (proto-Scythian?) that spread from the Tarim Basin to the British Isles in early Neolithic times, and many of the other peoples who have sprung up in between (Germanics,Slavs, etc.) are also related (as Ruth says they all have red hair, freckles in minor amount..those recessive genes), but have been more central to later invasions, whereas the relictual red hair, pale skin,etc. is still most visible at the far eastern and western edges of Europe. As for Germany, I think that southern Germany is just plain diverse, so more likely a mix. Northern Germany seems more like Scandinavia, with a tendency towards tall, blonder folks, like Baltics. Interestingly, the Ice Man Otsi of the Tyrol seemed to be one of these folks, with higher levels of Neanderthal DNA than we have today.

I am no expert on this, but simply a curious amateur. I must say it is very fascinating stuff to contemplate and learn about.


Neanderthal DNA has a homogenous presence among all Homo Sapines except subsaharan blacks. The last Neanderthals died in Gibraltar. Neanderthals were in fact blonde and redhaired, but Neanderthal influence in modern humans is present but irrelevant. Ötsi was entirely Alpine and back then, the Germanic culture did not exist since it's a hibridization of Scandinavians with people belonging to Celt and Slavic CULTURES. Until 1200 years ago, the civilized world did not know a thing about Scandinavia.

The recessive traits you mentioned were brought by Indoeuropean invaders, quite absurd to believe they come from pre Homo Sapiens species. Those traits were as strange in Europe 7.000 years ago as the epicanthal fold or slanted eyes that you find beyond the Rhine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2013, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Finland
24,268 posts, read 18,765,643 times
Reputation: 11103
Please, please, PLEASE show even some kind of scientific research regarding those hair colour maps!

Who/which institution has conducted that research, when has the research been done, how has it been done and what determines the boundaries? Who takes the credit of these maps?

A few years back I tried for a couple of hours to track back those maps to any credible source, university or original research. Could only find some suspicious blogs, websites and white power -forums.

I stumbled upon a name, Peter Frost, who is probably the father of these maps, he has modified them from a map from the 60's (Beals&Hoijer) found in a anthropology textbook , which is based on some map and some other map, and it just goes on to Carleton S. Coon.
Apparently no actual study has never been made.

BUT I found an interesting map while I googled a bit. Seems pretty accurate to me! I should start a thread about it.


"Look Ma, I made science!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2013, 11:38 AM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 7 days ago)
 
47,974 posts, read 45,435,742 times
Reputation: 15309
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkingElsewhere View Post
Irish looks are intriguing. When I visited Ireland I noticed many of them had dark brown hair. Many people perceive the Irish to be mostly red hair or lighter hair. My friend's uncle, who knows a lot about European history, told me that red hair is actually a Norwegian trait and the few number of red-heads in Ireland is a result of Vikings who invaded and settled in Ireland. Anyone know more about that?
I know about that. That is what one person told me. I have frequently associated Irish people with red hair. However, in my own experiences, alot of people I've met who were Irish had dark brown hair as well. Actually, quite a few people I've met who have red hair had Scottish ancestry. One reason for the Irish being perceived as being "red-haired" in my view, comes from when I was much younger. I'm Black, but I have some Irish ancestors(on my mother's side). I was told that I had a few strands of red hair when I was born. My mother told me that it might have come from her side of the family, possibly from some of her Irish ancestors. Interestingly, I have seen very few people of Irish descent with red hair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2013, 11:41 AM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 7 days ago)
 
47,974 posts, read 45,435,742 times
Reputation: 15309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
Please, please, PLEASE show even some kind of scientific research regarding those hair colour maps!

Who/which institution has conducted that research, when has the research been done, how has it been done and what determines the boundaries? Who takes the credit of these maps?

A few years back I tried for a couple of hours to track back those maps to any credible source, university or original research. Could only find some suspicious blogs, websites and white power -forums.

I stumbled upon a name, Peter Frost, who is probably the father of these maps, he has modified them from a map from the 60's (Beals&Hoijer) found in a anthropology textbook , which is based on some map and some other map, and it just goes on to Carleton S. Coon.
Apparently no actual study has never been made.

BUT I found an interesting map while I googled a bit. Seems pretty accurate to me! I should start a thread about it.


"Look Ma, I made science!"

What does this map have to do with anything?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Europe
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top