Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anthropology website

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Jambalaia32
    How do you know which phenotype you are?
    By looking at the mirror and comparing the image to those on the website.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jambalaia32
    replied
    Which Phonotype is each Haplogroup?

    Originally posted by Eki
    I found this site about human anthropology. I know one should be careful with these things but decided to trust their disclaimer:

    "This website is a compendium of genetic studies, anthropological surveys, historical perspectives and photo series addressing various topics related to racial origins, affinities and myths. Its aim is to counter the proliferation of pseudo-scholarship coming from Nordicists (White Nationalists), Afrocentrists, Multi-Racialists and Race-Deniers all over the internet. The accumulated materials are intended only to correct misinformation, not to denigrate any group or advance a political agenda. The webmaster holds no special credentials in any of the fields mentioned."

    http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/

    After looking at the photos of different phenotypes, I think the Tronder phenotype and a hint of East Baltic is the closest to what I look like:

    http://www.sitesled.com/members/raci.../subraces.html

    Tronder: A hybrid type of Nordic with Corded and Brünn elements, frequent in the central coastal provinces of Norway, north of the Dovre Mountains; the principal form in Iceland, and among the Frisians, and common in the British Isles.

    East Baltic: Racial type of composite nature, found chiefly in northeastern Germany, Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland, although it also occurs sporadically in Sweden and elsewhere. It is a partially reduced Borreby derivative, with Ladogan and Nordic admixture.
    How do you know which phenotype you are? Can they label them by their haplogroups and sub haplogroups? My haplogrp,lives all over so I don't know where they're native too,honestly. Maybe they're Tronder...?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    John Raciti's - Belgae DNA Modal through my Nordic-Celtic DNA project (982 members).

    John Raciti's - Belgae DNA Modal through my Nordic-Celtic DNA project (982 members).

    http://www.ysearch.org/lastname_view...wuid=AX6GA&p=0

    http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Nordic-Celtic

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul_Johnsen
    replied
    Originally posted by Noaide
    Its not so much about the soil why people wanted to go there but the surplus of resources in the ocean along the coast all the way to the north tradable in continental Europe, then the soil become much less important just as it always have been in northern Norway where the Norwegians mostly live around the icelands at the coast while the Saami live in the fjords. Money is always a good motivation to move, have always been.

    Noaide
    Even until very recent times subsistence farming/fishing was the norm. Most people descend from farmer and fishermen, not (foreign?) traders. It's clear to anyone who reads the churchbooks of rural Western Norway that the place hasn't received any notable foreign migration in the last 500 years. There are no reasons to believe that there were a lot more at a time when subsistence farming was even more important and shipping and other communication technologi was less developed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noaide
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen
    Why would anyone come? The land in the West isn't very rich and fertile. To me it makes little sense to migrate to a relatively marginal area that has already be settled
    Its not so much about the soil why people wanted to go there but the surplus of resources in the ocean along the coast all the way to the north tradable in continental Europe, then the soil become much less important just as it always have been in northern Norway where the Norwegians mostly live around the icelands at the coast while the Saami live in the fjords. Money is always a good motivation to move, have always been.

    Noaide
    Last edited by Noaide; 13 November 2006, 04:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen

    In which direction did people move in order to trade? I would argue that the general rule in Norwegian history is that the people in the marginal areas where forced to go the more central areas in order to trade, not the other way around.
    The colder the weather, the better fur animals grow. The best fur came from the northern Fennoscandia, and they were wanted both in the British Isles and Continental Europe. And I've read that also Finnish tar was exported to the British Isles for their ships in historical times, why not in prehistorical times?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul_Johnsen
    replied
    Originally posted by Noaide
    Ottars Voyage about Norway:

    "He said that the Northmen's lands were very long and very narrow. All of it that one might graze or cultivate, that (portion) lies towards the sea; and it is however very rocky in some places; and wild moors lie towards the east and up along towards the cultivated land. Fins live on the moors. And the cultivated land is broadest eastwards, and always the further north the narrower. The eastern part of it might be sixty miles wide, or somewhat wider; and the middle part thirty (miles) or wider; and the northern part, he said, where it was narrowest; so that it might be three miles wide to the moor, and then the moor (is) in some places, as wide as one might traverse in two weeks; and in some places (is) as wide as one might traverse in six days."

    Source Ottars Voyage

    As I understand Ottar the Norse agricultural settlement was restricted to a thin line along the coast around 890 AD and the main way of transportation must have been by boat, while a thin Saami hunter population lived in the moors uphill from the coastal settlements.

    I know there can be quite windy sometimes at the southern and western coast but I do not think that have been a big problem for movement up people, culture and trade between eastern and western Norway and continental Europe.

    Noaide
    The waves can be very high at times and there are long stretches without natural harbors, but of course it wasn't and isn't impossible to sail around the coast. It was done in the past. The question is what effect it had on the population makeup. I would argue very little.

    Why would anyone come? The land in the West isn't very rich and fertile. To me it makes little sense to migrate to a relatively marginal area that has already be settled .

    In which direction did people move in order to trade? I would argue that the general rule in Norwegian history is that the people in the marginal areas where forced to go the more central areas in order to trade, not the other way around.

    The distribution of the different haplogroups in Western Norway and the rest of Scandinavia makes it very difficult to explain the frequency R1b here unless R1b actually was the only haplogroup to migrate in large numbers. I think that is rather unlikely.

    Also why didn't R1b move up the Western Baltic coast from Sweden? I would argue given the geographical conditions that this would have been an easier and more rational migration route than a route to Western Norway. And why didn't other people cross the Baltics in large numbers. As an example there are some N3s in Sweden but it is not nearly as frequent as in Finland.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul_Johnsen
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    OK, let's forget the inland route.

    According to YHRD, I1a-UN is the most common haplotype in Iceland and in Southern Norway (about 8%) but not in Western Norway (about 3%). If it's true that Western Norway contributed most of the settlers in Iceland, it looks like the haplotype distribution in Western Norway has changed since Iceland was settled (less I1a than elsewhere in Norway and less I1a-UN than in Iceland). This could only be because new non-I1a or low-I1a people settled in Western Norway or that the settlers in Iceland had more I1a-UN than Western Norway in average. My guess is that new non-I1a or low-I1a people settled in Western Norway, maybe by ships from the British Isles and Continental Europe.

    http://www.yhrd.org/index.html
    Sample size in yhrd isn't very large for Iceland and Norway. Also the Western Norwegian ratio of about 30% UN corresponds almost exactly to national average for Norway in both Yhrd and Dupuy.

    To me it actually looks as though Bergen has the highest ratio of UN (41%), but wait; isn't that the place where all those foreigners came?

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Noaide
    Ottars Voyage about Norway:

    "He said that the Northmen's lands were very long and very narrow. All of it that one might graze or cultivate, that (portion) lies towards the sea; and it is however very rocky in some places; and wild moors lie towards the east and up along towards the cultivated land. Fins live on the moors. And the cultivated land is broadest eastwards, and always the further north the narrower. The eastern part of it might be sixty miles wide, or somewhat wider; and the middle part thirty (miles) or wider; and the northern part, he said, where it was narrowest; so that it might be three miles wide to the moor, and then the moor (is) in some places, as wide as one might traverse in two weeks; and in some places (is) as wide as one might traverse in six days."

    Source Ottars Voyage

    As I understand Ottar the Norse agricultural settlement was restricted to a thin line along the coast around 890 AD and the main way of transportation must have been by boat, while a thin Saami hunter population lived in the moors uphill from the coastal settlements.

    I know there can be quite windy sometimes at the southern and western coast but I do not think that have been a big problem for movement up people, culture and trade between eastern and western Norway and continental Europe.

    Noaide
    On the other hand, Ottar also said:

    "He said that the Norwegians' (Norðmanna) land was very long and very narrow. -- Wild moors lie towards the east and up along towards the cultivated land. Sami people (Finnas) live on the moors. -- Then Sweden (Sweoland) is along the land to the south, on the other side of the moors, as far as the land to the north; and Kvenland (Cwena land) along the land to the north. The Kvens (Qwenas) harry the Norwegians across the moor, sometimes the Norwegians them. And there are very many fresh water lakes beyond the moors; and the Kvens carry their ships overland into the moors, whence they harry the Norwegians, they have very small and very light ships."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvenland

    I think this suggest that the lakes and rivers through central Sweden and then over the Keel to Norway was also used. Furthermore, sagas also tell how Norwegian kings sometimes on their way from Novgorod to Nidaros left their ships in Helsingland and went through Jämtland to Norway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noaide
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen
    Yes, the ocean has been used for trade, and this is probably how language and culture was preserved/transmitted. But ocean-travel probably isn't responsible for large scale migrations. I think it would have had to be the people on the fringes (north) who would have been forced to go to central areas in order to trade (south).

    Furthermore the crossing from Eastern Norway to Western Norway involves crossing a large section of open unprotected coastline with some of the worst condition the the Atlantic has to offer. It would have been far easier and shorter to follow the considerably calmer Baltic Ocean to Western Finland, if you wanted to find a new place to settle.
    Ottars Voyage about Norway:

    "He said that the Northmen's lands were very long and very narrow. All of it that one might graze or cultivate, that (portion) lies towards the sea; and it is however very rocky in some places; and wild moors lie towards the east and up along towards the cultivated land. Fins live on the moors. And the cultivated land is broadest eastwards, and always the further north the narrower. The eastern part of it might be sixty miles wide, or somewhat wider; and the middle part thirty (miles) or wider; and the northern part, he said, where it was narrowest; so that it might be three miles wide to the moor, and then the moor (is) in some places, as wide as one might traverse in two weeks; and in some places (is) as wide as one might traverse in six days."

    Source Ottars Voyage

    As I understand Ottar the Norse agricultural settlement was restricted to a thin line along the coast around 890 AD and the main way of transportation must have been by boat, while a thin Saami hunter population lived in the moors uphill from the coastal settlements.

    I know there can be quite windy sometimes at the southern and western coast but I do not think that have been a big problem for movement up people, culture and trade between eastern and western Norway and continental Europe.

    Noaide

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen
    I had a look at the Haplotypes from Dupuy. To me it looks as though the south and east has about 37% I1a, Central and Northern Norway has about 33% I1a, and Western Norway has about 28%.

    Divided into Nortvedts I1a-UN: about 37% of the I1a in the east, about 33% in the south, about 31% in the west and about 23% in the Northern and Central Norway appear to me to be I1a UN.
    OK, let's forget the inland route.

    According to YHRD, I1a-UN is the most common haplotype in Iceland and in Southern Norway (about 8%) but not in Western Norway (about 3%). If it's true that Western Norway contributed most of the settlers in Iceland, it looks like the haplotype distribution in Western Norway has changed since Iceland was settled (less I1a than elsewhere in Norway and less I1a-UN than in Iceland). This could only be because new non-I1a or low-I1a people settled in Western Norway or that the settlers in Iceland had more I1a-UN than Western Norway in average. My guess is that new non-I1a or low-I1a people settled in Western Norway, maybe by ships from the British Isles and Continental Europe.

    http://www.yhrd.org/index.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul_Johnsen
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    Easy? Who said it would have to be easy? That it's possible was enough. I'm sure sailing to Iceland and Greenland wasn't easy either. Those were different times then. People didn't expect things to be easy. Believing it's possible was enough for them.
    The norse were excellent and brave mariners, but they didn't sail to Iceland in order to prove something. They sailed because of overpopulation back home. If they had a choice of doing something the hard way or the less hard way, they would choose the less hard way.

    Going over the mountains would be more difficult than sailing along the coast. Bringing boats for a mountaincrossing from East to West in Norway would be about as useful as bringing skis for a crossing of the Sahara. If any large scale migration happened (and I don't belive it did of course), it MUST have come by sea. Only a foreigner unfamiliar with Norwegian geography could claim otherwise.


    I had a look at the Haplotypes from Dupuy. To me it looks as though the south and east has about 37% I1a, Central and Northern Norway has about 33% I1a, and Western Norway has about 28%.

    Divided into Nortvedts I1a-UN: about 37% of the I1a in the east, about 33% in the south, about 31% in the west and about 23% in the Northern and Central Norway appear to me to be I1a UN.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul_Johnsen
    I can hardly imagine a more absurd discussion than this. You have obviously never been here. I have lived in Western Norway all my life and I can tell you there are no rivers that run from Eastern Norway to Western Norway. There are roads and it is possible to drive across the Highland plateau. I have done so myself. However there are no easy roads, and they certainly aren't "highways" but rather they are narrow windy roads up and down valleys that are closed for large portions of the year because of snow.

    The Langfjella Mountain chain forms a significant obstacle preventing easy flow of people from east to west. Did some people cross the Langfjella Mountain chain in the past? Sure. Did it effect the genetic makeup of Western or Eastern Norway in any significant way? No. I don't even think Noaide would argue against that.
    Easy? Who said it would have to be easy? That it's possible was enough. I'm sure sailing to Iceland and Greenland wasn't easy either. Those were different times then. People didn't expect things to be easy. Believing it's possible was enough for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul_Johnsen
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    Do you think it's a coincidence they built the highways E6 and E136 along those waterways? I don't think so. I think it was because there was a passage between the mountains.
    I can hardly imagine a more absurd discussion than this. You have obviously never been here. I have lived in Western Norway all my life and I can tell you there are no rivers that run from Eastern Norway to Western Norway. There are roads and it is possible to drive across the Highland plateau. I have done so myself. However there are no easy roads, and they certainly aren't "highways" but rather they are narrow windy roads up and down valleys that are closed for large portions of the year because of snow.

    The Langfjella Mountain chain forms a significant obstacle preventing easy flow of people from east to west. Did some people cross the Langfjella Mountain chain in the past? Sure. Did it effect the genetic makeup of Western or Eastern Norway in any significant way? No. I don't even think Noaide would argue against that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    There are valleys, rivers and lakes between the mountains.
    Do you think it's a coincidence they built the highways E6 and E136 along those waterways? I don't think so. I think it was because there was a passage between the mountains.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X