One thing that bothers me is that the inhabitants that Oppenhiemer claims the Brits are primarily made up of (having arrived no later than 12,000 B.C. due to the glacialization of 12,000-8,000 B.C.) could not have numbered more than a few hundred, if that. John Davies points out how the number of Paleolithic settlers were far outnumbered by the number of Mesolithic settlers later on, who were in turn far outnumbered by the following Neolithic settlers.
So how on earth could we have so much Upper Paleolithic blood in us? That would HAVE to make the case--as we all agree--that Iberian genes simply dominate over Germanic/Celtic/Scandinavian genes. And that would support my case that the Paleolithic phenotypes were more likely bred out than altered through adaptation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynydd
With regards to differences such as variations in pigmentation and morphology, you must also consider that for the formation of those genetic haplogroups we would be dealing with tens of thousands of years of difference until the formation of stable anthropomorphic individuals close to modern ones.
In other words, genotype is assumed to predate phenotype enough to have allowed for adaptive traits.
|
While I agree with you, Mynydd, that pigmentation and--to a lesser extent--morphology can alter due to thousands of years of adaptation, I figure that if the Cromagnid can still exist all over the world in all types of climates, then the Paleolithic appearance could manage some stability in Britain. Also, at most, the Paleolithic morphology had 27,000 years of adaptation in Britain--most likely less--which, geologically speaking, isn't that much.
By the way, I found the attached photo of this Southern Spanish actor, and I'm wondering if he seems fitting of an Upper Paleolithic Iberian settler.