AlexImreh
Regular Member
Thank you Angela I am trying to learn, and in the meantime I play with ideas .. Nobody said here that the "Indo-Europeans" are equivalent to the people of Cucuteni Tripolite. It is however, logically hard for me to understand, why should G matter more than I2 in the making of the indo-europeans, when present day G is so low compared to present day I2, in all indo-european populations. My logic is bound with the following connections:
1] I like to believe, accordingly to the Alinei continuity theory, that there was a strong continuity over the last 8000 years, that populations changed slowly in all this time, that populations did not disapeared over and over again.
2] Each migration meant a relatively small number of people coming to an area where they found much larger populations, the newcomers maybe had more influence at certain times because they were more advanced technologically or more potent military, but than in most cases the migrants were largely absorbed by the main substratum; we can see that situation in Pannonia, present day Hungary - where after many big empires built by very different populations, we still have a present day haplo-mixture very similar with Latin Romania, with 'Slav' Serbia, and 'German' Austria, with practically little Y-DNA left after the military dominance of Huns, Mongols, Avars, Sarmatians, Goths, asian Magyars and so on
3] maybe samples taken from a few elites can not reflect the overall ''textures'', certain fertile river basins were occupied by strong migrants, pushed away by other stronger migrants, they all left settlements from where we take now samples, but around them there was all this time a numerous populations not so developed maybe, with traces less visible in today archeology
4] I think that the lower Danube area had the biggest population density for a long time, a large population which the migrants were not able to displace, R1a and R1b were more succesful in ares less populated.
5] Again present day Vinca, and Cucuteni areas have a lot of I2, Cucuteni was largely started by Vinca people, am I wrong if I pressume that present day I2 is linked with I2 haplo from Cucuteni and Vinca period? I make most of my deductions based on the Eupedia site which states the link between I2 and Cucuteni. For more than 1000 years, maybe for 2000 years the Cucuteni culture extended to east, traded with people from east, they mixed a lot for sure in all this time, the Cucuteni area covered all the kurgan Uhrheimat from Dniester to Don even beyond, to Volga. In all this time R1b coming from south mixed with R1a coming from north and I2 coming from west in the area between Dnienster, Don and the forest steppes.
6] Also there is a lot of 'historical gossip' about the link between the Getes (living in Dacia and Thracia) and the MassaGetes from the Oxus/Caspian area, leaving room to a possible relation with present day Jats from India who could be followers of the first Indo-Europeans in India. The link between ThracoGetes and MassaGetes is through Scytian area, it was a large indo-euroepan continuum until the arrival of the Turcic populations. Also there are quite a few historians saying that Getes and Goths are almost same thing.
7] The Celts and the Goths, conquered Western Europe having as turntable, departure area, present day Romania which I presume to be an I2 area in the past, even more than today.
8]Finally there is the issue of the Romanian language, I strongly believe that Romanization after the Roman conquest is bullshit, that Dacians already spoke a latin language before the roman conquest. That is a subject more difficult to discuss here with people who do not know the language, and here is after all a forum for genetics not for lingvistic studies.
Yes we will have more and more samples to tell us the truth, in the meantime I am just noticing all these connections.
I am apologize if I was too long, if I said anything stupid, brain storming can be useful sometimes, I am trying to learn ..
1] I like to believe, accordingly to the Alinei continuity theory, that there was a strong continuity over the last 8000 years, that populations changed slowly in all this time, that populations did not disapeared over and over again.
2] Each migration meant a relatively small number of people coming to an area where they found much larger populations, the newcomers maybe had more influence at certain times because they were more advanced technologically or more potent military, but than in most cases the migrants were largely absorbed by the main substratum; we can see that situation in Pannonia, present day Hungary - where after many big empires built by very different populations, we still have a present day haplo-mixture very similar with Latin Romania, with 'Slav' Serbia, and 'German' Austria, with practically little Y-DNA left after the military dominance of Huns, Mongols, Avars, Sarmatians, Goths, asian Magyars and so on
3] maybe samples taken from a few elites can not reflect the overall ''textures'', certain fertile river basins were occupied by strong migrants, pushed away by other stronger migrants, they all left settlements from where we take now samples, but around them there was all this time a numerous populations not so developed maybe, with traces less visible in today archeology
4] I think that the lower Danube area had the biggest population density for a long time, a large population which the migrants were not able to displace, R1a and R1b were more succesful in ares less populated.
5] Again present day Vinca, and Cucuteni areas have a lot of I2, Cucuteni was largely started by Vinca people, am I wrong if I pressume that present day I2 is linked with I2 haplo from Cucuteni and Vinca period? I make most of my deductions based on the Eupedia site which states the link between I2 and Cucuteni. For more than 1000 years, maybe for 2000 years the Cucuteni culture extended to east, traded with people from east, they mixed a lot for sure in all this time, the Cucuteni area covered all the kurgan Uhrheimat from Dniester to Don even beyond, to Volga. In all this time R1b coming from south mixed with R1a coming from north and I2 coming from west in the area between Dnienster, Don and the forest steppes.
6] Also there is a lot of 'historical gossip' about the link between the Getes (living in Dacia and Thracia) and the MassaGetes from the Oxus/Caspian area, leaving room to a possible relation with present day Jats from India who could be followers of the first Indo-Europeans in India. The link between ThracoGetes and MassaGetes is through Scytian area, it was a large indo-euroepan continuum until the arrival of the Turcic populations. Also there are quite a few historians saying that Getes and Goths are almost same thing.
7] The Celts and the Goths, conquered Western Europe having as turntable, departure area, present day Romania which I presume to be an I2 area in the past, even more than today.
8]Finally there is the issue of the Romanian language, I strongly believe that Romanization after the Roman conquest is bullshit, that Dacians already spoke a latin language before the roman conquest. That is a subject more difficult to discuss here with people who do not know the language, and here is after all a forum for genetics not for lingvistic studies.
Yes we will have more and more samples to tell us the truth, in the meantime I am just noticing all these connections.
I am apologize if I was too long, if I said anything stupid, brain storming can be useful sometimes, I am trying to learn ..