| Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
If R lived in eastern europe since Mesolithic era then why they are called Bronze age immigrants then? is western europe only europe?
Some view R1A as barbaric invaders from Asia, therefore not true Europeans, rather "Eurasians"Originally Posted by Parafarne
DNA research has made many scientific breakthrough since the past 1-2 decades, so It's always good to check in on new discoveries. It's even mentioned in the disclaimer. For example, It was only a decade ago, it was once believed that Ydna R was believed to be the Haplogroup of Mesolithic Europeans. However according to new discoveries, Mesolithic Europeans are now Ydna IJ and I with H2 and C-V20 and A1a minority. (Maybe some Ydna E tribes on the Mediterranean Coast) Ydna R1A and R1B however came to Europe from the Yamna Horizon Steepes during the Bronze Age. Here is a link to the Prehistory of Europe and a Genetic map.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origin...tml#prehistory
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolit...tml#mesolithic
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...1b_Y-DNA.shtml
I think that during the Mesolithic the term 'barbaric' was not yet invented.
I'm sure there was always a derogatory name for people from another tribe, and mandatory spitting on ground afterwards. ;)
Last edited by LeBrok; 02-08-17 at 02:01.
Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.
In the end Europe is just a piece of land. There's no law forcing humans who live in it to be apart of the same European genetic group. Since the Mesolithic people living within Europe have formed a genetic cluster but there have always been genetic outliers in Europe who aren't like most other Europeans.
In the Neolithic people in Russia were very different from people in the rest of Europe. Those people from Russia who carried Y DNA R1a/b were therefore a foreign element, maybe as foreign as people who lived in Neolithic Iran, to the other Europeans they invaded. They weren't just different to Neolithic Western Europeans, most people in Neolithic Eastern Europe were also quite different to them.
Those R1a/b people from Russia did share intimate common European ancestor with other Europeans called 'WHG.' Yeah they were different but they weren't completely alien to each other. Kind of how Armenians aren't completely alien to French. Very different but there are some common roots.
Obviously yes, but that term was not, by all means, 'barbaric'. <- the point.
Maciamo uses this "bronze age immigrants" for R quite alot and uses native european when describing I, but I am saying when R invaded western europe they did from eastern europe not from outside europe so in Eupedia R and I should be called original/native europeans.
Yes TWILIGHT your links show realistic maps, but in following map http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml I is called Mesolithic europeans and R is described as Bronze age immigrants to europe so thats why I rejeced it because as I pointed out R were already in europe during mesolithic era.
I like the comments section,
it is a cacophony of pseudo-experts with 100% talent for confabulating ethnographies...
You don't even need to watch Comedy Central anymore,
every page has its own funny pieces.
I have yet to figure out why it matters.
Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità . Oriana Fallaci
I think Y-R1b is called by someones 'bronze ages immigrants' because they consider only the clades which hugely changed the demography of CENTRAL and WESTERN Europe and not all the clades of R1b since Paleolithic. The others clades or lineages seem having been only a small part of the C & W European allover lineages of Y-haplos and having been swept out or almost drown during Neolithic.
That said, the ancestors of today dominant Y-R1b clades seem having been present in Eastern Europe since a long time.
Surely Maciamo could somehow change his wording to avoid false interpretations and contestation?
I'm not well awake.
Maybe it's not Maciamo who is the father of this terminology?
and Y-R1a is involved too in the question here. All the way, the case is the same as for R1b: the lineages which gave birth to most of today C & W European lineages came only lately there, but were already present in E Europe.
I know its not a big deal ;) but since theres some evidence that R and I were present in europe in this era so I thought it would only be normal to call them(R) native europeans too, in my view even haplogroup I start in east europe and west eurasia before settling in w.europe I say this because haplogroup I2 is more numerous in romania, ukraine than in turkey so instead of neareast as its origin north black sea and west eurasia seem very logical and they must have taken this northerly route settling europe rather than southerly route through asia minor!
This isn't very logical.
I would give you an advice.
Please write in English with 'periods' and other bits of grammar.
Last edited by castelleone; 07-08-17 at 21:33.
I try so hard by using commas, periods, good grammar! I think you are being too harsh on me!
No, but you can improve.
It is hard to understand your last sentences, because you don't write period.
I am usually careful to say that Steppe migrants migrated west to Southeast, Central then Western Europe, specifying the path followed in each part of Europe. I hardly ever use the term 'native Europeans'. I prefer to specify the period during which the people inhabited Europe, such as Palaeolithic Europeans, Mesolithic Europeans, Neolithic Europeans, etc. When Yamnayans invaded the Balkans from 3500 BCE, the Neolithic population who was living there were the local natives of the region, although they were mostly descended from migrants from the Near East. After all their ancestors had been living in the Balkans for over 3000 years. Where were our own ancestors living 3000 years ago? At the time modern ethnicities had not yet emerged, and what we call 'ancient ethnicities' (Germanics, Slavs, Gauls, Romans...) didn't really exist either. 3000 years is a long time, more than enough for a population to become 'native' to a region.
My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.
I think it is good that you don't use the term 'native' or 'aboriginal' or 'indigenous'.
because they has some peculiar connotation, perhaps reserved only to certain peoples.
Think about how 'aboriginal Europeans' would sound like to most people...
Long story short, the definition of native is relative to pre- and post-invasions/migrations and to its subsequent long-term settlements.
They invaded the rest of Europe from a very specific region in Europe: the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which happens to be the doorstep to Central Asia and the West Asian Caucasus region. It would be quite misleading to talk about "Eastern European R1a- and R1b-bearing people" because most people would believe that those people were present since and early age in proper "peninsular" Eastern Europe, around Hungary, Lithuania or Serbia, which they weren't. Those peoples were very distinct from the vast majority of Eastern Europeans by them, and the main nucleus of the Yamna horizon was at least as close to Iran and Turkmenistan as it was to Poland or Serbia, i.e. Add to that that at least the Late Indo-Europeans had ~40% CHG admixture and little (or no) WHG admixture, so they were very eastern-shifted. The best definition in my opinion would be "North Eurasian".
That's not necessarily what happened. I find it very likely that Turkey underwent more demographic movements and changes since the Mesolithic than highland areas in Romania and nearby territories. I2 could've easily been a Western Turkey main haplogroup and it was swept away by the Neolithic expansion of G2a, J2, J1, T and E1b1b people.
From what I read there were Gaelic tribes living in Europe during this time?
Ygorbr,
You are talking about "neolithic expansion" of T but there is no evidance of such thing. The only T lineage found in Europe at Neolithic times is T1a1a1 (only confirmed until T1a1a-L208). This T lineage is not found in any non-European sample up to date. The other T lineage which have been found in PPNB belong to T1b (tested T1 and negative for all main and reasonable T1a branches). So there is no true link in Mesolithic-Neolithic times among these two T lineages.
There are two deeply separate T branches that have been found up to date. One in Euope and one in Levant.
This T1b found in PPNB but not in Natufians could be migrated from the North ( south Black Sea-Caucasus ) or Northwest ( Aegean Sea ).
If now we look into the T haplogroup tree diversity and the modern distribution of each of their branches, you will see that T1a1a1 looks like being Formed in Europe and somewhere close to the Black Sea. Then a place like or close to Wallachian-Danubian Plain looks like very reasonable.
Also, do you need to think that between T1a1a1 formation and the recently found ancient T1a1a individuals in Malak Preslaviets we have only ~1000 yeras.
T1a1a2 when we look their diversity and modern distribution points to a "Aegean origin". Also T1a1b points to a "Aegean origin".
Then T1a1a1 could be the most northern branch of T1a1 at the start of the Neolithic expansion.
Do you have to take into account that the most ancient of the T1a1a1 samples (tested T1a1 and T1a1a) have 35% Balkan HG atDNA. This is the highest frequency found among any Neolithic sample up to date in Balkans and perhaps Europe of a sample with YDNA tested.
The closest Neolithic samples to this HG atDNA frequency belongs to R1b-V88 and C1a2-V20 confirmed or predicted. Both of them known Mesolithic lineages.
There should be some LT lineages native to Europe at the start of the Neolithic. Among them T1a1a1 is found to be a very good candidate.
Also remember that together T1a1a1, the following haplogroups: R1b-V88 and I1 (also I2 and even C1a2-V20) are found among Neolithic samples and have been "demonstrated" to came from different European places despite to be involved in such cultural revolution.
You are right! the first wave of Neolithic farmers were predominantly haplogroup G, other lineages comprised less than 10% including J2, T1a and E. There must have been other waves of settlers from Asia minor between 5000 BC and early bronze age that carried predominantly HGs J2, E, T. Its this wave that makes todays majority J2, T, E lineages in Southern europe. So EEFs were G2a, later farmers were J2, E, T we can call them LEF(Late European Farmers).
Reply With Quote
