Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 30 of 30

Thread: To what degree is it possible that G2a's are well adapted to high altitudes?

  1. #26
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,703
    Points
    25,513
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,513, Level: 48
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by G2ian View Post
    "near extinct" meaning gone from almost 100% to 2-3%...

    I also don't agree that recent cultural/religious customs could've made that much difference because all R, G and J haplogroups are prehistoric and people do not really pick and choose based on ydna. It's one melting pot for 10,000 years and if it was the same melting pot both in Caucasus and Europe the outcome would also be the same. Unless there was a variable to skew the results in favor of Indo-Europeans in Europe which was not present in Caucasus. I think it was genocide/war. Or perhaps a disease which they brought with them - But if so, why didn't it affect Caucasus. Another possibility is the sheer number of people. For all we know G in Europe had very low populations and Indo-Europeans could've had 10 times the number upon arrival.

    Really all I'm doing it is looking at more recent migrations from Eurasian Plain to Europe and assuming that Indo-European migration looked very similar. Even Rome couldn't resist the onslaught of the migrating hordes, What could sedentary G farmers do if faced with similar threat ? not much but run for the mountains is my guess.
    You also have to consider these 3 points: 1) G2a was the overwhelming majority mainly in early Neolithic cultures, but there were certainly many "islands" if I2 and even some I1, and even in their communities there was certainly T, H2, E1b1b and some R1b even, so for totally random reasons some of the minor haplogroups might have risen a lot in frequency in some regions; 2) G2a already started to decline before the LCA/BA migrations, the Late Neolithic saw a big resurgence of I2 together with a much more WHG-enriched EEF, probably indicating that some genetic structure already existed well before any foreign conquest, and the people with more indigenous ancestry started to prevail over the others; 3) G2a-majority people may have fled to the more protected areas, usually mountains not suitable to steppe shepherds and farmers, but part of them might also have stayed, however they did not necessarily get killed. If a huge disparity if mating chances is established between a male conqueror and a male defeated population, and especially if the society is polygynic, then even without massive slaughters the native haplogroups could decrease astoundingly in frequency in just a few centuries.

  2. #27
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,703
    Points
    25,513
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,513, Level: 48
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by PaterKeklos View Post
    I would like to reignite this thread. I don't think I'm completely off by positing a mountainous cultural origin for the G2a farmers.

    LeBrok says that the ones in Europe descend from Anatolian flatland farmers but that's not the whole picture. That's like saying that LBK farmers descend from Anatolian flatland farmers which is technically true but doesn't go back far enough to my posited Caucasus Mountain Origin theory (CMO theory from here on out).

    Let me flesh out the CMO - I'm suggesting that the bottleneck seen in haplogroup G occurred in the Caucasus mountains. This does not necessarily mean a genetic adaptation occurred but enough time passed that one could have were said adaptation to be advantageous to being stuck in the Caucasus mountains for a large chunk of the Paleolithic <- get my point here? Then they flow out and "peak" culturally in mountainous areas like the Rhaetians, Etruscans, Sardinians or even the Vinca before them. The LBK was not a cultural "peak" for the G2a men. None of their flatland areas were cultural "peaks". This contrasts sharply with R1a/R1b peoples who thrived and even sought out flatlands (probably due to herding and horses).

    Let me know your thoughts.
    Cucuteni-Tipolye, Baden, GAC and other cultures with higher G2a and EEF (which is what really matters, for any adaptation to altitude would not be found in the Y chromosome most certainly) were not mountainous societies, they lived along valleys in flatlands. You will only see cultural peaks of presumably G2a people in mountainous area because you are mistaking the consequence for the cause: advanced civilizations only appeared after the EBA in Europe, but by that time G2a had already been diminished by the Late Neolithic I2 resurgence and later by the steppe and Iranian_Chalcolithic influx, so by the Iron Age the G2a were already mainly concentrated in mountainous areas and could not possbly have peaks anywhere else. Besides, I think you are speculating a bit too much by believing that Rhaetian and Etruscan were necessarily G2a majority. Nobody knows that yet.

  3. #28
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,703
    Points
    25,513
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,513, Level: 48
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by paul333 View Post
    I came across a report headed by Biochemical Society Transactions , with a headline ' Evidence suggesting that Homo neanderthalensis contributed the H2 Mapt haplotype to Homo sapiens,( dated Aug 1st 2005 ).

    In the report it mentions " The H2 haplotype is the minor haplotype in Caucasion populations and is not found in other populations", it also refer's to the associated H1 Haplotype being the only haplotype found in all other populations 'except those derived from Caucasions'.

    As the Y H2 haplogroup, which I assume it is concerned with here, is also associated with G2a and the early European Farmers EEF, it may be supporting your argument, but it was some time ago so I'm not to sure if it is still reflecting current opinions.

    The report also indicates Y H2 was in Europe co-existing with Neanderthalensis from 45,000,to 18,000, thereby significantly separating it from The Y H1 haplogroup, but at the same time indicating it was in Europe before the farmers arrived ? and 'had entered Europe from the Caucasus', no doubt this suggests evidence of EEF in the Caucasus Mountain area's if accepted.

    Y H2 is also associated with several early culture's including Bug/Dniester, Vinca, Starcevo, Lengyel, and LBK, no doubt using and entering through the rivers including the Danube to central Europe etc.,

    The same argument concerning Y G2a, would most certianly be applied to Y H2 who was closely attached with the early movements of this haplogroup.
    i do not think the conclusions of this study are backed up by more recent research. H2 was found in the early Neolithic Levant, but I do not think it was found in Paleolithic pre-EEF Europe (correct me if I'm wrong). Besides, H2 is considered to be rightfully a descendant of the fully Homo sapiens haplogroup GHIJK, not a Neanderthal relic. No Y-DNA related to Neanderthals and not fitting in the BT non-African macro-haplogroup phylogenetic tree has been found yet.

  4. #29
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    30-09-16
    Posts
    174
    Points
    4,236
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,236, Level: 18
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 14
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Canada



    MAPT is a gene on chromosome 17, a haplotype called H2 there has nothing to do with human Y chromosomal haplogroup H2.

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    500 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    27-05-18
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    35
    Points
    984
    Level
    8
    Points: 984, Level: 8
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 166
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    I1a1c

    Ethnic group
    Georgian
    Country: Georgia



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    You also have to consider these 3 points: 1) G2a was the overwhelming majority mainly in early Neolithic cultures, but there were certainly many "islands" if I2 and even some I1, and even in their communities there was certainly T, H2, E1b1b and some R1b even, so for totally random reasons some of the minor haplogroups might have risen a lot in frequency in some regions; 2) G2a already started to decline before the LCA/BA migrations, the Late Neolithic saw a big resurgence of I2 together with a much more WHG-enriched EEF, probably indicating that some genetic structure already existed well before any foreign conquest, and the people with more indigenous ancestry started to prevail over the others; 3) G2a-majority people may have fled to the more protected areas, usually mountains not suitable to steppe shepherds and farmers, but part of them might also have stayed, however they did not necessarily get killed. If a huge disparity if mating chances is established between a male conqueror and a male defeated population, and especially if the society is polygynic, then even without massive slaughters the native haplogroups could decrease astoundingly in frequency in just a few centuries.
    That is in fact very close to what I was thinking. Whether straight up Genocide or not it was due to struggle or warfare and not because one group was more fertile than the other. Plus simply due to human nature I find it almost impossible that such migrations and the overpopulation would've been resolved in any kind of peaceful civilized manner. One population growing too large means they experience some kind of scarcity. This would incentivize attack on neighboring tribes for more land/resources.

    Rinse and repeat for 1000s of years and you get the picture. What I'm wondering is if the I or even R dominant tribes had somehow managed to produce more food which would make the whole equation much simpler, hell even cannibals would have a slight advantage over non cannibals. However if G2a had more food but still lost out that would mean something else is at play. Perhaps a heavily decentralized societal structure coming up against more centralized and martial one. or even an advantage in weaponry/tools available.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •