Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 41 of 41

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
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    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
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    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
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    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 PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    30-09-16
    Posts
    174
    Points
    4,480
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,480, Level: 19
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 170
    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:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    27-05-18
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    38
    Points
    1,191
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,191, Level: 9
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 159
    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.

  6. #31
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class500 Experience Points1 year registered
    PaterKeklos's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-10-17
    Posts
    25
    Points
    572
    Level
    6
    Points: 572, Level: 6
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 178
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G-L497
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2b

    Ethnic group
    Halstatt Celtic
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by G2ian View Post
    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.
    I agree completely that a "cultural diffusion" model (Gimbutas) is silly and asinine to propose. Neighbors blow each others heads off in modern times with forensic science and life sentences over small things like a disagreement over a fence location. It's very childlike and naive to think that "peaceful cultural diffusion" occurred between two oil and vinegar societes- sedentary farmers and nomadic horse warriors.

    Yes, I see the PIE sphere as a sort of Proto-Scythic empire - same language, same religion, same customs, from Ireland to India. Sure there are differences in dialects etc but the fact that we can trace a Proto language back from Gaelic to Sanskrit is quite astounding and a testament to the *possibly underrated* nomadic empire that very likely could have been the PIE's. Again, think "more primitive Scythians" and we're not going into outlandish, imaginary territory here. Finally, remember, we are still speaking these people's languages and just because they turned into the Celts, Romans, Germans, Italics, Greeks, Slavs, Balts, Scythians, Persians, Tocharians, and Indo-Aryans does not mean there is zero cultural continuity and living by many of their ideals: meritocracy, self-determination, hybridization or elimination altogether of theocratic meddling in governance (feel free to take me apart on this last one, I'll defend the PIE "lackluster religious output" to the grave [they were NOT theocratic people in the same way that the sedentary farmer descendants were [[Sumerians, Egyptians, Minoans, Old Europe etc]]). Longest continuous culture? The Chinese? False the PIE. Furthermore, the Chinese got a tremendous amount of "civilization starter packages" from the Tocharians. Just look at their timeline for agriculture, smelting, and horse domestication in the Far East. Neo-Proto-Indo-Europeans have been a civilization since they first charged out of the Pontic Caspian step as the Yamnaya.

    This question has been active for a few years. It seems most people are consumed with 2 things:

    1) That Y-Chromosomes aren't important in determining traits - Why would that make sense? Nature doesn't make mistakes nor does it care about your feelings or your modern perceptions of what is or isn't "fair" genetically or in terms of gender issues. Fact of the matter is that the Y chromosome remains intact and this is not a mistake. It clearly has alternate purpose to just sperm motility. Let's expand out minds. Sperm count alone is a horribly over simplistic explanation for the only chromosome to remain intact and have 53 million base pairs (even if this is less than most chromosomes, still plenty to exhibit traits). We are more similar to silverback gorillas not bonobos. Once you come to this realization, things like Y chromosome paternity preservation and male-line dominated super tribes descending from a single Proto-Father start to make tremendously more sense. Again ignore the mainstream media which is trying to push false and under-researched concepts about us being orgiastic bonobos... Does that fit with anything you have ever read in history? More sons? Do R1b's/R1a's have more sons or even more kids on average per attempt than G2a's? If not then we need to start to expand our minds past socio-cultural implications of the 21st century and look at the real, naturalistic, biological root cause of Y chromosomes remaining intact from father to son. Evolution didn't leave the Y chromosome intact just so that we can debate population migrations on Eupedia hundreds of thousands of years later.

    2) That G2a was wiped out wholesale in Europe - As a G2a person, let me be the first to admit: "Yes, G2a was slaughtered absolutely wholesale in a wanton act of violence (again insert Scythians, Xiongyu, Huns, Mongols, Hungarians or any PIE-descendant or non-genetic-PIE-cultural copies)". With that said, I'm not sure if your response takes into account just how incredibly populous the Old European cities were. I've seen estimates that put cities in Old Europe as the largest in the world at the time, larger than the Indus Valley cities. I would agree based on genetic replacement in more isolated areas like Ireland being nearly 100% with males that population density decreased Westward. However, there aren't any G2a cultures worth noting west of Halstatt with the exception of whoever built Stonehenge and Skara Brae. Furthermore, there were multiple waves of Proto-Celts and Insular Celts to the British Isles that would have chipped away at any G2a + I1 extant megalith-constructing population there whereas in Old Europe, the destruction was absolute and very fast. In fact, as I type this, I realize it might actually further support my assertion that G-L497 was associated with the first Bronze blacksmithing somewhere in the Carpathian Mountains (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...003#post585003) as it seems as if the horse was not the deciding factor in PIE success, it was really their Bronze technology. Once they obtained Bronze, even massively well developed cultures like Old Europe were erased in decades.

    However G-L30 could represent a Old Europe/LBK/pre-PIE-Halstatt cultural horizon in which mountainous blacksmithing was invented, the dominant artisans amongst them being brought into the PIE nobility early on due to their ability to craft armor and weapons for the nobility hence explaining the prevalence of R1b + G-L497 (originally from Romania) all across the PIE horizon from Ireland to India. While G2a was wiped out wholesale, it was also the only haplogroup to be integrated into the horselord nobility and moved around with R1b. Why?

    Addition: I started a thread about this: (
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...003#post585003).
    Last edited by PaterKeklos; 02-09-19 at 20:05.

  7. #32
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    16-10-17
    Posts
    209
    Points
    2,693
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,693, Level: 14
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 57
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    H2a1 M9313
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c3

    Country: UK - England



    Only just seen this today, re posts #14, & #29. Understanding DNA terminology is a definate learning process, and we all have to start at the beginning, whether we are chasing a masters, or not.
    Last edited by paul333; 03-09-19 at 21:01.

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class500 Experience Points1 year registered
    PaterKeklos's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-10-17
    Posts
    25
    Points
    572
    Level
    6
    Points: 572, Level: 6
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 178
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G-L497
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2b

    Ethnic group
    Halstatt Celtic
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by G2ian View Post
    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.

    I agree 100%.

  9. #34
    Junior Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered
    S04ancap's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-06-19
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6
    Points
    318
    Level
    3
    Points: 318, Level: 3
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 32
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G-L497-L42-Z40854
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U3a1

    Ethnic group
    Italian, German, Czech
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by PaterKeklos View Post
    However G-L30 could represent a Old Europe/LBK/pre-PIE-Halstatt cultural horizon in which mountainous blacksmithing was invented, the dominant artisans amongst them being brought into the PIE nobility early on due to their ability to craft armor and weapons for the nobility hence explaining the prevalence of R1b + G-L497 (originally from Romania) all across the PIE horizon from Ireland to India. While G2a was wiped out wholesale, it was also the only haplogroup to be integrated into the horselord nobility and moved around with R1b. Why?
    Why do you think L497 is originally from Romania? The oldest L497 ancient sample dated to 3,300-2,850 BC is from Budakalász-Luppa csárda Hungary. We thought a L42 was found from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture in Ukraine, but it was removed from the paper. There is a current "hotspot" around Moldova but that is based on only a few samples. L497's mrca 7200 ybp could've been from Romania but also further south and west.

  10. #35
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class500 Experience Points1 year registered
    PaterKeklos's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-10-17
    Posts
    25
    Points
    572
    Level
    6
    Points: 572, Level: 6
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 178
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G-L497
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2b

    Ethnic group
    Halstatt Celtic
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by S04ancap View Post
    Why do you think L497 is originally from Romania? The oldest L497 ancient sample dated to 3,300-2,850 BC is from Budakalász-Luppa csárda Hungary. We thought a L42 was found from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture in Ukraine, but it was removed from the paper. There is a current "hotspot" around Moldova but that is based on only a few samples. L497's mrca 7200 ybp could've been from Romania but also further south and west.
    Maciamo: "This clade was found in the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (as I had predicted), which explains the hotspot around Moldova. G2a-L497 (or actually its Z1816 subclade) was probably assimilated by the R1b-U152 Proto-Italo-Celts before moving to the Alps. Not only is there a strong geographic correlation with the La Tène culture, L497 also matches the distribution of Italic tribes in Italy. Its high frequency in northwestern Iberia could be due to the accumulated migrations of the Hallstatt Celts and especially the Suebi tribe from Baden-Württenberg."

    (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...group-G2a-L497)

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/114488v1.full

    Attachment 11385

    Attachment 11386
    Last edited by PaterKeklos; 07-09-19 at 01:41.

  11. #36
    Junior Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered
    S04ancap's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-06-19
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6
    Points
    318
    Level
    3
    Points: 318, Level: 3
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 32
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G-L497-L42-Z40854
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U3a1

    Ethnic group
    Italian, German, Czech
    Country: United States



    Maciamo made that statement when a paper showed a G-L42 Trypillian outlier in Ukraine but that sample was removed probably due to contamination. So the oldest L497 we have is a Baden sample from Hungary dating to 3,300 BC. And the Moldova “hotspot” is from a couple of 70 samples being L497, I don't even think we know if it is a old or recent subclade. To me a much later assimilation further to the west makes more sense.

  12. #37
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class500 Experience Points1 year registered
    PaterKeklos's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-10-17
    Posts
    25
    Points
    572
    Level
    6
    Points: 572, Level: 6
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 178
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G-L497
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2b

    Ethnic group
    Halstatt Celtic
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by S04ancap View Post
    Maciamo made that statement when a paper showed a G-L42 Trypillian outlier in Ukraine but that sample was removed probably due to contamination. So the oldest L497 we have is a Baden sample from Hungary dating to 3,300 BC. And the Moldova “hotspot” is from a couple of 70 samples being L497, I don't even think we know if it is a old or recent subclade. To me a much later assimilation further to the west makes more sense.
    Edit: A sample from Romania that didn't meet purity standards and a sample from Hungary, well within the geographic and temporal cline in question, does not rule this theory out. We know bronze smelting occurred first in Romania, Ukraine, or Hungary. We also know that necessary reagents are distributed far and wide in trade networks. One of these epicenters is Halstatt. It is just south of the proposed origin point of the Bell Beakers. I believe my theory is more in keeping with the Ukrainian PIE Urheimat Theory. If there is no Bronze between Romania/Hungary/Serbia before Bell Beakers, then my theory has been debunked.

    On my profile, I self identify as "Halstatt Celtic" based on my haplogroups, autosomal DNA, and phenotype. However, I too must be dubious of making connections that suit my imagination. As much as I wish I could admit that the sites I've seen in Halstatt are more impressive for their time than those seen in Serbia etc, I would be doing a disservice to science.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  13. #38
    Junior Member Achievements:
    250 Experience Points3 months registered
    S04ancap's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-06-19
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6
    Points
    318
    Level
    3
    Points: 318, Level: 3
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 32
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G-L497-L42-Z40854
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U3a1

    Ethnic group
    Italian, German, Czech
    Country: United States



    It is possible L497 came from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, I am just saying that the sample you referenced was false so not a good one to point to. It's not a matter of purity standards because the dating didn't make sense either as it was from 3,916-2,936 BC and L42 didn't even form until around 1,700 BC. The Hungarian sample from 3,300 BC is from the Baden culture, not CT. I think L497 may have been further to the west and a large part of the Vinca, and then Baden before the R1b invaders came and drove it into the Alps as a refuge. Then the assimilation happened in the Iron age as Rhaetians and Celts with further assimilation in the Roman era. Again it's just speculation on my part. And are you familiar with the Hallstatt "Royal burial" from Mitterkirchen, Austria dating to 700 BC? From his limited STR's he looks L497.

  14. #39
    Junior Member Achievements:
    7 days registered

    Join Date
    08-09-19
    Posts
    9
    Points
    68
    Level
    1
    Points: 68, Level: 1
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 19.0%


    Country: Russian Federation



    Quote Originally Posted by PaterKeklos View Post
    2) G2a's were horribly unsuited to warfare and were brutally slaughtered everywhere they made contact with R1b/R1a's.
    G2a terribly not suited for war? For me, a controversial statement. This haplogroup includes, for example, the Circassians (Adygs), who from 1763 to 1864 continuously led with the superior Russian army in Europe and the world at that time - at that time. This despite the fact that the Circassians were sorely lacking weapons, a centralized command, they also fought with Turkey, fought among themselves. In fact, these were medieval knight squads. Great warriors and riders. Yes, as a result of genocide with the loss of 90% of the population and territories. But why is everyone passionate about the idea of ​​the ancient G2a genocide? Is there any evidence of this?

  15. #40
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    27-05-18
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    38
    Points
    1,191
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,191, Level: 9
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 159
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    I1a1c

    Ethnic group
    Georgian
    Country: Georgia



    Quote Originally Posted by Адам. Б. К. View Post
    G2a terribly not suited for war? For me, a controversial statement. This haplogroup includes, for example, the Circassians (Adygs), who from 1763 to 1864 continuously led with the superior Russian army in Europe and the world at that time - at that time. This despite the fact that the Circassians were sorely lacking weapons, a centralized command, they also fought with Turkey, fought among themselves. In fact, these were medieval knight squads. Great warriors and riders. Yes, as a result of genocide with the loss of 90% of the population and territories. But why is everyone passionate about the idea of ​​the ancient G2a genocide? Is there any evidence of this?
    I don't think anyone's passionate about G2a Genocide. It's just speculation about the X factor that almost caused G2a to go extinct in Europe while thriving in Caucasus. Could be Disease brought by migration. Could be a new technology that their enemies possessed or could be sedentary vs nomadic(HG) people. That last one fits nicely imho because Nomads don't do too well in foreign mountains or islands whereas it's hard for sedentary farmers to defend from marauding tribes without significant infrastructure or strong centralized system which ofc didn't exist back then.

  16. #41
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    matadworf's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-08-17
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    88
    Points
    1,844
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,844, Level: 11
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 6
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Greek Messinia
    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    G2a's in Greece remained in tact from approximately 7000 BC (Thessaly) up until the Bronze Age so even though there was an IE impact on the mainland the G's remained present (albeit in a diluted sense) throughout Dark Ages and beyond. I do think that in Greece G2a's were isolated mountain people particularly in Thessaly and the Peloponnese.
    '

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
  •