Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 32 of 32

Thread: Europe without Indo-European Invasion

  1. #26
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,237


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Messier 67 View Post
    The fact that it happened over a 1000 years rules out natural disasters. For a natural disaster would have killed both man and woman, and all at once. The neolithic mtDNA remains. And the male line elimination occurs at the arrival of the invaders.

    What I am curious about is did this happen before on the Steppe. Was there a native steppe population 10-15000 years ago that was also eliminated.

    Remember in Europe an increase of 5% in Muslim population is being touted as White Genocide. And those Muslim migrants are simply migrants, wanting a better life, and there are those who say shoot them at the border (still a poll option at eupedia) or kick them out.

    I am not the only one point out this is evidence of a genocide:

    The Irish make reference to it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/scie...cide-1.1426197

    The British twice published it in the paper: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ncient-britons

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...na-study-shows

    There was not just a replacement for those in Britain and Ireland by the same R1b tribes, it happened in Gaul and Iberia and to a extent in Northern Italy with the Celts there too. And R1a replace I in the Baltics, along with replacing the I2 in Scandinavia. Parts of Central Europe were spared, allowing for the establishment of the Germanic people, which is mostly a combination of I1, R1b, I2 and some R1a.

    This is like Armenian Genocide, only those tied to the genocide deny it.
    I agree there must've been some ethnic cleansing (full genocides usually affect womens' lives, too) as well as massive slaughters related to wars and low-level chronic conflict (these latter clearly affect men's lives much more than women's), but I think you're exaggerating these things a bit.

    First of all, except maybe for Britain/Ireland, where there is evidence of massive population replacement (supposedly 10% of the present gene pool derives from people of Neolithic Britain/Ireland) which probably followed a massive (but internal affairs) population crash, the EEF Y-DNA lines were not exactly "eliminated" as if they totally disappeared in continental Europe. In most places, especially Southern Europe, non-R1b-M269/R1a-M417 lineages are still reasonably frequent, in parts of Southern Europe even accounting for more than 40%. Granted, some of those subclades may have been brought by Indo-Europeans (or should we say Indo-Europeanized), but in any case most of them probably once belonged to non-IE peoples of Old Europe.

    Besides, my final point is that even in the absence of any horrendous genocide (and the preservation of Neolithic Mt-DNA makes it somewhat less plausible, genocides are pretty chaotic) the IE Y-DNA haplogroups could've easily prevailed over the EEF halogroups. Things like the expansion of haplogroups can get really exponential if one of them increases much faster than the others. All you have to have is a male population that is generally of lower social and economic status and is subject to higher death rates (maybe they are cannon fodder too frequently? Or simply slaves and miserable peasants usually die younger?) coupled with lower reproductive sucess i.e. lesser children per man on average. In a few centuries, their Y-DNA haplogroups would've plummeted even if they were never massacred (though I'm pretty sure that at least occasionally they were, indeed).

  2. #27
    Elite member IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    26
    Posts
    883

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    I've always wondered what the ANE populations would look like, maybe native American features that don't seem East Asian derived? well then, magnificent super aquiline noses !!!





    and apparently, sloping foreheads.

    some native American profiles give a bit of what feels to me like "Caucasoid" features





    Yamnaya reconstructions?


  3. #28
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,237


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    I've always wondered what the ANE populations would look like, maybe native American features that don't seem East Asian derived? well then, magnificent super aquiline noses !!!
    and apparently, sloping foreheads.

    some native American profiles give a bit of what feels to me like "Caucasoid" features





    Yamnaya reconstructions?
    Interesting comparisons, and I agree that there is definitely something noticeably Caucasoid (but not "modern European" as far as I can see) about the phenotype of most Native Americans (that perhaps suggests that ANE weren't mongoloid). But one quibble of mine that should be mentioned is that some of those features are found only in some regions of native Americas. So either they existed in the past, but became more pronounced in some regions and much less prominent (or nonexistant) in others, or its development happened later when humans were already inhabiting the Americas. Brazilian Indians, for instance, can be clearly differentiated from Andean Indians (with their much longer and more aquiline noses, as well as much less "gracile" face shape) as well as, even more strongly, from North American Indians. They have shorter and wider noses, as well as other "lighter" features. Their facial phenotype is often, surprisingly (probably just a case of convergent evolution), quite similar to that of Austronesian peoples of Indonesia or Philippines.




  4. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-08-18
    Posts
    49


    Country: Madagascar



    Quote Originally Posted by Jairoken10 View Post
    What do you think Europe and it's Inhabitants would look like, if the Indo-Europeans never took place there, and never influenced it culturely or genetically?
    They would look almost EXACTLY like they are now. R and N are South East Asian stock, who differ from other South East Asians O and also - Q, because they gained more neanderthal DNA from other europeans. That's all. Looks are not made by y-DNA, but auDNA, otherwise there would be no mixed race people possible.

  5. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    23-04-18
    Posts
    73


    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by laint View Post
    They would look almost EXACTLY like they are now. R and N are South East Asian stock, who differ from other South East Asians O and also - Q, because they gained more neanderthal DNA from other europeans. That's all. Looks are not made by y-DNA, but auDNA, otherwise there would be no mixed race people possible.
    Very low IQ post. Talking 40s-maybe lower 50s level IQ.

  6. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I think we can have a vague idea of that if we just look at the mainly Neolithic Near Eastern-derived populations of West Asia, Southwest Asia and North Africa, as well as some remote regions that are overwhelmingly EEF (ANF + WHG) even today, like some parts of Sardinia. No, I don't think they'd be significantly less warlike, less patriarchal and more egalitarian than the Indo-European societies. Neolithic farming societies were also usually strongly kin-based and had a communal (clan-based or tribe-based) property of the land which would inevitably cause many conflicts especially in times of scarcity.

    I think we'd see different cultural and social organizations, but with the development of fully established states and complex economies they'd vie for wealth, power and dominance just as much as other peoples, especially because they were mainly farming societies, which are noticeably associated with increased patriarchal structures and significant income inequality (especially access to land) in most places where advanced farming civilizations happened.

    On the other hand, I think they'd probably have developed urban communities and organized state institutions earlier than the Indo-European-derived societies of Northern & Central Europe (in Southern Europe, it's clear there was a huge influence from the local Neolithic societies and also from civilizations on the other side of the Mediterranean). Until horses were adopted by them much later than they in fact did, those non-IE Europeans would be less mobile and more attached to their territories, possibly stimulating the earlier development of large-scale agriculture and permanent building.
    You think Europe would have been even more advanced without IEs?

  7. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Interesting comparisons, and I agree that there is definitely something noticeably Caucasoid (but not "modern European" as far as I can see) about the phenotype of most Native Americans (that perhaps suggests that ANE weren't mongoloid). But one quibble of mine that should be mentioned is that some of those features are found only in some regions of native Americas. So either they existed in the past, but became more pronounced in some regions and much less prominent (or nonexistant) in others, or its development happened later when humans were already inhabiting the Americas. Brazilian Indians, for instance, can be clearly differentiated from Andean Indians (with their much longer and more aquiline noses, as well as much less "gracile" face shape) as well as, even more strongly, from North American Indians. They have shorter and wider noses, as well as other "lighter" features. Their facial phenotype is often, surprisingly (probably just a case of convergent evolution), quite similar to that of Austronesian peoples of Indonesia or Philippines.



    The ANE of Malta/AG3 is ~90% West Eurasian. I think ANE peaks in the Karitiana at ~44% (which would make them 40% West Eurasian). I believe they also have some Australian ancestry (although I don't know if that's been confirmed).

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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