Cro-Magnons, Levantines and Indo-Europeans : what do we owe to our ancestors ?

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
10,066
Reaction score
3,465
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
The present population of Europe can trace its ancestry to three principal population sources following the end of the Ice Age.

1) The first was the native Paleolithic & Mesolithic population of Europe, descended from Cro-Magnon. These were hunter-gatherers (presumably more hunters and fishers than gatherers). They have left us a good deal of our genetic heritage, but little else in term of language, culture or technologies. These people were tall, robust, hairy, with big brains, but most probably dark-haired, dark-eyed and slightly tanned. Their genetic legacy can be seen in Y-haplogroup I, mtDNA haplogroup H1, H3, V, U4, U5 and possibly some other haplogroups. These people usually buried their dead in collective graves.

2) Around 7000 BCE Neolithic farmers from the Levant moved to Thessaly in northern Greece. They would spread pottery-making, wheat, barley and millet agriculture, as well as cattle, goat and sheep herding to the Balkans and Danube Basin, then across the Rhine, as far as northern France and Denmark. Western Europe's megalithic cultures, although probably more related to the Mesolithic people, were made possible thanks to the diffusion of farming from these original settlers.

Neolithic farmers were of shorter stature than the Mesolithic aborigines, gracile rather than robust, high-skulled, long-headed and narrow-faced and also tanned with dark hair and eyes. They carried with them genes that made them gluten tolerant and well adapted to a high carbohydrate diet based on cereals. Indigenous hunter-gatherers lacking those genes would have had a high incidence of diabetes and food allergies like Coeliac disease or Crohn's disease if they adopted the same grain diet. If you do not suffer from such conditions you should be thankful for the Levantine DNA you inherited from your Neolithic ancestors. People in the British Isles and Nordic-Baltic countries, who have the lowest percentage of Near-Eastern DNA, have the highest incidence of diabetes and wheat/gluten allergy.

Neolithic farmers introduced cheese and yoghurt making from the Near-East. Cheese has remained to this day one of the great cultural food in Europe, the pride of many countries and regions, representing a billion euro industry. Europe's first towns and cities were founded by these Levantine immigrants. These towns in the Balkans would also initiate Europe's Copper Age.

The genetic legacy of these Levantine immigrants can be traced through Y-DNA haplogroups E1b1b, T, J2(b), G2a, and mitochondrial haplogroups J, T, U1, U7, K, H6 and some other subclades of H.

3) Between 3000 and 2000 BCE, Europe underwent a dramatic invasion that would change its population structure and lifestyle for ever : the Indo-European migrations. The hunter-gatherers from the Pontic-Caspian steppe had adopted agriculture and herding from their Carpathian and Caucasian neighbours. These steppe people were not genetically adapted to a grain-based nutrition and so privileged herding over farming. The cold winters in the steppe was not favourable to the primitive Neolithic rainfall agriculture anyway, and the vast expanses of prairies were ideal for herding.

Around 4000 BCE, the Indo-Europeans domesticated the horse, which permitted them to keep much larger herds and move them more quickly around the steppe. Between 4000 and 3500 BCE, they bred long-haired sheep that would allow the very first manufacture of wool. Wool clothing would make life much easier in the colder parts of Eurasia. It is known from the Tarim mummies in North-West China, that the Indo-Europeans had tartan-pattern clothes 4000 years ago. As the Celtic branch split away from the Tocharian one at least 5500 years ago, and as ancient Celts also wore tartan, it is likely that tartan was invented in the Eurasian steppe before 3500 BCE, around the time wool was invented.

Being herders, the steppe people relied a lot on cow milk for their nutrition. The mutation for lactose tolerance certainly arose in the steppe, possibly west of the Ural, between 4600 and 2800 BCE.

We also owe to the Indo-Europeans the introduction of bronze-working to Western Europe, the domestication of apples (3500 BCE, north of the Caspian Sea), and if not the domestication at least the spread of plums and cherries (both thought to have been domesticated between northern Anatolia and the Caspian). They also seem to have build the world's first galleys, on the Black Sea shores, around 3000 BCE. The Indo-Europeans were the first to widely use chariots for war, although it is contested whether they invented it or not.

Most importantly, the Indo-Europeans gave us the languages we speak today in Europe (except Basque, Hungarian, Estonian and Finnish), and a great part of our culture and cultural history. Classical European religions, be it Greek, Roman, Celtic, Germanic or Slavic polytheism, are all Indo-European in origin - and so are Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism in Asia.

Neolithic to Bronze-Age steppe people appear to have had Proto-Europoid features (mixed European and Mongoloid features, although probably not slanted eyes), like wide, thick-boned faces and low skulls, which was quickly lost when they interbred with other Europeans. They almost certainly carried with them the genetic mutations for blue eyes, fair hair and red hair, as these can be found in all the regions of Eurasia that they colonised, including in the 4000 year-old Tarim mummies.

Their Y-chromosomal signature is either R1a or R1b. Their mitochondrial DNA may well have included haplogroups from the Middle East (notably K and T), but otherwise included U2, U3, U4, U5, H5, H7, W, and probably I, X2 and other forms of H.

The Pontic-Caspian cultures buried their dead in individual graves in cemeteries since the Neolithic (notably in burial mounds, known as kurgans or tumuli), unlike other most other cultures in Europe at the time that either burned the dead or buried them in collective graves. Old Indo-European texts (Mycenaean, Hittite, Indo-Iranian) reveal that they confer a lot of importance to the individual, such as personal achievements. They had individualistic values. They also had a patrilinear society with male-dominant gods, as opposed to the matrilinear female-goddess worshipping societies of "Old Europe". Their preference for male children might have helped spread their Y-DNA lines around Europe and South Asia.
 
Last edited:
Great summary.
 
interesting


The genetic legacy of these Levantine immigrants can be traced through Y-DNA haplogroups E1b1b, T, J2(b), G2a,
Europe was founded by the descendants of E1b1b ?
Who were the Levantine immigrants ?
Were they the ancestors of modern Arabs , Berbers or not?
Why did you call them the Levantine immigrants ?


The Proto-Indo-Europeans belonged to both R1a and R1b.

:unsure: The blonds were not Proto-Indo-Europeans ..:shocked:
 
interesting
Europe was founded by the descendants of E1b1b ?
Who were the Levantine immigrants ?
Were they the ancestors of modern Arabs , Berbers or not?
Why did you call them the Levantine immigrants ?
No, Levants are not North-Africans, levants are from the Levant . :useless:


:unsure: The blonds were not Proto-Indo-Europeans ..:shocked:
What blonds ??:unsure:
 
interesting



Europe was founded by the descendants of E1b1b ?
Who were the Levantine immigrants ?
Were they the ancestors of modern Arabs , Berbers or not?
Why did you call them the Levantine immigrants ?




:unsure: The blonds were not Proto-Indo-Europeans ..:shocked:

The original Berbers were Eurasian, not Arab in any way. Berbers mixed with Arabs in the North African Islamic advance of the 7th century.
 
Great summary of the Kurgan version. But there are others...

Sincerely, I don't think that by 3000 bC those "steppe peoples" had better militar technology than, for example, the danubian cultures. Horse-riding for warfare purposes was generalized by assyrians (circa 700 b.C.), and war charriots by 1800 b.C. (Mesopotamia) Arrows, stone-made axes, spears and javelins were the main weapons till the middle bronze. It wasn't an epysode as "Cortes and the aztecs".
 
Great summary of the Kurgan version. But there are others...
Sincerely, I don't think that by 3000 bC those "steppe peoples" had better militar technology than, for example, the danubian cultures. Horse-riding for warfare purposes was generalized by assyrians (circa 700 b.C.), and war charriots by 1800 b.C. (Mesopotamia) Arrows, stone-made axes, spears and javelins were the main weapons till the middle bronze. It wasn't an epysode as "Cortes and the aztecs".

The Kurgan hypothesis is the term used by Marija Gimbutas in the 1950's and 60's. Archaeologists don't refer to a "Kurgan" culture any more, but "Pontic-Caspian" or "steppe" culture.

Archaeological evidence from the last two decades overwhelmingly confirms that steppe people were technologically superior to their neighbours and anybody else anywhere. The Maykop culture in the North Caucasus, the southernmost part of the steppe culture, was not just more advanced than the Danubian cultures, but also Mesopotamia, Egypt or China. The world's first long swords (about 60cm) were made in Maykop over 5000 years ago. The horse was undeniably domesticated in the steppe (plenty of archaeological evidence of early horse riding around the Volga as early as 6000 years ago).

Horse-drawn war chariots (not carts pulled by donkeys) were also invented in the northern steppes (Urals region) at latest in 2100 BCE. Chariots were first used by the Sintashta-Petrovka culture to conquer Central Asia, then India and Iran. They didn't partake in the Italo-Celtic invasions, but were part of the Mycenaean invasion of Greece before 1650 BCE and the Hittites of Anatolia used them to defeat the Assyrians and Egyptians (who didn't have war chariots yet) around the same time. The first use of chariots by the Assyrians were under the Mitanni dynasty (1500 -1300 BCE), which was of Indo-Iranian origin (Old Indic speakers).

You can read more about how it all happened here and here.
 
The Kurgan hypothesis is the term used by Marija Gimbutas in the 1950's and 60's. Archaeologists don't refer to a "Kurgan" culture any more, but "Pontic-Caspian" or "steppe" culture.

Archaeological evidence from the last two decades overwhelmingly confirms that steppe people were technologically superior to their neighbours and anybody else anywhere. The Maykop culture in the North Caucasus, the southernmost part of the steppe culture, was not just more advanced than the Danubian cultures, but also Mesopotamia, Egypt or China. The world's first long swords (about 60cm) were made in Maykop over 5000 years ago. The horse was undeniably domesticated in the steppe (plenty of archaeological evidence of early horse riding around the Volga as early as 6000 years ago).

Horse-drawn war chariots (not carts pulled by donkeys) were also invented in the northern steppes (Urals region) at latest in 2100 BCE. Chariots were first used by the Sintashta-Petrovka culture to conquer Central Asia, then India and Iran. They didn't partake in the Italo-Celtic invasions, but were part of the Mycenaean invasion of Greece before 1650 BCE and the Hittites of Anatolia used them to defeat the Assyrians and Egyptians (who didn't have war chariots yet) around the same time. The first use of chariots by the Assyrians were under the Mitanni dynasty (1500 -1300 BCE), which was of Indo-Iranian origin (Old Indic speakers).

Do you think of massive militar migrations in the third millenium b.C towards western Europe and a kind of mass male murder, reducing other Hp to become a tiny minority?

Do you think that haplogroup equates language? People mix, since the "early times". What haplogroups are responsible of the western non-indoeuropean languages?: Iberian, Basque, possibly Pictish...Was there another genocyde in Ireland (up to 85% R1b)? Why in central and southern italian peninsula (excepting phoenician and etruscan settlements), is so hard to find non-IE languages substrata?

When I studied -not so far ago- we learnt it as Kurgan hypothesis, but it's not so important. The genesis and spread of languages is far more complicated -to me- than this. I supported years ago but now I'm sceptical, especially with bronze age massive invasions.
 
I think that latin has a Basque substratum.
 
Do you think of massive militar migrations in the third millenium b.C towards western Europe and a kind of mass male murder, reducing other Hp to become a tiny minority?

Do you think that haplogroup equates language? People mix, since the "early times". What haplogroups are responsible of the western non-indoeuropean languages?: Iberian, Basque, possibly Pictish...Was there another genocyde in Ireland (up to 85% R1b)? Why in central and southern italian peninsula (excepting phoenician and etruscan settlements), is so hard to find non-IE languages substrata?

When I studied -not so far ago- we learnt it as Kurgan hypothesis, but it's not so important. The genesis and spread of languages is far more complicated -to me- than this. I supported years ago but now I'm sceptical, especially with bronze age massive invasions.

Have you read my links ? It is all explained in the framed section under R1b.
 
if it wasnt for the swarthy levantines... olive skin dark hair and eyes woudnt exist in southern europe infact the mediterranean race woudnt even exist in south europe at all.. europe woud even be whiter then today.. itd just be nordics ( r1b r1a gracile tall fair eyed and haired/skinned and indo european/aryan in origin) and alpines/dinarics(aboriginal cro magnon i1 i2a stocky robust tall type)! theyd be all more lighter then they are today imo especially southern europe ! dark olive skinnd black haired and eyed levantines added beautiful melanin dark eyes hair the mediterranean diet and farming/agriculture... fair eyed and haired/skinned indo europeans nordics added world wars/ depigmentation/language and culture , and native euros alpine dinarics cro magnon types added cro magnon genes and robustness/strongness! indo europeans were gracile tall nordic-iranians.. or the ancestors of nordics scandinavians, mesolithic aboriginal europeans were the cromagnon stocky strong tall races like alpine or dinaric etc and the levantines were shorter armenoid and TRUE mediterranean form similar to arabs/phoenicians! europe is probably mostly r1b and r1a (indo european nordic admixed) aborginal european(basques dinarics alpine types) and mediterranean swarthy levantine types ( armenoid eastern mediterranean like greece southern italy) europe is a mix with a cline of nw euros (being the fairest most paleolithic nordic and alpine) and se euros being the darkest most neolithic mediterranean and most similar genetically to the northern arabs and jews turks and phoenicians! so europe is a 3 way mix but with the lighter types dominating over the aboriginal stocky types and the short gracile swarthy dark mediterranean types northern europe being uniformly light and south east europe being the most olive or brunet ! it all makes sense
 
Last edited:
Maybe, it would have made sense if it was more coherent and structured. That's the freaking longest sentence I've seen, lol.
Dude, lay off your meds or wheat when you want to communicate with people :D. You're repeating yourself over and over for the length of one sentence. At the end, for the reader, it's a lot of bla bla bla. It feels more like you just needed to talk to people more than to convey a point. ;)
 
if it wasnt for the swarthy levantines... olive skin dark hair and eyes woudnt exist in southern europe infact the mediterranean race woudnt even exist in south europe at all..
Wrong, the Cro-Magnon man was probably dark olive-skinned mediterranean. You didn't even read Maciamo's post : "These people were tall, robust, hairy, with big brains, but most probably dark-haired, dark-eyed and slightly tanned."
Actually, the darker skin tone is not because of levantines, it is becasue of climate adaptation. The Mediterrenean subrace existed already before the levantine invasions. The mediterranean subrace is original native European..

europe woud even be whiter then today.. itd just be nordics ( r1b r1a gracile tall fair eyed and haired/skinned and indo european/aryan in origin) and alpines/dinarics(aboriginal cro magnon i1 i2a stocky robust tall type)!
Actually, R1b and R1a is not "Nordic". Most R1b is found in Western Europe, while R1a is found mostly in Slavic countries. Nordic people are one of the least indo-european of all Europeans.

theyd be all more lighter then they are today imo especially southern europe ! dark olive skinnd black haired and eyed levantines added beautiful melanin dark eyes hair the mediterranean diet and farming/agriculture...
hmm...dark hair and dark eyes existed in ALL native Europeans before the arrival of Indo-Europeans let alone near-easterns.

fair eyed and haired/skinned indo europeans nordics added world wars/ depigmentation/language and culture , and native euros alpine dinarics cro magnon types added cro magnon genes and robustness/strongness! indo europeans were gracile tall nordic-iranians.. or the ancestors of nordics scandinavians,
It is the contrary, Nordic peoples are one of the least indo-european peoples of all Europe.


mesolithic aboriginal europeans were the cromagnon stocky strong tall races like alpine or dinaric etc and the levantines were shorter armenoid and TRUE mediterranean form similar to arabs/phoenicians!
Cro-Magnong was not Dinaric/Alpine. The Cro-Magnon was mostly Mediterranean. The Arabs are not Mediterranean.

europe is probably mostly r1b and r1a (indo european nordic admixed) aborginal european(basques dinarics alpine types) and mediterranean swarthy levantine types ( armenoid eastern mediterranean like greece southern italy) europe is a mix with a cline of nw euros (being the fairest most paleolithic nordic and alpine)
Again, r1b and r1a is not Nordic.
Nordics are the least indo-european of all Europe

and se euros being the darkest most neolithic mediterranean and most similar genetically to the northern arabs and jews turks and phoenicians! so europe is a 3 way mix but with the lighter types dominating over the aboriginal stocky types and the short gracile swarthy dark mediterranean types northern europe being uniformly light and south east europe being the most olive or brunet ! it all makes sense
Dude, you need to do a little research instead of spitting all this non-sense :petrified:
 
Last edited:
People in the British Isles and Nordic-Baltic countries, who have the lowest percentage of Near-Eastern DNA, have the highest incidence of diabetes and wheat/gluten allergy.

Do we? Some maps I found suggest otherwise.


It appears to be quite the opposite. I think I did read somewhere that Europeans have a "genetic sweet tooth" due to consuming a lot of berries and fruits as hunter-gatherers for the energy I suppose.

The hunter-gatherers from the Pontic-Caspian steppe had adopted agriculture and herding from their Carpathian and Caucasian neighbours. These steppe people were not genetically adapted to a grain-based nutrition and so privileged herding over farming. The cold winters in the steppe was not favourable to the primitive Neolithic rainfall agriculture anyway, and the vast expanses of prairies were ideal for herding.

This makes a lot of sense, it mirrors the situation in the British Isles where pastoral and hill farming dominate in the wetter west and arable in the east.

Between 4000 and 3500 BCE, they bred long-haired sheep that would allow the very first manufacture of wool. Wool clothing would make life much easier in the colder parts of Eurasia. It is known from the Tarim mummies in North-West China, that the Indo-Europeans had tartan-pattern clothes 4000 years ago.

The wild ancestors of sheep are found in a wide area from the Alps to Iran. I don't think they would have been bred for long hair, I think sheep would have naturally possessed that trait - the wild ones in the Alps do anyway.
One thing that modern sheep don't do which wild and primitive breeds do is shed their coats naturally (although modern breeds are now being bred for this once more now wool is worth nothing).
I think the herders would have instead bred sheep to retain their woolly coat instead of moulting which would have enabled herders to have a supply of wool whenever they needed it because the sheep wouldn't have already have lost it.

On a side note I cannot imagine Iceland, Faroe and some of the North Atlantic Islands being colonised without sheep.

We also owe to the Indo-Europeans the introduction of bronze-working to Western Europe, the domestication of apples (3500 BCE, north of the Caspian Sea), and if not the domestication at least the spread of plums and cherries (both thought to have been domesticated between northern Anatolia and the Caspian).

Cherries and plums occur naturally but may have been first cultivated elsewhere. Apples also occur naturally, but cultivated varieties descend from Asian Crab Apples instead of the European ones.

Most importantly, the Indo-Europeans gave us the languages we speak today in Europe (except Basque, Hungarian, Estonian and Finnish)

I don't understand this. If the Basques have a high degree of R1b why are they not Indo-European speaking?
 
It is necessary to review that the territory that there has included the Basque one, language previous to the incorporation of the Indo-European languages on 4000 B.C., has fluctuated very much along the history, since it has happened in the rest of languages. For example Basque one spoke in La Rioja, northeast of Burgos, vales pirenaicos from Huesca.
 
I see that the ability to create art and design has come down to us from Cro-Magnon peoples. We owe this to them.
 

This thread has been viewed 48284 times.

Back
Top