Theory: I1 originally from Paloithic Cro magnon central Europe not Scandinavia

[Sile]

I thought Baltic origin and language was originally defined by R1a Z280?

That's suppose to be the main and only SLAVIC marker

 

[LeBrok]

Is Estonia in the BRONZE-AGE map under the term Baltic people or not? YES or NO

Yes, and that's why it confuses you. This map shows extend of bronze age culture, called Baltic culture by whomever created this map. The only reason for that name might be nothing more but its location. This map doesn't mean any connection between bronze age culture and today's Balts, or Balts 2k years ago. There, as well, could have been two different tribes living in same area few thousand years apart, right? Do you know of any paper making a connection between this bronze age culture and people who we call Balts?

 

[LeBrok]

Further deflecting the issue by using Indo-european , I1 as stated and created 4500 years ago is from Baltic lands and people.

Keep in mind that I1 level in Lithuania is the same as in bordering Slavic countries.

 

[Nobody1]

Further deflecting the issue by using Indo-european ,

What you consider deflecting the issue - is actually just making Factual sense out of your statements;
or putting it into a context that corresponds with Historic reality;

I1 as stated and created 4500 years ago is from Baltic lands and peoples.

Ok according to that definition I1 is an Indo-European (Baltic) lineage of the Corded-Ware Culture


Super, finally the Mystery is solved;

 

[Noman]

I wouldn't clap when you have made a totally nonsensical post like this. There's no such thing as an indo-european LINEAGE for starters. Nobody knows for sure what homeland Indo European languages came from, but it was almost surely r1a and r1b ancestors who spread it. Calling people with I DNA IE of 'lineage' is complely wrong and very strange thing to do.

It's believed that I originates in the Balkans and this makes a lot of sense. Further I believe they may actually be the ancient pre-classic greeks. I is spread all over the med in small levels and especially at all the megalithic sites. Since the r1b is so heavily entrenched in europe and iberia unless the visigoths did a whole lot of genociding in spain and north africa r1b is the original settlers after the ice age, who would have mixed in with the neanderthals during the ice age. And we get the highest derived neanderthal traits like negative blood type, morton's toe, etc. in the heavy r1b populations of basques and irish and welsh.

So I wasn't the main inhabitant of europe, they spread by the sea to ocen sites. This conforms to being the mycenaeans or perhaps even the phoenicians. There's lots of I in macedonia as well, and blonde hair. Accounts of what people looked like in those times, we can probably mostly take at face value. The heraclean culture believed they were "taking back" greece, as well. From who? The Is, who later were backbone of macedonia.

That part is speculative but regardless I seems to radiate out from the balkans, and yes OF COURSE the ancient estonians are related to the finns.

So to the OP I agree somewhat and actually the balkan origin theory is the most commonly accepted. After all it's absolutely impossible I group was in northern europe before the ice age receded. It was absolutely covered with ice. Not to say it had zero inhabitants/adventurers but they would be a distinct minority.

 

[Nobody1]

1.) You completely missed the point;

2.) I dont get how thats even possible;

 

[Sile]

Yes, and that's why it confuses you. This map shows extend of bronze age culture, called Baltic culture by whomever created this map. The only reason for that name might be nothing more but its location. This map doesn't mean any connection between bronze age culture and today's Balts, or Balts 2k years ago. There, as well, could have been two different tribes living in same area few thousand years apart, right? Do you know of any paper making a connection between this bronze age culture and people who we call Balts?

I already provided one paper, let me know EXACTLY what you need. I have many papers.

But as per KenN states - I believe, not part of the standard Germanic or Slavic language group,
> although part of the Indo-European language group. Perhaps related to
> Latvian?


You misread the map..it states BALTIC culture in the bronze age.

 

[Noman]

1.) You completely missed the point;

2.) I dont get how thats even possible;

I is not related to bell beaker, and Bell Beaker doesn't originate in baltic or have its greatest influence there. So there is no conclusion to miss because there's none you can make from that. I has most diversity in balkans and radiates out through there, and is the accepted place of origin.

Molecular clock nonsense is exactly that, too. First off it's meant as a minimum but more importantly it is based on the assumption there's no such thing as natural selection or backdrift, which is why no one takes it seriously. So you can't see one I pop up at the "right" time and think this is the great dandaddy of everyone with I group today.

 

[Sile]

I is not related to bell beaker, and Bell Beaker doesn't originate in baltic or have its greatest influence there. So there is no conclusion to miss because there's none you can make from that. I has most diversity in balkans and radiates out through there, and is the accepted place of origin.

Molecular clock nonsense is exactly that, too. First off it's meant as a minimum but more importantly it is based on the assumption there's no such thing as natural selection or backdrift, which is why no one takes it seriously. So you can't see one I pop up at the "right" time and think this is the great dandaddy of everyone with I group today.

see my link on post # 47

It states as you say on I1
The coalescense age of the haplogroup is about 5000 years lower than the age of the earliest archaeological findings from the Northern Baltic Sea region, which suggests a Neolithic arrival. There are two possible migration routes from Central Europe to the Northern Baltic Sea region

I thought it could be Lusatian culture, which matchesthe earliest findings by KenN in Pomerania and old-Prussia
the Lusatian culture is taken to span part of the Iron Age as well (there is only a terminological difference) and is succeeded in Montelius VIIbc in northern ranges around the mouth of Vistula by the Pomeranian culture spreading south.

 

[Noman]

Sile, I don't at all doubt your version of things FROM THAT POINT. That's pretty much just history. But I think I has a much older lineage than people credit.

It comes down to if we accept that the whole of europe got wiped out in a heartbeat or we don't. If we accept the low estimate dates mean something then we have to accept that, but aside from these date estimates this theory makes no sense.

If r1b is a very recent arrival then how did it implant itself into basques without ever conquering them or changing their language? It fails this test.

If indo european languages all come from some swift brutal conquest why are the spanish and occitain areas clinging to their own type of italic indo european even today? Visigoths just didn't have an effect on spain or north africa, they came and went quickly and never conquered the berbs, so the r1bs were there all along.

Similarly for any small percentage of the data we have on I to make a lick of sense we have to put them back further and come up with a more complicated explanation. Also bell beaker in general...this kind of megaculture is not going to be all one people anyway or relate to language or dna all that closely.

The Eupedia article on IE is well written but it seems to be very unlikely. Ultimately language and genetics are not the same thing and language changes many times faster.

Spamming your ill-informed age estimates does not make them correct.

But someone else spamming their own ridiculous age estimates that change every day is perfectly valid. The important thing to realize is these dates are a minimum. They could have formed 60k years ago for all we know, and so far all these clock estimates keep getting pushed further back over and over.

There were no Goths or Aestii 5000 years ago. The expansion from a south Baltic or more central European locus would have occurred far in advance of the formation of these tribal identities. These tribes most certainly contained numerous paternal and maternal lineages.

Small tribes and ones that quickly expanded usually do have very homogenous DNA even today. We can also trace their migration back further than that in distance and time. But no, goths are almost surely not originally I. They are probably r1b but we don't know for sure.

 

[Sile]

Sile, I don't at all doubt your version of things FROM THAT POINT. That's pretty much just history. But I think I has a much older lineage than people credit.

It comes down to if we accept that the whole of europe got wiped out in a heartbeat or we don't. If we accept the low estimate dates mean something then we have to accept that, but aside from these date estimates this theory makes no sense.

If r1b is a very recent arrival then how did it implant itself into basques without ever conquering them or changing their language? It fails this test.

If indo european languages all come from some swift brutal conquest why are the spanish and occitain areas clinging to their own type of italic indo european even today? Visigoths just didn't have an effect on spain or north africa, they came and went quickly and never conquered the berbs, so the r1bs were there all along.

Similarly for any small percentage of the data we have on I to make a lick of sense we have to put them back further and come up with a more complicated explanation. Also bell beaker in general...this kind of megaculture is not going to be all one people anyway or relate to language or dna all that closely.

The Eupedia article on IE is well written but it seems to be very unlikely. Ultimately language and genetics are not the same thing and language changes many times faster.



But someone else spamming their own ridiculous age estimates that change every day is perfectly valid. The important thing to realize is these dates are a minimum. They could have formed 60k years ago for all we know, and so far all these clock estimates keep getting pushed further back over and over.



Small tribes and ones that quickly expanded usually do have very homogenous DNA even today. We can also trace their migration back further than that in distance and time. But no, goths are almost surely not originally I. They are probably r1b but we don't know for sure.

I agree with most of what you say, the issue on this forum is that the majority think then when one tribe move ...every person from that tribe moves as well, like some sort of red-indian tribes. The issue is that usually the very poor, ill or just the some did not want to move happened.

IMO , the goths did not have the numbers to conquer but over time picked up "soldiers" on their travels, like it stated , the venedi, rugii, bastanae and aestii from the north baltic areas, ..........gather more from sarmatian and scythian etc from the black sea area.
The "royalty" of the goths was I1 and R1a in my opinion, but this got changed as they moved further westward.

But the thread is about I1, and I never ever believed it was Scandinavian/Germanic/Nordic in creation

 

[nordicwarrior]

I wouldn't clap when you have made a totally nonsensical post like this. There's no such thing as an indo-european LINEAGE for starters. Nobody knows for sure what homeland Indo European languages came from, but it was almost surely r1a and r1b ancestors who spread it. Calling people with I DNA IE of 'lineage' is complely wrong and very strange thing to do.

It's believed that I originates in the Balkans and this makes a lot of sense. Further I believe they may actually be the ancient pre-classic greeks. I is spread all over the med in small levels and especially at all the megalithic sites. Since the r1b is so heavily entrenched in europe and iberia unless the visigoths did a whole lot of genociding in spain and north africa r1b is the original settlers after the ice age, who would have mixed in with the neanderthals during the ice age. And we get the highest derived neanderthal traits like negative blood type, morton's toe, etc. in the heavy r1b populations of basques and irish and welsh.

So I wasn't the main inhabitant of europe, they spread by the sea to ocen sites. This conforms to being the mycenaeans or perhaps even the phoenicians. There's lots of I in macedonia as well, and blonde hair. Accounts of what people looked like in those times, we can probably mostly take at face value. The heraclean culture believed they were "taking back" greece, as well. From who? The Is, who later were backbone of macedonia.

That part is speculative but regardless I seems to radiate out from the balkans, and yes OF COURSE the ancient estonians are related to the finns.

So to the OP I agree somewhat and actually the balkan origin theory is the most commonly accepted. After all it's absolutely impossible I group was in northern europe before the ice age receded. It was absolutely covered with ice. Not to say it had zero inhabitants/adventurers but they would be a distinct minority.

Welcome to the site, Mr. Wells. We've been waiting for your arrival. I'm shocked you actually credit hg. I with blonde hair though. I would have assumed you'd have us all dark brown and extra shaggy!

 

[nordicwarrior]

Now following your hypothesis Norman, I've come up with the natural conclusion... hg. I's "youth" would put us on a trajectory to take over all of Europe AND the Americas in say a thousand years or so. If we've already made such an enormous impact over most of Europe (roughly 15-20%), then we will assuredly be on the bullet train to haplogroup dominance in no time!

 

[nordicwarrior]

And lest you feel I'm "piling on" Norman, I do have one more tiny question that might pose a problem for your bold new theory... If R1b has been in Europe forever basically, kicking it with the Neanderthals, why does R1b have such a low level of European admixture vs. other groups? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Fire Haired]

Welcome to the site, Mr. Wells. We've been waiting for your arrival

nordicquarrler, first i want to respond to what u said on the r1b l51-l11 Germanic Italo Celtic thread. It is true when Germanic speakers conquered south Scandinavia they did not really extreminte the native paternal lineages like Italo Celts did in most of west Europe. I dont think one people group like Germanic Italo celts is naturally some how superior to everyone else and can never lose. It is just how history played out they they were so successful. No ethnic group in human history as gone undeafted or is pure meaning not mixed in genetic's and culture. Alot of things ethnic groups take so much pride in was started by forigners that may have conquered their ancestors. No one is genetically purelly from one group except maybe Europeans over 10,000ybp, native Americans before European colonization, Austrlien abrognals, and other isolated people. But even those people were formed from mixing 10,000'sybp. So i am not saying Germanic Italo Celts are undefeatble. In a way their culture was but to an end and defeated by first Greece then Rome.

nordicquarrler who is Mr. Wells. I hope it is Spencer Wells because i have questions about his Genographic porject. My dad took it and he got R P310. Which is also known as R1b L11 i know that is the western European type most likely spread with Germanic and Italo Celtic languages starting in the bronze age 5,000ybp. What subclades do u test past that i saw on google images people who got R1b U152 and U106. Do u test for L21 or other P312 subclades.

Also, If Spencer wells is on this website which i doubt i have another thing to say. Why on ur Genographic doc do u say R1b and R1a came were the first settlers of Europe there is like no evidence of that and no way is it true. It also said that Europeans and east asians are some how in the same family and that they devloped light skin together. For one thing Europeans light skin is unrelated in the genes to east asian light skin. Also Europeans are Caucasin like mid easterns and north africans, Europeans share so many mtDNA haplogroups with them and hg I the only for sure Paloithic European paternal lineage is the brother to y dna J the main paternal lineage of the mid east. Aust DNA proves Europeans, mid easterns, and north africans are in the same family.

Click here it shows how diff groups in globe13 aust dna test are related. The orignal European group from Paloithic Europe is called north euro and it is extremely related to west asian which is over 50% in the caucus, 44-50% form northern Iraq-Pakistan. Also clikc here according to this study the genes so far found to help cause pale skin in europeans exists in mid easterns and north africans at almost the same rate but this study stubbornly said it is only Europeans and said it must be inter marraige but when u look at other types of genetic's mid easterns have very very very little and alot of times no european blood. Everything points to Europeans grouping with mid easterns and north africans.

Also Mongliod family i dont thing i need to explain that u know native americans, east asian looking people, polynesians are extremely related in the globe13 plot or graph to Austrlien Abrognals and Papue New gunines. They also have similar and very related Y DNA and mtDNA haplogroups so when u said in the doc that Austrlien abrognals were the first out of africa that cant be true because they had to of travled with mongliods ancestors too. Also in Y DNA and mtDNA all non Africans go back to the same family so they left africa together Caucasian have been in the mid east longer than astrlien abrognals in Australia. They did not make the first migration east either because all Asians are either mongliod or oceana so they migrated together.

One thing i dont understand is Indians specifically Draviden indians they are a mystery. They have Caucasin skull shape same basic body build as Caucasians as high amounts of body hair more facial hair so basicalley they have all Caucasin features except their skin is much darker. Their group in the globe13 test called south asian if anything is more related to Mongliod Oceania family which makes sense since their kind of deep in asia but they are kind of inbetween Caucasin, Mongliod Oceania, and sub sahren african family. Their mtDNA and Y DNA haplogroups are most related to Oceanina mongliod since they have such Caucasian features i would think somehow they are connected with Caucasians.

Also in the doc i noticed u said everyone else in the world lost the original African features except the Negriod people of asia and austrila aka Oceania. I dont think we know what the first humans looked like it is a good guess to say they had black skin and nappy hair. I dont think u should be saying it on national television as a fact because we dont know. I really dont understand ur migration maps u just take areas which have had that haplogroup and put lines on them. The migration maps are total guess just going off of were it is popular today. I think ur project needs to say probably or maybe more not acting as if it has been proven because that leads people to believe things that may not be true and as if u know the whole human story.

I think u can explain to a west european with r1b that ur paternal lineage did not arrive in Europe probably till at the earliest 5,000ybp. Also that ur paternal lineage does not tell ur full ancestry u can explain to them the complicated history but always say probably or maybe and dont make things simple if their lie's.

 

[kamani]

It's believed that I originates in the Balkans and this makes a lot of sense.

Maybe I1 originated in the Balkans in the paleolithic, who knows, but sometime in mid neolithic I1 almost went extinct and in the Bronze age it started expanding from germanic/nordic lands. The I1 that you see in the Balkans today is remnants from the -Illyrians/Thracians. I know because the percentage peaks with Albanians.

 

[Noman]

Now following your hypothesis Norman, I've come up with the natural conclusion... hg. I's "youth" would put us on a trajectory to take over all of Europe AND the Americas in say a thousand years or so. If we've already made such an enormous impact over most of Europe (roughly 15-20%), then we will assuredly be on the bullet train to haplogroup dominance in no time!

Quite the opposite. There's no evidence of expansion, lots of evidence of shrinking. I also already said that the molecular clocks are nearly meaningless.

And lest you feel I'm "piling on" Norman, I do have one more tiny question that might pose a problem for your bold new theory... If R1b has been in Europe forever basically, kicking it with the Neanderthals, why does R1b have such a low level of European admixture vs. other groups? Enquiring minds want to know.

I am not sure why you think this makes any sense, where you are going with it, sorry. If there was a giant indo european invasion then that is what should lead to a bunch of admixture. There's little admixture because there was no one to admix with! The invaders were from anatolia or caspian region, the Gs. If you look at bell beaker culture there's this funny hole in the middle and that's why. If they were from kiev then I'd expect a bunch of people with r1a or even east asian DNA mixed in.

You can tell neanderthal admixture from presence of neanderthal traits like negative blood type. If a population has 15% negative blood type it's at least 15% neanderthal, that's all there is to it. The only reason it's not completely uniform is from what admixing there has been, both to the north and due to massive arab invasion of spain

Some people complain that there should be a west to east clade but that makes no sense. The haplogroups were already separate (aside from fantasy world) before the ice thawed and went their merry ways from various refugiums. Time and again molecular clocks have been upset by factors of 5 or 10, meaning they are useless.

Even as a comparison, they have no value. Every Y-dna is the same age! Some of them changed and some didn't. The reason some went bigger is due to natural selection and refugiums/bottlenecks. What's really amusing is that the two ideas that OoA rely on are both contradictory. If haplogroup separation happened due to bottlenecks and not natural selection, then how can we see a bunch of groups that are only 2k-5k years old. Aside from basque territory, eskimos and africa, there's nowhere so isolated as to provide the chance for random drift to create a whole new clade during what we consider normal weather, after wheel and horseback riding are commonly used.

 

[Noman]

Maybe I1 originated in the Balkans in the paleolithic, who knows, but sometime in mid neolithic I1 almost went extinct and in the Bronze age it started expanding from germanic/nordic lands. The I1 that you see in the Balkans today is remnants from the -Illyrians/Thracians. I know because the percentage peaks with Albanians.

Yes, I agree on that.

 

[Noman]

Damn this thing for not letting me even QUOTE a link!

Before responding, no I am not spencer wells. Not that anyone really thought I was but I don't want to seem like I am impersonating him.

nordicquarrler, first i want to respond to what u said on the r1b l51-l11 Germanic Italo Celtic thread. It is true when Germanic speakers conquered south Scandinavia they did not really extreminte the native paternal lineages like Italo Celts did in most of west Europe. I dont think one people group like Germanic Italo celts is naturally some how superior to everyone else and can never lose.

They had superior technology. Only at the height of the roman era did they equal the celts on the battlefield from a one on one warrior perspective, and they learned even most of their battle tactics from nearby tribes. In metallurgy they lagged far behind, same in cavalry.

All the euro lineages of horse are actually iberian. For that matter there's a lot of evidence of neanderthal horseback riding but like la scoux used to be it is immediately shut down by the few who buy into it. Since we now know neanderthals were sea faring from basically the start, I don't see how this should be so shocking. But my guess is that riding warriors on the plains didn't happen right after the ice age, probably just a few horses made it through at all.

It is just how history played out they they were so successful. No ethnic group in human history as gone undeafted or is pure meaning not mixed in genetic's and culture. Alot of things ethnic groups take so much pride in was started by forigners that may have conquered their ancestors. No one is genetically purelly from one group except maybe Europeans over 10,000ybp, native Americans before European colonization, Austrlien abrognals, and other isolated people. But even those people were formed from mixing 10,000'sybp. So i am not saying Germanic Italo Celts are undefeatble. In a way their culture was but to an end and defeated by first Greece then Rome.

The peacefully expanded out very rapidly when everyone else was stuck in middle east with no room to expand. R1a did the same, but in the north. The levant groups were more "civilized" but they did not border the wilderness so could not expand immediately without conquering their neighbors.

By contrast the r1b didn't expand and conquer a bunch of people (except the neanderthal who they subsumed completely). They have been fighting countless wars to drive out invasions and mostly pretty successful at it, at least until European Union and they decided to open the floodgates and let just anyone in.

Actually I think they lost a fair bit but those neanderthal genes are quite healthy, and seemingly the Y-DNA for R1B itself is also very heart healthy. Until recently, disease was the big destroyer of men once cities came to be. Negative blood type itself helps fight many diseases, too. So probably the population of r1b compared to the whole has shrunk and then slowly expanded quite a few times. Just like in the reconquista where a tiny minority slowly took down a giant majority.

nordicquarrler who is Mr. Wells. I hope it is Spencer Wells because i have questions about his Genographic porject. My dad took it and he got R P310. Which is also known as R1b L11 i know that is the western European type most likely spread with Germanic and Italo Celtic languages starting in the bronze age 5,000ybp. What subclades do u test past that i saw on google images people who got R1b U152 and U106. Do u test for L21 or other P312 subclades.

I'd wait a couple years and get a full genome done. It's under 5k now and will be sub 1k by then. Hopefully it will get to 100 bucks but chances are they will try to keep prices higher than they need to be.

Turns out genomes probably won't be too useful for sorting out disease risk, but if you are interested in your roots then go for it. Maybe you have neanderthal X chromosome (most r1b do).

Also, If Spencer wells is on this website which i doubt i have another thing to say. Why on ur Genographic doc do u say R1b and R1a came were the first settlers of Europe there is like no evidence of that and no way is it true. It also said that Europeans and east asians are some how in the same family and that they devloped light skin together. For one thing Europeans light skin is unrelated in the genes to east asian light skin. Also Europeans are Caucasin like mid easterns and north africans, Europeans share so many mtDNA haplogroups with them and hg I the only for sure Paloithic European paternal lineage is the brother to y dna J the main paternal lineage of the mid east. Aust DNA proves Europeans, mid easterns, and north africans are in the same family.

It's important to realize races aren't really descendants of each other. I can only think OoA has clung on so long now we have real evidence against because they are making a political statement to this effect, but boy it's a mixed up one. It's like saying that asians are proto-caucasians. Almost as good! And africans are barely a cave man!

So why do they cling to it? I don't know really, it's kind of weird.

The reality is more like cousins. Everyone started off as some basal type of y-DNA. Some changed to other stuff, some didn't. The important part to realize is y-dna and mtDNA are not the only places this happens. For some things the top of the clade has neanderthal origin, for some chinese. So what's it mean? It means nothing in and of itself because your y-dna are mtDNA don't tell us your whole ancestry, it's just an average. Its only real use is for the potential tracking of migrations, unfortunately it's not too easy to get really ancient DNA, and it's expensive.

Click it shows how diff groups in globe13 aust dna test are related. The orignal European group from Paloithic Europe is called north euro and it is extremely related to west asian which is over 50% in the caucus, 44-50% form northern Iraq-Pakistan. Also clikc according to this study the genes so far found to help cause pale skin in europeans exists in mid easterns and north africans at almost the same rate but this study stubbornly said it is only Europeans and said it must be inter marraige but when u look at other types of genetic's mid easterns have very very very little and alot of times no european blood. Everything points to Europeans grouping with mid easterns and north africans.

Skin color is multigenic and really it's the best way to determine the basic type. Most likely all three types come from hominids like neanderthal, one being neanderthal, one being something like peking man, one being whatever the homo sapiens mixed with in africa supposedly 100k years ago. Which kind of implies that they CAME to african, not evolved there.

So basically first we had multiregion, then with mtDNA we seemingly had support that humans evolved in africa. Now I think we have gone all the way back to multiregional (though OoA is still thrashing, it's done), and indeed we have evidence for suddenly going into africa. Basically we have way more archaeology than we used to when OoA came out, and much much more gnetic evidence, and it looks more and more like africa is a dead end. We still have no smoking gun for where the modern looking homo sapiens came from but it's probably in the central asian or south asian area.

I did believe in OoA but now it's obviously false. Even looking at Y-DNA it starts to get hard to explain all the irregularities just like it would be if I were 5k years old). When we see clades in human genes that don't come from africa we know it's done.

Also Mongliod family i dont thing i need to explain that u know native americans, east asian looking people, polynesians are extremely related in the globe13 plot or graph to Austrlien Abrognals and Papue New gunines. They also have similar and very related Y DNA and mtDNA haplogroups so when u said in the doc that Austrlien abrognals were the first out of africa that cant be true because they had to of travled with mongliods ancestors too. Also in Y DNA and mtDNA all non Africans go back to the same family so they left africa together Caucasian have been in the mid east longer than astrlien abrognals in Australia. They did not make the first migration east either because all Asians are either mongliod or oceana so they migrated together.

They WERE the first out, but they were the first out of ASIA. The black africans were the first INTO africa. The south indians are the remnants, with the purest ones being andamese islander. Which look just like black africans.

So we used to think we evolved in west africa and the black africans sat there for 200k years! Which even if you have a bad opinion of them, makes little sense. Indeed they expanded quickly in bantu expansion, so they are not dumb. So if we think a minute we can realize there's no cities because that's not where humans come from, they are newcomers. They did have cities or their direct descendants did, just not in africa.

One thing i dont understand is Indians specifically Draviden indians they are a mystery. They have Caucasin skull shape same basic body build as Caucasians as high amounts of body hair more facial hair so basicalley they have all Caucasin features except their skin is much darker. Their group in the globe13 test called south asian if anything is more related to Mongliod Oceania family which makes sense since their kind of deep in asia but they are kind of inbetween Caucasin, Mongliod Oceania, and sub sahren african family. Their mtDNA and Y DNA haplogroups are most related to Oceanina mongliod since they have such Caucasian features i would think somehow they are connected with Caucasians.

They are a mix of anatomically south indians related to africa, austronesians who are related to africa but also asia, and caucasians who span the entirety of europe and a big portion of india.

Many of the artifacts you see in population studies are because we have no really good reference populations. What's a "germanic tribesman"? Nobody can tell you for sure. Is that "west asian" component shared with most europeans and africans some nonexistent tribe we don't know about any more? Sign of east west migration? Sign of west to east migration? Sign of a migration of lost jewish tribe from levant? It's simply impossible to know these answers for sure.

Also in the doc i noticed u said everyone else in the world lost the original African features except the Negriod people of asia and austrila aka Oceania. I dont think we know what the first humans looked like it is a good guess to say they had black skin and nappy hair. I dont think u should be saying it on national television as a fact because we dont know. I really dont understand ur migration maps u just take areas which have had that haplogroup and put lines on them. The migration maps are total guess just going off of were it is popular today. I think ur project needs to say probably or maybe more not acting as if it has been proven because that leads people to believe things that may not be true and as if u know the whole human story.

It seels more books to go for a "we are all one!" kind of vibe. Also, until recently this made some sense. We also do have some ancient art in indus valley showing black people with corn rows. SO...it could be true. Likely it's true. Is it true? Well it's not fully true because there's also neanderthals to account for, and there's also peking man and there's also something newly discovered by Mike Hammer et. al. in Africa.

To sort out this question we have to find DNA for these guys, too. The european skin DNA is actually the neanderthal skin DNA. The asian skin DNA is actually probably the denisovan (and maybe one more) hominid in asia. But it is likely that simply this is 100% factual.

Unfortunately on tv the "we believe" and maybes get taken out and the fact everything is so tentative doesn't come through. Also there's more than a few with a bit of an agenda and they tend to never use those words in the first place. A lot of people want to wipe any evidence of neanderthal existence off the face of the earth due to a misguided understanding of what natural selection is. It's not societal or racial, and those concepts go against natural selection. It's personal survival in peace time that it's mainly talking about, not "superior warrior dna" or something.

I think u can explain to a west european with r1b that ur paternal lineage did not arrive in Europe probably till at the earliest 5,000ybp. Also that ur paternal lineage does not tell ur full ancestry u can explain to them the complicated history but always say probably or maybe and dont make things simple if their lie's.

I don't know what you are saying here, but I don't think it's the case it arrived so recently. Now the bell beaker incursion into the british isles did change the archaeological character of the isles but we find that the highest concentrations of r1b are away from the bell beaker areas. So the bell beakers were r1b but so were the original inhabitants. But a lot of traits like red hair, negative blood type, morton's toe, and a million others all got pushed into the corners.

So basically whicherever bell beaker tribes came in ahd admixed culturally and genetically with them but were also r1b. They were likely indo european speakers but to make long story short probably had been for a long long time, they didn't suddenly pick up a whole new culture and genetics as some people seem determined to say.

 

[Noman]

As far as curlyhair goes, I don't think it's true. We have a lot of andamese with straight hair. We really don't know where nappy hair comes from yet.