History Which era was your ethnic group or nation formed in?

[Tomenable]

Vote in the poll and write which ethnic group or nation and era it is, also why do you identify with this ethnic group or nation. Here are the eras to choose from:

Paleolithic to the end of the Pleistocene
Mesolithic/Neolithic ca. 10500 - 8500 BC
Earlier Neolithic ca. 8500 - 6500 BC
Later Neolithic ca. 6500 - 4500 BC
Copper Age ca. 4500 - 3500 BC
Bronze Age ca. 3500 - 1500 BC
Early Iron Age ca. 1500 - 750 BC
Early Classical Era ca. 750 - 1 BC
Late Classical Era ca. 1 - 500 AD
Early Middle Ages 500 - 1000 AD
High Middle Ages 1000 - 1250 AD
Late Midle Ages 1250 - 1500 AD
Age of Discovery 1500 - 1700
Age of Enlightenment 1700s
19th century to 21st century

 

[Tomenable]

In my case, Polish people (and the Polish state) were formed most probably during the 900s AD. So I voted for the Early Middle Ages. If we count Slavs who settled what later became Poland, that probably took place during the 500s so also the Early Middle Ages (late part of the Migration Period).

 

[Duarte]

Age of Enlightenment 1700s.
My first ancestors arrived in Brazil in the mid-18th century and I consider that it was from there that my ethnic genesis occurred. Brazil only really came into existence in 1822 and, new migrants (all Iberian) arrived in the end-19th century and early 20th century contributed my ethnic formation too. I consider myself Brazilian, and that’s it.

 

[thunorr]

Vote in the poll and write which ethnic group or nation and era it is, also why do you identify with this ethnic group or nation. Here are the eras to choose from:

Paleolithic to the end of the Pleistocene
Mesolithic/Neolithic ca. 10500 - 8500 BC
Earlier Neolithic ca. 8500 - 6500 BC
Later Neolithic ca. 6500 - 4500 BC
Copper Age ca. 4500 - 3500 BC
Bronze Age ca. 3500 - 1500 BC
Early Iron Age ca. 1500 - 750 BC
Early Classical Era ca. 750 - 1 BC
Late Classical Era ca. 1 - 500 AD
Early Middle Ages 500 - 1000 AD
High Middle Ages 1000 - 1250 AD
Late Midle Ages 1250 - 1500 AD
Age of Discovery 1500 - 1700
Age of Enlightenment 1700s
19th century to 21st century

Depends. My ancestors mainly come from Appalachia (albeit with a large amount of German), so it would be the Age of Discovery for my specific ethnic group (Colonial American), but since I come from an English, and German background, it would be the Late Classical Era to the Early Middle Ages.

 

[Maciamo]

Belgian people as an ethnic group emerged as the fusion of Gallo-Roman and Frankish people in the early Middle Ages. There hasn't been any major genetic shift since then. I can confirm it by comparing my DNA to that of various ancient samples. I'm usually as close or closer to Merovingian samples as to other modern Belgians.

 

[Hawk]

Is there any nation in the world who can claim they formed in Paleolithic/Mesolithic?

Sounds not likely to me.

 

[Maciamo]

Is there any nation in the world who can claim they formed in Paleolithic/Mesolithic?

Sounds not likely to me.

Not nations but if you consider ethnic groups there are isolated tribes like the Australian aborigines, the Sentinelese from the Andaman Islands, or some Amazon tribes that essentially remained in the Mesolithic period until contact with Europeans.

It's much easier to find ethnic groups that date from the Neolithic period. This includes a lot of native Americans, some Africans (the San of Southern Africa, the Hadza of Tanzania, the Pygmies of Congo...), as well as the Austronesian people of New Zealand Polynesia and Hawaii.

 

[Tautalus]

My nation was officially born in 1143, but before that there was already a entity with a distinct political, cultural and social identity, in the northwest of Iberia, the County of Portugal, formed in the Early Middle Ages, in 868, and which was the origin of the future Kingdom of Portugal. Both the birth of the County and, later, of the Kingdom were part of the broader process of the Reconquista.​

 

[Pax Augusta]

In my case, Polish people (and the Polish state) were formed most probably during the 900s AD. So I voted for the Early Middle Ages. If we count Slavs who settled what later became Poland, that probably took place during the 500s so also the Early Middle Ages (late part of the Migration Period).

I guess that most of modern European ethnic group emerged in the early Middle Ages.

 

[Ricardo]

I agree with previous positions, Brazilian Portuguese Lineages (mainly via Colonial Y-DNA Conquistadores) are the expansion of the Portuguese War Frontier in Brazil with Native-Borns since the 16th Century, the most ferocious of the Portuguese Empire like the Bandeirantes, the first Empire - O Primeiro Império, V Império Mitológico - in Europe, Africa, Asia and America. Indo-Europeans are the product of new territorial conquests and new genetic admixtures and incorporations via conquest since the original Ancient Iranian and Proto-Indo-European surge around the Caspian Sea.

 

[Tomenable]

Sardinians are probably the only European ethnic group who can claim already the Neolithic period as the time of their ethnogenesis.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Sardinians are probably the only European ethnic group who can claim already the Neolithic period as the time of their ethnogenesis.

More Chalcolithic rather than Neolithic.

 

[Pygmalion]

Sardinians are probably the only European ethnic group who can claim already the Neolithic period as the time of their ethnogenesis.

Sardinian is a Neo-Latin language so it can’t be much older than 2000 years, and it has a decent amount of Byzantine Greek, Late Medieval Italian and Catalan influences.
From a genetic standpoint while there is certainly a noteworthy degree of continuity between Sardinians and their Pre-Punic Period ancestors, but modern Sardinians also received roughly 50-30% post Bronze Age Sardinian DNA on average depending on the Sardinian subregion they come from.

 

[italouruguayan]

Both my ethnic group and my nation were formed in 19th century. Present-day Uruguay, which was part of the Spanish Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata, attempted to form a confederation with other provinces ( present-day Argentina) but was invaded by the Portuguese and integrated into Brazil The war between Brazil and Argentina leads to the Uruguayan independence in 1830. The Uruguayan population, very small, was formed by Iberians, Natives and African slaves, and the mixtures between these groups. In my genealogical research, I have founded ancestors of my maternal grandmother who lived in northern Uruguay in the 1840s, the same region where my maternal grandfather was born. The major wave of immigration dates back to around the 1870s , and my paternal grandmother´s Italian ancestors probably arrived around that time ( and a grandfather of my maternal grandmother). Finally, my paternal grandfather arrived from Italy in 1927. We Uruguayans are a recent population.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Sardinian is a neolatin language so it can’t be much older than 2000 years, and it has a decent amount of Byzantine, Late Medieval Italian and Catalan influences.
From a genetic standpoint while there is certainly a noteworthy degree of continuity between Sardinians and their Pre-Punic Period ancestors, modern Sardinians also received roughly 50-30% post Bronze Age Sardinian DNA on average depending on the Sardinian subregion they come from.

I agree with you, if we talk about modern Sardinian ethnicity again it is possible that it was formed from the Early Middle Ages.

 

[Duarte]

I guess that most of modern European ethnic group emerged in the early Middle Ages.

I believe that this statement is true for the vast majority of modern Europeans: Ethnogenesis in the early Middle Ages. Although in my specific case, my ethnogenesis began in Colonial Brazil in the mid-18th century, when Portugal was governed by the Marquis of Pombal, a legitimate representative of enlightened despotism who lived in a period of history marked by the Enlightenment and himself with Brazilian roots, considering that his mother, D. Teresa Luísa de Mendonça e Melo (Santa Maria dos Olivais (Lisbon), baptized on October 7, 1684 - ?), was a descendant of noblemen established in Brazil.
This 2way result with old G25 coordinates demonstrates that in a certain way, if I were European, my ethnogenesis could have occurred in the early Middle Ages in the Iberian Peninsula and this certainly also would be the case for the vast majority of Portuguese immigrants who came to Brazil in the Colonial Brazil (1500 to 1822), the Imperial Brazil (1822 to 1889) and Brazil of the First Republic (1889 to 1930).

 

[Vitruvius]

The Italian ethnic group was recognized as early as the iron age by the earliest Greek settlers. "Italian" and "Italia" derived from King "Vitalus", the Oenotrian bull king who was famed for converting his tribe from an agricultural one to being pastorally based. "Vitalus" itself meaning "Calf" in the Oscan language. It was common in this era for various Italic tribes to adopt their endonym from their King, hence the first natives the Greeks encountered were members of this tribe and called themselves something akin to "Italii" which was hellenized to "Italoi" - a term used by Greeks to from then on refer to natives of the peninsula. The term seems to have stuck as the Romans were fully willing to adopt it by the time of their dominance.

The Italian nation as a unified entity has its origins in Roman Italy, which was legally seperated from the provinces of the empire and was considered the fatherland of the Roman people. I would say prior to this era there was a recognition of ancestral and cultural commonality between various Italian tribes, but not necessarily a common or domineering civic identity to establish a single nation. So as typical in history the ethnic group establishes itself as powerful enough to unify itself with military autonomy which then manifests political and civic notions of shared identity.

 

[Tautalus]

In the 19th century Metternich famously said that "Italy" was just a geographical expression. Correct me if I am wrong, but I always have the idea that the creation of a unified Italian people, with a shared Italian identity, from the Alps to Calabria and beyond, was a 19th century process.
Before the 19th century, the Italian Peninsula was characterized by a high degree of regional diversity and fragmentation. There was various city-states, kingdoms, and regions, each with their own distinct culture, language, and traditions and there was no strong sense of a shared Italian identity.
The Italian language itself was not widely spoken or used as a common language until the 19th century. Prior to that, the languages in Italy were regional languages such as Tuscan, Venetian, Sicilian and others.
There were several individuals throughout history that expressed a desire for unity and a shared Italian identity, like Petrarch, Machiavelli and Dante, but the idea of a shared Italian identity was not strongly developed until the 19th century, when the Risorgimento movement and the process of unification created a sense of national unity. The concept of an "Italian people" was largely a product of this movement, and it was shaped by the ideas of nationalism, liberalism, and patriotism.
It was only after the creation of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861 that the state helped to promote a sense of national unity and a shared Italian identity. The new state promoted the use of a standard Italian language (based on Tuscan, namely in the Florentine dialect), established a national education system, and encouraged the development of a shared culture and history.
Is well know that even today Northern Italians have a distinct sense of identity and cultural heritage, that differs from Southern Italians, with the existence of some regionalist and separatist movements, such as the Lega Nord (Northern League) in the north and the Movimento per l'Autonomia (Movement for Autonomy) in Sicily, which advocate for greater autonomy or even independence for their respective regions.​

 

[Vitruvius]

In the 19th century Metternich famously said that "Italy" was just a geographical expression. Correct me if I am wrong, but I always have the idea that the creation of a unified Italian people, with a shared Italian identity, from the Alps to Calabria and beyond, was a 19th century process.
Before the 19th century, the Italian Peninsula was characterized by a high degree of regional diversity and fragmentation. There was various city-states, kingdoms, and regions, each with their own distinct culture, language, and traditions and there was no strong sense of a shared Italian identity.
The Italian language itself was not widely spoken or used as a common language until the 19th century. Prior to that, the languages in Italy were regional languages such as Tuscan, Venetian, Sicilian and others.
There were several individuals throughout history that expressed a desire for unity and a shared Italian identity, like Petrarch, Machiavelli and Dante, but the idea of a shared Italian identity was not strongly developed until the 19th century, when the Risorgimento movement and the process of unification created a sense of national unity. The concept of an "Italian people" was largely a product of this movement, and it was shaped by the ideas of nationalism, liberalism, and patriotism.
It was only after the creation of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861 that the state helped to promote a sense of national unity and a shared Italian identity. The new state promoted the use of a standard Italian language (based on Tuscan, namely in the Florentine dialect), established a national education system, and encouraged the development of a shared culture and history.
Is well know that even today Northern Italians have a distinct sense of identity and cultural heritage, that differs from Southern Italians, with the existence of some regionalist and separatist movements, such as the Lega Nord (Northern League) in the north and the Movimento per l'Autonomia (Movement for Autonomy) in Sicily, which advocate for greater autonomy or even independence for their respective regions.​

The idea you mention of Italy being merely a geographic expression until the 19th century is verifiably wrong and a great misconception. While it is true Italy has harbored regional and city state polities and subcultures for hundreds of years, this is not unique to any major European country, nor has it negated the concept of the existence of the Italian ethnic group, no different than how the city states and individual subcultures of the Holy Roman Empire never negated the existence of a German ethnic group. As I just mentioned the idea of an Italian ethnic group goes back to The idea of Rome being a nation centered upon the Italian ethnic group and Italy itself was fairly well established by the early imperial era.

"For in the case of all Roman citizens, a common blood must be recognized, since the consideration of reason and truth requires it." - Cicero, Against Verres, Actio II, Book V

This quote may seem puzzling to some, but during the early imperial era and of course even more so prior to it, Roman citizenship was restricted to such a degree that Roman Civic identity was synonymous with Italian ethnic identity. There were exceptions of course in which non Italians were given Roman citizenship but it was rare. You will find similarly that during this era that Rome is seen less as an empire and more as a "World conquering nation" (in the words of Pliny the Elder). This nation is consistantly identified with the people and geography of Italy up until the edict of carcalla at which point citizenship becomes much more widespread. Legalistically speaking Italy itself was also defined as the homeland of the Romans and governed under a set of laws "Imperio Domi" (Literally: Rule at Home) in comparison to the rest of the empire which was governed under "Imperio Militae" (Military Rule).

Ideas of Italian ethnic unity and desires for expansive nationhood did not stop with Rome and continued, popularized in elite circles throughout the Renaissance and of course was finaly realized during the Risorgimento. The Risorgimento and spring of nations did not "create" Italians, no differently than how it did not "create" Germans. They were simply realizations of nationhood on a political/militaristic level. Instead of viewing differences between north and south italy as some sort of precedent for seperate nationalities you would do better to view it as a microchasm within a greater national entity. Despite acknowledging the differences that do exist the vast majority of Italians do not see themselves as ethnically seperate from the rest of the country. If I recall correctly, when polled less than 5% of Italians actually believed that there was any justification for breaking north or southern Italy into seperate states. Lega Nord today doesn't even advocate for seperatism and are more interested in Italian national unity.

 

[Twilight]

I’m a mix of Colonial American, German, French Canadian Irish and UK.
The United States became a country in 1776 but the Pacific Northwest in particular hasn’t homogenized into a standard ethnic group as of yet. Everyone in Washington State is a mix of something and no families here have the same set of Ancestries at this point.