Who were native europeans in Mesolithic era

P

Parafarne

Banned
Messages
96
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Ethnic group
Caucasian
Y-DNA haplogroup
R
mtDNA haplogroup
Eurasian
If R lived in eastern europe since Mesolithic era then why they are called Bronze age immigrants then? is western europe only europe?
 
Parafarne said:
If R lived in eastern europe since Mesolithic era then why they are called Bronze age immigrants then? is western europe only europe?
Click to expand...

Some view R1A as barbaric invaders from Asia, therefore not true Europeans, rather "Eurasians"
 
Parafarne said:
If R lived in eastern europe since Mesolithic era then why they are called Bronze age immigrants then? is western europe only europe?
Click to expand...
DNA research has made many scientific breakthrough since the past 1-2 decades, so It's always good to check in on new discoveries. It's even mentioned in the disclaimer. For example, It was only a decade ago, it was once believed that Ydna R was believed to be the Haplogroup of Mesolithic Europeans. However according to new discoveries, Mesolithic Europeans are now Ydna IJ and I with H2 and C-V20 and A1a minority. (Maybe some Ydna E tribes on the Mediterranean Coast) Ydna R1A and R1B however came to Europe from the Yamna Horizon Steepes during the Bronze Age. Here is a link to the Prehistory of Europe and a Genetic map.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#prehistory
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#mesolithic

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml

 
castelleone said:
I think that during the Mesolithic the term 'barbaric' was not yet invented.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there was always a derogatory name for people from another tribe, and mandatory spitting on ground afterwards. ;)
 
Last edited:
Parafarne said:
If R lived in eastern europe since Mesolithic era then why they are called Bronze age immigrants then? is western europe only europe?
Click to expand...

In the end Europe is just a piece of land. There's no law forcing humans who live in it to be apart of the same European genetic group. Since the Mesolithic people living within Europe have formed a genetic cluster but there have always been genetic outliers in Europe who aren't like most other Europeans.

In the Neolithic people in Russia were very different from people in the rest of Europe. Those people from Russia who carried Y DNA R1a/b were therefore a foreign element, maybe as foreign as people who lived in Neolithic Iran, to the other Europeans they invaded. They weren't just different to Neolithic Western Europeans, most people in Neolithic Eastern Europe were also quite different to them.

Those R1a/b people from Russia did share intimate common European ancestor with other Europeans called 'WHG.' Yeah they were different but they weren't completely alien to each other. Kind of how Armenians aren't completely alien to French. Very different but there are some common roots.
 
LeBrok said:
I'm sure there was always a derogatory name for people from another tribe, and mandatory spitting on ground afterwards. ;)
Click to expand...

Obviously yes, but that term was not, by all means, 'barbaric'. <- the point.
 
Maciamo uses this "bronze age immigrants" for R quite alot and uses native european when describing I, but I am saying when R invaded western europe they did from eastern europe not from outside europe so in Eupedia R and I should be called original/native europeans.
 
Yes TWILIGHT your links show realistic maps, but in following map http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml I is called Mesolithic europeans and R is described as Bronze age immigrants to europe so thats why I rejeced it because as I pointed out R were already in europe during mesolithic era.
 
Parafarne said:
Yes TWILIGHT your links show realistic maps, but in following map http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml I is called Mesolithic europeans and R is described as Bronze age immigrants to europe so thats why I rejeced it because as I pointed out R were already in europe during mesolithic era.
Click to expand...

I like the comments section,
it is a cacophony of pseudo-experts with 100% talent for confabulating ethnographies...

You don't even need to watch Comedy Central anymore,
every page has its own funny pieces.
 
I have yet to figure out why it matters.
 
I think Y-R1b is called by someones 'bronze ages immigrants' because they consider only the clades which hugely changed the demography of CENTRAL and WESTERN Europe and not all the clades of R1b since Paleolithic. The others clades or lineages seem having been only a small part of the C & W European allover lineages of Y-haplos and having been swept out or almost drown during Neolithic.
That said, the ancestors of today dominant Y-R1b clades seem having been present in Eastern Europe since a long time.
Surely Maciamo could somehow change his wording to avoid false interpretations and contestation?
 
I'm not well awake.
Maybe it's not Maciamo who is the father of this terminology?
and Y-R1a is involved too in the question here. All the way, the case is the same as for R1b: the lineages which gave birth to most of today C & W European lineages came only lately there, but were already present in E Europe.
 
I know its not a big deal ;) but since theres some evidence that R and I were present in europe in this era so I thought it would only be normal to call them(R) native europeans too, in my view even haplogroup I start in east europe and west eurasia before settling in w.europe I say this because haplogroup I2 is more numerous in romania, ukraine than in turkey so instead of neareast as its origin north black sea and west eurasia seem very logical and they must have taken this northerly route settling europe rather than southerly route through asia minor!
 
Parafarne said:
I know its not a big deal ;) but since theres some evidence that R and I were present in europe in this era so I thought it would only be normal to call them(R) native europeans too, in my view even haplogroup I start in east europe and west eurasia before settling in w.europe I say this because haplogroup I2 is more numerous in romania, ukraine than in turkey so instead of neareast as its origin north black sea and west eurasia seem very logical and they must have taken this northerly route settling europe rather than southerly route through asia minor!
Click to expand...

This isn't very logical.
I would give you an advice.
Please write in English with 'periods' and other bits of grammar.
 
Last edited:
castelleone said:
This isn't very logical.
I would give you an advice.
Please write in English with 'periods' and other bits of grammar.
Click to expand...
I try so hard by using commas, periods, good grammar! I think you are being too harsh on me!
 
Parafarne said:
Maciamo uses this "bronze age immigrants" for R quite alot and uses native european when describing I, but I am saying when R invaded western europe they did from eastern europe not from outside europe so in Eupedia R and I should be called original/native europeans.
Click to expand...

I am usually careful to say that Steppe migrants migrated west to Southeast, Central then Western Europe, specifying the path followed in each part of Europe. I hardly ever use the term 'native Europeans'. I prefer to specify the period during which the people inhabited Europe, such as Palaeolithic Europeans, Mesolithic Europeans, Neolithic Europeans, etc. When Yamnayans invaded the Balkans from 3500 BCE, the Neolithic population who was living there were the local natives of the region, although they were mostly descended from migrants from the Near East. After all their ancestors had been living in the Balkans for over 3000 years. Where were our own ancestors living 3000 years ago? At the time modern ethnicities had not yet emerged, and what we call 'ancient ethnicities' (Germanics, Slavs, Gauls, Romans...) didn't really exist either. 3000 years is a long time, more than enough for a population to become 'native' to a region.
 
Maciamo said:
I am usually careful to say that Steppe migrants migrated west to Southeast, Central then Western Europe, specifying the path followed in each part of Europe. I hardly ever use the term 'native Europeans'. I prefer to specify the period during which the people inhabited Europe, such as Palaeolithic Europeans, Mesolithic Europeans, Neolithic Europeans, etc. When Yamnayans invaded the Balkans from 3500 BCE, the Neolithic population who was living there were the local natives of the region, although they were mostly descended from migrants from the Near East. After all their ancestors had been living in the Balkans for over 3000 years. Where were our own ancestors living 3000 years ago? At the time modern ethnicities had not yet emerged, and what we call 'ancient ethnicities' (Germanics, Slavs, Gauls, Romans...) didn't really exist either. 3000 years is a long time, more than enough for a population to become 'native' to a region.
Click to expand...

I think it is good that you don't use the term 'native' or 'aboriginal' or 'indigenous'.
because they has some peculiar connotation, perhaps reserved only to certain peoples.
Think about how 'aboriginal Europeans' would sound like to most people...



Long story short, the definition of native is relative to pre- and post-invasions/migrations and to its subsequent long-term settlements.
 
Parafarne said:
Maciamo uses this "bronze age immigrants" for R quite alot and uses native european when describing I, but I am saying when R invaded western europe they did from eastern europe not from outside europe so in Eupedia R and I should be called original/native europeans.
Click to expand...

They invaded the rest of Europe from a very specific region in Europe: the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which happens to be the doorstep to Central Asia and the West Asian Caucasus region. It would be quite misleading to talk about "Eastern European R1a- and R1b-bearing people" because most people would believe that those people were present since and early age in proper "peninsular" Eastern Europe, around Hungary, Lithuania or Serbia, which they weren't. Those peoples were very distinct from the vast majority of Eastern Europeans by them, and the main nucleus of the Yamna horizon was at least as close to Iran and Turkmenistan as it was to Poland or Serbia, i.e. Add to that that at least the Late Indo-Europeans had ~40% CHG admixture and little (or no) WHG admixture, so they were very eastern-shifted. The best definition in my opinion would be "North Eurasian".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top