Indo-European replacement?

[Albion]

Did Indo-Europeans displace previous European populations or assimilate into them?

I always thought they assimilated into them but recently I've read a lot of people suggesting that R1b and R1a could have been spread either by the first farmers or Indo-Europeans and that I1 is the original Palaeolithic native.

So what exactly happened? Did Indo-Europeans replace the original inhabitants or were they subsumed into them and where did they come from?

I personally go with this theory which suggests that R1b and I1 arrived at roughly the same time but and went in different directions but were partially displaced latter by R1a and N1 in the east.

[Damião de Góis]

Invasions don't usually replace entire populations. In any case i think that Europe was sparsely populated at the time. It's hard to tell what might have happened.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Indo-Europeans didn't totally replace the existing European populations. And they certainly didn't assimilate to the populations that were in Europe before them. Instead the populations in Europe before the IE assimilated to the IE tribes (evidence is the archaeology, linguistics, genetics).

Otzil the Ice man was pre-Indo-European, and the recent National Geographic special on him released his DNA results showing that he is most genetically similar to people in Sardinia. But he was found along the Italian/Swiss border. There is some degree of genetic discontinuity between Europeans of the pre-Indo-European age and Indo-Europeans after IE migrations.

Did they kill all the males, or most of them, and take the women? We don't know, we need more genetic data for the period just after the IE expansions throughout Europe. Whatever the case we can say for sure that there is large genetic discontinuity between the Pre-IE and IE's of today. Maybe this process took place over a long period of time. More genetic data can tell us what happened with more certainty.

So what happened? The most credible theory that I've seen is the model that has them migrating/conquering in a way similar to the Mongol invasions- by horse. There is a great book out called- "Horse, Wheel and Langauge" about the indo-european migrations and the archeolgical evidence of their way of life and horses.

Geneticists also believe that Indo-Europeans also had a genetic advantage over the pre-IE Europeans. Indo-European populations today show a strong correlation with lactose tolerance, and populations that rely upon milk often are able to support a larger population than those that don't. The book "The 10,000 Year Explosion" talks about this theory in some detail, with lots of credible citations for further reading.

The IE's certainly constituted a ruling elite of the populations that they conquered. Often in pre-industrial times, the ruling class had far more kids than the lower classes, (read Dysgenics by Richard Lynn). This probably explains the distribution of R1b and R1a all over Europe at such high levels.

There is a great website that goes over the IE expansion with graphs...
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolit...rope_map.shtml

And they also do a great job detailing exactly how the IE's Y-DNA probably came to dominance.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origin...rope.shtml#R1b

^In that last link I'd strongly recommend reading,,,
"How did R1b come to replace most of the older lineages in Western Europe ? Polygamy, Status & Power, Gender imbalance, Aggressive warfare" and "Did the Indo-Europeans really invade Western Europe ?"

Hope that helps.

I personally go with this theory which suggests that R1b and I1 arrived at roughly the same time but and went in different directions but were partially displaced latter by R1a and N1 in the east.

I strongly disagree with this theory. I think the most current findings do not back it up. The forum on the following site can explain why the Y-DNA I was probably indigenous and pre-IE.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/

I always thought they assimilated into them but recently I've read a lot of people suggesting that R1b and R1a could have been spread either by the first farmers or Indo-Europeans and that I1 is the original Palaeolithic native.

So what exactly happened? Did Indo-Europeans replace the original inhabitants or were they subsumed into them and where did they come from?

The old theory was that R1b came from the geographic region of Spain during the Ice Age, (such as the book "Origin of the British"). Then they said farmers and published a few papers of that. But the most recent data seems to disqualify the previous ideas (came in the ice age or Neolithic farmers) and the most recent data and archaeology evidence and linguistic evidence strongly support it spread during the IE. All the data converges upon this. The consensus in academia also seems to be that it (R1b and R1a) spread by the IE's. Read that forum for info.

[Albion]

Invasions don't usually replace entire populations. In any case i think that Europe was sparsely populated at the time. It's hard to tell what might have happened.

I thought so too, but Europedia argues a strong case for replacement. I really don't know what to believe now.

Geneticists also believe that Indo-Europeans also had a genetic advantage over the pre-IE Europeans. Indo-European populations today show a strong correlation with lactose tolerance, and populations that rely upon milk often are able to support a larger population than those that don't. The book "The 10,000 Year Explosion" talks about this theory in some detail, with lots of credible citations for further reading.

I see how this would be an advantage.

I strongly disagree with this theory. I think the most current findings do not back it up. The forum on the following site can explain why the Y-DNA I was probably indigenous and pre-IE.

I don't understand though. We're always told in Britain that R1b types migrated here after the LGM with perhaps a smaller migration of I1 into Eastern England.

Britain was recolonised around 10,000 years ago but I read things on Europedia which say it couldn't have been in Europe that long.
If R1b had already displaced the other groups in the Basque refuge and then spread to Britain I'd understand it, but this is saying R1b must have come with invaders which we have no evidence of.

Who is it supposed to have come with? Celts? There's only evidence for small migrations of Belgics in SE England and a few Armoricans in Dorset, evidence for Celtic migrations has always been negligible.

So you see the problem - Brits are told they descend from the first inhabitants to return here after the LGM with latter infusions of migrants, but we're told that most of our genetics go back to the LGM. Am I to believe this is a lie?

All the data converges upon this. The consensus in academia also seems to be that it (R1b and R1a) spread by the IE's. Read that forum for info.

The view of geneticists seems to change with the British weather to be fair.

Decades ago the Indo-European replacement theory was advocated, then a lack of archaeology made views switch to continuity and now replacement has become trendy again.
I'am really getting confused by all of this.

[Logan]

Jury's still out.

Something to do with Steel.





http://www.buildinghistory.org/dista...tml#Cimmerians

[Oreka Bailoak]

I don't understand though. We're always told in Britain that R1b types migrated here after the LGM with perhaps a smaller migration of I1 into Eastern England.

That was the old theory before they discovered that older R1b types come from the Indo-European geographic origin region (between the Black and Caspian seas). They've dated the R1b divergence to about the same time as the expansion of IE. All the data seems to fit. You should start reading that site I've showed you, they keep up to date with the newest findings. Also this site is extremely good.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

Who is it supposed to have come with? Celts? There's only evidence for small migrations of Belgics in SE England and a few Armoricans in Dorset, evidence for Celtic migrations has always been negligible.

Yes, R1b seems to have spread with the Celts into the British Isles and also more recently with the massive German immigration into England of the Wolkswandering age.

So you see the problem - Brits are told they descend from the first inhabitants to return here after the LGM with latter infusions of migrants, but we're told that most of our genetics go back to the LGM. Am I to believe this is a lie?The view of geneticists seems to change with the British weather to be fair.Decades ago the Indo-European replacement theory was advocated, then a lack of archaeology made views switch to continuity and now replacement has become trendy again.
I'am really getting confused by all of this.

Yeah. I feel your pain. Most of my ancestry is British and I bought the books about R1b coming from the Basque Ice Refuge, I read all the scientific handouts and even printed them out and put them into a binder. Then they decided to change the story based upon new evidence. I was furious, that I'd been telling people the Basque origin of R1b, and also went through all that trouble to do research that was becoming discredited. In fact that's why my name is Basque, because at the time I believed in the Basque Ice Age Refuge origin of R1b.

Oreka Bailoak = "Equalized Values" in Basque

[Unurautare]

Thracians are natives to Europe,so I have no "ancestral guilt" over replacing anybody.

[morski]

Thracians were IE speakers, though.

Pelasgians are considered to have been the abos of SEE.

[Unurautare]

Thracians were IE speakers, though.

Pelasgians are considered to have been the abos of SEE.

Pelasgians aren't even a real ethnic group imo and nothing is known about them except that the lived in Greece :

The name Pelasgians (Greek: Πελασγοί, Pelasgoí, singular Πελασγός, Pelasgós) was used by some ancient Greek writers to refer to populations that were either the ancestors of the Greeks or who preceded the Greeks in Greece, "a hold-all term for any ancient, primitive and presumably indigenous people in the Greek world."

The Encyclopedia Britannica online article on Pelasgians:

Pelasgi, also called Pelasgians, the people who occupied Greece before the 12th century bc. The name was used only by ancient Greeks. The Pelasgi were mentioned as a specific people by several Greek authors, including Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides, and were said to have inhabited various areas, such as Thrace, Argos, Crete, and Chalcidice. In the 5th century bc the surviving villages apparently preserved a common non-Greek language.

It is uncertain whether any ancient people actually called themselves Pelasgi. In later Greek usage their name was applied to all “aboriginal” Aegean populations.

Part of the Encyclopedia Britannica online article on Thracians:

Illyrians and Thracians

Archaeological evidence indicates that the Balkans were populated well before the Neolithic Period (New Stone Age; about 10,000 years ago). At the dawn of recorded history, two Indo-European peoples dominated the area: the Illyrians to the west and the Thracians to the east of the great historical divide defined by the Morava and Vardar river valleys. The Thracians were advanced in metalworking and in horsemanship. They intermingled with the Greeks and gave them the Dionysian and Orphean cults, which later became so important in classical Greek literature. The Illyrians were more exclusive, their mountainous terrain keeping them separate from the Greeks and Thracians.

I don't know why I keep reading foreign articles that keep diving Thracians into "Thracians"(just in Bulgaria and as some sort of cohesive ethnic group) and Illyrians(Yugoslavia). From what I know the Thracians were a big group in ancient times,possibly stretching from the Baltic Sea all the way down to Anatolia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_tribes

[Lábaru]

The Iberians were not replaced, and were not Indo-European, the Indo-European people simply were assimilated.