| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Human migrations
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Human migrations

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
rocket7777 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 26 Oct 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rocket7777 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Human migrations
    Posted: 28 Oct 2013 at 17:14
Here's 2013 genetic(haplogroup Y) map of human migrations.
Of course there's lots mix and bidirectional movements, but very good general spread of humans.


Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
sunitas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sunitas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2014 at 15:30
After the last ice age, Proto-Uralic people have migrated to Northern and Eastern Europe and came in contact with primitive PIE who were dwelling in forest steppes region. Not only the PIE language but their culture, pottery design, and burial rituals were also influenced with Eastern European Uralic (Latvia/Lithuania) culture. Surprisingly, Sumerian language shares many similarities with Uralic language of Eastern Europe (Latvia/ Lithuania)—existing before nomadic PIE incursion to Eastern Europe--and the same similarities have been found with extinct Basque (earliest people of Welsh) language as well. Eastern European Uralic influences can be found in Dnipper-Donnets and Bug-Dniester Neolithic age pottery, geometrical designs, myths, themes, and burial rituals. In addition to, there are few common features are observed between ancient Uralic language and Steppes language.
cultural impact on these civilizations depends on their various migration patterns. 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jan 2014 at 16:53
Originally posted by sunitas sunitas wrote:

After the last ice age, Proto-Uralic people have migrated to Northern and Eastern Europe and came in contact with primitive PIE who were dwelling in forest steppes region. Not only the PIE language but their culture, pottery design, and burial rituals were also influenced with Eastern European Uralic (Latvia/Lithuania) culture. Surprisingly, Sumerian language shares many similarities with Uralic language of Eastern Europe (Latvia/ Lithuania)—existing before nomadic PIE incursion to Eastern Europe--and the same similarities have been found with extinct Basque (earliest people of Welsh) language as well. Eastern European Uralic influences can be found in Dnipper-Donnets and Bug-Dniester Neolithic age pottery, geometrical designs, myths, themes, and burial rituals. In addition to, there are few common features are observed between ancient Uralic language and Steppes language.
cultural impact on these civilizations depends on their various migration patterns. 

Latvian and Lithuanian Uralic? Sumerian Uralic? I think the theory, that the Sumerian cukture is Turkic has been proven wrong more than once.
Back to Top
sunitas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sunitas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2014 at 12:29
9,000 yrs old Latvia/Lithuanian language show very similarities with Sumerian language. 
Latvia/Lithuania is 10,000 yrs old (Uralic) civilization and Sumer is no more than 5,000 yrs old. Gradually, the Eastern Europeans (Uralic speakers) were loosing their languages to Indo-Europeans; Sami and Finns have still maintained their separate identity. Turkic belongs Altaic language family with Mongolians and Manchu-Tungus. Altaic and Uralic both share few common features and can be considered sister language. Culture could be different in the time period as Indo-Europeans and Mediterranean were highly influenced with Uralic culture and the affect is visible in their rituals, mythologies, gods, and customs. Indo-Europeans didn't come to Sumer so they could have maintained their ancient language and culture both. Sumer were more close Mediterranean nations and Turkey had a contact with indo-Europeans and Mediterranean, both. 
Back to Top
sunitas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sunitas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2014 at 12:34
10,000 yrs old Latvia/Lithuania culture, mythologies, rituals were similar to Polar Uralic (Sami, Samoyedic, and Yukaghir). I have written an  article on this topic. I tried to summarized things with minimum doubts. I would appreciate if you go there and let me know if I have missed any points.

http://kuchhnahin.blogspot.in/

Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2014 at 20:27
Originally posted by sunitas sunitas wrote:

9,000 yrs old Latvia/Lithuanian language show very similarities with Sumerian language. 
Latvia/Lithuania is 10,000 yrs old (Uralic) civilization and Sumer is no more than 5,000 yrs old. Gradually, the Eastern Europeans (Uralic speakers) were loosing their languages to Indo-Europeans; Sami and Finns have still maintained their separate identity. Turkic belongs Altaic language family with Mongolians and Manchu-Tungus. Altaic and Uralic both share few common features and can be considered sister language. Culture could be different in the time period as Indo-Europeans and Mediterranean were highly influenced with Uralic culture and the affect is visible in their rituals, mythologies, gods, and customs. Indo-Europeans didn't come to Sumer so they could have maintained their ancient language and culture both. Sumer were more close Mediterranean nations and Turkey had a contact with indo-Europeans and Mediterranean, both. 

Latvian and Lithuanian are baltic languages, which are part of the huge indo-european linguistic family. The indo-europeans migration, which led to the evolution of the linguistic branches happened much later than 9ky ago. If you look to the corded war culture, you can see, that it covered a large territory where later balts, slavs, germanics, maybe even celts originated.
There is little known about Baltic words earlier than the medieval. I would like to know, how you know how your Latvian/Lithuanian sounded 9ky ago?
It is very hard to trace languages back into the past, so every of those linguistic super- or macrofamilies are debated. Even the former so-called Ural-Altaic superfamily is today highly disputed.

Back to Top
sunitas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sunitas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 06:54
Yes, it's proved that Balts and Slavs words are of later origin, after the emergence of corded ware culture. There were no distinct language branch like Balts and Slavs before the spread of corded ware culture. The Balts and Slavs predecessors were speaking the common proto language, which was a part of Uralic language. You can find many similarities in Proto-Uralic language and Sumerian language. 
please refer: Lexiline: History of Civilization
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2014 at 12:20
Originally posted by sunitas sunitas wrote:

Yes, it's proved that Balts and Slavs words are of later origin, after the emergence of corded ware culture. There were no distinct language branch like Balts and Slavs before the spread of corded ware culture. The Balts and Slavs predecessors were speaking the common proto language, which was a part of Uralic language. You can find many similarities in Proto-Uralic language and Sumerian language. 
please refer: Lexiline: History of Civilization

There are several theoriesabout the origin of slavic and baltic languages and about a possible balto-slavic or even germano-balto-slavic family. All theories have one in common, nobody places balto-slavic into a an uralic language. It is true, that e.g. latvian has uralic influence, but they have as well germanic and slavic influence, but all due to the neighbourhood to all threse groups.

I don't know yet, how many expressions in Sumeric match Uralic or Proto-uralic. But Sumeric was also connected with a several other linguistic families, even with Bantu or Tibetian. If there are indeed some similarities, then it it much more possible, that this is due to a hypothetic nostratic macrofamily. But that was tens of thousands years ago.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2014 at 10:14
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


Originally posted by sunitas sunitas wrote:

9,000 yrs old Latvia/Lithuanian language show very similarities with Sumerian language. 
Latvia/Lithuania is 10,000 yrs old (Uralic) civilization and Sumer is no more than 5,000 yrs old. Gradually, the Eastern Europeans (Uralic speakers) were loosing their languages to Indo-Europeans; Sami and Finns have still maintained their separate identity. Turkic belongs Altaic language family with Mongolians and Manchu-Tungus. Altaic and Uralic both share few common features and can be considered sister language. Culture could be different in the time period as Indo-Europeans and Mediterranean were highly influenced with Uralic culture and the affect is visible in their rituals, mythologies, gods, and customs. Indo-Europeans didn't come to Sumer so they could have maintained their ancient language and culture both. Sumer were more close Mediterranean nations and Turkey had a contact with indo-Europeans and Mediterranean, both. 

Latvian and Lithuanian are baltic languages, which are part of the huge indo-european linguistic family. The indo-europeans migration, which led to the evolution of the linguistic branches happened much later than 9ky ago. If you look to the corded war culture, you can see, that it covered a large territory where later balts, slavs, germanics, maybe even celts originated.
There is little known about Baltic words earlier than the medieval. I would like to know, how you know how your Latvian/Lithuanian sounded 9ky ago?
It is very hard to trace languages back into the past, so every of those linguistic super- or macrofamilies are debated. Even the former so-called Ural-Altaic superfamily is today highly disputed.



There is a later school of thought that the so called "Pottery Cultures" mean precisely that, the pottery type moved but not necessarily accompanied by any type of mass migration. Pottery, the province of women, more likely moved as the result of trade or "marriage".
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2014 at 12:17
We can see it today and we know it for the past. People migrate. Therefor it is probably wrong to think cultural or languistic changes are simply based on trade, marriages or adopted customs. But it would be probably wrong as well to think, that these changes are only the result of migrations, especially mass migrations.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2014 at 13:02
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

We can see it today and we know it for the past. People migrate. Therefor it is probably wrong to think cultural or languistic changes are simply based on trade, marriages or adopted customs. But it would be probably wrong as well to think, that these changes are only the result of migrations, especially mass migrations.


You're having an each way bet! And you're wrong.

My theory, and agreed upon by others, is that, for example the Bell Beaker pottery gained popularity throughout Europe, but to call it "a culture" is wrong. There is no evidence that there was any mass migration to accompany the use of Bell Beaker Pottery throughout Western Europe.

If you believe that the various "pottery cultures" as they're known indicate a mass migration of people, show us your evidence.

It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2014 at 13:51
First of all, what do you mean with "There is no evidence that there was any mass migration"What evidence do you need? Is there evidence, that there was no migration at all?
Second, what is for you a mass migration?

The problem with all those archaeological cultures is, that they can't say a thing about the ethnic structure, about the language. So all is just hypothesis.
But we have analogies. Germanic migrations, Slavic migrations to name just a few. They can show us how migrations change a linguistic or ethnic situation. Slavs e.g. did not migrate in masses, but they migrated. Slavic culture was adopted by others, via trade, after conquest, by neighbourhood.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 00:18
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

First of all, what do you mean with "There is no evidence that there was any mass migration"What evidence do you need? Is there evidence, that there was no migration at all?
Second, what is for you a mass migration?

The problem with all those archaeological cultures is, that they can't say a thing about the ethnic structure, about the language. So all is just hypothesis.
But we have analogies. Germanic migrations, Slavic migrations to name just a few. They can show us how migrations change a linguistic or ethnic situation. Slavs e.g. did not migrate in masses, but they migrated. Slavic culture was adopted by others, via trade, after conquest, by neighbourhood.


Don't twist my words!

What I said was that there is no evidence of a mass migration accompanying the Bell Beaker spread.

Of course there were mass migrations, and yes, cultural spread, and a lingual spread, and to deny an archaeological connection with language is to deny fact.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 10:39
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

First of all, what do you mean with "There is no evidence that there was any mass migration"What evidence do you need? Is there evidence, that there was no migration at all?
Second, what is for you a mass migration?

The problem with all those archaeological cultures is, that they can't say a thing about the ethnic structure, about the language. So all is just hypothesis.
But we have analogies. Germanic migrations, Slavic migrations to name just a few. They can show us how migrations change a linguistic or ethnic situation. Slavs e.g. did not migrate in masses, but they migrated. Slavic culture was adopted by others, via trade, after conquest, by neighbourhood.


Don't twist my words!

What I said was that there is no evidence of a mass migration accompanying the Bell Beaker spread.

Of course there were mass migrations, and yes, cultural spread, and a lingual spread, and to deny an archaeological connection with language is to deny fact.

There is simply not enough evidence to claim that an archaeological group is linguistically and ethnically homogenous. I wrote this somewhere about the LaTene culture. In the border area between Germanics and Celts, several celtic civitates are said to be germanic, while some germanic gentes have Celltic names and they all share the same LaTene-culture. especially for the bellbeaker culture, there are to many competiting hypothesis to say where it originated, if it was due to migrations that the culture spread, whether it was an upper class phenomenon etc.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 10:48
beorna:

I understand that the La Tene theory is under serious debate.

Until such time as I'm confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary, I maintain my position, as no doubt you will too.

Please show me some evidence of the Bell Beaker mass migration.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 11:12
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

beorna:

I understand that the La Tene theory is under serious debate.

Until such time as I'm confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary, I maintain my position, as no doubt you will too.

Please show me some evidence of the Bell Beaker mass migration.

I asked it above, what do you understand as "mass migartion"? Migrations were done by smaller groups, in maximum to a few thousands. We have no good reports about it. The first informations are from Germanic eras. here we have numbers in maximum to 80,000. But that was probably not the rule. And AFAIK are even migrations of those Germanics archaeologically hard to prove.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 14:03
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

beorna:

I understand that the La Tene theory is under serious debate.

Until such time as I'm confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary, I maintain my position, as no doubt you will too.

Please show me some evidence of the Bell Beaker mass migration.

I asked it above, what do you understand as "mass migartion"? Migrations were done by smaller groups, in maximum to a few thousands. We have no good reports about it. The first informations are from Germanic eras. here we have numbers in maximum to 80,000. But that was probably not the rule. And AFAIK are even migrations of those Germanics archaeologically hard to prove.



That's precisely my point.

A Mass Migration would have involved thousands of people, sufficient to influence the culture and even the language of the countries that they migrated to or through. The Bell Beaker Pottery uptake was not, in itself, a culture, merely women taking advantage of a new fashion in pottery.

Of course there were smaller group migrations, but I'm saying that, IF there was a migration accompanying the Bell Beaker Potter phenomena, it was not sufficient to create a cultural change of it's own.

I reiterate, for the third time, the increase in the use of Bell Beaker Pottery throughout western Europe is not evidence, in itself, of a cultural change, which would surely have come about had there been, for example, thousands of people migrating with the pottery.

AND, you still haven't provided evidence to the contrary.

It's pointless continuing this discussion with you if you keep going around in circles.

Edited by toyomotor - 17 Feb 2014 at 14:07
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 15:41
One cannot provide evidence for a mass migration, 1) because there was no mass migration, but a slowly process of migrations and b) even if there would have been mass migartions archaeology would have problems to prove it. This may be not satisfying for you. There are several hypotheses, some more plausible than other. No theory can claim to be true.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 01:58
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

One cannot provide evidence for a mass migration, 1) because there was no mass migration, but a slowly process of migrations and b) even if there would have been mass migartions archaeology would have problems to prove it. This may be not satisfying for you. There are several hypotheses, some more plausible than other. No theory can claim to be true.



1. I would have thought that the Celts were an example of a mass migration, more than a few hundred;
2. I agree, it could have happened over a period of time, more than likely did;
3. No, archaeology has shown examples of changes in building structures, industry and animal husbandry consistent with a big change in a culture, probably as the result of a large wave of incomers;
4. I note that you've abandoned the Bell Beaker aspect.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 05:43
beorna

You asked me to define Mass Migration, and perhaps I need to explain in simpler terms.

In his book entitled "The Horse, The Wheel and Language" Prof. David W. ANTHONY explains it very easily.

Let's change the terminology from mass to chain, and explain it this way:-

1. A decision is made for a population to explore greener pastures, literally;
2. Scouts are despatched with orders to locate the best terrain to meet the populations requirements;
3. When a suitable area is found, word is sent back to the people;
3. The first group, the "Charter Group" moves out and takes up occupancy;
4. Then there is a chain reaction", in which others from the "old country" follow on;
5. Over a period of time, there are sufficient "incomers" to influence the language and culture of the new land;
6. The original people, seeing advantages in the customs of the "incomers" adopt their culture and language;
7. Sometimes, the "Charter Group" are of the upper eschelons of the migrating people, and they may have certain linguistic and cultural differences to the main population;
8. Wishing to identify themselves with the successful "aristocracy" both the migrants and the original people adopt those particular cultural traits.

It's not a case of waking up one morning and finding a couple of hundred thousand "newbies" camped on your front lawn. It's a process whereby a large proportion of the people move over time, as opposed to just a few families or a small tribe.

See David Anhtonys Book.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 09:09
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:


1. I would have thought that the Celts were an example of a mass migration, more than a few hundred;

There are some "mass migrations" known for the Celts. Unfortunately are the figures uncertain. E.g. the Helvetii may have been more than 260,000 if one follows Cesar. But there is as well another source, which has only ca. 150,000 in total (Helvetii, Boii, Tulingii etc.). On the other hand is there no certain evidence for a mass migration into britain or spain.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

3. No, archaeology has shown examples of changes in building structures, industry and animal husbandry consistent with a big change in a culture, probably as the result of a large wave of incomers;

Yes, but on the other side, there are as well contrary theories, which explain drastically changes without invasions. Whether the one or the other is true, is difficult to say.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

4. I note that you've abandoned the Bell Beaker aspect.

No, I have not.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 09:43
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:


[QUOTE=toyomotor]

Yes, but on the other side, there are as well contrary theories, which explain drastically changes without invasions. Whether the one or the other is true, is difficult to say.



I've never mentioned "invasions" but of course they could account for some of the changes in language and culture if the invaders decided to remain and import their own customs and traditions and language, especially if the original occupants saw benefits arising from adoption of the incomers culture and language. The latter being of particular importance for reasons of communication and trade.

As I wrote above, migration didn't necessarily happen over a few weeks or months, more likely years or even decades.

The migration of the Celtic culture could well be explained by the "chain" process mentioned above, but instead of remaining in one place forever, the process continued with the people moving every so often until, eventually, they arrived at a place from where they could go no further, or wanted to go no further, and decided to stay. In most migratory patterns there is evidence of some back migration, that is, people returning to their homeland. But this, in the majority of cases, had no effect on the occupancy of the new land.

There is now a theory that the Bronze Age commenced on the Eurasian Steppe earlier than in Europe. If that is true, it could explain why the Celts in Ireland had bronze weapons and implements long before Britain had them.





Edited by toyomotor - 18 Feb 2014 at 09:47
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 11:00
Some of the movements of people changing the demography of earth most, may have involved very small numbers of people. In particular into uninhabited territories. Some dosens of wanderers in palaeolithicum may have had greater impact genetically than millions of migrants in recent times.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 11:38
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Some of the movements of people changing the demography of earth most, may have involved very small numbers of people. In particular into uninhabited territories. Some dosens of wanderers in palaeolithicum may have had greater impact genetically than millions of migrants in recent times.


That's true of course. But the effects of migration are far easier to estimate when there was an existing population/culture before the arrival of the incomers, with which to compare change.

One hundred Inuits, for example, moving a hundred or so miles from their current location would have little human effect that we could measure.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 12:01
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Some of the movements of people changing the demography of earth most, may have involved very small numbers of people. In particular into uninhabited territories. Some dosens of wanderers in palaeolithicum may have had greater impact genetically than millions of migrants in recent times.


That's true of course. But the effects of migration are far easier to estimate when there was an existing population/culture before the arrival of the incomers, with which to compare change.

One hundred Inuits, for example, moving a hundred or so miles from their current location would have little human effect that we could measure.
I find it not unlikely that the ancestors of todays population of Greenland (about 60000) are descendants of less than 100 newcomers about 1000 years ago.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 03:42
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Some of the movements of people changing the demography of earth most, may have involved very small numbers of people. In particular into uninhabited territories. Some dosens of wanderers in palaeolithicum may have had greater impact genetically than millions of migrants in recent times.


That's true of course. But the effects of migration are far easier to estimate when there was an existing population/culture before the arrival of the incomers, with which to compare change.

One hundred Inuits, for example, moving a hundred or so miles from their current location would have little human effect that we could measure.

I find it not unlikely that the ancestors of todays population of Greenland (about 60000) are descendants of less than 100 newcomers about 1000 years ago.


I wouldn't find that surprising at all, but would it have been as recent as 1000 years ago? How about 2000 years ago?
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 08:12
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:



I wouldn't find that surprising at all, but would it have been as recent as 1000 years ago? How about 2000 years ago?

fantasus is probably speaking about the arrival of the Thule-culture on Greenland. Inuit of course lived there much earlier in Greenland, but the Palaeo-Inuit seem to have been replaced widely or assimilated by the Neo-Inuit.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 09:01
 When norse settlers arrived about 1000 yers the lands were they arrived to was not populated by others for a long time.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 10:02
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

 When norse settlers arrived about 1000 yers the lands were they arrived to was not populated by others for a long time.


Thanks for that info, but can you expand on it a bit please?

When did the first Vikings settle Greenland?

Were they Norse, Swedish or Danish?

Was Iceland settled before Greenland?

By whom?

Regards

Ian
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4801
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 10:04
Incidentally, when and where did the Finns enter the picture?

While the others were having a good time raping and pillaging, the Finns don't get a mention.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.187 seconds.