I dunno if indigenous is the right term, as they migrated into those lands like everyone else starting after the ending of the last ice age. Skin tones are also on a spectrum, absence of pale skin doesn't exactly equate to dark or black as some recent politically motivated depictions of WHG would indicate. There is certainly lineage of WHG, EHG, and SHG present in modern Europeans, even with the migration of EEF and Indo Europeans.
They are called indigenous because they are believed to be the first anatomically modern humans to inhabit Europe. Native Americans are indigenous to the Americas because they were the first peoples here, even though they obviously came from north east Asia.
Yeah, I'm more so just pushing back on the concept of "indigenous" in general.
I didn't say they were Black and I haven't seen any of the academics claim that either. There are well over a billion people in the world with dark skin who aren't Black. Most South Asians, Indigenous Australians and Melanisians have dark skin, and so do many Amerindians, but they aren't Black.Yeah, I'm more so just pushing back on the concept of "indigenous" in general.
I understand, and stated, the three components in Europeans. You seemed to indicate that hunter gatherer genetic input in modern Europeans wasn't significant, I'd say it is significant, even with the subsequent migrations.
Again, I noted the absence of pale skin in my post. My argument is that this doesn't prove they were "black" as some recent depictions indicate. There is no evidence of them being black, just that they didn't have pale skin. As I said skin tones are on a spectrum, you don't go straight from white to black without shades between.
For example, this Cheddar Man depiction was chosen to give dark black skin with no evidence to support it, and now if you google him this is all that you see:
www.theguardian.com
www.nature.com
Yeah, you weren't specifically stating that, but believe me there is a push for that narrative out there. I've been debating people online over it for the last few years. The thread we are in right now seems to insinuate that as well.I didn't say they were Black and I haven't seen any of the academics claim that either. There are well over a billion people in the world with dark skin who aren't Black. Most South Asians, Indigenous Australians and Melanisians have dark skin, and so do many Amerindians, but they aren't Black.
The papers on European genetic heritage that I read in the past all pegged the Hunter Gatherer DNA as a minor compoent but it depends on which European group you are looking at, with some having minor contribution and others have substantial. I don't have links to the papers at hand right now so just working on memory.
This Guardian paper, which obiviously is not an academic article but is reporting on academic papers, has the H-G contritbution of some European groups as substantial, like 40- 50%. I don't recal such high % from the papers I read many years ago.
DNA study reveals third group of ancient ancestors of modern Europeans
Mixture of hunter-gatherers and farmers was augmented by third wave of migrants, perhaps 5,000 years ago, from north Eurasia
The below paper in Nature is the newest paper on paleolithic Europeans, but it does not look at the % of H-G contribution in modern Europeans.
Palaeogenomics of Upper Palaeolithic to Neolithic European hunter-gatherers - Nature
Combined analysis of new genomic data from 116 ancient hunter-gatherer individuals together with previously published data provides insights into the genetic structure and demographic shifts of west Eurasian forager populations over a period of 30,000 years.
Yeah, you weren't specifically stating that, but believe me there is a push for that narrative out there. I've been debating people online over it for the last few years. The thread we are in right now seems to insinuate that as well.
The WHG contribution is less than that of the Anatolian Farmers and Indo Europeans, however it's still a decent chunk. They also contributed to the Anatolian Farmer DNA.
I'm not sure how up to date this particular chart is but it's a good visual:
I agree that if someone has the set of presuppositions you described and tries to use it as proof of backwardness of people they are wrong. Not sure exactly how popular this theory is though.
Minor when comparing those 3, but still significant I'd argue, certainly in more areas than others.
So the indigenous and anatolian component is likely dark skin while the indo european component is known to be light skin?They are called indigenous because they are believed to be the first anatomically modern humans to inhabit Europe. Native Americans are indigenous to the Americas because they were the first peoples here, even though they obviously came from north east Asia.
Europeans are (mostly) composed of paleolithic indigenous hunter gatherers (WHG & EHG), neolithic Middle Eastern/Anatolian farmers from what is present day Turkey and bronze age steppe pastoralists (Indo-Europeans)
So far I have not seen any refutation that paleolithic European hunter gatherers were not dark skin. They are also said to have blue or light colored eyes. The fair skin is thought to have been introduced by neolithic MiddleEastern / Anatolian farmers.
--
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin
How Europeans evolved white skin Ancient DNA from skeletons shows dramatic natural selection on skin color and height in many Europeans
When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European's skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
---
From Phys.org
Blue eyes, it suggests, could come from hunter gatherers in Mesolithic Europe (10,000 to 5,000 BC), while other characteristics arrived later with newcomers from the East.
Ancient DNA reveals how Europeans developed light skin and lactose tolerance
Food intolerance is often dismissed as a modern invention and a "first-world problem". However, a study analysing the genomes of 101 Bronze-Age Eurasians reveals that around 90% were lactose intolerant.phys.org
The indigenous Western Hunter Gatherer was likely dark skinned (but had blue eyes).
And are these 3 groups widely recognised in the scientific community or is it still some kind of theory? If i am not mistaken the middle eastern farmer notion is relatively new?
This is widely recognized and backed up by genetics. The spread of Indo-Europeans is where a lot of our languages come from as well.
There are some debate on when the groups moved, what routes, how many waves. But in there is no debate about the three basic groups, who got where first and so on.
