You must log in or register to comment.

Volcic-tentacles t1_iz458zz wrote

Only if you don't count Neanderthals as "people".


silenthilljack t1_iz5bmvk wrote

Yup. Just keep continuing that trope.

Neanderthals have been proven to have the same intellectual power as our distant relatives. It has been speculated that were whipped out due to illness, famine and diminished resources as thy cohabitated with our distant relatives.


KottjornGoad OP t1_izce3vs wrote

We also bred with them. Asians and Caucasians have varying degrees of Neanderthal admixture.


turd_boy t1_iz4hjb0 wrote

>Only if you don't count Neanderthals as "people".

I mean... Not anymore, I'm not that bad at math.


Rasayana85 t1_iz4yv6r wrote

Are you suggesting a land bridge between Africa and Europe, or that they somehow traversed the water?


a_statistician t1_iz52pfm wrote

Is it really that hard to think that they might have crossed the Strait of Gibralter? Low sea levels in an ice age made it possible to cross from Asia into the Americas through a land bridge, why is the same thing not likely in the 9 mile gap between modern Spain and Morocco?


MarkDavisNotAnother t1_iz5trfq wrote

Isn’t Gibraltar a bit further south that the proposed land bridge between Asia an N America?

Not to mention wind current patterns potentially having an effect.

I could understand one being frozen solid while the other… less so solid.


a_statistician t1_iz5wceb wrote

I think the bigger issue is that with more water locked into the ice caps, seas would have been lower worldwide. I don't disagree with you on the fact that the water would have been liquid there, but one hypothesis for the origin of many of the "flood" stories and "Atlantis" style stories is that a land bridge like the one near Gibralter or the one forming one end of the Red sea was "topped" by rising seas and became essentially a waterfall, resulting in the filling of an entire basin and the erosion of what was at one point a land bridge. That would explain language like "... on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." (Genesis 7:11) that talk not only about rain falling from the sky, but also from it coming from the earth as well.

This is 100% not my area of expertise, but I think it's interesting how much of the data we can observe about some of this stuff doesn't tell us about all of the data we're missing because it's been destroyed over time and natural processes.


Ikkon t1_iz47p5o wrote

It doesn't seem too surprising, given that the main connection between Africa and Europe is the Middle East. So in case of any large scale migration homosapiens basically had to go through Asia to get to Europe


sinmantky t1_iz3r6ns wrote

why would early humans go thru Georgia then to Europe, rather than going towards Iran's coastal borders?


Snufflepuffster t1_iz3ytg4 wrote

do you think someone in Africa 40k years ago stood up and said 'Let's go to China.’

No, that's ridiculous. They just went wherever and the extent/direction of their route was related to migration pressure.


sinmantky t1_iz44hkl wrote

that's what I thought at first, just follow the animals. But then, the fertile crescent would be there, so animals would be more plentiful there, rather than the hilly Turkish terrain.

One interesting story I heard is that early humans tried to follow the sun, being curious to where that bright shining thing kept going and where it went, they just followed it and kept going East.


Peter_deT t1_iz474gp wrote

The earliest migrations stuck to the coast (abundant food, better climate), which is why they reached Australia over 50,000 years ago - well before inland Asia was populated. Places like Tibet and central Australia were among the last.


sinmantky t1_iz4amx6 wrote

Yes, but why through the harsh Anatolian/Caucus hills? Was animal plentiful compared to the coast? Were they chased by some archaic human? Principle of least effort would make humans go thru the easier path.


NeedlessPedantics t1_iz7kzui wrote

You’re thinking about this in terms of individuals making conscious decisions within the time frame of a single life, rather than successive generations of groups of people changing, moving, splitting, returning, dying off, repopulating entire regions over thousands upon thousands of years.


culturalappropriator t1_iz3s0vb wrote

I mean, they didn't have maps so there was probably a lot of wandering and accidentally landing places.


differentiatedpans t1_iz4cgjo wrote

Keep in mind the world's oceans looks different 40k years ago who know where the corridors were and where water was.


Peter_deT t1_iz46hk3 wrote

The earliest hominids in Georgia (at Dmanisi) date around 1.2 million years ago. Not modern humans. Migration routes are heavily conditioned by the landscape - which was very different (eg the Alps had a large ice-cap in ice ages, and some regions were much more arid)


BapsBongos t1_iz4p8m2 wrote

Well… Europe is literally just a peninsula off Asia that wanted their own special name.


aoechamp t1_iz59iq8 wrote

Most of the continents have their own tectonic plates so I had to check, but Europe really doesn’t!

I guess that’s why they used to call it Eurasia


KottjornGoad OP t1_izbg0oz wrote

Europe and Asia are technically one single continent (Eurasia). People only separate them because of ethnic, linguistic, and cultural reasons.


Chetkica t1_iz502qw wrote

what is "asians"? asians are people from asia.

And to my knowledge, Neanderthals, a species of human, were there before modern man.


Plunder_n_Frightenin t1_iz5cx9e wrote

If you read the article their were inferences to similarities to current East Asian genetics


Chetkica t1_iz5dogk wrote

they probably meant east eurasian. But that article is nonsense then, as the first groups of prople to reach europe were before the east-west eurasian divergence date


ksatriamelayu t1_j1mdhi6 wrote

If you read the article, they are saying that it was (modern) East Eurasians that reached Europe (Bulgaria) first, before getting wiped out and replaced by (modern) West Eurasians, which seems, well, a bit weird but that's the finding. I really would've thought East Eurasians to move from India Northeast through the jungles and beach route, not through Bulgaria/Caucasus -> Central Asia and Siberia... Then again, there would be a lot of branches, and not all thrived.


Chetkica t1_j1o9jia wrote

Bulgaria was named after the bulgars, an oghur Turkic people. But certainly thats not what they were referring to, as thats very recent history.

But just the title is wrong, as asian just designates people from a continent today.

Siberia is known to be the origin point of the most clusters of east asians proper (northern). China, Japan, Korea, all of those are rather southern populations, or really a mix of southern and northern elements, much closer to southeast asians than to northern asians. True northern east eurasians are groups like the Ket, Evenki, Nenet, Eskimo-Aleuts. Tungusic, Ket people are from the same language family as the Na Dene native americans such as the Athabaskans like Navajo, the Dene-Yeniseian family.


UniversalMomentum t1_iz4r8ea wrote

Everybody who left Africa at the rate of movement back in those days became Asian before they got anywhere else so yeah.


AutoModerator t1_iz3o1gl wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


the-other-car t1_iz7b1di wrote

Asians can now say, "Go back to where you came from," to the whites in Europe


alecs_stan t1_iz8tc3h wrote

Euro weebs be like: Yasss! We were ajanz!


nadmaximus t1_iz9yu10 wrote

Not sure how genetic studies could determine if they were people or not. Or that they were first.


freepenguin91 t1_iz5fnoe wrote

I’m confused, were those the same people as the Proto Indo Europeans?


artificial_scarcity t1_iz6ddra wrote

No. The migrations of Proto Indo Europeans happened much more recently (3,500-5,000 years ago).


Dry-Bird-2993 t1_iz3xccl wrote

The amount of racism in this thread is.....expected. Seems like racists just sit on this subreddit waiting for any post about race.


GaijinFoot t1_iz45vn6 wrote

20 comments in this thread and I don't see anything outwardly racist. Sure you don't sit on any threads about race and just call comments racist as a bit of a first reaction?


Dry-Bird-2993 t1_iz58kbt wrote


GaijinFoot t1_iz92pe7 wrote

It's one comment.


Dry-Bird-2993 t1_izatjwq wrote

You said you don't see anything. So to prove you wrong all i had to do was present one.


GaijinFoot t1_izb63al wrote

I said I don't see anything outwardly racist. While you said 'the amount of racism in this thread' like it was full of slurs. You were just dog whistling. Pathetic and not helpful to anyone


HorryNotHorry t1_iz4nfci wrote

what racism?


Dry-Bird-2993 t1_iz58wfg wrote


FFX13NL t1_iz5ci1a wrote

So you found 1 allegedly racist comment, do you want a cookie?


BasedChadThundercock t1_iz3oi5t wrote

"Asians" is kind of a misnomer. More like the Denisovans, their protohuman ancestors may have had some contact with Neanderthals in what is now Eastern Europe around the Caucasus Mountains.

As for this piece quote:

>According to the conclusions, rather than a clear East/West geographical bifurcation, there were several waves of migration. During the first, that took place around 45,000 years ago, populations that would later become prevalent in East Asia colonised Europe, and encountered Neanderthals with which they bred before leaving for the East. This would explain the presence of individuals in Bacho Kiro with genomes related to that of modern East Asian populations.

I mean, it couldn't have had anything to do with the Mongol and Hun invasions that ravaged Eastern Europe, killing, raping, and pillaging their way, no?


janyk t1_iz3qt6u wrote

No, because these remains are dated to be over 40,000 years old


BasedChadThundercock t1_iz3rvcb wrote

Fair enough for the comment on remains, but the modern populations surely have some influences from more recent events don't you think?


Snufflepuffster t1_iz3z38b wrote

they compared ancient remains to ancient remains. There is no need to consider modern populations. The author's do not have a race based agenda, unlike all these god damn apes on this sub.


Strazdas1 t1_iz4483w wrote

Everyone has a race based agenda mate. If they are telling you they dont - you are probably the targeted race.


Baccharis_pilularis t1_iz4vj2z wrote

No everyone does not. You're projecting so you don't have to acknowledge a more developed intellectual perspective than your own.


Baccharis_pilularis t1_iz4wf11 wrote

Everything you already know about human history begins about 30,000 years after the article's time-frame. Nothing you already know about human history is remotely relevant to this piece.


nosnowtho t1_iz49uor wrote

Don't tell the chinese or they might claim europe, draw some dashes on a map or something...


Strazdas1 t1_iz445dw wrote

How can asians be the first people in europe if oldest homonids are found in europe to begin with? shouldnt that make it the other way around, europeans were the first people in asia?


China_Lover t1_iz45agu wrote

Asia was populated by humans before Europe was, so all Europeans are Asian and all Asians are African.


Strazdas1 t1_iz4be02 wrote

That is debatable. Oldest homo sapiens was found in morroco, oldest hominid ancestor was found in crete.


aoechamp t1_iz5ac83 wrote

As you just stated, the earliest homo sapiens was found in Morocco. Morocco is in Africa. Hominid ancestors are irrelevant as they are not humans. Thanks for proving your own statement wrong.


Rasayana85 t1_iz5046d wrote

Read that over ony more time, and see if you can spot your error.


[deleted] t1_iz52e5j wrote

The oldest hominid ancestors were found in Ethiopia


Strazdas1 t1_iz57v9e wrote

Ardi is 4,4 million years old. Cretan fossils are dated at 6 million. So no, they are not.


[deleted] t1_iz69epy wrote


All I could find was hominid footprints dated 6 million years ago and sources said the dating is controversial


[deleted] t1_iz3o5n7 wrote

Indeed, they say that, to get to Europe, they had to work very hard, having to walk up many hills, both ways.


shadowscar248 t1_iz3v7j2 wrote

This study brought to you by the people's republic of china