4 ms·

I think you don't see a lot of this in Europe, Africa, or Asia because 'indigenous' in this context implies that the people who were there 'first' have been rep

I think you don't see a lot of this in Europe, Africa, or Asia because 'indigenous' in this context implies that the people who were there 'first' have been replaced by people who came from somewhere else. In Europe especially, this mostly happened before recorded history, and the borders of cultures and nations have changed so many times since then, it's hard to point to any one group as 'indigenous' in those areas. In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas, so whoever built this map has probably not spent as much time documenting them. And finally, I put quotes around 'indigenous' and 'first', because for the most part this is a map of the groups of people who were most recently replaced; before the map of tribes in the Americas you see in the link, there were larger cultures/empires that rose and fell (Inca, Aztec, Maya, Mississippian, etc).

iammisc 5y ago
> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas, so whoever built this map has probably not spent as much time documenting them. The Arab conquests of North Africa would like to question this.
- imbnwa 5y ago
  Not necessarily from a genetic perspective, North Africa is predominantly Amazigh genetically (and Copt in Egypt), however much people may identify as Arab[0] culturally, and have been there since before recorded history. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_North_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_North_Afric...
themgt 5y ago
> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas The latest genetic evidence suggests there was actually a very high level of replacement of the indigenous inhabitants of a large part of central/southern Africa, e.g. Despite a gap of 5,000 years in some cases, all four of the children’s genomes were remarkably similar to one another. But compared with the DNA of modern Africans, their genomes were more closely related to those of the hunter-gatherer groups in west central Africa that are sometimes known as Pygmies than they were to those of contemporary Cameroonians or other Bantu-speaking populations. The researchers also used the genomes to understand even older events in human history. The four children seem to descend from a group of Homo sapiens that branched off from the common ancestors of our species more than 200,000 years ago — perhaps even earlier than the ancestors of distinct Indigenous southern African groups known collectively as Khoesan peoples. Previous studies of modern human genomes had suggested that these groups descended from the oldest distinct lineage of Homo sapiens. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00167-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00167-5 So populations who'd been living in Africa for 200k years were displaced and replaced just recently, in fact the tale seems quite familiar - original hunter gatherer populations replaced by agriculturalists. Europe and Asia are much the same, nearly everywhere.
rsj_hn 5y ago
> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe No, the Bantu expansion was mass genocide on a continental scale. The bulk of africa was previously populated by brown skinned people and pygmies, not by Bantus, who originated in the west Niger delta. From that delta, they exploded, exterminating the rest of south saharan Africa. Most of the natives were killed but some were enslaved and kept as food - an entire continent genocided, with many tribes eaten to extinction. You can see evidence of this with DNA studies and by the fact that virtually all the brownskinned people or pygmies are gone. Sub-saharan africa is now a black skinned continent inhabited primarily by Bantus, when it was previously a heterogeneous continent with black and brown skinned people as well as pygmies. It may have taken more time than the European conquest of America, but it was much more bloody.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > Most of the natives were killed but some were enslaved and kept as food It should be noted that the pygmies are generally in a symbiotic relationship with the Bantu today - competition between the groups is limited by the fact that the pygmies inhabit non-arable land. This would have been different when the Bantus arrived, of course.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas Huh? The Bantu expansion mostly happened well within what in the rest of the world is the historical period. The people the ancient Egyptians documented to their south do not exist today. The replacement of the population of South Africa was late enough that it happened under white rule. There was no phase where African people were replaced by Europeans, but that's not at all the same question.

iammisc 5y ago

> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas, so whoever built this map has probably not spent as much time documenting them. The Arab conquests of North Africa would like to question this.

imbnwa 5y ago
Not necessarily from a genetic perspective, North Africa is predominantly Amazigh genetically (and Copt in Egypt), however much people may identify as Arab[0] culturally, and have been there since before recorded history. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_North_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_North_Afric...

themgt 5y ago

> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas The latest genetic evidence suggests there was actually a very high level of replacement of the indigenous inhabitants of a large part of central/southern Africa, e.g. Despite a gap of 5,000 years in some cases, all four of the children’s genomes were remarkably similar to one another. But compared with the DNA of modern Africans, their genomes were more closely related to those of the hunter-gatherer groups in west central Africa that are sometimes known as Pygmies than they were to those of contemporary Cameroonians or other Bantu-speaking populations. The researchers also used the genomes to understand even older events in human history. The four children seem to descend from a group of Homo sapiens that branched off from the common ancestors of our species more than 200,000 years ago — perhaps even earlier than the ancestors of distinct Indigenous southern African groups known collectively as Khoesan peoples. Previous studies of modern human genomes had suggested that these groups descended from the oldest distinct lineage of Homo sapiens. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00167-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00167-5 So populations who'd been living in Africa for 200k years were displaced and replaced just recently, in fact the tale seems quite familiar - original hunter gatherer populations replaced by agriculturalists. Europe and Asia are much the same, nearly everywhere.

rsj_hn 5y ago

> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe No, the Bantu expansion was mass genocide on a continental scale. The bulk of africa was previously populated by brown skinned people and pygmies, not by Bantus, who originated in the west Niger delta. From that delta, they exploded, exterminating the rest of south saharan Africa. Most of the natives were killed but some were enslaved and kept as food - an entire continent genocided, with many tribes eaten to extinction. You can see evidence of this with DNA studies and by the fact that virtually all the brownskinned people or pygmies are gone. Sub-saharan africa is now a black skinned continent inhabited primarily by Bantus, when it was previously a heterogeneous continent with black and brown skinned people as well as pygmies. It may have taken more time than the European conquest of America, but it was much more bloody.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> Most of the natives were killed but some were enslaved and kept as food It should be noted that the pygmies are generally in a symbiotic relationship with the Bantu today - competition between the groups is limited by the fact that the pygmies inhabit non-arable land. This would have been different when the Bantus arrived, of course.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> In Africa, while there was a lot of colonization, in most places the indigenous people were not displaced (and replaced) to the extent that they were in Europe, Australia, or the Americas Huh? The Bantu expansion mostly happened well within what in the rest of the world is the historical period. The people the ancient Egyptians documented to their south do not exist today. The replacement of the population of South Africa was late enough that it happened under white rule. There was no phase where African people were replaced by Europeans, but that's not at all the same question.