You’re right, but you’re being really rude about it.

It’s rare (but not impossible) for a people to have been in the same place on Earth for thousands of years. It’s more like hundreds.

> It’s rare (but not impossible) for a people to have been in the same place on Earth for thousands of years. It’s more like hundreds.

Is it really rare? That seems to be the norm except for America and Africa that got replaced or displaced by colonization. But in Europe and Asia most areas has been populated by steady groups. Rulers come and go, but the people living there stays the same.

I think its rare for everyone to have been there for a thousand years, but its not rare for a majority of the genes to have stayed in one place for a thosand years.

Genetics strongly suggest Australia was settled by a single broad wave of humans that spread across the continent, finfing their niche, and staying in place whether that be east, west, north south, across desert, coast, rivers, forrest, etc.

This contrasts to earlier "literary" arguments in magazines such as Quadrant that native Australians moved about and fought for territories with invaders supplanting original dwellers long before Europeans arrived.

- https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-09-22/world-first-s...

is a national press article on some of that, my original references to the hosted papers on this seems to be offline / unavailable ATM (damn bitrot).

Thousands as in 2,000+ years? From my understanding that’s rare, at least by geography. I could be wrong.

But it’s not like we’re being super precise here. It’s fuzzy enough that lots of takes are correct, depending how you frame it. That’s kind of my point in my other reply. They weren’t wrong but they were being rude about it.

Prior to industrial revolution, mass immigration was difficult, not only because of logistics but tribalism.

Hungarians mass migrated about a thousand years ago from the Ural Mountains, several thousands of kms from present Hungary. Germans mass migrated to Hungary hundreds of years ago, especially after Mongols and Turks killed most of the population there. Italians lost their appetite to coriander because the mass migration of Germanic people around and after the fall of Rome.

It was more difficult, but it happened many-many times.

Yea, and like you just proved, it was very difficult. Hence the choice to do it in large groups.

And they left very little trace in the genes of modern Hungarians. They did leave their language, of course.

The Turks ruined a large part of Europe but their genetic footprint in Turkey is only about 8%.

Where are you getting these numbers from ?

Without digging up old cemetaries (if they’d still exist) and sequencing DNA, there’s a lot of assumotions and conjecture

If I sort out 20 Spaniards from different provinces and regions, you wouldn't guess if they were Spaniards, French, South Germans, North/South Italians or even Irish.

Yeah, and some also look Moorish, middle eastern, Sephardic, etc. too. Not a big surprise when you learn about the migrations that happened in Spain during the past 2000 years or so. We are a mixed bunch.

Yeah, South Italians/moorish, close enough.

Tell it the Vandals, the Goths, the Huns, the Angles (I.e English), the Normans, the Danes, the Mongols, the Turks, etc.

Not really no. Any student of linguistics is quickly dispelled of this notion

Yeah, I do not know why this is downvoted. This is exactly true about Europe.