West asians vs Mediterranean neolithic farmers

[oriental]

One can see from the first map that there was impenetrable forests after the Ice Age melted. Humans could migrate to open grasslands where the animals they hunted were plentiful. Those coming out of Africa first would be people Hg E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, would flourish in the Middle East and many like Hg I, E and G would venture into the forests of Europe. Hg H and L would inhabit Elam in Iran at the top northeastern edge of the Persian Gulf and the Harrapa civilization in the Indus River. This civilization stretched from Iran to the Indian subcontinent. It was the largest civilization at the time.

The Agriculturalists would have a hard time establishing in Europe as those hunter-gathers would attack the agriculturalists. These agriculturalists were not warriors nor desperate. Imagine trying to cut down a forest with stone or bronze axes, uprooting roots, removing stones and then plowing the cleared land all the while the hunter-gathers attacking to defend their territories? very difficult or impossible.

The Aryans who appeared 20,000 years later were warriors unlike the agriculturalists. You need to be a warrior to conquer Europe. The Aryans, R1a and R1b, had horses and bronze swords and overcame the hunter-gathers of Europe who were mostly of Hg I, G, E. The conquest of Europe would be the Bronze Age "Wild West" with horsemen weilding their swords vanquishing the hunter gathers for the metal-mining sites and grasslands. Once the hunter gathers were vanquished from those coveted lands the metal workers began mining and metal working. It needs a lot of charcoal to get metal out of the ores so gradually the forests be cleared around the mining sites. The Aryans were not only herdsmen but also agriculturalists as the woman mummy found in Sinkiang, China had a basket of wheat with her.

Agriculture would take place with the cleared forests.

 

[oriental]

The discovery of Otsi's corpse showed us how violent it was 5,000 years ago or 3,000 B.C. in the Bronze Age. Otsi being Hg G2 was trying to escape to the hills but he was shot by probably people of R1b who would dominate central and western Europe.

 

[LeBrok]

One can see from the first map that there was impenetrable forests after the Ice Age melted.

Did you ever see a forest people couldn't penetrate? Closed forest doesn't mean impenetrable, right?

LGM was 18k ago, Holocene Optimum (map shows) was 8k ago. You have 10k years of Ice Sheets melting period. It's a long time in between for many things to happen.
For my liking your are jumping to conclusions much too fast, without any consideration for many important details.
But watch out, this is were the devil is. )

 

[LeBrok]

The discovery of Otsi's corpse showed us how violent it was 5,000 years ago or 3,000 B.C. in teh Bronze Age. Otsi being Hg G2 was trying to escape to the hills but he was shot by probably people of R1b who would dominate central and western Europe.

It was always violent in human history, don't forget WWII which happened only 60 years ago.

 

[oriental]

Did you ever see a forest people couldn't penetrate? Closed forest doesn't mean impenetrable, right?

LGM was 18k ago, Holocene Optimum (map shows) was 8k ago. You have 10k years of Ice Sheets melting period. It's a long time in between for many things to happen.
For my liking your are jumping to conclusions much too fast, without any consideration for many important details.
But watch out, this is were the devil is. )

I was wrong to use "impenetrable". The first map above shows and labels "closed forest". It was approachable but setting up an agricultural community would be difficult. Though the forest dwellers were not many they could ambush intruders. Look at Vietnam. Even with all the advanced weapons the Americans could not defeat the Vietnamese in the forests who were just invisible and not easy to conquer. Look at the Roman legion ambushed and lost in the German forest. Fighting people of the forest is very difficult. The agriculturalists were not warriors unlike the Indo-Europeans who had to survive an increasingly drier steppe and competition for survival. It is the case of the junk yard dog being mean to survive. I saw the movie "the secret history" or something about Genghis Khan. He had supposedly green eyes and red hair. The genes were really mixed up in that area. It shows tribes constantly fighting against each other and scheming to form alliances. They stole each other wives. Genghis Khan was the only one to manage to group all of them together and conquer the world unfortunately even China through his grandson Kublai Khan. These steppe people were rough and tough guys.

The unrecorded histories are probably even more interesting as they could solve many historical mysteries. Hopefully genetics could help some but not everything as so much evidence is lost. Archaeological discoveries could not identify the people only their creations in terms of pots, weapons, dwellings, burials, etc. As more research is done there could could be even more surprises for sure.

 

[LeBrok]

The agriculturalists were not warriors unlike the Indo-Europeans who had to survive an increasingly drier steppe and competition for survival.

The biggest empires of written history were agriculturalist in nature, from Babylon, Egypt, Greek and Roman Empires, to Russian, French, Spanish and English (even before industrial revolution). Hunter-gatherers were pretty much gone in Europe by 3000 BC. That's about the time IE settled in Europe and embraced agriculture.

Look at the Roman legion ambushed and lost in the German forest.

Even though Germans lived in forest area they were in big part farmers. The same goes to Slavs, they expended from forest covered area but they were farmers in essence.
The difference is that Roman Empire was better organized. They made money/taxes of mostly farmers, and for this money they kept professional army, at least the main legions.
Germans and Slavs where farmers-warriors. When the chef called for a war, they dropped plows, grabbed weapons and went to the battle. That's why when Rome collapsed they quickly conquered whole Europe in big numbers.
In steppes where farming was hard, there were pastoralists-warriors. Excellent horsemen, trained since kids with bow and arrow. This light cavalry of well trained marksmen was almost unstoppable, Huns, Tatars, Mongols. Most likely they learned these ways from Scythians.

 

[hope]

It was always violent in human history, don't forget WWII which happened only 60 years ago.

Or even in more recent times, for example the genocide in Rwanda between the Tutsi and Hutu 1994. Ethnic and political differences can even yet make man act violently.

 

[oriental]

Or even in more recent times, for example the genocide in Rwanda between the Tutsi and Hutu 1994. Ethnic and political differences can even yet make man act violently.

In the Bronze Age the people were African in mentality so there was warfare. Tribal warfare has always been with us. Look at the Middle East now it is still here.

Of course, don't forget it was dangerous outside as there were plenty of wolves, lions, bears around.

 

[oriental]

The biggest empires of written history were agriculturalist in nature, from Babylon, Egypt, Greek and Roman Empires, to Russian, French, Spanish and English (even before industrial revolution). Hunter-gatherers were pretty much gone in Europe by 3000 BC. That's about the time IE settled in Europe and embraced agriculture.

Even though Germans lived in forest area they were in big part farmers. The same goes to Slavs, they expended from forest covered area but they were farmers in essence.
The difference is that Roman Empire was better organized. They made money/taxes of mostly farmers, and for this money they kept professional army, at least the main legions.
Germans and Slavs where farmers-warriors. When the chef called for a war, they dropped plows, grabbed weapons and went to the battle. That's why when Rome collapsed they quickly conquered whole Europe in big numbers.
In steppes where farming was hard, there were pastoralists-warriors. Excellent horsemen, trained since kids with bow and arrow. This light cavalry of well trained marksmen was almost unstoppable, Huns, Tatars, Mongols. Most likely they learned these ways from Scythians.

Haplogroups NOP are all related. They are one old family. They split up over the year as they went in different direction. They were all Scythians at heart. Hg P split into R and R intro R1a and R1b. Hg O split from NOP and and headed east through the Pamir Mountains into Tibet and South China. Hg Q is a sister group. They were all Scythian if you will. They looked different over the years on account of diet, climate environment, etc. You can see in their old cultural costumes they are all very similar with pants line trousers and shirt like tops.

Babylon, Egypt, Greek and Roman Empires, to Russian, French, Spanish and English are all after 3000 BC. Abraham was around 2500 BC. All those empires mentioned all occur in the Bible which is good literature. )

I had a Polish and Hungarian friend so I checked up on Slav history. I believe the Hg I2 in the Balkans were in close contact with the Aryan group so the invasion of Europe could have been a combined operation with R1b and I2. The I2 group probably went off to Central Germany while the R1b from the Alps split toward France and Italy. With the collapse of the Roman Empire the Slav group Veneti went to gain land around Venice thus the Venetians are probably Slav in origin.

 

[oriental]

He looks like Georgian Josef Stalin but in reality he is Russian Nicolai Przewalski. People thought they maybe related. DNA shows Przewalski is of Hg R1a, a Pole and Stalin is Hg G2. Here is an example that looks can deceiving. Carl Linnaeus was a priest so his theories of Genetics would be Creationist. Phenotypes are just external appearances not the internals that define the true structure.

 

[Kardu]

Remark: without violence and aggression no progress would have happened and we would become long time extinct And this has nothing to do with 'being African'

 

[MOESAN]

Remark: without violence and aggression no progress would have happened and we would become long time extinct And this has nothing to do with 'being African'

curious developpment of this thread!!!
I agree and disagree with a lot of persons here
1- yes, violence was/is everywhere, less or more, attached I suppose to greediness -
2- no, violence and aggressivity never send progress in Humanity - everyone has to be skilful for defense, but does not need being aggressive - the first axes was for cutting wood and timber, not for killing or only killing animals at first (and yet this last interprétation is very uncertain) - when man want he can transform every stool into an arm and every medical mixture into poison, but it is not an everduring natural condition of living beings - if one makes something and is immediatey challenged by someone else for possession, there is no progress but stagnation - progress comes when the other man tries to do the same farther, or side by side, or even tries to do better: competition is not always aggression... when man keeps too long time his skills and competences for himself in place of sharing, regression is not far, when he shares, progress comes quickly -
3- we are very far here from the topic: autosomals an their significations!
I do not see too well all these argumentations about ice age, toundra and so on... even in the hardest of the LGM tribes of men was running Europe from every direction to every direction, the only difference being that the most harder climatic regions saw less people- the so called "refugiums" at this period was not as populated the one as the other and some northernly places at the frontiers of glaciers was settled by nomadic tribes as today in every toundra - what we can suppose is that the southern regions was the heavier ones for demographic at the worst of the climate, but after that, quickly enough, other people, less numerous at first, begun to grow in number too - about all that I say i 'm a little confused by some analysis of DODECAD: someones shows something, others put only confusion, the terminologies are unstable - D-9 and D-10 seams to me more usefull and appears showing a first arrival from east into S-W Europe (in Basques for the most) a second arrival populating Sardigna and S-E Europe - I am not sure this "basque" component is pure as showed but a good bit of it could be paleo- or old mesolithic (see Finnland); and could be passed by North better than by South - the Sardinian do not appear as very autochtonous finally, even if ancient enough in their island and they show some possible links with West Asians and even with S-W Asians-
I avow i am not helped too much by the namings as 'atlant-balt' or 'atlant-med' or 'mediterranean' or 'NW european' - I wait better defined pools of autosomals

 

[Yetos]

Remark: without violence and aggression no progress would have happened and we would become long time extinct And this has nothing to do with 'being African'

Violence is not the God that some try to show

in Fact I do not believe that All Europe and IE DNA is after violence,

A good point is also diseases, resist in virus, and strange forms,

A good example is some anaimias, the one who has these anaimias, might not be so strong, but he will not suffer from diseases like Mallaria, West Nile virus etc.

Virus and diseases can change DNA map more easily and more Heavy than war and Battles,
consider that in ancient times, we had war and battles among Rulers major and not among Farmers-Workers-Slaves, the winner took titles and the slaves and workers of the other, But did not kill them cause they were usefull,

So I don't believe that violence change so much Genetical maps, except in some cases of Genocides (like Rwanda),
Violence change mainly the rulers class, and after the marriage of new rulers class with local women gave New Hg to the older population.

 

[Kardu]

In the Bronze Age the people were African in mentality so there was warfare. Tribal warfare has always been with us. Look at the Middle East now it is still here.

Of course, don't forget it was dangerous outside as there were plenty of wolves, lions, bears around.

My remark was mainly directed to Oriental's post
Indeed, I wouldn't like to go off-topic, but have still to mention that the history and technological progress was made by warlike tribes and peoples. Even now the direction of scientific/technological research is controlled and guided by the military complex. Pacifists would be upset but I doubt anyone can point to a peaceful tribe, society, civilization which made a significant contribution to technological development.

 

[Yetos]

My remark was mainly directed to Oriental's post
Indeed, I wouldn't like to go off-topic, but have still to mention that the history and technological progress was made by warlike tribes and peoples. Even now the direction of scientific/technological research is controlled and guided by the military complex. Pacifists would be upset but I doubt anyone can point to a peaceful tribe, society, civilization which made a significant contribution to technological development.

well it depends the kind of technology,

I don't believe that Cancer cure is after military actions, neither Golden gate was done for military reason, neither Aristotle when started the Taxonomy which is considered starting of clear thought science had his mind in wars and battles, neither electricity was searched for military reasons.

Allthough I have to agree that huge amount of founds are being spend to make 'perfect weapons'
Internet starts from RPnet which was a military 'weapon'
I agree that in war times we had perfection of some knowledge and rapid developement due to the presure of winning.
a good example is nitroglygerine which was found to help miners and become a massive weapon like dynamite at its time,

on the other hand sometimes wars stop progress of searching field and technology,
a good example is the Antikythera mechanism. the first mechanical computer made in Syracuses,
if Romans care about navigation and astronomy more than searching military sciences, then Antikythera mechanism technology might be known 2000 years before, and could help us calculate more complex phenomena,

 

[oriental]

curious developpment of this thread!!!

History helps in understanding how genetic patterns occurred. As Maciamo pointed out in various threads that there were great discontinuities in the European populations as shown by the genes found in the ancient corpses. Hunter-gatherers were the healthiest people around as they were few and they moved around thus they were not disease carriers. It is the agriculturalists living in static and dense areas that carried diseases. The Nomads wouldn't be disease carriers either as they moved around. Disease killing the hunter-gathers doesn't quite match.