Northern-Centrism: Just Stop It!!

1. Ideological reason, expansional reasons. We are talking of a different timeframe and two different cultural environments. Thats why I was specifically speaking about PIE not Indo Europeans at all.

The PIE expanded as herders and had therefore completely different reasons. While later big empires/cultures expanded as warriors/soldiers to conquer lands.

For example the Medes and Persians came as simple nomads in search for new land for their animals and farming. Just the aggressive expansions plans and oppressing of the Assyrians forced the Medes to unify the tribes into a tribal confederation and build an empire. They didn't came as conquerers but simply as herders searching for new grassland for their animals and horses.

Same can be said about Tocharians.
We know that IE were highly structured society with distinct ruling class, and powerful-unstoppable armies. You want to say that their leaders had only well being of their tribes in mind, and they never had bigger ambitions?
For the amount of IE tribes expanding West and East, led by many leaders, I'm pretty sure that their were few ambitious conquerors who only thought about their glory, battles, and riches of the world. There are many examples of such steppe peoples, among them Mongols under Chinggis Khan. Interesting example are Germanic tribes, who need to emigrate to South Europe, due to famine and wars, but it didn't stop them from conquering and building new empires.
What I'm saying is that human nature and warrior psyche didn't change much in few thousand years. There is no reason to imagine IEs as some different kind of people and their leaders as only peaceful and caring folks.
 
IMO we'd expect different expansion patterns from European R1b if we were looking for a "swamped with refugees" model versus a "rapid expansion of a smaller migrant population" model. The first would tend to produce a transplantation of the existing haplogroup diversity, no? Certainly in the case of Syrian refugees, the imaginary version of Haplogroup S in moore2moore's example would maintain its apparent ancientness that it had back in Syria. Not so with European R1b, where its calculated TMRCAs cut close to its approximate time of introduction.

I don't think so, in fact the refugee theory fits better with a bottle_neck effect than, let's say a "warrior class rading the regions". We are not talking about war scenario as today in Syria but migrations based on hunger and lack of grass land. Those families who were rich in the Elite would stay, but those who did not have much would leave. (therefore Bottle_Neck effect).

Isn't this scenario also slightly supported by the fact that we find Steppe type ancestry reaching slowly the local cultures of Europe before any singificant movement of early Indo Europeans. Seems to me like first a few risked the jorney, later it became more and more.
 
We know that IE were highly structured society with distinct ruling class, and powerful-unstoppable armies. You want to say that their leaders had only well being of their tribes in mind, and they never had bigger ambitions?

I am only saying what has been said by archeologists. Certanly the Medes and Persians did not came as big "warriors" they were immediately under Assyrian rule when the arrived. They came with their animals and horses. The same can be said about Tocharians. There is absolutely no indication that they reached West China in "conquer style". They came as traders searching for new homeland and grassland for their animals. Only the oppressive stance of the Assyrians forced the Medes into action and formation of the Median empire.

But those are also the only early Indo Europeans of whom we have reliable accounts of how they moved into new territory. Later the Indo Europeans adapted quickly to warfare and conquering lifestyle. As seen on the Scythians how they conquered Cimmerian land and later Sarmatians conquering the Scythian land just so them being conquered by the Hunnoi.
 
I don't think so, in fact the refugee theory fits better with a bottle_neck effect than, let's say a "warrior class rading the regions". We are not talking about war scenario as today in Syria but migrations based on hunger and lack of grass land. Those families who were rich in the Elite would stay, but those who did not have much would leave. (therefore Bottle_Neck effect).

Isn't this scenario also slightly supported by the fact that we find Steppe type ancestry reaching slowly the local cultures of Europe before any singificant movement of early Indo Europeans. Seems to me like first a few risked the jorney, later it became more and more.

I think we're actually agreeing pretty closely. My main point of contention with moore2moore's argument isn't that I think that the migrants were a special warrior class; in fact I find that very unlikely, and you make a good point here. My point is more that we can't look at it like a region being swamped with refugees a la modern Syrian refugees. A big reason for that is that even the bottom rung of migrants back then would likely have certain relative advantages over the native population, whereas modern Syrian refugees would start at the bottom.
 
"Every European alive today is a descendant of Charlemagne."

This was media-sensationalized claimed. It isn't true and would take a lot to prove.

I agree, it's a stupid claim made by some mathematician who doesn't understand that the European population isn't just a theoretical matrix of people freeing mixing with one another and that given enough time all people end up descending from anybody who has living descendants today. Such people do not understand the realities of life. They don't that Europe has deep national, linguistic and geographical boundaries that prevent movement and intermarriages. Even within these constricted boundaries, people have traditionally married within their own community, and as most people were farmers, that meant within their little village or the one next door. Only royalties frequently had international marriages.

Then even if we could prove with a paper trail that someone was descended from Charlemagne, and that the paper trail was right and that no infidelity happens on the way, it still wouldn't mean that that person inherited any DNA from Charlemagne. Once again genetic inheritance isn't mathematical. I was taught in biology classes that we inherit 25% DNA from each grand-parent and 12.5% from each great-grand-parent, but this is bullshit. It never happens like that in reality. It may be 24.2%, 27.1, 25.8%, but very rarely just 25%. And the further we climb the family the bigger the proportion gaps between ancestors of the same generation, until at one point, maybe just a dozen generation ago, some ancestors contributed nothing, while others contributed twice their statistical share.

Unfortunately modern universities teach linear thinking based on pure mathematical reasoning without taking all elements in consideration. That is why most geneticists are so bad at predicting historical population movements. That's also why most medical doctors can't deal with diseases they have never encountered and typically resort to prescribing antibiotics for all and everything. They haven't learned to think by themselves but just to repeat what they have memorised by heart to pass their exams.
 
certain relative advantages over the native population, whereas modern Syrian refugees would start at the bottom.

I wouldn't be so sure about this point actually, I can't think of any advantage the Indo European herders could have brought upon the cereal farmers, who were imo more advanced to that time.
But I agree in the point that you can't compare exactly the Indo European expansion to the Syrian refugee crisis today. I don't see any major war as today in Syria causing the expansions of most Indo European groups (sure for some later expansions war might have also played a role, as Cimmerians were pushed out from their close Scythian cousins).

IMO the Indo European expansion could be more similar to the first waves of British and German immigrants into America. People who were not so "successful", poor, probably also "petty criminals", searching for new live and chance somewhere else. Just with the difference that technologically the European settlers were advanced compared to Native Americans, but I don't think early Indo Europeans had any advantage over the local European cultures.
 
Last edited:
IMO the Indo European expansion could be more similar to the first waves of British and German immigrants into America. People who were not so "successful", poor, probably also "petty criminals", searching for new live and chance somewhere else.

Except the modern immigration to America was...modern.

These were people SEEKING FARMLAND -- people who had large ships, guns, and densely populated motherlands.

Invading the territory of another is always costly. War is always crappy. Even if a people are the supermen that these wacky R1b folks fantasize about: some...will...DIE.

It is critical to understand ancient and prehistoric demography. There were FAR fewer people alive at any given time than most people think.

For example, you understand that there were only about 10,000 Neandertals alive at any one point, all throughout Europe? And that similar populations during prehistory were of similar size?

That is instructive for two reasons:

1. It shows that a newer population of even 100,000 could breed with them, and swamp them genetically, without any drama or ideas about conquest. Just math.

2. It illustrates what I am trying to say about the mythical R1b immigrants and supermen: if you were to tell me that the Neandertals "immigrated" anywhere, to seek a better life, I would tell you that you were nuts.

And we would all agree. 10,000 individuals splitting up...Europe (and large chunks of the Middle East). They needed more room???

By 10,000 BC, the population of Europe might have been 50,000 - 100,000. Note: most of the oft-cited, reputable scientists in this field often say it was far fewer!!!

I have never heard one good reason why some R1b guys would travel from Ukraine to Ireland, warring with every band of everyone on the way, when much of the land in between was sparsely populated.

Are you going to seriously tell me they needed more room?

That makes about as much sense as you breaking into your neighbor's home tonight. You don't need to, and there is a huge risk to you if you do.

Broken record: the real story was far less interesting. Smaller host populations, invaders with different resistances to disease, coupled with multiple expansions of people who had the ability to digest milk or wine (more calories), which supported a culture of slightly more children. It's that simple.
 
Except the modern immigration to America was...modern.

These were people SEEKING FARMLAND -- people who had large ships, guns, and densely populated motherlands.

Invading the territory of another is always costly. War is always crappy. Even if a people are the supermen that these wacky R1b folks fantasize about: some...will...DIE.

It is critical to understand ancient and prehistoric demography. There were FAR fewer people alive at any given time than most people think.

For example, you understand that there were only about 10,000 Neandertals alive at any one point, all throughout Europe? And that similar populations during prehistory were of similar size?

That is instructive for two reasons:

1. It shows that a newer population of even 100,000 could breed with them, and swamp them genetically, without any drama or ideas about conquest. Just math.

2. It illustrates what I am trying to say about the mythical R1b immigrants and supermen: if you were to tell me that the Neandertals "immigrated" anywhere, to seek a better life, I would tell you that you were nuts.

And we would all agree. 10,000 individuals splitting up...Europe (and large chunks of the Middle East). They needed more room???

By 10,000 BC, the population of Europe might have been 50,000 - 100,000. Note: most of the oft-cited, reputable scientists in this field often say it was far fewer!!!

I have never heard one good reason why some R1b guys would travel from Ukraine to Ireland, warring with every band of everyone on the way, when much of the land in between was sparsely populated.

Are you going to seriously tell me they needed more room?

That makes about as much sense as you breaking into your neighbor's home tonight. You don't need to, and there is a huge risk to you if you do.

Broken record: the real story was far less interesting. Smaller host populations, invaders with different resistances to disease, coupled with multiple expansions of people who had the ability to digest milk or wine (more calories), which supported a culture of slightly more children. It's that simple.


You are making it for yourself more simple. We know from the Anatolian cereal farmers genomes that they were also lactose tolerant by around 50%. This was almost the same percentage as among the farmers. There was absolutely no advantage to bring from the Indo Europeans.

And yu also completely ignored other parts of my points, and you have a big mistake in your thinking.

The first Indo European waves didn't simply skip Central Europe for Ireland, if you haven't noticed all the Indo European expansions into Western Europe were drasticly later in the Iron Age. The Celts are said to have formed in Central Europe around Hungary, Austria and so on. Only quite some time later they expanded into the British Island.

Also how do you know, how the Steppe lands looked like 5000 BC?

And you are not taking into account the rest of the argument. It was not only hunger but also the social status, rivalising groups, politics which forced other groups/families into diaspora. the Elite probably took most of the land too.

What I think is the reason we are only encountering R1b L23 and "I"(so far) lineages in Yamna instead of any of the lineages under L51, is most likely because L23 were the "Elite" while R1b L51 were not and probably forced out to immigrated into Central Europe much earlier.

Later in the successing cultures of Yamna we suddenly don't come across any L23 lineagea anymore and it is completely replaced by R1a Z93 (Change of Elite?).


And you are taking the population sizes far too important. We have ALLOT of examples were people simply expanded out of hunger and search for better grassland far further away despite in between also being farming land. Minoans for example.

Who tells you that there wasn't any people in between the regions? For example next to Yamna was the CT culture in the West, To the Northeast was the Eneolithic Samara culture and to the South the Maykop culture. It was land of other people already. You are seing those people as far too social. Do you really think any of these cultures would have thought "Well we have so much land, let those newcomers have some of it too". They
were far too cautios. Having more land was saver for survivial.


I still stay by my theory, for some reasons it was becoming too uncomfortable for these early Indo Europeans in their homeland and they were somehow forced to search for new lands.
 
Alan, you're a good guy, but ancient demography is what it is. The entire population of Europe during the time we are discussing was in the neighborhood of 25,000 - 50,000 people. That, by itself, obliterates any fantasy about "people needing to seek new lands" or "people needing to conquer" or "people needing new farmlands."

You're not picturing Europe, an area of 4m square miles, with fewer people than now live on one city block in Berlin.

Your comments on the Celts are anachronistic, and there is not even an accepted definition of Celt (versus Gaul), etc.
 
Except the modern immigration to America was...modern.

These were people SEEKING FARMLAND -- people who had large ships, guns, and densely populated motherlands.

Invading the territory of another is always costly. War is always crappy. Even if a people are the supermen that these wacky R1b folks fantasize about: some...will...DIE.

It is critical to understand ancient and prehistoric demography. There were FAR fewer people alive at any given time than most people think.

For example, you understand that there were only about 10,000 Neandertals alive at any one point, all throughout Europe? And that similar populations during prehistory were of similar size?

That is instructive for two reasons:

1. It shows that a newer population of even 100,000 could breed with them, and swamp them genetically, without any drama or ideas about conquest. Just math.

2. It illustrates what I am trying to say about the mythical R1b immigrants and supermen: if you were to tell me that the Neandertals "immigrated" anywhere, to seek a better life, I would tell you that you were nuts.

And we would all agree. 10,000 individuals splitting up...Europe (and large chunks of the Middle East). They needed more room???

By 10,000 BC, the population of Europe might have been 50,000 - 100,000. Note: most of the oft-cited, reputable scientists in this field often say it was far fewer!!!

I have never heard one good reason why some R1b guys would travel from Ukraine to Ireland, warring with every band of everyone on the way, when much of the land in between was sparsely populated.

Are you going to seriously tell me they needed more room?

That makes about as much sense as you breaking into your neighbor's home tonight. You don't need to, and there is a huge risk to you if you do.

Broken record: the real story was far less interesting. Smaller host populations, invaders with different resistances to disease, coupled with multiple expansions of people who had the ability to digest milk or wine (more calories), which supported a culture of slightly more children. It's that simple.

Interesting reasoning. But by that logic Native Americans should never have waged war with one another as they had more than enough room and war was too costly and stupid to fight for land. Unfortunately that isn't human nature. And we are talking essentially about Mesolithic tribes here (apart from some Neolithic agriculturalists in the southern USA or Mexico as far as North America is concerned). The reason is that hunter-gatherers need a huge territory to feed a small population, and even more so when the main animals they hunt have migratory habits.

Back to Europe, the Neolithic expansion happened because farmers need more land - once again because early agriculture was highly inefficient and crops failed often. It was also easier to seek fertile land that was already cleared or sparsely wooded than to clear land. Well, actually the only way to clear land fast when all you have is stone axes, is to burn forests (even today, with seesaws and heavy machinery that is still the preferred method to expand fast into the Amazon forest, to every environmentalists' dismay). But if you didn't use the land for farming, forests grew back within a generation. So the bottom line is that there was very little open, usable land for farmers.

Then come the R1b cattle herders who can't just burn forests to feed their stock, but need open pastures. Their ideal enthrone is the steppe, which is why I theorized that R1b were the people who domesticated cattle then moved to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe and the "green" Neolithic Sahara (more like the Sahel or the savanna today) to feed their cattle, and soon afterwards also horses. From the time they developed bronze weapons, these R1b Steppe people started coveting the copper rich Balkans, which explain why R1b tribes wandered off the Steppe in the first place. It wasn't about land, but about natural resources (actually not just copper, but also silver and gold) and the prestige they conferred.

Then, as they ventured further west, they realised that there were regions that were well suited to cattle herding in Northwest Europe, particularly in rocky regions that were more sparsely wooded, like Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, Scotland and northern England. Brittany and Cornwall had the additional attraction of being two of the few places in Europe where tin could be easily mined. Other regions included the Austrian and Swiss Alps (think Hallstatt and La Tène), the aptly named Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge) of Saxony, the Black Forest, central France, Tuscany, Galicia and northern Portugal. So I believe that what really drove R1b Proto-Indo-Europeans to seek land outside the steppes was the search for "El Dorado", but a tin El Dorado (or El Estañado if you will).
 
OK, I'll bite. :)

Yes, the Mesolithic tribes of North America (and elsewhere) waged wars on each other, but we are talking small, ritualized battles.

Here is what they looked like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzqwOBneC4

You brought up the other continents: why was there no equivalent to R1b in North America? Answer: the reasons I cite: vastness of open space; limited population. Same for Australia, Asia, etc. It is just too hard for one small tribe to expand to Roman-empire-like proportions during prehistory.

It's time to admit it: the R1b numbers we see today are due to an expansion of people during a starvation event, where a genetic advantage (ability to digest milk) was the difference between life and death, perhaps so much so that they made ritualized drinking vessels in the shape of cow teats (or bell beakers), and buried themselves with them, so important was this innovation.
 
Then come the R1b cattle herders who can't just burn forests to feed their stock, but need open pastures. Their ideal enthrone is the steppe, which is why I theorized that R1b were the people who domesticated cattle then moved to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe and the "green" Neolithic Sahara (more like the Sahel or the savanna today) to feed their cattle, and soon afterwards also horses. From the time they developed bronze weapons, these R1b Steppe people started coveting the copper rich Balkans, which explain why R1b tribes wandered off the Steppe in the first place. It wasn't about land, but about natural resources (actually not just copper, but also silver and gold) and the prestige they conferred.

Then, as they ventured further west, they realised that there were regions that were well suited to cattle herding in Northwest Europe, particularly in rocky regions that were more sparsely wooded, like Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, Scotland and northern England. Brittany and Cornwall had the additional attraction of being two of the few places in Europe where tin could be easily mined. Other regions included the Austrian and Swiss Alps (think Hallstatt and La Tène), the aptly named Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge) of Saxony, the Black Forest, central France, Tuscany, Galicia and northern Portugal. So I believe that what really drove R1b Proto-Indo-Europeans to seek land outside the steppes was the search for "El Dorado", but a tin El Dorado (or El Estañado if you will).

You're a brilliant guy, oft-cited, and much of your stuff here can't be found anywhere else.

But do you realize the sheer implications for time and reality of what you are outlining?

How long did this take? Was it 20 years?

Was it 300? 1000?

But they stayed pure during that entire time?

This is starting to sound like "R1b Forrest Gump" theory: these mythical people were on the forefront of every innovation in prehistory (metalworking, cattle domestication, etc)? Like Forrest, who was there at Watergate, Vietnam, Woodstock, etc., they were the prime mover or a main participant in all events.

Sorry but LOL! It's claims like this that make so many agree that the OP has a valid point.
 
@Angela
I agree for the most - I agree partly with Fire Haired too about agendas and boring tendancies of some bloggers and forumers -
that said, concerning Europeans, to split hairs I will say EEF and WHG don't have the same depth as Yamnaya for the reason that their admixture is older and cannot easily be split into too evident more ancient components, when for Yamnaya we know with evidence their are a relative new crossing of at least two other older admixtures, so we cannot do with the 'yamnaya' as basic component, only an historic population with its role in Europeans formation. The difference between the successive Samara populations help to show this. That said, I repeat I agree concerning your philosophy about what ought to be a correct forum...
 
How long did this take? Was it 20 years?

Was it 300? 1000?

But they stayed pure during that entire time?

It is entirely unnecessary for predominantly-R1b population groups to "remain pure" to eventually display the modern distribution of R1b. Look at (to remove whatever "north-centric bias" one imagines) the R1b-dominant populations in sub-Saharan Africa. The Chadic-speaking peoples around Cameroon have similar rates of R1b to western Europe (though completely different types, obviously), yet they very obviously haven't "stayed pure" to any degree. They didn't know what Y-DNA was for thousands of years, and mixed with other groups around them, yet R1b lineages obviously won the great game of reproducing/succeeding. For all we know, their ancestors thousands of years ago were half R1b and half E1b, and the E1b simply didn't do as well for any of dozens of reasons.

Going back to Eurasia, Indo-European cultures have generally been patrilineal/patriarchal far more often than not. Assuming such people brought other, previously non-Indo-European men into the fold (which we know they did), it really doesn't take much for such minorities to generally be lost over time, especially if we're talking about something as specific as Y-DNA mutations that require direct descent from father to son in perpetuity to propagate. If your villages in Ireland thousands of years ago had a bad few years, whether due to crop failure, livestock plague, war, etc., half the people (easily) could die. All it takes is one break in the chain if you're already outnumbered, and that particular lineage of I2 or G or whatever is dead in that area. R1b lineages were clearly socially dominant; they're simply more likely to survive such scenarios.
 
Going back to Eurasia, Indo-European cultures have generally been patrilineal/patriarchal far more often than not. Assuming such people brought other, previously non-Indo-European men into the fold (which we know they did), it really doesn't take much for such minorities to generally be lost over time, especially if we're talking about something as specific as Y-DNA mutations that require direct descent from father to son in perpetuity to propagate. If your villages in Ireland thousands of years ago had a bad few years, whether due to crop failure, livestock plague, war, etc., half the people (easily) could die. All it takes is one break in the chain if you're already outnumbered, and that particular lineage of I2 or G or whatever is dead in that area. R1b lineages were clearly socially dominant; they're simply more likely to survive such scenarios.

do you mean the following : the IE tribes had a layered society where prestige and wealth were important but also with many social networks, where someone with bad luck got a second chance, albeit started from a somewhat lower status?
it were those networks then which allowed IE tribes to dominate other tribes and to survive or resurge after local calamities had happened
 
You're a brilliant guy, oft-cited, and much of your stuff here can't be found anywhere else.

But do you realize the sheer implications for time and reality of what you are outlining?

How long did this take? Was it 20 years?

Was it 300? 1000?

But they stayed pure during that entire time?

This is starting to sound like "R1b Forrest Gump" theory: these mythical people were on the forefront of every innovation in prehistory (metalworking, cattle domestication, etc)? Like Forrest, who was there at Watergate, Vietnam, Woodstock, etc., they were the prime mover or a main participant in all events.

Sorry but LOL! It's claims like this that make so many agree that the OP has a valid point.

The transition of R1b population from the steppes to Western Europe took thousands of years. The migration itself happened from c. 4000 BCE to c. 2000 BCE, but it could have taken many more thousands of years for R1b to become the dominant male lineage in Western Europe once R1b tribes settled there. If R1b became dominant as I have theorised through the establishment of a political dominance, with royal and noble lineages (probably with polygamy or concubines) who produced more children surviving into adulthood, then the the percentage of R1b lineages in the population would have increased slowly but constantly in the last 4000 years in Western Europe. The fact that practically all royal European lineages tested to date belong to R1b (Habsburgs, House of Bourbon, House of Oldenburg, House of Wettin, most Scottish and Irish clans, etc.) confirms that R1b has had political dominance in most of central, northern and western Europe for at least 1000 years.

The royal lineages identified in the skeletons inside the kurgan of Yamna have so far shown that this Proto-Indo-European elite was already overwhelmingly R1b, and this R1b dominance among the elite clearly continued when Steppe people invaded the Bell Beaker culture in Germany around 2500 BCE. Even the Hinxton genomes from Iron Age England, who once again represent mostly elite burials, belonged exclusively to R1b, be it for the Celtic or the Anglo-Saxon remains. So far all the evidence points toward an amazing continuity of R1b among the elite lineages of Centum Indo-European cultures (Germanic, Celtic, Italic) for the last 6000 years. The only rare cases of other lineages than R1b among the early elite all belonged to haplogroup I2a2 (found in Yamna, Vatya, Unetice, Urnfield) as well as two R1a individuals in Urnfield (Lichtenstein Cave, 1000 BCE), which was already 2500 years after Yamna and in a region that overlapped with the R1a-dominant Corded Ware.
 
The transition of R1b population from the steppes to Western Europe took thousands of years. The migration itself happened from c. 4000 BCE to c. 2000 BCE, but it could have taken many more thousands of years for R1b to become the dominant male lineage in Western Europe once R1b tribes settled there. If R1b became dominant as I have theorised through the establishment of a political dominance, with royal and noble lineages (probably with polygamy or concubines) who produced more children surviving into adulthood, then the the percentage of R1b lineages in the population would have increased slowly but constantly in the last 4000 years in Western Europe. The fact that practically all royal European lineages tested to date belong to R1b (Habsburgs, House of Bourbon, House of Oldenburg, House of Wettin, most Scottish and Irish clans, etc.) confirms that R1b has had political dominance in most of central, northern and western Europe for at least 1000 years.

The royal lineages identified in the skeletons inside the kurgan of Yamna have so far shown that this Proto-Indo-European elite was already overwhelmingly R1b, and this R1b dominance among the elite clearly continued when Steppe people invaded the Bell Beaker culture in Germany around 2500 BCE. Even the Hinxton genomes from Iron Age England, who once again represent mostly elite burials, belonged exclusively to R1b, be it for the Celtic or the Anglo-Saxon remains. So far all the evidence points toward an amazing continuity of R1b among the elite lineages of Centum Indo-European cultures (Germanic, Celtic, Italic) for the last 6000 years. The only rare cases of other lineages than R1b among the early elite all belonged to haplogroup I2a2 (found in Yamna, Vatya, Unetice, Urnfield) as well as two R1a individuals in Urnfield (Lichtenstein Cave, 1000 BCE), which was already 2500 years after Yamna and in a region that overlapped with the R1a-dominant Corded Ware.

Dont get me wrong, you have a preety good point. Although playing devil's advocate, the earliest "predominantly R1b culture" I can find is the Maykop culture. I don't think we have a name for the R1b cultures who lived in the Neolithic nor Mesolithic yet.
 
I agree that there is usually underlying reason for huge migrations. However from recent history we know that adventurous parties of IE reach Americas, India and the rest of the world. And there was a time when IE could say that they conquered and owned the whole planet. I'm not sure if genetic predisposition to adventure, traveling, and war could be so easily dismissed.



Once they had horses they could easily check what is hundreds miles away. Likewise, they could quickly escape on horseback in case of danger.

And what reason Alexander the Great had to go to India?

I agree, spite I'm not sure concerning genetic heredity.
I cherish no special ancestor and I'm not biased: I'm still open to new discoveries even if I'm tempted to keep on with my LAST old theories before a new true evidence would came to change it. I'm even obliged to live with opposite theories in my mind when the data I have doesn't permit me to take a sound conclusion, it's why I put so often a ? sign in my posts, what could be unpleasant to some forumers.

concerning heroes, stealy warroirs and co, I'm not sure they have been so dense at any period of History. But we habe to know that in ancient times when life was short letal diseases so common, people had surely less fear than us in front of death. to go back to History, we know that adventure was attractive for young males; surely the whole population was not rambling here and there for the pleasure, but we know gangs of young warriors solded them as mercenaries far from their lands, and spite that kept relations with their original tribes (the Galates in east Europe at Iron and after, and others) . By the way the nomadic or semi-nomadic people having less skills for well organized sedentary social life knew their mobility was an advantage over other populations and they took advantage of it more than a time. So I can figure out a tribe living in some lands can send young or older warriors or prospectors to far countries and according to the report of these travels could decide to collectively move, men, women and children. It occurs more than a time. Natural climatic or other kind of pressure were not always necessary to push theom to do it. It's ture it concerns for the most the herding semi-nomadic tribes... Not an unique truth there, again.
 
The transition of R1b population from the steppes to Western Europe took thousands of years. The migration itself happened from c. 4000 BCE to c. 2000 BCE, but it could have taken many more thousands of years for R1b to become the dominant male lineage in Western Europe once R1b tribes settled there. If R1b became dominant as I have theorised through the establishment of a political dominance, with royal and noble lineages (probably with polygamy or concubines) who produced more children surviving into adulthood, then the the percentage of R1b lineages in the population would have increased slowly but constantly in the last 4000 years in Western Europe. The fact that practically all royal European lineages tested to date belong to R1b (Habsburgs, House of Bourbon, House of Oldenburg, House of Wettin, most Scottish and Irish clans, etc.) confirms that R1b has had political dominance in most of central, northern and western Europe for at least 1000 years.

Except there has not been one example in ALL of recorded history, from ALL regions in the world, of one "ruling class" or "elite" or "ruling family" or "oligarchy" of staying in power beyond say ~500 years at the most extreme (let's put aside San Marino and Monaco). I find this theory not plausible.
 

This thread has been viewed 63350 times.

Back
Top