Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 114

Thread: proper Indus Valley Civilization DNA to come

  1. #26
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,386
    Points
    6,435
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,435, Level: 23
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 115
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I also believe they were inclusive at least initially and at least for women (concubines, arranged marriages, political/tribal alliances through marriage) and for potential male warriors that could strengthen their bands. I doubt they, who were probably not the largest ethnic population in the continent, could've done so much if they hadn't had the help of many integrated peoples and circumstantial allies. That does not mean they were egalitarian or "PC", but just that they had to accept outsiders and make large-scale alliances and compromises if they were willing to expand and win over adversaries that in many cases were actually more advanced than them (much like the Romans, Germans and Turks later did).
    How i see late ie's, especially in western europe seems to me like a form of proto-feodalism. They had something like a cliens - patron relationship between the elite and the plebs. I dont think they were egalitarian at all and that there was some social mobility. Modern western male lineage just shows how much yamnaya related male ancestry have annihilate others, so certainly local men who were absorb in the community, even if they became warriors, could not be on the long term prolific lineage, meaning an elite. And of course there is the obvious, when you conquer another land, there's gonna be some remnants of the previous society, i dont know if those people were slaved or take as cliens in the long term, but see how ie's male lineage are so predominent ether in western and eastern europe, men had to suffer verry much of the situation.

  2. #27
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    How i see late ie's, especially in western europe seems to me like a form of proto-feodalism. They had something like a cliens - patron relationship between the elite and the plebs. I dont think they were egalitarian at all and that there was some social mobility. Modern western male lineage just shows how much yamnaya related male ancestry have annihilate others, so certainly local men who were absorb in the community, even if they became warriors, could not be on the long term prolific lineage, meaning an elite. And of course there is the obvious, when you conquer another land, there's gonna be some remnants of the previous society, i dont know if those people were slaved or take as cliens in the long term, but see how ie's male lineage are so predominent ether in western and eastern europe, men had to suffer verry much of the situation.
    Agreed. However, I think those sweeping changes favoring just a few haplogroup subclades was not a sudden consequence of their conquest/immigration, but rather a long-term consequence of a strictly hierarchical and unequal, as well as still clan-based society, where one's marriage and procreation prospects differed a lot depending on whether the belonged or not to the "right" lineages (something like the way elite Romans cared so much about the "gens" to which someone belonged). In ancient times, more surviving offspring certainly came from a better social standing, a more influential and helpful network (one's important lineage and their allies and clients) and more family real estate (I don't think they were initially very bent on individual property, more like a clan/family-based and patriarch-centered property). It's probable that many women wouldn't be married off by their parents to men without a prestigious "gens", an important social position and significant property. And the conquered males were disproportionately among those disadvantaged "unmarriable" - or simply incapable of suppoting large families - men.

    I have done a simple experiment months ago: a hypothetical scenario where the non-IE and non-dominant males wouldn't have been massively annihilated, not for a long time, but where their lower status and wealth made them have only half the number of children of the IE dominant males. In "just" 300-400 years a huge change in Y-DNA haplogroups could happen even in the absence of any "genocidal" elimination of native males.

  3. #28
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,386
    Points
    6,435
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,435, Level: 23
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 115
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Agrred. However, I think those sweeping changes favoring just a few haplogroup subclades was not a sudden consequence of their conquest/immigration, but rather a long-term consequence of a strictly hierarchical and unequal, as well as still clan-based society, where one's marriage and procreation prospects differed a lot depending on whether the belonged or not to the "right" lineages (something like the way elite Romans cared so much about the "gens" to which someone belonged). In ancient times, more surviving offspring certainly came from a better social standing, a more influential and helpful network (one's important lineage and their allies and clients) and more family real estate (I don't think they were initially very bent on individual property, more like a clan/family-based and patriarch-centered property). It's probable that many women wouldn't be married off by their parents to men without a prestigious "gens", an important social position and significant property. And the conquered males were disproportionately among those disadvantaged "unmarriable" - or simply incapable of suppoting large families - men.
    This was pretty much what i wanted to say. A lot of people have idealized the indo-europeans in a Julius Evola way, but in reality, those societies must have been one of the hardest to have ever lived. If we take the latter scythians or the turco-mongols, at least the cultural evolution made that because of horse was the main weapon, every warriors were pretty much at the same level, whether they were of royal blood or of peasant, every child must have learned to mount from childhood. It's not like the earliest indo-europeans where the elite had horses and chariots and the plebs just their feet. This must have been an hardcore society that was naturally focus on individualism and self-developement, every men could only count on himself, even if they were from the same society and related blood, if they could found a civilization with better lifestyle, they would totally pick it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I have done a simple experiment months ago: a hypothetical scenario where the non-IE and non-dominant males wouldn't have been massively annihilated, not for a long time, but where their lower status and wealth made them have only half the number of children of the IE dominant males. In "just" 300-400 years a huge change in Y-DNA haplogroups could happen even in the absence of any "genocidal" elimination of native males.
    Yes when i say annihilated i think in a large scale of time. Little by little, the neolithic or previous regional male lineages were absolutely not favored by multiple environnemental reasons
    Last edited by halfalp; 28-04-18 at 23:02.

  4. #29
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    This was pretty much what i wanted to say. A lot of people have idealized the indo-europeans in a Julius Savola way, but in reality, those societies must have been one of the hardest to have ever lived. If we take the latter scythians or the turco-mongols, at least the cultural evolution made that because of horse was the main weapon, every warriors were pretty much at the same level, whether they were of royal blood or of peasant, every child must have learned to mount from childhood. It's not like the earliest indo-europeans where the elite had horses and chariots and the plebs just their feet. This must have been an hardcore society that was naturally focus on individualism and self-developement, every men could only count on himself, even if they were from the same society and related blood, if they could found a civilization with better lifestyle, they would totally pick it.
    Yes when i say annihilated i think in a large scale of time. Little by little, the neolithic or previous regional male lineages were absolutely not favored by multiple environnemental reasons
    Yes, now I understand your point better. Even more individualistic, my hunch is that these early IEs were very family/clan/lineage-centric, with stark divisions and even distinctive identities and customs from one clan to the other. They would do anything for them and their patriarch-led "gens", period, there wasn't a sense of unified ethnic, cultural or even regional identity.

    Maybe that "hardore society" also explains why so many of them went into "adventures" very far away from their homeland: they were quite literally looking for a better life, more opportunities and a safe heaven, because their original society was kind of closed, self-limited, without enough social and economic mobility and a winner-takes-all structure that left a lot of people with very little perspectives and no hope to get a rightful place in the social pyramid. Looking for a new life in a distant place may have been a rational thing to do in several different situations, especially when disputes arose or resources were more scarce.

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,386
    Points
    6,435
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,435, Level: 23
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 115
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Yes, now I understand your point better. Even more individualistic, my hunch is that these early IEs were very family/clan/lineage-centric, with stark divisions and even distinctive identities and customs from one clan to the other. They would do anything for them and their patriarch-led "gens", period, there wasn't a sense of unified ethnic, cultural or even regional identity.

    Maybe that "hardore society" also explains why so many of them went into "adventures" very far away from their homeland: they were quite literally looking for a better life, more opportunities and a safe heaven, because their original society was kind of closed, self-limited, without enough social and economic mobility and a winner-takes-all structure that left a lot of people with very little perspectives and no hope to get a rightful place in the social pyramid. Looking for a new life in a distant place may have been a rational thing to do in several different situations, especially when disputes arose or resources were more scarce.
    This is basically that, it was the same with vikings or ancient celts i guess, with the ver sacrum. At some point, little groups had to migrate because of the growth of the demography and a too much inequal society. Those guys were warriors and certainly their spiritual beliefs where around the fact to die as a warrior with honor. When you have guys like this, with a specific individualistic mind in a spiritual or cultural way, not a lot of things can stop you. If we take in a totally other context guys in ISIS, they might have exactly the same mental pattern as those ancient peoples, when you are cornering in your own society, you become a lone wolf and you try to have a piece of the world for yourself. There is that concept of the Männerbund, basically i warrior chief surround by brave companions ready to die for their chief and brothers, those people were certainly peasants for the most part in their original society, and might have a very low incom for food and women, they had to make their own society by conquering other people. Some royal prince might been the chief of that kind of group and at the end of the day, the only ones who wins something from conquering other peoples.

  6. #31
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    237
    Points
    2,149
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,149, Level: 12
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Are we really sure that that was a common thing among all the Indo-European speakers who conquered other peoples and lands, especially outside South Asia? I remember having read that there are signs of still extensive inter-ethnic/inter-caste mixing in India up to a mere 2,000 years ago, when the genetic structure seems to have started to become "fossilized" and the groups became much more endogamous and to drift from each other much faster. Some saw that as an indication that the caste system only became really rigid many centuries after the supposed Indo-Aryan migration and assimilation and was an internal development of Indian culture/politics. Are there strong evidences that it was actually a much more ancient and Indo-European-wide phenomenon?
    He [David Reich] cautioned, however, that Majumder and his team's calculation could have erred as they used certain statistical methods software, and also considered 22.5 years as the span of one generation. "Standard citation in genetics literature is 29 years based on studies in many diverse societies around the world. We usually use 29 years and that would give substantially older calendar dates than the authors cite," he told TOI.
    Google: "70 generations ago, caste stopped people inter-mixing" (not allowed to post links yet).

    22.5 x 70 generations = 1575 years ago, or c. 443 b.c.e. (Gupta Empire.)

    29 x 70 generations = 2030 years ago, or c. 12 b.c.e. (Reich's numbers would date endogamy to the Kushan Empire.)

  7. #32
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    237
    Points
    2,149
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,149, Level: 12
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    2 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    Strange that "barbarians", which the IE tribes and clans certainly were, should have had a reputation for being barbaric, although I suspect that if you piled up all their victims it would be a rather small hill compared to the mountain of bodies that can be attributed to the major "civilizations".

    The more common pattern would be the establishment of client-patron relationships (ala Vico) with subjected populations (not unlike Mafia "protection" rackets, if you will), rather than population replacement or ethnic cleansing. Where population replacement did occur, we can't assume it wasn't due to non-martial factors (climate change, drought, famine, disease, etc.).

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,386
    Points
    6,435
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,435, Level: 23
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 115
    Overall activity: 7.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
    Strange that "barbarians", which the IE tribes and clans certainly were, should have had a reputation for being barbaric, although I suspect that if you piled up all their victims it would be a rather small hill compared to the mountain of bodies that can be attributed to the major "civilizations".

    The more common pattern would be the establishment of client-patron relationships (ala Vico) with subjected populations (not unlike Mafia "protection" rackets, if you will), rather than population replacement or ethnic cleansing. Where population replacement did occur, we can't assume it wasn't due to non-martial factors (climate change, drought, famine, disease, etc.).
    Yeah in the case of indo-europeans studies, the whole replacement by a 1000 miles long mounted warriors hypothesis is pretty immature, that's the kind of inference that your mind makes when you first hear about the whole concept.

  9. #34
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    237
    Points
    2,149
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,149, Level: 12
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Blame Gimbutas' overly simplistic narrative, which casts the Indo-Europeans as the evil patriarchal herders massacring the good matriarchal farmers, regardless that they lived side-by-side for centuries, trading, intermarrying, etc. What happened? The climate changed, growing colder and drier. Herds starved, crops failed. It could be that the the Yamnaya break-out of the steppes and drive up the Danube River valley was for one reason only - to find fresh fodder, "green grass", for their herds.

    Same thing happened around 1200 b.c.e., with the marauding "Sea Peoples" who destroyed the Mycenaeans and Hittites (both, not incidentally, "Indo-European" civilizations) and almost destroyed the Egyptian civilization, and again in the 6th century c.e., when the Goths, Vandals, etc., brought down the western Roman Empire. If a choice of whose children should starve, would you volunteer your own? Or would you do whatever you needed to do to feed them?

  10. #35
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,305
    Points
    279,183
    Level
    100
    Points: 279,183, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    All of a sudden we're back to the post war nonsense in archaeology and history where nobody was an invader, nobody massacred most of the males and raped the females; they were just good fathers providing for their young. Somebody was even saying the Huns were not so bad! No piles of human skulls, I guess. No depopulation of whole swathes of Central Asia. No panicked fleeing in front of them by the Germanic tribes either, I suppose.

    Is no one honest and objective about their ancestors except me and a couple of others? I freely admit that the Romans enslaved or killed perhaps more than 1/3 of the people of Gaul, and it wasn't just to get food for their children! That's what conquering nations did at that time. Now, there's a lot of good things about the Roman Empire, I think, but that's not one of them.

    I do wish people would stop back projecting modern values onto ancient peoples.

    The big elephant in the room is that while, yes, population crashes in Central Europe occurred before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, and the plague they brought with them was devastating, that just means they didn't need to be Conan the Barbarian to conquer it. The other pertinent fact is that there is a huge imbalance between ydna and mtdna even though the academic papers indicate that women did accompany the Indo-Europeans into Central Europe, and an analysis of the mtDna of modern Central and Northern Europeans substantiates that.

    The men and boys, presumably, were killed, but many of the women, those who survived, were not, and were kept for breeding.

    Yes, I know all the arguments that it was just selective advantage over the generations. Yes, that may have contributed, but it's not the total picture. One should pay attention to a people's own mythology. It's where they reveal the heart of their culture. Read the Rig Veda, or Norse mythology. Heck, even read the Old Testament! This is what men did.

    It may not be pretty, but it's the reality.

    Let's look at the Lombards for a later example. Yes, there was climate change, and fewer food supplies, and yes, they were fleeing other tribes behind them, but does that really make it just fine that they not only invaded the land of another people, again killed a lot of the men, subjugated the locals, making them serfs, allowing them only minimal food, and when laws were codified, making them permanently an underclass? And please, they didn't just want food for their wailing babies. They liked bling, the Lombards.
    Last edited by Angela; 29-04-18 at 17:28.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  11. #36
    Regular Member Achievements:
    7 days registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    31-03-18
    Posts
    78
    Points
    990
    Level
    8
    Points: 990, Level: 8
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 160
    Overall activity: 48.0%


    Country: Germany



    Barbarian invasions tended to be the norm rather than something unusual up until recently, and few peoples in history were spared that fate. The archetypical barbarians of late antiquity - the Slavs and the Germanics - surely owed much of their expansions to the adoption of the warlike culture of the easterners under whose dominion they came. I doubt the dynamics were very different in the Bronze Age.

    That doesn't mean that there isn't usually a kind of systemic weakness in civilized cultures that facilitates opportunistic invasions. The Germanic armies could roam the western empire for decades without being engaged by a standing Roman army. Such conquests were more often than not less than heroic.

    Only the Greeks never really succumbed to invasions by less advanced peoples, because unusually for a civilized culture war always remained central to their ethos. That might be part of the reason why they were the greatest

  12. #37
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,305
    Points
    279,183
    Level
    100
    Points: 279,183, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    ^^Well, timing is everything. Not easy to be in power when there's climate change causing widespread famine in the periphery as well as shortages at home, and rampaging Huns building towers of human skulls of their defeated enemies and scattering other tribes in front of them, along with some plague, for good measure, all in addition to the normal problems that plague (pun intended) established and probably too prosperous and soft civilizations.

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    237
    Points
    2,149
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,149, Level: 12
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    Strange that "barbarians", which the IE tribes and clans certainly were, should have had a reputation for being barbaric, although I suspect that if you piled up all their victims it would be a rather small hill compared to the mountain of bodies that can be attributed to the major "civilizations".
    I'm not denying above that barbarians are often quite barbaric. I just think that the "good vs evil" historical narrative, ala Gimbutas, is overly simplistic and misleading. As to comparing the Indo-Europeans to the Mongols...

  14. #39
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,305
    Points
    279,183
    Level
    100
    Points: 279,183, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Goodness, I guess a lot of people are thinking about this.

    See Razib Khan's post on why there is steppe ancestry over such a wide swathe of territory.
    https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...medium=twitter

    "During the Mongol conquest of Northern China Genghis Khan reputedly wanted to turn the land that had been the heart of the Middle Kingdom into pasture, first by exterminating the whole population. Part of the motive was to punish the Chinese for resisting his armies, and part of it was to increase his wealth. One of his advisors, Yelu Chucai, a functionary from the Khitai people, dissuaded him from this path through appealing to his selfishness. Chinese peasants taxed on their surplus would enrich Genghis Khan far more than enlarging his herds. Rather than focus on primary production, Genghis Khan could sit atop a more complex economic system and extract rents."

    But this makes us ask: when did this dynamic begin? I don’t think it was primordial. It was invented and developed over time through trial and error. I believe that the initial instinct of pastoralists was to turn farmland into pasture for his herds. This was Genghis Khan’s instinct. The rude barbarian that he was he had not grown up in the extortive system which more civilized barbarians, such as the Khitai, had been habituated to.
    In these situations where pastoralists expropriated the land, there wouldn’t have been an opportunity for the farmer to raise a family. Barbarian warlords throughout history have aspired to be rich by plundering from the civilized the peoples…but would the earliest generations have understood the complexity of the institutions that they would have to extract rents out of if there wasn’t a precedent?"

    Again, based on their own mythology, if nothing else, I'm sure there was a lot of butchery involved but this adds some nuance.

  15. #40
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    24
    Posts
    883
    Points
    8,064
    Level
    26
    Points: 8,064, Level: 26
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 71.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    The "Indian ultra-nationalist" community already warned us - in Eurogenes and other places - that Dr. Rai was "misunderstood" and "misquoted", and that "of course" the results will prove that the IVC people were relatively close to the modern North Indian Brahmins and already had typical Indo-Aryan autosomal and Y-DNA markers. Oh my God, what kind of brainwashing did these people take? I can only feel a bit of pity on them because, as a more sensible and well informed Indian man told me yesterday, they're somehow striving to decolonize the culture and mindset of India, and to get rid of the centuries-old (even before the British) feelings of inferiority due to foreign conquest, but they want to do that regardless of facts and evidences and in such an extreme, uncompromising way that their brand of nationalism is becoming an international laughing stock these days...
    Why should they feel ashamed? the Indo-Aryans were their ancestors, and did contribute ancestry to all people in India, Indians and all people must accept that they are the result of a mixture of different peoples, these people must have come from somewhere, I mean it's not like they grew out of the ground.

    And something else, when we say Iranian farmers that doesn't equal modern Iranians, and Indo-Aryans don't mean Russians or Turkmens, they were old ethnicities that disappeared in their unmixed form, and Indians shouldn't view them as foreign conquerors, Indians are not the AASI (Indian hunter-gatherers), and even they must have come from somewhere, they were just the first to arrive, or the first to conquer and replace a people that lived before them.

  16. #41
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,334
    Points
    45,963
    Level
    66
    Points: 45,963, Level: 66
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 987
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Goodness, I guess a lot of people are thinking about this.
    See Razib Khan's post on why there is steppe ancestry over such a wide swathe of territory.
    https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...medium=twitter
    "During the Mongol conquest of Northern China Genghis Khan reputedly wanted to turn the land that had been the heart of the Middle Kingdom into pasture, first by exterminating the whole population. Part of the motive was to punish the Chinese for resisting his armies, and part of it was to increase his wealth. One of his advisors, Yelu Chucai, a functionary from the Khitai people, dissuaded him from this path through appealing to his selfishness. Chinese peasants taxed on their surplus would enrich Genghis Khan far more than enlarging his herds. Rather than focus on primary production, Genghis Khan could sit atop a more complex economic system and extract rents."
    But this makes us ask: when did this dynamic begin? I don’t think it was primordial. It was invented and developed over time through trial and error. I believe that the initial instinct of pastoralists was to turn farmland into pasture for his herds. This was Genghis Khan’s instinct. The rude barbarian that he was he had not grown up in the extortive system which more civilized barbarians, such as the Khitai, had been habituated to.
    In these situations where pastoralists expropriated the land, there wouldn’t have been an opportunity for the farmer to raise a family. Barbarian warlords throughout history have aspired to be rich by plundering from the civilized the peoples…but would the earliest generations have understood the complexity of the institutions that they would have to extract rents out of if there wasn’t a precedent?"
    Again, based on their own mythology, if nothing else, I'm sure there was a lot of butchery involved but this adds some nuance.
    not only in the steppe
    the Amorites were seen as invaders in southern Mesopotamia
    when famine and drought strikes, farmers always seem to be in a weaker position because of their immobility compared to the herders continously moving and looking for greener pastures

    Razib Khan :
    Of course, pre-modern societies did not have totalitarian states and deadly technology. Rapid organized genocide in a way that we would understand was unlikely to have happened. Rather, in a world on the Malthusian margin, a few generations of deprivation may have resulted in the rapid demographic extinction of whole cultures. You don’t need to kill them if they starve because they were driven off their land.

    This seems to be the situation when the Amorites moved south, but the last sentence is misleading, as if the purpose of the invading herders is to starve the farmers.

    What was the situation when the IE moved south bypassing BMAC?
    Nobody knows.
    Fact is that BMAC was not destroyed by the IE herders, it merely became redundant.
    To me it looks like there was not a famine, but herders saw the wealth of BMAC and the opportunity to combine herding with trade and even knowledge exchange (as with the Mitanni, the Kassites).

    As for organised warfare, where and when did it start?
    I think it started in many places in the world.
    There were the fortresses in Sintashta.
    But also written reports of war and extreme cruelties in Summer and Akkadia.
    It existed in Maya and Aztec cultures.
    And in Longshan culture, China.

    And one more thing : warlords don't always have to be pastoralists.
    The Germanic tribes originated from peacefull farmers in the Nordic Bronze Age.
    They became warlike and started moving south when climate became cooler making agriculture impossible up north 6th century BC.

  17. #42
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by markozd View Post
    Barbarian invasions tended to be the norm rather than something unusual up until recently, and few peoples in history were spared that fate. The archetypical barbarians of late antiquity - the Slavs and the Germanics - surely owed much of their expansions to the adoption of the warlike culture of the easterners under whose dominion they came. I doubt the dynamics were very different in the Bronze Age.

    That doesn't mean that there isn't usually a kind of systemic weakness in civilized cultures that facilitates opportunistic invasions. The Germanic armies could roam the western empire for decades without being engaged by a standing Roman army. Such conquests were more often than not less than heroic.

    Only the Greeks never really succumbed to invasions by less advanced peoples, because unusually for a civilized culture war always remained central to their ethos. That might be part of the reason why they were the greatest
    Was the Dorian invasion of Greece in the late bronze-age fabricated or real ...........they are stated as coming from the barbaric north
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  18. #43
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    237
    Points
    2,149
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,149, Level: 12
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I believe that the initial instinct of pastoralists was to turn farmland into pasture for his herds.
    Which was preceded by the Cucuteni farmers expanding into the steppe from the Prut to the Dneister to the Bug to the Dneiper River, turning pasture into farmland, building forts to protect their incursion. Sounds not unlike the expansion of the U.S. western frontier, justified as "manifest destiny", with the "Indians" resisting the expropriation of their hunting grounds. The difference in the case of the Cucuteni farmers is that the "Indians" fought back and won, undoubtedly due to the former's lack of rifles and cannon.
    Last edited by CrazyDonkey; 30-04-18 at 00:18.

  19. #44
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,305
    Points
    279,183
    Level
    100
    Points: 279,183, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    not only in the steppe
    the Amorites were seen as invaders in southern Mesopotamia
    when famine and drought strikes, farmers always seem to be in a weaker position because of their immobility compared to the herders continously moving and looking for greener pastures

    Razib Khan :
    Of course, pre-modern societies did not have totalitarian states and deadly technology. Rapid organized genocide in a way that we would understand was unlikely to have happened. Rather, in a world on the Malthusian margin, a few generations of deprivation may have resulted in the rapid demographic extinction of whole cultures. You don’t need to kill them if they starve because they were driven off their land.

    This seems to be the situation when the Amorites moved south, but the last sentence is misleading, as if the purpose of the invading herders is to starve the farmers.

    What was the situation when the IE moved south bypassing BMAC?
    Nobody knows.
    Fact is that BMAC was not destroyed by the IE herders, it merely became redundant.
    To me it looks like there was not a famine, but herders saw the wealth of BMAC and the opportunity to combine herding with trade and even knowledge exchange (as with the Mitanni, the Kassites).

    As for organised warfare, where and when did it start?
    I think it started in many places in the world.
    There were the fortresses in Sintashta.
    But also written reports of war and extreme cruelties in Summer and Akkadia.
    It existed in Maya and Aztec cultures.
    And in Longshan culture, China.

    And one more thing : warlords don't always have to be pastoralists.
    The Germanic tribes originated from peacefull farmers in the Nordic Bronze Age.
    They became warlike and started moving south when climate became cooler making agriculture impossible up north 6th century BC.
    I have no argument with most of what you wrote. I have written here innumerable times that there are certain cycles in history, one of which is that civilizations, settled and based on farming, form, develop, expand, influencing to some degree more pastoral groups on the poorer land in the periphery, and that then those pastoral groups invade, destroy the nucleus of the civilization, and then it all has to be built up all over again. It's the same in the Americas, in Europe, in the Near East (the Amorites are a good example), South Asia, and East Asia. The Manchu are another example. (The Chinese are good at neutralizing their conquerors, however. )I acknowledge that, but I don't have to "like" it, even from a strictly utilitarian point of view. It's just such a waste of time having to start all over again. Think how much we might have advanced if there hadn't been so many stops and restarts.

    What happened in the Near East is indeed very analogous to what happened in Europe.

    I do have one quibble: I think there are lots of documented instances where invading groups do indeed want the natives to starve. Not pretty, as I said upthread, but the reality. The Huns are only perhaps the worst example.

    Why do you think that Europeans deliberately infected trading blankets with smallpox, or didn't give a damn that killing buffalo for sport from moving trains would leave the Plains Indians dependent on them starving? They wanted the LAND, Bicicleur. The Romans sowed the fields of Carthage with salt once they destroyed it. Do you think the Lombards didn't take all the best land, and the hell with whether the natives who fled to the mountains would starve to death?

    Good grief, Hitler and his generals and bureaucrats were planning to send all the Poles and Russians to the gas chambers so they could give all that nice, flat, farmland to, in their view, the more industrious German farmers. That was, what, eighty years ago? The Balkan War was much more recent than that. The Serbs set up camps to make raping Bosnian Muslim women and impregnating them with Serb children easier, while they executed the men and boys. They did it in part to get LAND. You think that was the first time in history that happened?

    Yet, somehow, people want to think the Indo-European invasions, or perhaps you want to call them "Wanderings" too, were benign? Well meaning? It's just a coincidence that in some places the yDna of the prior inhabitants virtually disappeared? I don't think so. Their own mythology explains exactly what happened. I think a course on the mythology of the major civilizations should be required reading, a mythology often found in their sacred texts.

    Take the Rig Veda, for example: the arrival of the Indo-Europeans was not some peaceable affair. There was war and death and enslavement, and the imposition of a rigid caste system based on color. To this day, high caste men can rape lower caste women with impunity. Or take the Old Testament. The Helots in ancient Greece. We have to look at ancient peoples and the events of the past as objectively as possible if we are to learn from our studies and analyses of them. It's not supposed to be about making us feel superior because of certain ancestors.

    Just because we number certain people among our ancestors doesn't mean we should put on rose-colored glasses when we examine historical events.

  20. #45
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    Why should they feel ashamed? the Indo-Aryans were their ancestors, and did contribute ancestry to all people in India, Indians and all people must accept that they are the result of a mixture of different peoples, these people must have come from somewhere, I mean it's not like they grew out of the ground.

    And something else, when we say Iranian farmers that doesn't equal modern Iranians, and Indo-Aryans don't mean Russians or Turkmens, they were old ethnicities that disappeared in their unmixed form, and Indians shouldn't view them as foreign conquerors, Indians are not the AASI (Indian hunter-gatherers), and even they must have come from somewhere, they were just the first to arrive, or the first to conquer and replace a people that lived before them.
    I know, I know, but none of what you say is what they have in mind when they resist so much against these evidences. They're projecting contemporary concerns and ideologies onto a completely different, ancient history - and they aren't the only ones guilty of that, as we can see even here. They are often deeply attached to a widely held belief that Indian civilization is immemorially ancient and mostly autochthonous despite one or another foreign influence, and they were also taught that decisively Indo-Aryan things like the Rigveda are many thousands of years old, and not just 3,000-4,000 years old. I've seen some comments which suggest that they are perfectly fine with an ultimately foreign origin, as long as - necessarily - it was dozens of thousands of years ago or something like that, that is, allowing for a lot of time to reaffirm the "100% independent" development of Indian civilization within South Asia. Sooner rather than later, like Europeans, they'll have to reconcile with the fact that they're mixed and not just genetic ancestry, but even agriculture and pastoralism themselves came from elsewhere, let alone languages, which are in some contexts even more easily shifted.

    Finally, even though as you say this kind of thinking obviously is totally meaningless and wrong, the fact is that, maybe because of anti-colonial and even anti-European grudges after centuries of being in an inferior position to them, many of them do equate "Indo-Aryan migration from the steppes" with "the origins of our civilization were just another 'white colonization' done by foreigners" - even though that of course implies a very inaccurate confusion between genetics and culture, because nobody believes that the steppe Indo-Iranian culture was exactly like the Indian Rigvedic culture, just one of its ancestors.

    They're totally wrong and even deranged, but it's kind of a pitiful situation too, because they have a desperate need - maybe a projection of inner insecurities and resentments - to assert their uniqueness, independence and self-relying past glory. Of course the reality indicated by a growing amount of evidences is knocking on the door by now, so some will resist even more vocally and maybe even angrily.

  21. #46
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    The men and boys, presumably, were killed, but many of the women, those who survived, were not, and were kept for breeding.
    Yes, I know all the arguments that it was just selective advantage over the generations. Yes, that may have contributed, but it's not the total picture. One should pay attention to a people's own mythology. It's where they reveal the heart of their culture. Read the Rig Veda, or Norse mythology. Heck, even read the Old Testament! This is what men did.
    Yes, none of those scenarios - neither the "monstrous mounted warriors" nor the "poor climate-change refugees" - will fit the much more complex reality. It was probably a mix of all those things, in some places a more violent immigration, in some others are more gradual and conciliatory infiltration, but always with some degree of violence, because that's what both the invaders and the invaded peoples used to do against foreigners, who were mostly assumed to be enemies until proven the opposite. Also, there is the fact that certainly not all the violence meant outright murder. As in the much later slave-based societies of Latin America, the disenfranchjised males were not just murdered en masse during this or that war, but subject to higher levels of violence, maltreatment and heavier work in a chronic fashion along several generations (as slaves, servants and so on) - and thus, much more than the females, they suffered violence not just in moments of open conflict, but a kind of structural violence that most definitely meant they had lower reproductive success. That's also a part of the "ugly" side of this process, even though not as visibly shocking as massive slaughters.

  22. #47
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by markozd View Post
    Barbarian invasions tended to be the norm rather than something unusual up until recently, and few peoples in history were spared that fate. The archetypical barbarians of late antiquity - the Slavs and the Germanics - surely owed much of their expansions to the adoption of the warlike culture of the easterners under whose dominion they came. I doubt the dynamics were very different in the Bronze Age.

    That doesn't mean that there isn't usually a kind of systemic weakness in civilized cultures that facilitates opportunistic invasions. The Germanic armies could roam the western empire for decades without being engaged by a standing Roman army. Such conquests were more often than not less than heroic.

    Only the Greeks never really succumbed to invasions by less advanced peoples, because unusually for a civilized culture war always remained central to their ethos. That might be part of the reason why they were the greatest
    If by Greeks you mean the "city-states proper of ancient Greeks", okay, but essentially even they were strongly dominated by the "barbarian version of Greeks", the Macedonians, and by the originally less sophisticated Romans, and of course much later they were subject to heavy Slavic and Turkic invasions, and even former Hellenized/Greek parts of their world were most definitely conquered and changed by the "barbarians", mainly parts of Northern Greece (and areas to its north, like FYROM) and all of West Anatolia.

  23. #48
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    The Germanic tribes originated from peacefull farmers in the Nordic Bronze Age.
    They became warlike and started moving south when climate became cooler making agriculture impossible up north 6th century BC.
    As early as the 6th century BC, really?!? That's virtually as early as the first expansion of La Tène/Gaulish culture to much of Western/Central Europe.

  24. #49
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Their own mythology explains exactly what happened. I think a course on the mythology of the major civilizations should be required reading, a mythology often found in their sacred texts.

    Take the Rig Veda, for example: the arrival of the Indo-Europeans was not some peaceable affair. There was war and death and enslavement, and the imposition of a rigid caste system based on color. To this day, high caste men can rape lower caste women with impunity. Or take the Old Testament. The Helots in ancient Greece. We have to look at ancient peoples and the events of the past as objectively as possible if we are to learn from our studies and analyses of them. It's not supposed to be about making us feel superior because of certain ancestors.

    Just because we number certain people among our ancestors doesn't mean we should put on rose-colored glasses when we examine historical events.
    That was a great comment, Angela. You nailed it. It's a shame some still feel this "tribal", perhaps clannish urge to defend their ancestors as if they themselves had some conscious participation and merit in the things (the achievements as well as the mistakes and even hideous crimes) done by people many generations ago.

  25. #50
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,334
    Points
    45,963
    Level
    66
    Points: 45,963, Level: 66
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 987
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    @ Angela

    Indeed there are instances where pastoralists deliberately destroy the land of farmers, or as in the Wild West, were farmers killed the buffalos on which some Native American tribes depended.

    In case of the Amorites invading Southern Mesopotamia, which is recorded in written history, I don't think it was the purpose of the Amorites to destroy the land, but they did.

    I think it was likewise when Indo-Aryan pastoralists moved south.
    They could have destroyed the BMAC cities, but they didn't, unlike your example, the Huns or the Mongols.
    I think deliberate strategies in destroying the habitat of other tribes came later in history, maybe in late bronze age, after the era of the Sea Peoples.
    Afaik even the Egyptians and the Hittites didn't do so.

    As for the caste system, it's origins remain unknown.
    According to DNA it exists 2000 years or longer.

    And slavery would already exist longer than farming, as it is also observed amongst HG societies.

    I haven't read the RigVeda, but heard of it, of course.
    I recommend reading about the city states in Southern Mesopoatamia, which is written history.
    There are no signs of such wars and destructions commited by the Aryans.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •