Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 82

Thread: Were most men killed off 7000 years ago?

  1. #26
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    24-02-15
    Posts
    243
    Points
    2,727
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,727, Level: 14
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: United States



    0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.


    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
    Horses just meant you could go on long-distance, not just short-distance, raids. Wagons meant you could haul back more loot.
    Roads are probably an alternative to horses, but horses are likely still a requirement for genocidal war, as it made war easier and more profitable.

    If Amerindians had horses we might have seen two giant empires spanning each continent and bottlenecks similar to those seen in Eurasia.

  2. #27
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,015
    Points
    259,673
    Level
    100
    Points: 259,673, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Right. Better throw in some plague and some population crashes too.


    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

  3. #28
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    24-02-15
    Posts
    243
    Points
    2,727
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,727, Level: 14
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: United States



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Right. Better throw in some plague and some population crashes too.
    I'm not sure what the weird smiley is about.

    It's possible that Y-DNA gives some protection against disease, and it most certainly plays a role in alcoholism. The invention of wine is believed to be around 7000 BC in China, so if that played a role we'd expect an earlier bottleneck in China.

  4. #29
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,015
    Points
    259,673
    Level
    100
    Points: 259,673, 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Expredel View Post
    I'm not sure what the weird smiley is about.

    It's possible that Y-DNA gives some protection against disease, and it most certainly plays a role in alcoholism. The invention of wine is believed to be around 7000 BC in China, so if that played a role we'd expect an earlier bottleneck in China.
    It's a roll eyes, meant to be semi-humorous. Pretend I've added another virtual one.

    I don't see what the heck alcoholism has to do with this. Could we keep on topic?

    As for the y chromosome, nobody really knows yet what it does other than code for male genitalia and sperm etc., so get back to me when you have some research pinpointing that it gives immunity to plague.

    What is clear is that even with their far, far, superior weapons, and horses, what really spelled the end for the Amerindians were the European diseases to which they had no immunity. Conquest is a heck of a lot easier when 90% of the native population is dropping dead around you. No need for an army of Conans.

    "Numerous diseases were brought to North America, including bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, the common cold, diphtheria, influenza, malaria, measles, scarlet fever, sexually transmitted diseases, typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis, and pertussis (whooping cough)"

    " A specific example was Cortes' invasion of Mexico. Before his arrival, the Mexican population is estimated to have been around 25 to 30 million. Fifty years later, the Mexican population was reduced to 3 million, mainly by infectious disease. This shows the main effect of the arrival of Europeans in the new world. With no natural immunity against these pathogens, Native Americans died in huge numbers. Yale historian David Brion Davis describes this as "the greatest genocide in the history of man. Yet it's increasingly clear that most of the carnage had nothing to do with European barbarism. The worst of the suffering was caused not by swords or guns but by germs."[9] By 1700, less than five thousand Native Americans remained in the southeastern coastal region.[4] In Florida alone, there were seven hundred thousand Native Americans in 1520, but by 1700 the number was around 2000.[4]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics

    So, if the question is whether possession of the horse alone would have been enough to spread the Indo-European languages, or to give dominance to one tribe of Amerindians, I think the answer is clear: NO. It was a confluence of factors.

    Let's not forget too that the use of horses, and chariots, spread like wildfire in the Near East. There was a form of an arms race in chariots. Horses can be stolen, or they run off and can be captured. How do you think Indians got them and became so adept with them?

  5. #30
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,723
    Points
    26,307
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,307, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 243
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Expredel View Post
    Another waste of academic resources. Obviously the horse was domesticated 7000 years ago, arguably warfare was impossible without them.
    Not only is warfare possible without horses, it is possible to even build entire militaristic empires without horses (Aztecs, Incas, etc.). Inter-tribal or at the least clannish warfare was actually common fare way back into the Paleolithic and very noticeable, even in some cases endemic in the Neolithic societies, e.g. in Pre-Columbian Brazil, as in many other places that lacked even metals, warrior clans took warfare and raiding basically as a "yearly tradition" with or without any concrete reason). Fertile Crescent societies were experiencing violent and wide expansions of organized states (e.g. the unification of Lower and Upper Egypt) even before horses were first used in the region.

    _______________________________

    As for "1 man for 17 women", that should be read in a much more moderate way: "1 man left male (the only ones with a Y-DNA) descendants in the long term compared to 17 women who left descendants in the long term". The fact that only men have Y-DNA already IMO favors the random extinction of some local lineages, but in any case we shouldn't presume that those men died and 17 women were left. There were so many factors involved in a male's reproductive success: slavery, socioeconomic status (usually much more relevant to men than to women), the ability to pay a dowry, the freedom and access to resources to take care of one's offspring (don't forget 30% to 60% of all children died very young, many of those BA men may have had children, but none survived into adulthood) etc.

    Just look at some examples from seemingly more "civilized" and "modern" eras: in colonial and post-independence Brazil, which must've felt initially pretty lawless and full of population expansions and crashes like the Bronze Age, you had some 6 million European immigrants, 5 million African forced immigrants, some 5 million natives that were reduced to probably 500,000 to 1 million by the 1700s. Yet what you see in the average gene pool is not a direct proportion of the number of immigrants that came and the local indigenous people (that would be more or less 50% European, 41% African, 9% Amerindian), it is in fact more like 60-70% European, 15-25% African, 10-25% Amerindian. In the Y-DNA the disparity is even much more striking: 85-90% of the paternal lineages from Europe, some 10% from Africa, only 5% from Native America.

    Those African and Native American males existed, they weren't all annihilated at once, there was no time in history where more than 80% of the men in Brazil were white. They just lived tougher and shorter lives, had no wealth and/or no freedom to raise a family, had little socioeconomic strength to compete with the white males, and were probably shunned by many women as potential candidates for marriage and procreation (families actively encouraged, partly because of "Brazilian style racism", that is, the lighter, the better, the so-called "redemption of one's race" by making the family lighter and lighter - and thus possibly more respected and valued by society - along the generations).

    I'm absolutely sure that similar dynamics were present in many previous historic periods, not just in the Bronze Age, but perhaps more strongly so due to the tribal and actually more properly clannish nature of those societies and the lack of larger meta-ethnic institutions, polities and identities not centered around bloodlines and kin loyalties (e.g. empires, bureaucratic states, universalist religions, etc.).

  6. #31
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Rizla's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-06-17
    Posts
    45
    Points
    2,127
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,127, Level: 12
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3n

    Ethnic group
    Scandinavian
    Country: Denmark



    I guess you people all know this study by Haak et al, 2017.

    "Dramatic events in human prehistory, such as the spread of agriculture to Europe from Anatolia and the late Neolithic/Bronze Age migration from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, can be investigated using patterns of genetic variation among the people who lived in those times. In particular, studies of differing female and male demographic histories on the basis of ancient genomes can provide information about complexities of social structures and cultural interactions in prehistoric populations. We use a mechanistic admixture model to compare the sex-specifically–inherited X chromosome with the autosomes in 20 early Neolithic and 16 late Neolithic/Bronze Age human remains. Contrary to previous hypotheses suggested by the patrilocality ofmany agricultural populations, we find no evidence of sex-biased admixture during the migration that spread farming across Europe during the early Neolithic. For later migrations from the Pontic Steppe during the late Neolithic/Bronze Age, however, we estimate a dramatic male bias, with approximately five to 14 migrating males for every migrating female. We find evidence of ongoing, primarily male, migration from the steppe to central Europe over a period of multiple generations, with a level of sex bias that excludes a pulse migration during a single generation. The contrasting patterns of sex-specific migration during these two migrations suggest a view of differing cultural histories in which the Neolithic transition was driven by mass migration of both males and females in roughly equal numbers, perhaps whole families, whereas the later Bronze Age migration and cultural shift were instead driven by male migration, potentially connected to new technology and conquest."

    "Ancient X chromosomes reveal contrasting sex bias in Neolithic and Bronze Age Eurasian migrations". http://www.pnas.org/content/114/10/2657

    If there really were 5-14 males for every female, among the steppe people, then you basically have a situation with gangs of cowboys roaming the countryside looking for women - and the farmers are hardly going to give them up freely. Of cause exotic diseases and famine could play a role too, but I think it's a pretty plausible explanation how Y-DNA lines like G2a came to dissapear from Europe.

  7. #32
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Rizla's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-06-17
    Posts
    45
    Points
    2,127
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,127, Level: 12
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3n

    Ethnic group
    Scandinavian
    Country: Denmark



    Quote Originally Posted by Expredel View Post
    Roads are probably an alternative to horses, but horses are likely still a requirement for genocidal war, as it made war easier and more profitable.

    If Amerindians had horses we might have seen two giant empires spanning each continent and bottlenecks similar to those seen in Eurasia.
    I agree. I'm just now reading "guns, germs and steel", and I think he's completely right, that the fact that the amerindians didn't have any large domesticable mammals (except lama's) were a limiting factor to their development. Or at least it slowed it down. It definitely one of the major reasons europeans conquered them, and not the other way around.

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    403
    Points
    8,766
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,766, Level: 28
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 584
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-DF103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bm

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    The farmers coming from Anatolia were no doubt better fed than HG, and had grown more sedentary.

    When food is more plentiful, you stand a better chance not only to survive yourself, but also to save your babies in larger numbers.

    When you grow sedentary, you learn to build - not only proper "houses", but also fences, ditches, etc...

    Besides, we know that the first "administrative structures" emerged in sedentary groups in the Fertile Crescent. I am not suggesting that the farmers who moved into Europe had a proper "administration" at the time; but I think they had begun to develop higher forms of collective organization than their HG rivals.

    Food and numbers, techniques, and organization may have been extra advantages on their side in times of conflict.

    As for horses being indispensable for warfare, I suggest whoever thinks so should (re-)read Ray Bradbury's short story "A Piece Of Wood". It's only three pages long, and tells you what equipment a man needs when he feels the urge to fight.
    It is therefore worth while to search out the bounds between opinion and knowledge; and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no certain knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent and moderate our persuasion. (John Locke)

  9. #34
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,282
    Points
    43,292
    Level
    64
    Points: 43,292, Level: 64
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 958
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    my guess ...

    conflicts often escalated during climate changes causing periods of food scarcity
    and being sedentary was a disadvantage at such times

  10. #35
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Posts
    235
    Points
    2,095
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,095, Level: 12
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 55
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Irish/British
    Country: United States



    Horses allowed you to raid someone who can't raid you back. Prior to that, conflict was more likely a neighbor-to-neighbor, or parochial, thing.

    As to the plague, considering its means of transmission, if a nomad caught it, it would likely have been while trading in one of the "tells" or agricultural settlements, due to not being resistant. Spread would be from people fleeing an outbreak. The Cucuteni periodically burned down their settlements, to purify them of vermin and pestilence, it would seem.

  11. #36
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    403
    Points
    8,766
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,766, Level: 28
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 584
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-DF103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bm

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
    conflict was more likely a neighbor-to-neighbor, or parochial, thing.
    Well, conflict is more or less always a neighbor-to-neighbor affair. But when people move from Anatolia all the way to Portugal (however long this may take) "parochial" confrontations tend to turn into pretty recurrent events, and grow into a wide-scale adventure. It gives men time to learn from their mistakes, improve on strategies, weaponry, effective attitudes.

    Horses are definitely an advantage, but I wonder why they are so insistently mentioned here, in a thread that refers to events dating two to three thousand years before they were domesticated.

  12. #37
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,015
    Points
    259,673
    Level
    100
    Points: 259,673, 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 hrvclv View Post
    Well, conflict is more or less always a neighbor-to-neighbor affair. But when people move from Anatolia all the way to Portugal (however long this may take) "parochial" confrontations tend to turn into pretty recurrent events, and grow into a wide-scale adventure. It gives men time to learn from their mistakes, improve on strategies, weaponry, effective attitudes.

    Horses are definitely an advantage, but I wonder why they are so insistently mentioned here, in a thread that refers to events dating two to three thousand years before they were domesticated.
    I'm sure you know why. :)

    There's no doubt that once domesticated horses were helpful indeed in warfare, but from the actual hard evidence they were first used with chariots, and the warfare from horseback was a later development. This is just another back projection into the Bronze Age or before of methods of warfare that are actually part of the Iron Age, and peoples like the Scythians.

    However, why let facts get in the way of fantasy?

    It's obvious that warfare existed before horses, and it exists after them. In the period before the arrival of the steppe people, Europe experienced population crashes because of crop failures brought on perhaps by climate change but also perhaps because of environmental degradation caused by farming itself. The brutality and loss of life is "impressive" even by modern standards. It was also collective.

    That's why there are so few y lines in Neolithic Europe.

    See:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4568710/

    https://books.google.com/books?hl=en...Europe&f=false

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Rizla's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-06-17
    Posts
    45
    Points
    2,127
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,127, Level: 12
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3n

    Ethnic group
    Scandinavian
    Country: Denmark



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    It's obvious that warfare existed before horses, and it exists after them.
    Absolutely. And once horses entered the picture they didn't take part in the act of warfare itself until quite late - they just made people extremely mobile. Which leads to the transfer of ideas over much larger areas, and the option to create "organizations" that can dominate more people. Yes, the incas and aztecs created large empires, but information still had to travel by foot from town to town, which is a huge limiting factor to their development.

    I see my earlier post missed the the scope of this thread with a few 1000 years, lol. Well done.

  14. #39
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    403
    Points
    8,766
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,766, Level: 28
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 584
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-DF103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bm

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Rizla View Post
    I see my earlier post missed the the scope of this thread with a few 1000 years, lol. Well done.
    So did mine apparently. Join the club !

    It seems my mind read 7000 BC when it was 7000 ya. I thought those mass massacres referred to the first confrontations between incoming Farmers and extant local HGs. So I was a few thousand years off too - except it was the other way round.

    Thanks for the links above, Angela. They dispel a number of wrong ideas.

  15. #40
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,015
    Points
    259,673
    Level
    100
    Points: 259,673, 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.
    If you go back to my first post starting this thread you'll see that the bottleneck is from 5-7,000 years ago, although the title of the article and therefore the thread said 7,000 years ago.

    The point is that this may have happened not only on the steppe, but in late Neolithic Europe. It wasn't only on the steppe that we wind up with only a couple of sub-lineages of major y haplogroups flourishing, in that case, of R1b and R1a. Something similar happened in Neolithic Europe, where one line of G2a flourished, and then we also see one line of I2a, which ironically enough would have been picked up originally by incorporating a local hunter-gatherer.

    So, given those facts, the domestication of the horse was not necessarily a factor. This type of scenario just seems to be endemic when population density is high and resources dwindle. It happened in Africa too, with the Bantus, and they didn't have horses.

  16. #41
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Rizla's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-06-17
    Posts
    45
    Points
    2,127
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,127, Level: 12
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3n

    Ethnic group
    Scandinavian
    Country: Denmark



    Reminds me of this article. It's about the spread of MtDNA haplogroup H in neolithic europe. What they find is that there is very little continuity between the early northern european neolithic cultures and the middle and late, when it comes to sub-groups of MtDNA H. Lots of movements probably went on in the neolithic that we don't know much about.

    "Network analysis (Fig. 1) reveals pronounced differences in the composition of sub-hgs between the ENE cultures (LBK, Rössen, Schöningen), and those of the Mid Neolithic (MNE)/LNE to Early Bronze Age (Baalberge, Salzmünde, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Unetice). ENE (and in particular LBK) mt genomes are either rare today (H16, H23 and H26), extinct or have not yet been observed in present-day populations (H46b, H88 and H89). In sharp contrast, most of the later H sub-hgs are more common in present-day European populations (for example, hg H3, H4, H6, H7, H11 and H13)12,14,15,16. Of the 39 haplotypes detected, only three (within the common, basal, sub-hg H1) were shared between ENE and MNE/LNE cultures. As the observed gene diversity is high, we might expect the number of shared haplotypes within and between cultures to be low. However, as the MNE/LNE haplotypes are on different sub-hg branches from the ENE haplotypes, these patterns combined show minimal local genetic continuity over this time period."

    Left side is early neolithic, right side is middle and late.
    Figure 1:Attachment 10284

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2656

  17. #42
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,015
    Points
    259,673
    Level
    100
    Points: 259,673, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Rizla View Post
    Reminds me of this article. It's about the spread of MtDNA haplogroup H in neolithic europe. What they find is that there is very little continuity between the early northern european neolithic cultures and the middle and late, when it comes to sub-groups of MtDNA H. Lots of movements probably went on in the neolithic that we don't know much about.

    "Network analysis (Fig. 1) reveals pronounced differences in the composition of sub-hgs between the ENE cultures (LBK, Rössen, Schöningen), and those of the Mid Neolithic (MNE)/LNE to Early Bronze Age (Baalberge, Salzmünde, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Unetice). ENE (and in particular LBK) mt genomes are either rare today (H16, H23 and H26), extinct or have not yet been observed in present-day populations (H46b, H88 and H89). In sharp contrast, most of the later H sub-hgs are more common in present-day European populations (for example, hg H3, H4, H6, H7, H11 and H13)12,14,15,16. Of the 39 haplotypes detected, only three (within the common, basal, sub-hg H1) were shared between ENE and MNE/LNE cultures. As the observed gene diversity is high, we might expect the number of shared haplotypes within and between cultures to be low. However, as the MNE/LNE haplotypes are on different sub-hg branches from the ENE haplotypes, these patterns combined show minimal local genetic continuity over this time period."

    Left side is early neolithic, right side is middle and late.
    Figure 1:Attachment 10284

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2656
    I think that's right, but I also think that even though there's a lot more diversity in the mtDna than in the yDna, a good portion of the Neolithic mtDna which survived might have been that of the first groups which the steppe people encountered as they went west. By the time they reached Central Europe, for example, they already carried a high proportion of Neolithic farmer ancestry.

    Then, I think the pendulum has swung so far in the direction of migration as the source of genetic change that people have forgotten that drift does still play a role. The Icelandic study brings that to the forefront once again. That effect was wrought in only 1000 years.
    Also in regards to Iceland there was an paper that discussed the loss of mtDna lineages.
    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetic...l.pgen.1000343


    John Hawks was convinced it was selection, but why couldn't part of it also be down to drift?
    http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/...land-2009.html


    Still, there just isn't the "die-off" in mtDna that we see with yDna, despite death in childbirth, the plague etc. Nothing kills off ylines like out and out annihilation of all the males in the opposing clan. We see it all over the Middle East too. The Levant was basically clades of E, and Anatolia was full of G2, and now, as a result of the Bronze Age movements and ensuing warfare, it's all varying percentages of J1 and J2, with J2 stronger in the north, and J1 in the south.There are lots of paper about how the mtDna there remained basically the same.

  18. #43
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Rizla's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-06-17
    Posts
    45
    Points
    2,127
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,127, Level: 12
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3n

    Ethnic group
    Scandinavian
    Country: Denmark



    I think they mention genetic drift as a possibility in the article I linked to, but they see it as insufficient as an explanation. But I am sure you are right. Populations would have been smaller and more isolated in these times than later, so genetic drift could easily play a bigger role than is generally thought.

    You're obviously right about the differences in Y-DNA and MtDNA. I just meant that the discontuity btween early and middle neolithic sub-HG's of H, point to women and children possibly also being victims of clan-wars. But of cause, it's still the men that fought the wars. I haven't read that much about the neolithic massgraves found so far, but I recall reading how some of them contained executed and tortured women and children too.

    I didn't know about John Hawkes blog. Some interesting articles there.

  19. #44
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,282
    Points
    43,292
    Level
    64
    Points: 43,292, Level: 64
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 958
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    selection must be in play in Iceland
    if it were just drift, why don't modern Scandinavians and Irish show a similar drift?
    you could say the drift is caused by the bottleneck of the small founder population,
    but that is not correct, the paper shows that the drift continued gradually, and not all at once, during the initial population of Iceland
    the climate and the environment in Iceland is not the same as in their Scandinavian homeland
    today, with modern comfort and abundant food and medical care, every one can survive any where on this planet
    but 1000 years ago, things were different
    many children would die and not reach the age to procreate
    climate and environment is the reason Iceland still doesn't host a large population today

  20. #45
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    24-02-15
    Posts
    243
    Points
    2,727
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,727, Level: 14
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: United States



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I don't see what the heck alcoholism has to do with this. Could we keep on topic?
    Informed people know that the Y chromosome plays a role in alcoholism. Alcoholism continues to kill millions and cripple Native American populations to this day.

    https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-he...and-statistics

    Globally, alcohol misuse was the fifth leading risk factor for premature death and disability in 2010. Among people between the ages of 15 and 49, it is the first.14 In the age group 20–39 years, approximately 25 percent of the total deaths are alcohol attributable.
    So alcohol, the #1 leading cause of death among people of reproductive age, might explain Y-DNA bottlenecks, especially if one considers that before Y-DNA adaptations alcoholism would have been as devastating as alcoholism among native americans. However, it's probably only part of the equation. Also keep in mind that long-levity genes weren't as common 5000 years ago, so people typically died before age 50.

    Another thing to notice is that the Y bottleneck happened first in the Middle East, so whatever struck Europe, it struck the Middle East first. Though some people ignore this because it doesn't fit their narrative.

  21. #46
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,015
    Points
    259,673
    Level
    100
    Points: 259,673, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Expredel View Post
    Informed people know that the Y chromosome plays a role in alcoholism. Alcoholism continues to kill millions and cripple Native American populations to this day.

    https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-he...and-statistics



    So alcohol, the #1 leading cause of death among people of reproductive age, might explain Y-DNA bottlenecks, especially if one considers that before Y-DNA adaptations alcoholism would have been as devastating as alcoholism among native americans. However, it's probably only part of the equation. Also keep in mind that long-levity genes weren't as common 5000 years ago, so people typically died before age 50.

    Another thing to notice is that the Y bottleneck happened first in the Middle East, so whatever struck Europe, it struck the Middle East first. Though some people ignore this because it doesn't fit their narrative.
    For goodness' sakes. Of course alcoholism is a terrible problem.

    My point was that it had nothing to do with what we were discussing.

    Could we apply some logic once in a while?

    Also, I don't know what kind of "narrative" you're seeing. Some people in this hobby see so many conspiracies I'm waiting to hear that they're being spoken to through the fillings in their teeth.

  22. #47
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    24-02-15
    Posts
    243
    Points
    2,727
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,727, Level: 14
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: United States



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    My point was that it had nothing to do with what we were discussing.

    Could we apply some logic once in a while?
    My point is that it is relevant. The Indo-Europeans could have taken over the entire continent by selling wine to the indigenous Europeans, yup, in bell shaped vases. It's still unclear what role alcohol played in the subjugation of Native Americans, but it's well known to have played a role.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...2.2006.00260.x

    And a quick google shows at least one source confirming that Bell Beaker pottery was primarily used for alcohol.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoho...tive_Americans

    Alcoholism is a significant selective disadvantage, primarily targets men, so it is a valid and logical explanation for the 7-5K bottleneck which coincides with the introduction of alcohol.

    Alcoholism is actually a greater selective disadvantage then any known disease, but some people are better at questioning the sanity of others than applying some much needed logic to their own arguments.

  23. #48
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,015
    Points
    259,673
    Level
    100
    Points: 259,673, 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Expredel View Post
    My point is that it is relevant. The Indo-Europeans could have taken over the entire continent by selling wine to the indigenous Europeans, yup, in bell shaped vases. It's still unclear what role alcohol played in the subjugation of Native Americans, but it's well known to have played a role.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...2.2006.00260.x

    And a quick google shows at least one source confirming that Bell Beaker pottery was primarily used for alcohol.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoho...tive_Americans

    Alcoholism is a significant selective disadvantage, primarily targets men, so it is a valid and logical explanation for the 7-5K bottleneck which coincides with the introduction of alcohol.

    Alcoholism is actually a greater selective disadvantage then any known disease, but some people are better at questioning the sanity of others than applying some much needed logic to their own arguments.
    That's complete and utter speculation based on absolutely nothing, and, in fact contrary to what we know of the history of alcohol production. Alcohol is made from agricultural products, as in, in those days, grain. Where was wheat first domesticated and grown in bulk? The Near East. Where was wine first produced? The Near East. There's nothing the steppe people could have taught farmers about alcohol.

    Maybe, before coming up with your "theory", you should have googled the history of alcohol.

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

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,723
    Points
    26,307
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,307, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 243
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Expredel View Post
    Informed people know that the Y chromosome plays a role in alcoholism. Alcoholism continues to kill millions and cripple Native American populations to this day.

    https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-he...and-statistics



    So alcohol, the #1 leading cause of death among people of reproductive age, might explain Y-DNA bottlenecks, especially if one considers that before Y-DNA adaptations alcoholism would have been as devastating as alcoholism among native americans. However, it's probably only part of the equation. Also keep in mind that long-levity genes weren't as common 5000 years ago, so people typically died before age 50.

    Another thing to notice is that the Y bottleneck happened first in the Middle East, so whatever struck Europe, it struck the Middle East first. Though some people ignore this because it doesn't fit their narrative.
    How on earth did you infer that if Native Americans have an issue with vulnerability to alcoholism that has to do with their Y-DNA haplogroup, and not with the endless myriad of other genes that Native Americans carry and underwent their own separate evolution for dozens of thousands of years, especially if the point of reference are West Eurasians/Europeans more specifically? Are really only men susceptible to alcoholism among Amerindians, by the way? You know, Y-DNA and Mt-DNA aren't the only things distinguishing Native Americans from other population structures out there.

  25. #50
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,723
    Points
    26,307
    Level
    49
    Points: 26,307, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 243
    Overall activity: 39.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Expredel View Post
    My point is that it is relevant. The Indo-Europeans could have taken over the entire continent by selling wine to the indigenous Europeans, yup, in bell shaped vases. It's still unclear what role alcohol played in the subjugation of Native Americans, but it's well known to have played a role.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...2.2006.00260.x

    And a quick google shows at least one source confirming that Bell Beaker pottery was primarily used for alcohol.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoho...tive_Americans

    Alcoholism is a significant selective disadvantage, primarily targets men, so it is a valid and logical explanation for the 7-5K bottleneck which coincides with the introduction of alcohol.

    Alcoholism is actually a greater selective disadvantage then any known disease, but some people are better at questioning the sanity of others than applying some much needed logic to their own arguments.
    I don't see how that makes sense if you consider the chronology of facts. Alcoholic beverages had been in frequent use in all of the Middle East and Europe well before Indo-Europeans came in and expanded their territories, and in fact both beer and wine had been known for thousands of years before the Early Bronze Age when Indo-Europeans really started to become a dominant force in Europe and elsewhere. And all of that also began well before the Bell Beaker phenomenon.

Page 2 of 4 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
  •