Were most men killed off 7000 years ago?

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:View attachment 10284

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2656
 
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:View 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/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.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/genetics/mtdna_migrations/selection-mtdna-iceland-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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-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.
 
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-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-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.
 
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/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2006.00260.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/Alcohol_and_Native_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.
 
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/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2006.00260.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/Alcohol_and_Native_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.
 
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-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-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.
 
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/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2006.00260.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/Alcohol_and_Native_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.
 
Alcohol increases aggression and acts as a stimulant!! That is really bad not many things do this to the body a very very large not sure exact percentages of domestic abuse or any assaults have the perpetrator or victim under the influence of it. Look it up. I will to lol
 
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.
That's a grossly inadequate summary of the available information on the history of alcohol. I suggest you continue to educate yourself.
 
That's a grossly inadequate summary of the available information on the history of alcohol. I suggest you continue to educate yourself.

Alcohol was being consumed in Europe way before the bell beakers... What's so hard for you to understand about that? How could they use it as a tool of subjection, if it was already being consumed the Neolithic Europeans before the indo-europeans arrived? Your untenable conjecture makes no sense whatsoever.
 
That's a grossly inadequate summary of the available information on the history of alcohol. I suggest you continue to educate yourself.

As a matter of fact, I didn't bother to post all the studies because I'm sure you wouldn't read them anyway, and if you did read them you wouldn't understand them or would refuse to understand.

As Jovialis pointed out, THEY HAD ALCOHOL ALREADY!

Unless you can prove otherwise, case closed.

In addition, if you want an analogy, the steppe people, with all their hunter-gatherer ancestry, were closer to the American Indians in your scenario, in that they probably easily became addicted, and couldn't tolerate it well. Yes, alcohol makes certain people aggressive, but ask any member of the armed forces how formidable a bunch of drunks are as fighters. No sentries out, everybody in camp passed out drunk, disorganized in battle and easily spooked.

You should read up on military history while you're at it.
 
As Jovialis pointed out, THEY HAD ALCOHOL ALREADY!
Source?!? I looked but can't find anything.

From Wikipedia:

Brewing dates from the beginning of civilization in ancient Egypt, and alcoholic beverages were very important at that time. Egyptian brewing began in the city of Heirakonpolis around 3400 BC; its ruins contain the remains of the world’s oldest brewery, which was capable of producing up to three hundred gallons per day of beer.

A large wine jar was found in Iran dating back to 5000 BC, but many cultures quickly forbid intoxication, so the making of wine doesn't automatically imply alcohol tolerance.
 
Source?!? I looked but can't find anything.

From Wikipedia:


A large wine jar was found in Iran dating back to 5000 BC, but many cultures quickly forbid intoxication, so the making of wine doesn't automatically imply alcohol tolerance.[/FONT]

Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

The Indo-Europeans didn't subjugate the Egyptians! Wine was being made in places like Sicily BEFORE the arrival of the Indo-Europeans or the bell beakers.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...000-year-old-wine-discovered-in-sicilian-cave

Between this, and your idea of the origin of Celts, you've lost all credibility on this website.
 

"Discovery of late
Stone Age jugs suggest that intentionally fermented beverages existed at least as early as the Neolithic period (c. 10000 BC).[2]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_alcoholic_drinks
That's not a very good source, it doesn't mention specific finds and also doesn't give a date, just 'late stone age'. You're quoting a vague summary of a vague summary.


Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

The Indo-Europeans didn't subjugate the Egyptians! Wine was being made in places like Sicily BEFORE the arrival of the Indo-Europeans or the bell beakers.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...000-year-old-wine-discovered-in-sicilian-cave

What makes you think the early Egyptians weren't Indo-Europeans? There's no ancient DNA from the 3000 BC era that I know of, so you're making unfounded statements. In fact, mass production of alcohol in Egypt supports my views.

The limited evidence of wine making 4000 BC is interesting, but we need consistent production of alcohol for alcoholism to take root. A bunch of farmers getting tipsy once or twice a year doesn't quite cut it. Ancient Egypt was probably one of the first civilizations that could support alcoholism, with proof of the systematic production of alcohol.

Between this, and your idea of the origin of Celts, you've lost all credibility on this website.
I would say remarks like these are more damaging to your credibility than mine. I'm merely proposing ideas and alternative viewpoints on history, it's not entirely clear to me what it is you are trying to accomplish, other than to create an environment of hostility. You and Angela are, in my opinion, not setting a great example when it comes to civil and polite debate.
 
You are proposing nonsense without one shred of academic proof to support it.

Now he's proposing that the Egyptians were Indo-Europeans. :startled::useless::LOL:

All he's doing is trying to disrupt this site with nonsense. It won't be allowed to continue.

Can we please ignore this *****, people?
 
All the archeological remains, ancient literature and genetic data, suggest to an IE invasion from the Caspian steppes. The use of horses and metals is contributed to ancient IE people of 4000bce. They subjugated the Neolithic farmers. The IE elite warriors didn't killed them all , but they just enslaved most of them. The bronze age economy was called or centered in the so called "palace economy". The IE warrior caste stayed in the big palace , whilst the other populace was contributing for wealth of these IE warriors. Mycenaeans , Minoans , Hittites, Egyptians , all of them had a 'palace based economy' from where the bloodthirsty Agamemnon ruled his domain.
 

This thread has been viewed 37643 times.

Back
Top