bicicleur 2
Regular Member
- Messages
- 6,369
- Reaction score
- 1,403
- Points
- 113
I fail to see how genocide of males (and an analogy to the treatment of indigenous people of the Americas as an example) as an explanation for the decimation of y lines in Iberia during the Bronze Age is irrelevant.
The y lines of the "natives" were not decimated during the Neolithic. In fact one of the most prolific y lines was an adopted Mesolithic hunter line, and moreover hunters and farmers lived side by side for years. There's NO comparison. None of that is "SPECULATION" any longer. We have the proof in ancient dna.
The only "North African" lineages that would have crossed to Iberia at that time period were from yDna "E". In fact, they have one such ancient sample. The "new" lineages in the Neolithic came from Anatolia, perhaps including ancestry from the Anatolia/Levant region. The new lineages in the Bronze Age came from the East: from the Pontic Caspian plain with the "Indo-Europeans", and from south of that with non-Indo-Europeans traveling along the Northern European coast of the Mediterranean. The Iron Age is another matter, because you have a big footprint from Carthage and perhaps a bit of one from Roman veterans. Then there's the Moorish period after the collapse of Rome.
Do I really have to direct some posters, once again, to the thread on essential ancient dna papers?
Look, I don't like some of this stuff either, but facts are inconvenient things.
the bronze age was different from the neolithic age
the neolithic age was still family based or tribal
they tried to defend their own settlement but they were not capable of conquest
the Tollense battle shows that in the bronze age there were already powerfull people who were capable of organising large armies and military operations 100's of kilometers away