Perhaps you'd like to discuss it with Kristiansen and all the other leading authors of research into the coming of the steppe people, who have access to unpublished samples.
"
[FONT=&]The migrants’ ultimate source was a group of livestock herders called the Yamnaya who occupied the Eurasian steppe north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus mountains. Britain wasn’t their only destination. Between 5000 and 4000 years ago, the Yamnaya and their descendants colonised swathes of Europe, leaving a genetic legacy that persists to this day. Their arrival coincided with profound social and cultural changes. Burial practices shifted dramatically, a warrior class appeared, and there seems to have been a sharp upsurge in lethal violence. “I’ve become increasingly convinced there must have been a kind of genocide,” says Kristian Kristiansen at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden."
[/FONT]https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-people-of-all-time-revealed-in-ancient-dna/
[FONT=&]Are we clear about what he and the other researchers think? Yes, there was violence in late Neolithic Europe, stressed by climate change, scarcity, disease. However, there was an INCREASE in violence, and don't let's fool ourselves, the steppe people were stressed by scarcity of their own, scarcity of grass for their herds, also because of climate change.
[/FONT]Do people just ignore all the papers I post here about these discoveries?
Kristiansen repeats the same thin in lectures, and adds that they've found instances of such mass violence in the wake of the steppe people. They probably just haven't published yet.
You can also go back and take a look at the paper about the massacre of the GAC village:
This is what I quoted on that thread, and my conclusion:
"Well, they were already mostly herders, and mobile, and patrilineal. So much for the newcomers brought a better adapted life style for survival.
"Although it is impossible to identify the culprits of the massacre that took place at Koszyce around 2880–2776 BCE, it is interesting to note that it occurred right around the time when the Corded Ware complex started to spread rapidly across large parts of Central Europe, and it seems plausible that the group from Koszyce fell victim to some violent intergroup conflict related to the territorial expansion of Corded Ware groups or another competing group in the area. If the general interaction between Globular Amphora people and neighboring, steppe-related cultures (including early Corded Ware) was primarily hostile, it would explain why Globular Amphora individuals carry no steppe ancestry and, in part, why Europe experienced such a dramatic reduction in Neolithic genomic ancestry at this time (7, 17)."
Of course, such violence occurred between Neolithic groups as well in times of scarcity. This is how human beings behave."
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...against-GAC?highlight=massacre+late+neolithic
This has been repeated by the authors in interviews since. I've posted it. Honestly, I don't know how long I'm going to continue posting scholastic material on this site. If no one reads it, or chooses to ignore it, what, precisely, is the point.
HUOTE]
It has become a cliché. It happened sometimes. But it shouldn't be generalized.
Really? It only happened sometimes? Where, pray tell, did their arrival NOT result in the decimation or at least severe disruption of the local y lines, but the continuation of the mtDna? Britain? Spain? France? LBK territory as a whole? Hungary? The Balkans? India? WHERE?
That isn't logical argumentation, Bicicleur, and you must know it, as an educated man who has read these papers. The only places the local y dna lines WEREN'T decimated was where the steppe people were SEVERELY outnumbered, and/or the "host" society was still relatively strong. So, yes, it helped if the area suffered in immediately prior times from some depopulation and consequent weakness and disease. It helped if the steppe people weren't currently experienced an outbreak of the plague. Invaders wait for the victims to be in a weakened state if possible.
As for why Stonehenge continued, as I said, it's men who were either killed or enslaved and prevented from procreating. After the immediate blood lust was sated, some women were allowed to live; after being raped, of course.
None of this is necessarily specific to the steppe people, for goodness sakes, and I never implied that it is. That's a complete straw man argument. I have always given numerous examples of it happening throughout human history. I don't play biased games like that. I've always said: look at ISIS and the Yezidi: kill all the men, even the very young men, and make sexual slaves of the women, women who will have children. Or, the Hutu and Tutsi just recently, the Balkan War where there was systematic use of rape as a weapon of war, and outright slaughter of men, or, for crying out loud, World War II, although they went one better and wanted to kill the women and children too. Look at Latin America as well. How much "native" y survived, especially in areas that weren't extremely heavily populated, although it happened even there. A hell of a lot of local mtDna survived, however. It's all over the place. Yes, some of it was because the men were enslaved and then worked to death, and were definitely prevented from procreating. The Turks made sure of it in a lot of cases by castrating the men. Does that make the steppe men good guys? Go all the way to the Old Testament for proof: what did the pastoral Hebrews do to the Canaanite farmers? What is the story of Cain and Abel about? In fact, that's a pretty good illustration of how pastoral societies do find waning farming societies easy pickings. It's the age old story of the less civilized periphery destroying the weakened civilized core. So, your argument is a complete straw man one. My question is why should the steppe people be exempt? Because they're considered the ancestors of "white" Europeans? I think World War II should prove that white Europeans shouldn't be making any lofty claims about relative virtue.
As for the plague, I brought it up because it was part of the process of the advance of the steppe people and because imo you seem to have misinterpreted the papers. What was hinted at in the papers has been made explicit in interviews by Kristiansen, Krause, and every other researcher who worked on those samples. Just google it. I don't make things up or massage the facts. They believe it originated on the steppe. It makes complete sense. It arose then, and has arisen in every subsequent outbreak since, in the steppes of Europe and Central Asia. The people who are exposed first are going to be the first among whom some people will show up with mutations for immunity. That's the steppe people. The same thing happened with the arrival of measles and mumps and even small pox in the New World. Hell, the poor Amerindians even died of intestinal flu and things like pneumonia.
I really suggest everyone watch this speech by Kristiansen on the plague.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi1C1XMYU2Q&list=PLmRZN1FA-ksaFQ_bSPy6L9bFQ1uC2Nv4q&index=2
There is example after example, usually because of scarcity of resources of one kind or another, or just the desire to acquire more wealth (the Nazis wanted all that flat, fertile land possessed by the "lazy" and "stupid" Slavs, remember), but also sometimes just hatred of the "other", of whom one is jealous for one reason or another.
Yet, with all the historical parallels, all the genetic proof we see, virtually EVERY place they arrived, the steppe Indo-Europeans are somehow LESS violent, less brutal than other invaders? Why? Why ignore all the evidence in their particular case?
How, also, does the fact that other cultures have committed similar acts excuse the steppe people from doing it? Why, in their particular case, when it is so blatant, is it just a cliche?
It sounds like special pleading for some "favored" group of yours.
It makes absolutely no sense to me.
As for your attempt to deny the violence on the steppe, the first signs of warrior cults among some groups rather than others, once again you're ignoring the many papers on the subject. Re-read David Anthony, for example. There's also the clear fact that we know that the "culture" of the people who arrived in Europe was an amalgamation of cultural influences from all these prior steppe groups. If it makes you feel any better, Kristiansen believes the initial seeds for this stratification around the possession of metal tools included weapons seeped onto the steppe came over the Caucasus, so if you want to keep believing in the noble savages of the steppe and even the WHG of western Europe as loving hippies, you go right ahead.
As I said, I'm tired of posting paper after paper to which barely anyone pays attention.
See how much there is to talk about if I just stop, as I'm sorely tempted to do.[/QUOTE]
afaik there is more evidence published today about LBK mass graves than BB mass graves
Kristiansen says that will change, let's wait and see
I however don't understand his argument on mass graves being at irregular places not being found yet
does this argument particularly apply to bronze age mass graves and not to neolithic mass graves?
Kristiansen talks about abduction of women and the killing of males
I'm sure it happened, but afaik the only documented case is Eulau, which ironically is about farmers doing this to a corded ware settlement
I'd say the neolithic people were fighting the IE people as much as the other way around
somehow the neolithic Y-DNA got extinct and the IE Y-DNA prevailed
so, I'm not sure that 'the warrior cult' of the proto IE on the steppe is responsable for all the violence
you claim they developped 'the warrior cult', I'd say a warrior cult
Kristiansen and others speculate that Cucuteni-Tripolye is the origin of the plague, but he admits himself that this is speculation
these Cucuteni-Tripolye are not the proto-IE steppe people
he also links the 5.3 ka decline in farmers settlements to the plague, way before of the IE expansions out of the steppe
that I already did myself even before 4.9 ka Gokhem Yersenia Pestis was discovered, you didn't agree with me
when the 4.9 ka Gokhem Yersenia Pestis was discovered, you also didn't subscribe to the Cucuteni-Tripolye big towns theory,
you kept on blaiming the IE steppe people
Kristiansen says the IE BB expansions in Europe were male warriors, with few or no women
that is contradicted in the paper about the arrival of BB ancestry in Iberia
in the initial stage of 'invasion', BB ancestry was as high as 80 % and the women had higher BB ancestry than the males
I agree with many of the views and speculations of Kristiansen
but I don't think there is need to,
when I bring up a thread about violence among early Anatolian farmers
come up with the cliché that IE were 'horribly violent' and developped 'the warrior cult'
you could say violence is universal
and as Kristiansen also mentions, not all expansions were violent
