Inequality in Bronze Age Europe

[Angela]

I thought scenarios in which IE tribes inter-marrying with farmer tribes on equal bases(ydna, mtdna equally transmitted) then one tribe gets purely accidental reproductive advantage due to many social aspects like higher social standing, hierarchy which encourages population growth as in Amish, Hutterites finally result in skewed ydna\mtdna in the population who then become dominant, let's see today R1b lineage is not utterly dominant they just make 51% of the population. My doubts arose because early R1b subclades were so rare in BA only in later times they expanded several centuries after initial settlement.

I doubt that is an explanation for world wide instances where, after a mass migration, the yDna of the invaders just happens to be the one which survives, while the local mtDna does survive. It's happened too many times, in too many places, in too many eras. It can't be coincidental, although all my job training probably does incline me to view "coincidences" as an explanation for human behavior more than skeptically.

Personally, I don't like it, and would prefer that wasn't the case, particularly, perhaps, because I carry both the invader ydna and mtdna, while my autosomal dna is much more local.

However, facts are facts, and those are facts which are very difficult to explain away in a PC manner.

[CrazyDonkey]

And whether yDNA strains were eliminated at the start (ethnic cleansing) or relegated to the sidelines and weeded out over time (due to privilege), the result is the same. Ultimately the information transmitted via yDNA is very limited (paternal lineage, mostly) - language and cultural transmission is much more powerful.