Anfänger
Regular member
- Messages
- 452
- Reaction score
- 364
- Points
- 63
- Ethnic group
- Iranian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-Z2103
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U7a4
Yes, we're in agreement about that. The only mass migration I can think of off hand where a "local" male haplogroup was adopted and flourished was with the Anatolian farmers, although G2a2 certainly took over in the Near East. Perhaps there just weren't enough of them in the beginning and they needed strong backs to do the farming. Also, although there is always, in my opinion, a certain level of "class" distinction in human societies, it was nothing to what happened later with the accumulation of agricultural surplus, and then the invention of metals.
I think we shouldn't underestimate the other factors, however, like prior population levels, and the effect of disease in decimating the native population, as we saw in the New World. Even those who survived would have been weakened and traumatized.
Think of more recent invasions. The Romans conquered most of their known world, killing and enslaving a lot of people in the process, so they were by no means saints, but they had no interest in exterminating all the males or creating a permanent caste system. Once the "natives" accepted they were now part of the empire, they were gradually enfranchised, and their local elites, the local social structure remained intact. They just wanted the trade and the taxes. Of course, population levels were high, and in the beginning there was no plague, although plagues hit later, but they affected all equally.
So, the lack of inclusiveness would have differed depending on the particular group involved and their situation. The Langobards were worse than the Goths, and imposed a caste system which lasted for almost a thousand years, but they didn't have the plague to help them and preceding population levels were higher, plus they were much fewer in number and the fields had to be tilled, so the y Dna change was much less. The Scythians were much more exclusive than the Sarmatians etc. for reasons we may never know. The Huns were perhaps the worst of all? Of course they killed a huge percentage of the women as well, totally depopulating certain areas.
A depressing picture indeed.
Dear, dear, first milk drinking and then blonde hair and blue eyes aren't signs of the "superior" Aryans. If Hitler had been freeze dried and resurrected he'd shoot himself in despair. Goebels and that monster wife of his as well. She even killed her own children, so she'd have no problem with it. I just read somewhere that Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler had thought about perhaps exterminating all dark haired people. I guess it had been a while since he had looked in a mirror and actually "seen" himself. What is it about us as human beings that we let such mad men rule us?
To me the Romans are very different from all these "Barbarians". There is a reason we call the Roman Empire the mother of Europe. Bringing infrastructure, wealth, building cities and the Roman way of life to the remotest places of the Empire has nothing to do with Steppe People like the Huns coming in and destroying everything they find on their way.
Y-DNA diversity in the Middle East is way higher than in Europe. There are plenty of haplogroups from the Neolithic Revolution G2a, J1,J2,E,L,T, and so on but also some R1b and R1a. And we don't see huge population turnovers like in Europe, except for one in the Copper Age.
The Nazis really are weirdos to me. Reminds me of a French cartoon. The Aryan Type: Blond like Hitler, Thin like Goering and tall like Goebbels. It's a shame they ruined the ethnic self-designation of the early Iranians.
Last edited: