r1b isn't that much

Mmiikkii

Regular Member
Messages
464
Reaction score
72
Points
28
Ethnic group
southern EUROPEAN
A lot of people see the spread of the "yamnaya men" as a very important event and believe there's a greatness attached to the spread of the Indo-European languages (assuming that R1 carriers from Yamnaya did such a thing) and particularly, something special.


But actually, civilization is quite foreign to the homeland of the Indo-Europeans, even to this very day, Poland isn't the center of civilization, in fact there's evidence that was a less advanced place than their immediate neighbours to the West and South.

So it's unlikely that the Indo-Europeans were a civilization per se, they rather fit with the image of immigrants.
They came from a relatively unknown place, with a lot of good things I don't doubt it, but they WENT TO to another advanced CIVILIZATION.


They're immigrants turned conquerors.
To summarize, they remind me a lot to the Germanic/Barbarians, more than to the "conquering Romans" stereotype.

If you have been paying attention, scholars actually see them as migrants, rather than as the Wagnerian conquerors most consumers of this research believe they were.


In Rome and in Northern Europe, there's a lot more people who are essential to Europe.
 
original The European population was small, so the Yamnaya conquered without resistance
 
A lot of people see the spread of the "yamnaya men" as a very important event and believe there's a greatness attached to the spread of the Indo-European languages (assuming that R1 carriers from Yamnaya did such a thing) and particularly, something special.


But actually, civilization is quite foreign to the homeland of the Indo-Europeans, even to this very day, Poland isn't the center of civilization, in fact there's evidence that was a less advanced place than their immediate neighbours to the West and South.

So it's unlikely that the Indo-Europeans were a civilization per se, they rather fit with the image of immigrants.
They came from a relatively unknown place, with a lot of good things I don't doubt it, but they WENT TO to another advanced CIVILIZATION.


They're immigrants turned conquerors.
To summarize, they remind me a lot to the Germanic/Barbarians, more than to the "conquering Romans" stereotype.

If you have been paying attention, scholars actually see them as migrants, rather than as the Wagnerian conquerors most consumers of this research believe they were.


In Rome and in Northern Europe, there's a lot more people who are essential to Europe.
r1b keeps me smiling.
I am in r1b-L238 (m269 subclade). mostly known as norse..while never being there. LOL.
I was even called native american a few years ago. (proven west europe after all)
I am all irish with one grave on iceland...850CE. We trace to basque heading into 2k years.
From there, we are all hacked by unproven theories.

I was intrigued when they found Amenhotep line of pharaohs was r1b.
I was recently digging at ramses2 Y dna..and found nothing official.
I have been arguing "straight from africa" since my first year of Y dna full testing.
I have been amused ever since.
Stay open to science.
Path of least resistance is the living people. War mongers have war monger theories.
Victims make up victim stories.

ramses2.jpg
Me? I'd rather pretend my irish grandpa was a pharaoh..and smile.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people see the spread of the "yamnaya men" as a very important event and believe there's a greatness attached to the spread of the Indo-European languages (assuming that R1 carriers from Yamnaya did such a thing) and particularly, something special.


But actually, civilization is quite foreign to the homeland of the Indo-Europeans, even to this very day, Poland isn't the center of civilization, in fact there's evidence that was a less advanced place than their immediate neighbours to the West and South.

So it's unlikely that the Indo-Europeans were a civilization per se, they rather fit with the image of immigrants.
They came from a relatively unknown place, with a lot of good things I don't doubt it, but they WENT TO to another advanced CIVILIZATION.

They're immigrants turned conquerors.
To summarize, they remind me a lot to the Germanic/Barbarians, more than to the "conquering Romans" stereotype.

If you have been paying attention, scholars actually see them as migrants, rather than as the Wagnerian conquerors most consumers of this research believe they were.

My dear chap, at the time of the formation of Proto-Indo-European language and ethnicity, which is to say around 5000 to 6000 years ago (Pontic-Caspian Steppe cultures of Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk, Maykop and early Yamnaya), there were no civilised people (by modern standards) anywhere in the world. Agriculture had already spread to most of Eurasia and north Africa. These were very primitive Neolithic farmers, who also had pottery and in some places basic knowledge of early metallurgy (soft metals like copper, silver and gold), but that's about it.

At best there were the first faltering steps of civilisation in ancient Sumer and Egypt, but even there the difference with the rest of Eurasia was minimal. Sumer and Egypt are called the first civilisations because they had what archaeologist like to call "the first cities", but the truth is that these were more like towns of about 10,000 or 20,000 people - smaller in facts than the towns of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (c. 5500 to 2750 BCE) in Moldova and Ukraine, which could exceed 45,000 people around 4000 to 3500 BCE.

In the case of early Egypt, according to Tertius Chandler, Memphis had some 30,000 inhabitants and was by far the largest settlement worldwide from the time of its foundation (c. 3200 BCE) until approximately 2250 BCE.

But these Sumerians and Egyptians were not civilised by the modern understanding of the word. Around 3500 BCE they had no code of law, no mathematics, no science and no literature. Their proto-writing system was so basic it was used mostly for accounting (keeping records of stocks and sales). Literary works would come much later. The Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the oldest known work of literature, dates from 2100 BCE to 1800 BCE, which is to say about 1500 years after the beginning of the Yamnaya culture, 2500 years after the onset of the Sredny Stog culture, and nearly 3000 years after the appearance of the Khvalynsk culture.

In fact the earliest form of writing did not appear in Egypt or Sumer, but in Romania (the Tărtăria tablets) and northern Greece (the Dispilio tablet) around 5300 BCE, which is to say about 2500 years before Sumer and Egypt.

So, no the Yamna people were not poor migrants who invaded "advanced civilisations". In fact they were one of the most technologically advanced people of their age. They had bronze metallurgy and swords before anyone else. They rode horses when no one else did. The West Yamna culture absorbed the Late Trypillian people, who had abandoned their large towns to adopt their neighbours' pastoralist life-style. Together they would move west across Europe and impose their own culture on the Neolithic/Chalcolithic tribes on most of the continent. They could do it because there were no civilisations in Europe back then, no cities, no organised governments, and most importantly because the Yamna people were more advanced (at least militarily with their bronze weapons and horses).

I have a feeling that in your head you associate the Yamna expansion with the Scythians of 3000 years later looting advanced Middle Eastern cities or fighting ancient Greeks and Romans. But that's not at all what the world looked like and how people lived at the time of the Yamna culture.

In Rome and in Northern Europe, there's a lot more people who are essential to Europe.

The ancient Romans (of any period from the Republic to the end of the Empire) are closer in time to us now than they were to the beginning of the Yamna culture (5500 years ago).

Furthermore, you have to understand that the ancient Greeks, Romans, Celts and Germanics are all (partial) descendants of the Yamna people. The descendants of Yamna tribes who migrated west brought Europe into the Bronze Age. Their languages replaced all those of earlier Europeans except the Basques (and ancient Gascons), the Uralics (Estonians, Finns, Saami...) and for a time the Sardinians (until they adopted Latin after being assimilated to Roman society). There would be no ancient European civilisation and no modern Europe without the PIE migrations - or at least nothing recognisable today.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Maciamo.
The original post sounds like some kind of prejudicial cope more than anything really.
 
no the Yamna people were not poor migrants who invaded "advanced civilisations". In fact they were one of the most technologically advanced people of their age. They had bronze metallurgy and swords before anyone else. They rode horses when no one else did.
The descendants of the Yamnaya attacked the Megalithic Cultures, the Indus Valley civilization and they try to set their foothold in the Near East with more limited success.

Horses and bronze already existed in the Near East by the way.

There would be no ancient European civilisation and no modern Europe without the PIE migrations - or at least nothing recognisable today.
There wouldn't be something we could recognize today as (Indo)European, but there could be modernity because, as the reasons to support the point of this thread prove, Yamnaya ancestry isn't what made the world great or advanced.
 
There are those who think the indo european pastoralists were perfect , the height of human species, an anacronistic ideal to be emulated by we super market hunter gatherers resentful modernoids. Deformed ugly imbeciles like that textbook one with the big name 'Bronze age pervert'.
These folks are the post modern left over of cheap fascism mysticism , really depicable lazy bunch, they bring shame to the field of history and archeogenetics and really should be exposed and ignored , but the internet is driving everybody crazy, we ignore what needs attention due to hyper information, to the point you see someone like Lazaridis following that Nrken clown on twitter, utter trash.
Hope this is not a lost cause.
 
I don't think the Vinca-Turdas tablets can be considered as the earliest form of writing.
They were most likely just random pictograms.

Though, these Balkan Chalcolithic cultures were astonishing, from which Yamnaya was influenced in metal working and enhanced it.

Sumerian and Egyptian Civilizations were more well rounded civilizations by all means. They could wage wars and raise armies greater than anyone else, it's just that they weren't exclusively a martial culture, more well-rounded in all aspects.
 
Sumerian and Egyptian Civilizations were more well rounded civilizations by all means. They could wage wars and raise armies greater than anyone else, it's just that they weren't exclusively a martial culture, more well-rounded in all aspects.

The problem when you say "Sumerian and Egyptian Civilizations" is that this encompasses thousands of years of history and could describe radically different societies. The Egypt of 1000 BCE was not at all the same as in 3500 BCE. Ancient Sumer started around 5500 BCE, in the Middle Neolithic! It ends almost 4000 years later, around 1800 BCE, in the Middle Bronze Age. It would be like comparing China of the Qing dynasty (1644-1912) with China of the Xia dynasty (c. 2070-1600 BCE), or comparing Victorian Britain with the late period of Stonehenge! That's why I replied to Mmiikkii's post as I couldn't bear the blatant anachronism.
 
The descendants of the Yamnaya attacked the Megalithic Cultures, the Indus Valley civilization and they try to set their foothold in the Near East with more limited success.

Yes, the descendants of Yamnaya attacked the Megalithic cultures, which for the most part had not even reached the Copper Age, but were still Neolithic farmers with stone tools.

The people who overran the Indus Valley Civilisation around 1500 BCE (nearly 2000 years after the onset of the Yamna culture) were the Indo-Aryans, who themselves descended from the Sintashta culture (c. 2200–1900 BCE), which was overwhelmingly R1a and descended from the Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture (2900-2500 BCE), itself descended from the Corded Ware culture. These are all R1a-dominant cultures, with only a minority of Yamna ancestry that got progressively diluted (from 10-15% of R1b in Corded Ware to less than 5% in Sintashta, the Indo-Aryans and modern Indian Brahmins). So it is very tenuous to say that the descendants of Yamna people invaded the Indus Valley Civilisation. After 2000 years we have so many ancestors and people mix so much that we are not talking about the same ethnic groups any more.

It was the Indo-Iranians (closely related to the Indo-Aryans) who invaded the Middle East from c. 1500 BCE (see history of R1a-Z93).

Horses and bronze already existed in the Near East by the way.

When? At the beginning of the Yamna culture in 3300 BCE? Certainly not. Horses were domesticated in the Middle Volga region between 4000 and 3500 BCE during the Khvalynsk culture, an ancestor of Yamna. Horses didn't reach the Near East until about 2000 BCE, after the disappearance of the Yamna culture.

Chariots were invented c. 2000 BCE in the Ural region during the Sintashta culture. They spread much faster than horses and reached Central Europe, the Middle East, India, China all around 1500 BE.
 
The problem when you say "Sumerian and Egyptian Civilizations" is that this encompasses thousands of years of history and could describe radically different societies. The Egypt of 1000 BCE was not at all the same as in 3500 BCE. Ancient Sumer started around 5500 BCE, in the Middle Neolithic! It ends almost 4000 years later, around 1800 BCE, in the Middle Bronze Age. It would be like comparing China of the Qing dynasty (1644-1912) with China of the Xia dynasty (c. 2070-1600 BCE), or comparing Victorian Britain with the late period of Stonehenge! That's why I replied to Mmiikkii's post as I couldn't bear the blatant anachronism.

Not really, there was no Sumerian Civilization around 5500 B.C (Ubaidian period should not be accounted as Sumerian Civilization). More or less both Sumerian and Egyptian civilization started somewhere in 3200-3000 B.C (with the appearance of complex writing, first city-states etc,etc,etc). With Sumerians initially being conquered by Semitic Akkadians around 2400 B.C then in 2100 B.C having a renaissance with Kingdom of Ur and then again falling and losing their identity forever.

With Egypt it's a bit different, Egyptians continued to exist, just before the Late Bronze Age collapse there was a sort of revival and glimpse of Old Kingdom with the New Kingdom with the likes of Ramses II and Ramses III but after the Bronze Age collapse Egypt was a shadow of itself, constantly being under rule. Although Egypt won the most important Bronze Age battle, Battle of Delta, they never recovered from Bronze Age collapse.

PIE cultural phenomenon is crucial for human civilization without doubt, and at the moment the most influential in the world. But they seem to have been contemporary with both Sumerian and Egyptian Civilizations more or less, somewhere around ~3200 B.C. With Egyptian Civilization spiking around 2700-2500 B.C with the attempts of building gigantic structures that the pyramids are.
 
Last edited:
There are those who think the indo european pastoralists were perfect , the height of human species, an anacronistic ideal to be emulated by we super market hunter gatherers resentful modernoids. Deformed ugly imbeciles like that textbook one with the big name 'Bronze age pervert'.
These folks are the post modern left over of cheap fascism mysticism , really depicable lazy bunch, they bring shame to the field of history and archeogenetics and really should be exposed and ignored , but the internet is driving everybody crazy, we ignore what needs attention due to hyper information, to the point you see someone like Lazaridis following that Nrken clown on twitter, utter trash.
Hope this is not a lost cause.
For Germany, the toxic mysticism of nationalism has replaced what should have been normal nationalism
 

This thread has been viewed 1450 times.

Back
Top