Violence in the Corded Ware Advance against GAC

I agree on ALMOST everything you wrote, and certainly amateur calculators have to be used with a degree of circumspection. The Gedmatch calculators, for example, make more sense if you take a really close look at the spreadsheets. But still, different calculator, very different results - some of them hard to reconcile.

What I find much more troublesome is that the genetic LABS themselves don't seem to agree on much. 23andme says I am 49% Central Europe, when FTDNA makes me 69% British Isles (in Auvergne?). They don't even agree with... themselves sometimes! They change their chips, update your results, and what you get is light-years away from the previous version. Is that science? Science to me means: same causes, same consequences, mechanically, and indefinitely. OK, it's a science which is currently "under construction". But still.

Concerning very deep ancestry, to be fair we must also concede that at some point it must be hard to distinguish between, for example, WHG proper, the Villabruna-like WHG genes that back-migrated to Anatolia before the farmers started moving, the WHG gene substrate in EHG, the CHG inherited by westerners from Kura-Araxes migrations via Anatolia, the CHG inherited via the steppe... It's all the same basic "bricks" that reappear in various places in our genetic buildup.

Why don't those guys sit around a table, discuss things, and homogenize their procedures? They might lose in creativity, but also gain in credibility. And we people might begin to look at our results as reasonably reliable.

I'm not sure it is the good methodology. Reich and Jena already have Hundred of pluridisciplinary Researchers that aligned on a same idea. But how does it tell us if they are right?

If a group of people start to aligned themselves in a same direction, at some point, the idea they promote gonna be Formalized and become standard for everyone. Once again What if they are wrong?

Btw, most of Physics and Mathematics theories are sometimes challenged by Amateurish 12 years old kids, i'm not sure why we should be that focus on " official " scientifical teams. As the exemple of Genetiker, do we know him? what if he is a Master in Genetic or Genomic? What if he have the abilities to do what all big laboratories can, but being independant? I'm not sure with all the values bring into professionnal teams here, they are not different than amateurs in terms of potential Bias, but worst, they have financers...
 
Genetiker lists all the SNP calls. Same methodology as HIrisPlex for pigmentation. His haplogroup calls are generally better and more transparent than those in most papers.

His autosomal work is really bad though.
 
I agree on ALMOST everything you wrote, and certainly amateur calculators have to be used with a degree of circumspection. The Gedmatch calculators, for example, make more sense if you take a really close look at the spreadsheets. But still, different calculator, very different results - some of them hard to reconcile.

What I find much more troublesome is that the genetic LABS themselves don't seem to agree on much. 23andme says I am 49% Central Europe, when FTDNA makes me 69% British Isles (in Auvergne?). They don't even agree with... themselves sometimes! They change their chips, update your results, and what you get is light-years away from the previous version. Is that science? Science to me means: same causes, same consequences, mechanically, and indefinitely. OK, it's a science which is currently "under construction". But still.

Concerning very deep ancestry, to be fair we must also concede that at some point it must be hard to distinguish between, for example, WHG proper, the Villabruna-like WHG genes that back-migrated to Anatolia before the farmers started moving, the WHG gene substrate in EHG, the CHG inherited by westerners from Kura-Araxes migrations via Anatolia, the CHG inherited via the steppe... It's all the same basic "bricks" that reappear in various places in our genetic buildup.

Why don't those guys sit around a table, discuss things, and homogenize their procedures? They might lose in creativity, but also gain in credibility. And we people might begin to look at our results as reasonably reliable.

Thank you, this was exactly my point.
 
I agree on ALMOST everything you wrote, and certainly amateur calculators have to be used with a degree of circumspection. The Gedmatch calculators, for example, make more sense if you take a really close look at the spreadsheets. But still, different calculator, very different results - some of them hard to reconcile.

What I find much more troublesome is that the genetic LABS themselves don't seem to agree on much. 23andme says I am 49% Central Europe, when FTDNA makes me 69% British Isles (in Auvergne?). They don't even agree with... themselves sometimes! They change their chips, update your results, and what you get is light-years away from the previous version. Is that science? Science to me means: same causes, same consequences, mechanically, and indefinitely. OK, it's a science which is currently "under construction". But still.

Concerning very deep ancestry, to be fair we must also concede that at some point it must be hard to distinguish between, for example, WHG proper, the Villabruna-like WHG genes that back-migrated to Anatolia before the farmers started moving, the WHG gene substrate in EHG, the CHG inherited by westerners from Kura-Araxes migrations via Anatolia, the CHG inherited via the steppe... It's all the same basic "bricks" that reappear in various places in our genetic buildup.

Why don't those guys sit around a table, discuss things, and homogenize their procedures? They might lose in creativity, but also gain in credibility. And we people might begin to look at our results as reasonably reliable.

Personal genomics are separate from what the academic labs are doing with ancient dna, where there is general agreement on the major issues, I think.

You're right that the results are very different by company when we're talking about personal genomics. The actual raw data is, of course, the same: it's your genome. The difference is the algorithms and how they group the reference samples, and indeed which reference samples they use, and then how they interpret the results. There's also a difference in what precisely they are marketing.

They would each say, doubtless, that their method is better, so why should they change it?

In their defense, I think it's an almost impossible task.

There are too many layers, and most importantly political boundaries, often only a few hundred or even a thousand years old do not always equate to genetic boundaries. Take my own area as an example, what might be called the hinterlands of the ancient town of Luni on the coast of the Mediterranean in Northwest Italy. It was settled by Neolithic/Cardial farmers, then various Indo-European admixed Bronze Age groups, then Iron Age Gauls, then "Romans" from further south, then some Langobard lords. Let's not forget the Greek traders too. Politically, the people were first part of a "Ligurian" group, then part of Rome, then ruled by Langobards, then split between various medieval kingdoms: some areas ruled by Genova, the capital of Liguria, some by Modena of Emilia, some by the Tuscans under the Medici, some by all three. So, what are the people of the Lunigiana? Are they Emilians, Liguri, Toscani, all three or none of the above? I have ancestry from both Emilia and the heart of the Lunigiana, and even some from La Spezia itself, which has a lot of similarities to Tuscans. On every test I come out as half way between the Lombards of Bergamo and the Tuscans, but not very close to either. So, who is to blame that my fits aren't very good and some are downright terrible?

In terms of Italy again, some of the personal genomics companies have a Southern Italian/Greek cluster. That means that northern Italians would get some of that but also quite a bit of French or German and a lot of northern Balkan. If a company looks at the spread of the data and sets up a separate Greek and and also a separate Italian cluster you're going to get some southern Italians with a lot of "Greek", and some Greeks, especially Greek Islanders and people of the Peloponnese, with a lot of "Italian". Is one better than the other? I don't honestly know. Looking back on my example, if a company created a "Northern Italian" cluster instead of a Balkan cluster, a lot of Balkanites would get a lot of "Italian".

Do you see what I mean?

Or let's look at the people of the "Low Countries" versus England. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which. Northern Europeans as a whole are more homogeneous than Southern Europeans. In Britain, for example, none of their specific WHG survived and almost none of the British Neolithic. So, the big bulk of their ancestry is Beaker, which is a combination of about 50% Late Neolithic (majority EEF/minority WHG) and 50% "steppe", with maybe 60% EHG and 40% Caucasus/Iran like ancestry. That's the same group that went into the Low Countries and France, but perhaps in France more of the EEF survived. There's a cline even in the Low Countries. Then England was invaded by the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, a related people with lots of "steppe", but with more "eastern" ancestry perhaps and drifted enough so that they can perhaps be labeled "Germanic" vs "Celtic". In some areas that becomes 30-40% of the ancestry. Then the Danes/Vikings arrive, who were thought to be very different, but were also Germanics. Then the French arrive, some from areas very "Celtic" like, like Brittany, some with a bit of "Viking" ancestry like Normandy, some from northeast France, and so more "Germanic", but some also from Aquitaine and other southern areas, who are a bit different.

Can you see where there might not be much difference between someone from eastern England and Jutland, or Holland? Or someone from Brittany versus Cornwall? Or looking south, someone from Aquitaine and someone from far northern Spain?

France is particularly difficult because so little genetic testing has been done there. There's an old sample taken from students at the university in Lyon and a few from somewhere in southwestern France. So, how are the French going to test? Well, given that a lot of them have quite a bit of "Beaker"ancestry and the British have as well, they're going to get a fair percentage of "English" or British. The ones in the southwest as going to have a lot of "Spanish" perhaps, and the northern Spanish might get a lot of French.

Those country designations are just names, arbitrary names drawn on a map. Yes, they are barriers to gene flow to some degree, more so in places isolated by the Alps and Sea like Italy, and therefore create some drift, and they're certainly different culturally, but genes are no respecters of lines on a map.

It's my opinion that we're almost asking these companies to do the impossible. If you want to know the genealogy of your family, where they came from for hundreds and hundreds of years, then a family tree is the best bet. You get more understanding of your genetics by learning of the different migrations to your ancestral areas than by some of these tests.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

I've been at this for more than ten years and that's what I've concluded. As for which companies are "better", imo ancestry and 23andme are the most reliable. At least with 23andme they don't just rely on the few samples in academic papers, but include the genomes of their customers. I think perhaps Ancestry is also starting to do that? I think My Heritage is terrible, and so is Living DNA, but again, that's just my opinion.
 
Personal genomics are separate from what the academic labs are doing with ancient dna, where there is general agreement on the major issues, I think.
You're right that the results are very different by company when we're talking about personal genomics. The actual raw data is, of course, the same: it's your genome. The difference is the algorithms and how they group the reference samples, and indeed which reference samples they use, and then how they interpret the results. There's also a difference in what precisely they are marketing.
They would each say, doubtless, that their method is better, so why should they change it?
In their defense, I think it's an almost impossible task.
There are too many layers, and most importantly political boundaries, often only a few hundred or even a thousand years old do not always equate to genetic boundaries. Take my own area as an example, what might be called the hinterlands of the ancient town of Luni on the coast of the Mediterranean in Northwest Italy. It was settled by Neolithic/Cardial farmers, then various Indo-European admixed Bronze Age groups, then Iron Age Gauls, then "Romans" from further south, then some Langobard lords. Let's not forget the Greek traders too. Politically, the people were first part of a "Ligurian" group, then part of Rome, then ruled by Langobards, then split between various medieval kingdoms: some areas ruled by Genova, the capital of Liguria, some by Modena of Emilia, some by the Tuscans under the Medici, some by all three. So, what are the people of the Lunigiana? Are they Emilians, Liguri, Toscani, all three or none of the above? I have ancestry from both Emilia and the heart of the Lunigiana, and even some from La Spezia itself, which has a lot of similarities to Tuscans. On every test I come out as half way between the Lombards of Bergamo and the Tuscans, but not very close to either. So, who is to blame that my fits aren't very good and some are downright terrible?
In terms of Italy again, some of the personal genomics companies have a Southern Italian/Greek cluster. That means that northern Italians would get some of that but also quite a bit of French or German and a lot of northern Balkan. If a company looks at the spread of the data and sets up a separate Greek and and also a separate Italian cluster you're going to get some southern Italians with a lot of "Greek", and some Greeks, especially Greek Islanders and people of the Peloponnese, with a lot of "Italian". Is one better than the other? I don't honestly know. Looking back on my example, if a company created a "Northern Italian" cluster instead of a Balkan cluster, a lot of Balkanites would get a lot of "Italian".
Do you see what I mean?
Or let's look at the people of the "Low Countries" versus England. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which. Northern Europeans as a whole are more homogeneous than Southern Europeans. In Britain, for example, none of their specific WHG survived and almost none of the British Neolithic. So, the big bulk of their ancestry is Beaker, which is a combination of about 50% Late Neolithic (majority EEF/minority WHG) and 50% "steppe", with maybe 60% EHG and 40% Caucasus/Iran like ancestry. That's the same group that went into the Low Countries and France, but perhaps in France more of the EEF survived. There's a cline even in the Low Countries. Then England was invaded by the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, a related people with lots of "steppe", but with more "eastern" ancestry perhaps and drifted enough so that they can perhaps be labeled "Germanic" vs "Celtic". In some areas that becomes 30-40% of the ancestry. Then the Danes/Vikings arrive, who were thought to be very different, but were also Germanics. Then the French arrive, some from areas very "Celtic" like, like Brittany, some with a bit of "Viking" ancestry like Normandy, some from northeast France, and so more "Germanic", but some also from Aquitaine and other southern areas, who are a bit different.
Can you see where there might not be much difference between someone from eastern England and Jutland, or Holland? Or someone from Brittany versus Cornwall? Or looking south, someone from Aquitaine and someone from far northern Spain?
France is particularly difficult because so little genetic testing has been done there. There's an old sample taken from students at the university in Lyon and a few from somewhere in southwestern France. So, how are the French going to test? Well, given that a lot of them have quite a bit of "Beaker"ancestry and the British have as well, they're going to get a fair percentage of "English" or British. The ones in the southwest as going to have a lot of "Spanish" perhaps, and the northern Spanish might get a lot of French.
Those country designations are just names, arbitrary names drawn on a map. Yes, they are barriers to gene flow to some degree, more so in places isolated by the Alps and Sea like Italy, and therefore create some drift, and they're certainly different culturally, but genes are no respecters of lines on a map.
It's my opinion that we're almost asking these companies to do the impossible. If you want to know the genealogy of your family, where they came from for hundreds and hundreds of years, then a family tree is the best bet. You get more understanding of your genetics by learning of the different migrations to your ancestral areas than by some of these tests.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
I've been at this for more than ten years and that's what I've concluded. As for which companies are "better", imo ancestry and 23andme are the most reliable. At least with 23andme they don't just rely on the few samples in academic papers, but include the genomes of their customers. I think perhaps Ancestry is also starting to do that? I think My Heritage is terrible, and so is Living DNA, but again, that's just my opinion.

Quite thorough, and quite convincing. Maybe I expected too much of them. But look at my own case: I know I inherited genes from La Tène and Haslstatt Celts, and beyond that from Bell Beakers. I know southern Germany inherited a share of the same. I know Beakers invaded Britain. But I also inherited much from an Iberian-like farmer substrate. This should make it possible for a company to place me on a map more precisely than by saying I am 49% German-like, or 69% Irish-like. Maybe they shouldn't call it "ancestry", but specify it's a "ratio of shared ancestry" with given populations. It would be clearer. But of course, it might not sell so well.

To be fair, in spite of all the inconsistencies I mentioned upthread, I have somehow managed to work my way through that muddle to fairly clear conclusions in terms of my own ancestry. Maybe Halfalp is right somehow, and by combining the approximations of the various calculators, we can sketch out something satisfactory in the end. But I have been hard at it for months, cross-checking data and results, reading papers and comments, etc. I am not sure every customer of these genomic companies goes to such lengths to sort it all out. Some people can end up feeling perplexed, or sceptical, or unsettled.

I also agree that a family tree is a precious thing to have. Mine reaches back to the mid 1500s. But I'll never get beyond that, for lack of archives. Genetics has to take over at some point.
 
Quite thorough, and quite convincing. Maybe I expected too much of them. But look at my own case: I know I inherited genes from La Tène and Haslstatt Celts, and beyond that from Bell Beakers. I know southern Germany inherited a share of the same. I know Beakers invaded Britain. But I also inherited much from an Iberian-like farmer substrate. This should make it possible for a company to place me on a map more precisely than by saying I am 49% German-like, or 69% Irish-like. Maybe they shouldn't call it "ancestry", but specify it's a "ratio of shared ancestry" with given populations. It would be clearer. But of course, it might not sell so well.
To be fair, in spite of all the inconsistencies I mentioned upthread, I have somehow managed to work my way through that muddle to fairly clear conclusions in terms of my own ancestry. Maybe Halfalp is right somehow, and by combining the approximations of the various calculators, we can sketch out something satisfactory in the end. But I have been hard at it for months, cross-checking data and results, reading papers and comments, etc. I am not sure every customer of these genomic companies goes to such lengths to sort it all out. Some people can end up feeling perplexed, or sceptical, or unsettled.
I also agree that a family tree is a precious thing to have. Mine reaches back to the mid 1500s. But I'll never get beyond that, for lack of archives. Genetics has to take over at some point.

Mine too, although in my father's case there are scattered references back a couple of hundred years. We're both very lucky.

What does that tell me? It tells me I'm Italian, more particularly an Italian with ancestry from right where I surmised, mostly the area between Parma, La Spezia and Toscana. I know just from the papers on ancient dna that means I'm heavily EEF, with some later steppe ancestry.

The ancient dna papers, and even just archaeology and history also tell me generally what groups went into the mix in my area(s). It would be interesting to know how much Gallic I have, how much "Roman", how much Etruscan, do I have some of that Langobard etc. Perhaps upcoming papers will fill in some of the gaps. It's all very interesting, but it's not essential to me, because it doesn't change the only identity that matters to me.

We're all different, and we all want different things from this.
 
it's sad that Neolithic farming communities experienced terrible tragedies such as this one
 
Yes indeed, all the Neolithic male y was almost wiped out (but not the mtDan) by some special disease that only afflicted Neolithic men. Please!

Goodness, what happened to all the Eurogenes type bragging about all the blonde, Conan like barbarians from the steppes who killed all the men and took all the women? Is everyone trying to clean up their act?

@half alp,
Nobody's results about anything should be taken at face value. The snps used and the methodology used should be published, i.e. transparent, so that others can see if the results can be duplicated.

I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

But in this specific case the women were also killed, so it doesn't look like the typical thing like "they came, killed the males and took the women as wives or sexual slaves".

In any case, I believe there was a lot of warfare and post-war violence heavily skewed towards the males during the IEization of Europe (and elsewhere), but I also think that a significant part of that reduction in pre-IE Y-DNA lines came through "subtler" forms of violence like a strong social hierarchy, slavery or servitude, lower social and economic status, loss of property to the incoming males and so on (all of that is particularly harmful in a society with well accepted polygamy), which severely reduced their reproductive success along several generations.
 
don't blame nature, today even many people have not problems with massacres, they just are well shrouded by high egos delivering unsane supremacism which delivers racism, so that even not having hunger or any blood revenge they act against other races like against rats or somelike.
http://en.lisapoyakama.org/the-namibian-genocide/
 
But in this specific case the women were also killed, so it doesn't look like the typical thing like "they came, killed the males and took the women as wives or sexual slaves".

In any case, I believe there was a lot of warfare and post-war violence heavily skewed towards the males during the IEization of Europe (and elsewhere), but I also think that a significant part of that reduction in pre-IE Y-DNA lines came through "subtler" forms of violence like a strong social hierarchy, slavery or servitude, lower social and economic status, loss of property to the incoming males and so on (all of that is particularly harmful in a society with well accepted polygamy), which severely reduced their reproductive success along several generations.

Yes, I agree with that. I just think it's clear that violence was a part of it. If nothing else, it's just the pattern everywhere in almost every place and era. Terrible but true, as Bicicleur said.

Kristiansen has something to say about it in general terms. You can start around eleven minutes in because first he discusses the plague pandemics.


As to whether this is inter-GAC violence or CW versus GAC we may never know, but this is the time of the CW advance. They were around them. My profession taught me one thing, coincidences are almost always suspect. :) As for why women were killed, maybe they did take some of the younger ones with them, maybe not. I'm sure it depended on how many they needed at a particular time. CW wasn't a sophisticated culture with huge latifundia to be farmed or monumental structures to be built, for that matter. I think there would have been a limit on how many they could absorb. Enough, eventually, so that most northern Europeans are about half steppe, but not all. Plus, we know from that paper and note from the Reich Lab last year, and from the mtDna that they brought some women with them.

The cultural aspects are also extremely interesting. As I said, GAC culture was very Yamnaya like, so Yamnaya like that Gimbutas thought they were steppe people. Quite a few papers recently have proposed that many of these adaptations to a changing climate, like more mobility, more reliance on herding, etc. actually started in "Europe" and moved onto the steppe before moving back.

It's also interesting that although apparently patrilineal and patrilocal, there was great care taken in burying children near their mothers. I don't remember anything like that from the steppe burials all the way down to the Langobards, although maybe there were some.

Ed. Meanwhile, on the sites you would guess, the obsession, with tens and tens and maybe a hundred posts is their damn pigmentation. It never ends.
 
don't blame nature, today even many people have not problems with massacres, they just are well shrouded by high egos delivering unsane supremacism which delivers racism, so that even not having hunger or any blood revenge they act against other races like against rats or somelike.
http://en.lisapoyakama.org/the-namibian-genocide/

Are GAC and CWC supposed to be different Races? Why are you infusing Racial Prejudice into this topic?
 
But in this specific case the women were also killed, so it doesn't look like the typical thing like "they came, killed the males and took the women as wives or sexual slaves".

In any case, I believe there was a lot of warfare and post-war violence heavily skewed towards the males during the IEization of Europe (and elsewhere), but I also think that a significant part of that reduction in pre-IE Y-DNA lines came through "subtler" forms of violence like a strong social hierarchy, slavery or servitude, lower social and economic status, loss of property to the incoming males and so on (all of that is particularly harmful in a society with well accepted polygamy), which severely reduced their reproductive success along several generations.

Slaves probably aren't that valuable in the absence of a sophisticated economy. If you peruse the accounts of tribal warfare in the Vedas or the Old Testament, the things that stand out as being most desired by the herdsmen are livestock and shiny objects.
 
Almost always things are not as they seem. An assault by surprise would have shown generalized blows in many parts of the body and nevertheless the corpses presented all blows to the head. An assaulting group at that time with that degree of perfection I doubt would incline me more for a murderer or murderers of the same group than the victims. Perhaps a man or two who had been rejected by the group for X reasons and then knowing the customs of the group would have agreed with some deception to the group after absent men and would have committed mass murder in a perfectionist way and by surprise with blows to the head since a surprise assault I believe would have caused different types of widespread injuries in different parts of the body of the victims.

So my conclusion is that the murderer or murderers belonged to the same family or very close group that would have taken revenge for some offer received perhaps expulsion from the group and if they could not enjoy the advantages of the group they would leave the group without men who had expelled them from the group that should be the men who had gone out to hunt etc
 
A sacrifice I think would have involved a kind of ritual and a different staging where they would have sacrificed only to women or children or some man, but just as a whole family is something very dirty, it would not be to the liking of the Gods. Killing blows on the head is very atavistic, very familiar, and I think that the executor or executors must have felt very offended, hurt and humiliated with this murdered tribe and for that reason they crush their heads, the structure from which the thoughts and ideas that must have offened the murderer who must be closely related to them.
 
Gentlemen,

A huge majority of the ancient samples we have who met a violent death were first beaten over the head with either an ax or a club. Other than an occasional arrow or dagger wound that's all they had. There's nothing unusual about it. This was still basically the stone age, with copper and bronze just starting to make an appearance, and the property of only the very elite.

There are no defensive wounds. This was not a battle or even much of a struggle. These people, predominantly women and children of a small settlement, were clearly unaware of their danger, captured, perhaps when sleeping or eating and going about their work, and then executed, as there are no defensive wounds on the corpses.

It's highly unlikely there was anything ritualistic about it, as nothing was done to the bodies. The heads were not removed, as was often done by the later groups called "Celts", to skin and dry and make drinking cups, or just to hand on belts or put on stakes around their homes. Their chests don't seem to have been ripped open to get at the heart and on and on.

It happened often between various human groups. There's nothing "warriorly" about it no matter who did it. You should read the accounts of what was done to American Indian villages.

The butchery went in both directions.
"n 1782, a group of Moravian Protestants in Ohio killed 96 Christianized Delaware Indians, illustrating the growing contempt for native people. Captain David Williamson ordered the converted Delawares, who had been blamed for attacks on white settlements, to go to the cooper shop two at a time, where militiamen beat them to death with wooden mallets and hatchets."


"Annuities and provisions promised to Indians through government treaties were slow in being delivered, leaving Dakota Sioux people, who were restricted to reservation lands on the Minnesota frontier, starving and desperate. After a raid of nearby white farms for food turned into a deadly encounter, Dakotas continued raiding, leading to the Little Crow War of 1862, in which 490 settlers, mostly women and children, were killed. President Lincoln sent soldiers, who defeated the Dakota; and after a series of mass trials, more than 300 Dakota men were sentenced to death.While Lincoln commuted most of the sentences, on the day after Christmas at Mankato, military officials hung 38 Dakotas at once—the largest mass execution in American history. More than 4,000 people gathered in the streets to watch, many bringing picnic baskets. The 38 were buried in a shallow grave along the Minnesota River, but physicians dug up most of the bodies to use as medical cadavers."

There's nothing "romantic" or "honorable" about this kind of warfare.
 
we know of european early neolithic mass graves with men, women, old people and children. sometimes women age range 15-30 are underrepresented. this always happened andbit's not something tied to a specific culture. i highly doubt those late neolithic people weremuch more peacefull people. there is certainly a possibility that they were also fighting among each other and did not unite against CWC. actually maybe them fighting each other could have been a cause for CW success who knows. looking at human history this happened very often when people wre fighting each other or they did not want to unite and then a third one uses it as an advantage.
 
Last edited:
How a whole family died in their Minnesota mansion
The father shot each of his three children in their rooms in their heads. The wife heard the shots and wanted to call 911, but could not: she was also shot. Finally, the man committed suicide.
https://www.clarin.com/sociedad/m
innesota-minneapolis-mansion-familia-asesinada-muerta-eeuu_0_Bye_MQYDXe.html


Spooky: reveal how they massacred 8 relatives
As confirmed by the preliminary forensic report, released last week, all the victims received several bullets, mostly in the head.
https://www.clarin.com/sociedad/min...milia-asesinada-muerta-eeuu_0_Bye_MQYDXe.html

There are hundreds more cases all over the internet of blows to the head or head as a target to kill and in most cases are ex, ex-boyfriend, e.t.c. or people who have had a very close relationship with the family.


I still think that killing blows to the head at present with bullets is very familiar and involves a lot of aggression and a very big feeling of offering in the murderer for having been related to strong ties with relatives or the group he has murdered.
 
You guys are giving late neolithic people too much credit. Even in antiquity no one had any qualms about killing people and taking their stuff, which is the most likely what happened here.

It was almost universal, and West Eurasia looks comparatively tame even. Research, for instance, the mass graves in MLBA China for a more impressive and gruesome archaeological record of male-driven expansion.
 
Considering the execution like death and the respectful burial, couldn't it be a sacrifice?

are we sure the killers were the "buriers"? of same family? of same tribe? of same ethny?
 

This thread has been viewed 31890 times.

Back
Top