The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
This Joke Never Gets Old
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The new science of ancient DNA has been revealing that prehistoric migrations were sometimes apocalyptically genocidal, which leads many academics to try to distract from the contemporary implications by coming up with the most tedious euphemisms they can think of.

From the BBC today:

Stonehenge: DNA reveals origin of builders
By Paul Rincon
Science editor, BBC News website
16 April 2019

The ancestors of the people who built Stonehenge travelled west across the Mediterranean before reaching Britain, a study has shown.

Researchers compared DNA extracted from Neolithic human remains found across Britain with that of people alive at the same time in Europe.

The Neolithic inhabitants appear to have travelled from Anatolia (modern Turkey) to Iberia before winding their way north.

They reached Britain in about 4,000BC.

Details have been published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution.

The migration to Britain was just one part of a general, massive expansion of people out of Anatolia in 6,000 BC that introduced farming to Europe.

Before that, Europe was populated by small, travelling groups which hunted animals and gathered wild plants and shellfish.

The dominant anthropological theory before geneticist Cavalli-Sforza in the late 20th Century was that, well, sure, agriculture was invented in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, but the farmers probably just taught their friends the European hunter-gatherers how to farm. C-S came up with the then radical idea that maybe the process wasn’t purely Pots Not People, but more like 50% technology diffusion and 50% migration: maybe some of the Fertile Crescent farmers moved west, taking over European terrain from the hunter-gatherers.

One group of early farmers followed the river Danube up into Central Europe, but another group travelled west across the Mediterranean.

DNA reveals that Neolithic Britons were largely descended from groups who took the Mediterranean route, either hugging the coast or hopping from island-to-island on boats. Some British groups had a minor amount of ancestry from groups that followed the Danube route.

But the reality was more like Cavalli-Sforza on steroids.

When the researchers analysed the DNA of early British farmers, they found they most closely resembled Neolithic people from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal). These Iberian farmers were descended from people who had journeyed across the Mediterranean. …

In addition to farming, the Neolithic migrants to Britain appear to have introduced the tradition of building monuments using large stones known as megaliths. Stonehenge in Wiltshire was part of this tradition.

Although Britain was inhabited by groups of “western hunter-gatherers” when the farmers arrived in about 4,000BC, DNA shows that the two groups did not mix very much at all.

The British hunter-gatherers were almost completely replaced by the Neolithic farmers, apart from one group in western Scotland, where the Neolithic inhabitants had elevated local ancestry. This could have come down to the farmer groups simply having greater numbers. …

The study also analysed DNA from these British hunter-gatherers. One of the skeletons analysed was that of Cheddar Man, whose skeletal remains have been dated to 7,100BC.

He was the subject of a reconstruction unveiled at the Natural History Museum last year. DNA suggests that, like most other European hunter-gatherers of the time, he had dark skin combined with blue eyes.

Genetic analysis shows that the Neolithic farmers, by contrast, were paler-skinned with brown eyes and black or dark-brown hair.

Towards the end of the Neolithic, in about 2,450BC, the descendents of the first farmers were themselves almost entirely replaced when a new population – called the Bell Beaker people

A.k.a., the Yamnaya, or the Battle Axe Culture, or as Nietzsche would have thought of them, the Aryans. But it’s much better to name them after their pottery style, because otherwise boys, who are icky, might get interested in the subject.

– migrated from mainland Europe. So Britain saw two extreme genetic shifts in the space of a few thousand years.

Prof Thomas said that this later event happened after the Neolithic population had been in decline for some time, both in Britain and across Europe. He cautioned against simplistic explanations invoking conflict, and said the shifts ultimately came down to “economic” factors, about which lifestyles were best suited to exploit the landscape.

One population preferred a lifestyle of farming your ancestors’ fields. The other population preferred a lifestyle of crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of their women.

 
Hide 82 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Couldn’t they all just get along? Coexist!

  2. Anonymous[206] • Disclaimer says:

    A few points I find interesting. From Wikipedia, but based on real scientific papers:

    1. Wilde et al. (2014) and Haak et al. (2015) found that the intrusive Yamna population, generally inferred to be the first speakers of an Indo-European language in the Corded Ware culture zone, were overwhelmingly dark-eyed (brown), dark-haired and had a skin colour that was moderately light, though somewhat darker than that of the average modern European.

    2. Goldberg et al. (2016) found that Neolithic farming migration into Europe “was driven by mass migration of both males and females in roughly equal numbers, perhaps whole families”, while Bronze Age Pontic steppe “migration and cultural shift were instead driven by male migration, potentially connected to new technology and conquest.

    So the Aryans invaded Europe, just like they did so many other societies, and today’s Europeans are a mixed population. Like modern Mexicans, only with the relative light-skinnedness of the invader and invaded being inverted.

    I don’t know if I’d agree with the characterization of them as blond beasts, they seem more like Central Asian brunette beasts who shacked up with lighter-skinned native European women.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    Barbarians Prefer Blondes.
    , @Anonymous
    Yep,

    But it's the later Steppe folk, the Steppe LBA people, the Sintashta and Corded Ware folk, the people who invaded India and Iran, who *were* 'proper' white people, who claim all the glory.
  3. interesting…the mainstream theory after the 1960s is that Stonehenge was built by pre-Celtic Britons, and therefore non Indo-Europeans. The date Stonehenge it’s believed to be build, around 2000 BC, it’s way before the (up to now) generally agreed date of arrival of Indoeuropeans to the British isles.

    • Replies: @Escher
    How did they do it without Mexican labor?
    , @Anonymous

    pre-Celtic Britons, and therefore non Indo-Europeans.
     
    Why aren't the pre-Celtic Britons considered to be Indo-Europeans?
  4. Did they remember to illustrate “people from prehistoric Iberia” with photographs of Moor-mixed moderns or was that implied?

  5. And one population prefers to lie upon the ground with their asses in the air, chanting to their bloodthirsty deity, praying for and planning your death, while you praise them for their peacefulness. In 5000 years you will be known as the Eunuch People who went extinct while waiting for permission from Health and Safety to change a light bulb while the daughters of your peasantry were raped.

    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Bard of Bumperstickers
    It's cold comfort to know that those supplanters won't be able to even manufacture light bulbs.
    , @dr kill
    I rate this comment as mostly true.
  6. The Yamnaya just wanted ‘a better life ‘

    • Replies: @Desert cow
    They were "a gift of love"
  7. Kill all the men, seize their wealth and take their wives and daughters to your bosom. Standard Genghis Khan stuff but very effective. I recommend it heartily.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    As a white guy, I can understand their wanting our wives and daughters, but it doesn't follow that I have the same desire for their wives and daughters.
  8. @Anonymous
    A few points I find interesting. From Wikipedia, but based on real scientific papers:

    1. Wilde et al. (2014) and Haak et al. (2015) found that the intrusive Yamna population, generally inferred to be the first speakers of an Indo-European language in the Corded Ware culture zone, were overwhelmingly dark-eyed (brown), dark-haired and had a skin colour that was moderately light, though somewhat darker than that of the average modern European.

    2. Goldberg et al. (2016) found that Neolithic farming migration into Europe "was driven by mass migration of both males and females in roughly equal numbers, perhaps whole families", while Bronze Age Pontic steppe "migration and cultural shift were instead driven by male migration, potentially connected to new technology and conquest.

    So the Aryans invaded Europe, just like they did so many other societies, and today's Europeans are a mixed population. Like modern Mexicans, only with the relative light-skinnedness of the invader and invaded being inverted.

    I don't know if I'd agree with the characterization of them as blond beasts, they seem more like Central Asian brunette beasts who shacked up with lighter-skinned native European women.

    Barbarians Prefer Blondes.

    • Replies: @Spangel
    Oh the yamnaya preferred everything so long as it was female. That’s why they succeeded in replacing or providing substantial admixture to populations from Iberia to the Himalayas.
    , @Anonymous

    Barbarians Prefer Blondes.
     
    and who doesn't??
  9. If the “British hunter-gatherers” were exterminated, then why are so many inhabitants of present-day Cheddar descended from Cheddar Man? You guys don’t read the news much.

    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    They weren't exterminated. My Y DNA Haplotype is I2a Isles. I'm descended from them. There were never very many of them, and a good many drowned when the English Channel suddenly filled up.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide
    The TMCRA estimates in our line shows a bottleneck occurred around that same time.
    We are most numerous in Western Ireland, but I'm from a tiny group that managed to survive in Scotland.
    They lived in small band, and tended to be nomadic. The EEF's formed much larger communities, and stayed put. There were many more of them than there were of us.
  10. I really doubt that anybody living at 56°N back then would have anything like dark skin as we know it today. At most I could see them being like Eskimos, the darkest of all the boreal peoples, but yet lighter than average for the world. The genes they found can clear this up, but the stories are leaving out the details.

  11. “A.k.a., the Yamnaya, or the Battle Axe Culture, or as Nietzsche would have thought of them, the Aryans”

    The Yamnaya in the early Bronze Age Black Sea littoral were Aryan, yes. Their male genome was disproportionate R1a which is highly associated with Iranian and northern Indic upper-castes. And the languages are disproportionate Satem-branch (or close-enough, like the Greeks).

    The Battle Axe Culture weren’t Yamnaya in culture and weren’t R1a in genetics, though. They’re the “Corded Ware” bunch, to the northwest of Yamnaya. Their genes were R1b or even I. As for the languages, they tended to the more-conservative Celtic and Italic groups. (This before we open that “Bell Beaker” can o’ worms.)

    I’d like to see the Bell Beaker Blogger, Davidski from the Eurogenes blog, and of course Razib to get together on this one, have a few drinks, and hash it all out. In the meantime, let’s not muddy the Yamnaya / Aryan connexion with the Battle Axe bunch; these groups were separate. Or at least became separate very early.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Actually, 'Corded Ware' was mostly R1a.

    The 'Germanic' ethnogenesis is problematic.

    As a language, 'root' Germanic is of surprisingly recent provenance, dating back to the iron age. It is noted for a strong 'non IE' substrate. One theory has it that Germanic is due to a mixed population of those of I haplotype farmer origin, in Denmark and south Sweden, mixing with an R1a Corded Ware group speaking an IE tongue allied to Balto-Slavic. From what we know of philology, this theory has explanatory power.
  12. We are all descended from conquerors and the conquered. Quit trying to lay guilt on others for your current situation, blaming it on the ancestors of another group. “Your great-great grandpa pissed off my great-great grandpa, so you owe me money forever!” Everyone has such a beef, so back off.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Everyone has such a beef, so back off.
     
    No, neither you nor I do.

    If we care to, it is not difficult to indentify who does have such a beef, who taught them to, and who hired the teachers. That is where we will find the solution to our problem.
    , @anon

    “Your great-great grandpa pissed off my great-great grandpa, so you owe me money forever!”
     
    do tell, katz
  13. @Redneck farmer
    Barbarians Prefer Blondes.

    Oh the yamnaya preferred everything so long as it was female. That’s why they succeeded in replacing or providing substantial admixture to populations from Iberia to the Himalayas.

  14. @obwandiyag
    If the "British hunter-gatherers" were exterminated, then why are so many inhabitants of present-day Cheddar descended from Cheddar Man? You guys don't read the news much.

    They weren’t exterminated. My Y DNA Haplotype is I2a Isles. I’m descended from them. There were never very many of them, and a good many drowned when the English Channel suddenly filled up.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide
    The TMCRA estimates in our line shows a bottleneck occurred around that same time.
    We are most numerous in Western Ireland, but I’m from a tiny group that managed to survive in Scotland.
    They lived in small band, and tended to be nomadic. The EEF’s formed much larger communities, and stayed put. There were many more of them than there were of us.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    Hmmmm....

    What is the link of Storegga slides (latest ~ 6150 BC) to the Return of the Honored Others (~ 4000 BC)?
  15. @Andy
    interesting...the mainstream theory after the 1960s is that Stonehenge was built by pre-Celtic Britons, and therefore non Indo-Europeans. The date Stonehenge it's believed to be build, around 2000 BC, it's way before the (up to now) generally agreed date of arrival of Indoeuropeans to the British isles.

    How did they do it without Mexican labor?

  16. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Redneck farmer
    Barbarians Prefer Blondes.

    Barbarians Prefer Blondes.

    and who doesn’t??

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna



    Barbarians Prefer Blondes.

     

    and who doesn’t??

     

    Well, Europeans now, and increasingly Americans. They all prefer Africans, because they are good little boys and girls and they do whatever teevee tells them to.
  17. The other population preferred a lifestyle of crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of their women.

    The “other population” is Democrats. That is why they work so hard to take away our guns.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The “other population” is Democrats. That is why they work so hard to take away our guns.
     
    For a long, long time. The camel's nose.
  18. “He cautioned against simplistic explanations invoking conflict, and said the shifts ultimately came down to “economic” factors, about which lifestyles were best suited to exploit the landscape.”

    Oh, so it’s all about having a strong economy. I read somewhere that when the discussion goes from comparing past and present per capita income to talking about “having a strong economy” it means you’re being replaced.

  19. There are better records for Tamerlane’s conquests than even the Mongol conquests (and let’s not split hairs).

    The pretty women, the girls, the fair boys and the skilled tradesmen were spared. (Look at modern day Samarkand – a wonder). All else were pyramids of skulls.

    In the ancient dna, a lot of the change was y chromosomes. Because they killed the local men. Just like North America.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Because they killed the local men. Just like North America.
     
    When do you say "the local men" were killed in North America?
    , @Logan
    The British were among the few settlers who didn't kill the local men and take their women for themselves. Probably because they brought their families with them and their wives wouldn't let them.

    The Spanish and Portuguese settlers famously did not bring their women along, so the mestizo race was born. In Canada the voyagers didn't have their own women, and the Metis came into existence. The habitant farmers of Quebec did emigrate as families and they were no more mixed than the British settlers.

  20. Ancestry didn’t report my Y chromosome.

    As an icky boy which service reveals my y lineage.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    23 and me gives Y chromosome lineage and mitochondrial DNA. Ancestry only reports autosomal.
    I’m a living demonstration of the premise under consideration here.
    I’m R1B from my father, and from my mother? U5a. Same as Cheddar Man, whose 9000 year old bones were found in Cheddar Gorge in England
  21. “…and hearing the lamentation of their women….”

    The translation I first ran across, perhaps a less bowdlerized rendition, read something like “..and hear the cries of their women as they lie under you…”, which might go further towards explaining the sudden change in genetics associated with these migrations.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/23975/what-was-the-context-of-this-famous-genghis-khan-quote

    A commenter writes:


    I found a similar quote in Rashid-ad-din, (=Rashid al Din (1247-1318) in Wikipedia), Collection of chronicles, vol. 1, book 2 (Russian edition, 1952). The chapter is called Tales on Genghiz Khan, on his laudable features, qualities of his soul, etc. [very long title].

    I translate the relevant place (from the Russian): Once Genghiz Khan asked Boorchi-noyon who was the chief of the emirs, what is the greatest joy and pleasure for a man. Boorchi said: "That a man takes a falcon.... etc. [about hunting]

    Then Genghis Khan said to Boragul: "You say too!" And Boragul said....[also something about hunting].

    Then Cenghiz Khan asked the sons of Khublai. [they also replied something about hunting]

    Then Genghiz Khan was willing to say: "You did not answer well! The greatest pleasure and joy for a man is to suppress a rebel and to defeat an enemy, uproot him and take everything he possesses, force his married women cry with tears, and to sit on his good and nice horses, and to make his beautiful wives.... [I cannot translate into English in a public site, what he proposes to do to those beautiful wives].

    The whole chapter in Rashid is about 10 pages of such stories and quotations of Genghiz Khan.

     

    Ghenghiz: Out of the hood and loving it!
  22. @Hannah Katz
    We are all descended from conquerors and the conquered. Quit trying to lay guilt on others for your current situation, blaming it on the ancestors of another group. "Your great-great grandpa pissed off my great-great grandpa, so you owe me money forever!" Everyone has such a beef, so back off.

    Everyone has such a beef, so back off.

    No, neither you nor I do.

    If we care to, it is not difficult to indentify who does have such a beef, who taught them to, and who hired the teachers. That is where we will find the solution to our problem.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Notice the Board here:

    https://www.city-journal.org/university-of-tulsa
  23. @Anonymous

    Barbarians Prefer Blondes.
     
    and who doesn't??

    Barbarians Prefer Blondes.

    and who doesn’t??

    Well, Europeans now, and increasingly Americans. They all prefer Africans, because they are good little boys and girls and they do whatever teevee tells them to.

  24. @trelane
    Kill all the men, seize their wealth and take their wives and daughters to your bosom. Standard Genghis Khan stuff but very effective. I recommend it heartily.

    As a white guy, I can understand their wanting our wives and daughters, but it doesn’t follow that I have the same desire for their wives and daughters.

    • Replies: @jbwilson24
    "As a white guy, I can understand their wanting our wives and daughters"

    Taking a look at the average white woman these days, I wonder why ANYONE would want them.

    One of the other stories on the site shows the average weight of working class women in the USA at 176 lbs. That's more than a fit working class male weighed in 1950. We've raised generations of lard butts with bad tempers, entitlement complexes, and mental illness.

    It's no wonder a lot of white men prefer asian women, to be honest.
  25. It does get wearisome, actually. The other night, laying in bed, watching a BBC documentary on the Icelandic sagas, and it was narrated by a lovely chirpy feminist type. Who proceeded to inform me that Iceland was really a “lovely multicultural stew” because all the Norse who settled there, why they brought British women as wives! And how did that happen, I asked the TV screen and the lovely little fur hatted feminist twit. And turned off the tv and went to sleep. And as for own times, it was a nice civilization while it lasted, wasn’t it?

  26. When you see a rapid genetic turnover and the y chromosome is all from one source, usually the assumption is you had a total warfare type situation where all the men of the losing group were killed and the women mated with the victorious men.

    Possibly, but not necessarily true. For example suppose a small band of farmers moves into the territory of some hunter gatherers. Suppose that the interactions between the groups are at all times completely peaceful and consensual intermarriage is the norm.

    Suppose that on average the households headed by male farmers, by dint of generating more calories, are able to produce four offspring per family (2 males, two females) while the households headed by male hunter gatherers only produce 1.8 offspring. Further suppose each generation there is random intermarriage between the groups. Further suppose that sons take after their fathers–sons of male farmers become farmers and sons of male hunter gatherers become hunter gatherers, and that the fertility patterns persist based on farmer versus hunter gatherer. That is, a male farmer – female hunter-gatherer family will have four offspring on average while a male HG – female farmer will have 1.8.

    In this situation you will rapidly see extinction of the Y chromosome of the hunter gatherer group, because it is associated with a lifestyle that leads to below replacement fertility, while the X chromosome of the HG group will persist. Exponential growth being what it is, this can happen in a relative eye blink.

    I don’t think that this scenario is terribly far fetched given historical population replacements that have been observed. The trend actually seems to be that more docile but well-organized people displace more violent, disorganized people, not vice versa. For example the Europeans that displaced Native Americans were not bigger, nor stronger, nor better fighters, but they practiced agriculture efficiently, generating a lot of excess calories and spare babies, as well as having technological advantages made possible by being relatively tolerant of the many slights encountered during town life.

    And of course there is a lot of evidence that cultural transmission of trades is more likely to go father to son than mother to daughter.

    Anyway it could be either scenario, anything between apocalyptic violence and boring economics, very difficult to say.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Suppose that on average the households headed by male farmers, by dint of generating more calories
     
    Has it been established that farmers possessed more calories than hunter gatherers?
    , @Almost Missouri
    Is sub-replacement fertility a realistic assumption in a pre-modern society, short of reaching Malthusian limits?

    Anyhow, I suppose the real difference might not be the TFR per woman so much as the TFR per acre. And it is tough to beat farmers for both calories per acre and TFR per acre.

    While it is not necessary for your example, which shows how even peaceful coexistence can lead to effective replacement, still, it is hard to think of any example of adjacent different populations in resource competition where violence has not occurred. And it would be surprising if one or the other doesn't eventually decide, "Let's settle this once and for all."

    , @Alden
    You’re right, The death rate of the warrior caste men was horrendous from dying in battles. So they died out while the farmers and tradesmen flourished.
    , @obwandiyag
    The Indians died out from disease, not from being hunter-gatherers. Sheesh.
  27. This Joke Never Gets Old

    It’s real Smiths poasting hours.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
    Videos can really ruin great songs.
  28. One population preferred a lifestyle of farming your ancestors’ fields. The other population preferred a lifestyle of crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of their women.

    Hey, it’s all about the business model!

  29. Maybe I’m crazy but there’s something extremely appealing to me about ritually slaughtering puppy dogs, slowly moving in an early wagon, and raiding the villages of stunted bean-eaters to make space for cattle. The Yamaya were diverse and vibrant! And on the right side of history. They’re Who We Are.

  30. @Hannah Katz
    We are all descended from conquerors and the conquered. Quit trying to lay guilt on others for your current situation, blaming it on the ancestors of another group. "Your great-great grandpa pissed off my great-great grandpa, so you owe me money forever!" Everyone has such a beef, so back off.

    “Your great-great grandpa pissed off my great-great grandpa, so you owe me money forever!”

    do tell, katz

  31. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    This Joke Never Gets Old
     
    It’s real Smiths poasting hours.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SckD99B51IA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igILhbNWvlk

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtzhvJh9NRY

    Videos can really ruin great songs.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Agree. Luckily, memories of where my head was at when I first heard the song surpass the video, which I only saw years later. Even so, I give Morrissey credit for ‘documenting’ a bit of his Mancunian nostalgia. Places can change fast.
  32. Beaker Bell culture:

  33. Anonymous[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Andy
    interesting...the mainstream theory after the 1960s is that Stonehenge was built by pre-Celtic Britons, and therefore non Indo-Europeans. The date Stonehenge it's believed to be build, around 2000 BC, it's way before the (up to now) generally agreed date of arrival of Indoeuropeans to the British isles.

    pre-Celtic Britons, and therefore non Indo-Europeans.

    Why aren’t the pre-Celtic Britons considered to be Indo-Europeans?

    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    The same reason American Indians aren't considered to be Europeans.

    Celts were the first wave of Indo European invaders.
    , @Andy
    I think up to now the view was that before the Celts arrived (perhaps around 1,000 BC), the British Isles were populated by what has been called the Old Europeans, a non Indo-European people which once lived throughout Europe and of which perhaps the Basques today are the only survivors (having hidden from the Aryans in the Pyrenees mountains). I'm sure the new findings will changed this view.
  34. Anonymous[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hodag
    There are better records for Tamerlane's conquests than even the Mongol conquests (and let's not split hairs).

    The pretty women, the girls, the fair boys and the skilled tradesmen were spared. (Look at modern day Samarkand - a wonder). All else were pyramids of skulls.

    In the ancient dna, a lot of the change was y chromosomes. Because they killed the local men. Just like North America.

    Because they killed the local men. Just like North America.

    When do you say “the local men” were killed in North America?

  35. Anonymous[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @SimpleSong
    When you see a rapid genetic turnover and the y chromosome is all from one source, usually the assumption is you had a total warfare type situation where all the men of the losing group were killed and the women mated with the victorious men.

    Possibly, but not necessarily true. For example suppose a small band of farmers moves into the territory of some hunter gatherers. Suppose that the interactions between the groups are at all times completely peaceful and consensual intermarriage is the norm.

    Suppose that on average the households headed by male farmers, by dint of generating more calories, are able to produce four offspring per family (2 males, two females) while the households headed by male hunter gatherers only produce 1.8 offspring. Further suppose each generation there is random intermarriage between the groups. Further suppose that sons take after their fathers--sons of male farmers become farmers and sons of male hunter gatherers become hunter gatherers, and that the fertility patterns persist based on farmer versus hunter gatherer. That is, a male farmer - female hunter-gatherer family will have four offspring on average while a male HG - female farmer will have 1.8.

    In this situation you will rapidly see extinction of the Y chromosome of the hunter gatherer group, because it is associated with a lifestyle that leads to below replacement fertility, while the X chromosome of the HG group will persist. Exponential growth being what it is, this can happen in a relative eye blink.

    I don't think that this scenario is terribly far fetched given historical population replacements that have been observed. The trend actually seems to be that more docile but well-organized people displace more violent, disorganized people, not vice versa. For example the Europeans that displaced Native Americans were not bigger, nor stronger, nor better fighters, but they practiced agriculture efficiently, generating a lot of excess calories and spare babies, as well as having technological advantages made possible by being relatively tolerant of the many slights encountered during town life.

    And of course there is a lot of evidence that cultural transmission of trades is more likely to go father to son than mother to daughter.

    Anyway it could be either scenario, anything between apocalyptic violence and boring economics, very difficult to say.

    Suppose that on average the households headed by male farmers, by dint of generating more calories

    Has it been established that farmers possessed more calories than hunter gatherers?

    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    I would assume fewer calories per individual, actually, since there was a decline in stature among the new farmers with the advent of agriculture. Obviously farming produced a lot more calories per acre and higher fertility, so more calories per family unit. It's an interesting question, though, why did early agricultural societies run themselves closer to the Malthusian limit while the hunter gatherers did not?
  36. Take my life … please!

  37. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    OT
    https://www.npr.org/2019/04/15/712249664/the-end-of-empathy?utm_source=pocket-newtab

    Militia leader Ammon Bundy, famous for leading an armed standoff in Oregon, had a tender moment in November of last year. He recorded a Facebook post saying that perhaps President Trump’s characterization of the migrant caravan on the U.S.-Mexico border was somewhat broad. Maybe they weren’t all criminals, he said. “What about those who have come here for reasons of need?”

    Bundy did not say he was breaking with Trump. He just asked his followers to put themselves in the shoes of “the fathers, the mothers, the children” who came to escape violence. It was a call for a truce grounded in empathy, the kind you might hear in a war zone, say, or an Easter Sunday sermon. Still, it was met with a swift and rageful response from his followers, so overwhelming that within days, Bundy decided to quit Facebook.

    I have empathy for people that face violence and poverty, but I have even more for my own people, such that I know that they must fix their own country. If they can’t do that, are they likely to bring us joy-or misery?

    If you and your ancestors lived in South America for 500 years and still do not speak Spanish, what leads us to reasonably expect you will learn English and be able to function in a 100-IQ average society?

    If you live in a tribal environment and have lived with the same blood feud for 700 years what makes you think we should think you will fit in here?

  38. One population preferred a lifestyle of farming your ancestors’ fields. The other population preferred a lifestyle of crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of their women.

    We woz all rappers!

  39. @RebelWriter
    They weren't exterminated. My Y DNA Haplotype is I2a Isles. I'm descended from them. There were never very many of them, and a good many drowned when the English Channel suddenly filled up.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide
    The TMCRA estimates in our line shows a bottleneck occurred around that same time.
    We are most numerous in Western Ireland, but I'm from a tiny group that managed to survive in Scotland.
    They lived in small band, and tended to be nomadic. The EEF's formed much larger communities, and stayed put. There were many more of them than there were of us.

    Hmmmm….

    What is the link of Storegga slides (latest ~ 6150 BC) to the Return of the Honored Others (~ 4000 BC)?

    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    I have no idea what you're talking about.
  40. Prof. Thomas sounds awfully like the immortal Dr Tusk, the Tulane history lecturer attacked by Ignatius J. Reilly and Myrna Minkhoff. When attempting to hit on a nubile female student Tusk agreed that the Ancient Britons were a sorry bunch, along the lines of
    “Yes, it was all so long ago and they made so many foolish mistakes.”

    • Replies: @Cortes
    Oops.

    Dr. Talc.
  41. Anonymous[387] • Disclaimer says:

    But, ultimately, of course, farmers had the last laugh.

    The basis of all human progress is the notion of ‘surplus value’. (Hush, please break it gently to those f*ckwits at The Economist – and their political groupies – the mass inundation of productive nations by the unproductive, which they rabidly and incessantly advocate, militates against this).

    Only by creating sufficient ‘surplus value’ – as farmers can only do – can population levels above minimal be supported, and crucially, can dedicated weapons makers, armorers, military industrial complexes etc be established. Everything from the Dreadnought to the Atomic Bomb. The important factor here is capital formation. Ultimately capital formation, and its concomitant, ‘wealth’ trumps all.

  42. Anonymous[387] • Disclaimer says:
    @Zimriel
    "A.k.a., the Yamnaya, or the Battle Axe Culture, or as Nietzsche would have thought of them, the Aryans"

    The Yamnaya in the early Bronze Age Black Sea littoral were Aryan, yes. Their male genome was disproportionate R1a which is highly associated with Iranian and northern Indic upper-castes. And the languages are disproportionate Satem-branch (or close-enough, like the Greeks).

    The Battle Axe Culture weren't Yamnaya in culture and weren't R1a in genetics, though. They're the "Corded Ware" bunch, to the northwest of Yamnaya. Their genes were R1b or even I. As for the languages, they tended to the more-conservative Celtic and Italic groups. (This before we open that "Bell Beaker" can o' worms.)

    I'd like to see the Bell Beaker Blogger, Davidski from the Eurogenes blog, and of course Razib to get together on this one, have a few drinks, and hash it all out. In the meantime, let's not muddy the Yamnaya / Aryan connexion with the Battle Axe bunch; these groups were separate. Or at least became separate very early.

    Actually, ‘Corded Ware’ was mostly R1a.

    The ‘Germanic’ ethnogenesis is problematic.

    As a language, ‘root’ Germanic is of surprisingly recent provenance, dating back to the iron age. It is noted for a strong ‘non IE’ substrate. One theory has it that Germanic is due to a mixed population of those of I haplotype farmer origin, in Denmark and south Sweden, mixing with an R1a Corded Ware group speaking an IE tongue allied to Balto-Slavic. From what we know of philology, this theory has explanatory power.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    what we know of philology
     
    Would that we knew more. She was one of our first casualties.
  43. Anonymous[387] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    A few points I find interesting. From Wikipedia, but based on real scientific papers:

    1. Wilde et al. (2014) and Haak et al. (2015) found that the intrusive Yamna population, generally inferred to be the first speakers of an Indo-European language in the Corded Ware culture zone, were overwhelmingly dark-eyed (brown), dark-haired and had a skin colour that was moderately light, though somewhat darker than that of the average modern European.

    2. Goldberg et al. (2016) found that Neolithic farming migration into Europe "was driven by mass migration of both males and females in roughly equal numbers, perhaps whole families", while Bronze Age Pontic steppe "migration and cultural shift were instead driven by male migration, potentially connected to new technology and conquest.

    So the Aryans invaded Europe, just like they did so many other societies, and today's Europeans are a mixed population. Like modern Mexicans, only with the relative light-skinnedness of the invader and invaded being inverted.

    I don't know if I'd agree with the characterization of them as blond beasts, they seem more like Central Asian brunette beasts who shacked up with lighter-skinned native European women.

    Yep,

    But it’s the later Steppe folk, the Steppe LBA people, the Sintashta and Corded Ware folk, the people who invaded India and Iran, who *were* ‘proper’ white people, who claim all the glory.

  44. @Jus' Sayin'...

    "...and hearing the lamentation of their women...."
     
    The translation I first ran across, perhaps a less bowdlerized rendition, read something like "..and hear the cries of their women as they lie under you...", which might go further towards explaining the sudden change in genetics associated with these migrations.

    https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/23975/what-was-the-context-of-this-famous-genghis-khan-quote

    A commenter writes:

    I found a similar quote in Rashid-ad-din, (=Rashid al Din (1247-1318) in Wikipedia), Collection of chronicles, vol. 1, book 2 (Russian edition, 1952). The chapter is called Tales on Genghiz Khan, on his laudable features, qualities of his soul, etc. [very long title].

    I translate the relevant place (from the Russian): Once Genghiz Khan asked Boorchi-noyon who was the chief of the emirs, what is the greatest joy and pleasure for a man. Boorchi said: “That a man takes a falcon…. etc. [about hunting]

    Then Genghis Khan said to Boragul: “You say too!” And Boragul said….[also something about hunting].

    Then Cenghiz Khan asked the sons of Khublai. [they also replied something about hunting]

    Then Genghiz Khan was willing to say: “You did not answer well! The greatest pleasure and joy for a man is to suppress a rebel and to defeat an enemy, uproot him and take everything he possesses, force his married women cry with tears, and to sit on his good and nice horses, and to make his beautiful wives…. [I cannot translate into English in a public site, what he proposes to do to those beautiful wives].

    The whole chapter in Rashid is about 10 pages of such stories and quotations of Genghiz Khan.

    Ghenghiz: Out of the hood and loving it!

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    I cannot remember the source for the translation, which I recollect having seen. It might have been from an English translation of "The Secret History of the Mongols" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_History_of_the_Mongols). Unfortunately, my copy disappeared many years ago.
  45. @Meretricious
    Videos can really ruin great songs.

    Agree. Luckily, memories of where my head was at when I first heard the song surpass the video, which I only saw years later. Even so, I give Morrissey credit for ‘documenting’ a bit of his Mancunian nostalgia. Places can change fast.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    And, as I'm sure you know, Morrissey & Pete Townshend have been written out of polite society for daring to lament the destruction of their nation.

    That's just not done, don't you know.

  46. Here’s a take on immigration to Britain that we might not agree with. But it’s worth listening to someone on the other side with a sense of humor.

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  47. @Cortes
    Prof. Thomas sounds awfully like the immortal Dr Tusk, the Tulane history lecturer attacked by Ignatius J. Reilly and Myrna Minkhoff. When attempting to hit on a nubile female student Tusk agreed that the Ancient Britons were a sorry bunch, along the lines of
    “Yes, it was all so long ago and they made so many foolish mistakes.”

    Oops.

    Dr. Talc.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    Been so long since I thought of that book!
    Definitely enjoyed it, back in the day.
  48. @Anonymous

    pre-Celtic Britons, and therefore non Indo-Europeans.
     
    Why aren't the pre-Celtic Britons considered to be Indo-Europeans?

    The same reason American Indians aren’t considered to be Europeans.

    Celts were the first wave of Indo European invaders.

  49. @El Dato
    Hmmmm....

    What is the link of Storegga slides (latest ~ 6150 BC) to the Return of the Honored Others (~ 4000 BC)?

    I have no idea what you’re talking about.

  50. @SimpleSong
    When you see a rapid genetic turnover and the y chromosome is all from one source, usually the assumption is you had a total warfare type situation where all the men of the losing group were killed and the women mated with the victorious men.

    Possibly, but not necessarily true. For example suppose a small band of farmers moves into the territory of some hunter gatherers. Suppose that the interactions between the groups are at all times completely peaceful and consensual intermarriage is the norm.

    Suppose that on average the households headed by male farmers, by dint of generating more calories, are able to produce four offspring per family (2 males, two females) while the households headed by male hunter gatherers only produce 1.8 offspring. Further suppose each generation there is random intermarriage between the groups. Further suppose that sons take after their fathers--sons of male farmers become farmers and sons of male hunter gatherers become hunter gatherers, and that the fertility patterns persist based on farmer versus hunter gatherer. That is, a male farmer - female hunter-gatherer family will have four offspring on average while a male HG - female farmer will have 1.8.

    In this situation you will rapidly see extinction of the Y chromosome of the hunter gatherer group, because it is associated with a lifestyle that leads to below replacement fertility, while the X chromosome of the HG group will persist. Exponential growth being what it is, this can happen in a relative eye blink.

    I don't think that this scenario is terribly far fetched given historical population replacements that have been observed. The trend actually seems to be that more docile but well-organized people displace more violent, disorganized people, not vice versa. For example the Europeans that displaced Native Americans were not bigger, nor stronger, nor better fighters, but they practiced agriculture efficiently, generating a lot of excess calories and spare babies, as well as having technological advantages made possible by being relatively tolerant of the many slights encountered during town life.

    And of course there is a lot of evidence that cultural transmission of trades is more likely to go father to son than mother to daughter.

    Anyway it could be either scenario, anything between apocalyptic violence and boring economics, very difficult to say.

    Is sub-replacement fertility a realistic assumption in a pre-modern society, short of reaching Malthusian limits?

    Anyhow, I suppose the real difference might not be the TFR per woman so much as the TFR per acre. And it is tough to beat farmers for both calories per acre and TFR per acre.

    While it is not necessary for your example, which shows how even peaceful coexistence can lead to effective replacement, still, it is hard to think of any example of adjacent different populations in resource competition where violence has not occurred. And it would be surprising if one or the other doesn’t eventually decide, “Let’s settle this once and for all.”

    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    Well...I think almost all pre modern societies equilibrated to their Malthusian limits. Every now and then a new technological innovation would come along and lift the Malthusian ceiling; life was good for a few generations until a new equilibrium was reached and the number of children surviving to adulthood went back down to two again. Arguably the last 300 years or so have not been the start of a new era but rather a particularly spectacular lifting of the Malthusian ceiling due to the exploitation of fossil fuels.

    Regarding violence, yeah, you would have to assume violence would occur at some point during a displacement even if it proceeded mostly peacefully. In my mind I sorta have two models for conquest: the Genghis Khan model versus the Massachusetts Bay Colony model. I think Genghis Khan has something like a million descendants today, and if I recall correctly the signatories to the Mayflower compact have around 35 million descendants today. Given that Genghis Khan had a 400 year head start on the pilgrims I think you could argue the latter have been more successful.

    Anyway in the former model (Genghis Khan) warfare and conquest are instigated for their own sake, while in the latter (Massachusetts Bay Colony) violence breaks out (King Philips war, for example) as a side effect of one economic system trouncing another. It seems like the latter tends to produce more long-lasting changes in the composition of a population. For example China today is not inhabited by Mongolians but Massachusetts is inhabited by Europeans (for now..)
  51. @Ibound1
    And one population prefers to lie upon the ground with their asses in the air, chanting to their bloodthirsty deity, praying for and planning your death, while you praise them for their peacefulness. In 5000 years you will be known as the Eunuch People who went extinct while waiting for permission from Health and Safety to change a light bulb while the daughters of your peasantry were raped.

    It’s cold comfort to know that those supplanters won’t be able to even manufacture light bulbs.

  52. Don’t worry. The women won’t be lamenting for long. Those hunter-gatherer boys are, like, yesterday’s news.

  53. @goatweed
    Ancestry didn’t report my Y chromosome.

    As an icky boy which service reveals my y lineage.

    23 and me gives Y chromosome lineage and mitochondrial DNA. Ancestry only reports autosomal.
    I’m a living demonstration of the premise under consideration here.
    I’m R1B from my father, and from my mother? U5a. Same as Cheddar Man, whose 9000 year old bones were found in Cheddar Gorge in England

  54. @Cortes
    Oops.

    Dr. Talc.

    Been so long since I thought of that book!
    Definitely enjoyed it, back in the day.

  55. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Agree. Luckily, memories of where my head was at when I first heard the song surpass the video, which I only saw years later. Even so, I give Morrissey credit for ‘documenting’ a bit of his Mancunian nostalgia. Places can change fast.

    And, as I’m sure you know, Morrissey & Pete Townshend have been written out of polite society for daring to lament the destruction of their nation.

    That’s just not done, don’t you know.

  56. @Ibound1
    And one population prefers to lie upon the ground with their asses in the air, chanting to their bloodthirsty deity, praying for and planning your death, while you praise them for their peacefulness. In 5000 years you will be known as the Eunuch People who went extinct while waiting for permission from Health and Safety to change a light bulb while the daughters of your peasantry were raped.

    I rate this comment as mostly true.

  57. “crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of their women.”

    I remember hearing Arnold Schwarznegger speaking these words in one of the Conan movies… What is best in life. A little lowbrow for this venue?

  58. @Anonymous
    Actually, 'Corded Ware' was mostly R1a.

    The 'Germanic' ethnogenesis is problematic.

    As a language, 'root' Germanic is of surprisingly recent provenance, dating back to the iron age. It is noted for a strong 'non IE' substrate. One theory has it that Germanic is due to a mixed population of those of I haplotype farmer origin, in Denmark and south Sweden, mixing with an R1a Corded Ware group speaking an IE tongue allied to Balto-Slavic. From what we know of philology, this theory has explanatory power.

    what we know of philology

    Would that we knew more. She was one of our first casualties.

  59. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    The Yamnaya just wanted ‘a better life ‘

    They were “a gift of love”

  60. Farmers bring diseases and rats. This could be another reason so few European Hunter Gatherers survived, as it appears the first European farmers did not even mate with the aboriginal Europeans like Cheddar msn.

    Rats invaded Europe with the farmers, bringing diseases, just as Europeans brought rats to America which resulted in the deaths of millions of Native Americans.

    The reason the Indians of Of Massachusetts’s Had been decimated years before the pilgrims landed was recently determined to be a disease spread by rats which were introduced via the ships from Europe that landed in America years earlier. Which is why the pilgrims found abandoned Indian villages at Plymouth Rock , and hundreds of dead Indians in the woods nearby. The pilgrims saw it as a sign from god to settle there.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
    Did the rats crawl up from Virginia then? Do tell us more. With cites even.

    I think the rats in Virginia came from Massachusetts.

  61. @Anonymous

    pre-Celtic Britons, and therefore non Indo-Europeans.
     
    Why aren't the pre-Celtic Britons considered to be Indo-Europeans?

    I think up to now the view was that before the Celts arrived (perhaps around 1,000 BC), the British Isles were populated by what has been called the Old Europeans, a non Indo-European people which once lived throughout Europe and of which perhaps the Basques today are the only survivors (having hidden from the Aryans in the Pyrenees mountains). I’m sure the new findings will changed this view.

  62. @Desiderius

    Everyone has such a beef, so back off.
     
    No, neither you nor I do.

    If we care to, it is not difficult to indentify who does have such a beef, who taught them to, and who hired the teachers. That is where we will find the solution to our problem.
  63. @Anonymous

    Suppose that on average the households headed by male farmers, by dint of generating more calories
     
    Has it been established that farmers possessed more calories than hunter gatherers?

    I would assume fewer calories per individual, actually, since there was a decline in stature among the new farmers with the advent of agriculture. Obviously farming produced a lot more calories per acre and higher fertility, so more calories per family unit. It’s an interesting question, though, why did early agricultural societies run themselves closer to the Malthusian limit while the hunter gatherers did not?

    • Replies: @Prodigal son
    The farmers were less healthy , smaller boned , more sickly and shorter...many speculate they were less healthy and suffered from more disease due to their diet, which was introduced with the advent of farming. This new diet was less nutritious , higher in carbs and lower in protein. This is a big reason the Hunter Gatherers were significantly bigger , with better teeth (no tooth decay or cavities).

    Farmers were not only less physically fit , they suffered from more pathogens due to the farming communities attracting rats and other rodents which brought fleas and diseases.

    The farming communities had higher infant mortality , And lower lifespans due to disease and their poor diets. But yet they had plenty of calories , thus could feed more people and thus have more children. They needed to have more kids to help with their farming , which takes more laborers than hunting required.
  64. @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    The other population preferred a lifestyle of crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of their women.
     
    The "other population" is Democrats. That is why they work so hard to take away our guns.

    The “other population” is Democrats. That is why they work so hard to take away our guns.

    For a long, long time. The camel’s nose.

  65. @Almost Missouri
    Is sub-replacement fertility a realistic assumption in a pre-modern society, short of reaching Malthusian limits?

    Anyhow, I suppose the real difference might not be the TFR per woman so much as the TFR per acre. And it is tough to beat farmers for both calories per acre and TFR per acre.

    While it is not necessary for your example, which shows how even peaceful coexistence can lead to effective replacement, still, it is hard to think of any example of adjacent different populations in resource competition where violence has not occurred. And it would be surprising if one or the other doesn't eventually decide, "Let's settle this once and for all."

    Well…I think almost all pre modern societies equilibrated to their Malthusian limits. Every now and then a new technological innovation would come along and lift the Malthusian ceiling; life was good for a few generations until a new equilibrium was reached and the number of children surviving to adulthood went back down to two again. Arguably the last 300 years or so have not been the start of a new era but rather a particularly spectacular lifting of the Malthusian ceiling due to the exploitation of fossil fuels.

    Regarding violence, yeah, you would have to assume violence would occur at some point during a displacement even if it proceeded mostly peacefully. In my mind I sorta have two models for conquest: the Genghis Khan model versus the Massachusetts Bay Colony model. I think Genghis Khan has something like a million descendants today, and if I recall correctly the signatories to the Mayflower compact have around 35 million descendants today. Given that Genghis Khan had a 400 year head start on the pilgrims I think you could argue the latter have been more successful.

    Anyway in the former model (Genghis Khan) warfare and conquest are instigated for their own sake, while in the latter (Massachusetts Bay Colony) violence breaks out (King Philips war, for example) as a side effect of one economic system trouncing another. It seems like the latter tends to produce more long-lasting changes in the composition of a population. For example China today is not inhabited by Mongolians but Massachusetts is inhabited by Europeans (for now..)

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Your Massachusetts model vs. Genghis model reminded me that I do know of one case of adjacent populations without notable violence: Amish, who have also been pretty successful genetically: several million descendants from one or two hundred founders. Of course, in their case it helps that the adjacent population are ethnically similar and broadly sympathetic, and that the Amish don't have to worry about violence at the frontiers because others take care of that for them before they move in.

    Which reminded me that I made a similar comment here a couple of years ago:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/we-three-kings/#comment-1741393

    Highlight:

    their position here at the root of open-land expansion implies that their success resembled the genetic success of vigilant and industrious Amish patriarchs rather than the success of a violent Genghis Khan warlord. This massive expansion through frontier settlement rather than relentless attrition of the neighbors may have set the cultural stage for the West for the next few millennia.
     
    Finally, you make a good distinction I haven't heard before: "warfare and conquest instigated for their own sake" versus where "violence breaks out (King Philips war, for example) as a side effect of one economic system trouncing another".

    This kind of distinction is absent from the simple-minded SJW-type of view, so they inevitably miss the crucial aspect when they blanket condemn conquest: conquest for the sake of destruction leads to destruction, conquest as a by-product of progress leads to progress. And SJWs claim to be "progressive", lol!
  66. What makes you think battle axes aren’t interesting to boys?

  67. @Harry Baldwin
    As a white guy, I can understand their wanting our wives and daughters, but it doesn't follow that I have the same desire for their wives and daughters.

    “As a white guy, I can understand their wanting our wives and daughters”

    Taking a look at the average white woman these days, I wonder why ANYONE would want them.

    One of the other stories on the site shows the average weight of working class women in the USA at 176 lbs. That’s more than a fit working class male weighed in 1950. We’ve raised generations of lard butts with bad tempers, entitlement complexes, and mental illness.

    It’s no wonder a lot of white men prefer asian women, to be honest.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Is that all working class women or White black women Hispanic women combined.

    Hispanic women are basically bowling balls on stumps. Black women can be enormous. I almost never see a skin, normal or chubby black womanizer any more. The average seems to be obese after 30.

    Everybody’s fat these days.
  68. @SimpleSong
    When you see a rapid genetic turnover and the y chromosome is all from one source, usually the assumption is you had a total warfare type situation where all the men of the losing group were killed and the women mated with the victorious men.

    Possibly, but not necessarily true. For example suppose a small band of farmers moves into the territory of some hunter gatherers. Suppose that the interactions between the groups are at all times completely peaceful and consensual intermarriage is the norm.

    Suppose that on average the households headed by male farmers, by dint of generating more calories, are able to produce four offspring per family (2 males, two females) while the households headed by male hunter gatherers only produce 1.8 offspring. Further suppose each generation there is random intermarriage between the groups. Further suppose that sons take after their fathers--sons of male farmers become farmers and sons of male hunter gatherers become hunter gatherers, and that the fertility patterns persist based on farmer versus hunter gatherer. That is, a male farmer - female hunter-gatherer family will have four offspring on average while a male HG - female farmer will have 1.8.

    In this situation you will rapidly see extinction of the Y chromosome of the hunter gatherer group, because it is associated with a lifestyle that leads to below replacement fertility, while the X chromosome of the HG group will persist. Exponential growth being what it is, this can happen in a relative eye blink.

    I don't think that this scenario is terribly far fetched given historical population replacements that have been observed. The trend actually seems to be that more docile but well-organized people displace more violent, disorganized people, not vice versa. For example the Europeans that displaced Native Americans were not bigger, nor stronger, nor better fighters, but they practiced agriculture efficiently, generating a lot of excess calories and spare babies, as well as having technological advantages made possible by being relatively tolerant of the many slights encountered during town life.

    And of course there is a lot of evidence that cultural transmission of trades is more likely to go father to son than mother to daughter.

    Anyway it could be either scenario, anything between apocalyptic violence and boring economics, very difficult to say.

    You’re right, The death rate of the warrior caste men was horrendous from dying in battles. So they died out while the farmers and tradesmen flourished.

  69. @jbwilson24
    "As a white guy, I can understand their wanting our wives and daughters"

    Taking a look at the average white woman these days, I wonder why ANYONE would want them.

    One of the other stories on the site shows the average weight of working class women in the USA at 176 lbs. That's more than a fit working class male weighed in 1950. We've raised generations of lard butts with bad tempers, entitlement complexes, and mental illness.

    It's no wonder a lot of white men prefer asian women, to be honest.

    Is that all working class women or White black women Hispanic women combined.

    Hispanic women are basically bowling balls on stumps. Black women can be enormous. I almost never see a skin, normal or chubby black womanizer any more. The average seems to be obese after 30.

    Everybody’s fat these days.

  70. “after the Neolithic population had been in decline for some time, both in Britain and across Europe”: true, that’s what the archaeology suggests. So the Aryans were pushing on a door that was already ajar.

    But why had the neolithic population declined? I suppose it must have been Global Warming, mustn’t it?

  71. @SimpleSong
    I would assume fewer calories per individual, actually, since there was a decline in stature among the new farmers with the advent of agriculture. Obviously farming produced a lot more calories per acre and higher fertility, so more calories per family unit. It's an interesting question, though, why did early agricultural societies run themselves closer to the Malthusian limit while the hunter gatherers did not?

    The farmers were less healthy , smaller boned , more sickly and shorter…many speculate they were less healthy and suffered from more disease due to their diet, which was introduced with the advent of farming. This new diet was less nutritious , higher in carbs and lower in protein. This is a big reason the Hunter Gatherers were significantly bigger , with better teeth (no tooth decay or cavities).

    Farmers were not only less physically fit , they suffered from more pathogens due to the farming communities attracting rats and other rodents which brought fleas and diseases.

    The farming communities had higher infant mortality , And lower lifespans due to disease and their poor diets. But yet they had plenty of calories , thus could feed more people and thus have more children. They needed to have more kids to help with their farming , which takes more laborers than hunting required.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Humans paid a heavy biological cost for agriculture, especially when it came to the variety of nutrients and amount of protein in the diet.

    empirical studies of societies shifting subsistence from hunting to farming have found evidence for deteriorating health from an increase in infectious and dental disease and a rise in nutritional deficiencies, lower stature and smaller bones. A diet based on a limited number of crops meant that people weren’t getting as wide a variety of nutrients as when they relied on a range of food sources, leaving them malnourished—and thus, both shorter and more susceptible to disease.

    The impact of agriculture, accompanied by increasing population density and a rise in infectious disease, was observed to decrease stature in populations from across the entire globe and regardless of the temporal period during which agriculture was adopted, including Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South America, and North America.
  72. The Neolithic inhabitants appear to have travelled from Anatolia (modern Turkey) to Iberia before winding their way north.

    BBC, never changes.

  73. Anonymous[352] • Disclaimer says:
    @Prodigal son
    The farmers were less healthy , smaller boned , more sickly and shorter...many speculate they were less healthy and suffered from more disease due to their diet, which was introduced with the advent of farming. This new diet was less nutritious , higher in carbs and lower in protein. This is a big reason the Hunter Gatherers were significantly bigger , with better teeth (no tooth decay or cavities).

    Farmers were not only less physically fit , they suffered from more pathogens due to the farming communities attracting rats and other rodents which brought fleas and diseases.

    The farming communities had higher infant mortality , And lower lifespans due to disease and their poor diets. But yet they had plenty of calories , thus could feed more people and thus have more children. They needed to have more kids to help with their farming , which takes more laborers than hunting required.

    Humans paid a heavy biological cost for agriculture, especially when it came to the variety of nutrients and amount of protein in the diet.

    empirical studies of societies shifting subsistence from hunting to farming have found evidence for deteriorating health from an increase in infectious and dental disease and a rise in nutritional deficiencies, lower stature and smaller bones. A diet based on a limited number of crops meant that people weren’t getting as wide a variety of nutrients as when they relied on a range of food sources, leaving them malnourished—and thus, both shorter and more susceptible to disease.

    The impact of agriculture, accompanied by increasing population density and a rise in infectious disease, was observed to decrease stature in populations from across the entire globe and regardless of the temporal period during which agriculture was adopted, including Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South America, and North America.

  74. @El Dato
    https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/23975/what-was-the-context-of-this-famous-genghis-khan-quote

    A commenter writes:


    I found a similar quote in Rashid-ad-din, (=Rashid al Din (1247-1318) in Wikipedia), Collection of chronicles, vol. 1, book 2 (Russian edition, 1952). The chapter is called Tales on Genghiz Khan, on his laudable features, qualities of his soul, etc. [very long title].

    I translate the relevant place (from the Russian): Once Genghiz Khan asked Boorchi-noyon who was the chief of the emirs, what is the greatest joy and pleasure for a man. Boorchi said: "That a man takes a falcon.... etc. [about hunting]

    Then Genghis Khan said to Boragul: "You say too!" And Boragul said....[also something about hunting].

    Then Cenghiz Khan asked the sons of Khublai. [they also replied something about hunting]

    Then Genghiz Khan was willing to say: "You did not answer well! The greatest pleasure and joy for a man is to suppress a rebel and to defeat an enemy, uproot him and take everything he possesses, force his married women cry with tears, and to sit on his good and nice horses, and to make his beautiful wives.... [I cannot translate into English in a public site, what he proposes to do to those beautiful wives].

    The whole chapter in Rashid is about 10 pages of such stories and quotations of Genghiz Khan.

     

    Ghenghiz: Out of the hood and loving it!

    I cannot remember the source for the translation, which I recollect having seen. It might have been from an English translation of “The Secret History of the Mongols” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_History_of_the_Mongols). Unfortunately, my copy disappeared many years ago.

  75. Bell Beaker pottery is no Gothic cathedral, but it is better than being known for a slab of microscopic DNA, pulled off of random skeletal remains. Nothing points out the futility of human endeavor more than a whole, disappeared people reduced to petrie-dish analysis of Cheddar Man scrapings. Did Cheddar Man turn out a pot skillfully enough to avoid blowing it up in the kiln, much less any adornment that mght attest to eye / hand coordination or refined, Neolithic aesthetic sensibility, or did he just run around, gathering as many nuts as he could get his hands on?

  76. @SimpleSong
    Well...I think almost all pre modern societies equilibrated to their Malthusian limits. Every now and then a new technological innovation would come along and lift the Malthusian ceiling; life was good for a few generations until a new equilibrium was reached and the number of children surviving to adulthood went back down to two again. Arguably the last 300 years or so have not been the start of a new era but rather a particularly spectacular lifting of the Malthusian ceiling due to the exploitation of fossil fuels.

    Regarding violence, yeah, you would have to assume violence would occur at some point during a displacement even if it proceeded mostly peacefully. In my mind I sorta have two models for conquest: the Genghis Khan model versus the Massachusetts Bay Colony model. I think Genghis Khan has something like a million descendants today, and if I recall correctly the signatories to the Mayflower compact have around 35 million descendants today. Given that Genghis Khan had a 400 year head start on the pilgrims I think you could argue the latter have been more successful.

    Anyway in the former model (Genghis Khan) warfare and conquest are instigated for their own sake, while in the latter (Massachusetts Bay Colony) violence breaks out (King Philips war, for example) as a side effect of one economic system trouncing another. It seems like the latter tends to produce more long-lasting changes in the composition of a population. For example China today is not inhabited by Mongolians but Massachusetts is inhabited by Europeans (for now..)

    Your Massachusetts model vs. Genghis model reminded me that I do know of one case of adjacent populations without notable violence: Amish, who have also been pretty successful genetically: several million descendants from one or two hundred founders. Of course, in their case it helps that the adjacent population are ethnically similar and broadly sympathetic, and that the Amish don’t have to worry about violence at the frontiers because others take care of that for them before they move in.

    Which reminded me that I made a similar comment here a couple of years ago:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/we-three-kings/#comment-1741393

    Highlight:

    their position here at the root of open-land expansion implies that their success resembled the genetic success of vigilant and industrious Amish patriarchs rather than the success of a violent Genghis Khan warlord. This massive expansion through frontier settlement rather than relentless attrition of the neighbors may have set the cultural stage for the West for the next few millennia.

    Finally, you make a good distinction I haven’t heard before: “warfare and conquest instigated for their own sake” versus where “violence breaks out (King Philips war, for example) as a side effect of one economic system trouncing another”.

    This kind of distinction is absent from the simple-minded SJW-type of view, so they inevitably miss the crucial aspect when they blanket condemn conquest: conquest for the sake of destruction leads to destruction, conquest as a by-product of progress leads to progress. And SJWs claim to be “progressive”, lol!

    • Replies: @Logan
    The Amish are still well under half a million, perhaps depending somewhat on how you define membership in the group.
  77. @SimpleSong
    When you see a rapid genetic turnover and the y chromosome is all from one source, usually the assumption is you had a total warfare type situation where all the men of the losing group were killed and the women mated with the victorious men.

    Possibly, but not necessarily true. For example suppose a small band of farmers moves into the territory of some hunter gatherers. Suppose that the interactions between the groups are at all times completely peaceful and consensual intermarriage is the norm.

    Suppose that on average the households headed by male farmers, by dint of generating more calories, are able to produce four offspring per family (2 males, two females) while the households headed by male hunter gatherers only produce 1.8 offspring. Further suppose each generation there is random intermarriage between the groups. Further suppose that sons take after their fathers--sons of male farmers become farmers and sons of male hunter gatherers become hunter gatherers, and that the fertility patterns persist based on farmer versus hunter gatherer. That is, a male farmer - female hunter-gatherer family will have four offspring on average while a male HG - female farmer will have 1.8.

    In this situation you will rapidly see extinction of the Y chromosome of the hunter gatherer group, because it is associated with a lifestyle that leads to below replacement fertility, while the X chromosome of the HG group will persist. Exponential growth being what it is, this can happen in a relative eye blink.

    I don't think that this scenario is terribly far fetched given historical population replacements that have been observed. The trend actually seems to be that more docile but well-organized people displace more violent, disorganized people, not vice versa. For example the Europeans that displaced Native Americans were not bigger, nor stronger, nor better fighters, but they practiced agriculture efficiently, generating a lot of excess calories and spare babies, as well as having technological advantages made possible by being relatively tolerant of the many slights encountered during town life.

    And of course there is a lot of evidence that cultural transmission of trades is more likely to go father to son than mother to daughter.

    Anyway it could be either scenario, anything between apocalyptic violence and boring economics, very difficult to say.

    The Indians died out from disease, not from being hunter-gatherers. Sheesh.

  78. @Prodigal son
    Farmers bring diseases and rats. This could be another reason so few European Hunter Gatherers survived, as it appears the first European farmers did not even mate with the aboriginal Europeans like Cheddar msn.

    Rats invaded Europe with the farmers, bringing diseases, just as Europeans brought rats to America which resulted in the deaths of millions of Native Americans.

    The reason the Indians of Of Massachusetts’s Had been decimated years before the pilgrims landed was recently determined to be a disease spread by rats which were introduced via the ships from Europe that landed in America years earlier. Which is why the pilgrims found abandoned Indian villages at Plymouth Rock , and hundreds of dead Indians in the woods nearby. The pilgrims saw it as a sign from god to settle there.

    Did the rats crawl up from Virginia then? Do tell us more. With cites even.

    I think the rats in Virginia came from Massachusetts.

    • Replies: @Logan
    There were traders along the New England coast for about a century before the Pilgrims landed. Diseases got passed along from casual contact.

    Not all diseases are passed along by rats, BTW. That's most obviously plague, which wasn't a major contributor to the depopulation of the Americas.

    For the most part diseases spread from native group to group, long before any of them ever saw a white man. For instance, smallpox had hit the Inca Empire hard a few years before Pizarro showed up, killing both the emperor and his heir, causing a civil war for the succession that was raging when he did arrive, providing him with major opportunities to play sides off against each other.
  79. @Hodag
    There are better records for Tamerlane's conquests than even the Mongol conquests (and let's not split hairs).

    The pretty women, the girls, the fair boys and the skilled tradesmen were spared. (Look at modern day Samarkand - a wonder). All else were pyramids of skulls.

    In the ancient dna, a lot of the change was y chromosomes. Because they killed the local men. Just like North America.

    The British were among the few settlers who didn’t kill the local men and take their women for themselves. Probably because they brought their families with them and their wives wouldn’t let them.

    The Spanish and Portuguese settlers famously did not bring their women along, so the mestizo race was born. In Canada the voyagers didn’t have their own women, and the Metis came into existence. The habitant farmers of Quebec did emigrate as families and they were no more mixed than the British settlers.

  80. @Almost Missouri
    Your Massachusetts model vs. Genghis model reminded me that I do know of one case of adjacent populations without notable violence: Amish, who have also been pretty successful genetically: several million descendants from one or two hundred founders. Of course, in their case it helps that the adjacent population are ethnically similar and broadly sympathetic, and that the Amish don't have to worry about violence at the frontiers because others take care of that for them before they move in.

    Which reminded me that I made a similar comment here a couple of years ago:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/we-three-kings/#comment-1741393

    Highlight:

    their position here at the root of open-land expansion implies that their success resembled the genetic success of vigilant and industrious Amish patriarchs rather than the success of a violent Genghis Khan warlord. This massive expansion through frontier settlement rather than relentless attrition of the neighbors may have set the cultural stage for the West for the next few millennia.
     
    Finally, you make a good distinction I haven't heard before: "warfare and conquest instigated for their own sake" versus where "violence breaks out (King Philips war, for example) as a side effect of one economic system trouncing another".

    This kind of distinction is absent from the simple-minded SJW-type of view, so they inevitably miss the crucial aspect when they blanket condemn conquest: conquest for the sake of destruction leads to destruction, conquest as a by-product of progress leads to progress. And SJWs claim to be "progressive", lol!

    The Amish are still well under half a million, perhaps depending somewhat on how you define membership in the group.

  81. @Meretricious
    Did the rats crawl up from Virginia then? Do tell us more. With cites even.

    I think the rats in Virginia came from Massachusetts.

    There were traders along the New England coast for about a century before the Pilgrims landed. Diseases got passed along from casual contact.

    Not all diseases are passed along by rats, BTW. That’s most obviously plague, which wasn’t a major contributor to the depopulation of the Americas.

    For the most part diseases spread from native group to group, long before any of them ever saw a white man. For instance, smallpox had hit the Inca Empire hard a few years before Pizarro showed up, killing both the emperor and his heir, causing a civil war for the succession that was raging when he did arrive, providing him with major opportunities to play sides off against each other.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?