4 ms·

One can add epicycles indefinitely to patch up any theory, but there comes a point where we have to accept that the weight of evidence favors some simpler and m

One can add epicycles indefinitely to patch up any theory, but there comes a point where we have to accept that the weight of evidence favors some simpler and more general new approach. The idea that the PIEs would develop all the advanced technology you mention and use it all for some kind of nonviolent mate-attracting display --- and that this mate-attracting thing worked so well that pre-existing Y lineages went extinct --- and that the people going extinct just passively let it happen --- well, it defies plausibility. All the historical, ethnographic, archaeological, and generic evidence points in one direction. This grasping at straws to defend the non-violence hypothesis is exactly the annoying tendency that makes a lot of modern history unreadably annoying.

derriz 7y ago
I'm not trying to patch up any theory nor am I grasping at any straws. You've taken a very absolutist stance by presenting it as a categorical fact that the PIE speakers achieved genetic dominance through extermination. But you find it "annoying" when you're challenged despite the theory not being universally accepted. I'm peripherally interested in the subject - more historical linguistics really - so I presented some alternatives by which the genetic effects you describe could have occurred. > All the historical, ethnographic, archaeological, and generic evidence points in one direction. Could you provide references to this evidence? Because I can't see how historical evidence would prove something about pre-history? And as far as I'm aware, there is only very speculative identification of any archaeological features with the spread of PIE. Simularly with the PIE culture - outside of historical linguistics - there is no widely accepted archaelogy to confirm anything about their culture.
- ardit33 7y ago
  There is more modern clear evidence in favor of violence. Faroe Islands! Genetically Men all viking descendants, while almost 99% of the women's lineage comes from Celtic/Gaelic background. Basically the island was settled by people navigating from Denmark, stoping in England or Ireland, killing and pillaging the local population, and kidnaping the women and bringing them to the island.....
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - goto11 7y ago
    How this is "clear evidence" of anything regarding the Yamnaya people? The Vikings are thousands of years after the Yamnaya migrations.
0815test 7y ago
It doesn't just defy plausibility, it defies the actual evidence. We're lucky enough to have an example in the historical record where technologies like the wheel and domestication of the horse were introduced (mostly) peacefully to a cultural context of foragers almost but not entirely unlike Old Europe - and (needless to say) we do not see the sort of Y-haplotype replacement that shows up in the molecular-level data. So the PIE expansion must have involved a lot more conflict than we might guess absent that evidence!
- derriz 7y ago
  What evidence? How can you identify the expansion of PIE with this Y-haplotype replacement? I'm genuinely curious. Like I said, my amature interest in more in PIE from the perspective of historical linguistics but I'd love to know of any evidence linking the expansion of PIE with archeology or genetics.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
So if all the ancient peoples were violent raiders and pillagers- who, exactly, did they raid and pillage? I mean, to sustain the way of life of a pillaging horde you need a large number of pacifist suckers who choose to stay put and cultivate the land. Otherwise, the horde can't sustain itself. If the raiders end up exterminating their source of sustenance, they'll just die out, themselves. Same goes for smaller groups of course. Or is the idea that it was the cattle herders and farmers who kept killing each other, unlike in historic times? How far back in prehistory did all this happen, and why was it so different than what we see throughout history, where organised societies focused on farming and trade were the wide majority, and bandit hordes focused on killing others and nicking their stuff the minority, of the population?

derriz 7y ago

I'm not trying to patch up any theory nor am I grasping at any straws. You've taken a very absolutist stance by presenting it as a categorical fact that the PIE speakers achieved genetic dominance through extermination. But you find it "annoying" when you're challenged despite the theory not being universally accepted. I'm peripherally interested in the subject - more historical linguistics really - so I presented some alternatives by which the genetic effects you describe could have occurred. > All the historical, ethnographic, archaeological, and generic evidence points in one direction. Could you provide references to this evidence? Because I can't see how historical evidence would prove something about pre-history? And as far as I'm aware, there is only very speculative identification of any archaeological features with the spread of PIE. Simularly with the PIE culture - outside of historical linguistics - there is no widely accepted archaelogy to confirm anything about their culture.

ardit33 7y ago
There is more modern clear evidence in favor of violence. Faroe Islands! Genetically Men all viking descendants, while almost 99% of the women's lineage comes from Celtic/Gaelic background. Basically the island was settled by people navigating from Denmark, stoping in England or Ireland, killing and pillaging the local population, and kidnaping the women and bringing them to the island.....
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- goto11 7y ago
  How this is "clear evidence" of anything regarding the Yamnaya people? The Vikings are thousands of years after the Yamnaya migrations.

0815test 7y ago

It doesn't just defy plausibility, it defies the actual evidence. We're lucky enough to have an example in the historical record where technologies like the wheel and domestication of the horse were introduced (mostly) peacefully to a cultural context of foragers almost but not entirely unlike Old Europe - and (needless to say) we do not see the sort of Y-haplotype replacement that shows up in the molecular-level data. So the PIE expansion must have involved a lot more conflict than we might guess absent that evidence!

derriz 7y ago
What evidence? How can you identify the expansion of PIE with this Y-haplotype replacement? I'm genuinely curious. Like I said, my amature interest in more in PIE from the perspective of historical linguistics but I'd love to know of any evidence linking the expansion of PIE with archeology or genetics.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

So if all the ancient peoples were violent raiders and pillagers- who, exactly, did they raid and pillage? I mean, to sustain the way of life of a pillaging horde you need a large number of pacifist suckers who choose to stay put and cultivate the land. Otherwise, the horde can't sustain itself. If the raiders end up exterminating their source of sustenance, they'll just die out, themselves. Same goes for smaller groups of course. Or is the idea that it was the cattle herders and farmers who kept killing each other, unlike in historic times? How far back in prehistory did all this happen, and why was it so different than what we see throughout history, where organised societies focused on farming and trade were the wide majority, and bandit hordes focused on killing others and nicking their stuff the minority, of the population?