Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Analysis of DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture

psmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Analysis of DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture

#71

Post by semi-extrinsic »

def_illiterate wrote: post #49
tormeh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hunch that this ancient way of warfare is still the optimal way to destroy a culture and achieve total victory. Not that it's acceptable in any way, but imagine if the US had done this in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is heart-wrenching to think about, but I think it would have worked.

An argument could probably be made that it worked fairly well in subduing East Germany after WWII.

Not sure why you were downvoted, this has been well-documented e.g. by Beevor.

Re: Analysis of DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture

#72

Post by BurningFrog »

sloreti wrote: post #18

"In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man" Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same as saying one man, on average, will father a child with about four or five different women? I suppose given the timescale being discussed, "recent history" may mean the last few centuries, but this average still sounds very high to me.

You're... not right.

More like out of 5 men, on average only one would have any descendent whose genetic line survived until today. But he would have a lot.

Now, some of the other 4 might have had children, but they might have dies young, or in turn not have had any descendants whose genetic line is still around.

Of course, the same would have happened to women, so maybe out of 15 men and 15 women, 5 women and 1 man have genes that are still around.

Also note that, unless I misunderstand, this only applies to single gendered lineage. That is there must be an unbroken chain of male ancestors for the male genes, and female ancestors for the female genes. If one of the men without surviving male genes had 3 daughters who went on to have lots of kids, his genes wouldn't be seen in this data, even though his other genes are with us.

Having gone through that line of thought, I wonder if we're looking at some kind of "compound interest" effect here. I mean, if the male-only gene has 10% less chance to survive a generation, does it add up to much bigger and bigger numbers after hundreds of generations?

I'm not sure if that clarified much...

Re: Analysis of DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture

#73

Post by brainburn »

tormeh wrote: post #43
Mikeb85 wrote: post #25

Not particularly surprising. In the ancient world, men were often killed in various ways (conflict, hunting accidents) or enslaved so the gender ratio was quite skewed. I mean, typical ancient warfare meant you attack a town, kill/enslave all the men and boys, rape all the women, and ensure your culture's dominance over them for the next generation or two...

I have a hunch that this ancient way of warfare is still the optimal way to destroy a culture and achieve total victory. Not that it's acceptable in any way, but imagine if the US had done this in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is heart-wrenching to think about, but I think it would have worked.

I suspect all that depleted uranium the US has been dumping in other countries via bullets is not helping the local DNA at all.

Re: Analysis of DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture

#74

Post by StopWhining2 »

- Initial kings collect women like Pokemon.

- No contraception. Much baby.

- Many claims to throne in 18 years.

- Claimants go to war with one another. Soldiers are invented, voluntary and noble at first. Religious later. Can't do mass conscription from the common man as he's working the essential farms.

- Losers happen made. Slavery is invented.

- Slaves work the mines and other harsh labor, allow for post-agrarian activities and advanced economies.

- King sits back and lets the the whole clusterfuck evolve in his favor.

A self-regulating male shortage. Easy peasy.

Re: Analysis of DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture

#75

Post by AhrowTway »

- Initial kings collect women like Pokemon.

- No contraception. Much baby.

- Many claims to throne in 14-18 years.

- Claimants go to war with one another. Soldiers are invented, voluntary and noble at first. Religious later. Can't do mass conscription from the common man as he's working the essential farms.

- Losers happen. Slavery is invented.

- Slaves work the mines and other harsh labor, which allows for post-agrarian activities and advanced economies.

- King sits back and lets the the whole clusterfuck evolve in his favor.

A auto-catalytic male shortage. Easy peasy.

Inadvertently, I have just Twitterized the Old Testament.

Re: Analysis of DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture

#76

Post by Perceval »

bilbo0s wrote: post #60
swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One other hypothesis I can think of is the advent of barbarian warfare. Many parts of the old testament details how brutal life was, where various tribes are constantly at war and conquering other tribes. Even several generations of warfare, where each village sacked involved killing the men and abducting the women, would filter out y-chromosomes to see such a large disparity.

This is the actual explanation. With one caveat... slavery. Basically, agriculture allowed people to specialize. This included specializing in killing. (Soldiers). You would use these specialists to conquer other lands. Which, in turn, provided slave labor to increase production in agriculture and other sectors. So the conquered females would be used as "rewards" for the conquerors. And the conquered males would be u…

Sparta maintained a 10:1 ratio of helots to Spartans, and that was in the early iron age. I imagine the ratio could have been substantially worse in the neolithic and bronze ages.

(Iron democratized violence compared to the bronze age, due to the lower cost of forging iron weapons. I'm sure neolithic violence had a different socioeconomic basis, but greater centralization of violence doesn't seem implausible.)

Re: Analysis of DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture

#77

Post by evincarofautumn »

Perceval wrote: post #76
bilbo0s wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the actual explanation. With one caveat... slavery. Basically, agriculture allowed people to specialize. This included specializing in killing. (Soldiers). You would use these specialists to conquer other lands. Which, in turn, provided slave labor to increase production in agriculture and other sectors. So the conquered females would be used as "rewards" for the conquerors. And the conquered males would be u…

Sparta maintained a 10:1 ratio of helots to Spartans, and that was in the early iron age. I imagine the ratio could have been substantially worse in the neolithic and bronze ages. (Iron democratized violence compared to the bronze age, due to the lower cost of forging iron weapons. I'm sure neolithic violence had a different socioeconomic basis, but greater centralization of violence doesn't seem implausible.)

> Iron democratized violence compared to the bronze age

Could you expand on this? If I have the resources to make an iron sword and you don’t, I can cut your bronze spearhead like butter. That doesn’t seem particularly democratic.

Re: Analysis of DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture

#78

Post by Perceval »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #77
Perceval wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sparta maintained a 10:1 ratio of helots to Spartans, and that was in the early iron age. I imagine the ratio could have been substantially worse in the neolithic and bronze ages. (Iron democratized violence compared to the bronze age, due to the lower cost of forging iron weapons. I'm sure neolithic violence had a different socioeconomic basis, but greater centralization of violence doesn't seem implausible.)

> Iron democratized violence compared to the bronze age Could you expand on this? If I have the resources to make an iron sword and you don’t, I can cut your bronze spearhead like butter. That doesn’t seem particularly democratic.

During the Bronze Age, bronze weapons and armor were rarer. It cost more to mine and work bronze, and it cost more to buy a panoply. Therefore the distribution of those possessing the top-of-the-line violence capacity was concentrated in a narrow martial elite.

The Iron Age broadened the number of people who could afford a panoply, because iron was easier to mine and cheaper to work (once they figured out how). The distribution of those with the ability to use force was a substantially broader elite, less concentrated than during the Bronze Age.

When the ability to wield lethal violence becomes cheaper and available to a wider number of people, it's being "democratized." Samuel Colt's 1873 Single Action Army revolver is a more recent example of the democratization of violence capacity—“God made Men, but Samuel Colt made them all equal.” A similar argument can be made about the widespread availability of the cheap AK-47 following WWII.

Re: Analysis of DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture

#79

Post by clarky07 »

swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #24
ardit33 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great passage from the Red Queen, that might explain what was happening at the time: In the ancient empire of the Incas, sex was a heavily regulated industry. The sun-king Atahualpa kept fifteen hundred women in each of many “houses of virgins” throughout his kingdom. They were selected for their beauty and were rarely chosen after the age of eight—to ensure their virginity. But they did not all remain virg…

Killing the llamas is one step too far.

I came here to say "Not the llamas!"

Re: Analysis of DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture

#80

Post by deciplex »

> Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others.

This line cracked me up.

Yes, "somehow" indeed. Quite a mystery we have on our hands here!

Post reply on HN