GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211360443


From: Alan R <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:00:43 +0000 (GMT)


Sorry but I don't think that period is in any way comparable. The background to that was a market capitalist economy in a colonial/global imperial setting in a period where mobility and communications were on a different level. In the prehistoric period localised tribes, clans and lineages were what mattered. Status and legal rights entirely depended on lineage and tribe. Many of the tribes were very small scale and lived a very localised existence other than some very basic elite exchange often relating to metals and metalwork. Most ordinary people's view of the world was likely tiny with no realistic concept of distant lands, no concrete information and certainly no distant contacts. There was no market society, no true coinage and very few urban market settlements until the very last centuries BC in Europe north of the Alps. Trade was likely essentially high level ritualised exchange, not as we understand trade today. Long distance migration of
ordinary people unprotected by elites was likely very very rare. Re-settlement usually had a military function and usually involved intermarriage at elite level to facilitate merecenaries etc. Its well known in later Celtic law that only the sacred classes of poets, druids and some classes of craftsmen were given legal protection that crossed tribal boundaries. In terms of scale these tribes might be as small as a few thousand people in a very small area beyond which one had no rights. Everyone else was dead man walking if they entered a territory without protection or invite. There were certainly slaves but reproductive chances had everything to do with ones status and wealth and I don't believe they would have made any genetic impact in a lineage based society. The best parallel for late prehistoric north-west Europe in relatively modern times is probably the Highlands of Scotland and Ireland before the Gaelic system was broken in the 17th and
18th centuries. Very few moved into those areas except by the sword or invite to settle (usually for military purposes). There is simply no comparison with modern times. It was not until the Roman empire expanded into those areas or at best a century before this that the sort of society where market driven mobility of labour etc became a common factor.

Alan


----- Original Message ----
From: Beth Long <>
To: Alan R <>;
Sent: Wednesday, 21 May, 2008 1:10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff


Alan,

If you look at one of the largest migrations in World history (from Europe to the U.S.between the 1600s and the present), it is not the "elites" who moved, but rather those who saw more opportunity in relocating than in staying where they were.

I suspect this may have been true in ancient times as well.

In general, people who had a comforable life did not feel the need to uproot themselves.

Beth Long



Alan R <> wrote:
Re: elites, If elites were not involved, then the R1b folk must have had a degree of mobility (including maritime travel) that would be unexpected of lower status people if we are to explain their present spread (indeed often dominance) of even the furthest flung islands of Europe.

This thread: