The Anatolian- and steppe- 'invasions' don't consider the matrilocality we are currently finding out about, they say that only 20-30% is huntergatherer, completely glossing over the fact the women were almost all local. So least half of any Northwestern Europeans DNA is from these women, and connected to the land. The male marker(like R1) we use to show migrations is just one part of millions of genes. When we see 20-30% of the Original male HG haplogroup still present today they were not replaced, and the general mix of all genes would be predominantly huntergatherer still. If 60% of the male line is Anatolian/Steppe and we know they didn't bring women, the 'foreign blood' would be 30%, including in the men who show R1-steppeancestry; despite this marker their true HG-DNA would still be 70%. So very good reasons to believe the old culture and genetics would have been largely preserved despite this influx. The fact that men would not fight off other men from 'their' women like male possesion might merely mean that there was peace, organisation, community, brotherhood between the tribes without a common king enforcing all this wellmanneredness. The men were free men, still individually armed and ready to join forces to defend the greater federation and alliences though.Er Aldaric wrote: ↑04 May 2024, 17:48 As the Oera Linda book gets more and more attention, its greatest adversary will be the 'melting pot' theory of ancient Europe. When I speak to others about the OL the fact that it doesn't line up with academia's current reconstruction is immediate grounds for dismissal in their view. Even those in 'alternative' spheres cannot recognize how subversive this idea of an ancient melting pot is - with articles from NatGeo called 'Ancient Europe was a melting pot from the start' and 'The New Europeans: how waves of immigrants are reshaping a continent' right next to each other on the shelf.
The fact that the home life was so central and foundational shows to me that this 'matriarchal' natural state was the longest and common tradition. A nice side effect is that Europeans are homogenous, but not inbred.
Another thing is they like to say we are 97% (or something like that) the same. Instead this shows just how much difference a little genetic variation makes. Then they say we are maximum 8% Neanderthal, not counting all the genes we share with them.
Huntergatherers go back tens of thousands of years, neanderthals millions and are 100% European. Some of these genes are found outside of europe, but no others inside. So we are not immigrants.
Ridiculous too is the claim that this made NW Europe more lightskinned, we see today that one ancestor's brown skin-features are present after multiple generations, and that a white admixture in brown peoples is absorbed; it cannot be that even 50% incoming gohstly white men would lighten the skins of an entire 'black' group to our current European skintone, except if they were white as snow, and the presumably brown HG early Europeans were actually just a bit tan, like a greek fisherman. All groups that intermingled were related. White people are very homogenous. They love to claim non-Europeans are 'more diverse'(the modern word for mongrolised)and have more genetic variety/mixing. You can't have it both ways.
Like you say it is all based on clearly tendentious interpretation of DNA research.
- WHG root of Scandinavians .jpg (74.28 KiB) Viewed 198 times