World War Zero

[Zkribbler]

Genetic markers indicate that, just before the dawn of civilization, a generations-long world war killed off 19 out of every 20 men.

Genetics can reveal many buried secrets. An extramarital dalliance. The origins of our ancestors. In this case, it may have revealed that men almost exterminated themselves some 7,000 years ago.

The genetic indicators have been there for some time. It’s called the “Neolithic Y chromosome bottleneck.”

It’s a point in our stone-age past when our genetic diversity suddenly choked. At least among the male-transmitted genes. After a period of some 2,000 years of decline, there was only one fertile male left alive to mate with every 17 women.

It’s an event recorded in the bloodlines that have emerged across the world.

Previously, academics felt this may have had something to do with the way our ancestors explored and settled new lands. It was called the “founder effect,” where a small number of individuals keep moving to establish new settlements.

But a new study published in the science journal Nature puts forward a much more brutal proposal.

Men killed most of their peers off.

Cauldron of change
Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East may have been consumed by carnage between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago. And, as fathers pass their Y chromosome on to their sons, entire families must have been exterminated over wide areas.

It was a time when the world population is estimated to have been somewhere between five and 20 million people. To leave such a stark genetic imprint behind, as many as 9.5 million men must have been killed.

Why?

The Stanford University team blames “competition between patrilineal kin groups.”

Otherwise known as tribalism.

Clans form from common ancestors. They establish a strong group identity. This, in turn, promotes a sense of difference and competition with separate nearby clans.

The researchers say these pressures came to a head shortly before the first civilization emerged in Sumeria about 4,000 years ago.

“The presence of such groups results in violent intergroup competition preferentially taking place between members of male descent groups, instead of between unrelated individuals,” the researchers write.

“Casualties from intergroup competition then tend to cluster among related males and group extinction is effectively the extinction of lineages.”

Essentially, the victorious clans would exterminate their opponent’s menfolk to ensure ongoing dominance and the eradication of potential competition. They would then seize the surviving women.

World War Zero?

According to the researcher’s data, the carnage would have been horrific. The slaughter was so intense that just one-twentieth of the entire male population survived.

The fighting must have persisted for generations. And the first signs of civilization arose from the ashes.

Their hypothesis goes something like this:

Human society began to evolve away from nomadic hunters towards farming communities about 12,000 years ago. Suddenly, they had possessions. Resources were finite. And as clans had begun to settle in one place, intruders were unwelcome.

Such groups evolved systems of organization based on family membership — generally focused on the male chief of the clan. In terms of chromosomes, it would have appeared as though every male member of a clan had the same father.

Wiping out a clan would wipe out their unique Y chromosome markers.

The victorious clan would then expand to fill the void left behind.,

This hypothesis is only a model. There is no direct evidence of such a world-spanning conflict. It’s possible a male-specific disease could also have caused such carnage.

But, circumstantially, such brutal clan cleansing seems feasible.

 

[Olleus]

What's the source? I'm hugely skeptical of such strong claims made from what always ends up being very weak genetic evidence.

 

[Lexicus]

Given that there is zero archaeological or other evidence of this happening...

 

[Zkribbler]

Admittedly my post rested only upon an internet article. So this morning, I tracked the source down to a study by 66 institutions, including the University of Arizona, the University of Cambridge, the University of Tartu, and the Estonian Biocentre.

March 16, 2015
In a study led by scientists from Arizona State University, the University of Cambridge, University of Tartu and Estonian Biocentre, researchers discovered a dramatic decline in genetic diversity in male lineages 4,000 to 8,000 years ago – likely the result of the accumulation of material wealth, while in contrast, female genetic diversity was on the rise. This male-specific decline occurred during the mid- to late-Neolithic period.

“Instead of ‘survival of the fittest’ in a biological sense, the accumulation of wealth and power may have increased the reproductive success of a limited number of ‘socially fit’ males and their sons,” said Melissa Wilson Sayres, a leading author and assistant professor with ASU’s School of Life Sciences. Download Full Image

The study was published March 13 in an online issue of the journal Genome Research.

It is widely recognized among scientists that a major bottleneck, or decrease in genetic diversity, occurred approximately 50,000 years ago, when a subset of humans left Africa and migrated across the rest of the world. Signatures of this bottleneck appear in most genes of non-African populations, whether they are inherited from both parents or, as confirmed in this study, only along the father’s or mother’s genetic lines.

“Most surprisingly to us, we detected another, male-specific, bottleneck during a period of global growth. The signal for this bottleneck dates to a time period 4,000 to 8,000 years ago, when humans in different parts of the world had become sedentary farmers,” said senior author Toomas Kivisild from the Division of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge.

Researchers studied DNA samples taken from the saliva or blood of 456 males living in seven regions of five continents including Africa, the Andes, South Asia, near East and Central Asia, Europe and Oceania. Scientists specifically studied the Y chromosome, which is passed down through the male lineage, and the mitochondria, which is passed to offspring by the genetic mother.

After using computer and statistical modeling, they found the two extreme “bottlenecks” in human genetic history, specifically the second found only in the male lineage.

The researchers said studying genetic history is important for understanding underlying levels of genetic variation. Having a high level of genetic diversity is beneficial to humans for several reasons. First, when the genes of individuals in a population vary greatly, the group has a greater chance of thriving and surviving – particularly against disease. It may also reduce the likelihood of passing along unfavorable genetic traits, which can weaken a species over time.

According to Monika Karmin, a leading author from University of Tartu, Estonia, their findings may have implications related to human health.

“We know that some populations are predisposed to certain types of genetic disorders,” said Karmin. “Global population evolution is important to consider, especially as it relates to medicine.”

“When a doctor tries to provide a diagnosis when you are sick, you’ll be asked about your environment, what’s going on in your life and your genetic history based on your family’s health,” added Wilson Sayres, who is also with ASU’s Biodesign Institute. “If we want to understand human health on a global scale, we need to know our global genetic history; that is what we are studying here.”

The researchers believe this will be relevant for informing patterns of genetic diversity across whole human populations, as well as informing their susceptibility to diseases.

Wilson Sayres said the next step is to continue the research by gathering a greater number of DNA samples, increasing the diversity of the samples, and working with anthropologists and sociologists to gain a broader perspective on the findings.

The research was funded jointly by several sources, with primary support from the University of Tartu and Estonian Biocentre. Researchers from 66 institutions around the world participated in this study.

Thank you for keeping me honest.

 

[Lexicus]

Well I'm talking about the "war", not the bottleneck.

 

[Zkribbler]

The OP article ends with the words:

"This hypothesis is only a model. There is no direct evidence of such a world-spanning conflict. It’s possible a male-specific disease could also have caused such carnage.

But, circumstantially, such brutal clan cleansing seems feasible."

 

[Rambo919]

Ignoring the probable "out of africa" mentality (which is not actually half as proven as most believe) of the researchers there are many "ancient global carnage" myths usually involving remarkably brutal combatants. The giants of the bible (taking both intra- and extra-biblical sources into account) wiping each other and most (or at least a large portion) of the "normal" men out being one example and the greek titans-vs-gods conflict being another. That kind of historical memory means "something" catastrophic happened which was not plague.... though the possibility that everyone keeps subconsciously reading this memory into their interpretation of the research is also a factor to consider.

 

[Olleus]

I don't understand how a bottleneck implies war?

By far the most direct explanation (to me at least, although I wont pretend to understand the statistical analysis they used) is that a small number of men obtained exclusive breeding rights with women. It seems a lot less far fetched to say that in early sedentary societies the chieftain may have had all the women in his tribe as a harem to himself - or himself and his direct male descendants. A global war wiping out 95% of men seems like the least likely explanation anyone could come up with.

 

[Rambo919]

OK, assuming for quick argument sake the global population is 1,000,000 people with half of that woman, then 25,000 men get exclusive sexual rights to woman.... would that not in itself cause the remaining 475,000 men to become violent either towards the 25,000 or each other? Also how exactly could such a redistribution happen logically speaking? All things considered the only logical cause is a drastic reduction in male sexual partners through violent means since no fast spreading plague is gender targeting, also there are no "great depopulating plague" myths.

 

[Yeekim]

This is a second time in a month when research from Tartu has attracted attention on CFC.

Given that there is zero archaeological

The archaeological evidence from 50,000 years ago is rather lacking in general...

 

[Plotinus]

The giants of the bible (taking both intra- and extra-biblical sources into account) wiping each other and most (or at least a large portion) of the "normal" men out being one example...

The problem with that interpretation is that the sources that describe the Nephilim as violent and killing people, such as the Book of Enoch, are probably later than the reference in Genesis 6, which doesn't describe anything like that. If that is so then it looks like the violent nature of the Nephilim was a later addition to the story, not an original part of it.

That kind of historical memory means "something" catastrophic happened which was not plague....

To assert that myths of this kind are "historical memory" is a pretty big assumption, don't you think?

 

[Rambo919]

The problem with Gen 6 is it's a cursory summary, it contains no details, the problem with Enoch as a whole is it's been so over edited no one can really say for sure how much of it is genuine. I don't take either as meticulous proof, especially the sometimes lurid/chaotic Enoch.

The assertion that it is historical memory must be made because the same kind of conflict at about the same time is so universal, the two examples named are only the two most well known. Something happened that left deep psychological marks otherwise it would not still be told and retold till today in half as many forms as there are people groups. The only other event of similar impact is probably the flood that followed a period of time after which is sometimes connected to it but sometimes not.

 

[Plotinus]

That assumes that common stories must have their roots in historical events. But why assume this? Why can't it be the case that the human mind just has a tendency to tell myths about certain themes? Most cultures have e.g. fertility goddesses - it doesn't follow from this that there ever really was a fertility goddess who inspired those myths. Rather, human beings just have an inbuilt tendency to believe in fertility goddesses. Given that humans presumably evolved in a context of intermittent conflict with other groups, wouldn't it be natural for different cultures to develop myths revolving around conflicts and scary "other" groups? What evidence do you have that such myths must have origins in specific events at all, let alone all have the same one?

I'm also puzzled that you say that the myths of the Nephilim and the Greek gods/titans are set "at about the same time". Surely neither story has any particular temporal scale. They are both set in mythic time, which could be any time. (And the Nephilim are inconsistent anyway, being incredibly ancient in Genesis 6 but historical in Numbers 13.)

 

[Rambo919]

Why assume that the same kind of story telling roughly the same sequence of events which starts to pop out at roughly the same period of time is made up? Nothing that widespread happens without a common catalyst. The only two choices you have when encountering such a freakishly prevalent narrative is to either pick the most believable one or boil them all down to lowest common denominators.... you cant just assume they were made up because they SEEM unbelievable to your subjective view of the world at that time. Big ideas have to be born centrally, almost nothing (hyperbolically speaking) is actually obvious it only seems that way because it was internalized at childhood. Basically I reject the theory that mythology evolves from nothing, it's logically inconsistent.

There has always been conflict, it was for most of history the norm rather than the exception. That only one great conflict specifically gets reported (never more than two which in itself is rare) in any one such story means all the stories HAS to point to the same conflict. Don't think in chronological scale, that always gets lost after a few mellenia, think story scale. A "short" conflict could be anywhere from a few years to a few centuries. Also due to most cultures not surviving to the modern era and the general tendency to not have a strict oral tradition to preserve the core it's very easy for the time of such an event to drift forwards or backwards. The only way the biblical traditions survived as storngly they did was due to the both freakishly strict and freakishly open nature of the Jewish oral traditions compared to others which in itself lends it a large measure of credibility. This is not a normal game of telephone it's a game of telephone where everyone listens in and can correct any mistake in transmission.

The giants of Gen 6 and Num 13 are not the same, the second is at best a strongly diluted bloodline. No specific mention is made of supernatural siring in Num 13. Also for example consider the size difference between white scandinavians and yellow asians.... similar mental capabilities but the former literally dwarfs the latter.... why do we assume that the very probably generationally malnourished Israelite's of that time were the size of the current common europeans when even the current europeans are on average larger than their ancestors of a thousand years ago due to better food supply? And no I don't mean fatter though that is also true. You will also notice that every mention of giants in the Bible has them smaller as time goes on, this could be either due to actual generational shrinkage due to interbreeding with normal populations or exaggeration into the past so to speak though personally I find the latter option less probable

If it was not for the universality of the "great conflict" myths I could have considered a sweeping non-lethal sickness that causes male infertility but (maybe subjectively) that seems highly improbable in itself.

 

[Olleus]

OK, assuming for quick argument sake the global population is 1,000,000 people with half of that woman, then 25,000 men get exclusive sexual rights to woman.... would that not in itself cause the remaining 475,000 men to become violent either towards the 25,000 or each other? Also how exactly could such a redistribution happen logically speaking? All things considered the only logical cause is a drastic reduction in male sexual partners through violent means since no fast spreading plague is gender targeting, also there are no "great depopulating plague" myths.

Violence maybe, or maybe not. If the men in charge are viewed as sufficiently powerful (in strength, or spiritually, or something else) that might be enough to keep things from bioling over. And if there is violence it could very well be a 1-on-1 contest, of the type which is prevalent in the animal kingdom. But I wouldn't call this war, and I don't think it has to lead to the 475,000 men dying a violent death.

And, frankly, using myths as proof (or even evidence) of anything at all than the existence of those myths seems pretty strange. People saw war routinely, going from that to a story about "A war that was bigger than all others" seems within the reach of even the least imaginative individual.

 

[Olleus]

You will also notice that every mention of giants in the Bible has them smaller as time goes on, this could be either due to actual generational shrinkage due to interbreeding with normal populations or exaggeration into the past so to speak though personally I find the latter option less probable.

The rest of that post is pretty much pure opinion, so there's really nothing to say other than I disagree.

On that quoted point however there is a fairly clear probable answer. It was generally accepted belief amongst the greeks (and I believe others) that ancient times were better than modern times, and the future would keep getting worse. The world ages and, in the same way as men get less good at things as they age, the world becomes less glorious/impressive as it does so. Essentially just a pure anthropomorphizing analogy - something which humans are exceptionally good at doing (a bunch of psychology experiments have shown this). I've also heard it argued that when the greeks saw dinosaur or bones of huge prehistoric beasts they interpreted them (once again, in the anthropomorphizing way) as belonging to past giants. This gives them 'evidence' that people were indeed bigger and stronger in the past. That seems uncalculatably more likely than "giants actually existed".

 

[Plotinus]

Why assume that the same kind of story telling roughly the same sequence of events which starts to pop out at roughly the same period of time is made up?

I'm not assuming that at all. Rather, I'm rejecting the assumption that it isn't made up. As long as it's possible that it is made up I don't think it's right to assume that it isn't.

Nothing that widespread happens without a common catalyst.

Sure, but the common catalyst could just be human nature, which has similar tendencies in pattern-recognition and myth creation in every culture.

The only two choices you have when encountering such a freakishly prevalent narrative is to either pick the most believable one or boil them all down to lowest common denominators.... you cant just assume they were made up because they SEEM unbelievable to your subjective view of the world at that time.

So are you saying that all the myths about fertility goddesses must have their common origins in a single historical figure of some kind, and if this seems odd to us it's just down to our subjective presuppositions? Why is this a more reasonable hypothesis than saying that human beings have a tendency to hypostasise natural phenomena, and that this tendency has resulted in roughly similar mythological elements in widely separated cultures?

Or again, think of the different myths about the future end of the world. Aren't there similarities between the Norse myth of Ragnarok and the Book of Revelation? Would you explain that by saying that both cultures somehow tapped into precognition of actual future events?

Big ideas have to be born centrally, almost nothing (hyperbolically speaking) is actually obvious it only seems that way because it was internalized at childhood. Basically I reject the theory that mythology evolves from nothing, it's logically inconsistent.

There's nothing "logically inconsistent" about it. If you really think this, then you'd have to reject all fiction, wouldn't you? I think you underestimate the fundamental human capacity to make stuff up. And you ignore the fundamental similarities between human beings, no matter what the culture, that lead them to make similar stuff up.

There has always been conflict, it was for most of history the norm rather than the exception. That only one great conflict specifically gets reported (never more than two which in itself is rare) in any one such story means all the stories HAS to point to the same conflict.

I don't see why, and in any case, any given mythology usually has lots of different conflicts set at some mythological past time, don't they?

Remember also that it's a fundamental human tendency to want to create order out of chaos. This is, I suppose, part of our innate love of patterns. Accordingly, myths often feature order being created out of chaos. So think of the "Chaoskampf" motif in many different mythologies, where a mythical god or hero battles a monster of chaos, kills it, and imposes order on the universe as a result. (This probably underlies Genesis 1:2 and other biblical passages, Tiamat in Babylonian religion, and so on.) Do you think that these preserve some ancient memory of a genuine chaos sea monster which had to be defeated? Isn't it more reasonable to think that they just reflect a way in which human beings like to understand the way the world works? In myths of this kind, order and creativity always comes about through conflict. It seems reasonable to suppose that this basic idea also underlies the myths you're talking about, such as the war between the Greek gods and Titans, or for that matter the war between the Aesir and the Vanir in Norse mythology. In these, a primordial conflict allows the forces of chaos to be overthrown and the forces of order to prevail, resulting the relatively ordered pantheon and world of today. This is just a natural human way of thinking - there's no need to suppose that it preserves some kind of memory of a real ancient war, any more than the similarities between Odin, Zeus, and Yahweh have to be explained by supposing that they all go back to some identical real historical individual. (If, like the ancient euhemerists, you think that plausible, consider the similarities between Father Christmas and Santa Claus - so similar that today they have become alternative names for the same figure, though their origins are distinct. Do you explain that by supposing they both come from the same historical person?)

The giants of Gen 6 and Num 13 are not the same, the second is at best a strongly diluted bloodline. No specific mention is made of supernatural siring in Num 13.

There's no denial of supernatural siring in Numbers 13 either. I don't know what basis you have for saying that it's about a "strongly diluted bloodline"; the text says that the Hebrews seemed like grasshoppers next to them, which suggests to me that they were pretty enormous. It looks to me like (some of) the ancient Hebrews believed in giant beings called Nephilim, which appear in various legends and myths in various forms, playing various roles. To try to relate the ones mentioned briefly in one story to those mentioned briefly in another story by anything as definite as "bloodlines" seems to me to be trying to create a consistent "canon" of mythology where none exists, or at least where we don't have nearly enough material to do so.

You will also notice that every mention of giants in the Bible has them smaller as time goes on, this could be either due to actual generational shrinkage due to interbreeding with normal populations or exaggeration into the past so to speak though personally I find the latter option less probable

No, it doesn't! Genesis 6 doesn't specify any size at all, let alone one larger than those of Numbers 13.

 

[innonimatu]

What's the source? I'm hugely skeptical of such strong claims made from what always ends up being very weak genetic evidence.

I'm even willing to call those claims deceiving. Genetics has been much abused, and the many problems with examining old material are known. But even assuming are were indeed less male lines than female lives, it does not translate to war. Merely to a lack of monogamy. Males do not necessarily get tied down because of children, those more... desirable could simply have mated with many more women and ended up fathering most of the descendants. Absent the institutions of marriage they could move on to to a new woman... Women do get tied down and even the less desirable ones probably got to reproduce because producing children was socially necessary. So most women are guaranteed to reproduce, only some men do.
Assuming war is silly. There are other possible explanations.

 

[Plotinus]

But the article doesn't "assume" a war and specifies that that is only one possible explanation.

 

[innonimatu]

Then what is the point? An article about some speculation done over lunch?

I guess the real find was that genetic "bottleneck", and the speculations an embellishment by journalists or PR people promoting the paper, lifting from it only one hypothesis it mentions. Mixing academic papers and the media does lead to that...