How did the Indus Valley Civilization, a civilization that reached its peak in the 3rd millennium BC...

I think one of the requirements for a civilization to rise is the leader figure, whose job is to direct the work of a large group of people towards a common goal. And as the lack of early examples of democracy has already been mentioned, I'm inclined to believe they had rulers. Also, it's worth mentioning that the social stratification may not appear in the archaeological remains, but I don't want to delve into the theory of Archaeology, as I myself don't know enough about this matter yet.

>Indus Valley was socialist utopia nobody needed to work and money gave in trees xD
>this was real socials btw not evil birth Korea and failed Venezuela

It's known that most early European cultures were very peaceful until Indo-Europeans raided Europe from the East and killed everyone and established their own violent cultures.

>And as the lack of early examples of democracy has already been mentioned, I'm inclined to believe they had rulers.
Except this is fucking bullshit and reeks of "muh divine right"

Some early societies did have rulers acting in an executive position. Some more often than not had councils where they worked out shit, either councils of leading men or heads of families.

What is this obsession with muh stone henge? Is it because snow niggers have literally nothing else noteworthy?
Snow niggers never had a relevant ancient civilization get over it.

im pretty sure peope had all kinds of luxuries and lived past 100

It wasn't even built by snowniggers, it was built by Mediterranean people, the so called neolithic farmers, who colonized Europe during the neolithic.

Are you retarded? He was just mentioning that the people who built it basically never warred with each other. He's not bragging about it or anything even close to being obsessed. God damn you must be a nigger with a double digit IQ. Fucking kill yourself you mentally disabled fuck

He takes it as the sole evidence of the existence of some advanced native Briton civilization.
Learn2implicit you dumb nigger.

>And killed everyone

Yeah sure thing buddy, they literally killed every single one, they set up camps n shit like Hitler.

It's mostly Nordics who descend largely from them, South Europeans are still more similar to the neolithic people than to indoeuropeans, Western Euros like French people are at least half neolithic themselves or even more.

WE WUZ PEACEFUL N SHIT
WE NEVER RAIDED N WAR N SHIT

How does he imply that their civilization was advanced at all? Just because there was no fighting doesn't mean everyone wasn't as advanced as a fucking caveman. Just a peaceful caveman.

Well, that was an exaggeration. But they raided towns and killed enough of the neolithics to make them submit to their new Indo-European rulers

You're both retarded fucks.

They were not Britons and they weren't cavemen either.

Well yeah but Britons can just mean inhabitants of Britain it doesn't have to mean Celt.
A history of the world by Andrew Marr. Early Europe was strangely peaceful, and den dose fukkin indo-europeans came and rekted it all.
First time i've ever mentioned stone henge or seen it mentioned. It is quite a feat for a neolithic society.

>He takes it as the sole evidence of the existence of some advanced native Briton civilization.
No I don't. Further evidence comes from archaeology showing advanced farming and very little evidence of warfare. Hardly any weapons found or obviously injured bodies, and such. Plus to move such huge stones hundreds of miles would have needed a huge degree of cooperation and peace.

They killed at least 50% of the men and raped/married/cucked most of the women, considering the vast majority of European men have Indo-European haplogroups.

Briton != Celt

Is this actually true or just a meme? Where did they go?

(not trolling)

Yeah according to your perfect reasoning Central Africans are proto Indo Europeans too

Are you illiterate? I said the opposite of that. I said European HAPLOGROUPS are Indo-European.

They mixed heavily with proto Indo Europeans, in South Europe the neolithic genes are still the majority

What a retard you are, r1b is predominant in some African countries despite originating in proto Indo europeans, the fact that Indo euro genes arte predominanto doesn't mean much, for instant Iberians and Basques are ovrwhelmungly r1b despite being genetically much closer to West Anatolian farmers than to Yamnaya

That's exactly what i am saying you illiterate fuck. Haplogroup is like what, 2% of a persons overall genetics? Therefore it's odd that while Europeans are still moslty native european, their haplogroups are IE, meaning the PIE invaders must have been dominant sexually.

>Therefore it's odd that while Europeans are still moslty native european, their haplogroups are IE, meaning the PIE invaders must have been dominant sexually.

The fact that they were dominant sexually doesn't mean they slaughtered the entire male population, if that were the case Europeans would cluster much closer to Yamnaya.

It probably just means they got cucked or turned into slaves or something

please stop embarassing yourselves

Who are you referring to?

Why are we embarassing ourselves?

Explain oh brainy one

R1b doesn't originate among PIE it's 20000 years old. Africans have some distantly related R1b spread by pastoralists from the Near East, they didn't speak PIE because it was way too early chronologically.

>R1b doesn't originate among PIE it's 20000 years old
Yes it does, why else would they have IE Gods IE language etc

Still Central Western Africans aren't close o Near Easterners genetically.

??? who
PIE existed between about 7000 and 5500 years ago. R1b is well over 10000 years older than that.

They might be a little, it's not exactly a well studied area.

They aren't, they cluster near other Western Sub Saharian Africans

R1b is "Arab" in today's terms

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "HOW"?

Didn't archaeologists just find evidence in Germany of an ancient battlefield, suggesting all those ideas about peaceful Celtic and other people's are probably inaccurate?

This is what I'm talking about, maybe a little later than I thought:

sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle

Hardly. There are and were no Arabs in the Caspian sea region it originates.

>Except this is fucking bullshit and reeks of "muh divine right"

stop acting like a child. If you disagree with statement he made, give something other than an emotional outburst or recognize you won't be taken seriously. Data, examples and facts work well.

No one ever thought celtics were peaceful

>classless society
>clearly can afford toilet paper

Toilet paper wasn't invented until the 6th century AD in China

>AD

that's always so confusing, why aren't you using CE and BCE - it's what international public is suited with.

I mean you could also use BC - Before Christ it's pretty common but Anno Domini...

and when did these indo-europeans arrive in britain? or were they always there

1000BC? Maybe later.

They were late arriving, and yet dominate the language, culture and genetics. The locals must have been totally submissive.

Modern India has a far lower percentage of people defecating openly than ancient India

Proto-Indo-European doesn't mean what you think it does.

The Middle Eastern peoples who arrived in Europe (and who probably did not speak a Semitic language) came long before the first Indo-European speakers.

Assuming that the Celts were the first Indo-European people to land on the British Isles, 600-800 BC

Are you retarded?
I never said otherwise, though I wouldn't call Western Anatolians middle easterners

Nordics are NOT the most Indo European.

l2 is a native euro haplogroup, and it is most common in Swedes.

Poles/Ukranians and plains Germans appear most likely to have more IE DNA

False, most likely 2000 bc

They only absolutely dominate the language, kiddo.

There was absolutely a cultural influence, but Celtic British culture seems quite similar to what existed before the Celts took over.

Remember R1b =/= Indo-European. The R1b migration happened much, much earlier.

Haplomemes mean shit, Sardinians are only 34% european hunter gatherers despite having mostly a hunter gatherer haplogroup

Read up the kurgan hypothesis, you tards

Another thread ruined by /pol/

Old Norse has a very obvious non-IE trait
, it makes sense considering how pointless it would be for the IE to conquer scandinavia

You could take the Anglo revisionist interpretation and say that a superior lighter skinned people known as the Aryans from central Asia came and destroyed everything, creating smaller city states and princely kingdoms along the course of history, coming up with what we now know as 'Vedic' culture. Or you could assume that the civilization simply declined because of natural causes, the drying up of the river it was centered around, or infighting. We don't know for sure, and we can't really apply any straight forward context to the decline to the civilization - only make semi-educated guesses.

I mean, personally, I think that the Aryan invasion theory is pretty plausible, taking genetics, linguistics and cultural similarities from Persia to Pakistan and a lot of India, it indeed seems plausible. Not saying that the Aryans came and committed mass genocide against the Dravidians, but incorporated their own cultures and beliefs, bred with the natives, etc, creating a wider 'Vedic' culture. It's up to you to decide though, those are just my two cents.

Debatable, I doubt Britain was reached that early when parts of central Europe are around 1500BC.
Calling me kiddo doesn't make your argument any better it just makes you seem edgy.

British Celtic culture obviously has much native influence and yet it is still clearly primarily Indo-European in origin. R1b is generally believed to be Indo-European in origin.

Can we have a discussion about the topic? I don't know why topics based outside of Europe to do with civilization always resorts to discussions always gone off topic.

The reason is because early civilisations where keen to work together and didn't have a long history and culture of warring kings, civil war and constant power struggles. Everyone had just come out of being essentially cavemen to settled. It was a little utopia before humans realised they were cunts.

Scandinavia was much warmer back then

Bait

Dude.

Proto-Indo-Europeans were the specific ethnic group from Ukraine/Russia who would later spread their language and culture across Europe.

You're thinking of the non-Indo European groups who inhabited "Old Europe"

What the fuck are you talking about?

The PIE expansion was not a population replacement

No. The R1b haplogroup was present in Western Europe thousands of years before IE languages were present.

Europe has experienced multiple mass migrations from East to West

As a Jew, AD/BC is less offensive.

CE and BCE are supposed to be politically correct but they inherently suggest that Christ's birth began the so-called common era.

AD just uses Jesus as an arbitrary marker, which is reasonable. He was a super important dude whose birth impacted the West substantially.

they may have spoke pre-PIE

remember many very old languages exist (more than 40,000 years) including Khoi language, Yenisein, Ainu, Andaman, Veddoid/Australoid etc

so PIE can be traced farther back before horses and chariots

Read it up you utter retard, it wasn't a replacement but they did mix quite a lot, kind of like Spaniards in Mexico

I don't give shit about your triggers - I care about comfort and ease of use.

No, I am not, I mentioned both groups

>I mean, personally, I think that the Aryan invasion theory is pretty plausible, taking genetics, linguistics and cultural similarities from Persia to Pakistan and a lot of India, it indeed seems plausible. Not saying that the Aryans came and committed mass genocide against the Dravidians, but incorporated their own cultures and beliefs, bred with the natives, etc, creating a wider 'Vedic' culture. It's up to you to decide though, those are just my two cents.

I think you are right, the Yajur Veda goes into detail about certain events that lead me to consider that the IVC was on its way out when the Aryans came specifically because Indra is supposedly named as the destroyer of cities connecting to nomads not having a word for cities in those times is natural as they may not have 'experienced it' this is proen by the fact that the word brick's etymological origin lies in the dravidian(Tamil) word Eetee(like E.T) or Eshti, in sanskrit its the more floral Ishtika, now large cities of brick are described in it and they were all 'broken' by Indra and his army with his use of the Vajra, a double headed crown that looks like a dumbell(Pic related) dunno what it actually means.

And as liberator of water(specifically through breaking of aforementioned forts that dammed water in a drought as archaeological proved), but also accused of brahmanhatya(Sin of the murder of a brahmin) that whole story is just crazy allegory for history I reckon and also the fact that Brahmins exacted prior to the Indo Aryan invasion but also that it is not a caste but a profession as original intention of the Varna.

Right, but the lack of disease as a weapon prevented the same degree of admixture

CE/BCE is only used because of non-Christian triggers

I like them as a Christian - I don't feed the need to impose my faith in anyone life, it's best when it's delicate and subtle and a personal thing.

Also you should accept Messiah. And tell your rabbis it's not good what they do editing texts and teaching false things.

>How did the Indus Valley Civilization, a civilization that reached its peak in the 3rd millennium BC, have a fairly egalitarian society with no known kings or rulers and a sewage system better than the Romans with a flushing toilet in every household?
Just spitballing here, but; maybe they were lead by some form of proto-Sadhu?
Not necessarily a theocracy ... a mystocracy? esoterocracy?

>forcing my faith on anyone
I am maybe saying this because i am a christian but we have been using those for so long i feel there is hardly much religious to it, just western traditions.
Like how we hold school endings in churchin my country and atheists won't mind.

>It was a little utopia before humans realised they were cunts.
Poetry

You and any other idiot who believes this need to take yourselves out of the gene pool.

Bell Beakers may have been Indo-European.

>What is this obsession with snow niggers being inferior? Is it because you have literally nothing else noteworthy to say?
>you have an inferiority complex get over it.

now he has probably left to post his 50th "snow niggers were shit" thread this week.

The study also found, via autosomal analysis, that the majority of post-Neolithic populations in Europe, including their ancient samples taken from Beaker culture sites in central Europe, are the result of a three-way miscegenation process between the Yamnaya; Neolithic farmers; and western European hunter gatherers who were present in Europe since at least the Mesolithic.[103]