Specifically, the millennia or two before the invention of writing. It must have been an era of considerable political complexity that we know almost nothing about.
Was the Uruk Expansion the world's first empire? -Were there ever quipu-like (non-linguistic but complex and flexible enough for imperial administration) record systems used in the Old World? -What was the world's first state? Was there an Indo-European Genghis Khan? -How much political complexity existed on the steppe? What was Southern China like before Han cultural/demographic expansion?
I don't have any academic work to link to or recommend, but this is an interesting and well-reasoned post on the topic: razib.com/wordpress/?cat=2670
Not related directly to any of the questions in the OP, but most of the new genetic evidence is telling us that "pots, not peoples" was a very misguided idea: population replacement really did happen in this era, and often corresponded with changes in material culture. The Bell Beaker people basically genocided the previous inhabitants of the British Isles (eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-bell-beaker-behemoth_10.html). On the other hand, the spread of Bell-Beaker culture to the Iberian peninsula was not accompanied by a major genetic change in the population, though it's possible that a new elite brought it with them.
Jaxson Flores
>On the other hand, the spread of Bell-Beaker culture to the Iberian peninsula was not accompanied by a major genetic change in the population
Same in Sardinia
I wonder why the British natives were so easily killed
John Phillips
bell beaker culture started in portugal
Jace Williams
>Sardinians Forgot to talk about EEF/First Farmers in the OP. They were the OG colonizers--not just the Mediterranean littoral, but most of Western Europe as well. Some things that were once controversial about them are now clear: 1. It was a true demic expansion, not just the diffusion of the idea of farming. 2. They didn't speak indo-european.
But we still know very little about them given that a huge chunk of the ancestry of modern Europeans derives from this group. Anyone have more?
Parker Wilson
Can't find a cite but I remember reading recently that an Iberian origin is looking increasingly unlikely. Central Europe probably.
Cameron Morales
>Orkney >Scottish
Tyler Watson
Sardinians are closer to European Neolithic farmers than pure Anatolian ones
Aiden Rogers
Anatolia_N and Europe_EN are virtually identical on that plot, and Sardinians are clearly the modern pop closest to both of them.
Dunno but I like their art. The Caucasus is weird.
Samuel Ross
At most you could say that uruk was a trade empire.
Grayson Gray
?
Chase Reed
How would you refute Razib's theory? He's not a specialist but it seems plausible enough.
Noah Cruz
They established trade colonies. They wouldn't have controlled the surrounding areas outside of trade routes. The population was probably made up of people from uruk as a way to relieve overpopulation. This is a problem that ultimately caused the collapse of the temple economy and the priest kings and led to the formation of the big men or what we would call kings today. As for the surrounding areas i couldn't say anything about them or their populations
Jaxson Flores
He's also just listing things from a book. It is a good read and i would recommend it
Except, contra Kriwaczek, he argues that they probably WEREN'T just trade colonies or local emulation. Uruk could have been an entity like the Maurya Empire (and many other pre-modern empires) where only scattered urban strong points were directly controlled from the metropole and the lands in between were probably left to their own devices besides nominally acknowledging Uruk hegemony.
Liam Nelson
Kriwaczek doesn't go into genetics. Every thing the blogger talks About when it comes to genetics is from another source
Xavier Morgan
What i was trying to say is that there probably wasn't done genocide. They just sent their own people to build colonies as those early Sumerian cities were plagued with over population problems.
