One of the most exciting things about modern genetics is how it can illuminate and rewrite history. A spectacular new study has just been published in Science, led by David Reich and Iosif Lazaridis of Harvard University, who worked with archaeologists and linguists, gathering thousands of skeletal samples and extracting and analysing DNA, mostly from the dense petrous bone of the ear, over nearly 4 years.
One thing the research is starting to uncover is how state formation happened. The Yamnaya, pastoralist steppe nomads, arrived in Greece during the Bronze Age, bringing along their language that would change into Greece when coming into contact with the local farming population. They also established themselves as a ruling elite. They could do so by replacing the Minoan big men who were at the top of the hierarchy the a farming community, which was not stratified yet. Stratification arrived with the steppe pastoralists.
However, this itself did not lead to the famous city states we would see during the Iron Age. I have argued that the reason is that pastoralists are relatively egalitarian regarding their own tribe and lacked the hierarchical organisation farmers did. Their evolutionary programming could be described as social dominance hierarchy, egalitarian within the clan, but feeling superior to other tribes. This is probably the reason why there were never any pastoralist states and that pastoralist conquests that led to new states (e.g. the Mongol empire) never endured for long. What likely happened was that the Yamnaya established themselves over the local farming population in the decentralised fashion that can be seen in Mafia clans (protection racketeering) or feudalism. This is, in fact, what we see in burials, an aristocratic or oligarchic elite. The genetic ratio of Yamnaya pastoralists vs local Minoan farmers is 1:10, which means that the original group of Yamnaya was most likely even much smaller as the ruling elite is more likely to leave more offspring. Their conquest had been made possible by the horse, chariot and above all bronze weapons.
Yamnaya were buried in elite tombs after they moved into the region north of Greece, suggesting a link between ancestry and social status. But during the later Mycenaean period in Greece—the time Homer mythologized—the new data suggest Yamnaya descendants had little impact on Greek social structure. Evidence comes in part from the spectacular Mycenaean burial of the Gryphon Warrior, a man who died in 1450 B.C.E. near Pylos, Greece. He carried no traces of steppe ancestry, though dozens of both elite and humbler graves in Greece did. University of Cincinnati archaeologist Shari Stocker, who helped excavate the tomb in 2015 and collaborated on the new studies, says the lack of correlation between social status and steppe ancestry is no surprise—and a welcome dose of nuance from geneticists. (source)
The question is, how the Gryphon Warrior or his ancestors managed to establish a kingdom? It is one thing if a state conquers another state and grows, this merely happens through the takeover of pre-existing hierarchical structures. The absence of such structures makes it incrementally harder to create a united kingdom. Merely killing one clan leader does not do much, except conjure up the risk of blood feuds. Neither would one clan leader have had the resources to start feuding with multiple clans. State formation is much less a military operation than a diplomatic one. In fact, the Gryphon Warrior was much more than just a military leader, he was also a religious leader and a unifier of clans:
“He was a young man, and wealthy, who served different functions: a religious or sacred function, as an outstanding warrior and as leader of his people,” Stocker said.
“He was one of the first kings of Mycenaean Pylos. Until then there had been competing aristocratic families, which explains why there were multiple tholos tombs,” Stocker said. “But the Griffin Warrior was one of the first individuals to unite all of these functions within society.”
In order to fulfil all those functions, the Griffin Warrior must have been unusually wise, just and impartial in order to have gained widespread acceptance.
We can see this kind of state formation again and again during the Bronze and Iron Ages and even beyond that. Muhammad played a very similar role in unifying the Arab tribes and, once again, religion played an important part in the story. Nowadays we often see religion, especially religious fundamentalism as a cause for tribalism, however it was likely that it often had a unifying function in ancient times, i.e. enlarging a community beyond tribal ties.
Let’s have a look at the Bible, it tells a very similar story: It’s the story of a pastoralist tribe (Abraham’s God) that conquers the promised land and establishes a kind of feudalistic system via clan leaders (the biblical judges). We know that at least some of the judges were so extraordinarily fair and impartial that their authority was recognized beyond their tribal lineage. I have argued that such people had a higher admixture of hunter-gatherer genes (forager types). In fact, this is what we see in King David and King Solomon (the wisest and most just of all kings). David isn’t only a warrior, he is humble, interested in the arts and literature and above all, he is highly spiritual and pious. He is certainly not the typical warrior aristocrat we see in the Yamnaya.
Here is the general pattern:
- Nomadic pastoralism with trading and occasional raiding
- Conquering a settled farming population (“promised land”)
- Establishment of feudalism (protection racketeering)
- A personality with a low tribalistic instinct and a high sense of justice and egalitarianism unifies clans and becomes king
Here is an overview of personality types plotted on Shalom Schwartz’s universal values. The dynamic between these four tendencies has historically been the driver of centralisation, decentralisation, unification and splitting of societies.
We do see traits of egalitarianism and universalism in almost all great unifiers in history. Joe Henrich highlighted the role of the mediaeval church in reducing endogamy and with it tribalism. However, it has never been a single institution that made such laws, but always single visionary individuals. Genghis Khan, who united the Mongol tribes discouraged tribalism and promoted meritocracy as well as women’s equality (even though he didn’t seem to have been a particularly nice person apart from that).
The great mixing of the Bronze Age led to stratified societies which were absent in the Neolithic. One visible remnant is the Hindu caste system. We know that the Yamnaya originally represented the highest caste in the warrior class (Kshatriya), the feudal lords. We then see the rise to the top of another class, the priestly class (Brahmins).
Check out my book Understanding History: Herders, Horticulturalists and Hunter-Gatherers for more:
and:
Comments
Post a Comment