ExtinctZoo - The Forgotten Prehistoric War That Killed 19 Out Of 20 Men

Episode Date: February 15, 2025

7,000 years ago something happened that was so severe that it permanently left a scar within our DNA...

Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. Own it all. Pay off your home, travel for life, drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Buckslot Machine by Aristocrat Gaming,

Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package. The biggest prize in Yamava's history. Club Serrano members can earn dignity, instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29th. Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Details

at Yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro. Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion. Within every single one of us, there are approximately 3.16 billion base pairs of DNA, which contain not only our genetic information, but also hold our deepest biological secrets, including the darkest most twisted ones.

At least, that's the case, according to a few studies, which have apparently found evidence that not so long ago much of the known world was rife and violent bloody conflict, that was so brutal that his ramifications have lasted until today. It is completely unknown to most, and yet in some ways represents the first global conflict humanity has ever experienced, as it spanned across much of the inhabited world, making violence near universal and escape impossible. It's not every day that we find evidence for such a destructive conflict, let alone through our very own DNA. But that's supposedly what happened after researchers analyzed the genomes of modern populations,

finding evidence of a very distinct genetic bottleneck. Now, bottlenecks in general is what occurs when a population experience a drastic drop in numbers, resulting in lower genetic diversity, and that is honestly somewhat common in nature, with even humans having endured more than one, with a particularly deadly and famous one, having took place approximately 900,000, years ago due to Mother Nature's shenanigans. But the one I'm talking about, and that these researchers identified, was much more recent and seemingly our own fault.

To be exact, a team took a look at chromosome sequences in contemporary humans, and noticed evidence of a massive drop in genetic diversity only a few thousand years ago during the late Neolithic period in the old world, i.e., Europe, Asia, Middle East, etc., and suggesting that a lot of people died were disappeared relatively quickly. Now, anything that heavily impacts the population could have been considered an answer to this mysterious die-off. Yet what was so odd is that the bottleneck was only really seen in Y chromosome diversity, which is unique to males and passed on from father to son.

While in the mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through females, researchers found no matching drop in diversity. In other words, something had happened which clearly affected a lot of men, but not nearly as many women, leading to the researchers' idea that unprecedented and violence may have been the explanation. Because if the perpetrator was a volcanic eruption, severe weather, or some other form of mother nature, you'd expect the drop in genetic diversity

to be more or less equal between genders, not just in one. And really, a drop is not the best word to describe what happened to the men, as a more appropriate word would be decimated, with the scientists estimating that this event was so horrific that by the time it subsided, the effective male population in Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East,

have been reduced by up to 95%, meaning that theoretically, only 1 in 20 men survived this purge, with women possibly outnumbering men 17 to 1. No conflict in recorded history comes even close to this kind of lethality by a percentage, not even World War I or World War II. And if you wanted to recreate such a brutal conflict today,

then there'd have to be a loss of approximately 3.9 billion men, leaving only about 200 million standing. Naturally, when someone claims that our DNA is proof that a terrible conflict happened, you'd expect to find at least a couple of bodies lying around that we could point to as hard evidence. And as it turns out, there are lots and lots and lots of them. In fact, it's actually hard to miss them, and we discovered well over 250 late Neolithic dated sites where violent deaths have occurred, and that's just in Europe alone.

And even in general, Neolithic humans are notorious for being found in grim conditions, and containing unparalleled amounts of bodily harm, especially when compared to earlier or later humans. With one analysis of more than 2,300 early farmers, finding that over 10% of the men and women displayed injuries reflecting weapons, likely from rating parties or competition that attacked for their crops and livestock. Another analysis of 338 individuals in Spain found that 23% showed signs of aggressive damage,

with adult and adolescent males especially being heavily impacted. making up 97% of the unheeled individuals and 81% of those that showed healed trauma, suggesting that it was very common to experience more than one violent encounter in a lifetime. And obviously these numbers are pretty darn high, but they're not the 95% inferred in the study. Yet research points out that in many cases, violent attacks don't actually leave marks in the bones, with only 15% of fatal melee attacks with sharp weapons, leaving any sort of bone lesions behind. and you also have to take into account infections, disease, and other indirect modes of death that are associated with conflict. Now, obviously, these weren't the first people to be found murdered by their own, but their frequency was no doubt extreme.

And scientists noted two things that became exceptionally common during this period. Battles and indiscriminate massacres, with multiple sites of brutality being known of. One of the most gruesome is the Talheim death pit located in Germany, which is dated to about 5,000 BC. Here, scientists unearthed the remains of at least 34 individuals who had been brutally slain. And what's crazy is that none of the skeletons bore any kind of defensive injuries, which implies that they were fleeing and not fighting the attacking party. And across the board, the killing blows could all be placed in just three categories, those that were made by a sharp side of an Azi-like tool,

those by the blunt side, and finally the ones killed by arrows, which only accounted for three of the 34 victims. Analysis on the skulls also showed that warriors back then often aimed for the head, with all but four of the skeletons having lethal cranial injuries, sometimes on top of already deadly wounds. And among the dead, 16 had been children, nine of them adult men, and seven being older females, while younger women were noticeably absent, a popular theme amongst Neolithic massacre sites, suggesting that they were viewed as valuable and likely as a trophy, being kidnapped by the victors.

This particular attack took place within a settlement that possessed fortifications, like Palisades, which only further proves that back then there was a strong need to wall yourself off from other humans. And sure enough, other massacre sites that took place in settlements also had fortifications, like the massacre of Schlett's, which likely took place in 5,000 BC as well, occurring not so far away in Austria. And this one was far deadlier, with 200 victims being known of, they were carelessly dumped in a mass grave after a raid on the settlement. Like Talheim, there was again a noticeable lack of dead woman and lots of dead men, but this slaughter did differ in some ways. First off, on top of presumably kidnapping adult women, they also might

have captured pre-teens and young teenagers, as they too were noticeably few among the dead. And another grim difference was that in this attack, many of the dead were found without their arms and legs, while severed skulls were located separately, evidence of potential torture and humanist memorment. This could have also been a tradition for the attacking party and showcased that different combatants had varying rituals. For example, in Asia, headhunting was particularly common. In another poignant case that further demonstrates this, happens to be the largest known prehistoric mass grave, Herksheim, in Germany, and that occurred between 5,300, and 4,950 BC. But instead of a ravaged settlement, archaeologists actually believed they found a community that were the ravagers,

having created at least 80 pits right outside their 15-acre large village, that were essentially filled to the brim with victims, which so far is estimated to have exceeded 1,000 individuals, possibly up to 1,500, and ranged an age from newborns to elders. And if we account for the population difference between then and now, it would almost be like a city building a mass grave, with over 800,000 corpses right outside their city walls. Nearly each one was processed in a similar way, with a native population dismembering and breaking

bones while also cleaving their skulls down the middle. In fact, so many schools were cut and seemingly defleshed that a researchers reckon that this community were skull cultists that used the heads in some ritual, and most likely had pieces of them as well, with the brain being an especially prized part considering its fatty content. There were also signs that the tongues were often removed from the dead and that the bones were crushed for easy marrow extraction. And to sprinkle just a bit more queasiness into this, scientists further realized that there were less spongy bone elements than there should have been, and that certain bones, like the metapodials and hand phalenges, showed preferential biting.

In other words, these guys have their favorite parts of the body to munch on. Plus, many of the bodies were cooked, with some even showing signs of having been spit-roasted. And then, when it was all said and done, bones were processed into cups, other items, or turned into decorations, as some were found near or on spikes, where the entrance of the settlement was situated. Suffice to say, this was just about the worst group you could get caught by. But avoiding them might have been harder than you would think. Because despite the lack of transportation back then, they still managed to wage war on a large scale, with many of their victims having come from vastly different cultures, some of which were only. found 300 miles or 482 kilometers away. The dead also ranged in lifestyle, with some having isotopes demonstrating that they were hunter-gatherers, while others had been farmers. And then you also

had victims that came from up in the mountains and those from the lowlands, which all points to the idea that Herksheim's natives were horrifically bloodthirsty people who managed to carry out successful raids that required not only tactics, but a certain level of logistics. And not to mention, that while their settlement was large by a Neolithic standard, it was still significantly smaller than a thousand, and when I say a thousand, I mean less than 50 people. So impressive, in a very dark way. That being said, there are still some mysteries regarding this place, like who exactly were the dead, captives of war, slaves, or were some just unlucky travelers that got too close. Also, no one is really sure what happened to the natives of Herksheim, with some tests suggesting that the settlement was abandoned

soon after the massacres took place, with the maximum settlement time of 50 years following the burials, leading people to wonder if another group came seeking retribution. So obviously, it's hard to argue against Hark's time as being the most gruesome sight we know of. But such weird, specific brutality was not isolated to just this case, and many more instances are known of. Warriors that collected heads, you've got it. Groups that systematically broke and removed shins?

Yep, there was that too. Xenophobic groups that hunted down and mutilated newcomers, boom, done. And then finally, you even had fighters that buried people alive, because apparently that was a thing as well. In addition to a diverse range of brutality, there was also a lot of diversity when it came to the weapons themselves, and many kinds of blunt and sharp weapons were used in battles, such as adses, spears, bows and arrows, axes, clubs, knives, scrapers,

sickle-hose, hammers, and the list goes to the list goes. on. And unfortunately for combatants, the level of armor back then did not match the innovativeness of their weapons, with no standard protection being known of, and fighters likely didn't wear much besides animal skin, woven cloth, and plant material. This all made living exceptionally difficult for anyone, but especially for men capable of fighting, and simply growing up was an accomplishment, with a level of violence resulting in a measly lifespan of between 20 and 33 years old, and thus tying it for first place for the time when modern humans died the youngest. And this is even accounting for infer mortality,

as even if you made it to say, 15, you'd still be expected to not make it past 33. And so with all this nightmare fuel considered, it really just leads to one simple question, which is, what the hell was going on? Why was everyone seemingly in a non-stop fight with everyone else? And sadly, there isn't one single clear answer to this, but there are a few different ideas.

And ironically, one of the top hypotheses, pins it off as humans flying too close to the sun. To be exact, not so long before the violence kicked off, humanity entered the Neolithic Revolution, also known as the First Agricultural Revolution. This period in history saw many human cultures transition from hunter-gatherers to settlers and farmers. This allowed for a boost in population

and the ability to establish full-fledged settlements, which in turn led to progress in other areas as well. And this sounds great on paper, but this success also meant that humans could now better organize large battleworthy groups, courtesy of said settlements, and had access to a wider range of weapons than ever before. Additionally, this shift provided humans with new reasons to kill that didn't really exist beforehand, as they now knew that settlements and farms equaled guaranteed loot, food, and woman, all in one place. Furthermore, by proximity alone, settlements might have been viewed as hostile by others,

and potentially as existential threats, leading to the notion that all neighbors are bad news and had to go. Another more specific idea that tries to answer how the Y chromosome in particular was so obliterated beyond just the violence, states that as the revolution was underway, societal structures reorganized, with more and more people forming patrilineal kin groups, perhaps because trust was a rare commodity

and it was easier to rely on those you were related to. And this resulted in unrestricted movement for women, but very much restricted for men. In other words, no outsiders allowed if you were a guy. This would have made the Y chromosome very vulnerable and explains why it was so affected when these clans waged war against one another, and ultimately leading to the genetic bottleneck being very much one-sided. But like many ideas, there are those that disagree with this hypothesis,

and instead actually propose a peaceful explanation to this. Now, obviously, as the abundance of skeletons show, violence was quite prevalent at the time. But, in terms of the genetic bottleneck, one team of scientists thinks that patrilineal clans may have split up often through a peaceful process called lineal fission. Since these new clans were made up of closely related males, their Y chromosome lineages became more vulnerable to disappearing over time, especially due to environmental hardships. This led to a gradual drop in Y chromosome diversity, as some male lineages were very successful

in surviving, and others slowly faded away. This was only further compounded by reproductive fitness, where some groups were much more successful, which led to more growing and splitting, only reinforcing their dominance, while others just couldn't keep up and eventually vanished. Of course, there is then the possibility that actually both of these ideas were on the right track, with peaceful and violent factors having worked together to bring the effective male population way down. Whatever the case, there's certainly no denying that something happened. And to this day, the legacy of this bottleneck remains, with certain populations still not being at the same diversity as pre-bottleneck

levels. And if this had never happened, it's fair to say that things would be quite different. Still, our genetics overall have mostly recovered, and we don't kill everyone else on site. So at least there's that improvement, though it does lead to a second question, which is, how did all this potential bloodshed end? Well, it didn't, at least not in an absolute sense, because over time, from a pure numbers point, more people did end up dying in wars, especially thanks to new technology. It just so happens that we grew faster than we died. So things got relatively better.

Then sometime later, as more complex societies were created and trade and diplomacy arose, things cooled off. However, when you look at the last 600 years, you can see that this cooling off was only very recently, as it was only in the last 100 or so that we really started to turn a new leaf, with the amount of conflicts starting each year being on a mostly downed. downward spiral since World War II. And while it may be hard to believe these days, we do live in an extremely peaceful world compared to the one that used to be.

And this is of course reflected in our very long lifespans, which is over three times that of the Neolithic ones. And while we certainly do have our very own problems, I for one, am glad I don't have to worry about skull cults and shin takers anymore, at least for the most part. Thanks for watching, and until next time, on the Bloomberg follows the money. Because behind every headline is a bottom line. Whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings, there's a money side to every story. And when you see the money side, you understand what others miss.

Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now at Bloomberg.com. I think so.