Modern archaeology endeavors to interpret prehistoric cultures according to the values and ideals of modern civilization. This amounts to a kind of archaeological revisionism in which the basic realities of prehistoric societies as they really were are disregarded in favor of values and ideals that simply did not exist in these prehistoric societies.

A common mantra of modern archaeology is “pots aren’t people”, meaning that the distinct pottery of a particular culture doesn’t necessarily indicate a distinct ethnicity. But again, this mantra completely disregards the way things generally were in prehistoric cultures. Although it certainly is true that pots aren’t people, it is also just as true that people made pots, and the people who made pots in prehistoric societies made them according to the ways of their common cultures, which were normally based on common ethnicities, these being normally based on common biological descents.

In prehistoric times, a common ethnicity was normally based on common biological descent, and a common culture and language were usually shared by people of a common ethnicity. Although there were probably minor exceptions to this – we may even speak of mixed ethnicities – such minor exceptions were certainly not the rule. This means that cultures and languages in prehistoric times were normally shared by people of a common biological descent. To argue against this means arguing against the way things naturally were in prehistoric societies.

Moreover, common biological descent in the more advanced cultures of prehistory were usually reckoned in the male line, such cultures being evidently patriarchal. Because of this, there is a clear correlation between such advanced cultures and the presence of the particular Y-DNA haplogroups that prevailed in such advanced cultures. In other words, there is a clear correlation between pots and people (even though pots aren’t people). And this is a matter of undeniable archaeological fact.

For example, the prevailing Y-DNA haplogroup in the Neolithic farming cultures of prehistoric Europe (Starčevo, Cardial, Linear Pottery, Cucuteni-Trypillia, etc.) was G2a. Likewise, the prevailing Y-DNA haplogroup in the Yamnaya culture of the Pontic Steppe (and its predecessors – Samara, Repin, Khvalynsk – and successors – Catacomb, Poltavka) was R1b, and the prevailing Y-DNA haplogroup in the contemporaneous Corded Ware culture of Northern Europe (as well as its easterly extensions – Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo-Balanovo, Abashevo, Sintashta) was R1a.

(On the other hand, there were no prevailing mt-DNA haplogroups in any of these advanced cultures and no correlation can be made between one particular mt-DNA haplogroup and any distinct advanced culture, all advanced cultures normally having a diverse assortment of mt-DNA haplogroups. The reason for this is that biological descent was not reckoned on the basis of female lines at all in patriarchal cultures, and women were therefore routinely transferred from one ethnic culture to another.)

The prevalence of one particular Y-DNA haplogroup in the advanced cultures of prehistory certainly does not mean that other Y-DNA haplogroups did not exist in these cultures; for example, the I1 and I2 Y-DNA haplogroups that prevailed in Mesolithic Europe are occasionally found in the aforementioned cultures. But the prevalence of one particular Y-DNA haplogroup in these cultures is the undeniable reality, and this naturally indicates particular ethnic groups most definitely speaking particular languages (rather than pluralistic societies speaking multiple languages).

None of this is meant to suggest that the values and ideals of modern civilization are bad or wrong. But disregarding the natural realities of prehistoric societies and the obvious archaeological facts in order to impose the values and ideals of modern civilization upon them is a most misguided form of revisionism.