Re: Europeans descend from Basques

--- In cybalist@..., "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@..., "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...> wrote:
>

> >
> [TP]> Perhaps it did leave an archaeological record. Cf. in
> >
> > http://www.rastko.org.yu/arheologija/ajovanovic-nekropole.html
> >
> > "
> > The preceding discussion suggests that the native tradition had
> very
> > little influence on the appearance of inhumation graves in the
> early
> > imperial period in the territory of Yugoslavia. The skeleton

graves

> > of this period were an alien form associated with immigrants from
> the
> > Orient. This conclusion is supported by the location and
> distribution
> > of these graves, the time of their greatest use (which is
> > contemporaneous with the appearance of Oriental cults and

intensive

> > settlement of immigrants from the Orient in the Balkan

provinces),

> > the results of the anthropological analyses of the osteological
> > material from some sites (Viminacium), and the character of the
> > accompanying material.
> >
> > "
> > ...
> > "
> > Consequently, the inhumation graves from the early imperial

period

> > should be attributed to immigrants from the Orient who began to
> > settle in large towns in the 1st century and came in larger

numbers

> > in the 2nd century and at the beginning of the 3rd century A.D.,

as

> a
> > result of the economic policy of the Antonian and Severian

emperors.

> >
> > The inhumation graves from the 2nd century A.D. in Dacia (Apulum,
> > Romula) and in the Hungarian part of the province of Pannonia

(e.g.

> > Intercisa) have the same ethnical and cultural traits.
> >
> > All the general interpretations of the problem of inhumation in

the

> > early imperial period assume, in varying degrees, the presence of
> an
> > Oriental sepulchral component. The views concerning this problem
> can
> > be classed into three basic groups:
> >
> > - that inhumation is a result of intensive contacts and mutual
> > influences between the eastern Mediterranean and Italy;
> >
> > - that inhumation is a result of the merging of eastern

sepulchral

> > traditions and of a renaissance of the earlier Italian funerary
> > forms, particularly manifested in the decoration and form of

stone

> > sarcophagi found in Rome at the end of the 1st and in the first
> half
> > of the 2nd century A.D.: and
> >
> > - that inhumation is a consequence of the Christian diaspora.
> >
> > Although apparently different, these this have some basic

elements

> in
> > common: they all postulate influences from the East and their
> merging
> > with the native sepulchral tradition, and they treat the

chronology

> > of these phenomena in the same way.
> >
> > "
> >
> > In other words, a rather massive orientalization within a short
> span
> > of time.
> >
> > If the immigration I (or rather Snorri) proposed (Tauri(Crimea) -
>
> > Taurisci (Slovenia, Pannonia, Bohemia) -> Hermun-duri, Turingi,
> > Tungri (Thuringia) -> South Jutland, Fyn -> Swedish Uppland
> actually
> > happened, it might account for a good deal of the 60% of Middle
> > Eastern origin of the European gene pool. The one place I have

some

> > quantative information is the supposed entry of these "Tur"

people

> > into Denmark: On the transition from Celtic to Roman Iron Age (ca
> 50
> > BCE - 0) the number of finds increases dramatically. Perhaps

Snorri

> > didn't call then "Asiamenn" without reason.
>
>
> By implication, the results cited by Olson would indicate that

about

> 8% of the mtDNA must be associated with post-Neolithic movements

into

> Europe (which is still a good amount). I really cannot say how the
> researchers conclude that the 60% is to be attributed to the period
> between first settlement and the spread of agriculture, but was

just

> reporting that they had come to that conclusion. However, just my

own

> humble opinion- if such a large component of the European gene pool
> did not arrive until the late Iron Age it ought to be very easy to
> prove. Testable DNA could probably still be extracted from many
> graves predating that time- if the hypothesis Olson reported is
> correct, those should reveal the same 60%; if yours is correct it
> should be missing.

A very good idea. One problem however is that between the Neolithic
and Roman Iron Age, cremation is the only form of burial (at least
here in Denmark), and you won't get much DNA from ashes.
But there is of course the fact that those that are found in the new-
fangled inhumation graves from around 0 CE (beginning of Roman Iron
Age) are predominantly doligocephalic, whereas skulls from the
Neolithic may be either doligocephalic or brachycephalic (and I don't
think starvation comes into the picture here, given the significant
increase in the number of finds, the Poor Time here was the Celtic
Iron Age).
I've mentioned it before (cf.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/12962
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/13282
)

>Furthermore, if the influx of such a huge
> component of the gene pool occurred in a very short time shouldn't
> there be a rather large variation among its frequencies in various
> populations? In otherwords, it would be very much higher in areas
> directly settled by your proposed invaders, and quite lower in
> peripheral areas, such as Ireland or Iberia. It is my understanding
> that a variation of that magnitude was not found.

These are Richards' numbers (Table 5) for percentages of genes
originating from a proposed Bronze Age invasion from the Middle East,
ordered by European population group (they call their
method "Procrustean"; later actual invasions (eg 500 BCE and 0 CE)
would show up in this category). Why they insist (like everybody
else, except the Danes, perhaps this could be used in an operational
definitiopn of what Danes are?) on grouping the Danes with Poles,
Czechs and Germans as Central North Europeans, I shall never know.
Anyway:

SE Europe 8.2 +- 3.3
Eastern Med 19.5 +- 3.7
Central Med 4.6 +- 1.6
Alps 6.9 +- 2.7
NC Europe 8.9 +- 3.5
W Med 6.3 +- 2.5
Basque Country 5.4 +- 2.6
NW Europe 4.6 +- 1.5
Scandinavia 7.4 +- 3.3
NE Europe 5.5 +- 3.0

If that is not consistent with an invasion from the Middle East to
the Eastern Mediterranean to North Centyral Europe to Scandinavia, I
don't know what is.

And by the way, here are the "errratics". I wonder if any of them
would be consistent with a Sundaland origin?

SE Europe 2.6
Eastern Med 2.9
Central Med 3.3
Alps 1.4
NC Europe 1.5
W Med 6.5
Basque Country 2.6
NW Europe 1.3
Scandinavia 1.6
NE Europe 2.7

> [TP]> I don't believe in people trickling. It was not a safe thing

to

> do
> > then.
>
> Most genetic historians whose work I have read of do seem to

believe

> in it though. As far as safety goes, that is a relative term-
> travelling off over the horizon to unknown territory might have

been

> unsafe, but would it have been as unsafe as staying put when you

knew

> you were about to die of starvation or be overwhelmed by an enemy?

Even a defeated army will try to stay together. Once it's broken up,
that's it. They're doomed. Those were tough times. I remember reading
some Roman writer (unfortunately I forgot which) recounting how a
Germanic village had attacked and exterminated a Celtic one (or was
it the other way round?) in order to get at their winter stores.
That's all. Nothing else. I have a suspicion those genetic historians
haven't experienced much hunger themselves. You don't stray alone
into the territory of other hungry people.
And BTW, Hengist and Horsa didn't do much trickling either, did they?
Or William?

>
> Ned

Torsten