--- In cybalist@..., "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@..., "richardwordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
> wrote:
> > Have you read
> > http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~macaulay/papers/richards_2000.pdf?
> ....[snip]... Has any member of the group looked at this raw
data?
> > I've only got as far as down-loading it.) It is not impossible
> that
> > Vasconic entered from the Near East after the LGM; the earliest
> > Europeans are best represented in Scandinavia, not the Basque
> country!
>
> Even if I looked at the raw data, I doubt that I would be able to
> properly interpret it, but for whatever it is worth I have just
> finished reading a summary of Richards et al.'s findings
in "Mapping
> Human History: Discovering the Past Through Our Genes" [Steve
Olson:
> Houghton Mifflin: 2002]. Olson discusses this study on pages 172-
174.
> He makes the point that while 22% of European mitochondrial DNA can
> be traced to the spread of agricultural people from the Middle
East,
> on the other hand only 10% can be traced to the original settlement
> of Europe by homo sapiens. Fully 60% appears to have come from the
> Middle East and western Asia during the time between those two
> events; Olson says "probably as a result of a continuous trickle of
> people".
>
> To me this would seem to both support the suggestion that the
> precursor to Vasconic could have come into Europe well after its
> initial settlement, and also suggest that the precursor to PIE
could
> have came into Europe before the spread of agriculture. 60% of the
> mtDNA pool seems to imply an awful lot of movement into Europe,
even
> if each individual component was too small by itself to leave much
of
> an impact on the archaeological record.
>
> Ned Smith
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.
I don't believe in people trickling. It was not a safe thing to do
then.
BTW, ibid.
"
lamps with the representations of Serapis and Isis,
"
There was that Isis again, as Tacitus mentioned, Interpretatio
Romana notwithstanding.
Torsten