Re: Greeks
From: Philip Deitiker (Donevenask_at_worlnet.att.net)
Date: 03/29/05
- Next message: Tedd Jacobs: "Re: The Vinland Map's Ink"
- Previous message: Joe Jefferson: "Re: Greeks"
- In reply to: Uwe Müller: "Re: Greeks"
- Next in thread: erilar: "Re: Greeks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 04:34:53 GMT
"Uwe Müller" <uwemueller@snafu.de> says in
news:3ar7m0F6dg5kuU1@uni-berlin.de:
> Identified by what? Late Hallstatt princely burials inside a
> latter phase of the widely distributed Urnfield Culture,
> Hallstatt A and B?
Well, I don't think that the true celts, those that invaded greece
and anatolia, were from gallia, most likely they were derived from
the region of the Urnfeild culture.
Gallic and islandic celts are a whole nother thing all together.
But you can see genetic continuity up the danube and between greeks.
In switzerland its kind of +/- but in austria you can see the
similarities with romanian and bulgarian, and you can even connect
bulgarians, rather easily with greeks.
>> do have the genetics that would support an expansion, also
>> hungary, unfortunately hungary has been more muddled by later
>> expansions. From france westward however the expansion looks
>> purely cultural (as there is no genetic elements). The
>> alternative explanation of course, is that the celts expanded
>> down the danube first during the neolithic, picked up some new
>> technologies that then spread back into the largely celtic
>> peoples of NW europe.
>
> What neolithic culture would you think had been the Celts?
That was an alternative postulate. If I had to place them and given
the degree of nodality, central and eastern austria.
> I
> would argue about the late Hallstatt/early Latène culture as
> being celtic, as it shows fundamental differences to the late
> Latène Celts.
Which celts, the ones west of the alps or east, the islandic, the
danish/polish, those of northern spain. The earliest 'celtic' culture
is supposed to have reached the isles in the 5th and 6th century B.C.
Or are the germanic tribes derived or admixed from the celts. Did you
know that from HLA point of veiw there is not a whole lot of
difference from Germanics and French, substantially more difference
between Czech and German, very little between Danish, French and
German, not surpising, but rather marked difference between these
three and the flemish, Irish, Cornish, and god-only knows about the
british, scraping off the admixture problem one has haplotypes that
don't fit either into the Irish/Cornish/Norse cluster or the
French/Danish/German cluster, and look sister to the flemish.
If irish spoke celtic originally then I would expect Norse to be
clearly a derivative tongue, it is not, but the two are closely
related. There is substantive evidence for an early migration from
the region of ireland or western great britain into europe, eastern
great britian being extremely muddled by more recent migrations. It
is by no means the only migration into gallia including eastern
gallia/germany (or should I say especially). In addition nodal
centers in iberia also expanded into gallia (once again unreported in
any archaeology) and germany. Of course the roman influence was felt
in france and these haplotypes are indicative. There are a moderate
number of austrian nodal haplotypes in gallia and germany.
When one takes a look at germany and france there are no nodal
haplotypes within the top 7 haplotypes found. In Ireland the first 2
are nodal, in Cornish the 1st and 3rd, in the basque the 2nd, 3rd and
5th, in the flemish the 2nd, 3rd. So it is very clear that france and
germany are basically of the same ancestral populations, and
approximately the same mixtures. All of this has probably occurred in
the last 9000 years, so that does place them in the Neolithic period.
[Interestingly However, for france, for the shortest Cw-B haplotypes
that indicate longer term patterns, france is nodal for 1 haplotype
that is a consistent feature of northern and western europe].
Picking an actual celtic ancestral people based on genetics is
more or less futile with a capital F. It is less so difficult in the
east because the greeks depicted an invading population and we pretty
much know where they are from. Almost all these peoples have been
diluted by subsequent invasions, but they could have been the origin
of the celts. But if you had to pick a place that could have been a
center of expansion with a nodal peak surrounded by dilution of
patterns consistent with the historical celt invasion migrations,
then that center would have to be austria, then you have in southern
germany, eastern switzerland, czech republic, etc the extension of
the culture. It sort of fits.
What happens between eastern switzerland and lake hapsfeild/gallia
is something I have no means of distinquishing. 100s of french HLA
have been typed, some subregional typing has been done, the
representation in S. France does not deviate markedly from core
french, but is markedly different from the 'less mixed' amoung the
basque. Within that french population as I have said there are a few
austrian haps that are also found in romania, none that could not be
explained by diffusion alone. Worse if there was a migration from
france into black sea region, due to the uncertainty in the order of
admixing in the french, it is almost impossible to be able to see
such an event. In the discriminatory longer loci haplotypes the
french are at about 3.5% maximum, and sensitivity is about 1%, and
the later admixing is about 50% in these groups, so that it is
marginal that we might see such a migration. To contrast this with
Ireland, the HF 2 haplotypes in the Irish are about 10% (3 fold more
than the frenchs highest), in the cornish a little lower, Sardinia
has one that is about 15%, the Norse about 8%. So if the Irish manage
to go anywhere, they leave a realitively strong signal, but if the
gallian/french go somewhere you have to type a couple thousand people
to see that signal. The only sign that the migration would have
occurred from france is if peak haplotype frequencies dropped
markedly or unexpectedly in a region. We cannot say that about
greece, more so about Italy (but then italy has some similarities to
france in peak haplotype origins).
In the other direction. Romania, the slavic republics, etc. These
places have been the recipients of migrations of norse and invasions
of huns and other nomads from the east. None the less Uralic peoples
and the peoples in the region between hungary, finland and the ural
mountains definitely have a character that is tracable in origin to
the west and south, and have characters found in the east as
derivatives, such as the Eskimo, Yakuts, etc. The tyrollean ice mans
ancestors may be from this triangle, and could indicate some
neolithic activity in that region.
Therefore it is possible to deduce the preservation of ancestral
haplotypes found in these peoples, also found and diffusive into
romania and in southern russia. Romania also has haplotypes that are
characteristic of the greeks and there are some strange associations
with the island of Sardinia, shared by the greeks but some also
direct. Bulgarians have more in common with the greeks, romanians
have more in common with the austrians.
> But I have never heard of them being traced back
> to the neolithic. I would be very much interested about further
> infos.
Again it is an alternative. As I said above, sometimes genetics
happens to be a result of circumstances rather than meaning. Austria
itself looks, now, as some kind of nodal center, so at least one
could have an expansion down the danube. Of course if Hungary and
Romania had not been muddled by more recent invasions then they might
look more like a nodal center. Not only does austria have a nodal
center of an expansion, but is also central to the best we know
historically about early celtic expansions. In addition sitting
proximal to switzerland it might explain bronze age cultural and gene
flow into the Ilses. One reason I might discount Hungary and Romania
as being a prehistoric source is that the precedence in coastal
regions are immigrant isolates from other places. Cultural celts go
many directions, they go north into the galicia region of poland,
they were in denmark with no record of history when they arrived, the
of course were in gallia, they migrated down the black sea into
greece and then anatolia. If we consider the italian alps as an
obstical to travel south, austria would be a neat point of origin.
Neat, of course, means squat. Based on history alone the vector of
migration is from the east central black sea region into anatolia.
Extrapolating backward into the fog of prehistory, there is austria,
or the romanian/hungarian region, less probable is switzerland, or
the czech republic, unlikely or unprovable is germany or france.
>> > As to the doric expansion, there is no doric artefact
>> > culture, no doric tool or ceramic types, settlement pattern
>> > or economic structure I know of.
>>
>> Except Doric architecture (lol).
>
> And the doric dialect, as I've been told.
>
>> I know what you are getting at;
>> however. Let me reword the statement, there is no particular
>> external site from greek which has Doric artefacts that
>> predates the Mycenean period, the origins of the Dorian wave
>> are unknown.
>
> I'd rather formulate: there aren't any tools, household
> utensils, economic strategies or burial customs, that could be
> labelled as doric, not in Greece and not outside, not before,
> during or after Mycenean times. There is a dori c style of
> building and a doric dialect. That's all. The assumption, that
> this was the effect of a distinct people immigrating into Greece
> later than the other greek tribes, comes from the classical
> Greeks. I know of no archaeological data to prove that
> assumption.
This is something I will have to consider. I keep a sort of running
concept in my mind of the genetics. The bigger problem sometimes is
big general trends sometimes obscure more recent specific trends.
Such is the case with the italian peninsula. And I will get at this
because it directly links to the greeks.
The basic trend in europe, following a brief phase of genetic
movement from south east to northwest, is gene flow direcly out of
africa either via iberia or sardinia and flowing westward. The body
of flow has been via northern and eastward stop and spurt migrations
and via at least one, probably catastrophically induced, west to east
migration. The low level haplotypes found nodal in france are all
bimodal or sister to haplotypes found in Korea and Japan. the trail
leads through italy and into levant probably through persia around
northern mongolia and into Korea/Orochon and Ainu. These three groups
make a contiguous node of highly enriched western representation.
(Japan I have left out because almost all of its enrichment can be
explained as a consequenc of post-Jomon immigration). This center
streaks patterns down the west pacific rim as far as australia. These
haplotypes are deductively western because of similarities to basque
haplotypes. Although not a single basque haplotype is found in the
east. So this represents one west to east wave.
Also characterized are the similarities between italians,
albanians, greeks, anatolians, and kurds and some peoples living in
the caucasus. Examining the peak haplotypes in these groups seems to
indicate a second wave of western migration, more recent with mixed
haplotypes of east/west origins. It is not surprising that these
haploypes are found in northern pakistan, _but_, not all of these are
explained by the migrations of the greeks, in fact one group has a
set of western derived haplotypes that are not of greek origin, and
it has been proclaimed these are the result of the scythians or other
non-descript western nomads.
Before the romans we have a etruscan culture in italy, this tuscan
region geneticaly has some similarities between sardinians, iberians,
and the basque. Some of these estruscan haplotypes are at low
frequency in the eastern mediterranean and black sea region. Whereas
one sees nodality in the central western italian population, there is
little indications of nodality anywhere else on the peninsula. I
found also a tuscan derived haplotype in britain and something that
looks tuscan in ireland. The cornish have a haplotype that could have
been derived from sardinia, as with the flemish. The pinnicle of
nodal centers however is iberia. Since Iberia has so many nodal
haplotypes the peak haplotypes are diminished. Most of iberias
haplotypes are only tracable to africa and are highly recombinant
derivatives of north or west african haplotypes giving an idea of the
ancientness. Despite this only northern iberia seems to propogate
genes into europe, whereas southern iberia is simply a robust center
of human neolithic and preneolithic population. There is diffusion
however of this center into france and italy. There is also evidence,
although faint of italian contribution in spain. The pasiego region
of northern spain, which would have been consider a region of gallic
control is pretty much indistuinguishable from coastal regions north
of france and germany.
So then what is my point. Italians and greek, as a whole have
markedly similar genetic composition. If the basic sweep was from
west to east since the end of the last glacial maximum, could we see
a migration from east to west. So now we need to consider europe and
is what is going on.
1. The basque, occupied once a larger part of wester france, the
czech, flemish and basque culture were probably contiguous at some
point after the last glacial maximum. Obviously latium or mycenean
greek is not a basque language. So we can throw that out. [I should
point out also that armenians also have flemish haplotypes, whereas
the svanetians have some czech haplotypes, I spoke to a person of the
region and she claimed that people from the region of czech once
settled around the caucasus so . . .]
2. Iberians. The greeks are definitely not derived from iberians.
Ruling out some ancient gene flow by subtracting out similar haps
found in east asia, except for more or less trade and diffusion,
there is no substantive iberian input in greece. I would venture a
guess that the neolithic languages of iberia were not indo-european
and were probably related to basque, same with tusany and southern
france.
3. France. Well as described above, only a modest subset of frances
current population is from the region after then end of the LGM. I
would say no more than 33%, the rest are all immigrants from
elsewhere. France is best described as a radial implosion of
outsiders (hope I am not insulting any french).
4. Austria, eh, there are austrian haplotypes in italy, and there are
links between the greeks and austrians that look recent. But again
Italy looks like a partial implosion of outsiders and the similarity
with greeks makes on wonder if greek was not the major imploder. None
the less with austria one gets the feeling one is close.
5. Sardinia. Sardinia is problematice in this, because it sometimes
create bimodality with people living in eastern europe. Yes, greeks
and sardinians have similarities, particularly in the DR15 and 16
haplotypes. However greece is very diverse, and sardinia can in no
way explain that diversity by a recent origin. So sardinias
contribution is likely very ancient.
6. Sudan/Egypt. Greece has a number of alleles from the nile valley,
SSA alleles that are clearly not of european origin. albanians and
bulgarians also have these alleles. But italians do not, therefore
this point of origin cannot explain the similarities. It may explain
the impact of minoin culture in ancient greek and possibly were some
folks migrated during the fall of minoin civilization. One possible
(weekly plausible) explanation might be a mass migration of people to
the north and to Sardinia.
7. Levant. The levant is chacterized by a frequency of A31 and DQ8
haplotypes that are not especially typical in Italy. In one study I
was asked to look at the possibility of gene flow from Levant to
Ireland. One haplotype I found to have increased frequency going
around the meditteranian back to middle east. Somewhat high in greece
and less so in italy, it was trace in Ireland. I was however to trace
and Irish haplotype to the mandenka of Senegal (further aggrevating
the myth of the black Irish). But allelic diversity in greeks is a
stronger indicator of external influence relative to haplotype
origins, and we can say there has been long term, non-descript
allelic spread from eastern mediterrean into greece. This however is
not the source of italian greek similarities.
8. Anatolia. A bit hard to read because so many invasions have
knocked down haplotype freqeuncies.
9. Bulgaria. Now we begin to see something that is plausible as a
place of similar origins. Obviously the link has been made between
bulgaria, it does have nodes of its own, just like greece, it shares
many haplotypes, it could be a origin of 'doric'.
10. Hungary. The perplexing thing about hungary is the high level of
the super-b8 haplotype. To be explained by a Norse settlement, it
would mean that hungarians were 100% Norse in origin. Of course
italians have SB8 levels rather high to be explain by norman
occupation of sicily also, and the greeks also have SB8 haplotype.
Hungary has a dichotomous makeup of western and eastern haplotypes
that I don't really know what to make of. Romania is not much better.
We can say of both, lots of people migrated into the regions.
11. Italy. As I said above, italy looks like a partial implosion.
Sicily for instance has been invaded so many times by so many peoples
it is unreconcilably mixed. Take tuscan out of italy and you have
something more greek.
12. Greece. greece could have been a major source of italians. It
does have its own share of nodal haplotypes. If however greece is the
source of italians, there is a perplexing linguistic problem, because
latium is a celtic like language, where as early greece was heavily
influenced by minoins. In such a model the principle greeces would
have lived away from the islandic part of the country, expanded into
italy and down into islandic portion of greece as minoin culture
disintegrated.
13. Balkans. Problem with balkens is that recent slavic migrations
dominate the genetics. Certainly the balkans could be the source of
italian and greek.
>> Other than the expansion of alexander the great; however the
>> greeks share a large number of haplotypes with the italians
>> that are about the same frequency.
>
> Great parts of Italy were a greek colony, greek culture played a
> crucial part in the development of the Italian iron age
> cultures, even in middle and northern Italy, where there were no
> permanent greek settlements.
That is certainly credible.
> The change from punic to greek
> influence in middle and upper Italy coincides with a shift in
> power north of the Alps from the eastern Alpine areas, who
> traded with the Etruscans, to the upper and middle Rhine area,
> that traded with the Greeks.
Presumably you are dabbling in celts.
> Greek goods where held in high esteem by the Etruscans, even
> though they fought greek armies.
>
> But since all of that was organized on the basis of more or less
> individual city states, individual movement seems to have been a
> common factor.
So now then we have a problem that I have been knocking. In general
influential traders and colonizers seldomly leave more than a trace
of similar genetic material. Yet Italians and Greeks have a great
deal of genetic similarity when looking at HLA types. So when I look
at italian per say, it has to be technocultural invasion, such as
agriculture moving in. leaving aside the tuscans, with the strong
ties to western mediterrean and probably a secure reliance of
maritime activities that can be seen as competitive. The rest of
italy appears not to be recolonized but resettled, by a people
similar to the greeks.
>>My presumption is that the latium and dorians
>> came from the same place, originally. In addition the tuscans
>> ('etruscan') by HLA and mtDNA can be distinquished from
>> italians, with tuscan having similarities with the basque and
>> sardinians.
>
> They had more intense contacts with the traders from Carthago,
> fighting the Greeks as Carthages allies. The Carthaginians also
> had close contacts with Sardinia at the time
No apparent similarity between tuscans and phonecians. Some
similarities between sardinians and north africans, but not much in
the way of similarities between lebonese and north africans.
> , I don't know about
> Basque contacts, they might have met in Spain.
Diffusion into italy of iberian HLA patterns appears to have been
mediated through the etruscans (tuscan region), and also contains
basque haplotypes. My impression is that the gene flow has been more
recent, excepting the tuscan region itself which has very much more
ancient patterns from the west linked to africa.
>> One of the big differences between Greeks however is the
>> presence
>> of the DR16 allele in many haplotype combinations. We see this
>> also along the western black sea region.
>
> Another area with early and long lived greek influences.
Maybe or sisterlands.
>> Also true. But if you are not talking about the army itself,
>> but hired mercenaries. IOW, if you are the big monument
>> building agrarian culture and you are looking to suppliment
>> your 'plowshares to swords' army, you might consider adding a
>> few young mountain men to your ranks.
>
> One modern experience concerning warfare is, that in order to be
> succesfull, organization and support are vital (don't know the
> appropriate English terms, nor the German ones). And while
> herdsmen think in terms of small groups of men acting
> individually, farmers could organize large groups of people,
> supply them and direct them towards a common goal.
That explains the battle of little big horn, and also the reign of
crazy horse. The reason the British lost the war in the colonies is
because they lined up in nice little rows, nice for urban operations
whereby you scare the crap out of women and children. When you get
out in the country side where men face of wild bears, indians, etc a
line of slowly moving people in easily recognized outfits is not
scarey, its silly. Prior to the advent of multishot weaponry, your
average linearize army was no match for roaming nomads. Such armies
inevitably end up invading camps at the crack of dawn killing
indescriminantly men, women and children.
The war in spain against the forces of Napolean proved to be the
wake up call for the british, as it becomes clear that your enemy
expects you to do something in a pattern, you become a bull's eye.
Americans learned their lesson in the west, and it turns out that
a few crazy men with six shooters can do alot more damage than the
entire mexican army, the wake up call of modern warfare is that if
your enemy can predict your strategy, he can exploit it. Turn the
tables and make your strategy unpredictable and see what pattern your
enemy generates, then defeat becomes a serialization of a single
process. But the british also learned the lesson in WWI with the war
of attrition. Then again in WWII with the Blitzkrieg, Rockets, and
the Japanese learning the problem of realizing unrealized
technological potential that your enemy possesses. Warfare is about
not letting your enemy get an advantage, and the worst advantage your
enemy can have is surprise, your own worst enemy is pride. Armies
composed of individual units lack coordination, but they are often
self motivated and learn faster than disciplined groups. As in iraq
they can blend into the background in a moments notice, or in the
west disappear into the landscape. One forgets that the taliban were
defeated with U.S. help by a very small number of nomadic herdmans,
who sent the Taliban running halfway across afganistan.
Examples of nomadic non-agrarian based groups. Ghenghis Khan
Mongols. The Huns (who literally would kill on the run and eat the
raw meat as they rode). The scythians. The comanches. We could add
the Vikings since they would have been mixed. During the peak of
roman influence, most of the grain of rome was grown in africa, where
few of its warriors came from.
In Mesopotamia, the assurians were sougth after as allies because
of their ability to provide warriors relative to settlements to the
south. The Hittites as you know like to invade agrarian settlements
to the south and pillage the graineries.
I think these types of activities are more characteristic of the
early period. Aside from that if you want to take a look at the
medals/individual awarded, some of the highest frequencies are amoung
the indigeonous american peoples who served in the US military. To
say that pastoral or tribal peoples are unsuited for good warfare is
a generalization that is completely unwarranted.
> They could
> include groups of scouts or a lightly armed aggressive advance
> guard, herdsmen if they could get them.
You are talking about the roman styled strategy whereby you have
a general directing soldiers here and there. That strategy works
against other fortified armies, in hit and run attacks and ambushes
you need skilled woodsman and trackers. Go back to before socrates,
and before sparta. Think about the strategies, when where they
organized, certainly wonderful strategic thinkers, but you are before
their time. And BTW, the romans drafted all kinds of people into
their ranks, if you were the big brawny fellow in a village, you
might end up on point, or fighting off some gladiator, chances are
when you saw what happened to your cousin in the next village over,
you promptly joined the roman army. They were too particular about
the background of their conscripts, other than being able to walk so
many miles a day with so much of burden to carry.
The great general who reinvented the battlefeild operation,
Alexander the great. Right. The Spartans great strategic thinkers,
got themselves trapped on a peninsula, hen-pecked to death, a
professional army. Lets talk about the aethenian army in sicily.
At that period of greece history you are talking about military faux-
pax one right after another. The cathagenians accomplished in economy
what the greeks did with a fraction of the useless military
operations. The invasion of troy, embellished. Achelles, embellished.
You are not talking about a period of history in which large armies
were amassed, only tales of large ammassed armys.
> Herders otoh would, as a people, rely on individuals acting
> individually, with a minimum of central control. They would have
> little use of mercenaries.
They could hire themselves out. Remember David. Sometimes men would
fight just for the thrill of it. Starring at an old goats rear end
gets pretty tiring after a while, leave them to little brother and
the hound and take a break.
> In reality of course pure herders are as seldom found as pure
> farmers.
True, but in many areas some sort of animal based hunting
transitional to pastoral lifestyle preceded heavy agriculture. They
are now saying that in the west, that pastoral lifestyle might have
appeared 10 to 15 kya or somewhere about in northern and western
africa and my opinion is that this spread into western europe 7 kya
via iberia and the middle east via egypt. Grain based societies were
really not that productive till about 7000 years ago, and genetics
places the really useful grain varieties at about 3000 to 4000 years
ago. Nomadic herding far predates that in many areas. Gallia was
characterized cattle herding, England by milk and cheese production.
Although it is clear gallia and the ilses had agriculture, it was
probably not until roman times that tricicaea production really has
an impact, and therefore agriculture would have been supplimental to
gathering. The transition is probably going to occur with the
cultural celtic transition.
Or let me reflip the above such that it makes sense. Really fat,
protein laden wheat berries as we know them are recent, within the
last 2000 years useful as we currently use them. There is a trend in
the evolution of the wheat berry that being, like human gene flow,
the native stocks appear to have been in europe, italy, austria,
moved eastward, the technology of wheat then has something to do with
anatolia and mesopotamia. There is the influence of really sticky
eastern varieties, either out of india or points north. [Remember
Marco Polo and Pasta, also sticky chinese dumping flour, durum
component is high]. So that within the last 1000 years has been
formative in the west for both bread wheat with high alpha and omega
gliadin content, and seminola flour, with very high ration of the
sticky gliadins. The flours that allow us to create magnificant
breads and wheat by products (meat pastes, etc) have evolved recently
under intense artificial selection.
Whereas some of these grains are more recent to europe the early
evolution of the useful grains is seen in the middle east, and
earliest known use is in the Levant. So that we might surmise that
peoples in europe prior to the rise of the city states in the
mediterrean were engaged in grain agriculture and were eating
triticaea (like spelt or emmers wheat) may have been involved in
light agriculture, but it was not exactly a staple. Whereas the trend
in agriculture was established in anatolia, well established in
mesopotamia and was moving westward.
At the same time in western europe starting before 7000 kya, one
sees an influx of genetic material from west africa, its highest
frequency is in the Basque (who are a classic herding people of
western europe) and notably higher in the Irish (also classically
known for herding). This haplotype is almost no-existent in the
Norse. In other parts of europe you see ovine herding replaced with
cattle herding operations, and of course milk and cheese production.
(I should add that the mandenka are known for milk production and
consumption in africa). This herding activity appears to be heading
to the east. The representation of the gallic celts are dispersed
single family, clan farms with the primary sustenance being cattle
farming, decentralized power.
So right about the time you are talking about these myths having
come from . . . you have a clash of technologies from both directions
intermingling, the myths even describe long distant intermingling, so
if you hold them of value . . . And let us go back to the Italian and
Greeks, one of the major qualities of both is that they share this
'mixed' but similar ancestry. Some of the elements in both appear to
have roots in the northwest. But alot of these elements they share
with bulgarians, anatolians and kurds. And of course the language,
the langauge similarities point toward at least a more black sea
origin, versus basque language. So if we look at the list of
candidates I gave, then the mixture problem, then the similarity
problem one comes up with a parsimonious theory that dorian and
latium could have been a prehistoric cultural explosion proximal to
the black sea as result of mixing of two mutually beneficial food
production technologies. Each splitting and going their own ways for
a while. There is alot of give in that hypothesis, that place could
be from northeastern italy (northern balkans) to bulgaria.
The problem is that mixing that we see today is not immediate back
3000 years ago, each culture might have had been bipartite as it
split and moved, split between agrarian specialist, pastoral
specialist and trades people. Having said all that, of course the
greeks have to have a high frequency of locally derived genes, so
that there is a maximum affect of distal invasions. And also consider
then the possibility that then eastern austrian celts are the third
leg of this 'event'.
-- Philip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ____Groups_____ Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/ ____Sites_____ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
- Next message: Tedd Jacobs: "Re: The Vinland Map's Ink"
- Previous message: Joe Jefferson: "Re: Greeks"
- In reply to: Uwe Müller: "Re: Greeks"
- Next in thread: erilar: "Re: Greeks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
