Black Hole in Europe.

[Philip Dei]

Clever title, eh?

I am going over some of this haplotype data and I have what
appears to be an 'evacuation event' in the region of france.
France has a number of alleles, but no major haplotypes that
appear to have come from inside France. If one looks at the
Danes, all of danish haplotypes look as if they are more or
less recent immigrants, and german haplotypes are not far
behind. This was curious. Then I started noticing the some
haplotypes that appear in swedes, basque, spanish, protuguese
or sweded seem to suggest they are derived from france, but
the haplotype is almost completely absent in the place of it
expected highest frequency. There were three instances where a
basque or portugues haplotype looked as if it had jumped to
cornwall, with no presence in france. Instead the most
frequent haplotypes appear to be more recent invasions from
england, iberia or italy and as admixture. Another big
surprise, Italies non-germanic alleles seem to be almost
entirely derived from grecan alleles. Again I would expect
with italies deep history and extrusion into the mediterrean
that it would have some unique dominant haplotypes. Instead it
has low levels of haplotypes that are unique, common
haplotypes have higher frequencies in albania and greece, a
few have higher frequencies in sardonia, spain and a number
have higher frequencies in portugal.

Secondarily as mention before but being more specific, some
of the haplotypes that one expected to find in france, are
present in korea, mongolia, and the manchu, to a lesser
degree the Japanese. While these haplotypes are generally a
minority, some specific frequencies are relatively high.

I need to find a way to put this information on my website.

Just to give an idea here is a gauge of admixture

Cumulative % Haplotype (higher% means more isol) #Haps 1 2 3 4
Sard 16.3 23.3 29.9 35.5 Corn 11.4 19.7 25.4 30.9 Swed 11.5
18.9 24.6 30.1 Basq 8.1 15.4 21.1 24.8 Span 5.9 10.9 14.8 17.6
Port 5.3 9.2 13.3 16.8 Fran 4.6 8.6 12.0 14.8

We might expect that the danish would have peak haplotype
frequencies close to that of the swedes, afterall cornish and
swedish have the most similar peak haplotypes, and Denmark
being in between would be only slightly diluted.

Danish Exp 12.0 19.0 24.0 28.0 Obs. 6.2 11.0 15.4 19.3

Another Measure is to determine the sources of the major
haplotypes ranked by Haplotype Frequncies

Danish ranked haploypes
1. Cornish(origin) Sweden(expansion)
2. Basque or african(origin) Cornish(expansion)
3. Cornish(origin and expansion)
4. Portuguese or african(origin) cornish(expansion)
5. Cornish or Polish(origin) Swedish(expansion)
6. Basque or african(origin), Cornish and Swedish(expansion)
7. Sardian(origin), Iberia or grecan(expansio)
8. IE(origin), Swedish (expansion)
9. Basque or African(origin), Cornish
10. Probably originate in Denmark, also in spain.
11. Basque origin

We can compare this with say the Cornish.
12. Spain (originated) Cornish(highest frequency)
13. Originated in PreIE britan or sweden (probably cornish)
14. Portuguese or african(origin) Cornish(Highest frequency)
. . . You get the picture. In the cornwall population, the
most frequent haplotypes are either regionally derived or
at the highest haplotype frequencie in the region.

Therefore I think I need to create one of my infamous
hypotheses, you know the kind you guys all love [to bash]

At some point before the last glacial maximum the inhabitants
of france, denmark, much of italy, german and austria were
forced to leave, where the inhabitants of the south went its
hard to determine, they might have ended up in greece or in
the islands of the mediterranean. But some of the inhabitants
moved eastward as far as mongolia. After reviewing the
Japanese and korean data it looks as some subgroupings moved
into the east asia region of korea and others migrated into
Japan. At the end of the last ice age as the climate of inland
western europe became habitable the peoples repopulated from
the regions of portugal, spain, the british ilses. The
settling of scandavia was predominated by people from britian,
but also cosettled by elements from the black sea (probably
celtic) All of this prior to recorded history. Then the celts
and romans dominated the politic of france, but did not
displace the genetic markers of the basque or cornish,
followed by invasions from the franks, who based on the
comparisons with germans are less scandanavian that _I_ had
previously beleived. Because of the recency of the invasions
denmark, france and austria have few unique haplotypes of
their own, and its people are largely the result of admixing
from the cornish, basque, celtic, swedish and grecan
haplotypes.

OK so line up your sites and load your ammo! Except you, bob,
you still looking for your gun, your sitting on it, and your
ammo (corks) is in your shirt pocket along with a note from
your mommy about playing fair in the schoolyard.

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth

[Bob Keeter]

in article 6kjtdusopig07o4vqujq5kooi1oo4n2vdj@4ax.com, Philip
Deitiker at pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu wrote on 5/12/02 4:34 PM:

> Clever title, eh?
>

Well, whenever I coached really young hockey players, I
always did try to tell them that if its their BEST attempt,
it was good enough for me. 8-) So, Wadda go! Good job! Had me
fooled! 8-)

>
> OK so line up your sites and load your ammo! Except you,
> bob, you still looking for your gun, your sitting on it, and
> your ammo (corks) is in your shirt pocket along with a note
> from your mommy about playing fair in the schoolyard.
>

Oh, I told you, no live fire! However, perhaps a touch of
ancient history might help you sort out the genes at least in
Italy. The Greeks had a very profound "influence" on
pre-Roman Italy, with a major presence in southern Italy and
Sicily. Remember the battle for Syracuse? If I remember
correctly the first greek accounts of Italy was that it was
basically a very fertile ground for colonization because of
the sparce "riff raff" inhabititing the plesant territory.
Furthermore, the post-Mycenean Greeks appear to be a very
different kind of people, possibly originating outside of
Greece proper, most likely from what is now the Balkans or
points further north and east. These same people almost
certainly drifted in the direction of Italy even before the
Greek colonization, but . . . . . .

Try http://www.umich.edu/~classics/cc/372/cc372fall98/Greekc-
ol.html for a quick rundown from a fairly authoritative
source. 8-) And

Where I'll quote a little passage or two,

"After 1st Etruscan tombs were found in 17th century, the
historians have argued the origin of Etruscans. 2000 years ago
they were almost unanimous; Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st
century B.C.) was an only ancient historian who claimed (with
political reasons?) Etruscans were the indigenous people of
Italy. All the other historians thought Etruscans came from
Asia Minor. According to Greek historian Herodotus (ca.
485-425 B.C.) Etruscans left Lydia (an ancient country in Asia
Minor), because there was a bad famine. According to another
Greek historian Thucydides (ca. 455-400 B.C.) some Etruscans
still lived in Limnos (a Greek island close by the coast of
Asia Minor) before Athenians conquered it in 510 B.C.

This is a very interesting piece of information, because
modern archaeologists have found Etruscan texts in Limnos
which were written in 6th century B.C. However, it is quite
strange how little the myths of ancient Greece and Rome deal
with Etruscans and their migration from Asia Minor to
Etruria. "

and

"The political situation in Europe and Middle East changed
totally in 13th and 12th century B.C. At that time so-called
Sea Peoples migrated on the coasts of the Meditteranean Sea
like Vikings a couple of millenniums later. The names of the
Sea Peoples were strange: Lukka, Denyen, Peleset, Meshwesh,
Ekwesh, Tjeker, Weshesh, Skekelesh, Shardana and Teresh. Three
last tribes are the most interesting ones, because they
arrived later in Italy and named their countries: Skekelesh,
Shardana and Teresh became Sicilians, Sardinians and
Tyrsenians (or Tyrrhenians, that is the Greek name of
Etruscans)!"

Again a bit of ancient history, but these "sea people"
apparently started somewhere in the Balkans or Asia Minor and
were a holy terror in the Med for quite a while, even taking
on the standing "mega power" of the times, the Egyptian
empire. ANYWAY, I would be very, VERY surprised if even one so
astute as yourself could make a dime's difference between the
Greek gerome and the Turkish/Balkan geromes.

If the Egyptian accounts of the Sea People (assuming of course
that this is the origin for the Etruscans and other colonizers
of that time), a "total replacement" of whatever peoples they
may have encouhtered in Italy is not out of the question, of
course the Egyptians of the time were not the best press
agents for the Sea People. 8-)

As for the "dark hole" of France. . . . . .

From a geopolitical / historical standpoint, Im really about
as baffled as you apparently are over that "gap", otherwise
you would not trot out your "hypotheses". Geez, that sounds SO
much more scientific than "theory"! May even betray a shread
of modesty in there somewhere philip! 8-) France has been some
of the more desirable real-estate in Europe for at least the
last 20k years or so. Sould SEEM to be a logical place for
people to settle down and start making their own haplotypes
like mad! Of course BEING the most desirable real estate,
there might have been a great turnover rate for the tenats. In
come the new warriors from the south and east, out go the
staid and proper farmers and such. The warriors settle down
and start farming away just in time to be whacked on the heads
by the next wave of "savages" from the east. . . .etc, etc,
etc. Fighting over the rich countryside of what we call France
started way prior to the "Classical" period suggested above
for Greece/Italy and continued right on through modern times.
With all of the mixing that probably would be considered a
"Given", it might just be that there simply was never a stable
enough "french" halotype started to show anything uniquely
French today!

Regards bk

[Lorenzo]

Philip Deitiker wrote:

> I am going over some of this haplotype data Therefore I
> think I need to create one of my infamous hypotheses, you
> know the kind you guys all love [to bash]

snip

> At some point before the last glacial maximum the
> inhabitants of france, denmark, much of italy, german and
> austria were forced to leave, where the inhabitants of the
> south went its hard to determine, they might have ended up
> in greece or in the islands of the mediterranean. But some
> of the inhabitants moved eastward as far as mongolia. After
> reviewing the Japanese and korean data it looks as some
> subgroupings moved into the east asia region of korea and
> others migrated into Japan. At the end of the last ice age
> as the climate of inland western europe became habitable the
> peoples repopulated from the regions of portugal, spain, the
> british ilses. The settling of scandavia was predominated by
> people from britian, but also cosettled by elements from the
> black sea (probably celtic) All of this prior to recorded
> history.

No bash

snip Semino, O., Passarino, G., Oefner, P.J., Lin, A.A.,
Arbuzova, S., Beckman, L.E., De Benedictis, G., Francalacci,
P., Kouvatsi, A., Limborska, S., Marcikia, M., Mika, A., Mika,
B., Primorac, D., Santachiara-Benerecetti, A.S.,
Cavalli-Sforza,
L.L. & Underhill, P.A. (2000) The genetic legacy of
Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: A
Y chromosome perspective. Science, Vol 290 (5494).
pages 1155 - 9

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/5494/1155

Abstract: A genetic perspective of human history in Europe was
derived from 22 binary markers of the nonrecombining Y
chromosome (NRY). Ten lineages account for >95% of the 1007
European Y chromosomes studied. Geographic distribution and
age estimates of alleles are compatible with two Paleolithic
and one Neolithic migratory episode that have contributed to
the modern European gene pool. A significant correlation
between the NRY haplotype data and principal components based
on 95 protein markers was observed, indicating the
effectiveness of NRY binary polymorphisms in the
characterization of human population composition and history.

By PAUL RECER .c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Four out of five of the men in Europe shared
a common male ancestor that lived as a primitive hunter on a
wild continent some 40,000 years ago, researchers say. In a
study appearing Friday in the journal Science, researchers say
that an analysis of a pattern found in the Y chromosome taken
from 1,007 men from 25 places in Europe shows that about 80
percent of Europeans arose from the Paleolithic people who
first migrated to Europe.

Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford Genome
Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author of the
study, said the research supports conclusions from
archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the
settlement of Europe by ancient peoples. ``When we can get
different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then we
feel we are telling the true history of the species,'' said
Underhill.

snip

The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs. Changes
in those base pairs happen infrequently, said Underhill, but
they occur often enough to establish patterns that can be used
to trace the ancestry of people. He said researchers looking
at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22
specific markers that formed a specific pattern. Underhill
said the researchers found that about 80 percent of all
European males shared a single pattern, suggesting they had a
common ancestor thousands of generations ago.

The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed
among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were
isolated for many generations, Underhill said. This scenario,
he said, supports other studies about the Paleolithic European
groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age
human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the
Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000
years ago.snip

About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with
mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe.
Underhill said the Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the
ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three
areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the
Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome
mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age
refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern
that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest
Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe
and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.

About 8,000 years ago, said Underhill, a more advanced people,
the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East,
bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of
life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the
Y chromosome pattern from this migration, he said.

Lorenzo NAt FDD Hbb

[A.L. Bell]

Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:<6kjtdusopig07o4vqujq5kooi1oo4n2vdj@4ax.com>...
> Clever title, eh?
>
> I am going over some of this haplotype data and I have what
> appears to be an 'evacuation event' in the region of france.
> France has a number of

This is a really cool analysis. I'm not competent to critique
it, but it seems to me that, even if it turns out to be wrong,
the analysis will turn up other cool ideas.

> appear in swedes, basque, spanish, protuguese or sweded seem
> to suggest they are derived from france, but the haplotype
> is almost completely absent in the place of it expected
> highest frequency. There were three instances where a basque
> or portugues haplotype looked as if it had jumped to
> cornwall, with no presence in france. Instead the most
> frequent haplotypes appear to be more recent invasions from
> england, iberia or italy and as admixture. Another big
> surprise, Italies non-germanic alleles seem to be almost
> entirely derived from grecan alleles. Again I would expect
> with italies deep history and extrusion into the mediterrean
> that it would have some unique dominant haplotypes. Instead
> it has low levels of haplotypes that are unique, common
> haplotypes have higher frequencies in albania and greece, a
> few have higher frequencies in sardonia, spain and a number
> have higher frequencies in portugal.
>
> Secondarily as mention before but being more specific,
> some of the haplotypes that one expected to find in
> france, are present in korea, mongolia, and the manchu, to
> a lesser degree the Japanese. While these haplotypes are
> generally a minority, some specific frequencies are
> relatively high.
>
> I need to find a way to put this information on my website.
>
> Just to give an idea here is a gauge of admixture
>
> Cumulative % Haplotype (higher% means more isol) #Haps 1 2 3
> 4 Sard 16.3 23.3 29.9 35.5 Corn 11.4 19.7 25.4 30.9 Swed
> 11.5 18.9 24.6 30.1 Basq 8.1 15.4 21.1 24.8 Span 5.9 10.9
> 14.8 17.6 Port 5.3 9.2 13.3 16.8 Fran 4.6 8.6 12.0 14.8
>
> We might expect that the danish would have peak haplotype
> frequencies close to that of the swedes, afterall cornish
> and swedish have the most similar peak haplotypes, and
> Denmark being in between would be only slightly diluted.
>
> Danish Exp 12.0 19.0 24.0 28.0 Obs. 6.2 11.0 15.4 19.3
>
> Another Measure is to determine the sources of the major
> haplotypes ranked by Haplotype Frequncies
>
> Danish ranked haploypes
> 1. Cornish(origin) Sweden(expansion)
> 2. Basque or african(origin) Cornish(expansion)
> 3. Cornish(origin and expansion)
> 4. Portuguese or african(origin) cornish(expansion)
> 5. Cornish or Polish(origin) Swedish(expansion)
> 6. Basque or african(origin), Cornish and
> Swedish(expansion)
> 7. Sardian(origin), Iberia or grecan(expansio)
> 8. IE(origin), Swedish (expansion)
> 9. Basque or African(origin), Cornish
> 10. Probably originate in Denmark, also in spain.
> 11. Basque origin
>
> We can compare this with say the Cornish.
> 1. Spain (originated) Cornish(highest frequency)
> 2. Originated in PreIE britan or sweden (probably cornish)
> 3. Portuguese or african(origin) Cornish(Highest frequency)
> . . . You get the picture. In the cornwall population, the
> most frequent haplotypes are either regionally derived or
> at the highest haplotype frequencie in the region.
>
> Therefore I think I need to create one of my infamous
> hypotheses, you know the kind you guys all love [to bash]
>
> At some point before the last glacial maximum the
> inhabitants of france, denmark, much of italy, german and
> austria were forced to leave, where the inhabitants of the
> south went its hard to determine, they might have ended up
> in greece or in the islands of the mediterranean. But some
> of the inhabitants moved eastward as far as mongolia. After
> reviewing the Japanese and korean data it looks as some
> subgroupings moved into the east asia region of korea and
> others migrated into Japan. At the end of the last ice age
> as the climate of inland western europe became habitable the
> peoples repopulated from the regions of portugal, spain, the
> british ilses. The settling of scandavia was predominated by
> people from britian, but also cosettled by elements from the
> black sea (probably celtic) All of this prior to recorded
> history. Then the celts and romans dominated the politic of
> france, but did not displace the genetic markers of the
> basque or cornish, followed by invasions from the franks,
> who based on the comparisons with germans are less
> scandanavian that _I_ had previously beleived. Because of
> the recency of the invasions denmark, france and austria
> have few unique haplotypes of their own, and its people are
> largely the result of admixing from the cornish, basque,
> celtic, swedish and grecan haplotypes.
>
> OK so line up your sites and load your ammo! Except you,
> bob, you still looking for your gun, your sitting on it, and
> your ammo (corks) is in your shirt pocket along with a note
> from your mommy about playing fair in the schoolyard.
>
>
>
> Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
> http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth

[Philip Dei]

On Sun, 12 May 2002 23:24:48 GMT, Bob Keeter
<rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Oh, I told you, no live fire! However, perhaps a touch of
>ancient history might help you sort out the genes at least in
>Italy. The Greeks had a very profound "influence" on
>pre-Roman Italy, with a major presence in southern Italy and
>Sicily. Remember the battle for Syracuse? If I remember
>correctly the first greek accounts of Italy was that it was
>basically a very fertile ground for colonization because of
>the sparce "riff raff" inhabititing the plesant territory.

[Sound of pop gun, a spinning cork]. I suspect however, its
much deeper than that. When going into this I had no opinion
that basque patterns were present anywhere outside of france
or spain, it turns out they tend to be major contributers far
outside of northern spain. We have 3 waves the celts, the
romans and the norse, and the expectation was the Basquan
elements were more or less displaced. The reality is that the
displacement is partial. For the part of Italy there were
cultures, latium and etruscan that survived greek occupation
virtually unaltered. And yet why are the greek alleles so
intense. My theory is that prior to recorded history the
greeks or some common ancestor of both greek and 'italian'
immigrated into the italian peninsula.

> Furthermore, the post-Mycenean Greeks appear to be a very
> different kind of people, possibly originating outside of
> Greece proper, most likely from what is now the Balkans or
> points further north and east.

The affect of the hellenistic greeks is probably limited.

> These same people almost certainly drifted in the direction
>of Italy even before the Greek colonization, but . . . . . .

>
>"After 1st Etruscan tombs were found in 17th century, the
>historians have argued the origin of Etruscans. 2000 years
>ago they were almost unanimous; Dionysius of Halicarnassus
>(1st century B.C.) was an only ancient historian who
>claimed (with political reasons?) Etruscans were the
>indigenous people of Italy. All the other historians
>thought Etruscans came from Asia Minor. According to Greek
>historian Herodotus (ca. 485-425 B.C.) Etruscans left Lydia
>(an ancient country in Asia Minor), because there was a bad
>famine. According to another Greek historian Thucydides
>(ca. 455-400 B.C.) some Etruscans still lived in Limnos (a
>Greek island close by the coast of Asia Minor) before
>Athenians conquered it in 510 B.C.
>
>This is a very interesting piece of information, because
>modern archaeologists have found Etruscan texts in Limnos
>which were written in 6th century B.C. However, it is quite
>strange how little the myths of ancient Greece and Rome deal
>with Etruscans and their migration from Asia Minor to
>Etruria. "

Ok, so that might explain the Etrsucans now what about the
Latium, the language people place this people as derivative of
protoceltic languages.

>"The political situation in Europe and Middle East changed
>totally in 13th and 12th century B.C. At that time so-called
>Sea Peoples migrated on the coasts of the Meditteranean Sea
>like Vikings a couple of millenniums later. The names of the
>Sea Peoples were strange: Lukka, Denyen, Peleset, Meshwesh,
>Ekwesh, Tjeker, Weshesh, Skekelesh, Shardana and Teresh.
>Three last tribes are the most interesting ones, because they
>arrived later in Italy and named their countries: Skekelesh,
>Shardana and Teresh became Sicilians, Sardinians and
>Tyrsenians (or Tyrrhenians, that is the Greek name of
>Etruscans)!"

That would explain the minor grecan alleles on Sardonia.

>Again a bit of ancient history, but these "sea people"
>apparently started somewhere in the Balkans or Asia Minor and
>were a holy terror in the Med for quite a while, even taking
>on the standing "mega power" of the times, the Egyptian
>empire. ANYWAY, I would be very, VERY surprised if even one
>so astute as yourself could make a dime's difference between
>the Greek gerome and the Turkish/Balkan geromes.

Yes, but we must have had a debate on this 7 years ago, in
this newsgroup. There was a debate on this that there was an
equal probability that the phonecians were these sea peoples.
In fact you see some haplotypes typical of india in southern
mediterranean.

>If the Egyptian accounts of the Sea People (assuming of
>course that this is the origin for the Etruscans and other
>colonizers of that time), a "total replacement" of whatever
>peoples they may have encouhtered in Italy is not out of the
>question, of course the Egyptians of the time were not the
>best press agents for the Sea People. 8-)
>
>As for the "dark hole" of France. . . . . .
>
>From a geopolitical / historical standpoint, Im really about
>as baffled as you apparently are over that "gap", otherwise
>you would not trot out your "hypotheses".

You notice I used the plural.

> Geez, that sounds SO much more scientific than
> "theory"! May even betray a shread of modesty in there
> somewhere philip! 8-) France has been some of the more
> desirable real-estate in Europe for at least the last
> 20k years or so.

No so your supposed to shoot at it. According the italian
historians there was some kind of civilization comparable to
the etruscans in Provincial France

> Sould SEEM to be a logical place for people to settle down
> and start making their own haplotypes like mad! Of course
> BEING the most desirable real estate, there might have been
> a great turnover rate for the tenats. In come the new
> warriors from the south and east, out go the staid and
> proper farmers and such. The warriors settle down and start
> farming away just in time to be whacked on the heads by the
> next wave of "savages" from the east. . . .etc, etc, etc.
> Fighting over the rich countryside of what we call France
> started way prior to the "Classical" period suggested above
> for Greece/Italy and continued right on through modern
> times. With all of the mixing that probably would be
> considered a "Given", it might just be that there simply
> was never a stable enough "french" halotype started to show
> anything uniquely French today!

!!!!!

But your haplotypes are flowing out and flowing back in with
attackers, the only way to find haplotypes spread evenly in
3/4 ths of the surrounding nodes but not in the center, is if
somescraped out the center, then held back motion from the
3/4ths while it filled in from one forth. My theory is that
glacial meltin block the motion from some areas whereas
allowing migration from others.

Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu

[Diarmid Lo]

Lorenzo <lorenzo@naturalhub.com> wrote in message
news:<3CDF4302.6C554363@naturalhub.com>...
> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
> > I am going over some of this haplotype data Therefore I
> > think I need to create one of my infamous hypotheses, you
> > know the kind you guys all love [to bash]
>
> snip
>
> > At some point before the last glacial maximum the
> > inhabitants of france, denmark, much of italy, german and
> > austria were forced to leave, where the inhabitants of the
> > south went its hard to determine, they might have ended up
> > in greece or in the islands of the mediterranean. But some
> > of the inhabitants moved eastward as far as mongolia.
> > After reviewing the Japanese and korean data it looks as
> > some subgroupings moved into the east asia region of korea
> > and others migrated into Japan. At the end of the last ice
> > age as the climate of inland western europe became
> > habitable the peoples repopulated from the regions of
> > portugal, spain, the british ilses. The settling of
> > scandavia was predominated by people from britian, but
> > also cosettled by elements from the black sea (probably
> > celtic) All of this prior to recorded history.
>
> No bash
>
> snip Semino, O., Passarino, G., Oefner, P.J., Lin, A.A.,
> Arbuzova, S., Beckman, L.E., De Benedictis, G., Francalacci,
> P., Kouvatsi, A., Limborska, S., Marcikia, M., Mika, A.,
> Mika, B., Primorac, D., Santachiara-Benerecetti, A.S.,
> Cavalli-Sforza,
> L.L. & Underhill, P.A. (2000) The genetic legacy of
> Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: A
> Y chromosome perspective. Science, Vol 290 (5494).
> pages 1155 - 9
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/5494/1155
>
> Abstract: A genetic perspective of human history in Europe
> was derived from 22 binary markers of the nonrecombining Y
> chromosome (NRY). Ten lineages account for >95% of the 1007
> European Y chromosomes studied. Geographic distribution and
> age estimates of alleles are compatible with two Paleolithic
> and one Neolithic migratory episode that have contributed to
> the modern European gene pool. A significant correlation
> between the NRY haplotype data and principal components
> based on 95 protein markers was observed, indicating the
> effectiveness of NRY binary polymorphisms in the
> characterization of human population composition and
> history.
>
> By PAUL RECER .c The Associated Press
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) - Four out of five of the men in Europe
> shared a common male ancestor that lived as a primitive
> hunter on a wild continent some 40,000 years ago,
> researchers say. In a study appearing Friday in the journal
> Science, researchers say that an analysis of a pattern found
> in the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 places in
> Europe shows that about 80 percent of Europeans arose from
> the Paleolithic people who first migrated to Europe.
>
> Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford
> Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author
> of the study, said the research supports conclusions from
> archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the
> settlement of Europe by ancient peoples. ``When we can get
> different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then
> we feel we are telling the true history of the species,''
> said Underhill.
>
> snip
>
> The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs.
> Changes in those base pairs happen infrequently, said
> Underhill, but they occur often enough to establish patterns
> that can be used to trace the ancestry of people. He said
> researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from
> Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific
> pattern. Underhill said the researchers found that about 80
> percent of all European males shared a single pattern,
> suggesting they had a common ancestor thousands of
> generations ago.
>
> The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed
> among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were
> isolated for many generations, Underhill said. This
> scenario, he said, supports other studies about the
> Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a
> primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from
> Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration
> beginning about 40,000 years ago.snip
>
> About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with
> mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe.
> Underhill said the Paleolithic Europeans retreated before
> the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three
> areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.
>
> When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the
> Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y
> chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the
> ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows
> a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in
> northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in
> Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in
> Central Europe.
>
> About 8,000 years ago, said Underhill, a more advanced
> people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle
> East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a
> new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of
> Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this
> migration, he said.
>
> Lorenzo NAt FDD Hbb

Actually you can find this entire paper at the URL below:

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290-
_p1155.pdf

[Bob Keeter]

in article 3ec04bcc.423692@netnews.worldnet.att.net, Philip
Deitiker at pdeitik@worldnet.att.net wrote on 5/12/02 8:48 PM:

> On Sun, 12 May 2002 23:24:48 GMT, Bob Keeter
> <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Oh, I told you, no live fire! However, perhaps a touch of
>> ancient history might help you sort out the genes at least
>> in Italy. The Greeks had a very profound "influence" on
>> pre-Roman Italy, with a major presence in southern Italy
>> and Sicily. Remember the battle for Syracuse? If I remember
>> correctly the first greek accounts of Italy was that it was
>> basically a very fertile ground for colonization because of
>> the sparce "riff raff" inhabititing the plesant territory.
>
> [Sound of pop gun, a spinning cork].

Got a funny little ribbon with a couple of brass "E"s on it
that says a) dont shoot pop guns, and b) even if I did, that
cork might just hit what it was aimed out. Dont be such a big
inviting target. Please.

> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I suspect however, its
> much deeper than that. When going into this I had no
> opinion that basque patterns were present anywhere outside
> of france or spain, it turns out they tend to be major
> contributers far outside of northern spain. We have 3
> waves the celts, the romans and the norse, and the
> expectation was the Basquan elements were more or less
> displaced. The reality is that the displacement is
> partial. For the part of Italy there were cultures, latium
> and etruscan that survived greek occupation virtually
> unaltered. And yet why are the greek alleles so intense.
> My theory is that prior to recorded history the greeks or
> some common ancestor of both greek and 'italian'
> immigrated into the italian peninsula.
>

Unless you have a compelling reason to push it so far back in
time. . . .I would really suggest that you consider the
RECORDED visitations of greco-trukic peoples. Much easier to
understand when you have the written records to back up the
genetics. . . . . . On the other hand, I have absolutely
NOTHING to prove that some pre-historic migration mirroring
the KNOWN colonizations did not occur. Lets see now, no proof
that a theory is wrong must demand that we all accept that
theory as fact! Where did I hear that arguement before. . . .
. . . . . . 8-)
>
>> Furthermore, the post-Mycenean Greeks appear to be a very
>> different kind of people, possibly originating outside of
>> Greece proper, most likely from what is now the Balkans or
>> points further north and east.
>
> The affect of the hellenistic greeks is probably limited.

Because it would mess with your theories perhaps? Cities-worth
of Greeks settled in southern Italy and Sicily. Almost
certainly hundreds of thousands of people. Even the romans did
not slaughter all of them. Twixt me and you, how many greeks
(as a percentage of the entire population of a place like
Sicily or some of the coastal regions of Italy), would it take
before the mixing of their genes with the local "natives"
(i.e. proto-Celts or whatever), would provide the "intensity"
you demand?
>
>> These same people almost certainly drifted in the
>> direction of Italy even before the Greek colonization, but
>> . . . . . .
>
>>
>> "After 1st Etruscan tombs were found in 17th century, the
>> historians have argued the origin of Etruscans. 2000 years
>> ago they were almost unanimous; Dionysius of Halicarnassus
>> (1st century B.C.) was an only ancient historian who
>> claimed (with political reasons?) Etruscans were the
>> indigenous people of Italy. All the other historians
>> thought Etruscans came from Asia Minor. According to Greek
>> historian Herodotus (ca. 485-425 B.C.) Etruscans left Lydia
>> (an ancient country in Asia Minor), because there was a bad
>> famine. According to another Greek historian Thucydides
>> (ca. 455-400 B.C.) some Etruscans still lived in Limnos (a
>> Greek island close by the coast of Asia Minor) before
>> Athenians conquered it in 510 B.C.
>>
>> This is a very interesting piece of information, because
>> modern archaeologists have found Etruscan texts in Limnos
>> which were written in 6th century B.C. However, it is quite
>> strange how little the myths of ancient Greece and Rome
>> deal with Etruscans and their migration from Asia Minor to
>> Etruria. "
>
> Ok, so that might explain the Etrsucans now what about the
> Latium, the language people place this people as derivative
> of protoceltic languages.
>

The Greek trading ports/cities were practically all coastal.
That WAS the way the greek colonists and traders showed up you
know! Rome is somewhat inland. Perhaps enough inland that they
only got a minor dose of the Greek genes and influence. On the
other hand, unless Im very sadly mistaken, the latin alphabet
sprang almost fully formed directly from the greek. Sort of
like the Japanese writing system is very much a copy of the
Chinese (some of the glyphs even mean exactly the same even
when the pronounciation is totally different! but then that is
a different thread. . . ..!)

Perhaps the greek influence on the letters carried beyond
simple writing, hun! 8-)

>> "The political situation in Europe and Middle East changed
>> totally in 13th and 12th century B.C. At that time
>> so-called Sea Peoples migrated on the coasts of the
>> Meditteranean Sea like Vikings a couple of millenniums
>> later. The names of the Sea Peoples were strange: Lukka,
>> Denyen, Peleset, Meshwesh, Ekwesh, Tjeker, Weshesh,
>> Skekelesh, Shardana and Teresh. Three last tribes are the
>> most interesting ones, because they arrived later in Italy
>> and named their countries: Skekelesh, Shardana and Teresh
>> became Sicilians, Sardinians and Tyrsenians (or
>> Tyrrhenians, that is the Greek name of Etruscans)!"
>
> That would explain the minor grecan alleles on Sardonia.

You are not reading very carefully. . . . The Tyrrhenians are
the etruscans. The etruscans were the kingpins of a big piece
of italy when the romans were still chasing goats across the
seven hills. The Skekelesh WERE the Sicilians, and the
Shardana WERE the Sardinians. While Im very open to being
disproven, I think that the current thought is that these
people CAME from those areas when they attacked the Egyptians,
not so much went to those areas after the egyptians pitched
them out of the country. IOW, they had already settled those
areas. And as I think I mentioned below, there is just a
chance that these "sea people" may also have been part of some
sort of mass migration that led to the modern Greeks (as
opposed to the Mycenean greeks of Homer's Troy.)

>
>> Again a bit of ancient history, but these "sea people"
>> apparently started somewhere in the Balkans or Asia Minor
>> and were a holy terror in the Med for quite a while, even
>> taking on the standing "mega power" of the times, the
>> Egyptian empire. ANYWAY, I would be very, VERY surprised if
>> even one so astute as yourself could make a dime's
>> difference between the Greek gerome and the Turkish/Balkan
>> geromes.
>
> Yes, but we must have had a debate on this 7 years ago, in
> this newsgroup. There was a debate on this that there was an
> equal probability that the phonecians were these sea
> peoples. In fact you see some haplotypes typical of india in
> southern mediterranean.

I think that the outcome of that little clash of sabers was
that the phonecians (philistines, etc) were quite likely the
PRODUCT of the sea people's invasion of the coastal areas of
Lebanon and Israel, not the source of the invasion of Egypt.
At least I dont think that any recent evidence strongly
contradicts this supposition.

>
>> If the Egyptian accounts of the Sea People (assuming of
>> course that this is the origin for the Etruscans and other
>> colonizers of that time), a "total replacement" of whatever
>> peoples they may have encouhtered in Italy is not out of
>> the question, of course the Egyptians of the time were not
>> the best press agents for the Sea People. 8-)
>>
>> As for the "dark hole" of France. . . . . .
>>
>> From a geopolitical / historical standpoint, Im really
>> about as baffled as you apparently are over that "gap",
>> otherwise you would not trot out your "hypotheses".
>
> You notice I used the plural.

????? and?
>
>> Geez, that sounds SO much more scientific than
>> "theory"! May even betray a shread of modesty in there
>> somewhere philip! 8-) France has been some of the more
>> desirable real-estate in Europe for at least the last
>> 20k years or so.
>
> No so your supposed to shoot at it. According the italian
> historians there was some kind of civilization comparable to
> the etruscans in Provincial France
>

Entirely possible, but then a couple of cities, perhaps some
enscribed stones, . . . . . . but then the absence of proof
meens nothing right? Just as long as there is no disproof you
are in business! 8-)))))

Seriously, the recorded stories of the "Sea People" suggest a
loss federation of several different tribes/city-states or
whatever. While thanks to the greeks we can just about nail
down three of those tribes, where did the rest of them come
from? If the italians (Id like some pointers on where you got
that tidbit by the way) say that there were "Etruscan like"
civilizations in Provincial France, Id tend to believe it.
WOuld just like to see which ones of the "unknown" sea peaple
it might be.

Oh yeah, a little bit of evidence (in stone no less!) would
also be very useful! ;-)

>> Sould SEEM to be a logical place for people to settle down
>> and start making their own haplotypes like mad! Of course
>> BEING the most desirable real estate, there might have been
>> a great turnover rate for the tenats. In come the new
>> warriors from the south and east, out go the staid and
>> proper farmers and such. The warriors settle down and start
>> farming away just in time to be whacked on the heads by the
>> next wave of "savages" from the east. . . .etc, etc, etc.
>> Fighting over the rich countryside of what we call France
>> started way prior to the "Classical" period suggested above
>> for Greece/Italy and continued right on through modern
>> times. With all of the mixing that probably would be
>> considered a "Given", it might just be that there simply
>> was never a stable enough "french" halotype started to show
>> anything uniquely French today!
>
> !!!!!
>
> But your haplotypes are flowing out and flowing back in with
> attackers, the only way to find haplotypes spread evenly in
> 3/4 ths of the surrounding nodes but not in the center, is
> if somescraped out the center, then held back motion from
> the 3/4ths while it filled in from one forth. My theory is
> that glacial meltin block the motion from some areas
> whereas allowing migration from others.
>

If you take red yellow and blue paints and mix them up in
about equal proportions, you end up with an ugly grey. Imagine
taking a map of france and dragging a paintbrush dipped in red
paint from south to north. Drag another paintbrush dipped in
blue from east to west and even another from the south west to
the north east. (these are your invasions) Then take your
hand, put it palm down at the intersection of those three
paint brush strokes and start smearning it around, staying
near the middle of france. All around the edges you have
streaks and spots of red, yellow and blue. In the middle it
would be hard to find any distinct color. You would also have
a paint smeared hand, but then that is the price one pays for
engaging in an experimental instad of an observational
science! 8-))

> Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu>

Your humble servant bk

[viro]

In article <3ec04bcc.423692@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, Philip
Deitiker <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>[Sound of pop gun, a spinning cork]. I suspect however, its
>much deeper than that. When going into this I had no opinion
>that basque patterns were present anywhere outside of france
>or spain, it turns out they tend to be major contributers far
>outside of northern spain. We have 3 waves the celts, the
>romans and the norse, and the expectation was the Basquan
>elements were more or less displaced. The reality is that the
>displacement is partial. For the part of Italy there were
>cultures, latium and etruscan that survived greek occupation
>virtually unaltered. And yet why are the greek alleles so
>intense. My theory is that prior to recorded history the
>greeks or some common ancestor of both greek and 'italian'
>immigrated into the italian peninsula.

1) after the occupation of Greece there was a *lot* of slave
import from there. They were not in position to change the
language of locals and as for the culture... See Cato's
spews, er, passionate complaints about decay caused by
influence of Greek culture.

2) Basque patterns outside of France and Spain... Keep in mind
that in 13th-16th centuries Basque fishermen were over all
north Atlantic. They came pretty close to Newfoundland -
hell knows whether they reached it or not, but they were
going to places a bit to the east from there every year
(for cod, mostly). BTW, they were also happily smuggling
everything they could everywhere they could and Cornwall is
wonderful place for that trade... So you might be looking
at several layers - some of them fairly recent.

OTOH, connections with Sardinia and north Italy (aka Liguria)
may very well be old - no surprise here (look at the map).
Language is poor indicator where the Romans had been at work -
these guys were good in inflicting their language on
territories they held.

BTW, you do realize that Vikings were actively taking
slaves and bringing them home? A lot from Ireland and quite
a few from the places on Atlantic shore. And it looks like
Danes were more active in that game than those who lived
further north...

[Gordo]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3ec04bcc.423692@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Sun, 12 May 2002 23:24:48 GMT, Bob Keeter
> <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Oh, I told you, no live fire! However, perhaps a touch of
> >ancient
history
> >might help you sort out the genes at least in Italy. The
> >Greeks had a
very
> >profound "influence" on pre-Roman Italy, with a major
> >presence in
southern
> >Italy and Sicily. Remember the battle for Syracuse? If I
> >remember correctly the first greek accounts of Italy was
> >that it was basically a
very
> >fertile ground for colonization because of the sparce "riff
> >raff" inhabititing the plesant territory.
>
> [Sound of pop gun, a spinning cork]. I suspect however, its
> much deeper than that. When going into this I had no opinion
> that basque patterns were present anywhere outside of france
> or spain, it turns out they tend to be major contributers
> far outside of northern spain. We have 3 waves the celts,
> the romans and the norse, and the expectation was the
> Basquan elements were more or less displaced. The reality is
> that the displacement is partial. For the part of Italy
> there were cultures, latium and etruscan that survived greek
> occupation virtually unaltered. And yet why are the greek
> alleles so intense. My theory is that prior to recorded
> history the greeks or some common ancestor of both greek and
> 'italian' immigrated into the italian peninsula.
>
>
> > Furthermore, the post-Mycenean Greeks appear to be a very
> > different kind of people, possibly originating
outside
> >of Greece proper, most likely from what is now the Balkans
> >or points
further
> >north and east.
>
> The affect of the hellenistic greeks is probably limited.
>
> >These same people almost certainly drifted in the direction
> >of Italy even before the Greek colonization, but . . . . .
> > .
>
> >
> >"After 1st Etruscan tombs were found in 17th century, the
> >historians have argued the origin of Etruscans. 2000 years
> >ago they were almost
unanimous;
> >Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century B.C.) was an only
> >ancient
historian
> >who claimed (with political reasons?) Etruscans were the
> >indigenous
people
> >of Italy. All the other historians thought Etruscans came
> >from Asia
Minor.
> >According to Greek historian Herodotus (ca. 485-425 B.C.)
> >Etruscans left Lydia (an ancient country in Asia Minor),
> >because there was a bad famine. According to another Greek
> >historian Thucydides (ca. 455-400 B.C.) some Etruscans
> >still lived in Limnos (a Greek island close by the coast of
Asia
> >Minor) before Athenians conquered it in 510 B.C.
> >
> >This is a very interesting piece of information, because
> >modern archaeologists have found Etruscan texts in Limnos
> >which were written in
6th
> >century B.C. However, it is quite strange how little the
> >myths of ancient Greece and Rome deal with Etruscans and
> >their migration from Asia Minor
to
> >Etruria. "
>
> Ok, so that might explain the Etrsucans now what about the
> Latium, the language people place this people as derivative
> of protoceltic languages.
>
> >"The political situation in Europe and Middle East changed
> >totally in
13th
> >and 12th century B.C. At that time so-called Sea Peoples
> >migrated on the coasts of the Meditteranean Sea like
> >Vikings a couple of millenniums
later.
> >The names of the Sea Peoples were strange: Lukka, Denyen,
> >Peleset,
Meshwesh,
> >Ekwesh, Tjeker, Weshesh, Skekelesh, Shardana and Teresh.
> >Three last
tribes
> >are the most interesting ones, because they arrived later
> >in Italy and
named
> >their countries: Skekelesh, Shardana and Teresh became
> >Sicilians,
Sardinians
> >and Tyrsenians (or Tyrrhenians, that is the Greek name of
> >Etruscans)!"
>
> That would explain the minor grecan alleles on Sardonia.
>
> >Again a bit of ancient history, but these "sea people"
> >apparently started somewhere in the Balkans or Asia Minor
> >and were a holy terror in the Med
for
> >quite a while, even taking on the standing "mega power" of
> >the times, the Egyptian empire.

The "sea peoples" were supposed to be the Mycenae. They formed
the founded the Cretan (Minoan) empire and likely played a
huge role in the development of what we know as the Etruscan.
Mycenae were also the people that were the principles in the
Iliad and the destruction of Troy.

It is possible that Etrusca was originally a Cisalpine Gallic
city state but an infused of Mycenaean and other Greek culture
including peoples is also likely. Likely by marriage. It is
worthwhile noting that much of Roman and Greek mythology and
ancient spirituality is almost identical. Etrusca led to the
development of Rome as a great power.

Also Roman attitudes toward Greece was totally different than
its attitude than to others in its empire. Greeks were
employed at all levels for teaching and consultation at every
level of Roman government and culture. Also peculiar is the
Greek attitude towards Rome, it was not exactly one of
complete resentment and animosity or indifference.

Also, we must remember that the Capital of the eastern Roman
Empire was placed where it was in Byzantium. Placement of the
Eastern Capital is not an accidental placement. Romans did
things without logic. For at the period that was the second
heart of the empire its other centre.

The Phoenicians were supposed to be the Canaanites of biblical
fame. No indication that they were confused with the Dorian
and Mycenae groups. Phoenicians formed Carthage and Cadiz.
Their culture was completely different, than the Greco Roman
evolution. It held the southern coast of the Mediterranean
while the Carthaginian held from what is now Libya to the
Iberian peninsula.

>>ANYWAY, I would be very, VERY surprised if even one so
> >astute as yourself could make a dime's difference between
> >the Greek
gerome
> >and the Turkish/Balkan geromes.

It would be a good study but remember the Turks of today are
not the same peoples of antiquity. The peoples of Antiquity
were the Persians centred on the Ecbatana area, and now we
understand as Iranian people. The modern Turks were propelled
from about the 1300s by the Ottoman Turks by nine great
leaders ending with Suleiman the Magnificent.

However, the genome study would be a great interest. Most of
the peoples in this area had the interesting habit of
appropriating the local female populations at the end of every
successful campaign.

It is not surprising that the genetic information you are
obtaining is quite interesting. Yet due to the tendency of
conquerors to employ captured slaves in sexual activities the
mix will be interesting and will take a very very long time to
mull over.

The only other pattern that must be used is the comparison
with genetic materials in different periods of time. Which is
to obtain DNA samples from each group from internments at 500
years intervals in order to establish the pattern of movements
of peoples. That would be difficult to do.

>
> Yes, but we must have had a debate on this 7 years ago, in
> this newsgroup. There was a debate on this that there was an
> equal probability that the phonecians were these sea
> peoples. In fact you see some haplotypes typical of india in
> southern mediterranean.
>
> >If the Egyptian accounts of the Sea People (assuming of
> >course that this
is
> >the origin for the Etruscans and other colonizers of that
> >time), a "total replacement" of whatever peoples they may
> >have encouhtered in Italy is
not
> >out of the question, of course the Egyptians of the time
> >were not the
best
> >press agents for the Sea People. 8-)
> >
> >As for the "dark hole" of France. . . . . .
> >
> >From a geopolitical / historical standpoint, Im really
> >about as baffled
as
> >you apparently are over that "gap", otherwise you would not
> >trot out your "hypotheses".
>
> You notice I used the plural.
>
> > Geez, that sounds SO much more scientific than "theory"!
> > May even betray a shread of modesty in there somewhere
> > philip! 8-) France
has
> >been some of the more desirable real-estate in Europe for
> >at least the
last
> >20k years or so.
>
> No so your supposed to shoot at it. According the italian
> historians there was some kind of civilization comparable to
> the etruscans in Provincial France
>
> > Sould SEEM to be a logical place for people to settle
> > down and start making their own haplotypes like mad! Of
> > course BEING the most desirable real estate, there might
> > have been a great turnover rate for
the
> >tenats. In come the new warriors from the south and east,
> >out go the
staid
> >and proper farmers and such. The warriors settle down and
> >start farming away just in time to be whacked on the heads
> >by the next wave of
"savages"
> >from the east. . . .etc, etc, etc. Fighting over the rich
> >countryside of what we call France started way prior to
> >the "Classical" period suggested above for Greece/Italy
> >and continued right on through modern times. With all of
> >the mixing that probably would be considered a "Given",
> >it might
just
> >be that there simply was never a stable enough "french"
> >halotype started
to
> >show anything uniquely French today!
>
> !!!!!
>
> But your haplotypes are flowing out and flowing back in with
> attackers, the only way to find haplotypes spread evenly in
> 3/4 ths of the surrounding nodes but not in the center, is
> if somescraped out the center, then held back motion from
> the 3/4ths while it filled in from one forth. My theory is
> that glacial meltin block the motion from some areas
> whereas allowing migration from others.
>
> Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.362 /
Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/02

[Philip Dei]

On Mon, 13 May 2002 02:33:26 GMT, Bob Keeter
<rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Unless you have a compelling reason to push it so far back in
>time. . . .I would really suggest that you consider the
>RECORDED visitations of greco-trukic peoples. Much easier to
>understand when you have the written records to back up the
>genetics. . . . . . On the other hand, I have absolutely
>NOTHING to prove that some pre-historic migration mirroring
>the KNOWN colonizations did not occur. Lets see now, no proof
>that a theory is wrong must demand that we all accept that
>theory as fact! Where did I hear that arguement before. . . .
>. . . . . . 8-)

Anything in known history showing portuguese, basque or
spanish specific markers showing up in inner mongolian, buriat
or Japanese populations.

>> The affect of the hellenistic greeks is probably limited.
>
>Because it would mess with your theories perhaps?

No because the hellistic greeks focused to the east not so
much west, and because they settled their differences with the
southern greeks rather early.

> Cities-worth of Greeks settled in southern Italy and
> Sicily. Almost certainly hundreds of thousands of people.
> Even the romans did not slaughter all of them. Twixt me and
> you, how many greeks (as a percentage of the entire
> population of a place like Sicily or some of the coastal
> regions of Italy), would it take before the mixing of their
> genes with the local "natives" (i.e. proto-Celts or
> whatever), would provide the "intensity" you demand?

See, bob you were doing so well, then your boat starts to
tilt, tilt a little more then all of a sudden your hanging of
the side sucking waves.

I don't think so. Sampling is one of those things, looks as if
the sample of Italy is very good. So my conclusion that local
effects won't account for
2/3rds of the haplotypes. Second what your telling me is that
the myceanoans were diluted by the macedoneans, which means
those gene frequencies would be higher in greece than today.
Bottom line, there is no way in hell the greece resulted in
a large scale diplacement of italians, but that some
incursions must have been occurring over long periods of
time, possibly 1000s of years.
>> Ok, so that might explain the Etrsucans now what about the
>> Latium, the language people place this people as derivative
>> of protoceltic languages.

>The Greek trading ports/cities were practically all coastal.
>That WAS the way the greek colonists and traders showed up
>you know! Rome is somewhat inland. Perhaps enough inland that
>they only got a minor dose of the Greek genes and influence.
>On the other hand, unless Im very sadly mistaken, the latin
>alphabet sprang almost fully formed directly from the greek.
>Sort of like the Japanese writing system is very much a copy
>of the Chinese (some of the glyphs even mean exactly the same
>even when the pronounciation is totally different! but then
>that is a different thread. . . ..!)

Yes but Japanese are probably of less than 20% chinese. BTW
the story behind that is that there was a conflict with china,
and the japanese clans sent fighters to korea to help the
koreans defend themselves. The koreans repaid the japanese by
sending them some of their best chinese scholars. The scolars
then selectively educated the Japanese families. This period
is known as the asuka period, highly tumultuous period in
which the art and arcthitect changed rapily, then buddhism
came and Japanese sort of wall-around their society and the
scholars stopped coming, chinese art (symbolity) diminished in
Japan, whereas buddist religious art increased.

>Perhaps the greek influence on the letters carried beyond
>simple writing, hun! 8-)

[coughing, choking, sniff-sniff, someone forgot to role down
the window]

>> That would explain the minor grecan alleles on Sardonia.
>
>You are not reading very carefully. . . . The Tyrrhenians are
>the etruscans. The etruscans were the kingpins of a big piece
>of italy when the romans were still chasing goats across the
>seven hills.

I got that from your first thing, but at most the etruscans
occupied 1/3 of the western side of the peninsla.

The Skekelesh WERE the
>Sicilians, and the Shardana WERE the Sardinians. While Im
>very open to being disproven,

Sardinians have a number of major haplotypes only shared with
basque and portugues but only minor in italy and nonexistent
in greece. So I would say that one also probably needs to be
chunked out the window. One thing you have to remember is that
inaccurate maps people will be named according to rather wild
estimations. We called the native americans indians because we
though we reached indochina (whoops). The shardana may have
only had one port in sardonia, but their activities
characterized the whole island. Remember the Vikings, they
apparently had ports in Ireland, but they do neither
characterize the language or genetic makeup of ireland.

> I think that the current thought is that these people CAME
> from those areas when they attacked the Egyptians, not so
> much went to those areas after the egyptians pitched them
> out of the country. IOW, they had already settled those
> areas. And as I think I mentioned below, there is just a
> chance that these "sea people" may also have been part of
> some sort of mass migration that led to the modern Greeks
> (as opposed to the Mycenean greeks of Homer's Troy.)

Very dubious.

>> Yes, but we must have had a debate on this 7 years ago, in
>> this newsgroup. There was a debate on this that there was
>> an equal probability that the phonecians were these sea
>> peoples. In fact you see some haplotypes typical of india
>> in southern mediterranean.
>
>I think that the outcome of that little clash of sabers was
>that the phonecians (philistines, etc) were quite likely the
>PRODUCT of the sea people's invasion of the coastal areas of
>Lebanon and Israel, not the source of the invasion of Egypt.
>At least I dont think that any recent evidence strongly
>contradicts this supposition.

There are alleles from india (i have no sample of middle east
in DB) that seem to flow through greece into western europe,
through Iberia primarily. My opinion is that the sea peoples
were like the huns, they were a mixture of people who were
good at doing a certain thing.

>> You notice I used the plural.

>Entirely possible, but then a couple of cities, perhaps some
>enscribed stones, . . . . . . but then the absence of proof
>meens nothing right? Just as long as there is no disproof you
>are in business! 8-)))))

That depends do you put your weight in arcehological evidence
that is often of by 100% in scale or genetic evidence that is
more or less in your face take it or leave it.

>Seriously, the recorded stories of the "Sea People" suggest
>a loss federation of several different tribes/city-states
>or whatever. While thanks to the greeks we can just about
>nail down three of those tribes, where did the rest of them
>come from?

YOu think I am doubting the sea people, the rise of minoan
civilation is probably a consequence of the mediterranean
activities. But nothing you have suggest is convincing as a
wide scale displacive settlement of italy or sardonia. If you
will shut your pie hole for a moment I might let you in on a
little bit of information your history books wont tell you. A
number of these greco markers bipass spain, france, and the
basque and show up in Portugal, possible as far as britian
(looking at cornish sequences), so I would argue that these
groups were more diluted wide ranging like the vikings versus
inland moving displacing like the oldnorse were.

> If the italians (Id like some pointers on where you got
> that tidbit by the way) say that there were "Etruscan like"
> civilizations in Provincial France, Id tend to believe it.
> WOuld just like to see which ones of the "unknown" sea
> peaple it might be.

There are some independent sardonian markers in france.

>Oh yeah, a little bit of evidence (in stone no less!) would
>also be very useful! ;-)

That's right, so please provide some.

>> But your haplotypes are flowing out and flowing back in
>> with attackers, the only way to find haplotypes spread
>> evenly in
>> 3/4 ths of the surrounding nodes but not in the center, is
>> if somescraped out the center, then held back motion from
>> the 3/4ths while it filled in from one forth. My theory
>> is that glacial meltin block the motion from some areas
>> whereas allowing migration from others.
>>
>
>If you take red yellow and blue paints and mix them up in
>about equal proportions, you end up with an ugly grey.
>Imagine taking a map of france and dragging a paintbrush
>dipped in red paint from south to north. Drag another
>paintbrush dipped in blue from east to west and even another
>from the south west to the north east. (these are your
>invasions) Then take your hand, put it palm down at the
>intersection of those three paint brush strokes and start
>smearning it around, staying near the middle of france. All
>around the edges you have streaks and spots of red, yellow
>and blue. In the middle it would be hard to find any distinct
>color. You would also have a paint smeared hand, but then
>that is the price one pays for engaging in an experimental
>instad of an observational science! 8-))

Haplotype A2-B7 Cornish 5.0 Basque 5.7 Austrain 3.3 Czech 3.7
German 3.8 Uralic 3.7 Slovac 4.0 Orochon and Li (asians) 2.1
France 0.9

IOW you find a higher gene frequency of this allele in east
asia than in france, the expected haplotype frequency is
between 3 and 5. Actually basing on trends (observed) giving
the geographic center is in france, haplotype frequency should
be over 7.0 so its about 1/10th expected frequency.

A29-B44 COrnish 5.3 Spanish 5.0 Basque 7.3 Italian 2.3 France
3.4 Expected frequency in france is 6.0 to 8.0

A24-B44 Basque 3.5 Czech 3.8 YugoS 4.0 Romania 2.0 Protuguese
2.9 France (not detected)

A2-B44 Cornish 11.4 Spanish 5.9 Protugues 4.1 Basque 4.2 Greek
4.5 Sardinia 0 France 4.0 (expected between 6 and 11)

A3-B7 Cornish 5.7 Austrian 7.4 Polish 4.9 German 4.3
Portuguese 4.9 Spanish 2.7 Basque 2.5 Belgium 6.0 France once
again the geographic center of gravity this haplotpype, 2.8

Not too surprised right? Inner Mongolia 2.8

Here's a haplotype A31-B51, not likely to be the result of a
chance recombination In the portuguese 1.6% france 0.9% Italy
0.9% JAPAN 3.0% Korea 1.2% Inner Mongolia 3.1%

So if you are thinking it was the huns, nope, portuguese
traders, no gene flow from japan into inner mongolia.

How about the haplotype A2-B35 Portugal 2.9 Romania 3.7
(leading one to think this is a celtic allele), wrong!
Sardinia 2.2 France 1.2 Japan 2.5

How about the sardinians A30-B18 Sardianian 16.3% (note the
highest hap frequency of any in any detected population,
suggest long term isolation) Basque 8.1% Spanish 2.6% Italy
0.5% Greece N/D France N/D

You get the point (I hope, don't shoot yourself in the foot
responding)

I have about 5 more haplotypes that have the same pattern.
When haplotype center of gravities are in Denmark, france
or germany, where the Haplotype frequencies are expected to
be the highest, they tend to be the lowest of the
surrounding groups, and generally the haplotypes have some
unexpectedly high frequencies in either northern china,
mongolia, korea or Japan.

This guy Vanderbilt said that the highest morphological
similarity of Neadertals was with outer mongolians, maybe the
'hint' of Neandertal genes that entered the human population
did enter in western eurasia, but somehow got displaced into
NE asia. ROFL.

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth

[Bob Keeter]

in article a4vvdu4oft8ff1tktk0vccn8u6rqgokln9@4ax.com, Philip
Deitiker at pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu wrote on 5/13/02 1:58 PM:

> On Mon, 13 May 2002 02:33:26 GMT, Bob Keeter
> <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Unless you have a compelling reason to push it so far back
>> in time. . . .I would really suggest that you consider the
>> RECORDED visitations of greco-trukic peoples. Much easier
>> to understand when you have the written records to back up
>> the genetics. . . . . . On the other hand, I have
>> absolutely NOTHING to prove that some pre-historic
>> migration mirroring the KNOWN colonizations did not occur.
>> Lets see now, no proof that a theory is wrong must demand
>> that we all accept that theory as fact! Where did I hear
>> that arguement before. . . . . . . . . . 8-)
>
> Anything in known history showing portuguese, basque or
> spanish specific markers showing up in inner mongolian,
> buriat or Japanese populations.

Nope. that is NOT what I was saying. not even close. Not even
related. but now that you mention it, from the early 1500s
there was a definite Portugee influence in Japan, particularly
around Nagasaki, IIRC. Somehow I dont imagine that those
Iberian sailors, 12 or 15 months out of port would not have
done the sailor thing and contributed to the local gerome, but
then that was not what you were talking to either. 8-)

>
>>> The affect of the hellenistic greeks is probably limited.
>>
>> Because it would mess with your theories perhaps?
>
> No because the hellistic greeks focused to the east not so
> much west, and because they settled their differences with
> the southern greeks rather early.
>

The hellenic greeks focused to the east for threats (the
infamous Persians as well as occasionally tangling with some
of the Greek city-states in Asia Minor), but I think that you
might do a tad of study on the classics before you start
saying that they did not look to the west. The west was the
"wild west" in those times and a ripe countryside for trading.
Afterall the eastern arc of the Med was fair and decently
occupied at the time by a lot of people not too kindly to the
greek merchants or hoplites. The greeks were great traders
with over a thousand known settlements outside of Greece
proper ranging from the edge of the steppes and the east edge
of the Black Sea to Spain and North Africa.

Id offer you up a map at

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/resource/gr-
kcolon.htm

This is not even considering the influx of slaves and POWs to
the italian peninsula from the Roman conquests of later years,
the depredations of Hannibal, or any of the other events that
could have moved around genetic material.

Needless to say, the pilars of Hercules were named by the
Phoenecians, Spartacus was a Roman street urchin made good,
and Archimedes was perhaps an Athenian??? Well, perhaps not. .
But again that does not support the theories, so. . . . . . .
must be unscientific or something.

>> Cities-worth of Greeks settled in southern Italy and
>> Sicily. Almost certainly hundreds of thousands of people.
>> Even the romans did not slaughter all of them. Twixt me and
>> you, how many greeks (as a percentage of the entire
>> population of a place like Sicily or some of the coastal
>> regions of Italy), would it take before the mixing of their
>> genes with the local "natives" (i.e. proto-Celts or
>> whatever), would provide the "intensity" you demand?
>
> See, bob you were doing so well, then your boat starts to
> tilt, tilt a little more then all of a sudden your hanging
> of the side sucking waves.
>
> I don't think so. Sampling is one of those things, looks as
> if the sample of Italy is very good. So my conclusion that
> local effects won't account for
> 2/3rds of the haplotypes. Second what your telling me is
> that the myceanoans were diluted by the macedoneans, which
> means those gene frequencies would be higher in greece
> than today. Bottom line, there is no way in hell the
> greece resulted in a large scale diplacement of italians,
> but that some incursions must have been occurring over
> long periods of time, possibly 1000s of years.

Did not say that greece was populated by a large scale influx
of Italians. You know that. I know that. Anyone reading the
thread knows that. Anyone even resorting to a quick Google
search can know that. Its a very juvenile debating tactic of
trying to interject a diversion into the discussion. Dont
flush my friend, at least not outside of 10th grade oratory
class. My only point was that there were alternate,
historically DOCUMENTED and artifact proven "mixings" of
cultures all over the Med for a very long time. I would be
shocked if each and every one of any duration, i.e. Hannibal's
years of parading around Italy, the Roman presence in North
Africa, the Roman (and in most cases, make that read, Gallic
and Iberian since that was likely where most of the foot
sloggers were coming from) ventures into the british isles.
Shoot, even toss in a few of the late classic "barbarian
invasions" down from the north out of the east and even up
from the south! A real mixing pot. My only true amazement is
that you said that France was the only "grey admixture" in
Europe. I, in my ignorance of couse, would have expected to
find that kind of polyglot gerome just about everywhere!

>
>> The Greek trading ports/cities were practically all
>> coastal. That WAS the way the greek colonists and traders
>> showed up you know! Rome is somewhat inland. Perhaps enough
>> inland that they only got a minor dose of the Greek genes
>> and influence. On the other hand, unless Im very sadly
>> mistaken, the latin alphabet sprang almost fully formed
>> directly from the greek. Sort of like the Japanese writing
>> system is very much a copy of the Chinese (some of the
>> glyphs even mean exactly the same even when the
>> pronounciation is totally different! but then that is a
>> different thread. . . ..!)
>
> Yes but Japanese are probably of less than 20% chinese. BTW
> the story behind that is that there was a conflict with
> china, and the japanese clans sent fighters to korea to help
> the koreans defend themselves. The koreans repaid the
> japanese by sending them some of their best chinese
> scholars. The scolars then selectively educated the Japanese
> families. This period is known as the asuka period, highly
> tumultuous period in which the art and arcthitect changed
> rapily, then buddhism came and Japanese sort of wall-around
> their society and the scholars stopped coming, chinese art
> (symbolity) diminished in Japan, whereas buddist religious
> art increased.

I think that you perhaps need to check up a bit on Far Eastern
history as well as the classics. The Jomon were around from
somewhere close to the end of the last ice age (12k-12.5k
years ago) up to about 400 bc when wet-rice made the jump from
China, most likely via Korea. The Yayoi picked up until about
300ad with the begining of a big influx of korean and chinese
people and customs. By sometimes around 700 ad, the japanese
culture was becoming the clear ancestor of the modern nation.
It really touching that you consider the Koreans to have sent
over some chinese scholars and such since the Koreans hatred
of the Chinese was/is only surpassed for their hatred of the
Japaneese. Its interesting also that the single best record of
the state of Japaneese culture of the time is the Wei Zhi,
written in chinese by a mainland chinese scribe. By the time
Asuka was a serious going concern (700ad or perhaps a bit
earlier), the chinese "influence" was already fairly well in
place and the Japanese were writing their chinese glyphs and
pronouncing them in Japanese. But then that wasnt the real
subject either. I just tossed in the Japanese example of how a
different culture (language?) could adopt even a hieroglyphic
writen language just as the Romans did from all of the Greeks
that surrounded them in the earlier days.

>
>> Perhaps the greek influence on the letters carried beyond
>> simple writing, hun! 8-)
>
> [coughing, choking, sniff-sniff, someone forgot to role down
> the window]
>

Oh, I can see you choking but on that simple missive! Nay,
nay, he dont protest too much! I think the moths are getting
after the hypothesis! ;-))

>>> That would explain the minor grecan alleles on Sardonia.
>>
>> You are not reading very carefully. . . . The Tyrrhenians
>> are the etruscans. The etruscans were the kingpins of a big
>> piece of italy when the romans were still chasing goats
>> across the seven hills.
>
> I got that from your first thing, but at most the etruscans
> occupied 1/3 of the western side of the peninsla.
>
> The Skekelesh WERE the
>> Sicilians, and the Shardana WERE the Sardinians. While Im
>> very open to being disproven,
>
> Sardinians have a number of major haplotypes only shared
> with basque and portugues but only minor in italy and
> nonexistent in greece. So I would say that one also probably
> needs to be chunked out the window. One thing you have to
> remember is that inaccurate maps people will be named
> according to rather wild estimations. We called the native
> americans indians because we though we reached indochina
> (whoops). The shardana may have only had one port in
> sardonia, but their activities characterized the whole
> island. Remember the Vikings, they apparently had ports in
> Ireland, but they do neither characterize the language or
> genetic makeup of ireland.

You are grasping, and gasping there old boy! The greeks traded
with the sardinians, sicilians, etruscans and such for
hundreds of years. Id say that within no more than about 50
years of the first voyage of Columbus the "mistake" had been
rectified, check out "Magellan". If the Greeks consistently
choose to link these people and countries to the "sea people",
I would probably need some solid evidence that the link is not
there! Certainly more of a bit of supportable evidence than
than its inconvenient to your grand theory!

But then, they really dont boggle that grand theory too much,
they just shift around the timing of it. Guess Im just too dim
to figure out the agenda for being so hard over against this
historically and archeologically demonstrable fact that lots
of different people from the east side of the Med tended to
move out toward the west. Quite frankly, I would suggest that
a scientific approach would be to look HARD at any analytical
methodology that contradicted the written records of so many
historians AND the hard archeological evidence. But then thats
scientific method for commoners. . .
. . .

>
>> I think that the current thought is that these people CAME
>> from those areas when they attacked the Egyptians, not so
>> much went to those areas after the egyptians pitched them
>> out of the country. IOW, they had already settled those
>> areas. And as I think I mentioned below, there is just a
>> chance that these "sea people" may also have been part of
>> some sort of mass migration that led to the modern Greeks
>> (as opposed to the Mycenean greeks of Homer's Troy.)
>
> Very dubious.

The Sea People could not have operated out of the ships of the
day without a "home port". Greece, Anatolia, the whole of the
east edge of the med was populated by peoples that had their
own fights with the "sea people". The ONLY logical place for
them to come from was some place to thw west, and as best as I
can find, they were not the native "pre-Celts" or whatever the
people of south-western Europe could be called in those times.
But hey, if it makes that theory fly. . . . go for it! 8-)

>>
>> I think that the outcome of that little clash of sabers was
>> that the phonecians (philistines, etc) were quite likely
>> the PRODUCT of the sea people's invasion of the coastal
>> areas of Lebanon and Israel, not the source of the invasion
>> of Egypt. At least I dont think that any recent evidence
>> strongly contradicts this supposition.
>
> There are alleles from india (i have no sample of middle
> east in DB) that seem to flow through greece into western
> europe, through Iberia primarily. My opinion is that the sea
> peoples were like the huns, they were a mixture of people
> who were good at doing a certain thing.
>

Are those alleles FROM india or from the central asian
"trans-caucausus" groups that invaded India and south
Eastern Europe/west asia about the same times. IIRC, right
in there around the time the Mycenean Greek culture took it
on the chin. 8-)

>>> You notice I used the plural.
>
>> Entirely possible, but then a couple of cities, perhaps
>> some enscribed stones, . . . . . . but then the absence of
>> proof meens nothing right? Just as long as there is no
>> disproof you are in business! 8-)))))
>
> That depends do you put your weight in arcehological
> evidence that is often of by 100% in scale or genetic
> evidence that is more or less in your face take it or
> leave it.
>

Oh, I dont trust either explicitly. particularly when you get
to legends and myths things start to get fuzzy, you know
people start to embellish things to feel more important
themselves, sometimes by building up the enemies sometimes by
playing up their "heroic resistance" or whatever. But when you
start getting the "hard histories" of the Greek and Roman
times and but them up against ruined cities, stamped coins,
and such, lots of dates start lining up. If the genetically
derrived dates differ. . . .well, what would you do? Turn the
offending statues into road paving gravel? Burn the obviously
erroneous histories of Ancient Greece? Or perhaps consider the
remote possibility that the genetic "evidence" while probalby
"obvious" if that is the ONLY thing one tries to consider,
MIGHT just not outweigh the preponderance of evidence! Hungry
little moths arent they! 8-)

>> Seriously, the recorded stories of the "Sea People" suggest
>> a loss federation of several different tribes/city-states
>> or whatever. While thanks to the greeks we can just about
>> nail down three of those tribes, where did the rest of them
>> come from?
>
> YOu think I am doubting the sea people, the rise of minoan
> civilation is probably a consequence of the mediterranean
> activities. But nothing you have suggest is convincing as
> a wide scale displacive settlement of italy or sardonia.
> If you will shut your pie hole for a moment I might let
> you in on a little bit of information your history books
> wont tell you. A number of these greco markers bipass
> spain, france, and the basque and show up in Portugal,
> possible as far as britian (looking at cornish sequences),
> so I would argue that these groups were more diluted wide
> ranging like the vikings versus inland moving displacing
> like the oldnorse were.

My piehole is grinning great big! 8-P

The final DOWNFALL of the Minoan culture, i.e. the burning of
Knossos was around 1400 bc. The Sea People start to show up in
the Greek Isles around 1300 bc and Rameses III finally sent
them packing from the previously occupied Nile delta in
somewhere around 1186 bc.

Where did Ceasar's legionaires come from when Hadrians wall
was built? WHere did the stout mariners of Pytheas of
Marselles come from (Oh, was that too much of a clue?) 8-)
Didnt want to make it TOO easy now! ;-)))

http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/features/10.shtml

As for the "portugee" influence up along the coast of europe,
Lisbon was a carthagian colony before the romans came through,
and before the carthagians apparently also at least an
occaisonal port of call for the Greeks. We know that the
greeks got as far as Great Britain under Pytheas and most
likely also at least ducked into the Baltic. Pytheas was not
an explorer as such, chartered by some government, just a
trader that happened to apparently come across some
information from the Greek's competitors the Phoenicians about
the opportunities outside the Pilars of Hercules.
>
>> If the italians (Id like some pointers on where you got
>> that tidbit by the way) say that there were "Etruscan like"
>> civilizations in Provincial France, Id tend to believe it.
>> WOuld just like to see which ones of the "unknown" sea
>> peaple it might be.
>
> There are some independent sardonian markers in france.

And?????

>> Oh yeah, a little bit of evidence (in stone no less!) would
>> also be very useful! ;-)
>
> That's right, so please provide some.

Oh, I guess the writings of Heroditus and the rest are just
drug addled musings and the carthagian/phoenician relics in
England are all just plants, and even Caesar's accounts of
Britain and such are just tripe. Oh well, all of those nice
ancient cities, sunken ships, and such are just contrived
events of a vengeful Bob! . . . . . . I cant believe that a
mere baccelaurate in engineering required so much wasted time
on the classics and history and a PhD in a "real science" did
not. . . but then why study fantasies that might at some time
conflict with a theory! 8-)

>>
>> If you take red yellow and blue paints and mix them up in
>> about equal proportions, you end up with an ugly grey.
>> Imagine taking a map of france and dragging a paintbrush
>> dipped in red paint from south to north. Drag another
>> paintbrush dipped in blue from east to west and even
>> another from the south west to the north east. (these are
>> your invasions) Then take your hand, put it palm down at
>> the intersection of those three paint brush strokes and
>> start smearning it around, staying near the middle of
>> france. All around the edges you have streaks and spots of
>> red, yellow and blue. In the middle it would be hard to
>> find any distinct color. You would also have a paint
>> smeared hand, but then that is the price one pays for
>> engaging in an experimental instad of an observational
>> science! 8-))
>
> Haplotype A2-B7 Cornish 5.0 Basque 5.7 Austrain 3.3 Czech
> 3.7 German 3.8 Uralic 3.7 Slovac 4.0 Orochon and Li (asians)
> 2.1 France 0.9
>
> IOW you find a higher gene frequency of this allele in east
> asia than in france, the expected haplotype frequency is
> between 3 and 5. Actually basing on trends (observed) giving
> the geographic center is in france, haplotype frequency
> should be over 7.0 so its about 1/10th expected frequency.
>
> A29-B44 COrnish 5.3 Spanish 5.0 Basque 7.3 Italian 2.3
> France 3.4 Expected frequency in france is 6.0 to 8.0
>
> A24-B44 Basque 3.5 Czech 3.8 YugoS 4.0 Romania 2.0
> Protuguese 2.9 France (not detected)
>
> A2-B44 Cornish 11.4 Spanish 5.9 Protugues 4.1 Basque 4.2
> Greek 4.5 Sardinia 0 France 4.0 (expected between 6 and 11)
>
> A3-B7 Cornish 5.7 Austrian 7.4 Polish 4.9 German 4.3
> Portuguese 4.9 Spanish 2.7 Basque 2.5 Belgium 6.0 France
> once again the geographic center of gravity this
> haplotpype, 2.8
>
> Not too surprised right? Inner Mongolia 2.8
>
> Here's a haplotype A31-B51, not likely to be the result of a
> chance recombination In the portuguese 1.6% france 0.9%
> Italy 0.9% JAPAN 3.0% Korea 1.2% Inner Mongolia 3.1%
>
> So if you are thinking it was the huns, nope, portuguese
> traders, no gene flow from japan into inner mongolia.
>
> How about the haplotype A2-B35 Portugal 2.9 Romania 3.7
> (leading one to think this is a celtic allele), wrong!
> Sardinia 2.2 France 1.2 Japan 2.5
>
> How about the sardinians A30-B18 Sardianian 16.3% (note the
> highest hap frequency of any in any detected population,
> suggest long term isolation) Basque 8.1% Spanish 2.6% Italy
> 0.5% Greece N/D France N/D
>
> You get the point (I hope, don't shoot yourself in the foot
> responding)

Not even locked and loaded. Anyway its just corks! 8-)

>
> I have about 5 more haplotypes that have the same pattern.
> When haplotype center of gravities are in Denmark, france or
> germany, where the Haplotype frequencies are expected to be
> the highest, they tend to be the lowest of the surrounding
> groups, and generally the haplotypes have some unexpectedly
> high frequencies in either northern china, mongolia, korea
> or Japan.
>
> This guy Vanderbilt said that the highest morphological
> similarity of Neadertals was with outer mongolians, maybe
> the 'hint' of Neandertal genes that entered the human
> population did enter in western eurasia, but somehow got
> displaced into NE asia. ROFL.

Totally shocking! You must be mellowing in your old age if we
actually agree on the proper response to the suggestion of any
mongolian link to Neanderhtals! That is in fact a pretty sound
ROTFL. But then so is the rejection of recorded history,
documented by hard archeology just because its inconvenient to
a theory. Looks like Leif has a kindred soul when evidence
fails to confirm his theories. 8-)

Whats the proper response to hard evidence that contradicts a
theory now?

No didnt think so.

Regards bk

[Philip Dei]

On Tue, 14 May 2002 01:25:05 GMT, Bob Keeter
<rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Nope. that is NOT what I was saying. not even close. Not even
>related. but now that you mention it, from the early 1500s
>there was a definite Portugee influence in Japan,
>particularly around Nagasaki, IIRC.

Yes, but the women were generally killed or shipped to
some far off place. It was highly forbidden for Japanese
women to have relationship with Portuguese sailors. Go
study your japanese history. Have you ever spent more than
5 seconds in Japan?

> Somehow I dont imagine that those Iberian sailors, 12 or 15
> months out of port would not have done the sailor thing and
> contributed to the local gerome, but then that was not what
> you were talking to either.

Stop over in shanghai or canton for a few days. Still doesn't
explain the presence in inner and outer mongolia. and BTW,
Japan with a population in the 10s of millions in 17th
century, maybe 10 or so incidences, you wouldn't be able to
detect their contribution if you sampled 10,000 individuals.

>>>> The affect of the hellenistic greeks is probably limited.
>>>
>>> Because it would mess with your theories perhaps?
>>
>> No because the hellistic greeks focused to the east not so
>> much west, and because they settled their differences with
>> the southern greeks rather early.

>The hellenic greeks focused to the east for threats (the
>infamous Persians as well as occasionally tangling with some
>of the Greek city-states in Asia Minor), but I think that you
>might do a tad of study on the classics before you start
>saying that they did not look to the west. The west was the
>"wild west" in those times and a ripe countryside for
>trading. Afterall the eastern arc of the Med was fair and
>decently occupied at the time by a lot of people not too
>kindly to the greek merchants or hoplites.

Do you ever stop with stuff bob? Sure they used the merchants
routes already established in the south, but can you imagine
how many men and how much of a supply line was required to get
alexander to the indus river. The greek empire was as wide
ranging and as short as empires go, fully burt out within a
few hundred years, and not much in the western direction.

> The greeks were great traders with over a thousand known
> settlements outside of Greece proper ranging from the edge
> of the steppes and the east edge of the Black Sea to Spain
> and North Africa.

Which greeks? Be clear, one minute your talking about
this guy, the next minute your talking about a different
set of greeks.

>This is not even considering the influx of slaves and POWs to
>the italian peninsula from the Roman conquests of later
>years, the depredations of Hannibal, or any of the other
>events that could have moved around genetic material.

You don't get it, do you, not counting the influx of slaves.
If some derivative of a greek imported a greek slave into his
house, does his house then have a higher proportion of greek.

>Needless to say, the pilars of Hercules were named by the
>Phoenecians, Spartacus was a Roman street urchin made good,
>and Archimedes was perhaps an Athenian??? Well, perhaps not.
>. But again that does not support the theories, so. . . . . .
>. must be unscientific or something.

[Ramble, ramble, ramble]

>> See, bob you were doing so well, then your boat starts to
>> tilt, tilt a little more then all of a sudden your hanging
>> of the side sucking waves.
>>
>> I don't think so. Sampling is one of those things, looks as
>> if the sample of Italy is very good. So my conclusion that
>> local effects won't account for
>> 2/3rds of the haplotypes. Second what your telling me is
>> that the myceanoans were diluted by the macedoneans,
>> which means those gene frequencies would be higher in
>> greece than today. Bottom line, there is no way in hell
>> the greece resulted in a large scale diplacement of
>> italians, but that some incursions must have been
>> occurring over long periods of time, possibly 1000s of
>> years.
>
>Did not say that greece was populated by a large scale influx
>of Italians. You know that.

I give up, bob, you twist everything. Noone was talking about
italians occupying greece, it was the other way around.
>> Yes but Japanese are probably of less than 20% chinese. BTW
>> the story behind that is that there was a conflict with
>> china, and the japanese clans sent fighters to korea to
>> help the koreans defend themselves. The koreans repaid the
>> japanese by sending them some of their best chinese
>> scholars. The scolars then selectively educated the
>> Japanese families. This period is known as the asuka
>> period, highly tumultuous period in which the art and
>> arcthitect changed rapily, then buddhism came and Japanese
>> sort of wall-around their society and the scholars stopped
>> coming, chinese art (symbolity) diminished in Japan,
>> whereas buddist religious art increased.
>
>I think that you perhaps need to check up a bit on Far
>Eastern history as well as the classics.

Buddy I know more about Japanese history than you know about
american history.

> The Jomon were around from somewhere close to the end of the
> last ice age (12k-12.5k years ago) up to about 400 bc when
> wet-rice made the jump from China, most likely via Korea.

The mongolians contest that, and the korean and chinese
haplotypes are quite distinquishable. The koreans emigrated
into Japan some say now 2400 ya but the largest waves started
between 2200-2000 ya. By both accounts chinese and korean
peoples were separate to about 3800 years ago. The chinese are
apart of the sinitic language family whereas korean/japanese
are derivatives of the ural/altaic groups. Not only that but
the chinese and koreans have had a nasty and devisive history,
one that extends into Japan. The influence of Jomon extended
only into Manchu region.

> The Yayoi picked up until about 300ad with the begining of
> a big influx of korean and chinese people and customs.

Yayoi begins 200 BC, and by some more recent accounts 400 BC.
By 300 ad Yayoi was coming to an end. By 300 ad the major
fuedal lords and colonies within Japan had been established.
At 400 AD the fighting over land in kyushu became so intense
that the Yamato Clan, picked up stakes and went to take their
chances against the 'primatives to the north' moving the
boundary to north of kobe area. in the first century the
chinese went to seal a deal with the magistrates in fukuokua,
but the deal went bad, the chinese documented it but the
japanese scholars denied it, one day a growing volcanoe in
hakata bay lifted the seal up out of the bottom of the bay,
where some farmer plucked it up. Currently stored in the
museum in fukuokua, it consider one of kysushu's most famous
treasures now.

>By sometimes around 700 ad, the japanese culture was becoming
>the clear ancestor of the modern nation.

700, in 550-600 AD after a long and bloody conflict instigated
by the Soga clan (those who favored buddhism to Japan) unknown
forces in Japan propelled the emperor from cultural icon to
administrative status. The emperor quickly laid down a set of
rules designed to rule over the clan. The Asuka period, in
which freeform architecture and 'religious' experimentation
ended, the whole of Japanese government moved to Nara,
adopting the style of korean buddist temple and burning or
tearing down most of the buildings in Asuka.

> It really touching that you consider the Koreans to have
> sent over some chinese scholars and such since the Koreans
> hatred of the Chinese was/is only surpassed for their hatred
> of the Japaneese.

[sigh], The scribes belonged to the korean court, they were
sent as a gift, sort of like slaves.

> Its interesting also that the single best record of the
> state of Japaneese culture of the time is the Wei Zhi,
> written in chinese by a mainland chinese scribe. By the
> time Asuka was a serious going concern (700ad or perhaps a
> bit earlier), the chinese "influence" was already fairly
> well in place and the Japanese were writing their chinese
> glyphs and pronouncing them in Japanese.

From a post I put here 2/14/2000 [after returning from Japan,
Namely 4 days out of Asuka and Nara]

Mysterious Asuka (580 AD to 690 AD) Now Asuka is not a
beautiful place, like other places in Japan. It's humble if
you ask me. To walk Asuka today one might ask the question
'who got Teed off, and kicked the marbles'. There are
archeological sites of all kinds here, from buddhist temples,
to oddly designed and oddly placed tombs and unique stone
figures of animals.

Tombs: If you like exploring tombs, particularly the keyhole
type known as the Ko'fun, then Asuka is a place you'll love.
Tombs are everywhere. They've got tombs surrounded by moats
made of largely unhewn large stone, tombs floating down the
mountain, tombs with double-decked entrances, tombs with
decorative walls. Tombs that have been opened and tombs still
closed. One of the disturbing things I've found is that many
of the tombs were remains are expected, had no remains,
jewelry and other artifacts were found, but no remains. One of
the tombs discovery was fortified like fort knox before it was
investigated (done with a endoscope). No remains of humans
have been detected. The question is why? If someone had told
me that a whole series of Emperors, first emperors of Japan
were buried here, one could hardly conclude that based on the
artifacts.

Palaces There are the footprints of a few humble palaces (that
which were not plucked and moved) spread thinly over the
countryside. Most are, now, just sites (meaning palace moved
out, farmers moved in), with a few scattered remains.

Ritual Places There are formal shrines and what appears to be
two outdoor shrines for theatrics (or politicking, or funerary
ceremonies, or for aspiring to emperor), or simply tombs.

The lay of the land If I can give a sense of this, this site
is not a formal city but more of a rural setting dotted with
small palaces. Instead of forcing some man-made patterns on
nature, such as a grid design of a city, it adapts the natural
patterns of the terrain, were hills are, how they run to blend
to make it appear that constructs actually flow out of the
land. This may have something to do with the proto-emperial
families belief, as part of some effort to remind people of
the connection of the creation of the earth and sun and the
creation of the clan.

Asuka is a site of cultural experimentation, this you can be
sure of. When the collection is built, true emperors did not
exist, and clans were extremely strong. Many of the powerful
families lived up the road in a larger collection palaces
near Yamato. The plan of the city is exactly not that. Sites
are scattered, if one does not walk through the finds one
might think that things are placed as if someone walked
around blindfolded and picked spots. There is some
alignments, but it does not appear to be a forethought, but
an afterthought.

The thought behind asuka seems to have started as being a
place of sacred burial, not under the trampling feet of the
clans, but out of the way.

Chinese in Asuka. As mentioned earlier, during the period from
58AD to Asuka period semi continuous trade with china has been
on going. Outside of the sophistication of the stamp, it
appears that the cultural exchange in the form of written
language and 'court' culture where not exchanged. Apparently
as reward for certain help Japan provided to a given Korean
state, scholars of chinese training were sent from Korea to
Japan. These scholars, with their ideas on divination, writing
and art are an important part of the experimentation that is
going on in Asuka. The work of these chinese artist and
chinese divination are clearly apparent at Asuka. For a brief
moment the Yamato court entertained the chinese notion of
sophistication and were awestruck by its magic.

Shinto-ism in Asuka. Not directly evident; however, one has to
assume that many of the artifacts that are neither buddhist or
of chinese origin were crafted for shintoism. Shinto-ism is
evident in the tomb styles themselves.

Buddhism in Asuka. Although buddhism enters prior to Asuka
period, it is only when it becomes the primary belief of major
clads and also penetrates the Yamato Court that we see classic
buddhist culture begin to make a definable presence, but not
without hiccups. The early buddhist are continentalist and
wish to import more aspects of buddism and buddist society
into Japan from far northern Korea, which by now has become an
intermittent pawn of china.

Divergent interest of Clans. What is going to mark this period
is the affects of the themes above themes on the behavior of
clans. The speculation on these various potential boosts in
political power is going to throw control of an already
chaotic Japan into even greater chaos.

This plays out as follows. Prior to Asuka period the Yamato
Court (later the Emperial Court) needed clans to keep it on
top of power in Japan. Each clan had slightly different Uji,
or belief in emperor. There are those who had deep beliefs
that the emperor was created by the sun goddess, and those
that sort of believed this and some that believe in a
different set of gods. When buddhism is introduced it found
favor with one of the not-so-shinto clans, called the Soga
Clan. As one can imagine it would fall less in favor in the
Yamato court, since the dominant clan married into the Yamato
Court. Thus the Soga clan is loosing its access to the Yamato
Court, does an end-run around the process by destroying the
most loyal clan to the Yamato Court. The Soga clan then
forces it way into the Yamato Court via power and offering of
wives. With wives comes the beliefs of wives and thus
Buddhism is now in the court. One of the interest of the Soba
Clan is to open up trade beyond what the other clan and
emperor would allow, this was done for both personal and
religious reasons. In addition, this clan devised a set of
legal reforms. There are many other unusual events that
happened in this period but never again. Thus in a very short
period of time, cultural change has gone on the wild side.
Somehow, in all of this, people in the Yamato court are dying
right and left, assassins, revenge, etc. Thus the Yamato
Court is in turmoil. The movement of the Court to this distal
region, only after 400 years, appears not to have given the
protection and the security it desires. Other families who
made similar moves are feeling similar pressure, and begin to
question the wisdom of this cultural revolution that has been
forced on them. The issue migratory floods (this time korean
and chinese buddhist through korea) again becomes a source of
irritation and as is typical in Court politics, discussions
behind the scenes bring forth secret resolutions. In a way
that is typical of Japan, it reacts to all of this by coming
up with a solution. That is to contract these chaos
generating entities into a vessel where they can be
controlled and tempered. What comes out of this the violent
decline of the Soga clan [live by the sword die by the
sword], and the rise of an Emperor with centralized control.
This early period of Japanese history suddenly ends and the
changes are numerous and striking.

What exactly happened in Asuka? What happens is this. From the
period of 200 BC to 0 AD Japan reaches a size where it can
trade with the mainland. With trade comes immigrants and
competition, sometimes undesired. In the period that follows
trade ebbs and flows with the interests of the more powerful
groups; however, once it starts, the traders find clever ways
to bypass the wishes of these interest, feeding the clans who
secretly condone such activities. Trade with mainland
introduces new ideas, radically different ideas at a pace that
disallows equilibration in society. No sooner than one new
concept arrives, then another is at it's heal. And different
clans saw fit to use these ideas for their own relative gain.
With the rise of the Soga Clan, the ingredients of the
immigration become despised and associated with the brutality
and tyrannical nature of the government, they become
associated with the chaos of the political structure, and they
come to symbolized the anti-thesis of emperial rule and the
stability created by that rule.

[Bob struggling to pull his foot out of his mouth]

>But then that wasnt the real subject either. I just tossed in
>the Japanese example of how a different culture (language?)

I can tell cause you then went about fabricating east asia
History by pulling events and dates out of your ass.

>You are grasping, and gasping there old boy!

I am telling you strait up, the top three haplotypes in
sardonia are at low frequencies in italy and non-existant east
of italy. Those and their derivatives compose the lions share
of the sardonians. Gene flow is not to sardonia, but from
sardonia. It is the only point other than spain where you can
match haplotypes with africa.

>Certainly more of a bit of supportable evidence than than its
>inconvenient to your grand theory!

Genes don't lie, however, historians can fabricate, even worse
those who read history can distort, like you did with the
Japanese history. They may have had a port in Sardinia, but
the genetic makeup is definitely more allignable with the
spanish, west africans, the basque, portuguese and cornish.

>> Very dubious.
>
>The Sea People could not have operated out of the ships of
>the day without a "home port". Greece, Anatolia, the whole of
>the east edge of the med was populated by peoples that had
>their own fights with the "sea people". The ONLY logical
>place for them to come from was some place to thw west, and
>as best as I can find, they were not the native "pre-Celts"
>or whatever the people of south-western Europe could be
>called in those times. But hey, if it makes that theory fly.
>. . . go for it! 8-)

Maybe they were not a single people (duh!)
>> That depends do you put your weight in arcehological
>> evidence that is often of by 100% in scale or genetic
>> evidence that is more or less in your face