Discussion:
Paleographic Park?
(too old to reply)
Day Brown
2009-07-19 03:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From Live Science...

"In the current study, the researchers tweaked a human mc1r gene so that
it matched the variant found in Neanderthals. When they put the gene
into modern human cells, it functioned in melatonin production as the
modern variants do, suggesting some Neanderthals had fair skin and red
hair."

So- lemmee see here. They found a gene so similar to that of a
Neanderthal that they were able make it function like one.

Well, if they have the entire HNS genome, and the HSS genome, and look
thru to match them all up, can they then breed back to a Neanderthal?

Are we still pretending that Native Europeans are not hybrids?
John Harshman
2009-07-19 13:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
From Live Science...
"In the current study, the researchers tweaked a human mc1r gene so that
it matched the variant found in Neanderthals. When they put the gene
into modern human cells, it functioned in melatonin production as the
modern variants do, suggesting some Neanderthals had fair skin and red
hair."
So- lemmee see here. They found a gene so similar to that of a
Neanderthal that they were able make it function like one.
Well, if they have the entire HNS genome, and the HSS genome, and look
thru to match them all up, can they then breed back to a Neanderthal?
Are we still pretending that Native Europeans are not hybrids?
Neanderthals genomes differ from those of modern humans by considerably
less than 1%. *All* Neanderthal genes were "so similar". That has
nothing to do with interbreeding. It has to do with recency of common
decent. Hey, orangutans have fair skin and red hair too. Does that
suggest to you that Europeans are organgutan hybrids?
Greg Neill
2009-07-19 15:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Harshman
Post by Day Brown
From Live Science...
"In the current study, the researchers tweaked a human mc1r gene so that
it matched the variant found in Neanderthals. When they put the gene
into modern human cells, it functioned in melatonin production as the
modern variants do, suggesting some Neanderthals had fair skin and red
hair."
So- lemmee see here. They found a gene so similar to that of a
Neanderthal that they were able make it function like one.
Well, if they have the entire HNS genome, and the HSS genome, and look
thru to match them all up, can they then breed back to a Neanderthal?
Are we still pretending that Native Europeans are not hybrids?
Neanderthals genomes differ from those of modern humans by considerably
less than 1%. *All* Neanderthal genes were "so similar". That has
nothing to do with interbreeding. It has to do with recency of common
decent. Hey, orangutans have fair skin and red hair too. Does that
suggest to you that Europeans are organgutan hybrids?
You be the judge...

Loading Image...

:-)
Day Brown
2009-07-19 23:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Harshman
Post by Day Brown
From Live Science...
"In the current study, the researchers tweaked a human mc1r gene so
that it matched the variant found in Neanderthals. When they put the
gene into modern human cells, it functioned in melatonin production as
the modern variants do, suggesting some Neanderthals had fair skin and
red hair."
So- lemmee see here. They found a gene so similar to that of a
Neanderthal that they were able make it function like one.
Well, if they have the entire HNS genome, and the HSS genome, and look
thru to match them all up, can they then breed back to a Neanderthal?
Are we still pretending that Native Europeans are not hybrids?
Neanderthals genomes differ from those of modern humans by considerably
less than 1%. *All* Neanderthal genes were "so similar". That has
nothing to do with interbreeding. It has to do with recency of common
decent. Hey, orangutans have fair skin and red hair too. Does that
suggest to you that Europeans are organgutan hybrids?
That looks like parallel evolution. A study showed the Orangutan had a
remarkable mapping talent; they'd pick up on the movement of parrots or
other fruit eating birds, and in a familiar territory realize where the
probable fruit tree was, then- very efficiently travel from tree to tree
to get there.

Neanderthals also had a unique mapping problem; Live Science reports
there were only 1500 to maybe 3000 Neanderthal females alive any any one
time to judge by the mtDNA samples they had. But Europe is 3 million
square miles. Even if, as later, there were 100,000 hunters, that's
several times the hunting territory of a tropical tribe, where anthro
reports suggest its more like 100 sq miles for the whole tribe. Then
too, because of the rapid and severe ice age seasonal weather, megafauna
moved across vast distances; so a successful tribe needed to know the
lay of the land all the way along these routes to be able to
successfully deal with them.

It wouldnt seem that red, or lower melanin levels would be related to
brain mapping, but DNA is SOFTWARE, and programmers know how often a
subroutine designed for one purpose turns out to be useful for something
else entirely. And in this case, the HNS brain is also larger to cope
with these mapping/strategy problems.

Which they passed on to hybrid progeny; which is why the great chess
masters all come from Native European gene pools.
deowll
2009-07-19 23:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
From Live Science...
"In the current study, the researchers tweaked a human mc1r gene so that
it matched the variant found in Neanderthals. When they put the gene into
modern human cells, it functioned in melatonin production as the modern
variants do, suggesting some Neanderthals had fair skin and red hair."
So- lemmee see here. They found a gene so similar to that of a Neanderthal
that they were able make it function like one.
Well, if they have the entire HNS genome, and the HSS genome, and look
thru to match them all up, can they then breed back to a Neanderthal?
Are we still pretending that Native Europeans are not hybrids?
You can breed back when you have all or nearly all the genes. We clearly
don't even if hybrids were once common. On the other hand if you shuffled
the entire deck enough you might get a pretty decent look alike.

For example we don't have exactly the same gene for red hair but we have a
gene for red hair. Visually I don't think you could tell the difference.

One hook is I don't think we have the genes for the short forarms and shins.
Day Brown
2009-07-21 10:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
From Live Science...
"In the current study, the researchers tweaked a human mc1r gene so
that it matched the variant found in Neanderthals. When they put the
gene into modern human cells, it functioned in melatonin production as
the modern variants do, suggesting some Neanderthals had fair skin and
red hair."
So- lemmee see here. They found a gene so similar to that of a
Neanderthal that they were able make it function like one.
Well, if they have the entire HNS genome, and the HSS genome, and look
thru to match them all up, can they then breed back to a Neanderthal?
Are we still pretending that Native Europeans are not hybrids?
You can breed back when you have all or nearly all the genes. We clearly
don't even if hybrids were once common. On the other hand if you
shuffled the entire deck enough you might get a pretty decent look alike.
For example we don't have exactly the same gene for red hair but we have
a gene for red hair. Visually I don't think you could tell the difference.
One hook is I don't think we have the genes for the short forarms and shins.
I was born on a farm in 1939, lived most of my 70 years in rural areas,
and think I've seen some... Course, someday, they may find a frozen one
like they did Utzi.
deowll
2009-07-25 18:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
From Live Science...
"In the current study, the researchers tweaked a human mc1r gene so that
it matched the variant found in Neanderthals. When they put the gene
into modern human cells, it functioned in melatonin production as the
modern variants do, suggesting some Neanderthals had fair skin and red
hair."
So- lemmee see here. They found a gene so similar to that of a
Neanderthal that they were able make it function like one.
Well, if they have the entire HNS genome, and the HSS genome, and look
thru to match them all up, can they then breed back to a Neanderthal?
Are we still pretending that Native Europeans are not hybrids?
You can breed back when you have all or nearly all the genes. We clearly
don't even if hybrids were once common. On the other hand if you shuffled
the entire deck enough you might get a pretty decent look alike.
For example we don't have exactly the same gene for red hair but we have
a gene for red hair. Visually I don't think you could tell the difference.
One hook is I don't think we have the genes for the short forarms and shins.
I was born on a farm in 1939, lived most of my 70 years in rural areas,
and think I've seen some... Course, someday, they may find a frozen one
like they did Utzi.
So for no but they are still working on the gentic code derived from a few
fossils and you could slice and dice a modern human cell to match in theory.
Thus once they have a complete code they ought to be able to modify the
genes to make one but this gets into what's legal and what's ethical.
Day Brown
2009-07-27 02:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
So for no but they are still working on the gentic code derived from a
few fossils and you could slice and dice a modern human cell to match in
theory. Thus once they have a complete code they ought to be able to
modify the genes to make one but this gets into what's legal and what's
ethical.
I had not thot of that, but for sure, until there is transnational law,
somebody will find a place to do it if there's any money in it.

Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve", says there's only 7 mtDNA lines in
Europe. One of which he said lived there 50,000 BP. Since at that time,
the only women in Europe were Neanderthal, if that line can be
identified and cross bred, it seems like it'd breed back.
Flywatch
2009-07-27 20:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve", says there's only 7 mtDNA lines in
Europe. One of which he said lived there 50,000 BP.
Did Sykes actually say that she lived *there* (i.e. in Europe)?
If so, how can he know that?
Post by Day Brown
Since at that time,
the only women in Europe were Neanderthal, if that line can be
identified and cross bred, it seems like it'd breed back.
Day Brown
2009-07-28 00:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Flywatch
Post by Day Brown
Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve", says there's only 7 mtDNA lines in
Europe. One of which he said lived there 50,000 BP.
Did Sykes actually say that she lived *there* (i.e. in Europe)?
If so, how can he know that?
Post by Day Brown
Since at that time,
the only women in Europe were Neanderthal, if that line can be
identified and cross bred, it seems like it'd breed back.
That is the inference; he's talking about the indigeneous mtDNA lines in
Europe. He dates them according to the standard rule on the rate of
mutation. Now, there may be an issue, which some have raised in other
matters, whether there is anything that changes the mutation rate at any
other time in the past.

However, the dendochronolgy now goes back 8000 years, so samples in the
digs, such as the mtDNA in bones, where there are also the ring patterns
in the post stubs to look at, can be dated to the precise year. And
going back that far, so far as we can tell, the mutation rate analysis
holds up.

I lost the link, but Austrians found a timber frame well casing. the
photo, of it reconstructed in a museum, looks to be 20 foot high. The
report says the timbers were cut in 5078 BC.

Of the seven, Sykes says the last arrived 10,000 years ago, prolly from
Anatolia. Which is when agriculture began in SE Europe. Another report,
in Archeology magazine, says wheat descended from einkorn, still growing
in the Taurus mtns, the same- 10,000 years ago.

The notion, of course, that Aryans are Neanderthal hybrids, is
politically loaded, so few academics want to weigh in on it.
Flywatch
2009-07-28 20:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
Post by Flywatch
Post by Day Brown
Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve", says there's only 7 mtDNA lines in
Europe. One of which he said lived there 50,000 BP.
Did Sykes actually say that she lived *there* (i.e. in Europe)?
If so, how can he know that?
I still would like to know if Sykes explicitly wrote that this grand-
grand [....] mother actually lived in Europe.
Post by Day Brown
Post by Flywatch
Post by Day Brown
Since at that time,
the only women in Europe were Neanderthal, if that line can be
identified and cross bred, it seems like it'd breed back.
That is the inference; he's talking about the indigeneous mtDNA lines in
Europe. He dates them according to the standard rule on the rate of
mutation. Now, there may be an issue, which some have raised in other
matters, whether there is anything that changes the mutation rate at any
other time in the past.
I know, albeit superficially, what the dating method means. My point
does not concern its validity or reliability. But from how I
understand it, it only gives information on how long ago the ancestor
lived. Not where she was living at the time. Suppose the group she
belonged to lived in Africa at the time calculated, and migrated to
Erope later. How would that be visible in the data from mtDNA?
Post by Day Brown
However, the dendochronolgy now goes back 8000 years, so samples in the
digs, such as the mtDNA in bones, where there are also the ring patterns
in the post stubs to look at, can be dated to the precise year. And
going back that far, so far as we can tell, the mutation rate analysis
holds up.
I lost the link, but Austrians found a timber frame well casing. the
photo, of it reconstructed in a museum, looks to be 20 foot high. The
report says the timbers were cut in 5078 BC.
Of the seven, Sykes says the last arrived 10,000 years ago, prolly from
Anatolia. Which is when agriculture began in SE Europe. Another report,
in Archeology magazine, says wheat descended from einkorn, still growing
in the Taurus mtns, the same- 10,000 years ago.
The notion, of course, that Aryans are Neanderthal hybrids, is
politically loaded, so few academics want to weigh in on it.
That seems to me more an assumption than a fact. The idea that maybe
there was Neanderthal descent in HSS has been around earlier, and I
never heard of people objecting to it. Also, I'm not aware of any
sensitivities among Europeans or non-native Americans about their
descent. Or do you mean that non-Europeans by descent would possibly
feel insulted for not having Neanderthal genes? Btw, what are Aryans?

Flywatch

Note: I'm not able to post in alt.anthropology.paleo from Google
groups, and my news server doesn't carry it either. Any suggestions
about that?
Day Brown
2009-07-29 03:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Flywatch
I still would like to know if Sykes explicitly wrote that this grand-
grand [....] mother actually lived in Europe.
He dont have her bones. What he has, is a statistical analysis of mtDNA
samples taken from widely distributed parts all over Europe to suggest
it is an indigeneous line, and then the distribution of mutations to
suggest when it emerged from some original line.
Post by Flywatch
I know, albeit superficially, what the dating method means. My point
does not concern its validity or reliability. But from how I
understand it, it only gives information on how long ago the ancestor
lived. Not where she was living at the time. Suppose the group she
belonged to lived in Africa at the time calculated, and migrated to
Erope later. How would that be visible in the data from mtDNA?
Then, that line would also exist in Africa. Which it may, I read over
140 mtDNA lines have been found so far, and there are isolated obscure
gene pools in many places.
Post by Flywatch
Post by Day Brown
The notion, of course, that Aryans are Neanderthal hybrids, is
politically loaded, so few academics want to weigh in on it.
That seems to me more an assumption than a fact. The idea that maybe
there was Neanderthal descent in HSS has been around earlier, and I
never heard of people objecting to it. Also, I'm not aware of any
sensitivities among Europeans or non-native Americans about their
descent. Or do you mean that non-Europeans by descent would possibly
feel insulted for not having Neanderthal genes? Btw, what are Aryans?
There are religious sensibilities; like the belief everyone descends
from Noah. Then too, the definition of Aryan varies. The Nazi notion was
never clearly spelled out, and relied not on DNA, but certain traits,
such as fair skin and hair, that, however, are not limited to those the
Nazis defined as 'Aryan'.

I try to use the term as it was first coined in the 19th century, to
refer to the original speakers of what we now call "Proto-Indo-European"
that I view as a cumbersome politically correct mouthful. take a look-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1777711/posts
The fair haired girl with her horse was photographed in Mongolia. She is
a descendant of the Amazons. And in fact, her DNA was collected to
compare with that found in Amazon graves in the Altai mountains. Maybe
you've come across it, even tho its pretty obscure. The Amazon graves
were at such a high altitude its permafrost, and perfectly preserved
many bodies. 50 at last count I know of.

This raises the possibility of recovering mtDNA in remarkably good
condition that could then be inserted into an egg and possibly
fertilized, then in vitro implanted. I would imagine there'd be
thousands of femonazi dykes who'd line up at the door wanting to give
birth to a genuine Amazon daughter.

I dunno if the Liqian villagers are Roman or Tocharian; but Amazons did
found the Tocharian cities like Kucha, Urumchi, Loulan, Niya, Khotan,
and their mummies have been found there from 4000 BP. Tocharian is one
of the first variations of Proto-Indo-European, ie Aryan, and to show
how ancient it is, while all Aryan languages West of the Birch/Beech
line are 'centum', all those East of it, like Sanskrit, are 'satem', ie
the words related to 100 like cent or century. That is, but Tocharian.

But, as JP Mallory outlines "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" Aryan has
a host of words that dont fit the Steppe lifestyle, and in fact, trace
to the agrarian lifestyle of SE Europe, on the floodplains of the rivers
that empty into the West end of the Black Sea. Which archeologist Marija
Gimbutas wrote about in several books- still in print. That dates from
6000-10,000 BP.

Course, the Aryans never were a pure blood line. But like the Amazons
later, they were matriarchic. Ergo, men who didnt like women in charge,
didnt stay there. Mallory, above, reports Aryan war bands didnt emerge
until the late bronze age, so the way they added women to their gene
pool mixed them with many others. So- I take the current Iranian claim
they descended from the Aryans with some skepticism. The real Aryan
cultures, from the Tocharians in China all the way to what is now
Rumania, were never misogynistic.
Post by Flywatch
Note: I'm not able to post in alt.anthropology.paleo from Google
groups, and my news server doesn't carry it either. Any suggestions
about that?
I went to usenetmonster.com; the account costs me $2.95/month. No more
crossposting limit. You can logon to the website, or use a newsreader,
which I find much more convenient. I cross post to alt.archeology on
threads like this, and cross post everything to alt.community.

Just pick out a dead usenet forum; most posters wont trim it out of your
posts, so they will all be there for you to keep track of.
deowll
2009-10-06 04:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
Post by Flywatch
I still would like to know if Sykes explicitly wrote that this grand-
grand [....] mother actually lived in Europe.
He dont have her bones. What he has, is a statistical analysis of mtDNA
samples taken from widely distributed parts all over Europe to suggest it
is an indigeneous line, and then the distribution of mutations to suggest
when it emerged from some original line.
Post by Flywatch
I know, albeit superficially, what the dating method means. My point
does not concern its validity or reliability. But from how I
understand it, it only gives information on how long ago the ancestor
lived. Not where she was living at the time. Suppose the group she
belonged to lived in Africa at the time calculated, and migrated to
Erope later. How would that be visible in the data from mtDNA?
Then, that line would also exist in Africa. Which it may, I read over 140
mtDNA lines have been found so far, and there are isolated obscure gene
pools in many places.
Post by Flywatch
Post by Day Brown
The notion, of course, that Aryans are Neanderthal hybrids, is
politically loaded, so few academics want to weigh in on it.
That seems to me more an assumption than a fact. The idea that maybe
there was Neanderthal descent in HSS has been around earlier, and I
never heard of people objecting to it. Also, I'm not aware of any
sensitivities among Europeans or non-native Americans about their
descent. Or do you mean that non-Europeans by descent would possibly
feel insulted for not having Neanderthal genes? Btw, what are Aryans?
There are religious sensibilities; like the belief everyone descends from
Noah. Then too, the definition of Aryan varies. The Nazi notion was never
clearly spelled out, and relied not on DNA, but certain traits, such as
fair skin and hair, that, however, are not limited to those the Nazis
defined as 'Aryan'.
I try to use the term as it was first coined in the 19th century, to refer
to the original speakers of what we now call "Proto-Indo-European"
that I view as a cumbersome politically correct mouthful. take a look-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1777711/posts
The fair haired girl with her horse was photographed in Mongolia. She is
a descendant of the Amazons. And in fact, her DNA was collected to compare
with that found in Amazon graves in the Altai mountains. Maybe you've come
across it, even tho its pretty obscure. The Amazon graves were at such a
high altitude its permafrost, and perfectly preserved many bodies. 50 at
last count I know of.
This raises the possibility of recovering mtDNA in remarkably good
condition that could then be inserted into an egg and possibly fertilized,
then in vitro implanted. I would imagine there'd be thousands of femonazi
dykes who'd line up at the door wanting to give birth to a genuine Amazon
daughter.
I dunno if the Liqian villagers are Roman or Tocharian; but Amazons did
found the Tocharian cities like Kucha, Urumchi, Loulan, Niya, Khotan, and
their mummies have been found there from 4000 BP. Tocharian is one of the
first variations of Proto-Indo-European, ie Aryan, and to show how ancient
it is, while all Aryan languages West of the Birch/Beech line are
'centum', all those East of it, like Sanskrit, are 'satem', ie the words
related to 100 like cent or century. That is, but Tocharian.
But, as JP Mallory outlines "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" Aryan has a
host of words that dont fit the Steppe lifestyle, and in fact, trace to
the agrarian lifestyle of SE Europe, on the floodplains of the rivers that
empty into the West end of the Black Sea. Which archeologist Marija
Gimbutas wrote about in several books- still in print. That dates from
6000-10,000 BP.
Course, the Aryans never were a pure blood line. But like the Amazons
later, they were matriarchic. Ergo, men who didnt like women in charge,
didnt stay there. Mallory, above, reports Aryan war bands didnt emerge
until the late bronze age, so the way they added women to their gene pool
mixed them with many others. So- I take the current Iranian claim they
descended from the Aryans with some skepticism. The real Aryan cultures,
from the Tocharians in China all the way to what is now Rumania, were
never misogynistic.
Post by Flywatch
Note: I'm not able to post in alt.anthropology.paleo from Google
groups, and my news server doesn't carry it either. Any suggestions
about that?
I went to usenetmonster.com; the account costs me $2.95/month. No more
crossposting limit. You can logon to the website, or use a newsreader,
which I find much more convenient. I cross post to alt.archeology on
threads like this, and cross post everything to alt.community.
Just pick out a dead usenet forum; most posters wont trim it out of your
posts, so they will all be there for you to keep track of.
The most I can make of the Aryans is that a group calling themselves that
started to expand some time after horses were domesticated and farming
became a way of life. Some went west to Ireland/Erin and others east to Iran
and beyond. Most languages in that space are descended from what they spoke
and the old religions all have a lot in common.

They seem to have been a partricarcal warrior culture that used horse drawn
chariots with a the ruling elite having much better odds of passing on their
genes if they didn't get themselves kill.

They seem to have been prown to getting into duels for what moderns might
consider to be stupid reasons however in their world reputation was
everything. ?8^)
Day Brown
2009-10-06 06:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
The most I can make of the Aryans is that a group calling themselves
that started to expand some time after horses were domesticated and
farming became a way of life. Some went west to Ireland/Erin and others
east to Iran and beyond. Most languages in that space are descended from
what they spoke and the old religions all have a lot in common.
They seem to have been a partricarcal warrior culture that used horse
drawn chariots with a the ruling elite having much better odds of
passing on their genes if they didn't get themselves kill.
They seem to have been prown to getting into duels for what moderns
might consider to be stupid reasons however in their world reputation
was everything. ?8^)
Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" says they were assimilators,
not conquerors. Aryan war bands didnt emerge until the late bronze age.

But we are dealing with terms that apply across a wide area and several
millennia, that tend to change meaning depending. Celtic Queen Maeve, by
Ferera and other Celtic sources I've seen show us the hill forts that
indicate the warfare. But we also see how these were suddenly abandoned.

The DNA markers suggest the usual lack of hygiene warriors were noted
for resulted in cholera, dysentery, or other pandemics when these forts
were no longer protective but became deathtraps... for the warriors.

Thing is, warriors are most useful when their force is concentrated. I
see a clue in Confucius, who noted these warrior elites come and go, but
the common farmers were forever.

In Ferera, and 'The age of Stonehenge' by Burgess show us the same hill
forts, but also chronic discontinuities, without, however, any new skull
types to suggest invaders. Mallory, The Tarim Mummies, has charts of the
various skull types found in Tocharian graves, who- even tho they lived
in what is now NW China, had wool with DNA from European sheep as well
as a host of other European cultural traits.

No doubt the great (like the Medieval) plagues had swept thru many
times, and when that happens, its the isolated and dispersed farmers who
survive rather than the warriors in their forts. The Roman success was
in large part due to their attention to water supplies and sewers.

The other thing that happens, is that it was the witches how offered
health services, so when the warriors were decimated by disease, these
women remained to organize power, and cure or curse, as they saw fit.
The history books, written by the scribes in the pay of the warrior
elites give you the idea men always ruled. But you dont have to look
much between the lines to see the power in magic people thot witches had
and used to control.

Might always meant right, but might was not limited to metal blades.
deowll
2009-10-10 23:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
The most I can make of the Aryans is that a group calling themselves that
started to expand some time after horses were domesticated and farming
became a way of life. Some went west to Ireland/Erin and others east to
Iran and beyond. Most languages in that space are descended from what
they spoke and the old religions all have a lot in common.
They seem to have been a partricarcal warrior culture that used horse
drawn chariots with a the ruling elite having much better odds of passing
on their genes if they didn't get themselves kill.
They seem to have been prown to getting into duels for what moderns
might consider to be stupid reasons however in their world reputation was
everything. ?8^)
Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" says they were assimilators,
not conquerors. Aryan war bands didnt emerge until the late bronze age.
But we are dealing with terms that apply across a wide area and several
millennia, that tend to change meaning depending. Celtic Queen Maeve, by
Ferera and other Celtic sources I've seen show us the hill forts that
indicate the warfare. But we also see how these were suddenly abandoned.
The DNA markers suggest the usual lack of hygiene warriors were noted for
resulted in cholera, dysentery, or other pandemics when these forts were
no longer protective but became deathtraps... for the warriors.
Thing is, warriors are most useful when their force is concentrated. I see
a clue in Confucius, who noted these warrior elites come and go, but the
common farmers were forever.
In Ferera, and 'The age of Stonehenge' by Burgess show us the same hill
forts, but also chronic discontinuities, without, however, any new skull
types to suggest invaders. Mallory, The Tarim Mummies, has charts of the
various skull types found in Tocharian graves, who- even tho they lived in
what is now NW China, had wool with DNA from European sheep as well as a
host of other European cultural traits.
No doubt the great (like the Medieval) plagues had swept thru many times,
and when that happens, its the isolated and dispersed farmers who survive
rather than the warriors in their forts. The Roman success was in large
part due to their attention to water supplies and sewers.
The other thing that happens, is that it was the witches how offered
health services, so when the warriors were decimated by disease, these
women remained to organize power, and cure or curse, as they saw fit.
The history books, written by the scribes in the pay of the warrior elites
give you the idea men always ruled. But you dont have to look much between
the lines to see the power in magic people thot witches had and used to
control.
Might always meant right, but might was not limited to metal blades.
True enough but many of the hilltop forts seem to have been places of refuge
in time of war or celebrations in time of peace rather than a location that
was occupied full time by any significant number of people. If the tribe was
under no threat by intruders it is doubtful that much time or effort would
have been wasted on the upkeep of such and it may well have stood abandoned
until a time of need arose only to have its defenses refurbished and perhaps
extended when that time of need appeared.

The tribal populations seem to have been scattered across the land with the
chiefs living in enclosures meant to protect their livestock as much or more
than themselves or their most immediate followers. How many of these leaders
could have summoned as many as thirty warriors is open to debate.

Only a few of the tribal leaders could have summoned the tribe to battle
and even then I doubt if many such leaders could compel the obedience of
the group in any situation short of a national crises. There is evidence
that among some tribes such tribal leaders were subject to human sacrifice
on occasion if things went wrong or they were seen as having health issues
because their karma was seen as being the tribes karma.

The wise women, minstrels, and Shamans of various sorts all had their place.
It was far from a uniform or static culture and customs, beliefs, and
behaviors varied with the times and the location.

Population centers much larger than a village across most of Europe seems to
have been few in number, rather small, and slow to develop compared to what
happened in Italy and Greece.
Day Brown
2009-10-11 03:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
Might always meant right, but might was not limited to metal blades.
True enough but many of the hilltop forts seem to have been places of
refuge in time of war or celebrations in time of peace rather than a
location that was occupied full time by any significant number of
people. If the tribe was under no threat by intruders it is doubtful
that much time or effort would have been wasted on the upkeep of such
and it may well have stood abandoned until a time of need arose only to
have its defenses refurbished and perhaps extended when that time of
need appeared.
The tribal populations seem to have been scattered across the land with
the chiefs living in enclosures meant to protect their livestock as much
or more than themselves or their most immediate followers. How many of
these leaders could have summoned as many as thirty warriors is open to
debate.
Only a few of the tribal leaders could have summoned the tribe to
battle and even then I doubt if many such leaders could compel the
obedience of the group in any situation short of a national crises.
There is evidence that among some tribes such tribal leaders were
subject to human sacrifice on occasion if things went wrong or they were
seen as having health issues because their karma was seen as being the
tribes karma.
The wise women, minstrels, and Shamans of various sorts all had their
place. It was far from a uniform or static culture and customs, beliefs,
and behaviors varied with the times and the location.
Population centers much larger than a village across most of Europe
seems to have been few in number, rather small, and slow to develop
compared to what happened in Italy and Greece.
Ferera, in Celtic Queen Maeve, mentions the forts, and as I saw in
another source on the Continental Celts, how they were built, but then
abandoned for decades like you say, or even centuries, or then again,
never rebuilt.

The DNA markers for dysentery, plague, Cholera, and the lack of care in
sanitation or water sources in these forts shows what happened. Ferera,
and others shows us the pattern of yeoman first pioneering a land, with
a very egalitarian system, but then over-population drives them to try
to farm marginal land. Which wears out after only a generation or so.

Then, there's a revolution with tyrannic draconian power to decide who
shall live or die. And as you suggest, the lack of hygiene kept warlords
from accumulating many warriors. The only way to survive pandemics was
self quarantine in isolated villages or homesteads.

And of course, as you imply, when disease did break out (and from the
short lifespan, this was often), witches, shamen, magic users and
clerics were empowered over warriors. Ballantine and Oswald, on their
work on PIE, shows how Aryan clerics were even forbidden to own, much
less use, the weapons of warriors. Since, as they show, this sanction is
seen among all the wide spread Aryan languages from India to Scandinavia
we conclude the rule existed among the earliest Aryans.

And, as you say, Ferera notes the fluidity of Celtic culture, without,
however, as historians had assumed, there ever being a massive influx of
Saxons or anyone else, but only a gradual assimilation of new lines as
people moved around. Often fleeing plagues. The ratios of the skull
types found in the graves never changes dramatically, only gradually.

A skull type mite dominate in the upscale graves, indicating the rise in
power of a given clan, but this is only here or there, and never far
beyond the counties where it appears.

Ferera also mentions 'wood henges' that were, as you say, for keeping
cattle in, not warriors out. We tend to forget now, how ancient Europe
had lions that were a serious risk to cattle.

Homer outlines the kind of crisis you refer to, as well as how hard it
was to unify the Greeks for the threat of Persia. And of course,
Herodotus mentions how contentious the "Scythians" were, and how, if
they ever united, they'd rule the world. Which, with Nato, they have in
fact done.
jkljzuchowski
2009-10-12 00:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Herodotus mentions how contentious the "Scythians" were, and how, if they
ever united, they'd rule the world. Which, with Nato, they have in fact
done.
NOPE THEY DID NOT
Nato doesn't rule the world and they are within a big surprise in
Afghanistan, because they are loosing the war.
What Vietnam was for the USA, Afghanistan is for NATO. I mean the war
against Hitler Germany lasted 5\6 years, hunch, hunch if you know what i
mean (monty Phyton)
How many years is it that the USA lead Nato attack was on Afghanistan; Yeap
indeed 8 years, hunch, hunch if you know what i mean
And the Taliban support grows !!!
What happened to the USA principle of freedom of religion ??
The Taliban is a political movement based on religion
OOOOHHHHH the land of the FREEE and so on, it's blasted away by that same
USA.
Conclusion; The Usa only allows religions to be free when it suites them, if
not it the same old story simular like Hitler said "WIR MUSSEN DIE JUDEN AUS
ROTTEN".
The Usa now says;""WIR MUSSEN DIE TALIBAN AUSROTTEN",
So tell me whats the pure political different, there is NON
Jan
deowll
2009-10-12 05:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
Might always meant right, but might was not limited to metal blades.
True enough but many of the hilltop forts seem to have been places of
refuge in time of war or celebrations in time of peace rather than a
location that was occupied full time by any significant number of people.
If the tribe was under no threat by intruders it is doubtful that much
time or effort would have been wasted on the upkeep of such and it may
well have stood abandoned until a time of need arose only to have its
defenses refurbished and perhaps extended when that time of need
appeared.
The tribal populations seem to have been scattered across the land with
the chiefs living in enclosures meant to protect their livestock as much
or more than themselves or their most immediate followers. How many of
these leaders could have summoned as many as thirty warriors is open to
debate.
Only a few of the tribal leaders could have summoned the tribe to battle
and even then I doubt if many such leaders could compel the obedience of
the group in any situation short of a national crises. There is evidence
that among some tribes such tribal leaders were subject to human
sacrifice on occasion if things went wrong or they were seen as having
health issues because their karma was seen as being the tribes karma.
The wise women, minstrels, and Shamans of various sorts all had their
place. It was far from a uniform or static culture and customs, beliefs,
and behaviors varied with the times and the location.
Population centers much larger than a village across most of Europe seems
to have been few in number, rather small, and slow to develop compared to
what happened in Italy and Greece.
Ferera, in Celtic Queen Maeve, mentions the forts, and as I saw in another
source on the Continental Celts, how they were built, but then abandoned
for decades like you say, or even centuries, or then again, never rebuilt.
The DNA markers for dysentery, plague, Cholera, and the lack of care in
sanitation or water sources in these forts shows what happened. Ferera,
and others shows us the pattern of yeoman first pioneering a land, with a
very egalitarian system, but then over-population drives them to try to
farm marginal land. Which wears out after only a generation or so.
Then, there's a revolution with tyrannic draconian power to decide who
shall live or die. And as you suggest, the lack of hygiene kept warlords
from accumulating many warriors. The only way to survive pandemics was
self quarantine in isolated villages or homesteads.
And of course, as you imply, when disease did break out (and from the
short lifespan, this was often), witches, shamen, magic users and clerics
were empowered over warriors. Ballantine and Oswald, on their work on PIE,
shows how Aryan clerics were even forbidden to own, much less use, the
weapons of warriors. Since, as they show, this sanction is seen among all
the wide spread Aryan languages from India to Scandinavia we conclude the
rule existed among the earliest Aryans.
If you don't even own a weapon and do no violence the warriors don't have
any excuse to kill you. Thus it was taboo to kill the more important Shamens
but the price they paid was no weapons.
And, as you say, Ferera notes the fluidity of Celtic culture, without,
however, as historians had assumed, there ever being a massive influx of
Saxons or anyone else, but only a gradual assimilation of new lines as
people moved around. Often fleeing plagues. The ratios of the skull types
found in the graves never changes dramatically, only gradually.
Some of these people are recorded to have been moved by famine or by being
shoved out by some other group.

When the Anglo Saxons moved into England their legal system which they
imposed on the Celts whenever and where ever they could put the Celts at a
major social and reporductive disadvantage and this shows up in the DNA. If
you were a Briton you were much less likely to be able to successfuly raise
a family than an Anglo/Saxon. The Anglo Saxons got the pick of the land,
the women, you name it. Even the blood money for killing you was sharply
reduced.
A skull type mite dominate in the upscale graves, indicating the rise in
power of a given clan, but this is only here or there, and never far
beyond the counties where it appears.
Ferera also mentions 'wood henges' that were, as you say, for keeping
cattle in, not warriors out. We tend to forget now, how ancient Europe had
lions that were a serious risk to cattle.
Forget the lions! Cattle stealing was in! It was your neighbors you had to
worry about! If you couldn't defend your property you weren't going to have
any! If they couldn't defend theirs, it was your! Might made right if you
were smart enough to get away with it. The Irish myths among others make
clear this was a society in which having a big reputation as warrior was
very important. People got themselves killed rather regularly trying to be
recognized as the local big man or his greatest warrior who got the first
slice of the roast. It sounds seriously stupid unless you understood just
how useful it was to have that status. Of course there are records of two
different saxon chiefs who let viking raiders land without resistance before
the battle started rather than just driving them off and it didn't turn out
well for them or them families either time.
Homer outlines the kind of crisis you refer to, as well as how hard it was
to unify the Greeks for the threat of Persia. And of course, Herodotus
mentions how contentious the "Scythians" were, and how, if they ever
united, they'd rule the world. Which, with Nato, they have in fact done.
Day Brown
2009-10-12 19:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
If you don't even own a weapon and do no violence the warriors don't
have any excuse to kill you. Thus it was taboo to kill the more
important Shamens but the price they paid was no weapons.
Homer reports the Greeks murdering the priests of Apollo, which risked
divine retribution, but not human. Achilles only cared about the latter.

But its an Aryan tradition. The Semetic religions have always went out
of their way to butcher the clerics of the wrong religion.
Post by deowll
Some of these people are recorded to have been moved by famine or by
being shoved out by some other group.
Oh ya. The Age of Stonehenge by Burgess has several maps, and delves
into the soil core data to show how the populations boomed and crashed
as the soil wore out, pandemics showed up, or political unrest. He shows
how an era characterized by luxurious Chieftain graves was replaced with
what looks like a communist revolution.
Post by deowll
When the Anglo Saxons moved into England their legal system which they
imposed on the Celts whenever and where ever they could put the Celts at
a major social and reporductive disadvantage and this shows up in the
DNA. If you were a Briton you were much less likely to be able to
successfuly raise a family than an Anglo/Saxon. The Anglo Saxons got the
pick of the land, the women, you name it. Even the blood money for
killing you was sharply reduced.
Burgess points out that this was not uniform, but affected only England
and Wessex, with no significant effect on Ireland, Scotland, or Wales.
He seems to imply the early work, in England and Wessex, gave the idea
that it was everywhere, but then later work showed a much more fluid and
unorganized landscape.

We cant assume the Y chromosome DNA markers were the result of warriors
and not the result of pandemic survival. The achilles heel of warriors
has always been too many chiefs, not enuf Indians, whereas the beta
peasants were much more able to organize for their mutual defense.
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
A skull type mite dominate in the upscale graves, indicating the rise
in power of a given clan, but this is only here or there, and never
far beyond the counties where it appears.
Ferera also mentions 'wood henges' that were, as you say, for keeping
cattle in, not warriors out. We tend to forget now, how ancient Europe
had lions that were a serious risk to cattle.
Forget the lions! Cattle stealing was in! It was your neighbors you had
to worry about! If you couldn't defend your property you weren't going
to have any! If they couldn't defend theirs, it was your! Might made
right if you were smart enough to get away with it. The Irish myths
among others make clear this was a society in which having a big
reputation as warrior was very important. People got themselves killed
rather regularly trying to be recognized as the local big man or his
greatest warrior who got the first slice of the roast. It sounds
seriously stupid unless you understood just how useful it was to have
that status. Of course there are records of two different saxon chiefs
who let viking raiders land without resistance before the battle started
rather than just driving them off and it didn't turn out well for them
or them families either time.
Ferera and Burgess both note there were both cattle breeding upland
tribes as you say, but also the agrarian peasants who only had a couple
oxen, which was defended by the whole village since they plowed all
their land. And in Life in a Medieval Village, we see where the Lord got
really pissed if somebody stole the oxen since they were used to raise
the wheat which is what he took his taxes in.

Its hard to sort out the PR from the warrior elites, which is what most
of the written record is, from the reality of the peasantry. Pandemics
hit the warrior elites much harder, living in their manor halls and
castles than they did the peasants, living in self quarantine, who only
saw the Lord on the day of annual tax collection.
deowll
2009-10-12 23:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
If you don't even own a weapon and do no violence the warriors don't have
any excuse to kill you. Thus it was taboo to kill the more important
Shamens but the price they paid was no weapons.
Homer reports the Greeks murdering the priests of Apollo, which risked
divine retribution, but not human. Achilles only cared about the latter.
But its an Aryan tradition. The Semetic religions have always went out of
their way to butcher the clerics of the wrong religion.
Post by deowll
Some of these people are recorded to have been moved by famine or by
being shoved out by some other group.
Oh ya. The Age of Stonehenge by Burgess has several maps, and delves into
the soil core data to show how the populations boomed and crashed as the
soil wore out, pandemics showed up, or political unrest. He shows how an
era characterized by luxurious Chieftain graves was replaced with what
looks like a communist revolution.
Post by deowll
When the Anglo Saxons moved into England their legal system which they
imposed on the Celts whenever and where ever they could put the Celts at
a major social and reporductive disadvantage and this shows up in the
DNA. If you were a Briton you were much less likely to be able to
successfuly raise a family than an Anglo/Saxon. The Anglo Saxons got the
pick of the land, the women, you name it. Even the blood money for
killing you was sharply reduced.
Burgess points out that this was not uniform, but affected only England
and Wessex, with no significant effect on Ireland, Scotland, or Wales. He
seems to imply the early work, in England and Wessex, gave the idea that
it was everywhere, but then later work showed a much more fluid and
unorganized landscape.
We cant assume the Y chromosome DNA markers were the result of warriors
and not the result of pandemic survival. The achilles heel of warriors has
always been too many chiefs, not enuf Indians, whereas the beta peasants
were much more able to organize for their mutual defense.
I'm assuming men have their fathers Y chromosomes and those changed from
Celtic to largely Germanic so far as can be told in parts of Briton the
Anglo Saxons took after they took over. Computer modals have shown how it
would work based on the known laws. Mass murder was not required. Since they
didn't take over in the other locations and their genes don't predominate
there either why bring them up?

If you want to talk about Nordic genes showing up in Scotland and Ireland
the answer is they do after a certain time which can be readily identified.
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
A skull type mite dominate in the upscale graves, indicating the rise in
power of a given clan, but this is only here or there, and never far
beyond the counties where it appears.
Ferera also mentions 'wood henges' that were, as you say, for keeping
cattle in, not warriors out. We tend to forget now, how ancient Europe
had lions that were a serious risk to cattle.
Forget the lions! Cattle stealing was in! It was your neighbors you had
to worry about! If you couldn't defend your property you weren't going to
have any! If they couldn't defend theirs, it was your! Might made right
if you were smart enough to get away with it. The Irish myths among
others make clear this was a society in which having a big reputation as
warrior was very important. People got themselves killed rather regularly
trying to be recognized as the local big man or his greatest warrior who
got the first slice of the roast. It sounds seriously stupid unless you
understood just how useful it was to have that status. Of course there
are records of two different saxon chiefs who let viking raiders land
without resistance before the battle started rather than just driving
them off and it didn't turn out well for them or them families either
time.
Ferera and Burgess both note there were both cattle breeding upland
tribes as you say, but also the agrarian peasants who only had a couple
oxen, which was defended by the whole village since they plowed all their
land. And in Life in a Medieval Village, we see where the Lord got really
pissed if somebody stole the oxen since they were used to raise the wheat
which is what he took his taxes in.
Medieval life is a very poor modal for what ever passed for traditional
Aryan culture. The religion wasn't Aryan. The cultral practices had little
to do with the ancient traditions. The most that can be said was a few wicki
were still hiding out trying not to be burned at the stake.
Post by Day Brown
Its hard to sort out the PR from the warrior elites, which is what most of
the written record is, from the reality of the peasantry. Pandemics hit
the warrior elites much harder, living in their manor halls and castles
than they did the peasants, living in self quarantine, who only saw the
Lord on the day of annual tax collection.
Again I think you are confabulating later practices for what went on when
the culture was much less urban, the population much less dense and
traditional Aryan cultural values, religious practices, and life styles
still held some sway.
Day Brown
2009-10-14 07:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
I'm assuming men have their fathers Y chromosomes and those changed from
Celtic to largely Germanic so far as can be told in parts of Briton the
Anglo Saxons took after they took over. Computer modals have shown how
it would work based on the known laws. Mass murder was not required.
Since they didn't take over in the other locations and their genes don't
predominate there either why bring them up?
I dunno how you define the Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or other DNA
markers. The report I got from the DNA Ancestry Project shows markers
scattered all over hellanback. This is complicated by the fact that some
people have more than one father.

Sometimes, more than one sperm gets into an egg. And we know that some
sperm are fast, while others are durable, just waiting in the fallopian
tube for egg arrival. So, sperm from more than one donor may be present.
If all the sperm that get into an egg are XX or XY, nobody notices, but
if not, then the progeny is XXY, that is, a hermaphrodite. Which is a
lot more common than people think. I've met two in two different states
who never met each other. Again, its not something Christian dogma can
really deal with, so nobody collects the data on how often this happens.

But the result is a extremely confusing Y chromosome lineage, with some
of the markers handed down on some lines while others descend from other
lines. Then, that mixed set on the Y chromosome is handed down until it
happens again. Moreover, some 20-25% of the Y chromosomes dont match
with what the birth records say. Cuckholdry has been around a while.

So- I dont think there is a standard set of Y chromosome DNA markers
that can be characterized as German, Saxon, Celtic, or whatever. I have
a cluster of markers found more often in Southern England and Wales,
another set found in New England, and another set which is scattered
about in France, Basque, Germany, and Denmark, with only one or two in
each of these regions. This seems to be typical.

Some of the markers date back to the Cro Magnon, while others didnt seem
to appear until the medieval era. This is consistent with what Gooch has
to say in "The Neanderthal Legacy" where he argues convincingly that
Native Europeans are Homo Sapiens/Neanderthal hybrids. He thinks Homo
Sapiens males mated with Homo Neanderthal females, but the fact is that
it was the HSS females that had the broader hips and more flexible
pelvis, which cracks open during birth, who survived the hybridization
process. And because of the fact more than one Y chromosome line can be
in an egg, the mismatch in the number of Neanderthal chromosomes dont
matter. There will be enuf to go around.
Post by deowll
If you want to talk about Nordic genes showing up in Scotland and
Ireland the answer is they do after a certain time which can be readily
identified.
Oh sure. But remember, women were traded & stolen like livestock also,
so their markers are also widely spread.
Post by deowll
Medieval life is a very poor modal for what ever passed for traditional
Aryan culture. The religion wasn't Aryan. The cultral practices had
little to do with the ancient traditions. The most that can be said was
a few wicki were still hiding out trying not to be burned at the stake.
One source I saw challenges both that position and the written record,
which, after all, was made by Christian scribes in the pay of either the
church or the warrior elites. If you recall, the Latin word "pagan"
simply meant a rural person. Many were too poor to support the tithe and
the money the church was interested in, and thus left to their own
traditions.

I forget the name of the village, but one English Midlands village was
so small and so out of the way that none of the armies that swept across
England ever came by to burn the recoreds. Which date to the 12th
century. Where we see it was owned by an abbey. The.abbot came by once a
year to hold "lord's court' and collect taxes. Which were never used to
support a priest or build a church. The record includes pagan "year and
a day" marriage contracts which the abbot recognized because he got a
cut when the accounts were settled up. There was a fee for marriage,
which he rarely collected on. The villagers were 'Christian' in name
only, still living as they always had with witches brewing their ale.

Gimbutas makes this point noting how the Baltic nations, whose rural
areas were never completely Christianized, retained their pagan myth and
folkways under the Communists, who were only interested in repressing
the church, so she was able in the mid 20th century to interview remote
villages and thereby learned to interpret both Indo-European root words
and folk art and iconography. That iconography dated back 7000 years in
SE Europe.

Similarly, ethnobotanist Wasson interviewed shamen in the boonies of
Finland and the Urals in his effort to rediscover the recipe of Soma,
the famous ARyan & Vedic potion. Ugarit shamen were still making it.

This kind of work is way off the beaten track, far away from the events
recorded in the great power centers and totally unrelated to the power
struggles that went on among the elites. As such, it was utterly ignored
by historians.
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
Its hard to sort out the PR from the warrior elites, which is what
most of the written record is, from the reality of the peasantry.
Pandemics hit the warrior elites much harder, living in their manor
halls and castles than they did the peasants, living in self
quarantine, who only saw the Lord on the day of annual tax collection.
Again I think you are confabulating later practices for what went on
when the culture was much less urban, the population much less dense and
traditional Aryan cultural values, religious practices, and life styles
still held some sway.
There is a lot more confusion in the data from the digs and the oral
traditions that were handed down or incorporated into the Christian
'saintly lives'. In The AGe of Stonehenge, Burgess writes of the wide
variety of burial customs, which are so indicative of a culture. Those
in Europe, as of the Anglo-Saxons, for instance, were never widely and
suddenly introduced.

Some regions mite use a particular 'beaker' for cremations for 1000
years or more, while others were never consistent, with inhumation in
the same era as cremation, or when one or the other was laid to rest on
top of earlier styles, or even sometimes dug up and refilled with later
style burials. A lot of the defensive trenches were also filled in with
graves, as if the defensive works were no longer needed. He also
mentions how sometimes they find isolated farmhouses with no indication
defensive works had ever been in place. Its really confusing to figure
out what was going on in most areas.
deowll
2009-10-14 14:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
I'm assuming men have their fathers Y chromosomes and those changed from
Celtic to largely Germanic so far as can be told in parts of Briton the
Anglo Saxons took after they took over. Computer modals have shown how
it would work based on the known laws. Mass murder was not required.
Since they didn't take over in the other locations and their genes don't
predominate there either why bring them up?
I dunno how you define the Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or other DNA
markers. The report I got from the DNA Ancestry Project shows markers
scattered all over hellanback. This is complicated by the fact that some
people have more than one father.
Sometimes, more than one sperm gets into an egg. And we know that some
sperm are fast, while others are durable, just waiting in the fallopian
tube for egg arrival. So, sperm from more than one donor may be present.
If all the sperm that get into an egg are XX or XY, nobody notices, but if
not, then the progeny is XXY, that is, a hermaphrodite. Which is a lot
more common than people think. I've met two in two different states who
never met each other. Again, its not something Christian dogma can really
deal with, so nobody collects the data on how often this happens.
You aren't going to find a human anywhere with 50% more DNA than the norm.
We can barely survive with one extra chromosome so forget the two sperm one
egg tale.
That an extra Chromsome does show up on occasion is due to a mess up in the
production of a sperm or egg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter%27s_syndrome

These people may have other issues but the principal effects are development
of small testicles and reduced fertility.
Post by Day Brown
But the result is a extremely confusing Y chromosome lineage, with some of
the markers handed down on some lines while others descend from other
lines. Then, that mixed set on the Y chromosome is handed down until it
happens again. Moreover, some 20-25% of the Y chromosomes dont match with
what the birth records say. Cuckholdry has been around a while.
Very common with some families and not all that common with others. However
you can tell who isn't in the father's line of descent real fast with a
quick genetic test unless they share a male ancestor. Some years back I read
50% for an army base. They didn't share that information they just did the
study. Some other larger studies have come up with less than one in ten for
other groups. The family names and the Y chromsomes matched up pretty darned
well.
Post by Day Brown
So- I dont think there is a standard set of Y chromosome DNA markers that
can be characterized as German, Saxon, Celtic, or whatever. I have a
cluster of markers found more often in Southern England and Wales, another
set found in New England, and another set which is scattered about in
France, Basque, Germany, and Denmark, with only one or two in each of
these regions. This seems to be typical.
In the study I was referring to they were just checking one item. The Y. In
some cases that may not tell you a lot because that Y is widely spread and
has been for a long time but in some cases a marker of more recent origin
is present and it can tell you enough to know that at a certain point in
time great, great, however many time back grandpa was at certain location
and any other Y that is an exact match for his came from one of his
descendants.

There is a unique marker that was spread by the ruling house of the Mongols.
There is a unique market connect to some body of the 9 hostages and another
of somebody of the 20 hostages I think it was. There are over 1,000,000
males in England with that marker now and most of the males that have last
names that would tie them to this male have his Y.
Post by Day Brown
Some of the markers date back to the Cro Magnon, while others didnt seem
to appear until the medieval era. This is consistent with what Gooch has
to say in "The Neanderthal Legacy" where he argues convincingly that
Native Europeans are Homo Sapiens/Neanderthal hybrids. He thinks Homo
Sapiens males mated with Homo Neanderthal females, but the fact is that it
was the HSS females that had the broader hips and more flexible pelvis,
which cracks open during birth, who survived the hybridization process.
And because of the fact more than one Y chromosome line can be in an egg,
the mismatch in the number of Neanderthal chromosomes dont matter. There
will be enuf to go around.
There are several flaws here not the least of which is their brain were
bigger than ours. Thus they had to be able to handle large brained babies.
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
If you want to talk about Nordic genes showing up in Scotland and Ireland
the answer is they do after a certain time which can be readily identified.
Oh sure. But remember, women were traded & stolen like livestock also,
so their markers are also widely spread.
You can still tell that the females of Iceland came mostly from Scottland
while the males were Nordic. It seems somebody must have made a side trip to
pick up a few items on the way to Iceland.
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
Medieval life is a very poor modal for what ever passed for traditional
Aryan culture. The religion wasn't Aryan. The cultral practices had
little to do with the ancient traditions. The most that can be said was a
few wicki were still hiding out trying not to be burned at the stake.
One source I saw challenges both that position and the written record,
which, after all, was made by Christian scribes in the pay of either the
church or the warrior elites. If you recall, the Latin word "pagan" simply
meant a rural person. Many were too poor to support the tithe and the
money the church was interested in, and thus left to their own traditions.
If you were to poor to pay the tithe, which came out of your crop off the
top, then you were to poor to reproduce.
The rural poor were what we in the south used to call sharecroppers. Money
doesn't come into it.
Post by Day Brown
I forget the name of the village, but one English Midlands village was so
small and so out of the way that none of the armies that swept across
England ever came by to burn the recoreds. Which date to the 12th century.
Where we see it was owned by an abbey. The.abbot came by once a year to
hold "lord's court' and collect taxes. Which were never used to support a
priest or build a church. The record includes pagan "year and a day"
marriage contracts which the abbot recognized because he got a cut when
the accounts were settled up. There was a fee for marriage, which he
rarely collected on. The villagers were 'Christian' in name only, still
living as they always had with witches brewing their ale.
The brewer brewed the ale. An honerable profession and the source of many a
last name.
Normally the records are in the church and the smaller churchs were one
small room.
You must be talking about a very small hamlet
I suspect the marriages were pagan because the Priest wasn't around to marry
them.
This is a unique rather than a normal situation due to isolation and the
protection of the Abby which was the landowner and collected the tithe and
the tax nor am I at all convinced that these people were living as people
had a thousand or more years before. For one thing the list of crops grown
by the Saxons was seriously lame. The social orgainzation of the past would
have called for a chieftan to act as the local strongman and if such died,
been killed, whatever, another would have grabbed power. In this case the
abby held the power but seemed to be in some part willing to not use it
though they obvious were collecting some rents.
Post by Day Brown
Gimbutas makes this point noting how the Baltic nations, whose rural areas
were never completely Christianized, retained their pagan myth and
folkways under the Communists, who were only interested in repressing the
church, so she was able in the mid 20th century to interview remote
villages and thereby learned to interpret both Indo-European root words
and folk art and iconography. That iconography dated back 7000 years in SE
Europe.
Yes in the most isloated locations where people were barely scratching out a
lively hood you could sometimes pick up traces of what had gone before along
no doubt with a lot of misinformation but if you think these locations had
ever been where that culture flowered or at the center of their culture you
are mistaken nor was much actually left. People sometimes made offering at
the springs and bogs, practiced a little magic and such. A few people still
do. Knock on wood if you can find any. The old timers told fablous tales of
mythic heroes and the mid-wives and herbialists still practiced a little
magic but few knew much if anything about the ancient gods or took part in
the larger festivals connected with the changing of the seasons except under
the watchful eye of the local church for so long that even the removal of
the Priests weren't going to restore the past.
Post by Day Brown
Similarly, ethnobotanist Wasson interviewed shamen in the boonies of
Finland and the Urals in his effort to rediscover the recipe of Soma, the
famous ARyan & Vedic potion. Ugarit shamen were still making it.
I'm sure they were still making something. I'd be shocked if they had access
to the same list of ingrediants that were used in India.
Post by Day Brown
This kind of work is way off the beaten track, far away from the events
recorded in the great power centers and totally unrelated to the power
struggles that went on among the elites. As such, it was utterly ignored
by historians.
They had other fish to fry and much of this wasn't history at least not
until somebody wrote it down then you actually needed some archeology, etc.
to try and sort out how much fact might be mixed in with the myths and sort
out the purely local from that which might have once be wide spread.
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
Its hard to sort out the PR from the warrior elites, which is what most
of the written record is, from the reality of the peasantry. Pandemics
hit the warrior elites much harder, living in their manor halls and
castles than they did the peasants, living in self quarantine, who only
saw the Lord on the day of annual tax collection.
Again I think you are confabulating later practices for what went on when
the culture was much less urban, the population much less dense and
traditional Aryan cultural values, religious practices, and life styles
still held some sway.
There is a lot more confusion in the data from the digs and the oral
traditions that were handed down or incorporated into the Christian
'saintly lives'. In The AGe of Stonehenge, Burgess writes of the wide
variety of burial customs, which are so indicative of a culture. Those in
Europe, as of the Anglo-Saxons, for instance, were never widely and
suddenly introduced.
Some regions mite use a particular 'beaker' for cremations for 1000 years
or more, while others were never consistent, with inhumation in the same
era as cremation, or when one or the other was laid to rest on top of
earlier styles, or even sometimes dug up and refilled with later style
burials. A lot of the defensive trenches were also filled in with graves,
as if the defensive works were no longer needed. He also mentions how
sometimes they find isolated farmhouses with no indication defensive works
had ever been in place. Its really confusing to figure out what was going
on in most areas.
Some things are destined to remain a mystery.
Day Brown
2009-10-15 18:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
You aren't going to find a human anywhere with 50% more DNA than the
norm. We can barely survive with one extra chromosome so forget the two
sperm one egg tale.
That misrepresents what I said. Besides, more than one sperm is the only
way to get a hermaphrodite. If we cant clarify this, the other issues
will not be instructive, nor resolved.

There is no 'moment of conception'. And if DNA in the egg was laid out
like a long spiral ladder, there mite be a way to zip it up with the Y
chromosome. But that is not what is in there. It looks more like a plate
of spaghetti. The match up only happens after the Y Chromosome is
segmented out so that whatever portion of the string will fit gets to
where it can. And if there are extra portions from other sperm, that's
no biggie. They dont reproduce and are lost in cell division.
Post by deowll
These people may have other issues but the principal effects are
development of small testicles and reduced fertility.
Why dont you talk with some, as I have? Or even just buy Hustler? There
are some depicted that are hung as well as you are, but have tits and
cunts. There is much more variation than fits in your cosmology.
Post by deowll
There are several flaws here not the least of which is their brain
were bigger than ours. Thus they had to be able to handle large
brained babies.
No. Their brain cases were longer, like footballs, and thus had a
SMALLER CROSS SECTION. Which is what counts during birthing. Talk to a
mid wife. That's who put me on to this. The archeologists do not know
midwifery. The shape of the HSS pelvis and birth canal rotates the fetus
as it is born. The Neanderthal pelvis is too robust to crack open like
it does with women.

Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve" reports there are only 7 mtDNA lines
in Europe. There are scores among the Semites, over 140 in AFrica, even
several dozen among the Australian Aborigine. SOMETHING wiped out mtDNA
lines in Europe. He reports the European lines date back 10,000 years-
the immigration of farmers, and on back to 50,000 GP. But 50kya, the
only women in Europe were Neanderthals. Ergo, only one HNS mtDNA line
was lucky enuf to survive the hybridization process.

ANd even today, the birthing problems of white women are far worse than
for any other race. As for Icelandic women, remember the Sabines? There
have been, and still are, many examples of white women who simply ran
off with what they thot was a better stud. White men have never had the
same degree of control over women as seen in other races. The Sabine
women merely had to show up at the window or doorway if pissed at the
fathers, to open up new opportunities and increase genetic diversity.

Which, given the archeological digs, with all the different pottery and
lifestyles across the British Isles and the rest of Europe, fits with
women back then making their own choices as they still do.
Post by deowll
If you were to poor to pay the tithe, which came out of your crop off
the top, then you were to poor to reproduce. The rural poor were what
we in the south used to call sharecroppers. Money doesn't come into it.
Many of the European villages remained villages for thousands of years.
Course, it wasnt only the food supply; warfare, banditry, plague, and
extortion by the warrior elites all kept the survival rate, and thus the
population, stable for a time. But conversely, there were times, like as
an area is pioneered, when the population rose rapidly. Then crashed.

There's so much diversity in the digs its hard to generalize, other than
that while some of the reports by the scribes of the warrior elites were
correct, there was a lot going on they didnt know about.

The Brewer didnt brew the ale until Christianity took over. Here again,
another effort by a patriarchal power structure to disempower women.
Even so, lotsa places were too poor to employ a professional brewer, and
the women were still at it. Behind the scenes, like moonshine. Which in
that era as well, taxed the brewmeister's output. So, you dont see the
record of the witches brewing. You dont see the record of moonshiners
either. But archeologists have found the cauldrons.

Forensic gear has been brought into museums to look at the pollens and
plant residues in pottery, and thereby found what the witches were
brewing up. Which quite often was herbal abortificants and contraceptive
herbs. Turns out, there's a REASON 'Bachelor Button' is so named, why
'Blessed Thistle' was blessed, and why 'Queen Anne's lace' was popular.
I cured a cat last spring of pregnancy with the latter. no kittens.

And when women see that the children they bear will only be slaves to
some master, and not be there to help support mom, they consult witches
to solve their problems. Which the Bishops knew, which is why they
started burning them in the 5th century.

Wasson's Persephone's Quest shows us many examples in the Vedas to the
nature of Soma, and how it fits with toadstools, not herbs. He didnt
think Amanita Muscaria grew in India, but was imported by the Aryan
Brahman, ie merchant, class, and expected traces of a North/South 'Soma
Road' would be found. Which it was, in the area where it crossed what we
know as the Silk Road, in Turkmenistan.

Two Asharams, at Gonor and Togoluk, found after his time, along that
line from the Urals to India. Abandoned 4000 years ago as desert took
over grassland. With intact pottery found in an apothecary in each- with
opium, ephedra, and cannibis still in the pots. These are 2000 years
older than any Ashrams ever found in India.

I've tried Soma the way the Ugarit shaman told Wasson to make it. Well
worth the trip. You can order Amanita Muscaria online. Its legal. The
Ugarit used reindeer tallow, the Brahman used ghee, I use butter. the
fatty acids in the butter neutralize the fatty alkaloids in Muscaria
that notoriously upset digestive systems. No poison with meat fats.

Psychoactive sacred potions have been used by witches and shamen all
over the world. No reason to think Europeans didnt use them.
Post by deowll
Some things are destined to remain a mystery.
Indeed. But Wasson got into the most mysterious, "The Road to Eleusis"
where he reveals the ancient Greeks made a potion out of ergot grown on
barley- Kykeion, and this is what was served to the pilgrims who walked
the 'Sacred Way' from the Acropolis to the Great Telesterion Hall at
Eleusis. It has lysergic acids in it. Greeks were acid heads.

But even whatever lite Gimbutas, Wasson, Eliade, Campbell, Mallory, et
al show us, is, as you say, only a small portion of all that was going
on. Burgess shows us several maps that change over time as different
tribes, clans, chieftains, rise and fall, or as the soil plays out and
new ways of life need to be found. Or new diseases of hominids, plants,
or animals show up. Its a confusing mess challenging the well ordered
records we have from the royal courts. Course, our courts dont really
know what is going on either.
deowll
2009-10-16 00:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
You aren't going to find a human anywhere with 50% more DNA than the
norm. We can barely survive with one extra chromosome so forget the two
sperm one egg tale.
That misrepresents what I said. Besides, more than one sperm is the only
way to get a hermaphrodite. If we cant clarify this, the other issues will
not be instructive, nor resolved.
You need to go back and read that link I left you again. More than one sperm
is not going to work. You would end up with 50% more DNA and nobody like
that has ever lasted long enough to matter.
Post by Day Brown
There is no 'moment of conception'. And if DNA in the egg was laid out
like a long spiral ladder, there mite be a way to zip it up with the Y
chromosome. But that is not what is in there. It looks more like a plate
of spaghetti. The match up only happens after the Y Chromosome is
segmented out so that whatever portion of the string will fit gets to
where it can. And if there are extra portions from other sperm, that's no
biggie. They dont reproduce and are lost in cell division.
Post by deowll
These people may have other issues but the principal effects are
development of small testicles and reduced fertility.
Why dont you talk with some, as I have? Or even just buy Hustler? There
are some depicted that are hung as well as you are, but have tits and
cunts. There is much more variation than fits in your cosmology.
Post by deowll
There are several flaws here not the least of which is their brain
were bigger than ours. Thus they had to be able to handle large
brained babies.
No. Their brain cases were longer, like footballs, and thus had a SMALLER
CROSS SECTION. Which is what counts during birthing. Talk to a mid wife.
That's who put me on to this. The archeologists do not know midwifery. The
shape of the HSS pelvis and birth canal rotates the fetus as it is born.
The Neanderthal pelvis is too robust to crack open like it does with
women.
Actually we don't even know jack about how hard or easy it was for Hsn or
early Hss to give birth. I suspect most of the problems that now arise are
there because humans have domesticated themselves and our domestic animals
also have a lot more problems giving birth than most wild animals do. People
who have problems giving birth have been able to get their bad genes into
the next generation just as domestic animals who have problems giving birth
aren't actively weeded out.
Post by Day Brown
Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve" reports there are only 7 mtDNA lines
in Europe. There are scores among the Semites, over 140 in AFrica, even
several dozen among the Australian Aborigine. SOMETHING wiped out mtDNA
lines in Europe. He reports the European lines date back 10,000 years- the
immigration of farmers, and on back to 50,000 GP. But 50kya, the only
women in Europe were Neanderthals. Ergo, only one HNS mtDNA line was lucky
enuf to survive the hybridization process.
Nothing matches the know Hsn mtDNA. Just because a mtDNA line is 50,000
years old and in Europe today doesn't tell you were it was 50,000 years ago.
Post by Day Brown
ANd even today, the birthing problems of white women are far worse than
for any other race. As for Icelandic women, remember the Sabines? There
have been, and still are, many examples of white women who simply ran off
with what they thot was a better stud. White men have never had the same
degree of control over women as seen in other races. The Sabine women
merely had to show up at the window or doorway if pissed at the fathers,
to open up new opportunities and increase genetic diversity.
Which, given the archeological digs, with all the different pottery and
lifestyles across the British Isles and the rest of Europe, fits with
women back then making their own choices as they still do.
Post by deowll
If you were to poor to pay the tithe, which came out of your crop off
the top, then you were to poor to reproduce. The rural poor were what
we in the south used to call sharecroppers. Money doesn't come into it.
Many of the European villages remained villages for thousands of years.
Course, it wasnt only the food supply; warfare, banditry, plague, and
extortion by the warrior elites all kept the survival rate, and thus the
population, stable for a time. But conversely, there were times, like as
an area is pioneered, when the population rose rapidly. Then crashed.
There's so much diversity in the digs its hard to generalize, other than
that while some of the reports by the scribes of the warrior elites were
correct, there was a lot going on they didnt know about.
The Brewer didnt brew the ale until Christianity took over. Here again,
another effort by a patriarchal power structure to disempower women. Even
so, lotsa places were too poor to employ a professional brewer, and the
women were still at it. Behind the scenes, like moonshine. Which in that
era as well, taxed the brewmeister's output. So, you dont see the record
of the witches brewing. You dont see the record of moonshiners either. But
archeologists have found the cauldrons.
And don't have a clue who made the brew.
Post by Day Brown
Forensic gear has been brought into museums to look at the pollens and
plant residues in pottery, and thereby found what the witches were brewing
up. Which quite often was herbal abortificants and contraceptive herbs.
Turns out, there's a REASON 'Bachelor Button' is so named, why 'Blessed
Thistle' was blessed, and why 'Queen Anne's lace' was popular. I cured a
cat last spring of pregnancy with the latter. no kittens.
I'm sure that's not what they were drinking during normal meals nor even
special occasions or they'd have all died without young.

That is the sort of crap the midwives and wise women might have dished out
on rare occasions. Don't confuse the two.
Post by Day Brown
And when women see that the children they bear will only be slaves to some
master, and not be there to help support mom, they consult witches to
solve their problems. Which the Bishops knew, which is why they started
burning them in the 5th century.
Wasson's Persephone's Quest shows us many examples in the Vedas to the
nature of Soma, and how it fits with toadstools, not herbs. He didnt think
Amanita Muscaria grew in India, but was imported by the Aryan Brahman, ie
merchant, class, and expected traces of a North/South 'Soma Road' would be
found. Which it was, in the area where it crossed what we know as the Silk
Road, in Turkmenistan.
Not sure about the drug trade but there was market for high grade steel at
one time.
Post by Day Brown
Two Asharams, at Gonor and Togoluk, found after his time, along that line
from the Urals to India. Abandoned 4000 years ago as desert took over
grassland. With intact pottery found in an apothecary in each- with opium,
ephedra, and cannibis still in the pots. These are 2000 years older than
any Ashrams ever found in India.
I've tried Soma the way the Ugarit shaman told Wasson to make it. Well
worth the trip. You can order Amanita Muscaria online. Its legal. The
Ugarit used reindeer tallow, the Brahman used ghee, I use butter. the
fatty acids in the butter neutralize the fatty alkaloids in Muscaria that
notoriously upset digestive systems. No poison with meat fats.
Psychoactive sacred potions have been used by witches and shamen all over
the world. No reason to think Europeans didnt use them.
I'm sure they did. Not wanting to risk brain damage I'm going to leave them
alone.
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
Some things are destined to remain a mystery.
Indeed. But Wasson got into the most mysterious, "The Road to Eleusis"
where he reveals the ancient Greeks made a potion out of ergot grown on
barley- Kykeion, and this is what was served to the pilgrims who walked
the 'Sacred Way' from the Acropolis to the Great Telesterion Hall at
Eleusis. It has lysergic acids in it. Greeks were acid heads.
But even whatever lite Gimbutas, Wasson, Eliade, Campbell, Mallory, et al
show us, is, as you say, only a small portion of all that was going on.
Burgess shows us several maps that change over time as different tribes,
clans, chieftains, rise and fall, or as the soil plays out and new ways of
life need to be found. Or new diseases of hominids, plants, or animals
show up. Its a confusing mess challenging the well ordered records we have
from the royal courts. Course, our courts dont really know what is going
on either.
Day Brown
2009-10-16 01:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
You aren't going to find a human anywhere with 50% more DNA than the
norm. We can barely survive with one extra chromosome so forget the
two sperm one egg tale.
That misrepresents what I said. Besides, more than one sperm is the
only way to get a hermaphrodite. If we cant clarify this, the other
issues will not be instructive, nor resolved.
You need to go back and read that link I left you again. More than one
sperm is not going to work. You would end up with 50% more DNA and
nobody like that has ever lasted long enough to matter.
That is egzactly what is in the DNA of hermaphrodites: XXY.
deowll
2009-10-16 03:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
You aren't going to find a human anywhere with 50% more DNA than the
norm. We can barely survive with one extra chromosome so forget the two
sperm one egg tale.
That misrepresents what I said. Besides, more than one sperm is the only
way to get a hermaphrodite. If we cant clarify this, the other issues
will not be instructive, nor resolved.
You need to go back and read that link I left you again. More than one
sperm is not going to work. You would end up with 50% more DNA and nobody
like that has ever lasted long enough to matter.
That is egzactly what is in the DNA of hermaphrodites: XXY.
That is one extra chromsomes making 47 rather than 46! The normal human has
23 pairs of chromosomes.

An extra sperm cell is going to dump an extra 23 pairs of chromosomes into
the cell making 69 chromosomes! Some plants can take this but not mammals!
An XXY or a XYY or a mongoloid has exactly one extra chromsome!
Day Brown
2009-10-16 04:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
You need to go back and read that link I left you again. More than
one sperm is not going to work. You would end up with 50% more DNA
and nobody like that has ever lasted long enough to matter.
That is egzactly what is in the DNA of hermaphrodites: XXY.
That is one extra chromsomes making 47 rather than 46! The normal human
has 23 pairs of chromosomes.
An extra sperm cell is going to dump an extra 23 pairs of chromosomes
into the cell making 69 chromosomes! Some plants can take this but not
mammals! An XXY or a XYY or a mongoloid has exactly one extra chromsome!
I dont pretend to know everything that goes on in the ovum at
conception, and dont think or see the data to show that anyone does. The
ovum cell wall is not an electronic switch, but a chemical process, so
it is not instantaneous, and there's no way to tell how many sperm may
get in; but out of all the billions of conceptions for all those
millions of years, such improbable events must happen.

Logically, just because the DNA of more than one sperm is in there does
not mean it all hasta match up with mtDNA, and it is that match that
later divides to form new cells. The rest you refer to is just trash
that gets parsed out and left behind.

It'd be interesting to see in vitro experiments where more than one
sperm is introduced in hominids. Google shows us studies of polyspermy
problems with pigs and cattle. Apparently the result of artificial
insemmination. But I dunno of anyone collecting the DNA data for natural
polyspermy in them, also study of other animals is mentioned. Nor do I
know how reliable or rigorous the studies were.

Google lists a number of studies of polyspermy seen in in vitro, but I
would expect that process to get more study than the natural, which of
course goes on where it cant be seen, and most times would result in a
spontaneous miscarriage. Which dont get looked at either, to see if that
was the cause.
deowll
2009-10-17 06:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You might be interested in this web site if you haven't already found it:
http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/
Post by deowll
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
You need to go back and read that link I left you again. More than one
sperm is not going to work. You would end up with 50% more DNA and
nobody like that has ever lasted long enough to matter.
That is egzactly what is in the DNA of hermaphrodites: XXY.
That is one extra chromsomes making 47 rather than 46! The normal human
has 23 pairs of chromosomes.
An extra sperm cell is going to dump an extra 23 pairs of chromosomes
into the cell making 69 chromosomes! Some plants can take this but not
mammals! An XXY or a XYY or a mongoloid has exactly one extra chromsome!
I dont pretend to know everything that goes on in the ovum at conception,
and dont think or see the data to show that anyone does. The ovum cell
wall is not an electronic switch, but a chemical process, so it is not
instantaneous, and there's no way to tell how many sperm may get in; but
out of all the billions of conceptions for all those millions of years,
such improbable events must happen.
Logically, just because the DNA of more than one sperm is in there does
not mean it all hasta match up with mtDNA, and it is that match that later
divides to form new cells. The rest you refer to is just trash that gets
parsed out and left behind.
It'd be interesting to see in vitro experiments where more than one sperm
is introduced in hominids. Google shows us studies of polyspermy problems
with pigs and cattle. Apparently the result of artificial insemmination.
But I dunno of anyone collecting the DNA data for natural polyspermy in
them, also study of other animals is mentioned. Nor do I know how reliable
or rigorous the studies were.
Google lists a number of studies of polyspermy seen in in vitro, but I
would expect that process to get more study than the natural, which of
course goes on where it cant be seen, and most times would result in a
spontaneous miscarriage. Which dont get looked at either, to see if that
was the cause.
Day Brown
2009-10-17 22:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
You might be interested in this web site if you haven't already found
it: http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/
Splendid! I rarely see a website so informative.


Unnatural selection: Birth control pills may alter choice of partners
(10/9/2009) ... relates to a rant I've posted that affected what the
choices women have now are.

For, ever since the birth control pill, honorable men have stayed
faithful to wives who bore them no sons, and are now out of the gene
pool. Meanwhile, the charming philanderers, who have the talent to
appear as women wish men would be, have then left the bastards to be
raised on welfare all over the county.

I was an early adapter, not from the birth control pill, but the result
of technical innovation nonetheless. I was conceived the night Orson
Wells' "War of the Worlds" premiered on the radio. Oct 31, 1938. No
doubt, like my sperm donor, inheriting some of the charm he had which
was needed at the time, but not there to really support progeny, nor, so
far as I can tell, with the other talents women expect in men they see
as attractive.

This has been going on now for a few generations, so charming bastards
like me, have sired many more who have the same singular talent, are now
all over the place. Dr. Laura says to troubled women:"Well you picked
him honey." But what do the women now have to pick _from_?

Then too, another rap there: New research reveals the ancestral
populations of India and their relationships to modern groups
(9/24/2009) says 40% descend from "Western Eurasians". A politically
correct way to say "Aryan".

Ever since the rise of the Warrior Elites, their women have stayed in
the palaces, and had, therefore, lighter skin than the peasant women who
worked in the fields. So, white skin became the mark of aristocracy.
This is seen in the faces of the Geisha, which've been painted white
long before the 'whiteman' had an effect on Japanese culture.

Burgess writes of social dislocation from climate change. Which we see
in the Aryans fleeing the desertification of what is now the Kara Kum,
with some of them showing up in India. But Burgess also sees people
moving from the mainland to the British Isles in the same era. But he
goes on to add, this was not any mass Saxon or whatever invasion, but
more like seen in the immigration to America from Ireland and Europe of
individuals seeking new opportunities.

So- the artifacts, like the Saxon axe, show up, and are taken up, copied
and spread rapidly, far faster than any change in the gene pools, either
in India, The British Isles, or America. Just as American Indians
suddenly received horses and metal weapons.

The genetic studies, like that above of India, or the British Isles, or
America, show the increase of diversity over time that is impossible now
to really delineate. Even when the Vikings invaded England, that began
as an initial trading post which evolved into a base, and then expansion
that never, however, took over everywhere.

Some tribes, be it India, the British Isles, or America, adapted the new
Saxon or whatever technologies, and others, (genetically identical) did
not, became marginalized or even extinct. Burgess comments on how the
graves sometimes show the new pottery and metal styles, but have the
very same skull types, which if not seen, would lead you to think there
was a mass invasion. Same deal with the architectural styles. Cant tell
whether a village was Saxon, Viking, or whatever, despite the patterns
in the dwellings and outbuildings, without remains in the graves.

So now, we have women making new mating choices, with no idea of how
many that is, what criteria is being used, or what the result will be. I
had a young, mixed race male guest whose skin and kinky hair looked
African, but the hair was red, and "Red" really got off on Celtic Music.

You cant ever tell whatcha gonna get.
deowll
2009-10-21 03:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Day Brown
Post by deowll
http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/
Splendid! I rarely see a website so informative.
Unnatural selection: Birth control pills may alter choice of partners
(10/9/2009) ... relates to a rant I've posted that affected what the
choices women have now are.
For, ever since the birth control pill, honorable men have stayed faithful
to wives who bore them no sons, and are now out of the gene pool.
Meanwhile, the charming philanderers, who have the talent to appear as
women wish men would be, have then left the bastards to be raised on
welfare all over the county.
I was an early adapter, not from the birth control pill, but the result of
technical innovation nonetheless. I was conceived the night Orson Wells'
"War of the Worlds" premiered on the radio. Oct 31, 1938. No doubt, like
my sperm donor, inheriting some of the charm he had which was needed at
the time, but not there to really support progeny, nor, so far as I can
tell, with the other talents women expect in men they see as attractive.
This has been going on now for a few generations, so charming bastards
like me, have sired many more who have the same singular talent, are now
all over the place. Dr. Laura says to troubled women:"Well you picked him
honey." But what do the women now have to pick _from_?
Then too, another rap there: New research reveals the ancestral
populations of India and their relationships to modern groups (9/24/2009)
says 40% descend from "Western Eurasians". A politically correct way to
say "Aryan".
Ever since the rise of the Warrior Elites, their women have stayed in the
palaces, and had, therefore, lighter skin than the peasant women who
worked in the fields. So, white skin became the mark of aristocracy. This
is seen in the faces of the Geisha, which've been painted white long
before the 'whiteman' had an effect on Japanese culture.
Burgess writes of social dislocation from climate change. Which we see in
the Aryans fleeing the desertification of what is now the Kara Kum, with
some of them showing up in India. But Burgess also sees people moving from
the mainland to the British Isles in the same era. But he goes on to add,
this was not any mass Saxon or whatever invasion, but more like seen in
the immigration to America from Ireland and Europe of individuals seeking
new opportunities.
So- the artifacts, like the Saxon axe, show up, and are taken up, copied
and spread rapidly, far faster than any change in the gene pools, either
in India, The British Isles, or America. Just as American Indians suddenly
received horses and metal weapons.
The celt as in celtic is an ax head. The Franks are named after an ax. The
Saxons are named after the sax which is a kind of knife. Well actually it
gets very complicated. ?8^)
Post by Day Brown
The genetic studies, like that above of India, or the British Isles, or
America, show the increase of diversity over time that is impossible now
to really delineate. Even when the Vikings invaded England, that began as
an initial trading post which evolved into a base, and then expansion that
never, however, took over everywhere.
Some tribes, be it India, the British Isles, or America, adapted the new
Saxon or whatever technologies, and others, (genetically identical) did
not, became marginalized or even extinct. Burgess comments on how the
graves sometimes show the new pottery and metal styles, but have the very
same skull types, which if not seen, would lead you to think there was a
mass invasion. Same deal with the architectural styles. Cant tell whether
a village was Saxon, Viking, or whatever, despite the patterns in the
dwellings and outbuildings, without remains in the graves.
So now, we have women making new mating choices, with no idea of how many
that is, what criteria is being used, or what the result will be. I had a
young, mixed race male guest whose skin and kinky hair looked African, but
the hair was red, and "Red" really got off on Celtic Music.
You cant ever tell whatcha gonna get.
jkljzuchowski
2009-10-21 23:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
About the muliple sperm thing, the hermaphrodites (XXY and XXX chromosomes)
Your forgetting in my opinion a certain thing that could be the usual thing
in these times. Namely multiple rape. I think it's the only explaination
(how do you write it, am i not english) of the many XXY and XXX chromosomes
in the DNA.
Jan
Day Brown
2009-10-22 01:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deowll
The celt as in celtic is an ax head. The Franks are named after an ax.
The Saxons are named after the sax which is a kind of knife. Well
actually it gets very complicated. ?8^)
I gather that from Burgess, Barford, and Vitali, who all seem to start
with the "Hallstaat" culture 5000 years ago, when I was the hub of the
salt trade. They all show us regular cycles of hundreds of years.

Like when the first farmers pioneer a fertile river valley. And the
population booms. So it spreads up onto marginal land, which wears out
in a couple generations, then the population crashes.

So then, farming is replaced with stock breeding on marginal or wore out
land. Which again sorta works for some number of generations, til that
population gets too high with too many cattle on the acreage, then it
crashes again, and is utter wasteland.

Which recovers over time to begin another cycle of farming. And every
step of the way there are new cosmologies and political structures. But
thru it all, from time to time some pandemic, hoof and mouth, anthrax,
or human pathogen wipes out both people and economies, and the warrior
elites, who could not protect people from these forces is eliminated.

Only to rise again as population rises to the point of competition for
resources again. And in different parts, the weather or disease problems
were better or worse, and that too put people on the move. Just as we
saw pioneers come to America, so also they came to Ireland, England,
Denmark, Germany, etc going all the way back to Hallstaat.

Burgess writes of how sometimes he finds a clan graveyard, where for
hundreds of years the same skull types and grave goods are found, but
where in the next county, there's no consistent pattern of any one elite
group anywhere. And just like we have fads, so they had fads in the ways
blades were cast and mounted... Which sometimes spread across diverse
groups, or other times was a mark of kinship. As you say, complicated.

All these authors bitch about the simple generations of earlier scholars
that we infer was motivated by jingoism.

Loading...