What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory -2

[Husky]

Back to that western blog's entry which was alluded to in Kaushika's post somewhere above.



Once more about the following comment at that blog entry:

Annie Mouse said...

I think we should be cautious with these La Brana folk. They may not be typical of the area. I have long felt that our view of mesolithic Europeans is possibly being distorted by imported burial practices (as opposed to air, fire and water rituals as mentioned in our oldest oral European literature). Burials and entombment (as in La Brana) create more durable remains.



La Brana could represent nomadic folk following game back and forth across Europe and Asia.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileistribution_of_Haplogroup_C-M217_Y-DNA_-_worldwide.png



In my opinion that still makes them mesolithic Europeans or accurately Eurasians, but they may not have been typical, or even resident. Just part of the rich milieu.



Sunday, January 26, 2014 11:49:00 pm

I'm going to skip past the pretence in their statement of "our oldest oral European literature". Europe is a modern invention, and so speaking of a shared oral corpus as if there was one set of people in Europe with related beliefs and practices (before christendom) is odd, not just because La Brana 7000 years ago already turned out to genetically line-up more closely with Scandinavians than other Europeans, but especially since Annie Mouse is not referring to "IE people" (who as per PIE are supposed to have started off with one kultur etc): rather, the above seems to be saying that Mesolithic Europeans are specifically not the same as the "IE" people who invaded Europe - since IE being connected to Kurgan Kultur by non-PCT are certainly supposed to have known burial practices. (And does Annie Mouse etc really know of oral traditions that touch on the Mesolithic? It's not impossible, but I did hear people in the British Isles could barely remember the details of the culture and traditions of the Picts - the pre-Angle, pre-Saxon and even pre-Celt natives of the Isles - and have to rely on scarce and dubious Roman sources concerning these. And even Picts are nowadays supposed to have been IE. So - at least as per non-PCT - Picts too are therefore supposed to have invaded Europe post-Mesolithic and hence would be supposed to have had some Kurgan kultural influences etc.)



As for Celts at least, cremation seems to have been introduced later (post burial, and certainly post Kurgan-type mound burials) - note, well past the Mesolithic:



ivargault.com/kelterne/celts.html

Around 1250 BC traces of change in the archaelogical material indicate the development of a Celtic-speaking branch of Indo-European. The so-called Urnefelt-Culture is considered a continuation of the Unetice-Culture. [color="#FF0000"]The most striking change is the introduction of a new burial practice - cremation.[/color] The cinerary urns were placed in special graveyards.** Most linguists are of the opinion that these people must have spoken an early form of Celtic - proto Celtic.

(** Seems somewhat comparable to the funerals of Greek warriors in the Trojan war, like the description of Patroklos' funeral: burnt and then the bones were collected and IIRC preserved/buried. In some parts of ancient Tamizh Nadu too - at about 2800 years ago/800 BCE - urns containing bones of (cremated) dead were buried, as per archaeological digs.)



However, even afterward the introduction of cremation, Celts for some time apparently continued regular burial without cremation: there were still burial chambers of Continental Celts found where the dead were buried with stuff (presumably for the afterlife?):



dw.de/archeologists-revise-image-of-ancient-celts/a-16528844

(Deutsche Welle) -

Archeology

Archeologists revise image of ancient Celts

The Celts were long considered a barbaric and violent society. But new findings from a 2,600-year-old grave in Germany suggest the ancient people were much more sophisticated than previously thought.

conjure.com/whocelts.html

Hallstat culture (800-250 BCE), named after a type-site at Hallstatt, Austria, is the name given to the material culture of the early Iron Age Celts. Their range spanned from the Paris basin to valley of Morava in Eastern Europe and from the Alps to the north European plain. During early Hallstat (800-600 BCE) there is little evidence of great distinctions of wealth in burials. A few people are buried with wagons and horse gear, rather more are warriors (both genders) buried with their swords, most people are buried with personal ornaments and pots containing food. Cemeteries are small and associated with small settlements, perhaps one family or a group of related families.



Then between 600-450 BCE things begin to change as Mediterranean luxury goods begin to appear. Hilltop forts and a hierarchy of rich graves begins to appear. These aristocratic burials are associated with much larger residences inspired by Greek architectural styles. Archaeologists have suggested that paramount chief burial is accompanied by inhumation in a wooden chamber with wagon and horse trappings as before, but now there would also be a wide range of imported goods including bronze wine drinking vessels, silk, gold, amber, glass and coral. A vassal chief would be similar but the goods are more of local manufacture without the wide range of imports. Sub-chiefs are again similar but less elaborately furnished with totally local manufacture. Below this status wagon burials are not present. This type of burial and the prestige goods economic system it represents was spread from Burgundy to the middle Rhine. The economy was based on conspicuous consumption and potlatch-style distribution of goods. This is an unstable system relying on a continuing stream of imports and exports. Around this core, warrior societies arose whose wealth came from raiding the settled traders. This was an unstable equilibrium which was unbalanced by political changes in the Mediterranean and population growth among the Celtic tribes. After the collapse, the Celtic migrations began (circa 400 BCE).

sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/rac/rac25.htm

Certain passages in Irish texts also describe burials, and tell how [color="#FF0000"]the dead were interred[/color] with ornaments and weapons, while it was a common custom to bury the dead warrior in his armour, fully armed, and facing the region whence enemies might be expected. Thus he was a perpetual menace to them and prevented their attack. 1 Possibly this belief may account for the elevated position of many [color="#FF0000"]tumuli[/color]. Animals were also sacrificed. Hostages were buried alive with Fiachra, according to one text, and the wives of heroes sometimes express their desire to be buried along with their dead husbands. 2



[...]



The idea that the body as well as the soul was immortal was probably linked on to a very primitive belief regarding the dead, and one shared by many peoples, that they lived on in the grave. This conception was never forgotten, even in regions where the theory of a distant land of the dead was evolved, or where the body was consumed by fire before burial.

(Tumuli=kurgan-type mounds, further indicating that kurgan burials were originally more often to do with interring bodies in mounds than cremating them and then burying the crematury urns in the mounds.

And the case of cremation is not mentioned as the rule, let alone as the only means of disposing of the bodies of the dead. But rather that cremation occurred in some Celtic regions at this time.)



And now even more off-topic, but about this in the above quoteblock:

Animals were also sacrificed. Hostages were buried alive with Fiachra

C.f. how at Patroklos' funeral in the Iliad, some of his hounds have their necks slit and then join his pyre, and the bodies of some horses are thrown on the edges of the pyre also, and then Achilles further kills (was it by cutting the throats of?) some 12 Trojan POW warriors that he had captured for this specific purpose in his anger/in vengeance for Patroklos' death. Although this last may not be Greek tradition: Achilles was out for revenge and may have acted outside of normal Greek custom (?) Anyway, a sort of involuntary suttee of men. C.f. the involuntary suttee of serfs among Germanics in Elst's example, and involuntary suttee of some of the serfs/retinue of Chinese emperors. [Unlike wives who may choose to join their deceased husbands on the pyre, I suspect serfs - like POWs/hostages - are unlikely to volunteer to die. But since Elst referred to even the serfs getting stabbed to join some German nobleman as being a "suttee", then I suppose the POWs in Achilles' case are a "suttee" too, and so too I guess are the hostages in the case of Fiachra above.

So by such argument, the Greeks did have a type of "suttee" too then, though Elst said they did not. Admittedly, the wife didn't join a dead husband. But there's a case of POWs being made to join a dead warrior, which IMO is sort of equidistant from Sati to Germanic serfs being made to join their master. (Again: the Germanic case is more like the Chinese emperor's case.)

Personally, I think Sati should not have been re-defined past the voluntary self-immolation - and not self-stabbing etc as in the German or other cases - of the wife/wives, within the appointed period of her husband's death. Else further expansions to the definition of suttee should be equally-admissible, IMO, like male POWs getting their necks slit in the Iliad, or like the male serfs getting stabbed to join a dead Germanic aristocrat. Not the meaning of Sati to Hindus - and it is Hindus' word for a Hindu tradition.]