Search

We have previously shown that geographic differences in cancer mortalities in Europe are related to (in order of importance): geographic distances (reflecting environmental differences), ethnohistoric distances (encompassing cultural and genetic attributes), and genetic distances of the populations in the areas studied. In this study, we analyzed the relations of the same three factors to European incidences of 45 male and 47 female cancers. Differences in cancer incidences are correlated moderately, first with geographic distances, and then with genetic distances, but not at all with ethnohistoric distances. Comparing these findings to the earlier ones for cancer mortalities, we note the reversal in the importance of ethnohistory and genetics, and the generally lower correlations of incidence differences with the three putatively causal distance matrices. A path diagram combining both studies demonstrates the lack of cultural carcinogenic effects, but suggests cultural influences on procedures such as the registration of deaths in different political entities. Additionally, the relatively large correlation between ethnohistoric distances and mortality differences is caused by common factors behind the correlation of ethnohistoric and geographic distances. Geographic proximity results in similar ethnohistories. The direct effects of genetic distances are negligible and only their common effects with geographic distances play a role, accounting for the weak to negligible influence of genetics on incidence and mortality differences. Apparently, the genetic systems available to us do not substantially affect cancer incidence or mortality. We present indirect evidence that international differences in the quality of cancer rate data are greater in mortalities than in incidences.

Geographic variation in cancer rates is thought to be the result of two major factors: environmental agents varying spatially and the attributes, genetic or cultural, of the populations inhabiting the areas studied. These attributes in turn result from the history of the populations in question. We had previously constructed an ethnohistorical database for Europe since 2200 B.C., permitting estimates of the ethnic composition of modern European populations. We were able to show that these estimates correlate with genetic distances. In this study, we wanted to see whether they also correlate with cancer rates. We employed two data sets of cancer mortalities from 42 types of cancer for the European Economic Community and for Central Europe. We subjected spatial differences in cancer mortalities, genetic, ethnohistorical, and geographic distances to matrix permutation tests to determine the magnitude and significance of their association. Our findings are that distances in cancer mortalities are correlated more with ethnohistorical distances than with genetic distances. Possibly the cancer rates may be affected by loci other than the genetic systems available to us, and/or by cultural factors mediated by the ethnohistorical differences. We find it remarkable that patterns of frequently ancient ethnic admixture are still reflected in modern cancer mortalities. Partial correlations with geography suggest that local environmental factors affect the mortalities as well.

Two theories of the origins of the Indo-Europeans currently compete. M. Gimbutas believes that early Indo-Europeans entered southeastern Europe from the Pontic Steppes starting ca. 4500 B.C. and spread from there. C. Renfrew equates early Indo-Europeans with early farmers who entered southeastern Europe from Asia Minor ca. 7000 BC and spread through the continent. We tested genetic distance matrices for each of 25 systems in numerous Indo-European-speaking samples from Europe. To match each of these matrices, we created other distance matrices representing geography, language, time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, and Renfrew's model. The correlation between genetics and language is significant. Geography, when held constant, produces a markedly lower, yet still highly significant partial correlation between genetics and language, showing that more remains to be explained. However, none of the remaining three distances--time since origin of agriculture, Gimbutas' model, or Renfrew's model--reduces the partial correlation further. Thus, neither of the two theories appears able to explain the origin of the Indo-Europeans as gauged by the genetics-language correlation.