Re: [tied] Danubian homeland?

OK, I'm talking on the archaeologically observable and measurable growth of settlement areas (and of the accompanying cultures and languages) without insisting, as Renfrew does, that the immigrant populations grew at the expense of the locals and "swamped" them. The northern pre-Neolithic communities in the north could be absorbed and acculturated, eventually accounting for most of the genetic make-up of the Neolithic population. In particular, some of them (the Ertebølle culture, etc.) contributed significantly to the development of the Funnel Beaker culture. And since I am not a practising Nostraticist, I see no need to assume that the Linear Pottery people must have migrated from Anatolia. They were Neolithicised Danubian locals themselves.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: jdcroft@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 11:18 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Danubian homeland?

I don't know if people have discussed the "Seven Daughters of Eve" on the list. One of the findings of paleogenetic studies is that the theories of "demic spread" and "conveyor belts" a la Renfrew have been abandonned. Only 20% of modern European genomes came across Anatolia out of the Middle East. The remaining 80% were already established in Europe from the Upper Paleolthic. One recent announcement suggested that the same figures apply for the Y chromosome of men. As far as genetic studies show, there seem to be two clusters of genes Upper Paleolithic Genes from the Ice Age maxima - one group stretching from the Balkans to the Urals, and the second from Northern Italy to Southern France and Northern Spain. The Balkan to Urals group, in addition to spreading westwards travelled east across Siberia and into North America. The Western European group travelled north to Scandinavia and the Saami. It would be interesting to see what people make of these movements in terms of linguistic spread and substrate languages.