To my point
> >There is an alternative explanation. If the mesolithic
> >"Nostratics" came out of Africa, as Glen and I suppose (one thing
> >Glen and I do agree on)then having the first component in the way
> >it does could be referring to that!
Marc replied
> Yes, or earlier Out-of-Africa movements?
I suppose it is possible, except for the puzzling position of the
Sardinians. (more below)
Marc wrote
> I meant: does the 1st component measure the neolithic settlements?
> The Starcevo-Koros culture came from NW-Anatolia.
It could. C-S believed that it showed a "demic movement" not a
copying of technology by people who did not move at all.
In relation to the Sardinians Marc wrote
> What other populations do they resemble? African ones?
In the detailed specific study C-S said that the closest
relationships
that Dardinians had with anyone (and they wew already far back in the
past and ery removed from the present (genetic distance equating with
deep past historical time) was the Basques and the Caucasians
(meaning
people from the Caucasas, not white "race"). In his phylogenic tree
for over 140 groups C-S shows that once out of Africa, the first
split
in the human tree was between Australo-Asiatics (i.e. The
Australians,
Papua New Guineans and the Austrics - Daic, Mon Khmer and
Austronesians) and the rest. This coincides well with the primary
movement out of Africa being 73,000 - 63,000 years ago, Associated
with a crossing at Yemen, and a move to southern China and northern
Australia by 63,000 years BP.
The "rest" then is the coming of the Upper Paleolithic peoples out of
Africa about 40-35,000 years ago.
The primary split in this group is between North East Asians (and
Amerinds) and the rest. This split seems to be a split that is close
to 35,000 years old (genetic distance again).
For the "rest" the first split was the Saami, the second split was
the
Sardinians, the third was the Dravidians and people of southern
India,
and the fourth split was the Berbers and North Africans. What was
left
is the Iranians and Middle Easterners (who are close), then
Anatolians, Greeks, Yugoslavs, Mediterraneans, Central Europeans and
last of all North West Europeans. The splits from Anatolia onwards
are very close on genetic distance grounds - and would seem to have
largely occurred in the last 5-7,000 years. The other slits are much
older.
Thus I wrote
> >What does this mean? The most parsimonious explanation is that
> >there were two waves out of Africa. The first, the early one,
> >shown most by Sardinians but with minor echoes in the Basques and
> >Caucasians, coming out 40,000 years ago with the Upper Paleolithic
> >Peoples (Aurignancians and Gravetian cultures).
Marc asked
> Some questions:
> They reached Sardinia only 9000 BC and remained genetically most
> "primitive"?
That would seem tio be the case. Coastal Sardinians show varying
degrees of admixture, and there are differences between Northern
Sardinia and Southern Sardinia, but genetically, the HGDP (Human
Genome Diversity Project) shows that Sardinia was settled early and
later invaders (Shardana People of the Sea, Carthaginians, Romans,
Arabs and Italians) had little impact on the underlying genetic
make-up of the population.
> Did these immigrants ca.40 ka come from the Balkan?
The direction taken by the immigrants seems to have been via Anatolia
and the Balkans. The first Aurignacian blade, complex tool kit
culture is in Palestine, and there is a clear rate of derivation out
of Africa there (Boker Tachit 50-52,000 BCE). From there it spread
north and split. The Baradostian tradition (38,000-18,000 BCE),
derived from Palestinian Aurignacian is in Iran and the Zagros, The
Antalya Caves in Anatolia show connection to Palestinian Aurignacian,
and from there the next site is 43,000 at Bacho Kiro cave, Bulgaria.
From 40,000-35,000 Aurignancians spread from France to Lake Baikal.
> No traces of domesticated dogs?
There have been traces of wolf bones near settlement sites of the
Tardenoisian culture (about 9,500 in Europe). The earliest known
site
showing clear evidence of domestication of the dog (including bone
characteristics found in dogs and not in wolves) is in the Zarzian
culture (12,000 BCE). It is clearly a mesolithic feature, not an
Upper Paleolithic one.
> Could immigrants have come via Gibraltar? or from Tunesia via
Sicily
> & Italy?
Immigrants did. The Ibero-Maurasian culture (15,000-18,000?) came
into Spain from North Africa. For those who look for Afro-Asiatic
connections (eg. the Atlantiker hypothesis) this could relate to that
period. Personally I find it a bit to far back myself, but.... There
is also the later Arab-Berber invasions of Al Andalus to muddy the
waters here.
Immigration from Tunisia via Sicily is much later. Carthaginians at
Moyta and Palermo introduced North African genes to Sicily. The
later
Arab invasions of Sicily did the same. Sicily shows up as a genetic
"land-bridge" intermediate to Italy and North Africa.
In both cases, none of these movements seem to have had much effect
upon the Sardinians.
To my point
> Only Sardinia sticks out like a sore thumb.
Marc replied
> Puzzling. I believe Corsica & Sardinia were connected during the
> glacials?
> Why are Corsican & Sardinian populations so different genetically?
During the glacial period all Mediterranean islands were unocuppied -
Crete, Cyprus, Corsica, Sardinia, the Balerics. Sicily is the
exception but then it was linked by the land connection across the
Straits of Messina to Italy.
Sardinia was only occupied 9,500 BCE and onwards, which was after the
end of the glacial period (sea levels were on the rise, Corsica was
already separate.)
No doubt Corsica would have been occupied first, but the genetically
destinct aboriginal population of Corsica was swamped by later
arrivals. For some reason Sardinia was not and has managed to
maintain its genetic uniqueness to the present day.
It is interesting that the HGDP is finding a number of such little
peculiarities as it progresses.
Regards
John