Re: [tied] Re: Gimbutas.

>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.

"it" = his first component?

>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 splits 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 (Aurignacians and Gravetian cultures).

Aurignacian evolved into Gravettian in Europe you mean?

>Marc asked
>> Some questions:
>> They reached Sardinia only 9000 BC and remained genetically most
>> "primitive"?
>
>That would seem to 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.

(in spite of the fact that the Romans imposed their language)

>> 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.

And they probably colonized Europe from E to W? (cf. late neandertals in
Iberia)

Where is Bacho Kiro in Bulgaria? (couldn't find it in my atlas)

>> 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.

So anatomically it's mesolithic, though genetically dog & wolf DNA seems to
have split more than 100 ka. At first dogs & wolves were no doubt
indistinguishable anatomically.

>> 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.

John, is the European late Paleolithicum believed to be an indigenous
evolution? or did the Solutrean or Magdalenian got foreign influences? (your
second wave into Europe? Ibero-Maurasian?)

>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

Thanks a lot, John. Very interesting.

Marc