Re: Origin of the Etruscan people?

In sci.archaeology message
news:gh76r1dbj2h57dtrjjba6e3ld53cbb94t6@xxxxxxx by Hayabusa
<peregrine@xxxxxxxxxxx> . . . :

> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:36:51 GMT, prd <X_header@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>In sci.archaeology message
>>news:4hs0r1hdo7lnkf2ftfs73g9deen7bn17rq@xxxxxxx by Hayabusa
>><peregrine@xxxxxxxxxxx> . . . :
>>
>
>>> Hm. Where did the Sards come from in the first place? Most
>>> likely from the mainland via Corsica and Elba. From? Right,
>>> Tuscany. So why should the language in Sardinia and Tuscany be
>>> vastly different in the first place?
>>>
>>> Sardinia was settled 7000 BCE (by roughly 1000 individuals).
>>
>>Probably much longer ago than that.
>>Molecular clocking papers from poor calibration, thing on the
>>order of 10 to 14 kya.
>
> Look, you cant't just ignore the archaeological evidence. There
> aren't any human traces older than 7000 BCE, it's as simple as
> that.

See other post. The representation of human occupation in the
archaeological record outside of western europe is a rather low
frequency event, if I have evidence for a constriction then it is
probably that at some point in time the population, for whatever
reason, was small enough to go undetected. I don't ignore the
archaeological record, but I can statistically condition what is
known with other observations. Most of everything humans have every
produced outside of megalithic structures is no longer evident in
archaeological record, traditional maritime societies which fished
rather than hunted on land have pretty poor representations. 7000
years ago was about the time there were transformations across the
western mediterranean toward pastoral societies, this transition
alone could explain the sudden appearance of archaeology in a
maritime society.


>>Other than that, Sardinia was colonized by two principle groups
>>of people, the A30B18 component carriers from North africa, with
>>a huge settlement bias so I would predict they were the first.
>>The second are from palestine [this paper technically doesn't
>>exist, I can give you the reference but. . . . .].
>
> I have no problem with north africans coming to Sardinia, this
> is a known historical fact - in form of the Carthagenian
> occupation troops who built a fort along the south coast, and
> who ruled the southern plain; the indigenous people built
> several defense lines which can still be seen, around 500 BCE,
> but not earlier.
>
> Apart from that me thinks that sometimes you are stretching your
> data too far. People moving from some point on the mainland to
> an island they can see (Corse), and on to another island they
> can see from the new point (Sardegna), cause less headache to me
> than people moving across the open sea to unlikely places.

Except the portion of A30B18 is all but zero in italy and the fact
that it and A2B58 are decidely african haplotypes, and the fact that
DRB3-DQ2.5 is not that high in africa and is very high on the NW
region of africa and western coast of the europe. A2 B49 is found in
the Sudan and Egypt, etc.
The constriction that generated such high levels of A30B18, the
highest 2 locus haplotype in 'europe' is the result of a population
constriction after initial settlement. See other post. Therefore I am
telling you, as in warning you, that to conclude sardinia was first
settled 6000 years ago is not a very sound belief.
.

Loading