Re: Origin of the Etruscan people?

In sci.archaeology message
news:te9br1dv21vc81r5nj4vuesuvm701j2dta@xxxxxxx by Hayabusa
<peregrine@xxxxxxxxxxx> . . . :

> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:33:24 GMT, prd <X_header@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> It is not just evidence of human presence. After all, evidence
>>> of human absence is negative evidence, and that, in principle,
>>> could be anything. But in the case of the Mediterranean there
>>> is a bunch of evidence that leads to the conclusion that
>>> long-distance maritime activity was absent before 7000 BCE
>>> (note: not 7000 bp).
>
>>When someone gets so fixed in their line of thinking that they
>>cannot see evidence to the contrary, I find it a general waste
>>of time to try to convince them otherwise.
>
> Why do you resort to polemics? I am not fixed, I ask questions;

You didn't ask a question, you made a declaration, you said there was
no medium range travel in the mediterranean before 7kybp, that is a
polemic, you drew a line in the water and you promptly stomped on one
side of it.

> and whereas the oldest found human traces on an island may not
> be the earliest, the sudden vanishing of several species is a
> clear sign that something profound changed.

All that might mean is a different culture of humans arrived, a
culture much more suited for open range hunting. It is my opinion
that the first settlers in iberia have gone undetected, even as the
cohabitated with Neandertals for an extensive period, and the reason
they went undetected because they could not adequately compete in
open range hunting whereas they were better maritime specialist. The
introduction of culture from western asia changed this.

I should point out the many stone age (or in the case of some
maritime cultures, shell age) cultures that subsist well below
carrying capacity and exploitation. There cultures are often
dependent on internal violent competition to maintain population,
excess numbers of males may be sent off to distal places, or the
foraging life on the seas could be adequately dangerous to maintain
population stasis. The idea is sort of eurocentric that humans needed
to maintain a certain density to exist. If I am to interpret the
african data correctly AMH evolved from a population that drifted
between 7,700 and 16,000 individual for 400+ky in africa. Even though
I differ from most molecular geneticist in claiming that africa was
multihominid specific I see that the density in africa in areas I can
identify as PMRCA which covers 5,000,000 square kilometers. If we
assume maximum ratio to effective of 2 that places a maximal density
in the mid pliestocene at 1 individual per 156 square kilometers.
If we then apply that density to sardinia of 5000 square kilometers
sardinia could have carried a middle stone age population of 32
individuals. This not only can explain the HLA data, but also the
reason why the archaeology is missing and also why animals were not
depopulated. I would be willing to double this for the fact that
maritims societies could have been exclusive of competitors and may
have yeilded a population of 50 to tribal size. Ebbing with disasters
that occasionally plaqued the mediterranean. The cold glacially fed
waters of the mediterranean during the ice age would have been
extremely productive allowing fish to get bigger and retain more fat,
could have been underexploited. This could have even suited even more
specialization of limited coastal fishing societies. When the
pastoral societies of NW africa and mediterranean begin to migrate
these migrations may have reached sardinia and hunting benefit
pastoral agriculture by removing competitive herbivores and
predators.

>> I should point out that maritime technologies are apparent
>> from the
>>exoafrican period (from 65 to 140 kya) from the onset of the
>>eastern austronesian period (55 to 90 kya), from the paleolithic
>>Japanese and and Paleolithic Ryukyuan (28 to 45 kya). There is
>>no obvious reason why a person in the paleolithic where sea
>>levels were 300 feet below present could present a short journey
>>of 60 miles is trivial compared to distances traveled before
>>that period of time. Maritime technology was not invented in
>>asia, Axes and Adze have been found in central africa close to
>>the PMRCA of humans suggesting that the earliest humans could
>>make dugouts. The conclusion that prior to 7000 bce humans could
>>not have traveled in the mediterranean and an untenable premise.
>> I have no need to argue with concretized thinkers,
>> particularly
>>those who apparently cannot find and present the references to
>>back up their beleifs.
>
> I take that as an indication that you are running out of
> arguments.

No, if you have already made up your mind how can I attempt to
present a viable alternative. This discussion of your fixation on
the absolute nature of what you believe.

>In fact, you should not. You are an expert at
> interpreting your genetic data, and that's fine; but if you
> ignore solid evidence that somehow has to jive with your
> interpretations you do what you accuse others of doing.

Archaeology is solid evidence only if it is discovered. There are
many places that go unsearched. Archaoeologist believed in a clovis
barrier for 60 years, that belief was biased by the fact they
believed that north america was settled first and via an ice free
corridor, however when it became clear to me that there were no
obvious connection genetically between siberians and certain south
american groups, and the connections were stronger between ryukyuans
and non-kor component in Japanese I came to agreement with Brace,
that people did travel the west pacific rim, not by foot but by boat,
and that they preferentially migrated to south america. This is why
the evidence first appears in south america. Its not that south
america _only_ was populated, but that human densities rose more
rapidly in south america because the yeild in that environment was
higher. As a matter of fact the first domesticants and the majority
of domesticants before 5 kya were of south american origin.
If you examine the stone age peoples living on a couple of Andaman
islands, tell me did they depopulate the native species on those
islands, and are they at a density such that 7000 years from now
their archaeology would be obvious. If you can affirm that, then you
can be sure of what you say.

> With regard to the literature, you can be helped:
> Cavalli-Sforza L Menozzi P Piazza A (1994) The history and
> geography of human genes. Princeton University Press, 541pp.

First off I read C-S work before you even knew he existed, most of
his work is _Crap_ and most of his opinions also _crap_ C-S
pontificants on stuff he knows little about. I saw him on a TV
program declaring that humans left africa 40 kya. Yeah, thats real
good, except he knows nothing about the calibration errors, that Y
chromosome TMRCAs about 100,000 years later than other genes, that
his genetic analysis tend to average without looking at the
individual evolution of lines, that none of these studies are done at
adequate density.
I am sitting on the most densely sampled human loci that exist,
period, the HLA, every time someone enters the organ donor data base
they are typed, typing is also done on populations. I have 10,000
germans, 21,600 dutch, several 1000 french, Japanese, samples of 100s
of peoples currently. I can look at alleles, serotypes, small range
haplotypes like CwB or DR-DQ, longer range A-B or B-DR for shorter
time frames, I have a full range of rate different evolutionary
markers which I can follow. The HLA database is far more intricate.
As long as the mtDNA TMRCAs and X-linked estimation of constriction
exit also stand up the HLA can be used much more thorough than Y,
which as a migration bias, and mtDNA which has a settlement bias, and
and Autosomal which has a sampling inadequacy. Is HLA the ultimate
loci to use, no, it awaits autosomals which lack recombination
problems and sampled at great density.
Every novice that runs into this UseNet, the first person they
quote is Cavalli-Sforza. Here is where you start

Here is where you start, when you read and understand these
then . . . .
Kaessmann et al. Nat Genet (2001)27:155-6 [New take on old story,
more apes, more direct analysis of DNA, human population atypical in
its lower DNA diversity]

Cann et al. Nature (1987) 325:31. [This paper used RFLP not
sequencing]

Stoneking et al. Genetics (1990) 124:171. [Sequence, statistics
questioned]

Vigilante et al. Science (1991) 253:1503. [If you have to get one
paper get this one]

Bauer et al. Am J Hum Genet (1996) 59:437-44 [Paabo's take on mtDNA
africa]

Dorit et al. Science (1995) 268:1183

Hammer. Nature (1995) 378:376 [Y alu polymorphic
elements, MRCA 188000 years]

Goodfellow et al. Nature (1995) 378:379 [100 kb of nonrecombining
region MRCA 43000 yr]

Pritchard et al. MB &E (1999) 1791 [Ambiguous, but prefers a
smaller size and later

Ayala, Science 270:1930, 1995

Parham and Ohta, Science 272:67, 1996

Tishkoff et al, Science 271:1380, 1996

Harding et al, Am J Hum Genet (1997) 60:772

Takahata et al., MB&E (2001) 18:172

Krings et al., PNAS 96:5582,1999

Yu N, Zhao Z, Fu Y.-X, et al. 2001. 'Global Patterns of Human DNA
Sequence Variation in a 10-kb Region on Chromosome 1', Molecular
Biology and Evolution 18:214-222 (2001).

http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/MoleCalib.html


When you have read these papers and understand the _Data_ then come
back and we will talk about what all this means.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading