Re: Kris Hirst's page on Why Don't We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? updated

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:27:19 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:

On Feb 14, 5:03 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:18:05 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, J.LyonLayden
wrote:





On Feb 14, 11:16 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
J.LyonLayden wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:04 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Why Basque?

Because I believe they are the oldest surviving indigenous culture in
Europe, and many of their words may be unchanged since the ice-age.
They may be the last people to have seen cro-magnons and neanderthals.

Cro-Magnon appears to be the first H.s.s. in Europe. If Basques
are indeed the, or one of the, oldest surviving indigenous
populations in Europe, they are most likely *descended* from
Cro-Magnon stock. IOW, they would not have *seen* Cro-Magnon
folk, they would have *been* Cro-Magnon folk (in the loose
terminology that Hirst argues against, but seems to have used, in
the past anyway.) I'd be interested in the DNA evidence wrt Basques.

But with that caveat, I am not unhappy with the idea that the
ancestors of the Basques could have seen, and possibly interacted
with, Neandertals.

However, in your story, you appear to want your shorty grain
harvesters to use Basque words. By this I take it that the
shorties are intended to be descendants of Cro-Magnon, in my
construction of their ancestry (see above). If you grant that,
then who are the giants? A relic h/g population also descended
from C-M?

The giants are really big cro-magnons and the farmers are proto-
natufians.
My reasoning for using Basque words is taht it's a language isolate
that may be akin to Jomon and Moor...

Or Elvish? What are you talking about? No one knows anything about the
language the Jomon spoke - is 'Moor' a type?  

Scratch Moor- I misquoted or misremembered or something.

But I am only assuming here that the Ainu of japan are the descendents
of the Jomon, and that since ainu is a language isolate that it
derivative of the Jomon's language. Are the ainu no longer candidates
for the decendents of the original inhabitants of Japan?


Funny thing, I've written to Kris Hirst about that.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1623061n3013666w/
In order to investigate the phylogenetic status of the Okhotsk people
that were distributed in northern and eastern Hokkaido as well as southern
Sakhalin during the fifth to the thirteenth centuries, DNA was carefully
extracted from human bone and tooth remains excavated from archaeological
sites. The hypervariable region 1 sequences of the mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) control region were successfully amplified and 16 mtDNA haplotypes
were identified from 37 individuals of the Okhotsk people. Of the 16
haplotypes found, 6 were unique to the Okhotsk people, whereas the other
10 were shared by northeastern Asian people that are currently distributed
around Sakhalin and downstream of the Amur River. The phylogenetic
relationships inferred from mtDNA sequences showed that the Okhotsk people
were more closely related to the Nivkhi and Ulchi people among populations
of northeastern Asia. In addition, the Okhotsk people had a relatively
closer genetic affinity with the Ainu people of Hokkaido, and were likely
intermediates of gene flow from the northeastern Asian people to the Ainu
people. These findings support the hypothesis that the Okhotsk culture
joined the Satsumon culture (direct descendants of the Jomon people)
resulting in the Ainu culture, as suggested by previous archaeological and
anthropological studies.


http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/112/2/112_161/_article

Morphological affinities between Jomon and Ainu: reassessment based on
nonmetric cranial traits
(received July 30, 2003)
Abstract This study reevaluates the relationship between the
prehistoric Jomon and modern Ainu based on 18 nonmetric cranial
traits. Although the two Ainu series from the northeast coast and
central/southern regions of Hokkaido Island are always associated with
Jomon, significant differences between the Ainu and Jomon were
detected in the frequencies of seven traits: metopism, supraorbital
foramen, ovale?spinosum confluence, hypoglossal canal bridging,
jugular foramen bridging, biasterionic suture vestige, and
occipitomastoid bone. Regarding these traits, the Ainu series are more
similar to the Okhotsk than to the Jomon series. A broad comparison
among pan-Pacific populations confirms the maintenance of distinctive
morphologies in the remote regions of group ranges, as represented by
the Jomon and to a lesser extent the recent Hokkaido Ainu. The Ainu
occupies an intermediate position between Jomon and Northeast Asians
on the one hand, and between Jomon and the Native Americans on the
other. The pattern of temporal change between Jomon and Ainu, together
with clinal variation among the three Ainu series from Sakhalin
Island, the northeast Hokkaido coast, and central/south Hokkaido shown
in the present study, indicate possible admixture between the
ancestors of recent Ainu and northern groups such as the Okhotsk
people in the post-Jomon periods.

Which means the source of the Ainu language may not be the Jomon language,
right?

Doug
[SNIP]
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.