GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1143881586


From: "South" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] an unexpected haplogroup result
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 19:50:52 +1000
In-Reply-To: <20060401081039.5545.qmail@web81102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Yes, I agree Gary!

That's my point! Neolithic culture/technology, not Neolithic people. J or
otherwise were not Neolithic people they were a mid Upper Palaeolithic
people who later developed a farming culture/technology in the Neolithic
period.

Hunter Gathering practices and farming prevailed together. Cultural hunting
traditions are still practiced today by farming communities. I believe this
is another point in the debate. Farming was developed to offset the lows of
available game not to replace hunting or gathering altogether.

Our debate has been influenced by historical idealism, where an agreed
convention has been taken as an absolute, that farmers don't hunt or gather,
because we have called them 'farmers'.

Do you see where I am coming from?

I think there is an inherent error in the belief of say J, or otherwise,
being a 'Neolithic people'. They are much older, and so beyond that
historical imputation, although conventionally know as.....

All the best!
Grant South



-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Felix [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, 1 April 2006 6:11 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [DNA] an unexpected haplogroup result

We were talking about the Neolithic (J or otherwise).
Gary
Mexico DNA Project

South <> wrote:
I believe J-folk were Hunter Gatherers before they became farmers.

Grant South

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Felix [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, 1 April 2006 5:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] an unexpected haplogroup result

Rebekah,
this would be more of a characteristic of a hunter gatherer. Farmers tended
to stay put.

Jobling has a map of "the distributions of the earliest archaeological sites
in Europe and the Middle East showing evidence of agriculture" (from his
book Human Evolutionary Genetics). "The oldest sites are in the Fertile
Cresent 10000 YA. Sites become consistently younger toward toward the
northwest of europe with agricultural practices arriving at the Baltic and
the British Isles between 5500 and 4200 YA".

The type of exploration your describing came later with the Egyptian, Greek
and Roman civilizations.

Gary
Mexico DNA Project Admin.

wrote:
Then the Neolithic was devoid of pioneers who moved on simply because the
next hill was there? How do we know this? What are the archaeological signs?


Rebekah

-------------- Original message from Gary Felix : --------------


> The Neolithic had domesticated wheat, barley, lentil, chickpea, large
> seeded grasses, Sheep, Goats, Cows, Pigs and Horses. These resources
> were unknown in the rest of the world. This was the breadbasket of the
world 8K ybp.
> The Neolithic would have only moved when things got too crowded and
> only to places where they could maintain their lifestyle. It would
> take long term domestication to get their crops to grow in different
climes.
>
> Eventually those that brought these resources to the rest of the world
> would be the conquerors.
>
> Gary
> Mexico DNA Project Admin.


==============================
Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.
Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx




==============================
Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last
12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx




==============================
Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last
12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx




==============================
Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last
12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx



This thread: