GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1144006409


From: "Alfred A. Aburto Jr." <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] an unexpected haplogroup result
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 16:35:02 -0700
References: <20060402054934.58352.qmail@web81112.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060402054934.58352.qmail@web81112.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Gary,
Thanks, appreciate the reply ...
Al

> Gary Felix wrote:

>Al,
> I have mentioned archaeological sites showing evidence of agriculture. I said that the oldest sites (10kya) were in the fertile cresent and sites become consistently younger reaching the British Isles between 5500 and 4200 ya.
>
> Jobling speaks of 2 models on the advancement of agriculture. One is Cultural Diffusion where the farmers did not move, but the technology an ideas of agriculture did.
>
> The second is where the farmers moved taking agricultural practices with them. In this second model the most widely discussed is "demic diffusion" where the spread is stimulated by population growth resulting from the new availability of food and local migratory activity. In the purely demic diffusion model you would expect to see genetic replacement of paleo Euro. with Neolithic farmers (something that present studies we have seen, do not support).
>
> An intermediate model in which farmers spread and interbred with indiginous people would have left a cline in gene frequencies from the Near East to the Northwest.
>
> The debate among geneticist is not for either extreme but to which extent each played on an intermediate model.
>
> Gary
> Mexico DNA Project Admin.
>
>"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." <> wrote:
> Gary,
>
>
>
>>Gary Felix wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps so, but there were other factors at work at the same time.
>
>(1) There was a transition period between those that "followed the game"
>and the first farmers. Surely, not all of them (hunter-gatherers) became
>farmers at the same time. So there must have been a mix between the
>total hunter gatherer culture and total farming. It took time for the
>hunter-gatherer culture to decline ...
>
>(2) The earliest farmers were not the best farmers. They moved too, but
>less deliberately (slower) than the hunter gatherers. They kept moving
>because they depleted the soils. Egypt was lucky because of the ebb and
>flow of the Nile replenished the soils ...
>
>(3) The peoples of the Greek Islands is another aspect. They were
>farmers too, but early on they learned to build boats and navigate the
>Mediterranean Sea. They needed supplies that were difficult to provide
>from their smaller populations. Some became traders and they sailed the
>Mediterranean. They traded widely perhaps, with Egypt and other
>peoples...Their culture and genes spread that way too ...
>
>Just some thoughts ...
>Al
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>

This thread: