GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-02 > 1202902545
From: Alan R <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] reevaluating refugium's theory
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:35:45 +0000 (GMT)
re: Didier's link
That was a very useful link to a site of the sort I
have been looking for for ages. The French are the
masters of the study of the palaeolithic and most
cutting edge stuff is in French. It is interesting
that the maps show three concentrations in this
period: the Franco-Cantabrian region, a central
European area around Moravia/Austria and, if I
interpret this rightly, southern Belgium. I had meant
to post on this before. I would make a few
1. These are not the refugias suggested by genetics
except the western one.
2. I have long meant to post to observe that
shortening the name of the western refugia to
'Iberian' is inaccurate from an archaeological point
of view: if one part of the western refugia has clear
precedence in sheer volume of sites it is western
France not northern Spain.
3. Although the archaeological evidence suggests two
or three refugia in the earlier two phases of the
upper palaeolithic, the map showing the LGM suggests
that the others disappeared and the western refugia
was the only one within Europe at that stage.
4. BUT this period is more susceptible than any other
to the chance nature of finds and the picture could be
misleading due to concentrations of professional
research and could change in future.
5. I have just found by chance a very recent study
that tackles the very issue of correlating the
archaeological and genetic evidence of refugia. Its a
dream article for those interested in this but I have
not had time to chew it over yet.
|Re: [DNA] reevaluating refugium's theory by Alan R <>|