GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-02 > 1203019584


From: "Arch Yeomans" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] reevaluating refugium's theory
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:06:24 -0800
References: <27236304.1303251202830640069.JavaMail.www@wwinf1a09>
In-Reply-To: <27236304.1303251202830640069.JavaMail.www@wwinf1a09>


I think it's the use of the term "Refugium" that is misleading. Humans are
very adaptable to a variety of climates as we can attest to even in our
'modern' age. Maybe it's the inherent limits of the English language of
accurately describing reality without any misinterpretation, or any
misperception of what was the intentional description. Refugium implies all
life hid, or took a refuge in some other location due to some event
(ecological, etc.) that is all inclusive.

The amount of data from Southwestern France and Northern Spain is abundant,
but is by no means the true indication of what was going on prior and during
the LGM. Given the nature of the climate and the availability of resources
and the searching for it, mostly in the form of animal protein which
migratory in nature. This probably caused the high concentrations we see in
France and Iberia switching back and forth between the Cantabrian/Pyrenees
and the Massif as they were most likely utilized during different seasons.
In other words, we humans were just as busy moving around back then as we
are today and we were not in a refugium so to speak, just highly populated
in favorable climes and where resources were easily obtained regionally and
centralized our populations like we do today.

We cluster today in big cities where resources are centrally located
but obtained from outlier and internal regional sources (food, water,
etc) just like the ancestral Upper Paleolithic Western Europeans clustered
back then from the migratory paths of animals and as well the seasonal
events of vegetation gathering. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion
that Upper Paleolithic humans only hunted animals. Again, terms we use
Hunter-Gatherer, Complex Hunter-Gatherer and then falsely imply that only in
the Mesolithic we adapted the ability to gather until the Neolithic. We have
been gathering since we were virtually monkeys, no less rodents. If we were
in a refugium, humanity in Europe would have gone extinct by the end of the
LGM.

Arch














On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Didier VERNADE <>
wrote:

> List,
>
> I undertook a reading of the litterature (in french) on the dated sites of
> the paleolithic period. Even at the maximum of the glaciation period (22000
> - 18000 BP) sites are known throughout Europe, only northern Europe is
> "empty". There is, at all periods, a maximum of density of sites in south
> west France. It seems that the refugiums were brought up by linguists rather
> than research on paleolithic populations. Indeed the density of population
> was very low : estimated less than 1 man per km², resulting in a global low
> population with fluctuations. However I think it's important to keep in mind
> that the data are saying that these populatuions were NOT restricted to any
> areas. The density of population is increasing ( as followed by the number
> of sites) as early as 12000 - 10000 BP when the forest came back (and warmer
> temperatures). The Balkans are not known for any particular occupation. It
> doesn't mean this region was empty but, again, it's important to keep in
> mind that there is simply no evidence for a refugium, a place supposed to
> have been preferable at this time. What may have happened in this area is
> the new coming of a population that took advantage of the low sea level to
> cross the Bosphore, coming from Turkey, and conquering a new territory
> (probably I haplogroup) ; this probably occured 20000 - 18000 BP.
>
> Didier
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message




--
"It knows the way out!!"


This thread: