ooopsss, Rod, Bo,
just now I've seen that my post yesterday has been sent from my backup
address. Anyway, it was me :-)
Ciao,
Marco
----- Original Message -----
From: "gh" <ghitus@libero.it>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: MD Oldest idea
> Hi Rod, Bo, all
>
> very on late, sorry, but my old PC, finally, has expired.
>
> R.I.P.
>
> (well, actually I'm going to scratch it and try resuscitate it with Linux,
> Horse will be glad).
>
> Here is the first post from my brand new laptop. I had written the draft
> last Monday....
>
> ========
>
> thanks for the link, Rod, I love this kind of things.
>
> As it seems there is a bit of interest about the history of humankind,
I've
> restored the book I mentioned in my first post on this thread and I'm
going
> to re-offer that story, as it has been reconstructed by scientists.
>
> Hope I'm not going to annoy you with all this non-MOQish stuff.
>
> ===
>
> Firstly, here are a couple of links, if someone is interested.
>
> A paper from Cavalli-Sforza, the author, about his 45 years work
> http://www.balzan.it/english/pb1999/cavalli/laudatio_profilo.htm
> (follow "paper").
>
> An excerpt from the book "Genes, Peoples and Languages"
> http://www.fsbassociates.com/fsg/genespeopleslanguages.htm
>
>
> ===
>
> Secondly, a couple of corrections. As I had written, I had not the book
with
> me... and I made a couple of mistakes, sorry.
>
>
> One, the average migration speed has been 200 kilometers per century (2
km's
> per year). On foot, of course. The age of horses begins just 5,000/6,000
> years ago.
>
> Then, as Rod rightly points out, Celts were Indo-Europeans.
>
> But that's also true that at most Indo-Europeans are 10,000 years old.
While
> important traces of Homo Sapiens are in Europe (the Cro-Magnon Man is the
> most famous) since the Paleolithic age. These Paleolithic humans are not
the
> ancestors of the Celts (that's was my mistake), but surely are the
ancestors
> of the Basques. According to some researcher, maybe also of Etruscans and
> Sumerians - see below -
>
> In the site ROD mentions I read:
> «Geneticists had a surprise when they analyzed Y chromosome samples taken
> from the Basques. Despite the fact that the Celts and Basques speak very
> different languages, it turns out that the Y chromosomes of the Basques
are
> indistinguishable from those of the Welsh and Irish. What's more, this Y
> chromosome type is very different to those found in the Near East. This
> means that the cultural changes in the British Isles, including the
arrival
> of the Celtic language family, did not involve the replacement of Y
> chromosomes and thus did not involve much male immigration from the Near
> East.»
>
> Exactly. No surprise really. That's what I was meaning with my "doubts
about
> Irish and Welsh". They have many genes with non Indo-European origin, but
> speak an Indo-European language. The reason is that culture walks faster,
> and often does not follow genes. A weak culture can be replaced in few
> generations, without changing the genes of a population. We have no
> historical traces of the events, but it is highly probable that a small
> group of Celts invaded Britain and took the control of the area.
>
> Similar events can be also found more recently. For example, Hungarians
are
> genetically as we could expect for a typical East-European population. But
> they speak a non Indo-European language. It's simply happened that a small
> tribe of Siberian nomads (The Magyars) took the power in former "Pannonia"
> (where Latin was the common language) and imposed their "Trans-Uralian"
> culture. But they were few, and their genes have left almost no traces.
> Other groups of the same origins imposed a similar language into Finland
to
> an originally typical Indo-European German-like population.
>
> About the Basques, at the time of the Romans they were present in a wider
> area than today. Great part of Spain and Southern France. They have been
> able to resist the Indo-European genetic and cultural colonization as
their
> culture rarely allowed "exogamy". And probably because the area they have
> been reduced into has never been of great interest.
>
>
> ===
>
> And here is a bit of the story. A world map can be useful while reading.
>
> #0
> -100,000 (years ago)
> Homo sapiens is in Africa.
>
> #1.
> -75,000 / -70,000
> First successful migration out of Africa, following the Southern Asian
> coastline. We have rare traces of this migration among current peoples:
> pre-Dravidic aborigines in India; the so-called "Negritos" in the Andaman
> Islands, Malaysia and Philippines.
>
>
> Once in India, they split into two main branches.
> Northward to Vietnam and China (origin of the South-East Asian peoples)
> Southward to New Guinea and Australia (origin of Papua and Australian
> aborigines)
>
> #2.
> -60,000/-55,000
> Arrival into Australia.
>
> -67,000
> Arrival into China (Liujiang, Guangxi).
>
> #3.
> The Asian branch splits in two.
>
> One to the inner lands of China will originate the Mongolian populations:
> today's Northern Chinese's, Tibetans, Koreans, Japanese's...
>
> #4.
> Another one following the coastline up to the Bering area. Actually, on
the
> East coast they have been almost completely replaced lately by the
> populations of the other branch. But we still have traces in North-East
Asia
> (the Ciukcy's in Kamchatka).
>
> Again, two branches:
> one, across the Bering area to America;
> another one westward to Central Asia back to Middle East and Europe.
>
> #5.
> -50,000/-30,000
> First colonization of America. Even if the Bering sea has probably been
dry
> just between -25,000 and -10,000, we had for sure former migrations.
> Actually, it is often frozen, so it is possible. Anyway, there have been
at
> least three different migrations into America in three different periods.
> The three populations are known as: "Amerindians"; "Nadene's" (almost all
> Canadian Natives, Apaches, Navajos); "Eskimos" (Northern Canada); Eskimos
> came much later and actually their language is completely different from
the
> other's.
>
> #6.
> -50,000/-30,000
> Meanwhile the other branch goes on through Siberia up to the Urals. Then,
> across the Caucasian area, they are back into Middle East.
>
> #7.
> -45,000/-40,000
> Middle East becomes the center of the world. There are many migrations in
> all directions between Caucasus, Middle East, North Africa and South Asia.
>
> #8.
> -40,000
> First invasions of Europe. Southern Europe from Turkey. Northern Europe
from
> the Urals. In the same period the Neanderthalians disappear.
>
>
> Time now to look at the story of languages.
>
> It is impossible to say if all languages have a common origin. But it is
> very probable, as there is no trace of a "primitive" language. The problem
> is that within 5,000 years a language evolves almost completely into
> something very different. So we can't go easily back to the origins.
>
> Anyway we have for sure one a common origin for all African languages.
>
> "Indopacific" languages (Melanesian, Micronesian, Papua, Australian...)
and
> "Austric" languages of South-East Asia (Thai, Daic, Khmer, Malaysian... )
> seem to have a common origin since the times of the first migration. ( #
1 )
>
> Another interesting group of languages is the so called
> "Sino-Naden-Caucasian". It was born about -50,000 year ago in Asia, and
> originated for sure all Amerindian and Nadene languages in America;
Chinese
> and Tibetan in Asia. Few traces of its western expansion to Europe: some
> rare Asian language like the "Burushaski" (Pamir); Caucasian language; and
> probably early European languages like Basque, Etruscan and Sumerian. It
was
> the language of the two branches described in #3.
>
>
>
> About -15,000 years ago, in central Asia a new group of languages
appeared,
> the Eurasian or "Nostratic" family, probably derived from the former
> "Sino-Naden-Caucasian" among nomads Siberian populations.
>
> This language migrated into three directions:
>
> Eastward, evolved into the "Altaic" languages (Japanese, Korean,
Turkish...)
> Eskimo language is seemingly Altaic, that would mean that the last
migration
> to America has been quite recent. (-10,000)
>
> Southward, into Turkey evolved into the "Indo-European" family. Note that
> Turkish is Altaic not Indo-European, as in the probable home of all
> Indo-European languages a recent migration from Asia replaced ancient
> Indo-European languages. Even if originally the Eurasian man is mainly a
> nomad, the Indo-Europeans are mainly farmers.
>
> Northward evolved into the "Uralic" family (Samoyed, Hungarian, Finn...)
>
> Meanwhile, about -20,000 years ago in East Africa we have the development
of
> two new families, probably related. The "Dravidic" family, the oldest one,
> migrated Eastward to Iran and India (arrival in India: about -10,000,
where
> replaced the ancient populations). The "Afro-Asian" family (Semitic
> languages in South West Asia; Ethiopian, Berber in Africa, ) migrated
later
> Eastward to Arabia and Middle East.
>
> The expansion of Indo-European languages to Europe and India begun
> about -8,000 years ago. It has been both linguistical and genetic. The
> "Indian" branch (Aryans) pushed the Dravidic populations to Southern India
> and invented the cast system and the Vedic religion. Indo-Europeans were
> able to arrive to far East (Tocarian is an extinct Indo-European language
of
> China).
>
> In Europe they replaced the former populations and languages almost
> everywhere (but Basques, apparently). During last 2000 years we have an
> expansion of Uralic (Hungarian, Finn) and Altaic languages (Turkish) to
> Europe. But meanwhile European languages have replaced great part of
> American, African and Indopacific languages. The current situation sees
the
> extinction of hundreds of languages every year.
>
>
> ====
>
> And here are few final comments to Rod.
>
>
> > The occurence and variation in a few of these specific gene
> > markers, is enough to work out how many individuals ( twenty
> > or so), originally crossed into europe from asia..
>
> There is also another very elegant explanation. It is the so-called
"Genetic
> drift". This phenomenon brings on the long run an entire people with no
> external contacts to have an increasing identical genome. I will maybe
write
> a message on it.
>
> > As for your more detailed pattern of migration, I guess this would
> > have occured as the sea level fell before the last ice age, 10,000
> > years ago, giving rise to new land bridges, and aiding
> > dispersion of mankind.
>
> But there are clear traces of Homo Sapiens almost everywhere 40,000 years
> ago...
>
> > Genetic testing has not yet proved if there were two routes out
> > of Africa: "a northern Levantine route (to Eurasia) and a southern
> > coastal route (to Australasia)".
>
> The book I mention seems to have good answers. I've been brief, but it is
> full of hypothesis, proofs and alternative views. Of course, a great part
of
> the -100,000/-40,000 period lacks of certainty. But relating languages,
> genetics and archeology it offers a valid picture.
>
> > You are right to say that shamanic, animalistic religions may
> > well have evolved before this journey, but I'm not so sure they
> > were. Surely all religions however primitive would have
> > attempted to leave some sort of mark of their beliefs, as the
> > aborigines have in Australia, but I have never read of any pre-India.
> > This is where we find the appearance of the earth mother
> > goddess, whose attributes are found in many later idols. I think
> > John Romers book " Testament: the bible and history " would be
> > a good read.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> The problem is that Sanskrit is not the first language and Indian is not
the
> most ancient culture. For sure, American natives developed their religion
> completely independently from Indians. Africans too. And Europeans just
have
> a common origin. About Indians aborigines, they are known as Munda. You
will
> find many links on the net. And Dravidic populations (the Tamil are the
> most famous) are not Indo-Europeans.
>
> Pirsig finds his "oldest idea" (RT) back into Sanskrit. But his question
"
> is it 100,000 years old?", points to the hypothesis that it could be much
> older than any known language and religion. He says also that the early
> rituals have been the connecting link between society and intellect, the
> first forms of knowledge. Bo few weeks ago wrote about a New Guinea tribe
> where they believe that airplanes are divine signs. I've been thinking
> about them lately and all what I see is a -primitive if you want- need of
> knowledge and explanations. They are not rational; not objective; but
surely
> I'd call this need intellectual.
>
> thanks for reading,
> Marco
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:57 BST