PDA

View Full Version : The Mediterranean route into Europe (Paschou et al. 2014)



Angela
10-06-14, 15:01
Dienekes posted a link to this study, based on modern DNA distributions: The Mediterranean route into Europe (Paschou et al. 2014)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1320811111.abstract

The abstract:

The Neolithic populations, which colonized Europe approximately 9,000 y ago, presumably migrated from Near East to Anatolia and from there to Central Europe through Thrace and the Balkans. An alternative route would have been island hopping across the Southern European coast. To test this hypothesis, we analyzed genome-wide DNA polymorphisms on populations bordering the Mediterranean coast and from Anatolia and mainland Europe. We observe a striking structure correlating genes with geography around the Mediterranean Sea with characteristic east to west clines of gene flow. Using population network analysis, we also find that the gene flow from Anatolia to Europe was through Dodecanese, Crete, and the Southern European coast, compatible with the hypothesis that a maritime coastal route was mainly used for the migration of Neolithic farmers to Europe.


The supplementary data can be found here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/06/04/1320811111.DCSupplemental/pnas.1320811111.sapp.pdf

Here is part of Dienekes' commentary:
"It is hard to imagine that there were ever any major impediments to gene flow between Anatolia and the Balkans as the Aegean islands and Hellespont are not formidable barriers to any culture with even rudimentary technology. Hopefully in the future it will become possible to look at ancient DNA from Greece and Anatolia and directly determine how the transfer of the Neolithic package into Europe took place and how much of the ancestry of modern populations stems from the Neolithic inhabitants vs. more recent shuffling of genes in either direction."

LeBrok
10-06-14, 16:38
Genetic connections:
6473

Echetlaeus
10-06-14, 17:06
Wow, so many Greek bros in that paper.

Democritus strong.

Angela
10-06-14, 18:01
Genetic connections:
6473

Very cool, isn't it? I tried to make a copy of the three dimensional PCA plot but it wasn't all that legible. It's nice that we have all these new samples from southern Europe, as well as ones from Yale which aren't very well known.

Salbrox
10-06-14, 20:11
Very cool, isn't it? I tried to make a copy of the three dimensional PCA plot but it wasn't all that legible. It's nice that we have all these new samples from southern Europe, as well as ones from Yale which aren't very well known.

I think this one is clear enough.

http://s9.postimg.org/6rt6z0prz/689.jpg

As a side note, there perhaps should be more quality control with sampling. Lots of Chuvashes included in this PCA have clearly been russified to the extent they've become genetically Slavic. Finns appear to have done the same to one Dane.

Sile
10-06-14, 21:12
The Cappadocians seems the key to this......are they the cimmerians who arrived there in the period of middle iron-age from the crimea, are they the medes from caspian-sea area (BMAC), are they the assyrians from mesopotamia?

maybe its goes with this
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/oldest-cappadocian-neolithic-site.html

LeBrok
11-06-14, 02:11
I think this one is clear enough.

http://s9.postimg.org/6rt6z0prz/689.jpg

As a side note, there perhaps should be more quality control with sampling. Lots of Chuvashes included in this PCA have clearly been russified to the extent they've become genetically Slavic. Finns appear to have done the same to one Dane.
Wow, look at Sardinians, so separate and distant from others. They might be the purest ancient farmers in existence, left almost intact on the island for some reason.

LeBrok
11-06-14, 02:27
Very cool, isn't it? I tried to make a copy of the three dimensional PCA plot but it wasn't all that legible. It's nice that we have all these new samples from southern Europe, as well as ones from Yale which aren't very well known.
Egypt has direct connections to Crete (also known from Minoan civilization records), but surprisingly to Sicily too. I know Egypt was producing lots of food for Rome. Perhaps Sicily was a shipping hub?

Equally surprising are the extensive connections from Palestine to Europe. It might be indication for the whole Near East. I would gladly want to see connections from Lebanon (old Phoenician), but they missed this important spot, and also Varna and Cucuteni cultures, coastal Bulgaria and Romania. A bit disappointing in sight selection.

Angela
11-06-14, 03:46
I think this one is clear enough.

http://s9.postimg.org/6rt6z0prz/689.jpg

As a side note, there perhaps should be more quality control with sampling. Lots of Chuvashes included in this PCA have clearly been russified to the extent they've become genetically Slavic. Finns appear to have done the same to one Dane.

Thanks, Salbrox.

Angela
11-06-14, 05:11
Sicily was also a granary for Rome; at the time, the climate was different, and the soil hadn't yet been worn out, so it was very fertile. I don't know if that explains it, though. I would have to check on the shipping lanes at that time, to see if the grain ships from Egypt stopped to pick up additional grain in Sicily. Ido know that even up until the time of Cleopatra, the ships had to follow the winds and currents, and so it was almost impossible to sail directly from Egypt to Italy. Cleopatra's ships, when she went to Rome, had to sail east and then up along the coast of the Levant till they reached the outskirts of the Aegean, when they could turn west. Then, they either hugged the coastline of the peninsula up to Naples or Rome, or they headed for Sicily and, if they were going to the western Mediterranean, they made for the Straits of Messina, a dangerous passage at that time.

I think this explains the point made in the paper that the Mediterranean actually acted as a barrier to gene flow for much of history; the northern Mediterranean coast was not directly influenced very much by the southern Mediterranean coast. It was usually mediated through the Levant or Gibraltar. I've been saying that for five years too, not that anyone was paying any attention. :) Sailing obviously improved, of course, because by the time of the Saracen invasions, they did sail from Tunisia to Sicily. However, the Saracens who raided the northern Mediterranean coast of southern France and nearby Liguria didn't come from North Africa directly; they were from Spain, which had already been subjugated by the Saracens who had crossed into Spain by way of the Straits of Gibralter.

So, I don't know what to make of it. Sicily had, as a granary, many large latifundia manned by slave labor, but I'm not aware of any mass enslavement of Egyptians. Their rulers, including Cleopatra, were too smart to take Rome on directly, and their farmers were far too valuable right where they were, producing grain for Rome. Also, while, since the time of Cleopatra, there had been a large Roman colony in Egypt, which had intermarried with the locals, and might have taken spouses home, why only to Sicily? Even if the gene flow went the other way, you would expect it in Toscana, for example, as well.

As for Crete, whatever influence there was (the thickness/thinness of the lines is important, I think) must have been male mediated, if this paper is correct, although I don't know what specific yDNA clades we'd be talking about. E-V13 was already a player in the Neolithic.

See: A European population in Minoan Bronze Age Crete (Paschou is also a contributor to that study, btw)
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n5/full/ncomms2871.html

Also interesting in this regard is that there's no line from Egypt to the Druse, despite all the talk that there must be an Egyptian influence in the Druse since their religion partly has Egyptian origins.


Equally surprising are the extensive connections from Palestine to Europe. It might be indication for the whole Near East. I would gladly want to see connections from Lebanon (old Phoenician), but they missed this important spot, and also Varna and Cucuteni cultures, coastal Bulgaria and Romania. A bit disappointing in sight selection.

I think that's probably old, shared, Neolithic ancestry, don't you think? Despite the fact that the Palestinians have been influenced by subsequent movements from the Sinai and the Arabian peninsula, and have absorbed additional SSA, I'm sure a large component is very old and local to the area. As for the Phoenicians in Lebanon, we're taking about an area that's right in the neighborhood. I wonder how easy it would be to distinguish a Phoenicans from one of those early farmers anyway. Would they have gotten any ANE yet?

It's very true that there's a big hole in terms of the samples from the Balkans.

I don't yet have it very clear how the Anatolian Neolithic fits into all of this. Did the farmers first go to Cappadoccia? or were the people there very similar to the more coastal farmers anyway? When and from direction did Thessaly get its Neolithic?

I'll have to read it again tomorrow when I'm not falling asleep. :)

Nobody1
11-06-14, 06:05
The genetic-connection clusters represent the Fst values and “Warmer” colors indicate nodes of high centrality for the whole network (as computed by Cytoscape), while “thicker” edges indicate strong connections (high genetic similarity between the respective populations).

Far interesting in terms of migrations/weight is Supp. Table 5
p.40 - http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/06/04/1320811111.DCSupplemental/pnas.1320811111.sapp.pdf

Salbrox
11-06-14, 10:40
Wow, look at Sardinians, so separate and distant from others. They might be the purest ancient farmers in existence, left almost intact on the island for some reason.

The Sardinians don't stand out in the 2d PCA below, but cluster with Cretans and Sicilians, so we can say the third eigenvector is a "Sardinian factor". It's hard to make out their opposite, it's either South Moroccans or Chuvash. The first two eigenvectors are more obvious.



http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ai3tcg.jpg

Angela
11-06-14, 17:38
The Sardinians don't stand out in the 2d PCA below, but cluster with Cretans and Sicilians, so we can say the third eigenvector is a "Sardinian factor". It's hard to make out their opposite, it's either South Moroccans or Chuvash. The first two eigenvectors are more obvious.





http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ai3tcg.jpg

If I remember correctly, the Skogland paper found a high correlation in certain analyses between Gok 4 and the Cypriots. Sicily showed up in terms of Otzi, I believe, although Sardinia was closest.

It all seems to tie in with the findings of this paper.

Angela
11-06-14, 17:42
Oh, the poster Alexandros, whoever he is, makes some very pertinent points with regard to the spread of the these people at this discussion of the Cappadocian Neolithic:
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/oldest-cappadocian-neolithic-site.html

Aaron1981
11-06-14, 19:16
Since we don't have any ancient DNA to support what an ancient Cappadocian looked like or even a Cretan, we cannot reasonably compare an ancient population with recent ones - unless I have missed something in the data and there are ancient samples. The PCA plot shows us basically what we always see when we look at all the "Eurasian" players all at once in the same dataset... Nothing new here.

Drac II
11-06-14, 20:01
Sicily was also a granary for Rome; at the time, the climate was different, and the soil hadn't yet been worn out, so it was very fertile. I don't know if that explains it, though. I would have to check on the shipping lanes at that time, to see if the grain ships from Egypt stopped to pick up additional grain in Sicily. Ido know that even up until the time of Cleopatra, the ships had to follow the winds and currents, and so it was almost impossible to sail directly from Egypt to Italy. Cleopatra's ships, when she went to Rome, had to sail east and then up along the coast of the Levant till they reached the outskirts of the Aegean, when they could turn west. Then, they either hugged the coastline of the peninsula up to Naples or Rome, or they headed for Sicily and, if they were going to the western Mediterranean, they made for the Straits of Messina, a dangerous passage at that time.

I think this explains the point made in the paper that the Mediterranean actually acted as a barrier to gene flow for much of history; the northern Mediterranean coast was not directly influenced very much by the southern Mediterranean coast. It was usually mediated through the Levant or Gibraltar. I've been saying that for five years too, not that anyone was paying any attention. :) Sailing obviously improved, of course, because by the time of the Saracen invasions, they did sail from Tunisia to Sicily. However, the Saracens who raided the northern Mediterranean coast of southern France and nearby Liguria didn't come from North Africa directly; they were from Spain, which had already been subjugated by the Saracens who had crossed into Spain by way of the Straits of Gibralter.

There hardly were such impediments of travel between Egypt and Italy during Roman times:

http://www.jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/transprt/shiptrav.htm

"One of the most heavily frequented trade routes lay between the Egyptian city of Alexandria and the Ostia, the port city that served Rome. As her empire grew, it became increasingly obvious that locally grown grain was insufficient to feed Rome’s growing population. Rich and productive though the Campanian farms were, their output was still insufficient to feed Rome’s growing population. The Province of Egypt could seemingly provide an endless supply of high quality wheat. Year after year, the grain ships made their way between the two cities, carrying their precious cargoes upon which the life of the empire itself depended. Indeed, the importance of the North African grain supply was not lost on the military mind. If a rebellious general or provincial governor wished to claim the imperial throne for his own, he need only control or even seriously threaten the grain supply ships. The prospect of mass starvation in the Eternal City would usually bring either an imperial general to the rescue or the end of an emperor’s reign in fairly short order."


So, I don't know what to make of it. Sicily had, as a granary, many large latifundia manned by slave labor, but I'm not aware of any mass enslavement of Egyptians. Their rulers, including Cleopatra, were too smart to take Rome on directly, and their farmers were far too valuable right where they were, producing grain for Rome. Also, while, since the time of Cleopatra, there had been a large Roman colony in Egypt, which had intermarried with the locals, and might have taken spouses home, why only to Sicily? Even if the gene flow went the other way, you would expect it in Toscana, for example, as well.

Not "massive" but certainly there were many from Egypt:

http://books.google.com/books?id=T5tic2VunRoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"With territorial acquisitions in ASIA MINOR, many of the slaves came from the East and were Syrian, Jew, Greek, and even Egyptian." - Page 508

There also were the communities of free citizens from Egypt and their descendants living in Rome:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6QPWXrCCzBIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Most foreigners living in Rome did not form distinct ethno-national communities. There were no distinct residential areas for foreigners and interaction among co-nationals was largely related to shared kinship or commercial interests. Shrines or temples linked to foreign religious cults sometimes also served as point of contact among co-nationals and as links to their ancestral home. Egyptian cults such as the one devoted to Isis had shrines and priests in Rome, but it is important to note that the worshipers were not exclusively Egyptian and included some upper class Romans. Thus, such shrines were not exclusive ethno-national centers. There were also quite a few shrines devoted to deities from Syrian cities in Rome. While sometimes these attracted non-Syrians, for the most part worshipers had some connection with Syria. Thus worshipers at the Palmyrene shrine included temporary visitors from Palmyra, recent immigrants from Palmyra, and residents of Palmyrene ancestry." - Page 184

Maciamo
11-06-14, 20:06
I haven't had time to read the paper yet, but looking at the network analysis (fig.4) it gives the impression that Neolithic farmers spread from continental Italy to France, then to the Basque region/Pyrénées, and then only to Sardinia. This is interesting because I had always assumed that the diffusion progressed from east to west, and that farmers had reached Sardinia directly from the Italian peninsula via Corsica or Sicily/Tunisia. It actually would make sense if the Neolithic colonists had first reached Iberia and migrated by boat from the Balearic islands to Sardinia following the sea currents. After all, the currents go eastward in that part of the Mediterranean, so navigation on primitive boats would have been near impossible from Sicily to Sardinia. From Corsica the currents flow north, so not an option either. The only route is from Iberia.

http://www.mediterranean-yachting.com/Immagine/Maps/current.GIF

This is very important because it could mean that Sardinian I2a1a could have come from Iberia in Neolithic times, rather than being a Mesolithic remnant. It would also explain the similarity between the Basques and Sardinians.

oriental
11-06-14, 20:26
The currents show modern sea levels. If the sea level was lower the currents might be different and those land bridges would be handy in crossing during low tides. Neolithic Era about 10,200 BCE (12,200 years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic

Angela
11-06-14, 20:49
There hardly were such impediments of travel between Egypt and Italy during Roman times:

http://www.jaysromanhistory.com/romeweb/transprt/shiptrav.htm

"One of the most heavily frequented trade routes lay between the Egyptian city of Alexandria and the Ostia, the port city that served Rome. As her empire grew, it became increasingly obvious that locally grown grain was insufficient to feed Rome’s growing population. Rich and productive though the Campanian farms were, their output was still insufficient to feed Rome’s growing population. The Province of Egypt could seemingly provide an endless supply of high quality wheat. Year after year, the grain ships made their way between the two cities, carrying their precious cargoes upon which the life of the empire itself depended. Indeed, the importance of the North African grain supply was not lost on the military mind. If a rebellious general or provincial governor wished to claim the imperial throne for his own, he need only control or even seriously threaten the grain supply ships. The prospect of mass starvation in the Eternal City would usually bring either an imperial general to the rescue or the end of an emperor’s reign in fairly short order."



Not "massive" but certainly there were many from Egypt:

http://books.google.com/books?id=T5tic2VunRoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"With territorial acquisitions in ASIA MINOR, many of the slaves came from the East and were Syrian, Jew, Greek, and even Egyptian." - Page 508

There also were the communities of free citizens from Egypt and their descendants living in Rome:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6QPWXrCCzBIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Most foreigners living in Rome did not form distinct ethno-national communities. There were no distinct residential areas for foreigners and interaction among co-nationals was largely related to shared kinship or commercial interests. Shrines or temples linked to foreign religious cults sometimes also served as point of contact among co-nationals and as links to their ancestral home. Egyptian cults such as the one devoted to Isis had shrines and priests in Rome, but it is important to note that the worshipers were not exclusively Egyptian and included some upper class Romans. Thus, such shrines were not exclusive ethno-national centers. There were also quite a few shrines devoted to deities from Syrian cities in Rome. While sometimes these attracted non-Syrians, for the most part worshipers had some connection with Syria. Thus worshipers at the Palmyrene shrine included temporary visitors from Palmyra, recent immigrants from Palmyra, and residents of Palmyrene ancestry." - Page 184


The question was in regard to why there would be a line going directly from Egypt to Sicily, (and Crete for that matter) but not to other parts of Italy. The fact that Egyptian galleys regularly supplied Rome with grain through the port of Ostia was a given. (See Post #10..."I would have to check on the shipping lanes at that time, to see if the grain ships from Egypt stopped to pick up additional grain in Sicily.") My speculation was that perhaps those galleys sometimes stopped in Sicily for additional grain, with Sicily acting as a sort of hub, although I have read nothing to that effect.

None of that has anything to do with the route those galleys had to take, which it is very well documented was not a route directly from Egypt to Italy. The wind and sea currents and the nature of navigation at that time precluded that route. Those same water and wind currents affected sea navigation far back into prehistory.

As to slavery, it is indeed true that there were some Egyptian slaves, and Egyptians living in Rome, and Romans living in Egypt, and as a result undoutedly some admixture. My point was that I don't see anything that is Sicily specific, the way that there is with documented Egyptian influence in Crete.

Sile
11-06-14, 21:04
The currents show modern sea levels. If the sea level was lower the currents might be different and those land bridges would be handy in crossing during low tides. Neolithic Era about 10,200 BCE (12,200 years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic

the estimation is that water level was 2 metres lower ..........which is due to findings in the Adriatic-refrugium

I can only think that the current direction would still be the same

Angela
11-06-14, 21:44
I think the points made in this book are important in understanding the route taken in the Neolithic:
See: Ancient East and West by Gocha Tsetskhladze
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qz1g_2VoM1UC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=wind+and+sea+currents+in+the+Mediterranean+run+ counter+clockwise&source=bl&ots=brUZPpNjw8&sig=XCIpycLX3ZEvtIHv6ekiD37KTKg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aKKYU6_XCdGxsAS68YDoDw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=wind%20and%20sea%20currents%20in%20the%20Mediter ranean%20run%20counter%20clockwise&f=false

The first point is that the boats at that time had great difficulty in sailing into headwinds.

The season was from late March to late October since that is when there were clearer skies and moderate winds and slighter seas.

Wind and water currents during that sailing season also imposed limitations upon sailing. (I think there is a tendency when creating models of human movement to draw a straight line from one place to another, with insufficient consideration to the challenges that people might have faced in taking such a route due to environmental constraints.)

Some journeys from east directly west were possible by taking advantage of certain wind and water currents at certain times of the
year, but moving north or south mostly involved clawing one's way along the coast using the currents and the morning and evening sea breezes.

6479

6480

6481

6482

oriental
11-06-14, 22:31
From the movies like Ulysses, Jason and the Argonauts, The Golden Fleece, etc. they show ships sailing along the coast. All those stories mention long journeys lasting months and years while a modern boat would have covered the whole trip in days.

Thnx Sile.

Boy am I rude. Sometimes I just move ahead without acknowledging or thanking people. Must do better.

LeBrok
12-06-14, 01:48
I haven't had time to read the paper yet, but looking at the network analysis (fig.4) it gives the impression that Neolithic farmers spread from continental Italy to France, then to the Basque region/Pyrénées, and then only to Sardinia. This is interesting because I had always assumed that the diffusion progressed from east to west, and that farmers had reached Sardinia directly from the Italian peninsula via Corsica or Sicily/Tunisia. It actually would make sense if the Neolithic colonists had first reached Iberia and migrated by boat from the Balearic islands to Sardinia following the sea currents. After all, the currents go eastward in that part of the Mediterranean, so navigation on primitive boats would have been near impossible from Sicily to Sardinia. From Corsica the currents flow north, so not an option either. The only route is from Iberia.

http://www.mediterranean-yachting.com/Immagine/Maps/current.GIF

This is very important because it could mean that Sardinian I2a1a could have come from Iberia in Neolithic times, rather than being a Mesolithic remnant. It would also explain the similarity between the Basques and Sardinians.
Cool map, and can explain spread of farmers/first sailors. It is almost impossible to raw against strong currents in simple boats they had. However it is so close from Sardinia from Corsica and then to main land that it is hard to explain why there was not stronger and more uniform population movements to Sardinia. We have to look for deeper explanation yet.

Aberdeen
12-06-14, 04:41
Cool map, and can explain spread of farmers/first sailors. It is almost impossible to raw against strong currents in simple boats they had. However it is so close from Sardinia from Corsica and then to main land that it is hard to explain why there was not stronger and more uniform population movements to Sardinia. We have to look for deeper explanation yet.

I think there must have been some kind of dangerous sea barrier between Corsica and Sardinia that is no longer there. Riptides and shoals of some kind.

Simple little boats can make long sea voyages if you know how to build a boat that can tack against the wind, unless you also have strong currents to content with. But people who hadn't yet learned how to tack against the wind would find sailing the Mediterranean to be a much more difficult business.

I still wonder whether some of the European Neolithic population got there from Africa and the genetic evidence is no longer in North Africa because climatic change caused a mass population movement at some point - North Africa apparently did start drying out during the early Neolithic. And while the trip from Morocco to Spain would have been difficult, the distance isn't very great.

LeBrok
12-06-14, 04:41
Also interesting in this regard is that there's no line from Egypt to the Druse, despite all the talk that there must be an Egyptian influence in the Druse since their religion partly has Egyptian origins.
I think that's probably old, shared, Neolithic ancestry, don't you think? I think bulk of these connections are. The only substantial population replacement happened in Neolithic.



Despite the fact that the Palestinians have been influenced by subsequent movements from the Sinai and the Arabian peninsula, and have absorbed additional SSA, I'm sure a large component is very old and local to the area. As for the Phoenicians in Lebanon, we're taking about an area that's right in the neighborhood. I wonder how easy it would be to distinguish a Phoenicans from one of those early farmers anyway. Would they have gotten any ANE yet? It is hard to say. I'm guessing that ANE started to show there in any noticeable numbers with IEs, although I don't think they had mixed with locals well, especially at the coastal regions. Palestinians are very related to Jews (the left over Jews after expulsion from Israel?) and they don't have ANE unless they are Ashkenazi. At the moment I have nothing more than a believe that Jews and Phoenicians are close descendants of Near Eastern Farmers.
However other side of me thinks of Jews as nomads, which can explain their affinity to moving around the world from way back.

LeBrok
12-06-14, 04:55
I think there must have been some kind of dangerous sea barrier between Corsica and Sardinia that is no longer there. Riptides and shoals of some kind. Islands are only 10km away. You can see Sardinia from Corsica:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.373427,9.179401,3a,75y,172.93h,95.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s66lV44efD0Pg2cuNh6hYIQ!2e0


I still wonder whether some of the European Neolithic population got there from Africa and the genetic evidence is no longer in North Africa because climatic change caused a mass population movement at some point - North Africa apparently did start drying out during the early Neolithic. And while the trip from Morocco to Spain would have been difficult, the distance isn't very great. One can wait for a strong wind from the right direction, I guess.

Sile
12-06-14, 11:54
The currents show modern sea levels. If the sea level was lower the currents might be different and those land bridges would be handy in crossing during low tides. Neolithic Era about 10,200 BCE (12,200 years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic

You can tell how much sea level has risen, go to venice, check the old 1000 year old buildingS, go outside these building, check the concrete/marble steps that where used to enter the boat and you will see 3 to 4 steps are permanently below the current sea levels....that equals about a metre rise in sea level in a thousand years. factor that steady lowering to the bronze age and you get an idea

LeBrok
12-06-14, 16:54
You can tell how much sea level has risen, go to venice, check the old 1000 year old buildingS, go outside these building, check the concrete/marble steps that where used to enter the boat and you will see 3 to 4 steps are permanently below the current sea levels....that equals about a metre rise in sea level in a thousand years. factor that steady lowering to the bronze age and you get an idea
You also have to accommodate for high and low tides. Water can easily rise and fall a meter, five steps.
http://www.myforecast.com/bin/tide.m?city=67449&metric=false&tideLocationID=T2488

Aberdeen
12-06-14, 17:13
You can tell how much sea level has risen, go to venice, check the old 1000 year old buildingS, go outside these building, check the concrete/marble steps that where used to enter the boat and you will see 3 to 4 steps are permanently below the current sea levels....that equals about a metre rise in sea level in a thousand years. factor that steady lowering to the bronze age and you get an idea

Where does the "steady lowering" idea come from? There are a number of factors that can affect ocean levels in a specific area, including shifts in the earth's crust in a particular locale.

Aberdeen
12-06-14, 17:15
Islands are only 10km away. You can see Sardinia from Corsica:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.373427,9.179401,3a,75y,172.93h,95.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s66lV44efD0Pg2cuNh6hYIQ!2e0

............


Okay, so how do you explain it? I think there must have been some kind of barrier that isn't there now.

Angela
12-06-14, 19:51
I think there must have been some kind of dangerous sea barrier between Corsica and Sardinia that is no longer there. Riptides and shoals of some kind.

Simple little boats can make long sea voyages if you know how to build a boat that can tack against the wind, unless you also have strong currents to content with. But people who hadn't yet learned how to tack against the wind would find sailing the Mediterranean to be a much more difficult business.

I still wonder whether some of the European Neolithic population got there from Africa and the genetic evidence is no longer in North Africa because climatic change caused a mass population movement at some point - North Africa apparently did start drying out during the early Neolithic. And while the trip from Morocco to Spain would have been difficult, the distance isn't very great.


There's not a total genetic barrier between Corsica and Sardinia. The brand of G2a which Oetzi carries (G2a-L91, or G2a2b) is found in both areas. In Gallura, in northern Sardinia, they speak a Corsican dialect, although that may be of much later provenance. I think that Corsican DNA is a combination of "Sardinian", Ligurian and Tuscan DNA, the later two obviously much later arrivals, and more prominent in the middle and upper classes than in the isolated mountain villages. Corsica just isn't studied very much. If it were, it might cluster somewhere between Sardinians and Italians.

I don't know of any evidence for Neolithic spread from North Africa across the Straits of Gibraltar, but there does seem to be evidence of gene flow in both directions at that point in the Upper Paleolithic with the Solutrean-Oranian interaction. Then, later, there was contact through the Capsian culture of North Africa both with Spain and with southern Sicily, which coincidentally is the second area where North Africa comes very close to Europe. However, I believe the water levels were lower at that time, although I'd have to check to make sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture

I suppose my general point is that in places which are very close geographically, contact could be made directly between the northern coast and the southern coast of the Mediterranean, or between Corsica and Sardinia, for example, despite the constraints of wind and sea currents, and more often when sea levels were low. However, the main movement of people, technology, and trade, certainly in the Neolithic, seems to have moved from east to west with a bifurcation in the Middle East, i.e. one flow moving north and west along the northern Mediterranean, and one moving south and then west along the North African coast (and further south into Africa).

oriental
12-06-14, 20:02
Corsica is French territory. Napolean was a Corsican. I think Maciamo mentioned that France forbids DNA testing. So for the time being it is anybody's guess.

Angela
12-06-14, 20:08
Where does the "steady lowering" idea come from? There are a number of factors that can affect ocean levels in a specific area, including shifts in the earth's crust in a particular locale.

How right you are...each area has to be evaluated independently...irresponsible development also impacts sea level in various places:

See: http://people.umass.edu/latour/Italy/venice_water/
Or, for an update: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/26/10863037-venice-sinking-five-times-faster-than-thought?lite
"A century ago, St. Marks Square (figure 6), one of the lowest points in the city, flooded about 9 times a year; now it is inundated with water approximately 100 times per year (PBS, 2002).






Subsidence in Venice is caused by both natural and manmade factors. In the 1950s a deep-water channel was dug along the edge of the Venetian lagoon to allow oil tankers to dock at a new refinery. Additionally, land-based industry, near Venice, significantly lowered the ground water level in a large aquifer deep below Venice through overuse of artesian wells. These two manmade events caused subsoil compaction and the rapid sinking of Venice. By the 1970s, Venice had sunk almost 20 centimeters (BBC, 2003). Fortunately when the Venetians realized what was happening in the 1980s, the artesian wells were closed off and the drilling of new wells banned. This helped to slow the sinking. However, Venice is still subsiding at a much slower rate due to a natural process - tectonic plate subduction. Venice lies on a plate in the Adriatic that is being forced downwards and underneath another Italian plate. This has the effect of lowering Venice at a rate of about 1 mm per year (New Scientist, 2003).

Sile
12-06-14, 20:19
You also have to accommodate for high and low tides. Water can easily rise and fall a meter, five steps.
http://www.myforecast.com/bin/tide.m?city=67449&metric=false&tideLocationID=T2488

I tried to explain that these steps never see the sunlight again,

Sile
12-06-14, 20:21
Where does the "steady lowering" idea come from? There are a number of factors that can affect ocean levels in a specific area, including shifts in the earth's crust in a particular locale.

part of the 2012 congress on the adriatic refrugium ( i think it was held in helsinki)

Sile
12-06-14, 20:25
Corsica is French territory. Napolean was a Corsican. I think Maciamo mentioned that France forbids DNA testing. So for the time being it is anybody's guess.

corsica was far longer under genoese hands, Napoleon Bonaparte family was of Italian origin .........poor Italy to have one of the worst criminals in world history .........nearly equal to hitler

Echetlaeus
12-06-14, 20:33
^ I do not believe what you said.

Napoleon was one of the best. Should it weren't for Napoleon, it would have been far more difficult to start the Greek Revolution of Independence.

I was so much displeased when the great leader lost in Waterloo.

His plan was good: to destroy all bloodthirsty monarchs who oppressed people.

So sad that he lost, really terrible.

Sile
12-06-14, 20:34
archeologly revealed a galley buried with people with leprosy on an island in the venetian lagoon with a church

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1182-sunken-venetian-island-to-be-revealed.html#.U5nw3ygY7Sg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/1338974/Ships-surface-from-sunken-Venice-island.html

http://www.venicethefuture.com/schede/uk/340?aliusid=340

http://www.salve.it/uk/soluzioni/speciali/boccalama/boccalama2.htm

island disappeared before any modern man ventures..............like the empty of the fresh water basin to cool the chemical plant in maghera ( mainland)........since recently closed down or about to be closed down

Sile
12-06-14, 20:38
^ I do not believe what you said.

Napoleon was one of the best. Should it weren't for Napoleon, it would have been far more difficult to start the Greek Revolution of Independence.

A man that wars in all of europe and north africa, send millions of soldiers to their graves in fruitless wars against many nations, destroyed nations completley and gives rule to these nations to family members, never ruled under peace, made himself emperor ( like a dictator) is no great man, a criminal to man yes

Echetlaeus
12-06-14, 20:40
A man that wars in all of europe and north africa, send millions of soldiers to their graves in fruitless wars against many nations, destroyed nations completley and gives rule to these nations to family members, never ruled under peace, made himself emperor ( like a dictator) is no great man, a criminal to man yes

How can you have peace when everybody attacks you?

Yes, those bloody monarchies should have been completely obliterated.

Feed the queen now.

Sile
12-06-14, 21:32
How can you have peace when everybody attacks you?

Yes, those bloody monarchies should have been completely obliterated.

Feed the queen now.

I don't

any many attack because they have nationalistic ideas ( I can forgive these nuff nuffs) that they where brought up with...........propaganda fed people

Angela
12-06-14, 21:44
I started this thread to discuss the Mediterranean route of the Neolithic into Europe. I enjoy some little digressions as much as the next person, maybe more, but this diatribe against Napoleon is totally off topic, in my opinion. That is one of the rules of the forum, isn't it? To stay on topic?

I wonder if there's also a rule about attacking a member's ethnicity or nation at every turn? Just asking.

Echetlaeus
12-06-14, 21:45
I don't

any many attack because they have nationalistic ideas ( I can forgive these nuff nuffs) that they where brought up with...........propaganda fed people

I suggest you be clearer in your statements and use right and concise structure.

There are those of us who aren't natives, and do not understand some dubious arguments.

Angela
12-06-14, 22:02
I would appreciate it if a moderator could remove the off-topic argument from the thread so we can get back to discussing the diffusion of the Neolithic by a sea route. Of course, I don't mean anything that has to do with varying sea levels in the Mediterranean, as that would be pertinent.

Angela
12-06-14, 22:11
This is the National Geographic's take on the paper.
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140609-farming-europe-islands-genetics-neolithic-science/)http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140609-farming-europe-islands-genetics-neolithic-science/
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140609-farming-europe-islands-genetics-neolithic-science/)
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140609-farming-europe-islands-genetics-neolithic-science/) There's also some quotes from the authors:

Ed. Sorry, the quotes didn't post...
"The gene flow was from the Near East to Anatolia, and from Anatolia to the islands," Stamatoyannopoulos said. "How well the genes mirror geography is really striking."

(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140609-farming-europe-islands-genetics-neolithic-science/)The new data show that people living around the Mediterranean today have common ancestors in Anatolia. But then the genes diverge, with Greek islands like the Dodecanese archipelago (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/travel/greek-islands.html) and Crete (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/travel/crete.html) forming a sort of genetic bridge to the rest of Greece, Sicily, Italy, and north into Europe. In the southern Mediterranean, the genetic signatures of modern-day Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, and Moroccans form a separate genetic branch.
The two distinct paths suggest that there wasn't much genetic mingling once the populations went their separate ways north and south from Anatolia. The sea helped migration in the northern Mediterranean, where people traveled by water from island to island as they spread west. But "there's very little gene flow" between the northern and southern Mediterranean, and "the sea served as a barrier," Stamatoyannopoulos said.

That's a pretty novel use of the term Near Eastern. They're definitely saying it went from the Levant to Anatolia and then to the islands, which I wasn't clear about from looking at all the tables in the supplement. It remains to be seen what ancient DNA will say.

The article also quotes from other scholars who have a slightly different take on the issue.

Those populations may not have been completely separate, however, said archaeologist Helen Dawson (http://www.topoi.org/person/dawson-helen/), a research fellow at the Topoi Excellence Cluster in Berlin who has excavated Neolithic sites on Mediterranean islands. There is evidence of contact across the Mediterranean: For example, archaeologists have found blades in Neolithic settlements in Tunisia (http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/countries/tunisia-guide/) made from volcanic glass that comes from isolated islands near Sicily.
"There could have been all sorts of networks across the Mediterranean that haven't left traces" in the genetic record, she said. "Maybe there was no genetic mixing, but there was definitely contact ... It's not like the sea posed an insurmountable barrier."

Also, Pontus Skoglund also chimed in...
Pontus Skoglund (http://connects.catalyst.harvard.edu/Profiles/display/Person/124799), a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, said more data are needed to confirm that these people accurately represent those who lived there 9,000 or more years ago. "This is a great initiative to look at these things more closely," he said. "The question is, what time depth does it have?"

Ideally, researchers would be able to compare ancient DNA (http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/05/17/ancient-dna-from-teenage-girl-shows-link-between-ancient-and-modern-americans/) recovered from the bones of Neolithic settlers to that of modern populations. "It's always difficult to make inferences mostly based on contemporary DNA," Skoglund cautioned. "Modern patterns are not necessarily representative of ancient patterns."





(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140609-farming-europe-islands-genetics-neolithic-science/)

Drac II
12-06-14, 23:05
The question was in regard to why there would be a line going directly from Egypt to Sicily, (and Crete for that matter) but not to other parts of Italy. The fact that Egyptian galleys regularly supplied Rome with grain through the port of Ostia was a given. (See Post #10..."I would have to check on the shipping lanes at that time, to see if the grain ships from Egypt stopped to pick up additional grain in Sicily.") My speculation was that perhaps those galleys sometimes stopped in Sicily for additional grain, with Sicily acting as a sort of hub, although I have read nothing to that effect.

None of that has anything to do with the route those galleys had to take, which it is very well documented was not a route directly from Egypt to Italy. The wind and sea currents and the nature of navigation at that time precluded that route. Those same water and wind currents affected sea navigation far back into prehistory.

As to slavery, it is indeed true that there were some Egyptian slaves, and Egyptians living in Rome, and Romans living in Egypt, and as a result undoutedly some admixture. My point was that I don't see anything that is Sicily specific, the way that there is with documented Egyptian influence in Crete.

The Alexandria-Rome shipping route was in fact one of the most important ones in the empire, and it did not have to necessarily stop in Sicily.

http://www2.ferrum.edu/dhowell/rel113/pauls_journey/pathway.htm

Angela
13-06-14, 00:07
The Alexandria-Rome shipping route was in fact one of the most important ones in the empire, and it did not have to necessarily stop in Sicily.

http://www2.ferrum.edu/dhowell/rel113/pauls_journey/pathway.htm

Yes, I know. So I've said...twice.


Thanks for the links, though.

LeBrok
13-06-14, 02:17
I tried to explain that these steps never see the sunlight again, Angela found very good explanation to Venice sinking in post 33. I heard same thing 20 years ago in some documentary about this sinking city.

LeBrok
13-06-14, 04:05
Ideally, researchers would be able to compare ancient DNA (http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/05/17/ancient-dna-from-teenage-girl-shows-link-between-ancient-and-modern-americans/) recovered from the bones of Neolithic settlers to that of modern populations. "It's always difficult to make inferences mostly based on contemporary DNA," Skoglund cautioned. "Modern patterns are not necessarily representative of ancient patterns."


Definitely we have to wait for the full story to be uncovered in ancient DNA.

On distinction of Sardinia admixtures. I don't know Sardinian history, but perhaps Sardinia was always on a poor side, not very attractive to conquerors, and thanks to this population survived fairly intact? Just a thought.

Angela
13-06-14, 18:14
Definitely we have to wait for the full story to be uncovered in ancient DNA.

On distinction of Sardinia admixtures. I don't know Sardinian history, but perhaps Sardinia was always on a poor side, not very attractive to conquerors, and thanks to this population survived fairly intact? Just a thought.


I agree that it's been poor for a very long time. However, throughout the Neolithic, the Copper, and the Bronze Ages, it was right in the center of the trade for minerals and the manufacture of metals.
This Wiki article on mining in Sardinia isn't bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mining_in_Sardinia

Mines of Sardinia:
http://www.minesofsardinia.com/immagini/SardegnaSaltoDiGessa.gif

See also the Abealzu-Filigosa Copper Age culture of Sardinia, dated to 2700-2400 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abealzu-Filigosa_culture


See also:Nuragic Sardinia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuragic_civilization
(The Nuragic civilization was a civilization of Sardinia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardinia), lasting from the Bronze Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age) (18th century BC) to the 2nd century AD. The name derives from its most characteristic monuments, the nuraghe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuraghe). They consist of tower-fortresses, built starting from about 1800 BC.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuragic_civilization#cite_note-1)

All of this, and yet the Sardinians have very low levels of ANE, with a good proportion of it doubtless brought by more recent emigrants from Corsica and the mainland . If ANE can serve in the European context as a marker of Indo-European miners and/or metal smiths of the Copper Age and Bronze Age, then why do the Sardinians have such an incredibly low incidence of it? Why also, archaeologically, as is the case with recent discoveries in Spain, are the links to the Levant?

LeBrok
13-06-14, 19:31
I agree that it's been poor for a very long time. However, throughout the Neolithic, the Copper, and the Bronze Ages, it was right in the center of the trade for minerals and the manufacture of metals.
This Wiki article on mining in Sardinia isn't bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mining_in_Sardinia

Mines of Sardinia:
http://www.minesofsardinia.com/immagini/SardegnaSaltoDiGessa.gif

See also the Abealzu-Filigosa Copper Age culture of Sardinia, dated to 2700-2400 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abealzu-Filigosa_culture


See also:Nuragic Sardinia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuragic_civilization
(The Nuragic civilization was a civilization of Sardinia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardinia), lasting from the Bronze Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age) (18th century BC) to the 2nd century AD. The name derives from its most characteristic monuments, the nuraghe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuraghe). They consist of tower-fortresses, built starting from about 1800 BC.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuragic_civilization#cite_note-1)

All of this, and yet the Sardinians have very low levels of ANE, with a good proportion of it doubtless brought by more recent emigrants from Corsica and the mainland . If ANE can serve in the European context as a marker of Indo-European miners and/or metal smiths of the Copper Age and Bronze Age, then why do the Sardinians have such an incredibly low incidence of it? Why also, archaeologically, as is the case with recent discoveries in Spain, are the links to the Levant?
yep, tough cookie. Obviously Sardinia was of no vital interest to Indo Europeans. (if they were the main carrier of ANE into Europe.) I'll read up about this Nuragic civilization, maybe something will come out.

Drac II
14-06-14, 20:52
Yes, I know. So I've said...twice.


Thanks for the links, though.

You also implied that it was a nearly impossible voyage in Roman times and that the Mediterranean acted more as a barrier than land-travel would. Hardly so, in fact it was a very common trade route on which Rome depended greatly. It was easier to make such voyages through the Mediterranean than having to do them through land.

Aberdeen
15-06-14, 05:03
You also implied that it was a nearly impossible voyage in Roman times and that the Mediterranean acted more as a barrier than land-travel would. Hardly so, in fact it was a very common trade route on which Rome depended greatly. It was easier to make such voyages through the Mediterranean than having to do them through land.

The Romans were able to make the trip because they built huge ships and powered them with slaves. Even then, there was a particular route they needed to follow in order to make the trip. I think it would have been a very difficult journey in small vessels that relied solely on sail and couldn't tack against the wind. And yet the DNA evidence may suggest some spread of peoples around the Mediterranean during the Neolithic. I personally think at this point it's still a bit of an unsolved puzzle but that if we're going to get clearer answers to how people spread into southern Europe during the Neolithic we may need to look at the potential for crossings from Libya to Sicily and from Morocco to Spain.

Although of course some of the people who arrived in Europe during the Neolithic got there by skirting the Adriatic.

Angela
15-06-14, 17:40
You also implied that it was a nearly impossible voyage in Roman times and that the Mediterranean acted more as a barrier than land-travel would. Hardly so, in fact it was a very common trade route on which Rome depended greatly. It was easier to make such voyages through the Mediterranean than having to do them through land.


I don't know whose posts you've been reading, but they certainly weren't mine...

FrankN
15-06-14, 18:22
I agree that it's been poor for a very long time. However, throughout the Neolithic, the Copper, and the Bronze Ages, it was right in the center of the trade for minerals and the manufacture of metals.
See also:Nuragic Sardinia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuragic_civilization
(The Nuragic civilization was a civilization of Sardinia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardinia), lasting from the Bronze Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age) (18th century BC) to the 2nd century AD. The name derives from its most characteristic monuments, the nuraghe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuraghe). They consist of tower-fortresses, built starting from about 1800 BC.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuragic_civilization#cite_note-1)

All of this, and yet the Sardinians have very low levels of ANE, with a good proportion of it doubtless brought by more recent emigrants from Corsica and the mainland . If ANE can serve in the European context as a marker of Indo-European miners and/or metal smiths of the Copper Age and Bronze Age, then why do the Sardinians have such an incredibly low incidence of it? Why also, archaeologically, as is the case with recent discoveries in Spain, are the links to the Levant?

It's intriguing how yDNA I2, which would be the "European natives", is concentrated around pre-historic mining areas - Sardinia, the Dinaric Alps, the Harz mountains. I don't know how well Asturias / Northern Portugal has been tested, but I would also guess for quite an "European natives" element there. The Romans clearly had a distaste for miner's work, regarded as labour for slaves, and that may reflect a general IE attitude. You trade with these people, maybe extract tribute from them, but you don't try to take over their business. Since they pay you off, you also don't pillage their villages and rape their women (they may anyway hide somewhere underground when foreign troops arrive). OTOH, obsidian or metal trade makes food import possible, and thus provides the "natives" with a regular nutritional base that supports population growth.
The mountainous areas allow for a bit of cattle grazing (rather sheep and goats than cows), but are fairly uninteresting to farmers, and about the last places the ANE would settle permanently. So, the "native" gene pool survives in considerably numbers.

As to Mediterranean sea levels and currents: An important factor is isostatic pressure. Glaciers locally push down the underlying plates, which rise correspondingly in non-ice-covered areas. When the glaciers recede, the formerly ice-covered areas rise, but non ice-covered grounds recede (you can try it out on every air-filled ball). The effect was very pronounced, and is still going on at reduced levels, in the North Sea, where the ground sunk substantially with the recess of Scottish and Norwegian glaciers. I am not aware to which extent the Dinaric Alps and the Italian Apennine were ice-covered during the LGM, but similar effects of sea-bottom lowering may have occurred in the Adriatic, to a lesser extent also the Tyrrhenian Sea. As such, sea levels, and with them water currents, may have locally differed substantially during the Neolithic from today. Cold inflow of glacier melt may also have locally affected salinity, sea currents and winds.

Moreover: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Etna

Thousands of years ago, the eastern flank of the mountain experienced a catastrophic collapse, generating an enormous landslide in an event similar to that seen in the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. The landslide left a large depression in the side of the volcano, known as 'Valle del Bove' (Valley of the Ox). Research published in 2006 suggested this occurred around 8000 years ago, and caused a huge tsunami, which left its mark in several places in the eastern Mediterranean. It may have been the reason the settlement of Atlit Yam (Israel), now below sea level, was suddenly abandoned around that time.

Finally, there have been various climate changes over the last 10,000 years that affected temperatures, rainfall and of course winds, sea-levels and currents of the Mediterranean. Check for detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_environmental_history; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subboreal
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

In short, the Mediterranean climate, water levels, winds and currents should have been substantially different during the Neolithic from today and also antiquity, and I wouldn't dare to conclude from today's patterns on possible setting routes during the Neolithic. Also, Egypt's population may have been quite different before climate refugees from the Libyan desert arrived there in the 6th millennium BC.
Note furthermore that before the first Punic War, Sicily and Sardinia were controlled by Cartago, which suggests the possibility of trans-Mediterranean travel during the iron age.

FrankN
15-06-14, 18:51
These two papers may be pertinent to the discussion. They place the geographical spread of farming in Europe into climate history. The derived expansion maps (through Anatolia and then via Crete and Southern Italy/ Sicily) are consistent to the genetic data and (most of) the archaeological record. In the second paper (map on p.5) I noted that their climate-based simulation has Southern Sardinia and the Iberian peninsula (except Catalonia) as European latecomers (on a scale with Sweden, but behind England, Germany and Denmark). They also mention climate fluctuations hindering agricultural development in the central Balkans. I need to look at both papers in more detail myself.
http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf36/36_5.pdf
http://www.academia.edu/1452222/On_the_sensitivity_of_the_simulated_European_Neoli thic_transition_to_climate_extremes

LeBrok
15-06-14, 19:05
These two papers may be pertinent to the discussion. They place the geographical spread of farming in Europe into climate history. The derived expansion maps (through Anatolia and then via Crete and Southern Italy/ Sicily) are consistent to the genetic data and (most of) the archaeological record. In the second paper (map on p.5) I noted that their climate-based simulation has Southern Sardinia and the Iberian peninsula (except Catalonia) as European latecomers (on a scale with Sweden, but behind England, Germany and Denmark). They also mention climate fluctuations hindering agricultural development in the central Balkans. I need to look at both papers in more detail myself.
http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf36/36_5.pdf
http://www.academia.edu/1452222/On_the_sensitivity_of_the_simulated_European_Neoli thic_transition_to_climate_extremes
This should be interesting read, thanks.

Angela
15-06-14, 19:06
For anyone interested in navigation in the ancient world and its effect on the diffusion of people and culture not only in the Neolithic but in the Bronze and Iron Ages, I highly recommend this paper. It incorporates sea and wind current information, an analysis of navigational "tools", archaeological data, and historical references.

Davis, Navigation In the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean
http://anthropology.tamu.edu/papers/Davis-MA2001.pdf

There is an interesting discussion in the paper specifically of Neolithic navigation. "If we accept Tzalas's informed theory that the vessels of the Neolithic were likely composed of ...primitive materials (the product of a Neolithic toolkit) then we may safely infer that they were rowed or paddled; some had to have been able to handle heavy cargoes of domesticated animals, especially in colonizing efforts as Broodbank has shown...Although Mediterranean currents are often considered negligible, it is as well to note that Neolithic paddled craft, at their slow rate of travel, would have been greatly affected by even slight currents. And thus adjustments had to be made even when transiting from point to point over short stretches. When faced with an open sea crossing in the Aegean or the Levantine basin, Neolithic seafarers were at a distinct disadvantage if inclement weather or even moderate seas and winds developed, for they apparently lacked sails for convenient directional control and likely retained a low freehold."

The following quote is apropos to the Bronze Age:

"Dropping the question of sailing technology and weather patterns for a minute, let us consider that merchant ships of the Late Bronze Age simply rowed directly from Egypt to Crete. While there is little doubt that the largest vessels possessed sufficient oars for limited maneuvering near shore and in harbors, the actual energy to move a ship filled with several tons of cargo any significant distance against a constant, ten-knot headwind, is difficult to imagine. Moreover, the distance is more than 350 nautical miles, so it cannot be compared to rowing in the Aegean."

As to the Graeco-Roman period...
"We need look no further than parallels from the Graeco-Roman period, when ships with sailing rigs and hull shapes much improved over their Bronze Age forerunners nevertheless opted for the counter-clockwise route from Egypt to the Aegean...because weather and currents combined to make this route much more safe and less damaging to the ship and its equipment."

From: Roman Civilization-Selected Readings"
http://books.google.com/books?id=G07okHErcacC&pg=PA112&dq=route+traveled+by+the+Egyptian+grain+ships+en+r oute+to+Ostia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z8ydU63PDIygsQS024DIDA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=route%20traveled%20by%20the%20Egyptian%20grain%2 0ships%20en%20route%20to%20Ostia&f=false

"The Grain Fleet: The two selections given here are our most detailed ancient descriptions of the vessels of the Alexandrian grain fleets and of the routes by which they reached Italy. The usual route was to follow the prevailing winds north to Asia Minor, thence west via Crete to Malta, and then north to Puteoli or Ostia." The trip from southern Italy to Egypt was much faster and safer.

FrankN
15-06-14, 21:26
From: Roman Civilization-Selected Readings"
http://books.google.com/books?id=G07okHErcacC&pg=PA112&dq=route+traveled+by+the+Egyptian+grain+ships+en+r oute+to+Ostia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z8ydU63PDIygsQS024DIDA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=route%20traveled%20by%20the%20Egyptian%20grain%2 0ships%20en%20route%20to%20Ostia&f=false

"The Grain Fleet: The two selections given here are our most detailed ancient descriptions of the vessels of the Alexandrian grain fleets and of the routes by which they reached Italy. The usual route was to follow the prevailing winds north to Asia Minor, thence west via Crete to Malta, and then north to Puteoli or Ostia." The trip from southern Italy to Egypt was much faster and safer.
That makes sense : Levante - > Asia Minor -> Crete -> Malta -> Sicily / Southern Italy (possibly also Tunisia). Too bad Malta wasn't sampled.. OTOH, on an island as small as Malta, the returning Crusaders could have left quite a specific genetic mark...

Angela
16-06-14, 04:34
That makes sense : Levante - > Asia Minor -> Crete -> Malta -> Sicily / Southern Italy (possibly also Tunisia).

The trail also seems to go up into the Balkans from Greece.

I think this map is generally correct in terms of chronology. I should point out, however, that I haven't checked the date of each site. I think there's also a pretty good correlation with the conclusions of this paper. This is the link so that you can decide for yourself the reliability you want to assign to it.
http://www.markbwilson.com/album/1-Mediterranean%20World/slides/2a-Neolithic%20Agricultural%20Revolution%20Sites.jpg

http://www.markbwilson.com/album/1-Mediterranean%20World/slides/2a-Neolithic%20Agricultural%20Revolution%20Sites.jpg


Some other interesting reading in terms of this paper:

Obsidian routes in the ancient Near East from 16,000 B.C. -6500 B.C.
http://www.archatlas.org/ObsidianRoutes/ObsidianRoutes.php
This is mostly a series of maps. I was particularly interested to see the "exchange route" linking Cappadoccia and the Levant. I have to check on what other information might be presented.

http://www.academia.edu/393048/Obsidian_Trade_and_Society_in_the_Central_Anatolia n_Neolithic
I haven't yet read this one, but I will.

Drac II
16-06-14, 19:18
I don't know whose posts you've been reading, but they certainly weren't mine...

So you did not write post #10 in this thread? Who posted it then? It seems to have been posted from your account.

Drac II
16-06-14, 19:23
The Romans were able to make the trip because they built huge ships and powered them with slaves. Even then, there was a particular route they needed to follow in order to make the trip. I think it would have been a very difficult journey in small vessels that relied solely on sail and couldn't tack against the wind. And yet the DNA evidence may suggest some spread of peoples around the Mediterranean during the Neolithic. I personally think at this point it's still a bit of an unsolved puzzle but that if we're going to get clearer answers to how people spread into southern Europe during the Neolithic we may need to look at the potential for crossings from Libya to Sicily and from Morocco to Spain.

Although of course some of the people who arrived in Europe during the Neolithic got there by skirting the Adriatic.

Yes, but as you point out progress in ship building had already been made by Roman times. It would not have been as challenging to make an Alexandria-Rome/Rome-Alexandria trip during those times as it would have been in Neolithic times.

Sile
16-06-14, 21:01
I do not know what this issue is of a rome to alexandria sea voyage is about.

If the Phoenicians where traveling by ship across all of the Mediterranean as early as the late bronze-age then what is the issue with a Rome to Alexandria trip?


The Phoenicians (from Tyre, in southern Lebanon) were amongst the greatest Mediterranean traders from approximately 1,500 to 600 BC. Tradition has it that they founded the city of Gadir/ Cádiz in south west Spain in 1100 to exploit the natural resources in the area. There is, however, no hard evidence to substantiate such an early date. Based on archaeological remains, the consensus now is that colonisation began around 800, when settlements were founded along the south coast of the peninsula. The most important besides Gadir, were Malacca (Málaga), Sexi (Almuñecar) and Toscanos (Vélez Málaga, in the province of Málaga).


Under the protection of their powerful, military neighbours, the Assyrians, the Phoenicians expanded throughout the Mediterranean and beyond in search of raw materials and metals for the Middle East market. Although their voyages took them as far as Cornwall (southern England) in pursuit of tin, they found an ample supply of gold, silver, copper and iron in southern Spain. Silver was particularly important to the Assyrians since their currency was largely based on it, and the Phoenicians were expected to provide it. This is why the Río Tinto mines north of Huelva were so important to the Phoenicians; the area contained large deposits of silver. While excavations show that mining in this area goes back to the early Bronze Age, the Phoenicians exploited the deposits of silver more efficiently than ever before.

Angela
16-06-14, 21:29
I would suggest that anyone still confused about these matters re-read the paper and the linked studies.

FrankN
16-06-14, 22:26
The trail also seems to go up into the Balkans from Greece.

I think this map is generally correct in terms of chronology. I should point out, however, that I haven't checked the date of each site. I think there's also a pretty good correlation with the conclusions of this paper. This is the link so that you can decide for yourself the reliability you want to assign to it.
http://www.markbwilson.com/album/1-Mediterranean%20World/slides/2a-Neolithic%20Agricultural%20Revolution%20Sites.jpg

http://www.markbwilson.com/album/1-Mediterranean%20World/slides/2a-Neolithic%20Agricultural%20Revolution%20Sites.jpg

There are other, detailed maps available. Both of the studies I have linked to have done extensive mapping (623 sites covered by the second study), and applied a finer time scale (500 years per colour), which allows to better trace development. Can't link the maps here, you need to look them up in the studies yourself. Another map (University of Dublin) is this one:
http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/S003_Neolith_Exp.jpg
There are obvious differences with the selection of sites considered, aside from dating problems of individual sites, and the fact that some regions haven't been well covered archeologically yet.

In any case, aside from the Mediterranean Route that Pachou et.al. explored, I agree that there also seems to have been a Continental Route. Rather than the Balkans route, however, I would call it the Macedonian / Danube route, since the Dinaric Alps have been spared out, and the Dalmatian coast appears to have been "agriculturalised" from the Mediterranean rather than from the Danube.
A look at the admixture data provided in Pachou's annex (K=8, excluding Bedouins & Yemenites) shows the "Palestine" admixture component in Macedonia and East Rumelia at similar levels as on the Peloponnese, slightly higher than in Tuscany and Sardinia, but lower than on Crete and Sicily. This seems to confirm a migratory spread into Macedonia and the lower Danube region, either via Crete, or overland from Cappadocia via the (at that time still closed) Bosporus. At third route to consider is the Black Sea (in the 7th millennium BC still freshwater and smaller than today), from West Georgia (Colchis), which itself might have been reached by Obsidian and early metal trade between the Armenian Plateau and the Fertile Crescent. Early agricultural settlements would have been near the Black Sea lakeshore and submerged in the meantime; West Georgia is anyway poorly covered archeologically.

Further expansion along the Danube appears to have occurred in several steps:

Pachou's annex has the "Palestinian" admixture component in Serbia (Belgrade) substantially lower than in East Rumelia and Tuscany, at a level comparable to Italy (Rome), with a comparably higher share of "Finnish/Russian/Danish" admixture (however that admixture component would break down in a finer analysis). [Italy (Rome), in comparison, has more "Basque/ Sardinian" elements]. This suggests a later, "watered down" migratory expansion from Macedonia and the Lower Danube (Sesklo Culture, since 6,800 BC) into the Middle Danube and Tisza area (Starcevo & Köros Cultures, since 6,200 BC).
The contemporary evolution of the Bug-Dniester Culture in Moldova / SW Ukraine suggests also a Back Sea expansion route.
With early LBK (since 5,600 BC), agriculture spreads into Transdanubia and along the Morava (Eastern Austria/ Western Slovakia). Pachou's appendix shows the "Palestinian" admixture further watered down slightly in Hungary compared to Serbia. In this case, both the "Basque/Sardinian" and the "Finnish/Russian/Danish" components go up accordingly.
While there may have been some pause, expansion quiclly contues along 2- 3 paths. Westwards, it follows the Danube and reaches the Middle Rhine. Towards the East, it goes up into Moravia and then, via the Moravian Gate, to upper Oder and Vistula. North of the Carpathians, it encounters the equally expanding Bug-Dniester culture, possibly also migration streams from the upper Tisza. The central route, finally, leads through Bohemia to the middle Elbe up to the northern Harz piedmonts. Rather than in a wave, this expansion appears to have occurred through individual settlements along the main streams, from where gradually the surrounding areas and side valleys were colonized. Both the middle Rhine and the middle Elbe were reached by around 5300 BC at latest.
While Pachou did not cover this area, ancient DNA from a LBK grave from Derenburg (near Halberstadt north of the Harz) was investigated in 2010. Only three yDNAs could be isolated, they proved out to be two times basal F, and one time G2a3. A Shared Haplotype Analysis showed remarkable similarity with Iranian, Palestine, Turkish and Caucasian gene pools. Finally, they mapped the genetic matrilineal distances between 55 modern European populations and (A) a total of 43 neolitich LBK samples and (B) the single Derenburg graveyard. The maps speak for themselves!
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000536.g003/largerimage
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000536
Between 5300 BC and the turn of the millennium, the later LBK expanded further into the Polish and East German plains, as well as into the Rhineland, the Netherlands and the Paris Basin. Central and NW France may at around the same time also have been reached from the Mediterranean vie the Rhone and Loire valleys. Pachou's results show still a discernible "Palestinian" admixture component in France and Denmark - less than in Hungary, but clearly more than in Ireland, Finland or Russia.

FrankN
16-06-14, 23:38
Since it is a very nice map, I have copied the map of agricultural expansion from the Cronenburg 2009 essay (my first link in post #56). For the colouring, see the bottom line of the climate diagrams in the upper left corner. In central France, the map appears to apply colour overlays to indicate the convergence of the Mediterranean and the Danube routes.
6495

Somehow the map doesn't show up as thumbnail. Could an admin please help?

Angela
17-06-14, 00:32
@FrankN,

I read the papers in question with great interest. Thank you for the links. Here is the map from the Carsten Lemmen paper:

6497

From what I see, this reinforces the map I provided above, and the findings of this Paschou paper, that the Neolithic moved from the Levant to Cyprus, Crete, then presumably the Aegean and even the Adriatic and Sicily before it moved to even central Anatolia, much less northwestern Anatolia. So, I think it unlikely that the spread north onto the continent (i.e. broadly the Balkans and then via the Danube into central and eastern Europe) came by way of northwestern Anatolia over the Bosphorous.

Do you have other archaeological data to indicate that there was a definite, direct connection between the Neolithic of the Northwest and that of Thessaly? I believe that Maju, on his blogs has questioned such a connection.

Angela
17-06-14, 00:45
Since it is a very nice map, I have copied the map of agricultural expansion from the Cronenburg 2009 essay (my first link in post #56). For the colouring, see the bottom line of the climate diagrams in the upper left corner. In central France, the map appears to apply colour overlays to indicate the convergence of the Mediterranean and the Danube routes.
6495


[QUOTE]Somehow the map doesn't show up as thumbnail. Could an admin please help?Have you Have you checked to see (under Settings) whether you have used up all your attachment space? I frequently run into this type of problem, and then have to delete older stored data.

This is another map by Carsten Lemmen. (World distribution of land cover changes during Pre-and Protohistoric Times and estimation of induced carbon releases) This time, instead of using the Pinhasi 2005 data set, he used the Turney and Brown data set. The map is on the internet, so it's easier to post.

http://geomorphologie.revues.org/docannexe/image/7756/img-6-small580.jpg

Greying Wanderer
17-06-14, 01:13
In classical times ships mostly sailed along the coast so they could beach if a storm came up. So they could sail a long way but most of the time they didn't take a direct route if it was possible to follow the coast.

That's why Pheonician colonies tended to be along the south coast and the Greeks along the north.

FrankN
17-06-14, 05:30
@FrankN,

I read the papers in question with great interest. Thank you for the links. Here is the map from the Carsten Lemmen paper:

6496

From what I see, this reinforces the map I provided above, and the findings of this Paschou paper, that the Neolithic moved from the Levant to Cyprus, Crete, then presumably the Aegean and even the Adriatic and Sicily before it moved to even central Anatolia, much less northwestern Anatolia. So, I think it unlikely that the spread north onto the continent (i.e. broadly the Balkans and then via the Danube into central and eastern Europe) came by way of northwestern Anatolia over the Bosphorous.

Do you have other archaeological data to indicate that there was a definite, direct connection between the Neolithic of the Northwest and that of Thessaly? I believe that Maju, on his blogs has questioned such a connection.

Well, your map leaves out the lower Danube and Western Anatolia, which makes it difficult to trace the continental route.
On the lower Danube, I only have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precri%C5%9F#Neolithic

The Early Neolithic (c. 6600 – 5500 BC) consists of two cultural layers: genetically linked and with similar physiognomies. The first (layer Gura Baciului - Cârcea/Precriş) is the exclusive result of the migration of a Neolithic population from the South Balkan area, while the second (the Starčevo-Criş culture) reflects the process of adjusting to local conditions by a South Balkan community, possibly a synthesis with the local Tardenoisian groups.
Layer Gura Baciului – Cârcea, also called the Precriş culture, is a spin-off of a Protosesklo culture group that advanced north and reached the North Danubian region where it founded the first culture of painted pottery in Romania. The small number of sites attributable to this early cultural time has not allowed the route followed by the group, to penetrate the Inter-Carpathian area, to be firmly established, yet in all likelihood, it was the Oltului Valley.
There is a long list of Romanian sources enclosed - maybe one of the Romanian forum members can provide a few more details.

As to a possible Bosporus route, this paper etensively discusses the Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures in Turkish Trace: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3994/1/3994_1511.pdf?UkUDh:CyT.
According to the paper, the site of Hoka Cesme, near the Maritsa/Meric delta, has been dated as contemporary to Sesklo (Thessaly) and Nea Nikomedia (Macedonia), most of early Neolithic material is also similar to Nea Nikomedia. Some early Neolithic sites in Western Anatolia show pottery similar to Hoka Cesme (p 223f). Moreover, a marked change in flint processing in some Western Anatolian sites near Eskisehir (from microliths to long blades) is believed to show Central Anatolian influence during the pre-pottery Neolithic, and possibly indicate a transition to farming (p. 220). The early Fikirtepe culture (named after a south-eastern Istanbul suburb), a mixed hunting-fishing-stockbreeding economy with some farming, OTOH, is dated somewhat later than Sesklo/ Hoka Cesme at 6.400 BC (p. 181). For subsequent periods, the late Neolithic and especially the Chalcolithic, the study documents several cultural linkages between the Black Sea coast east of Samsun, the Aegean, Turkish Thrace, the Eastern Balkans, and pre-Cucuteni in Romania /Moldova, and- to a lesser extent -also with Central Anatolia (p. 215ff). With respect to an eventual overland spread of farming, however, it concludes that late Mesolithic sites in West Anatolia require further investigation before substantiated statements become possible.
My personal takeaway from that study is that, rather than an overland route, a Black Sea route might deserve further consideration - not that much for the Aegean and the Danube, but especially for the Bug-Dniester culture, which in turn might have complemented LBK in introducing agriculture north of the Carpathians.

Here is another, very interesting take on the matter: http://www.academia.edu/656645/The_Late_Escape_of_the_Neolithic_from_the_Central_ Anatolian_Plain
The author postulates that the Central Anatolian Plain, rich in wild animals, did not require a full-fledged switch to agriculture, and for millenniums allowed for a hybrid "hunter cum farmer" sedentary economy. Further to the west, ecological conditions were different, but local populations needed time to "re-assemble" the Central Anatolian model to be workable (smaller, household-based units, etc.) in their environment. Once that had been achieved, in a way that included most of the "Mediterranean package", it from 6.400 BC on spread quickly around Western Anatolia and beyond. The spread itself is not described, just referenced in footnotes.

Obviously, the fastest dissemination path would be from the "Lake District" north of Antalya via the Mediterranean. Such a connection is also favoured by a paper on the early-to late 7th millennium BC site of Ulucak (Izmir), west of Antalya, that identifies similarities between local pottery and the one found in Syria and in the Aegean:
http://tobias-lib.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2009/4278/pdf/Diss_Cilingiroglu_1.pdf
A similar conclusion, based on comparing five different sites in South Anatolia ("Lake District") with Ulucak (Izmir) is reached here:
http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf37/37_23.pdf

However, for the specific distribution of "stamp seals", originating in Anatolia but also found on the Eastern Balkans, the following paper argues for a land connection, while constating that archaeological research of West Anatolia has been sparse so far: http://www.academia.edu/947635/Western_Anatolia_in_the_Late_Neolithic_and_Early_C halcolithic_the_actual_state_of_research

Domesticized animals appear to have appeared in Western Anatolia (Uluzak) by the beginning of the 7th millennium BC - by boat or over land from Central Anatolia?
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8743970 (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8743970) (abstract only).

All in all, this very much looks like work in progress. A site to watch in this respect will be http://beanproject.eu/

Drac II
18-06-14, 20:52
I do not know what this issue is of a rome to alexandria sea voyage is about.

If the Phoenicians where traveling by ship across all of the Mediterranean as early as the late bronze-age then what is the issue with a Rome to Alexandria trip?


The Phoenicians (from Tyre, in southern Lebanon) were amongst the greatest Mediterranean traders from approximately 1,500 to 600 BC. Tradition has it that they founded the city of Gadir/ Cádiz in south west Spain in 1100 to exploit the natural resources in the area. There is, however, no hard evidence to substantiate such an early date. Based on archaeological remains, the consensus now is that colonisation began around 800, when settlements were founded along the south coast of the peninsula. The most important besides Gadir, were Malacca (Málaga), Sexi (Almuñecar) and Toscanos (Vélez Málaga, in the province of Málaga).


Under the protection of their powerful, military neighbours, the Assyrians, the Phoenicians expanded throughout the Mediterranean and beyond in search of raw materials and metals for the Middle East market. Although their voyages took them as far as Cornwall (southern England) in pursuit of tin, they found an ample supply of gold, silver, copper and iron in southern Spain. Silver was particularly important to the Assyrians since their currency was largely based on it, and the Phoenicians were expected to provide it. This is why the Río Tinto mines north of Huelva were so important to the Phoenicians; the area contained large deposits of silver. While excavations show that mining in this area goes back to the early Bronze Age, the Phoenicians exploited the deposits of silver more efficiently than ever before.

There is no "issue", just that post #10 in this thread was claiming that making a voyage from Egypt to Italy during Roman times was something akin to some sort of an almost impossible odyssey, which is hardly the case. It was in fact one of the most common shipping routes in the empire, and vital for Rome.

The Phoenicians? Yes, indeed, they too could make such voyages before Roman times as well, no problem:

Phoenician interest in central Italy, as in Sardinia, was motivated primarily by the metals trade; the wealth of the Etruscan cities also rendered them profitable commercial markets for Phoenician goods. The earliest and clearest evidence of Phoenician presence in Italy may be found on the island of Pithekoussai (modern Ischia) off the coast of southern Campania. An early Euboean foundation, the island housed an active community of Phoenician traders by the late eighth century BC, as finds of Phoenician pottery (some with graffiti) attest. In all likelihood, the islet, situated strategically en route to coastal Etruria, served as a "free port" at which native Greeks and Near Easterners mingled freely.The primary objective of Phoenician trade in Italy was, however, the northern Etrurian heartland with its ore-rich deposits of copper, lead, iron, and silver...; from an early date, it attracted Phoenician prospectors, commerciants, and artisans, who left in their wake a variety of imported goods, including luxury vessels in repoussé silver. The latter, locally produced by resident Phoenician craftsmen, may well have been offered as diplomatic gifts to local leaders in order to secure commercial mineral rights. Phoenician influence is also evident in the dramatic appearance, in the late eighth century BC, of a strongly orientalizing artistic tradition in Etruria.
Imported pottery finds suggest that the flourishing northern Etruscan coastal cities of Populonia and Vetulonia may have formed the primary bases of operation for the Phoenicians. Phoenician knowledge of Etrurian mineral resources may have come through contact with the native inhabitants of Sardinia or through the Cypriots, both of whom were involved in the Tyrrhenian metals trade.


http://books.google.com/books?id=smPZ-ou74EwC&pg=PA179&dq=phoenicians+italy+etruria&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8tihU46tKMGYqAbi04KwBg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=phoenicians%20italy%20etruria&f=false

Page 179.

oriental
18-06-14, 23:42
I think people should also consider wild life with predators like bears, lions, wolves being quite prevalent as there was a lot of forested land. There are ancient lion statues found in Anatolia. People would have avoided forests and hills till they began domesticating animals. Hills and mountains were scary places for ancient people. For instance Switzerland's high peaks were avoided till recent times as they thought the gods and spirits inhabited them. (Does Mt. Sinai in the Bible come to mind?) With shepherding mountains became the place to pasture goats and sheep.

FrankN
18-06-14, 23:57
I think people should also consider wild life with predators like bears, lions, wolves being quite prevalent as there was a lot of forested land. There are ancient lion statues found in Anatolia. People would have avoided forests and hills till they began domesticating animals. Hills and mountains were scary places for ancient people. For instance Switzerland's high peaks were avoided till recent times as they thought the gods and spirits inhabited them. (Does Mt. Sinai in the Bible come to mind?) With shepherding mountains became the place to pasture goats and sheep.
A relation that is still well traceable in German: Wald (woods, forests, also mountain ranges as in "Schwarzwald"= Black Forest) <> Wild (game for hunting) <> wild <> gewaltig (violent, mighty).

joeyc
22-07-14, 21:39
ROFL? An American triracial mulatto talking about Egyptian slaves in Italy?

First of all, the Italian peninsula was already heavily urbanized and satured well before Rome expanded in the East. It was not like Brazil or Alabama which were completely empty and needed hordes of slaves.

Better watch for your Iberian masters who were active in the shipping of African slaves in the last 1.500 years with their Moorish and Jewish buddies, with all the obvious mixing.

Yaan
24-07-14, 07:14
East Rumelia???? Almost fell from the chair from laughter :rolleyes2:

Drac II
25-07-14, 11:08
ROFL? An American triracial mulatto talking about Egyptian slaves in Italy?

First of all, the Italian peninsula was already heavily urbanized and satured well before Rome expanded in the East. It was not like Brazil or Alabama which were completely empty and needed hordes of slaves.

Better watch for your Iberian masters who were active in the shipping of African slaves in the last 1.500 years with their Moorish and Jewish buddies, with all the obvious mixing.

Too bad that it's actually American and European (even some Italian ones) historians who keep pointing out the large numbers of Asiatic and African slaves and free citizens in Roman Italy, and not just the "American triracial mulattoes" of your racist rants, "Joey". BTW, weren't you already banned before? What are you doing here again?

John Doe
25-07-14, 11:24
Too bad that it's actually American and European (even some Italian ones) historians who keep pointing out the large numbers of Asiatic and African slaves and free citizens in Roman Italy, and not just the "American triracial mulattoes" of your racist rants, "Joey". BTW, weren't you already banned before? What are you doing here again?


You got a point, there were some emperors who came from north Africa and west Asia, I don't remember the names of the north African emperors, but a good example for a west Asian one was Philip the Arab, who came from the Roman province of Arabia.

joeyc
25-07-14, 12:54
Too bad that it's actually American and European (even some Italian ones) historians who keep pointing out the large numbers of Asiatic and African slaves and free citizens in Roman Italy, and not just the "American triracial mulattoes" of your racist rants, "Joey". BTW, weren't you already banned before? What are you doing here again?

All debunked non scientific stuff from deluded nordicists like Arthur Kemp. Whereas your Iberian masters were very active in the African slave trade with their North African/Arab friends, with all the obvious mixing, my mulatto friend.

Do you actually know that they have found a copper age Iberian farmer who was genetically very similar to modern mainland Italians? I guess he was one of those milions of slaves who invaded Italy.

Yetos
25-07-14, 21:33
Egypt has direct connections to Crete (also known from Minoan civilization records), but surprisingly to Sicily too. I know Egypt was producing lots of food for Rome. Perhaps Sicily was a shipping hub?

Equally surprising are the extensive connections from Palestine to Europe. It might be indication for the whole Near East. I would gladly want to see connections from Lebanon (old Phoenician), but they missed this important spot, and also Varna and Cucuteni cultures, coastal Bulgaria and Romania. A bit disappointing in sight selection.


East Rumelia, the land above Rodope mountains from Pontos sea to Aimos Mountains, Varna is included.
part of today Turkey and Bulgaria the antique Odrysse Thrace

FrankN
25-07-14, 23:34
East Rumelia, the land above Rodope mountains from Pontos sea to Aimos Mountains, Varna is included.
part of today Turkey and Bulgaria the antique Odrysse Thrace
Glad to see somebody bringing this thread back to topic.

Drac II
26-07-14, 08:41
All debunked non scientific stuff from deluded nordicists like Arthur Kemp. Whereas your Iberian masters were very active in the African slave trade with their North African/Arab friends, with all the obvious mixing, my mulatto friend.

Do you actually know that they have found a copper age Iberian farmer who was genetically very similar to modern mainland Italians? I guess he was one of those milions of slaves who invaded Italy.

"Debunked" only in your dreams, my delusional friend, plus on top of that none of them were "Nordicists", and one of the scholars (Mommsen) that Kemp quotes even won a Nobel Prize for his work on Roman history, a work which is still consulted by modern scholars on the subject. Arthur Kemp, the only one of the people who you have in mind who in fact is a Nordicist, had it very easy when he consulted those actual historians of Rome seeking to back up his beliefs, he did not need to look around too much for what he wanted to find since the historians who point out those things are very common and easy to find. On the other hand, he hardly found anything regarding his silly claims about medieval Iberia backed up by any specialists in the history of the area since most of them do not say what he wanted to hear when it comes to demographics.

Regarding the African slave trade: practically all of Western Europe -including Italy- was involved in it, so moot point.

joeyc
26-07-14, 09:23
"Debunked" only in your dreams, my delusional friend, plus on top of that none of them were "Nordicists", and one of the scholars (Mommsen) that Kemp quotes even won a Nobel Prize for his work on Roman history, a work which is still consulted by modern scholars on the subject. Arthur Kemp, the only one of the people who you have in mind who in fact is a Nordicist, had it very easy when he consulted those actual historians of Rome seeking to back up his beliefs, he did not need to look around too much for what he wanted to find since the historians who point out those things are very common and easy to find. On the other hand, he hardly found anything regarding his silly claims about medieval Iberia backed up by any specialists in the history of the area since most of them do not say what he wanted to hear when it comes to demographics.

Yeah debunked nonsense from the XIX century. Written by a German. LOL. Even Obama won a Nobel Prize, go figure.

Still you have not answered how is it possible that a copper age Iberian farmer was so similar to modern mainland Italians. Was he one of those milions of slaves?


Regarding the African slave trade: practically all of Western Europe -including Italy- was involved in it, so moot point.

Iberia was the center of the Atlantic slave trade for centuries. Only an American mulatto could deny that.

Knovas
26-07-14, 12:37
Still you have not answered how is it possible that a copper age Iberian farmer was so similar to modern mainland Italians. Was he one of those milions of slaves?
There you are the explanation for this "similarity", although I know it is useless to make you understand: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/pca-projection-bias-in-ancient-dna.html

To summarize, what the original study you're referring to was pointing out, was simply a Southern European-like similarity, which could also be Sardinian or Basque. Don't forget they did not even include any modern Iberian samples, but still doesn't matter for those who really understand the implications derived from the employed methodology of the PCA plot you're using as clear proof of your agenda. So I immediately exclude you from this group, it just will be helpful for other forumers.

Quoting the paper, this is what the author states when it comes to similarities (no misinterpretations): The Neolithic Iberian individual was genetically similar to Scandinavian Neolithic farmers

Balanced and objective as expected from an academic abstract: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=1&pid=diva2:667495

joeyc
26-07-14, 13:21
There you are the explanation for this "similarity", although I know it is useless to make you understand: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/pca-projection-bias-in-ancient-dna.html

To summarize, what the original study you're referring to was pointing out, was simply a Southern European-like similarity, which could also be Sardinian or Basque. Don't forget they did not even include any modern Iberian samples, but still doesn't matter for those who really understand the implications derived from the employed methodology of the PCA plot you're using as clear proof of your agenda. So I immediately exclude you from this group, it just will be helpful for other forumers.

LOL a genome blogger. Do not make me laugh.

I don't see how the lack of modern Iberian samples is important.


Quoting the paper, this is what the author states when it comes to similarities (no misinterpretations): The Neolithic Iberian individual was genetically similar to Scandinavian Neolithic farmers

Balanced and objective as expected from an academic abstract: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=1&pid=diva2:667495

He was closer to Scandinavian farmers than to Mesolitich hunther gatherers. Of course Tuscans are genetically closer to Sardinians than to North Eastern Europeans. From the paper.


There are major genetic similarities between the Scandinavian farmer, the Iberianfarmer, and Ötzi, who all cluster with contemporary southern Europeans (see Figure
13B).

Similarly, the Scandinavian Neolithic hunter-gatherers and Mesolithic Iberian
all have genetic affinities towards contemporary Northern Europeans. The farmers
can be considered to form a “farmer” cluster separated from the “hunter-gatherer”
cluster, e.g. the gene-pool of hunter-gatherers. The fact that the Iberian farmer
clusters closely with contemporary southern Europeans in contrast to Iberian
Mesolithic individuals suggest an early colonization of Iberia and (at least one) later
distinct migration event.

Drac II
26-07-14, 14:04
Yeah debunked nonsense from the XIX century. Written by a German. LOL. Even Obama won a Nobel Prize, go figure.

Nah, wishful thinking on your part. Plus it also includes a whole bunch of scholars on the same subject from the 20th and 21st century who reached very similar conclusions as the 19th century ones, based on all the historical evidence at their disposal.

Obama won a Nobel on something completely different. Mommsen is the only man to ever have won a Nobel for a work on history. Comparing apples with oranges.



Still you have not answered how is it possible that a copper age Iberian farmer was so similar to modern mainland Italians. Was he one of those milions of slaves?

Possibly because it is pretty irrelevant to the subject, plus Knovas is clarifying that for you.


Iberia was the center of the Atlantic slave trade for centuries. Only an American mulatto could deny that.

No, not "Iberia", mostly Portugal was, but then Holland and England jumped in as well and got deeply involved in the same trade to compete with the Portuguese. Plus Italy was another client of these slave trading nations, just like Spain was. Only a paranoid Italian with an agenda would deny this.

Knovas
26-07-14, 14:13
Possibly because it is pretty irrelevant to the subject, plus Knovas is clarifying that for you.
What a waste of time. Reading comprehension below zero (added to other evident problems).

LeBrok
26-07-14, 17:36
Gentlemen, here is an official warning to all. Derogatory statements towards other Eupedia members, or referring to mulatos, blacks or slaves as a lesser human being, or suggestion of shameful relation to both, will be treated with demerit points and eventually with a banhammer.

Sile
26-07-14, 21:28
LOL a genome blogger. Do not make me laugh.

I don't see how the lack of modern Iberian samples is important.



He was closer to Scandinavian farmers than to Mesolitich hunther gatherers. Of course Tuscans are genetically closer to Sardinians than to North Eastern Europeans. From the paper.

is this person you refer to the 4000bc old neolithic farmer in basque area who has nearly the same markers as an etruscan
Neolithic farmers from the site of El Portalón
a Chalcolithic Iberian farmer from Atapuerca

Sile
26-07-14, 21:38
Gentlemen, here is an official warning to all. Derogatory statements towards other Eupedia members, or referring to mulatos, blacks or slaves as a lesser human being, or suggestion of shameful relation to both, will be treated with demerit points and eventually with a banhammer.

the term Mulatto is not Derogatory, its the general term for a child of a mixed marriage of a white and black person, you find this term in every registry and census................it would only be derogatory if it was used in reference for a child of a marriage of a white and yellow mix.
children of anglo-indian marriages are neither referred to as a mulatto....but simply angloindian

LeBrok
26-07-14, 22:52
the term Mulatto is not Derogatory, its the general term for a child of a mixed marriage of a white and black person, you find this term in every registry and census................it would only be derogatory if it was used in reference for a child of a marriage of a white and yellow mix.
children of anglo-indian marriages are neither referred to as a mulatto....but simply angloindian
Read again relevant posts.

Yetos
26-07-14, 23:52
nothing just another mistake of me

Drac II
27-07-14, 07:09
the term Mulatto is not Derogatory, its the general term for a child of a mixed marriage of a white and black person, you find this term in every registry and census................it would only be derogatory if it was used in reference for a child of a marriage of a white and yellow mix.
children of anglo-indian marriages are neither referred to as a mulatto....but simply angloindian

The term itself is not offensive, but the way characters like "Joey" use it is with obvious offensive intention.