3 ms·

The DNA analysis not only backs up the evidence, but it's is a different kind of evidence. Language or pottery styles could theoretically be transmitted withou

by mohawk 12y ago

The DNA analysis not only backs up the evidence, but it's is a different kind of evidence. Language or pottery styles could theoretically be transmitted without there being a trace in people's genomes. Memes vs genes if you will.

lez 12y ago
However, in practice, especially in old ages, language and culture relates quite closely to peoples. Inventions that make life easier, are the kind of things that spread relatively fast between civilizations.
weland 12y ago
Except memes travel more or less instantaneously now, whereas back then, the only way culture and civilization elements traveled was along with people.
- Someone 12y ago
  But a wave can get transmitted without any 'particle' moving any significant distance. With people walking a few hours between villages, ideas could theoretically spread at >10 kilometers a day. At 100 walking days a year, that's Rome to Paris in a year, easily. In practice, transmission speed would be way lower, but given a few millennia, a lot is possible. And, by the way, that applies to genes, too. There is no need for statistical east-west drift of humans for genes to spread from Asia to Europe. All you need is (way) more people in Asia than in Europe, and people moving a few km in random directions between birth and adulthood (oceans limiting such movements would help, too, but aren't even necessary)
  - weland 12y ago
    > With people walking a few hours between villages, ideas could theoretically spread at >10 kilometers a day. You needed a lot more than a few hours to walk between the villages in the Eurasian steppes, mostly because there were no villages there. Population density back then wasn't what it is now.
- duaneb 12y ago
  That's true, but how do you distinguish between migratory people, conquering people, and cultural diffusion?
  - benbreen 12y ago
    This is a fascinating question and (last time I kept abreast of the literature, admittedly about 8 or 9 years ago now) seemed to be an open one. DNA evidence can only tell so much because it only hints at the spread of technologies, languages, or the "Neolithic Package" of domestication practices and tools that revolutionized European prehistory. This article seems to have a more up to date view than the work I was familiar with (Cavalli-Sforza's): http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf30/30richards.pdf http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf30/30richards.p...
pluma 12y ago
Certainly. I wasn't saying the actual news isn't newsworthy, but the article puts the emphasis in the wrong place.

by mohawk 12y ago

lez 12y ago

However, in practice, especially in old ages, language and culture relates quite closely to peoples. Inventions that make life easier, are the kind of things that spread relatively fast between civilizations.

weland 12y ago

Except memes travel more or less instantaneously now, whereas back then, the only way culture and civilization elements traveled was along with people.

Someone 12y ago
But a wave can get transmitted without any 'particle' moving any significant distance. With people walking a few hours between villages, ideas could theoretically spread at >10 kilometers a day. At 100 walking days a year, that's Rome to Paris in a year, easily. In practice, transmission speed would be way lower, but given a few millennia, a lot is possible. And, by the way, that applies to genes, too. There is no need for statistical east-west drift of humans for genes to spread from Asia to Europe. All you need is (way) more people in Asia than in Europe, and people moving a few km in random directions between birth and adulthood (oceans limiting such movements would help, too, but aren't even necessary)
- weland 12y ago
  > With people walking a few hours between villages, ideas could theoretically spread at >10 kilometers a day. You needed a lot more than a few hours to walk between the villages in the Eurasian steppes, mostly because there were no villages there. Population density back then wasn't what it is now.
duaneb 12y ago
That's true, but how do you distinguish between migratory people, conquering people, and cultural diffusion?
- benbreen 12y ago
  This is a fascinating question and (last time I kept abreast of the literature, admittedly about 8 or 9 years ago now) seemed to be an open one. DNA evidence can only tell so much because it only hints at the spread of technologies, languages, or the "Neolithic Package" of domestication practices and tools that revolutionized European prehistory. This article seems to have a more up to date view than the work I was familiar with (Cavalli-Sforza's): http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf30/30richards.pdf http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf30/30richards.p...

pluma 12y ago

Certainly. I wasn't saying the actual news isn't newsworthy, but the article puts the emphasis in the wrong place.