Marco
You evidently know a little more of the details of human migration
throughout the ages, my source, yet again, is Horizon, ( doesn't anybody
else ever get this!? ), and a Uk science series on Population Genetics,
where they actually did genetic analysis of a varying group of individuals,
whose heritage you would imagine to be very different, ( Asian, White
European, African etc)what the programme managed to prove is that our common
ancestry is relatively recent. There are gene tags present in all of us ( in
the Junk DNA ), which match up to modern day africans, asians and so on!..
The occurence and variation in a few of these specific gene markers, is
enough to work out how many individuals ( twenty or so), originally crossed
into europe from asia..
As for your more detailed pattern of migration, I guess this would have
occured as the sea level fell before the last ice age, 10,000 years ago,
giving rise to new land bridges, and aiding dispersion of mankind.
Genetic testing has not yet proved if there were two routes out of Africa:
"a northern Levantine route (to Eurasia) and a southern coastal route (to
Australasia)". if you follow the link below, I think you will see that your
assumption below doesn't hold water.
Marco
"Another one, westward, invaded Europe
replacing almost completely in different waves the few early Europeans.
Apparently the Basques (with doubts about Welsh and Irish?) are the only
ancient European population of non Indo-European origin
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/genes/population/myth.shtml
You are right to say that shamanic, animalistic religions may well have
evolved before this journey, but I'm not so sure they were. Surely all
religions however primitive would have attempted to leave some sort of mark
of their beliefs, as the aborigines have in Australia, but I have never read
of any pre-India. This is where we find the appearance of the earth mother
goddess, whose attributes are found in many later idols. I think John Romers
book " Testament: the bible and history " would be a good read.
Anyway enough for now
Rod
on 2/26/02 10:27 PM, Marco at marble@inwind.it wrote:
> My comment starts from Rod's post:
>
> ROD
> Let's remember that ALL humankind followed a path, literally, that started
> in the plains of africa, then migrating towards the east across what is now
> the arabian gulf, into india ( the birthplace of all religion ), by the time
> men reached india, we had apparently developed enough socially to evoke
> religious thoughts, early mysticism. Onward again and into China, again some
> must have stayed as in India and some must have on around behind the
> Himalayas and into eurasia, ( modern day soviet union... sorry), then on
> into europe and Greece.
>
> OK everything we now have as a culture originated with this journey over
> thousands of years, some stayed along the way and developed into discreet
> groups or societies, a split about 10000 yrs ago in china, when some went
> north and ended up, in North America, others went west and are our common
> ancestors... in fact it has been proven through genetics that everyone in
> europe came from a group from the east consisting of ten to twenty
> individuals.
>
> MARCO:
> Rod, what is your source for that? I have similar but not identical data. My
> source is a great book about the story of the colonization of our planet by
> humankind: "Genes, Peoples, Languages" by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, an
> Italian geneticist at Stanford. The book is available both in Italian and
> English. He has related studies of genetics, history of languages and
> archeology and has sketched the most probable path humankind has walked.
> There are few differences between his conclusions and your post.
>
> (I have not the book with me right now, so I hope I can remember everything
> correctly)
>
> Yes, everything started from Africa, about 100,000 years ago. At an average
> speed of about two kilometers per century (!) humans arrived firstly in
> India; then their path was split into two main directions: one through
> New Guinea up to Australia; another one eastward up to China.
>
> Then, another split: few small groups (yes, few dozens probably, but in two
> or three waves) crossed the Bering Sea and colonized America; other groups,
> westward, walked through Russia up to Europe. The first colonizers of Europe
> (probably the ancestors of the Celts?) were less distant than we could
> imagine from the American natives!
>
> Meanwhile, other waves started from Africa. One, probably through the
> Caucasian area, crossed the path of those "Northern Asians" and originated
> the so-called "Indo-Europeans". Another one stopped before, and originated
> the Semitic populations.
>
> Indo-Europeans then split into two directions: one south-east to India, a
> group that replaced almost completely the original populations (there are
> still in Southern India few villages of so called "pre-Dravidic" natives,
> very similar to Australians). Another one, westward, invaded Europe
> replacing almost completely in different waves the few early Europeans.
> Apparently the Basques (with doubts about Welsh and Irish?) are the only
> ancient European population of non Indo-European origin. Actually they have
> a
> completely different language, and many hidden peculiar genetic
> characteristic, like the RH- blood factor, that originated indeed there
> before the Indo-European invasions.
>
>
> This is the story, in few words. More or less 90,000 years.
>
> Few considerations. The Indo-European religions were invented much later
> than
> the shamanic religions (that were probably already existing since the
> African origins). And were not invented in India: the Indian version is one
> of the many. Actually there are similarities between all the Indo-European
> ancient religions (pre Christian and pre Buddha) and cultures. Similarities
> that we don't find in original Far East and Native American cultures.
> Especially: many competing Gods; an ungraspable (even by Gods) Fate. And the
> primacy of the sense of sight, with the importance of visions, drama, the
> "dharmakaya light" and so on...
>
> On the other hand, the Semitic populations developed a completely different
> kind of religion. One only God. Accessible, to a certain extent, as he
> reveals himself to us. And the primacy of the sense of hearing, with the
> spoken Verb, that is the voice of God, the Truth.
>
> Here is a point. One God is like to say one truth (I think we have already
> covered this in the past, Bo?) While many competing Gods are many competing
> truths. At the times of Homer, Greek culture was still *very* Indo-European.
> The battles between the Gods of the Homeric tale is an Indo-European saga.
> Then what happened? IMO the Greeks have been influenced by the Semitic
> populations (let's not forget that Greek alphabet is not Indo-European). In
> that culture, the idea of a single truth was something new and to a certain
> extent dynamic. At that point, the step to objectivity was not difficult.
>
> SOM, in my opinion, could be originated as a fusion between Indo-European
> and
> Semitic traditions. An absolute truth, but not revealed as "Verb" of God,
> rather an "Idea" (imagine) disclosed by reason. Actually, Plato prepared the
> ground for the "Semitic invasion" of Europe! Early Christian thinkers were
> all Neo-Platonic, and then neo-Aristotelian. A similar importance Plato's
> and Aristotle's thought gained among the Arabs, while the earlier Greek
> thinkers up to the Sophists have never been very popular.
>
> Note that Islam still considers a blasphemy any image of God, while
> Christianity had to adapt himself to many Indoerupean traditions. And we
> have the images of God. In a classic Greek fashion. The Semitic invasion of
> Europe has never been complete and actually is over. It has lasted up to the
> last century, when finally Nietzsche declared that God was dead. Just
> restarting, where else?, from the traditions of the pre-Plato Greece.
> Tragedy, the Orphic myths and so on....
>
> And what about the MOQ? I don't think the MOQ is completely derived from an
> Indo-European, Orphic tradition, and that is completely against the SOM.
> Pirsig never dismisses the great advancements the SOMish thought has
> produced. The MOQ, as well as modern science and technology could not exist
> without the SOM. He is just trying to restore some good points from the
> Indo-European tradition: the multiplicity of truth, the ungraspable
> "Conceptually Unknown".... few points that can correct the SO thinking.
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:54 BST