Back to European paleolithic . I came to the conclusion that Aurignacian is the period making trouble and , as I was checking the dates for the Chauvet's painting (dated 31000 years BP) I found this : C.Züchner précise que la date donnée est celle de la fabrication du charbon de bois et non de la réalisation de la peinture. [sorry for this french sentence - I keep it for the name] "If we assume that the AMS dates are physically correct, then there must exist reasons causing results contradicting to archaeological evidence. Even if we rule out contamination, other events may entail aberrant results. One could be that prehistoric artists prepared charcoal with sub-fossil wood buried in river terraces or under glacial dunes. The idea may seem fantastic at first sight. But in fact there exists wood which survived in glacial sediments some hundred thousand years in very good condition. Roots and tree trunks of Allerød look sometimes so fresh that they cannot be distinguished from recent ones at first sight. Black paint prepared of this material today would appear 11,000 years old! The seemingly coherent sequence of dates may be explained by the fact that Gravettian people lightened fire and torches in the cave (Bednarik 1994 a.b). As its charcoal rests on the surface even today, it could be re-used by any later visitor to make some strokes. But there may ! be other reasons falsifying results of AMS dates too. Research started only at Grotte Chauvet and it is too early to jump at conclusions! Future will show what really happened there. In my opinion, Chauvet and his friends have not discovered the oldest cave sanctuary of the world, but - regarding its age and importance - a second Lascaux." and further : "The final straw came when I learned that some black dots in the Spanish cave of Candamo had been dated to more than 31,000 years ago by the lab which dated Chauvet; but samples from the same group of dots, dated by an American lab, produced two results of 15,000. (New scientist) . So I have written an article with the palaeolithic archaeologist Paul Pettit, a radiocarbon specialist, which is due to appear in the March issue of Antiquity, and in which we explain the Candamo anomaly, and examine the possible implications for Chauvet. I must stress that some figures in Chauvet may indeed be Aurignacian in date - we do not reject this - but we do argue that this is far from proven. What we urge - since it has not been done yet - is that multiple laboratories must be used in the direct dating of cave art (almost all dates so far, dozens of them, from umpteen caves, have come from the same lab); that samples should be split, where possible, for verification of results by differen! t labs; that undecorated walls should be checked for natural contamination; and that the existing dates should be published with full data in specialised journals - the new series of dates for Chauvet, for example, have as yet only been published in the coffee-table book. These points appear to us to be basic science, but none of them has yet been implemented." I now suspect tha Aurignacians people never produced arts, at least nothing comparable to the next period : Gravettian, now well documented. Gravettain is from 29000 to 22000 BP Aurignacian could be some kind of hybrid culture between Neanderthal and modern men. I suspect that genetics has plenty to say about datings and I am very sorry that it can't be posted on the I list while most people on other lists are mostly interested on R1b. > > > > > > There are many many choices for a population from K (interclade to IJ) > > > which > > > is parent to many haplogroups. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Didier VERNADE > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 4:38 PM > > > To: Kenneth Nordtvedt > > > Subject: Re: Mount Toba and the early stages of human expansion out of > > > africa > > > > > > Ahhh ! That makes a difference ; I missed the point. > > > I suggest L haplogroup as a reference point but those k* from Australia > > > and > > > Eurasia might do as well. > > > > > > May be it's some distant influence of A. Klyosov but it seems that we > > > are > > > getting to a point where a chronology can be tried. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The node I refer to where “I” branch line and “J” branch line part > > > > ways > > > > is > > > > END of IJ, more or less. Beginning of IJ would be estimated by > > > > interclade > > > > estimates between I and/or J haplotype populations and, for example, > > > > some > > > > R populations. > > > > > > > > From: Didier VERNADE > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 2:55 PM > > > > To: Kenneth Nordtvedt > > > > Subject: Re: Mount Toba and the early stages of human expansion out of > > > > africa > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the input. So, only [IJK] could fit for older times. The > > > > "Aurignacien" (french spelling...) is following Neanderthal in France > > > > and > > > > dates like 35000 are frequently mentioned... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only input to your question I have at the moment is that the node > > > > > age > > > > > for I > > > > > and J (MRCA of both I and J) has always come out less than 30,000 > > > > > years > > > > > when > > > > > I estimated it. But it has been some time since last estimate. KN > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Didier VERNADE > > > > > > > > > > My question to this list would be : how old can be [IJ] ? Can it fit > > > > > with > > > > > the earliest modern man in Europe, say around 50 000 years ago ? > > > > > > > > > > Didier > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >