Evaluating the Neolithic Expansion at Both Shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

During the Neolithic, human populations underwent cultural and technological developments that led to an agricultural revolution. Although the population genetics and evolution of European Neolithic populations have been extensively studied, little is known regarding the Neolithic expansion in North Africa with respect to Europe. One could expect that the different environmental and geological conditions at both shores of the Mediterranean Sea could have led to contrasting expansions. In order to test this hypothesis, we compared the Neolithic expansion in Europe and North Africa accounting for possible migration between them through the Strait of Gibraltar. We analyzed the entire X chromosome of 580 individuals from 20 populations spatially distributed along the North of Africa and Europe. Next, we applied approximate Bayesian computation based on extensive spatially explicit computer simulations to select among alternative scenarios of migration through the Strait of Gibraltar and to estimate population genetics parameters in both expansions. Our results suggest that, despite being more technologically advanced, Neolithic populations did not expand faster than Paleolithic populations, which could be interpreted as a consequence of a more sedentary lifestyle. We detected reciprocal Neolithic migration between the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa through the Strait of Gibraltar. Counterintuitively, we found that the studied Neolithic expansions presented similar levels of carrying capacity and migration, and occurred at comparable speeds, suggesting a similar demic process of substitution of hunter-gatherer populations. Altogether, the Neolithic expansion through both Mediterranean shores was not so different, perhaps because these populations shared similar technical abilities and lifestyle patterns.

Initial assessment and treatment of refugees in the Mediterranean Sea (a secondary data analysis concerning the initial assessment and treatment of 2656 refugees rescued from distress at sea in support of the EUNAVFOR MED relief mission of the EU).

BACKGROUND: As a part of the European Union Naval Force - Mediterranean Operation Sophia (EUNAVFOR Med), the Federal Republic of Germany is contributing to avoid further loss of lives at sea by supplying two naval vessels. In the study presented here we analyse the medical requirements of such rescue missions, as well as the potential benefits of various additional monitoring devices in identifying sick/injured refugees within the primary onboard medical assessment process. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the data collected between May - September 2015 from a German Naval Force frigate. Initial data collection focused on the primary medical assessment and treatment process of refugees rescued from distress at sea. Descriptive statistics, uni- and multivariate analysis were performed. The study has received a positive vote from the Ethics Commission of the University of Ulm, Germany (request no. 284/15) and has been registered in the German Register of Clinical Studies (no. DRKS00009535). RESULTS: A total of 2656 refugees had been rescued. 16.9 % of them were classified as "medical treatment required" within the initial onboard medical assessment process. In addition to the clinical assessment by an emergency physician, pulse rate (PR), core body temperature (CBT) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were evaluated. Sick/injured refugees displayed a statistically significant higher PR (114/min vs. 107/min; p < .001) and CBT (37.1 °C vs. 36.7 °C; p < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in SpO2-values. The same results were found for the subgroup of patients classified as "treatment at emergency hospital required". However, a much larger difference of the mean PR and CBT (35/min resp. 1.8 °C) was found when examining the subgroups of the corresponding refugee boats. A cut-off value of clinical importance could not be found. Predominant diagnoses have been dermatological diseases (55.4), followed by internal diseases (27.7) and trauma (12.1 %). None of the refugees classified as "healthy" within the primary medical assessment process changed to "medical treatment required" during further observation. CONCLUSIONS: The initial medical assessment by an emergency physician has proved successful. PR, CBT and SpO2 didn't have any clinical impact to improve the identification of sick/injured refugees within the primary onboard assessment process.

The big crossing: illegal boat migrants in the Mediterranean.

This article explores illegal migration routes and groups across North Africa to Europe. We describe sub-Saharan and cross-Mediterranean routes, and how they changed during the years. We propose an analytical framework for the main factors for these migrations, from local to international and regulatory context. We then describe sea-migrants' nationalities and socio-economic and demographic characteristics, from studies undertook in Tunisia and Morocco. While boat migration represents only a fraction of illegal migration to Europe, it raises humanitarian as well as ethical issues for European and North African (NA) countries, as a non-negligible amount of them end up in death tolls of shipwrecks in the Mediterranean Sea. Moreover, existing statistics show that illegal trans-Mediterranean migration is growing exponentially. Ongoing crises in Africa and the Middle East are likely to prompt even larger outflows of refugees in the near future. This should induce NA countries to share closer public policy concerns with European countries.