|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 11, 2005 10:24:01 GMT -5
Europeans Descended From Hunters, Not Farmers, Study SaysJames Owen for National Geographic News November 10, 2005This 7,500-year-old burial site in Halberstadt, Germany, dates back to one of central Europe's first farming cultures. Researchers used DNA collected from this and similar sites to investigate the mark that the earliest European farmers left on the genetic makeup of modern Europe. Photograph © Science. Europeans owe their ancestry mainly to Stone Age hunters, not to later migrants who brought farming to Europe from the Middle East, a new study suggests.Based on DNA analysis of ancient skeletons from Germany, Austria, and Hungary, the study sways the debate over the origins of modern Europeans toward hunter-gatherers who colonized Europe some 40,000 years ago. The DNA evidence suggests immigrant farmers who arrived tens of thousands of years later contributed little to the European gene pool. Instead they left a cultural legacy by introducing agriculture some 7,500 years ago, the researchers say. The study's findings, published this week in the journal Science, were a surprise to the study team, according to anthropologist Joachim Burger of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, in Mainz, Germany. "I expected the distribution of DNA in these early farmers to be more similar to the distribution we have today in Europe," he said. "Our paper suggests that there is a good possibility that the contribution of early farmers could be close to zero," added co-author Peter Forster, an archaeology research fellow at Cambridge University, England. "If the ancient DNA results turn out to be valid and reproducible, [they] are very exciting indeed," commented Alex Bentley, an anthropologist at Durham University, England. Pottery Clues The team investigated mitochondrial DNA—a permanent genetic marker passed from mothers to their offspring—recovered from the teeth and bones of 24 skeletons from 16 central European sites. These ancient humans all belonged to cultures that can be linked to the introduction of farming practices that began in present-day Israel, Jordan, and Syria around 12,000 years ago. The researchers identified which cultures the subjects belonged to by the decorations found on their pottery. A quarter of the prehistoric farmers were found to share a mitochondrial DNA signature that is now extremely rare worldwide and has left virtually no trace on living Europeans. The apparent failure of these people to make their genetic mark stands in stark contrast to farming itself, which spread rapidly across Europe. A possible explanation, the researchers write in their study, is "that small pioneer groups carried farming into new areas of Europe, and that once the technique had taken root, the surrounding hunter-gatherers adopted the new culture and then outnumbered the original farmers." Cambridge's Forster added, "It's interesting that a potentially minor migration of people into central Europe had such a huge cultural impact." Archeologist Marek Zvelebil agrees, saying the DNA findings support evidence from pottery and other artifacts from the beginning of the Late Stone Age. "This is one of the first studies to actually examine the bones of ancient human beings who lived 7,000 to 8,000 years ago," said Zvelebil, a professor at the University of Sheffield, England. "Archaeological evidence indicates that what we had was cultural diffusion and a mixture of perhaps some immigration and local adoption of farming culture," he added. "There's been 30 years of debate about this point—how the farming way of life reached Europe and spread. "Small groups of people migrated from the Near East into parts of the East Mediterranean and central Europe. But in most other parts of Europe you had local hunter-gathering people adopting farming." Male Genes Other researchers are less certain about this theory, saying the farmers' male genetic material—known as Y-chromosome sequences—needs to be established first. They argue that colonizing male farmers might have taken up with indigenous European women, in which case mitochondrial DNA traces of their lineage could have been largely erased over time. Bentley of Durham University says this theory may hold true in part. "In many historical instances men in colonizing populations have intermarried with indigenous women," he said. Yet evidence from elsewhere in Europe supports the idea that the introduction of farming represents a cultural rather than a genetic exchange, according to David Miles, research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, England, and author of the book, The Tribes of Britain. "In northwest Europe the genetic evidence suggests [farming] came mainly as an idea and that the number of people moving was relatively small," Miles said. Most of the farmers in Britain, for instance, would have been native descendents of the hunter-gatherers, he said. "There's been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it's now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of [modern British] genes come from a very small number of hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age," he said. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_europe.html
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Nov 14, 2005 4:56:53 GMT -5
Not exactly news to anyone who has read Sykes' Seven Daughters of Eve, not to speak of any "serious" papers on genetics.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 14, 2005 8:35:56 GMT -5
Well, the results come from a rather small sample and we shouldnt judge too fast and dont forget, there is still much dispute about that, at least here on the board and outside of it as well..
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Nov 14, 2005 12:14:18 GMT -5
This is not exactly surprising to me either!
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 14, 2005 12:32:39 GMT -5
mtDNA of early central European farmers A new study in Science examines ancient mtDNA from Central Europe and more precisely from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) and the related Alföldi Vonaldiszes Kerámia (AVK) cultures. The farmers of the LBK are responsible for the spread of agriculture in Central and Northern Europe, and hence their genetic composition is of particular interest: [INDENT]From a total of 57 LBK/AVK individuals analyzed, 24 individuals (42%) revealed reproducibly successful amplifications of all four primer pairs from at least two independent extractions usually sampled from different parts of the skeleton. Eighteen of the sequences belonged to typical western Eurasian mtDNA branches; there were seven H or V sequences, five T sequences, four K sequences, one J sequence, and one U3 sequence (table S1). These 18 sequences are common and widespread in modern Europeans, Near Easterners, and Central Asians, and thus these 18 lineages lack the detailed temporal or geographic discrimination required to test the hypotheses we are examining, even though some of them have previously been suggested to be of Neolithic origin on the basis of modern DNA studies (15). We therefore concentrated on the mtDNA types identified in the other six individuals. The most striking result is that 6 of the 24 Neolithic skeletons are of the distinctive and rare N1a branch. For verification, we sequenced 517 clones derived from independent extractions from different parts of the six individuals. All six showed the suite of mutations characteristic of the N1a lineage. Five of these six individuals display different N1a types, whereas Flomborn 1 and Derenburg 3 show identical N1a types (Table 1).[/INDENT] It is not surprising that the early Neolithic farmers belonged mainly to several well-known Caucasoid haplogroups. What is surprising is that a particular lineage, N1a which occurs at a low frequency in modern Europeans was found at a very high frequency in the ancient farmers. Moreover, it occurred in different sites, hence it appears to be a genuine distinguishing feature of the LBK, and not simply a peculiarity of some local population. The reduction of frequency of N1a in the modern sample is 150-fold. As the authors suggest, genetic drift alone cannot account for this enormous reduction, and the reduction can be explained either because (a) modern central Europeans are primarily descended from Paleolithic ones and not from the Neolithic culture bearers, or (b) the genetic legacy of the early farmers has been wiped out by subsequent population movements into Central Europe: [INDENT]These simulations reject the simple hypothesis in which modern Europeans are direct descendants of these first farmers and have lost N1a mainly by genetic drift. Hence the simulations confirm that the first farmers in Central Europe had limited success in leaving a genetic mark on the female lineages of modern Europeans. This is in contrast to the success of the Neolithic farming culture itself, which subsequently spread all over Europe, as the archaeological record demonstrates. One possible explanation is that the farming culture itself spread without the people originally carrying these ideas. This includes the possibility that small pioneer groups carried farming into new areas of Europe, and that once the technique had taken root, the surrounding hunter-gatherers adopted the new culture and then outnumbered the original farmers, diluting their N1a frequency to the low modern value. Archaeological research along the Western periphery of LBK and isotope studies of some of our sampled individuals seem to support the idea that male and female hunter-gatherers were integrated into the Neolithic communities (3, 10, 29). This hypothesis implies that N1a was rare or absent in Mesolithic Europeans, which may be a reasonable assumption given the rarity of the N1a type anywhere in the world (Fig. 3). An alternative hypothesis is a subsequent post–early-Neolithic population replacement in Europe, eliminating most of the N1a types. Archaeological evidence for such an event is as yet scant.[/INDENT] In the supplemental data we can see that there are some modern matches to the 6 ancient mtDNA sequences belonging to haplogroup N1a. - The sequence of Derenburg 3/Flomborn 1 occurs in the Chuvashi, in Slovakia, in Yemen, in Mashhad \Ostan-e-Khorasan, in Turkmen from Turkmenistan, in Iran, in Estonia, and in Sweden
- The sequence of Derenburg 1 occurs in Cairo Egypt, and Armenia.
- The sequence of Halberstadt 2 is not found elsewhere.
- The sequence of Unterwiederstedt 5 is not found elsewhere.
- The sequence of Ecsegfalva 1 is not found elsewhere
In conclusion, it appears that modern central Europeans are very little physically descended from the early Neolithic culture bearers of the same region. What we really need now is for other early Neolithic samples from other parts of Europe, Western Eurasia, and Northern Africa to be studied, to see whether N1a was a peculiarity of the LBK, or it was a genuine feature of the first farmers. PS: It should be noted that an alternative explanation for the great reduction in the frequency of N1a would be some form of negative selection. This suggestion is entirely speculative, but it should be kept in mind. Update: I have added a link to this study to the Ancient DNA compendium. Update 2: The major weakness of the study -apart from not having anything to say about selection- is that it assumes that haplogroup N1a was brought into Central Europe by the Neolithic farmers. However, there is no reason to suppose that this is the case. The authors arbitrarily label N1a as Neolithic, but they have no evidence that N1a was brought by the immigrant farmers and does not represent an indigenous component. Indeed, their own map shows that the particular cluster of N1a found in modern Europeans is not found in Greece or Turkey where the Neolithic of Europe originated. So, it is just as likely that N1a may be indigenous to central Europe and the Neolithic was associated with some of the other 18 sequences that were found in the Linear Pottery sample. Indeed, if N1a turns out to be Paleolithic, then the conclusions of their study will be completely reversed, and the great decrease in frequency of N1a would indicate an almost complete replacement of Paleolithic people by Neolithic farmers. In conclusion: the authors don't present any evidence for N1a being Neolithic by either measuring a high frequency in originary areas of the Neolithic (Anatolia and Greece), or by sampling ancient populations from the originary areas. Hence, their conclusions are entirely arbitrary. Science, Vol 310, Issue 5750, 1016-1018 , 11 November 2005 Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic SitesWolfgang Haak et al. The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to which Europeans are descended from the first European farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in Europe since 40,000 years ago. Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers. We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that these first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages. Our finding lends weight to a proposed Paleolithic ancestry for modern Europeans. LinkDienekes Pontikos
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 14, 2005 12:45:34 GMT -5
I should add that it isnt that surprising for the first waves of Neolithic settlers which were partly of quite primitive type and showed even Negriform features partly (mesognathy, vaulted forehead, short stature), like we know it from Natufids (often referred to as Protomediterranid) and Muge type in Europe.
According to the physical remains, there was at the beginning a quite clear distinction between this settlers and hunter gatherers (which lived not really primitive) especially if going further North. On the long run we see cultural adaptations, mixture and a growing dominance of types already present in the Mesolithicum and from that derived new progressive forms, especially those of the Corded Ware People which were most likely more herders than farmers, influenced by the LBK, but racially Northern. So it would be very interesting to compare the results of Corded Ware People with that of LBK and modern Europeans. Its clear that the non-adapted and partly quite primitive Neolithic variants had no striking effect on the long run, this was noted even in the 50's. Its most likely that only certain features might have survived as "inspiration" in Europeans, but that this early Neolithic variants were largely selected out on the long run, partly quite fast, because we see that the post-LBK cultures often crushed the older settlements.
Though contraselection and adaptation to sedentary farmer life might have reduced the Corded People genetic frequencies as well, I dont think to the same degree as that of early farmers. Thats an interesting question for the Indoeuropean dispute as well, since the Corded People were the primary, almost definitely Indoeuroean group in Europe in a crucial time and influential in many following, clearly Indoeuropean groups.
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Nov 15, 2005 9:31:04 GMT -5
And some claim that race is related to culture (e.g. european culture/-s always have been linked with farming, never was nomadic etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 15, 2005 10:48:18 GMT -5
And some claim that race is related to culture (e.g. european culture/-s always have been linked with farming, never was nomadic etc.) In fact most hunter gatherers didnt wanted to become farmers, because farmers have often worse food, more work, more dirt, more plagues etc. The main advantage was that you can get more children, children are a workers too - which is productive, and that you can, at least most of the time, plan better than as H-G. Most likely many higher hunter cultures of Europe knew basic husbandry, they simply didnt used it. Shortly after the Ice Age, in the beginning warm period, there might have been still enough free ressources. But that changed over time and the time when Neolithics, with already more evolved husbandry, came (both autochthonous adapted and Near Eastern) it was the big change and the higher competition lead to the adoption of specialised farmers, combined economy and herders. I think racial types have certain tendencies, are better adapted to this or that, even in the cultural sphere, the main difference might appear rather if looking at the way they deal with certain conditons, ideas, technologies, change etc. if at all since especially from a certain level on culture has a strong dynamic on its own. The main differences seems to be the final potential and way of dealing with things. The border is obviously not farming nor simple state structures. Considering Europeans its important to stress the fact that the climatic, cultural and socioeconomic change changed the racial types partly as well - sometimes quite strong.
|
|
|
Post by Pepe friend of obelix on Nov 15, 2005 10:54:04 GMT -5
And some claim that race is related to culture (e.g. european culture/-s always have been linked with farming, never was nomadic etc.) In fact most hunter gatherers didnt wanted to become farmers, because farmers have often worse food, more work, more dirt, more plagues etc. The main advantage was that you can get more children, children are a workers too - which is productive, and that you can, at least most of the time, plan better than as H-G. Most likely many higher hunter cultures of Europe knew basic husbandry, they simply didnt used it. Shortly after the Ice Age, in the beginning warm period, there might have been still enough free ressources. But that changed over time and the time when Neolithics, with already more evolved husbandry, came (both autochthonous adapted and Near Eastern) it was the big change and the higher competition lead to the adoption of specialised farmers, combined economy and herders. I think racial types have certain tendencies, are better adapted to this or that, even in the cultural sphere, the main difference might appear rather if looking at the way they deal with certain conditons, ideas, technologies, change etc. if at all since especially from a certain level on culture has a strong dynamic on its own. The main differences seems to be the final potential and way of dealing with things. The border is obviously not farming nor simple state structures. Considering Europeans its important to stress the fact that the climatic, cultural and socioeconomic change changed the racial types partly as well - sometimes quite strong. Agrippa ,Agrippa ,Agrippa ,Agrippa where do you come up with this crap? What an "expert" says Although the farmers from the Middle East transformed European culture, bringing agriculture, distinctive pottery and advanced building techniques, dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=genetics&action=display&thread=1132067497Also isnt it strange that those very noble nordic hunter gathers you are so fond of always seemed to want to wonder off and mix with other races? yes i said nordic because because lets admit it you do think nordic type is the most progssive and overall champeens (yes i ment to spell it that way ;D) of the world.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Nov 15, 2005 11:09:40 GMT -5
In fact most hunter gatherers didnt wanted to become farmers, because farmers have often worse food, more work, more dirt, more plagues etc. The main advantage was that you can get more children, children are a workers too - which is productive, and that you can, at least most of the time, plan better than as H-G. I don't think the HG or the farmers ever made such a coscient choice evaluating the factors you are quoting. The studies going on on present population of HG, support however your claim that HG usually know the basics for agriculture (relation seeds plants, etc.) but do not switch to it unless they are forced by the lowering of their condition (less edible things to gather-hunt). So it seems incorrect to imagine that the neolitic farmers were bearers of some agriculture secret tecnique that was unknown to the HG and immediately adopted by them as the path to a better way of life. This aside, I can't see reasons to believe that a longest selection as HG should be preferable to a selection as farmers. In the end the stable society is much more stratified, giving to brainpower much more selective importance than the HG groups. You could make a living being a priest, i.e. fooling people with words, looks more progressive than throwing roks at squirrels doesn't it? Not that the levante now seems to have kept much of that intelligence btw.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Nov 15, 2005 11:28:39 GMT -5
Couldnt this just a matter of "barbaric" neighbours imitating their "more advanced" neighbours in the middle east, and after a few generations this knowledge would spread to europe, instead of a group of levantines migrating all the way to hungary?
Farming seems to me a better option than hunting/gathering under all circumstances, you could argue that having a nomadic herding lifestyle may have been better back then, but not hunting/gathering, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Pepe friend of obelix on Nov 15, 2005 11:30:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 15, 2005 11:44:18 GMT -5
What exactly do you think is crap?
Yes? Whats the great contradiction to what I said above?
I commented AND explained that in various others threads, read there.
They simply had a longer tradition of breeding and husbandry which lead to their advanced techniques and higher, more productive breeds (compare early wheat with modern, early maize - for America obviously, with modern etc.). Not to mention sorts of plants and animals which weren't that widespread, especially not in some areas they colonised.
Herders are best - simple reason, farmers must not be that intelligent, farmers are just the base of higher culture, but they basically have just to do certain works, not being genius. Mainly upper classes and warriors were the real elite. In H-G and herder warriors all group members had to have a certain standard at least more so than in sedentary and dependent farmer societies.
First both mind and body should be advanced, not one alone, and secondly the advanced should have a significant BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE, otherwise they might be just socially successful but die with as much or even less children as the dumbest farmer which did just his work under the rule of others. In mobile warriors societies advanced groups fight each other, not just parts of the groups, but almost all males, those which are stronger win and have usually enough biological success to compensate for the losses. In sedentary farmer societies, especially those which advanced administration, that wasnt the case at all and it became worse from then to modernity, especially if comparing with mobile farmer-warriors and herders.
Furthermore the farmers, especially when their population reached a certain level, suffered from all the things I already mentioned in other threads: They had to work more for the same production (because earth was worse, not enough available), less proteins guaranteed, based more on grains, plagues, hunger, unergonomic hard work which leads to various problems for the body and one sided tendencies, dependent structures - social and spacial immobility. So brachymorphisation, reduction and partial infantilisation might be the result - not versatile developments like in h-g, mobile farmers or herders with stronger group selection and better physical training and nutrition.
Not only that intelligence should decrease on the long run for reasons I mentioned above, the social cohesion and psychic differences should come up as well, especially in bigger agglomerations in which the collective spirit and social control is low and egoistic behavious and one sided "social intelligence" might be more advantageous.
|
|
|
Post by Pepe friend of obelix on Nov 15, 2005 11:55:05 GMT -5
Agrippa, im sorry man but you are shady and not sincere.its not a personal attack its how i read you i guess.
"In fact most hunter gatherers didnt wanted to become farmers, because farmers have often worse food, more work, more dirt, more plagues etc."
What you wrote means that the two had a long interactions and the hg's with there super nordic intelligence decided to stick with eating rudolf the red nose reindeer and santa's other reindeers because of santa's helpers tasted better,was cleaner and no plagues
riiiiight?
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Nov 15, 2005 12:16:58 GMT -5
hunting gliptodonts VS Farming YOU CHOOSE
|
|