posted
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A study of DNA from ancient farmers in Europe shows sharp differences from that of modern Europeans -- results that are likely to add fuel to the debate over European origins.
Researchers led by Wolfgang Haak of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, argue that their finding supports the belief that modern residents of central Europe descended from Stone Age hunter-gatherers who were present 40,000 years ago, and not the early farmers who arrived thousands of years later.
But other anthropologists questioned that conclusion, arguing that the available information isn't sufficient to support it.
Haak's team used DNA from 24 skeletons of farmers from about 7,500 years ago, collected in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Six of the skeletons -- 25 percent -- belonged to the "N1a" human lineage, according to genetic signatures in their mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother.
The N1a marker is extremely rare in modern Europeans, appearing in just 0.2 percent.
"This was a surprise. I expected the distribution of mitochondrial DNA in these early farmers to be more similar to the distribution we have today in Europe," co-author Joachim Burger, also from Johannes Gutenberg University, said in a statement.
"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 from the University of Cambridge in England.
Absence of the marker in modern people indicates they are descended from ancient hunter-gatherers rather than the later-arriving farmers, the researchers said.
But others challenged that conclusion.
"The data are new, the analysis is not compelling, and the conclusions are illogical," said anthropologist Milford H. Wolpoff of the University of Michigan.
Anthropologist Joao Zilhao of the University of Bristol, England, noted that the study didn't compare the DNA of the ancient farmers with that of the ancient hunter-gatherers, adding that there are plenty of hunter-gatherer burials in German cave sites that could have been sampled for comparison.
Without that comparison it's hard to say that the difference between modern DNA and that of the ancient farmers means current people are descended from the ancient hunter-gatherers.
"In this particular case, the reason may be because of a farmer input that was subsequently diluted, assuming that the N1a haplotype is a marker of spreading farmers, and that it was as rare in pre-Neolithic Europe as it is today," Zilhao said.
But, he added, "I see nothing in the data that would necessarily carry the exclusion of, for instance, the opposite hypothesis ... that (the N1a marker) represents the incorporation of hunter-gatherer females in the farming communities that are coming into Europe about 7,500 years ago, that incorporation being in such small numbers that, eventually, it all but disappeared."
The research was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: WASHINGTON (AP) -- A study of DNA from ancient farmers in Europe shows sharp differences from that of modern Europeans -- results that are likely to add fuel to the debate over European origins.
Researchers led by Wolfgang Haak of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, argue that their finding supports the belief that modern residents of central Europe descended from Stone Age hunter-gatherers who were present 40,000 years ago, and not the early farmers who arrived thousands of years later.
Gosh, sure sounds familiar.
quote: "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 from the University of Cambridge in England.
quote: Absence of the marker in modern people indicates they are descended from ancient hunter-gatherers rather than the later-arriving farmers, the researchers said.
quote:"The data are new, the analysis is not compelling, and the conclusions are illogical," said anthropologist Milford H. Wolpoff of the University of Michigan.
Oh pish-tosh, it isn't illogical if you stop reacting emotively and think it thru.
Here's a logical explanation from CL Brace 2005:
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion. If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the sub-Saharan traces.
quote:"In this particular case, the reason may be because of a farmer input that was subsequently diluted, assuming that the N1a haplotype is a marker of spreading farmers, and that it was as rare in pre-Neolithic Europe as it is today," Zilhao said.
posted
I wonder who the N1a marker is common in? Care to look Hor?
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I don't expect Professor Hor to answer this question because he IS WAY TOO SCARED to look.
Here is the answer:
N1a is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, and Indian populations (Mountain et al. 1995; Richards et al. 2000). [hence it is not Caucasian]
It occurs at a significant frequency in both Ethiopian and Yemeni populations.
What happen to that troll EvilE. I'd love to hear what he thinks of this. The Natufians strikes again.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a nice picture of an N1a carrier: Ethiopian Oromos. And no, they are not mixed with Eurasian. The J1 occurs no higher than 3% amongst the Oromos but they carry a high frequency of N1a.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Here's a nice picture of an N1a carrier: Ethiopian Oromos. And no, they are not mixed with Eurasian. The J1 occurs no higher than 3% amongst the Oromos but they carry a high frequency of N1a.
That is a blaintent lie.......the lady is not Oromo.
Lets remember that ethiopia is a land of many ethnic groups. Its not just amara, oromo and somali.
Posts: 410 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The woman above is of the Hamer ethnic group.
It's possible that N1a lineages originate in Yemen and were picked up by Natufians as Africans migrated out of the Levant and into the Middle East. Or it's possible that L3N and M broke off from L3 in Ethiopia and crossed into Yemen from there. Either way, the ensuing picture of demic diffusion of the African and West Asian Neolithic into Europe is much the same. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^The woman above is of the Hamer ethnic group.
It's possible that N1a lineages originate in Yemen and were picked up by Natufians as Africans migrated out of the Levant and into the Middle East. Or it's possible that L3N and M broke off from L3 in Ethiopia and crossed into Yemen from there. Either way, the ensuing picture of demic diffusion of the African and West Asian Neolithic into Europe is much the same.
Relax, I just didn't look close enough. I'll try again.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Relax, I just didn't look close enough. I'll try again.
I'm not up-tight about it.
Though I think you don't want to lose track of the main issue in your own thread - not what Ethiopians look like, but rather: Modern Europeans appear genetically unrelated to first farmers.
A troll would take your picture and run with it, until we are eventually looking at BestOFAsia photos of Australian Lesbian "Somalies".
You are basically inviting them to change the topic of your own thread.
posted
Lets talk about N1a. Does anybody else find it good to see this type of work being done by white people who are not afraid of the truth?Where did N1A come from? I think it probably came from Ethiopia. Am I wrong to think this, does anybody have anything on N1A
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hamer are Omatic, Oromo are Cushitic, two different Afrasan linguistic groups.
On Haplotype N1a from your earlier link:
N1a is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, and Indian populations (Mountain et al. 1995; Richards et al. 2000). It occurs at a significant frequency in both Ethiopian and Yemeni populations. Six Ethiopian N1a lineages, restricted to Semitic-speaking subpopulations, show low haplotype diversity and include an exact HVS-I sequence match with a published N1a sequence from Egypt (Krings et al. 1999). A related sequence, from southern Sudan (Krings et al. 1999), was misclassified as a member of the L1a clade (Salas et al. 2002). Yemeni N1a sequences, on the other hand, display a high level of haplotype (h=0.89) and nucleotide (ρ=2.75±1) diversity, combined with the highest frequency (6.9%) of this haplogroup reported so far.
The important thing to understand about old N and M lineages is that they derive from L3.
L3 is East African and all non African female lineages derive from L3.
For this reason they are sometimes disignated L3M or L3N.
Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M - Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans, Toomas Kivisild et al.
[L3] N1a either diverged from L3 in Ethiopia and spread across the gulf of aden into South Yemen, or....more likely, L3 spread to Yemen and diverged into N1a and then spread back to Ethiopia.
At the very least N1a diversified in Southern Arabia -> thus highest diversity & highest frequency (6.9%) of this haplogroup reported so far.
Doesn't matter much as the picture of how it entered the European Neolithic is either -> Ethiopia to South Arabia to Levantine to Neolithic Europe, or Ethiopia, to South Arabia, back to Ethiopia, to Nile valley to Levantine to Europe.
posted
Aren't Yemeni maternally significantly Ethiopian? I have read an article that said Ethiopian and Yemeni are maternally almost identical. Diversification of the haplotype could be caused by migration.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No they aren't identical maternally, but all of southern Arabia has lineages from Black Africa, male and female, East and West.
What is left primarily of Neolithic demi defusive lineages in Europeans is paternal E3b [east africa] and J [southwest Asia]. As we've seen in other threads, paternal lineages are more likely to be expanded thru founder effect.
That's why it is interesting to see some evidence of non European maternal lineages in the neolithic that have now all but disapeared in modern Europe.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Hamer are Omatic, Oromo are Cushitic, two different Afrasan linguistic groups.
On Haplotype N1a from your earlier link:
N1a is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, and Indian populations (Mountain et al. 1995; Richards et al. 2000). It occurs at a significant frequency in both Ethiopian and Yemeni populations. Six Ethiopian N1a lineages, restricted to Semitic-speaking subpopulations, show low haplotype diversity and include an exact HVS-I sequence match with a published N1a sequence from Egypt (Krings et al. 1999). A related sequence, from southern Sudan (Krings et al. 1999), was misclassified as a member of the L1a clade (Salas et al. 2002). Yemeni N1a sequences, on the other hand, display a high level of haplotype (h=0.89) and nucleotide (ρ=2.75±1) diversity, combined with the highest frequency (6.9%) of this haplogroup reported so far.
The important thing to understand about old N and M lineages is that they derive from L3.
L3 is East African and all non African female lineages derive from L3.
For this reason they are sometimes disignated L3M or L3N.
Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M - Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans, Toomas Kivisild et al.
[L3] N1a either diverged from L3 in Ethiopia and spread across the gulf of aden into South Yemen, or....more likely, L3 spread to Yemen and diverged into N1a and then spread back to Ethiopia.
At the very least N1a diversified in Southern Arabia -> thus highest diversity & highest frequency (6.9%) of this haplogroup reported so far.
Doesn't matter much as the picture of how it entered the European Neolithic is either -> Ethiopia to South Arabia to Levantine to Neolithic Europe, or Ethiopia, to South Arabia, back to Ethiopia, to Nile valley to Levantine to Europe.
“It can also be argued that it is not likely that the "northern" genetic profile is simply due to "Eurasians" having colonized supra- Saharan regions from external African sources. It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin. As a term "Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it suggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can be postulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before the emigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra- Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and careful analysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities is needed. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion.”
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was previously posted a while ago but I think this is a good thread to bring this up again. Here goes:
Ok guys, this is what I don't get: I have seen numerous studies that states that neolithic and bronze age europeans are not closely related to modern inhabitants. So here are my questions: 1)Where did the new modern european phenotype come from? 2)Was the neolithic period before the LGM last Glacial Maximum?
3)How does the modern european cluster when it comes to neanderthal osteology?
4)Why is there more continuity amongst African phenotype (in terms of gradient) than there is amongst Europeans even thought africans are more diverse.
-Does any of these question indicates possible immersion of modern humans with another closely related species let's say neanderthal?
- Is there any peer-reviewed articles that highlights this and attempts to expound and explain these peculiar aspects of european (pre) history?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: WASHINGTON (AP) -- A study of DNA from ancient farmers in Europe shows sharp differences from that of modern Europeans -- results that are likely to add fuel to the debate over European origins.
Researchers led by Wolfgang Haak of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, argue that their finding supports the belief that modern residents of central Europe descended from Stone Age hunter-gatherers who were present 40,000 years ago, and not the early farmers who arrived thousands of years later.
But other anthropologists questioned that conclusion, arguing that the available information isn't sufficient to support it.
Haak's team used DNA from 24 skeletons of farmers from about 7,500 years ago, collected in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Six of the skeletons -- 25 percent -- belonged to the "N1a" human lineage, according to genetic signatures in their mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother.
The N1a marker is extremely rare in modern Europeans, appearing in just 0.2 percent.
"This was a surprise. I expected the distribution of mitochondrial DNA in these early farmers to be more similar to the distribution we have today in Europe," co-author Joachim Burger, also from Johannes Gutenberg University, said in a statement.
"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 from the University of Cambridge in England.
Absence of the marker in modern people indicates they are descended from ancient hunter-gatherers rather than the later-arriving farmers, the researchers said.
But others challenged that conclusion.
"The data are new, the analysis is not compelling, and the conclusions are illogical," said anthropologist Milford H. Wolpoff of the University of Michigan.
Anthropologist Joao Zilhao of the University of Bristol, England, noted that the study didn't compare the DNA of the ancient farmers with that of the ancient hunter-gatherers, adding that there are plenty of hunter-gatherer burials in German cave sites that could have been sampled for comparison.
Without that comparison it's hard to say that the difference between modern DNA and that of the ancient farmers means current people are descended from the ancient hunter-gatherers.
"In this particular case, the reason may be because of a farmer input that was subsequently diluted, assuming that the N1a haplotype is a marker of spreading farmers, and that it was as rare in pre-Neolithic Europe as it is today," Zilhao said.
But, he added, "I see nothing in the data that would necessarily carry the exclusion of, for instance, the opposite hypothesis ... that (the N1a marker) represents the incorporation of hunter-gatherer females in the farming communities that are coming into Europe about 7,500 years ago, that incorporation being in such small numbers that, eventually, it all but disappeared."
The research was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research.
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: rastroll is still spinning. Truth is, he has no earthly idea.
I wouldn't be surprised that you don't like these findings. Even if that is the case, nothing can be done, it is indeed fact. Heck, many still choose to believe that evolution is a theory. You do have a choice.
However, the way you feel is how non-Europeans feel when he/she is fed Eurocentrism. Non-Europeans are taught that civilization was only brought in by Europeans.
Now science tells us it's the other way around. It makes sense, the Indo-European Hittites hijack the prior civilizations of the Middle East, with little input. The other IE people have done the same. Even Greek civilization was built upon a non-European foundation. What did the Dorians bring into Anatolia?
Eurocentrism is getting kicked real bad. Posts: 58 | From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Keins: So here are my questions:
1)Where did the new modern european phenotype come from?
2)Was the neolithic period before the LGM last Glacial Maximum?
3)How does the modern european cluster when it comes to neanderthal osteology?
4)Why is there more continuity amongst African phenotype (in terms of gradient) than there is amongst Europeans even thought africans are more diverse.
Thought Writes:
I will give you the quick and dirty version.
1) European phenotype evolved in situ in Europe. The Neolithic bearers from the Middle East were absorbed by the numerically dominant indigenous Mesolithic Europeans.
2) Neolithic after LGM.
3) Modern Europeans PHENOTYPICALLY cluster closer to neaderthals in many ways than do early homosapiens in Europe who were similar in many ways to modern Khoisan speaking peoples.
4) Africans never left their homeland, hence greater affinity between early homosapeins and modern Africans.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting to see how the Eurocentrists are retreating, regrouping, and renewing their dissemblings in the face of the latest findings.
Since they are not primarily descendant from the Neolithic Afro-Asiatic culture bearers....look for a rash of studies attempting to glorify their paleolithic cave dwelling ancestors.
Ironic, since it is the ws.t paradigm of history that marks the Neolithic as the beginning of true civilisation. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Interesting to see how the Eurocentrists are retreating, regrouping, and renewing their dissemblings in the face of the latest findings.
Since they are not primarily descendant from the Neolithic Afro-Asiatic culture bearers....look for a rash of studies attempting to glorify their paleolithic cave dwelling ancestors.
Ironic, since it is the ws.t paradigm of history that marks the Neolithic as the beginning of true civilisation.
Thought Writes:
The "Neolithic Revolution" indeed was a ruse. In fact the Neolithic was a process rooted in Upper Paleolithic Central Africa. Improved/reduced hunting and gathering technology facilitated population growth. This population growth spread from the Great Lakes region into the African Rift Valley, possibly associated with the dispersal of PN2 clad prior to the Last Glacial Maximum. Later pre-LGM migrations possibly led to one branch of the haplogroup PN2 clad spreading into West Africa or the areas around Lake Chad. Possibly this lineage later diverged into haplogroup E3a*. The Rift Valley cultures seem to have spread to the Horn of Africa where we see so-called Neolithic traits such as ritual burial and the obsidian trade during the Late Pleistocene. In the Horn of Africa PN2 may have differentiated into haplogroup E3b*. From the Horn of Africa there may have been a spread of E3b lineages down the Nile and between the Nile and the Red Sea Hills. These groups may have been agriculturalists or proto agriculturalists. These E3b carrying populations may have come into contact with indigenous haplogroup A carrying populations in the Nile and Maghreb. In the Nile a gathering culture may have evolved. This gathering culture may have been disrupted by the onset of the High Nile Floods at the onset of the early Holocene, which began earlier in Africa than in Europe. This disruption may have effected the indigenous gathering (or cultivating) economy and hastened warfare, as seen at Jebel Sahaba. Limited resources may have pushed some of these Nile Valley populations into the Levant, where this spill-over may have sparked the Natufian culture. The Natufian culture in turn spread around the circum-Mediterranean basin and into the Balkans. From the Balkans the neolithic culture spread down the Danuabe and into central Europe.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Neolithic process must be reconceptualised in terms of originating at least in part in Africa and spreading to SouthWest Asia and Europe.
And this not withstanding distinct histories in East Asia, Melanesia, the Americas and elsewhere.
Thought Writes:
On a side note I recommend that any and everyone on this forum interested in this topic read:
Peter Bellwood First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies Blackwell Publsihing 2005
ISBN 0-631-20565-9
Not withstanding Bellwoods Eurocentric approach to the origins of Afro-Asiatic, the book casts a wide net of information.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: These E3b carrying populations may have come into contact with indigenous haplogroup A carrying populations in the Nile and Maghreb.
Thought Writes:
Haplogroup A is found in low frequencies in Turkey, Sardinia, Iberia the Levant and among populations such as the Jews. It may represent the Upper Paleolithic Nile Valley lineage prior to the diffusion of E3b from the Horn of Africa. Given the possible proto-agricultural (intensive gathering) economy of the E3b carrying Horn of Africa populations they may have genetically swamped the indiegnous haplogroup A carrying Pliestocene populations in the Nile. The spread of the Sub-Saharan or Saharan types to NW Africa may correlate with the so-called "negroid" traits among the Afalou. Goncalves et al. 2005 believe this lineage spread to Iberia prior to the Neolithic.
Haplogroup A is found in low frequencies in Turkey, Sardinia, Iberia the Levant and among populations such as the Jews......The spread of the Sub-Saharan or Saharan types to NW Africa may correlate with the so-called "negroid" traits among the Afalou. Goncalves et al. 2005 believe this lineage spread to Iberia prior to the Neolithic.
Thought Writes:
And lets not forget Coon's theory about the large "Khosian type" indigenous to North Africa.
Thought Posts:
Evidence for the molecular heterogeneity of sickle cell anemia chromosomes bearing the betaS/Benin haplotype. Am J Hematol. 2005 Sep;80(1):79-80.
"There are at least four distinct African and one Asian chromosomal backgrounds (haplotypes) on which the sickle cell mutation has arisen. Additionally, previous data suggest that the beta(S)/Bantu haplotype is heterogeneous at the molecular level. Here, we report the presence of the (A)gamma -499 T-->A variation in sickle cell anemia chromosomes of Sicilian and North African origin bearing the beta(S)/Benin haplotype. Being absent from North American beta(S)/Benin chromosomes, which were studied previously, this variation is indicative for the molecular heterogeneity of the beta(S)/Benin haplotype."
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A study of DNA from ancient farmers in Europe shows sharp differences from that of modern Europeans -- results that are likely to add fuel to the debate over European origins.
Debate what Debate ?
You mean Denial because
Quote from the article :
But other anthropologists questioned that conclusion, arguing that the available information isn’t sufficient to support it .
Some are still going around in circle over the origins of Man.
So I will say it again
The Oldest Human(African) remains is still found in Africa,
From a simple mouth swab, our testing laboratory at the University of London is able to compare your DNA with the genetic information of thousands of men and women worldwide. We can reveal how your own family history fits into the global family tree that unites the human race. On your personalised genetic heritage wallchart, you will discover how your personal ancestral lineage is descended from the earliest journeys of modern humans as they began to spread out from our African motherland to people the world .
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SCIENCE FILE Study Casts Doubt on Europeans' Ancestral Link to Fertile Crescent By Alex Raksin, Times Staff Writer
Europeans are most closely related to the Stone Age hunter-gatherers who arrived on the continent 40,000 years ago - not, as many archeologists have long surmised, the adept migrants from the Fertile Crescent who introduced agriculture to the continent 7,500 years ago.
That's the ADVERTISEMENT
The study was published Friday in the journal Science.
"We were surprised to find close to zero" resemblance between the early farmers' genes and those of modern Europeans, said Peter Forster, an archeologist at Britain's University of Cambridge who coauthored the study.
Although the farmers from the Middle East transformed European culture, bringing agriculture, distinctive pottery and advanced building techniques, the genetic mark they left is minuscule.
"In the worldwide database of 35,000 modern DNA lineages, there are fewer than 50 modern Europeans" with the farmers' DNA, Forster said.
The new data, however, clash with analyses of paternally inherited DNA, derived from the Y chromosomes of living Europeans.
Those genetic analyses suggest that the farmers may have contributed up to half of the European gene pool.
R. Alexander Bentley, an anthropologist at Britain's Durham University, said there may be an easy way to resolve the conflict.
"A simple explanation for the difference is that indigenous hunter-gatherer females intermarried" with early farmers, he said. Thus, maternally inherited DNA would show a connection to the hunter-gatherers, while paternally inherited DNA would be linked to the farmers. conclusion of the first detailed analysis of maternally inherited DNA extracted from 24 of the migrant farmers' skeletons.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The new data, however, clash with analyses of paternally inherited DNA, derived from the Y chromosomes of living Europeans. Those genetic analyses suggest that the farmers may have contributed up to half of the European gene pool.
...in Greece 23% East African E3b, 22% SouthWest Asian J paternal lineage;
kept predominent thru founder effect,
diluted maternally and autosomally thru admixture/absorbtion with indigenous European elements,
noted by physical anthropologists over half a century ago long before genetics because this Afro-Asian immigrant population was physically distinct from the native European population, more similar to Native African populations.
quote:noted by physical anthropologists over half a century ago long before genetics because this Afro-Asian immigrant population was physically distinct from the native European population, more similar to Native African populations.
So the ancient Greeks weren't white, after all!
Now, how about the Romans?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Tracing the Origin and Spread of Agriculture in Europe.
Pinhasi R, Fort J, Ammerman AJ.
School of Human and Life Sciences, Whitelands College, Roehampton University, London, United Kingdom.
The origins of early farming and its spread to Europe have been the subject of major interest for some time. The main controversy today is over the nature of the Neolithic transition in Europe: the extent to which the spread was, for the most part, indigenous and animated by imitation (cultural diffusion) or else was driven by an influx of dispersing populations (demic diffusion). We analyze the spatiotemporal dynamics of the transition using radiocarbon dates from 735 early Neolithic sites in Europe, the Near East, and Anatolia. We compute great-circle and shortest-path distances from each site to 35 possible agricultural centers of origin-ten are based on early sites in the Middle East and 25 are hypothetical locations set at 5 degrees latitude/longitude intervals. We perform a linear fit of distance versus age (and vice versa) for each center. For certain centers, high correlation coefficients (R > 0.8) are obtained. This implies that a steady rate or speed is a good overall approximation for this historical development. The average rate of the Neolithic spread over Europe is 0.6-1.3 km/y (95% confidence interval). This is consistent with the prediction of demic diffusion (0.6-1.1 km/y). An interpolative map of correlation coefficients, obtained by using shortest-path distances, shows that the origins of agriculture were most likely to have occurred in the northern Levantine/Mesopotamian area.
Thought Writes:
Now that this fact is being firmly established in the popular culture the next step is rasing awareness about the African origins of the "northern Levantine/Mesopotamian" epipaleolithic in the Nile Valley.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is actually nothing new. We have always known that the foundations of civilization spread from the Mesopatamian craddle into Europe. What is new to me is that the ones that spread agriculture into Europe were not the Caucasian type (Indo-European).
If the Natufians were indeed responsible for the spread of Agriculture into Europe then the thesis of Black spark White flame has been clearly upheld.
Its not just Afronut fantasies anymore.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: This is actually nothing new. We have always known that the foundations of civilization spread from the Mesopatamian craddle into Europe. What is new to me is that the ones that spread agriculture into Europe were not the Caucasian type (Indo-European).
If the Natufians were indeed responsible for the spread of Agriculture into Europe then the thesis of Black spark White flame has been clearly upheld.
Yeap. The Nile Valley acted as a corridor for the flow of culture, as well as people from the African continent. The latter has been strongly emphasized time and again, but the former could use even more emphasis. I believe this is what Thought is getting at.
In the case of southeast Europe, with Greece in mind, culture flowed both directly and indirectly [through the Levant and Asia Minor] from the Nile Valley. Classical Greeks inherited much from their precursors such as the Minoans and the Mycenaeans [who proceeded the Minoans]. The Minoans themselves incorporated elements of the Nile Valley culture into their own, throughout their interactions with the Nile Valley inhabitants; classical Greeks followed the Minoans' example, in their dealings with the Nile Valley.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: So the ancient Greeks weren't white, after all!
Now, how about the Romans?
It depends on what you mean by 'white'. The Greeks appear more Middle-Eastern and so was their culture. Studies also show that the farther south in the Aegean you went, the darker and even more African the people appeared.
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the Eurocentric mind and philosophy, "white" in ancient history is always insiduously implied as "lighter than" but conceptually depicted and collagiated as true Europeans/whites.It goes like this: the ancient egyptians were slightly lighter than some nubians thus they were white/european; the phoenecians were slightly lighter than some ancient egyptians thus they were white/european; and the anceint Greeks were slightly ligher than the phoenicians thus they were white/Northern European! PATHETIC, when considering the reality of the people they try to politically claim as white today are not socially treated as white. These people are subjected to racial profiling, and their lands and resources are under neo-imperialistic attack. Yet they will aim all of thier energies and ill-directed anger and frustration at the african, the afrocentric thinkers, and the darker skin people (even of their own culture and nation)! Its the dangling of the proverbial carrot on the stick! "We will give you the white label if you give us everything you have including your history!" The ancient greeks were dark people, appearing like what one would think of the medium/sterotypical present day "middle eastern" population. Now, Think how much darker the ancient egyptians must have been for them to refer to them as melanchore, which meant and still means black or extremely dark and NOT darker.
Don't you feel like you fell in the rabbit hole?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: So the ancient Greeks weren't white, after all!
Now, how about the Romans?
It depends on what you mean by 'white'. The Greeks appear more Middle-Eastern and so was their culture. Studies also show that the farther south in the Aegean you went, the darker and even more African the people appeared.
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Keins: [QB] White is ancient history is always insiduously implied as "lighter than". The ancient greeks were dark people, appearing like what one would think of the medium sterotypical present day "middle eastern" population. Now, Think how much darker the ancient egyptians must have been for them to refer to them as melanchore, which meant and still means black or extremely dark and NOT darker.
Melas -> meaning black.
Example: Melanesian 1849, in ref. to Melanesia, one of three large divisions of Pacific islands, from Gk. melano-, comb. form of melas (gen. melanos) "black" (see melanin) + nesos "island." Modeled after Polynesia and meant to signify "the islands inhabited by blacks." - etymoline.com
When it comes to the Km.t [also means black] people get dumbstruck and pretend they don't get it anymore. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
First Farmers The origins of agricultural societies
By Peter Bellwood
"At this time, available data suggest a very low population density for Southwest Asia..."
"After 15,000 BC, an archaeological complex known as the Geometric Kebaran developed in the southern Levant..."
"One presumes they harvested wild cereals like their Ohalo predecessors, but, unlike their Natufian successors, they apparently still did not use stone sickles."
"By 12,500 BC, the Geometric Kebaran microlithic industry was evolving into its Natufian descendent. In an overall sense, sites INCREASED markedly in number and area during the Natfuian..."
"But numbers are not all, for site areas through the whole Natufian region are estimated to have ranged up to five times largers on average than those of the Geometric Kebaran. This suggests that the human population was increasing rapidly, especially during the Natufian, before the commencement of the Younger Dryas cold phase (11,000 to 9,500 BC)."
"The early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 (11,500 BC) has remains of wild barley, together with bone sickle handles with microlithic stone blade inserts (Edwards 1991). The stone-bladed sickle, indeed, seems to have come into common use in the central Levant during the Natufian..."
Thought Posts:
The caves of Erg-el-Ahmar......produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm. and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding... - Courtesy of Raymond Furon.
Thought Posts:
Ofer Bar-Yosef:
Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest Asia: an archaeological perspective
The African Archaeological Review 5(1987) pg 29-38
"An abrubt climatic change around 13,000 - 12,500 B.P. caused considerable shifts in territories and the emergence of the Natufian culture; this was the result of population pressure and the need to re-orient adaptive strategies. The presence of the Mushabian in the deserts around the Mediterranean Levant may have been a prime factor in creating this situation. Thus the population overflow FROM Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system."
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Technological Innovations and the Resulting Unification of Egypt due to Warfare as a Response to Sedentary Living
by: Giovanni J.R.C.
“Microlithic technology was one of the most important technological innovations during this time. Through this, men were able to exploit the available resources much more cost-effectively by producing larger amounts of tools with fewer raw materials. Such small blades were also advantageous in making compound tools that were more efficient for hunting and other endeavors. The microlithic arrow-points for example, when mounted on wooden shafts by means of adhesives such as fish glue or tar, flew with greater range compared to its larger predecessors. Additionally, these microlithic arrows were also much easier to carry and thus more shafts can be brought along the hunt hence increasing the proficiency of its wielder. This concept of a more effective weapon was further enhanced by later Egyptians for the purpose of warfare (which will be discussed in later portions of this research).
Another composite tool that led to a large-scale change in the hominid culture is the sickle. Constructed with small flakes embedded in a curved bone or wooden handle, this implement helped in the harvesting of wild cereal grasses that may have led to the earliest “protoagricultural” experiment known to man (at the sites of Isna, Naqada, Dishna and Nubia to be more specific). Dr. Fred Wendorf and his associates are the foremost advocates of this theory. According to them, Late Pleistocene people have been experimenting with plant domestication as early as 12,000 BC (their experimentations, however, failed). Although this is not at all completely proven, there is, conversely, an abundance of grinding stones and sickles after 13,000 B.C., thus indicating that these hominids did know how to harvest and process plants (but this does not determine whether or not they domesticated flora at all). However, more compelling indications for the assumed early agricultural experimentations of these Egyptians were brought forth by Fekri Hassan upon his excavation of the Isna area. According to him, the sites in this vicinity were large without any evidences of clustering (hence not various campsites). This, according to him, indicates the constant settlement of a large population that may have grown rapidly due to an emergence of a new economic strategy. Furthermore, he states that these sites show no evidence of the occupants hunting small animals such as fish and other game (the faunal remains indicate that they only preyed on large mammals). This, he claims, may have been the result of an emergence of a new food source such as grain. He supports this claim by indicating that there was an appearance of large-grass pollen remnants (perhaps barley) in the pollen profile of the site . Although the above notion of early plant domestication has already been disproved, an important aspect to note is that the sickles and grinding stones present in the area during this time rapidly disappeared around 10,500 BC and was replaced by Epipaleolithic hunting, fishing, and gathering tools.”
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?
Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people the Mushabaeans? are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.
Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.
And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Keins: For the Eurocentric mind and philosophy, "white" in ancient history is always insiduously implied as "lighter than" but conceptually depicted and collagiated as true Europeans/whites.It goes like this: the ancient egyptians were slightly lighter than some nubians thus they were white/european; the phoenecians were slightly lighter than some ancient egyptians thus they were white/european; and the anceint Greeks were slightly ligher than the phoenicians thus they were white/Northern European! PATHETIC, when considering the reality of the people they try to politically claim as white today are not socially treated as white. These people are subjected to racial profiling, and their lands and resources are under neo-imperialistic attack. Yet they will aim all of thier energies and ill-directed anger and frustration at the african, the afrocentric thinkers, and the darker skin people (even of their own culture and nation)! Its the dangling of the proverbial carrot on the stick! "We will give you the white label if you give us everything you have including your history!" The ancient greeks were dark people, appearing like what one would think of the medium/sterotypical present day "middle eastern" population. Now, Think how much darker the ancient egyptians must have been for them to refer to them as melanchore, which meant and still means black or extremely dark and NOT darker.
Don't you feel like you fell in the rabbit hole?
LOL You are absolutely right about this Keins. And as I said before, as for many modern Europeans the ONLY thing they care about the Greeks is their history. Many Greeks are still looked down upon by the 'whiter' masses.
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Explaining the Success of Microliths: A social explanation for Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene technological change.
A UCSB Department of Anthropology Dissertation by Matthew D. Syrett
Archaeologists have not provided an adequate explanation for the worldwide distribution of microlithic technology during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Researchers have tried to explain the widespread use of these small stone implements by evoking models based on environmental or demographic causation, which I contend cannot alone explain this technology's wide usage.
I argue that microlithic technology developed and spread as the result of the genesis of non-egalitarian statuses among hunter-gatherers. Late Pleistocene and early Holocene hunters wishing to strive for greater status started using microlithic technology to improve their hunting efficiency. These hunters could then convert their improved success as hunters for improved status in society. Prior to the use of microlithic technology, social leveling within societies prevented striving and lessened the social gains possible through the use of technologies for the improvement of hunting efficiency.
I have explored the above theory by showing a relationship between the spread of microlithic technology and increases in social complexity, after rejecting the models based on environmental or demographic causation. This work has focused on data collected in Europe.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You do have a choice. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic