PDA

View Full Version : Europe's first farmers replaced their Stone Age hunter-gatherer forerunners



Beorn
09-04-2009, 08:04 PM
Analysis of ancient DNA from skeletons suggests that Europe's first farmers were not the descendants of the people who settled the area after the retreat of the ice sheets. Instead, the early farmers probably migrated into major areas of central and Eastern Europe about 7,500 years ago, bringing domesticated plants and animals with them, according to new research from Mainz University, UCL and Cambridge University published online in Science Express. The researchers analyzed DNA from hunter-gatherer and early farmer burials, and compared those to each other and to the DNA of modern Europeans. They conclude that there is little evidence of a direct genetic link between the hunter-gatherers and the early farmers, and 82 percent of the types of mtDNA found in the hunter-gatherers are relatively rare in central Europeans today.

For more than a century archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, and more recently, geneticists, have argued about who the ancestors of Europeans living today were. We know that people lived in Europe before and after the last big ice age and managed to survive by hunting and gathering. We also know that farming spread into Europe from the Near East over the last 9,000 years, thereby increasing the amount of food that can be produced by as much as 100-fold. But the extent to which modern Europeans are descended from either of those two groups has eluded scientists despite many attempts to answer this question.
Now, a team from Mainz University in Germany, together with researchers from UCL (University College London) and Cambridge, have found that the first farmers in central and northern Europe could not have been the descendents of the hunter-gatherers that came before them. But what is even more surprising, they also found that modern Europeans couldn't solely be the descendents of either the hunter-gatherer alone, or the first farmers alone, and are unlikely to be a mixture of just those two groups. "This is really odd", said Professor Mark Thomas, a population geneticist at UCL and co-author of the study. "For more than a century the debate has centered around how much we are the descendents of European hunter-gatherers and how much we are the descendents of Europe's early farmers. For the first time we are now able to directly compare the genes of these Stone Age Europeans, and what we find is that some DNA types just aren't there - despite being common in Europeans today."

Humans arrived in Europe 45,000 years ago and replaced the Neandertals. From that period on, European hunter-gatherers experienced lots of climatic changes, including the last Ice Age. After the end of the Ice Age, some 11,000 years ago, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle survived for a couple of thousand years but was then gradually replaced by agriculture. The question was whether this change in lifestyle from hunter-gatherer to farmer was brought to Europe by new people, or whether only the idea of farming spread. The new results from the Mainz-led team seems to solve much of this long standing debate.
"Our analysis shows that there is no direct continuity between hunter-gatherers and farmers in Central Europe," says Prof Joachim Burger. "As the hunter-gatherers were there first, the farmers must have immigrated into the area."

The study identifies the Carpathian Basin as the origin for early Central European farmers. "It seems that farmers of the Linearbandkeramik culture immigrated from what is modern day Hungary around 7,500 years ago into Central Europe, initially without mixing with local hunter gatherers," says Barbara Bramanti, first author of the study. "This is surprising, because there were cultural contacts between the locals and the immigrants, but, it appears, no genetic exchange of women."

The new study confirms what Joachim Burger´s team showed in 2005; that the first farmers were not the direct ancestors of modern European. Burger says "We are still searching for those remaining components of modern European ancestry. European hunter-gatherers and early farmers alone are not enough. But new ancient DNA data from later periods in European prehistory may shed also light on this in the future."


Source (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/ucl-eff090309.php)

Creeping Death
09-04-2009, 08:09 PM
Why are you ripping off my threads from other forums?

Beorn
09-04-2009, 08:16 PM
Why are you ripping off my threads from other forums?

Did you write this? Do you possess the copyright to this article? Do I give a fuck?

Germanicus
09-04-2009, 08:25 PM
Did you write this? Do you possess the copyright to this article? Do I give a fuck?

A terse reply is sharper than any blade..........:)

Actually i have just looked in at Stirpes, and it looks like Foley has taken over the place, more Foley Posts than you can wave a stick at.

007
09-04-2009, 08:29 PM
I wonder if the missing third genetic component is the Indo-europeans?

Creeping Death
09-04-2009, 09:13 PM
Do I give a fuck?I know you dont, you follow me all over Irish Nationalist and Stirpes, no shame a cut and paste waste of space you are.
Actually i have just looked in at Stirpes, and it looks like Foley has taken over the place, more Foley Posts than you can wave a stick at.Take a look at my threads on those forums and here, I post the news article and I have the common decency to add my own thoughts on the articles content.

Beorn
09-04-2009, 09:29 PM
you follow me all over Irish Nationalist and Stirpes

Sorry to point this out to you.

I joined Stirpes in July 2007 and you joined in February 2008.

I joined Irish Nationalist October 2008 and you joined March 2009.

Whom is following whom? :)

Creeping Death
09-04-2009, 09:36 PM
Sorry to point this out to you.

I joined Stirpes in July 2007 and you joined in February 2008.

I joined Irish Nationalist October 2008 and you joined March 2009.

Whom is following whom? :)
I actually joined Stirpes in January 2007 but my account was alienized by a mod because I was a Australian then I rejoined as BrianFoley then got banned then resurrected and 2 days ago my account was modified back to Brian Foley ask DVX. And you were dormant on the Irish one until I started posting there now all of a sudden you have come to life there:coffee:

Beorn
09-04-2009, 09:39 PM
I actually joined Stirpes in January 2007 but my account was alienized by a mod because I was a Australian then

Any particular month in 2007? And you admit that you weren't a member. Well done. :)


And you were dormant on the Irish one until I started posting there now all of a sudden you have come to life there:coffee:

I go on it everyday. As with all forums I go for months on end without signing in or contributing. MootSF, Phora, etc.., all the same.

Now that you have got the 'baby wants to compare' thing out of the way, how about we allow the good people return to posting constructively in this thread? :)

Germanicus
09-05-2009, 04:27 PM
My money is on Watt Tyler in a fist fight............:shakefist

Äike
09-05-2009, 06:32 PM
I wonder if the missing third genetic component is the Indo-europeans?

Farmers = Indo Europeans. The third genetic component must be something else. If we believe that this research is correct.

Tabiti
09-05-2009, 06:59 PM
I wonder if the missing third genetic component is the Indo-europeans?
And possibility of settlers from Mesopotamia (pre-Indo-Europeans)?

007
09-05-2009, 11:03 PM
Farmers = Indo Europeans. The third genetic component must be something else. If we believe that this research is correct.

I thought that the IE's were nomadic warriors?

Hweinlant
09-05-2009, 11:14 PM
I dont think IE's were the farmers. They came later. First farmers were actually semi-Negroid Natufians from "Palestine". IE's came right after FU's. Modern Baltic-Finns and North Germanics (Scandinavian group) have most of the pre-Farmer genes (Hunters and Fishermen).

Mesrine
09-05-2009, 11:27 PM
I dont think IE's were the farmers. They came later. First farmers were actually semi-Negroid Natufians from "Palestine". IE's came right after FU's. Modern Baltic-Finns and North Germanics (Scandinavian group) have most of the pre-Farmer genes (Hunters and Fishermen).

I thought the Natufians were a sedentary Mesolithic people.

Hweinlant
09-05-2009, 11:46 PM
I thought the Natufians were a sedentary Mesolithic people.

Surprisingly you are correct (this should be mentioned in the French chronicles!). They were however, first farmers. And guite Negroid also.



If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that
Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.


C.L Brace et al 2005

The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and
the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form

Later studies have associated this Natufians-Farmer element to HG E1b1. Hunter societies of Northern Europe did not have that Y-HG at all.

Tabiti
09-06-2009, 08:55 AM
Semi-negroid? You have evidences of that?

Modern Baltic-Finns and North Germanics (Scandinavian group) have most of the pre-Farmer genes (Hunters and Fishermen).
And which exactly are those genes? There are also claims that E1b1 native homeland was Asia, not Africa. The "sister" type D is found today in Tibet, India and Japan as well. I don't think there is yet a clear connection between haplogroup and racial subtype. Northern Africa (especially Palestine and the lands around) had early Europeid populations. It's possible for some of them went South, where Negroids lived, so that's how that type spread among Negroid populations today.


I thought that the IE's were nomadic warriors?
Nomadic of necessity.

Allenson
09-06-2009, 01:09 PM
This is an interesting article--but in some ways, its nothing new and just reinforces ideas that should be pretty well established.

I don't think that there's ever been any doubt that some of the early farmers made in-roads into Europe--particularly into southeastern & east-central Europe. Hunter-gatherer population densities were quite low and it was easy for the famers to slash & burn their way up the Danube valley. The Dinarid type common in this area may provide a clue as to what they looked like.

Now the debate rages as to the dating methods and mutation rates of R1a & R1b and whether or not these are truly native European paleo/mesolithic Y-chrom signatures or the results of IE horsemen sweeping over the steppes and into Europe, swamping the old Mesolithic and early farmer genes....

Hweinlant
09-06-2009, 10:06 PM
Semi-negroid? You have evidences of that?


Yes, Just look the C.L Brace study I just quoted or dig into old skool anthro like JL Angel or CS Coon. Natufians really were "mulattoes".



And which exactly are those genes?


If you are wishing for detailed list of rs123456's , not going to get it. I'm speaking about sex biased lineages, mainly Mtdna, like U5*, also possibly Ydna HG's I1/N1c.



There are also claims that E1b1 native homeland was Asia, not Africa.


"They" apparently are some nutcase medocentrists ala Dienekes.



The "sister" type D is found today in Tibet, India and Japan as well.


HG D is not at all "sister clade" of E1b1*. Divergence of HG D from HG DE happened a long long time (dozens of millenias) before mutation E1b1* happened in East Africa.



I don't think there is yet a clear connection between haplogroup and racial subtype.


And there never will be any contemporary connection. However, age and spread of e1b1* simply fits to the Subsaharan African element found from Natufians. This is no coincide. Their spread is also archeologically visible, often called Pre-Pottery Neolithic (see: Pinhasi, any study ;) ).



Northern Africa (especially Palestine and the lands around) had early Europeid populations. It's possible for some of them went South, where Negroids lived, so that's how that type spread among Negroid populations today.


Yes, Natufians were mulattoes, half and half. Instead of Europoid you really should be talking about Eurasians, modern Europoids are the latest (and still quite new) development version. We are the version 2.0, fitter, better and ready to leapfrog into the future :D

Lahtari
09-07-2009, 07:14 AM
I wonder if the missing third genetic component is the Indo-europeans?

That's possible. But I wonder how extensive their sample size was. Could the extra element have simply been evolved in Europe in that 7000 years between the samples?


Farmers = Indo Europeans. The third genetic component must be something else. If we believe that this research is correct.

The farming vocabulary of IE languages is still of non-IE origin. Renfrew and his followers are simply wrong.

Allenson
09-07-2009, 12:31 PM
The farming vocabulary of IE languages is still of non-IE origin. Renfrew and his followers are simply wrong.

Not to mention the commonality of metal-related words between the branches of IE. Of course, farming coming long before the use of metals, thus negating the notion that IE & farming spread together.

Nglund
04-16-2010, 03:27 PM
All IE Urheimat theories are valid to some extent.

I think that the Neolithic component doesn't outpass 20%, that it might've been involved in Indo-Europeanization in Northern Europe but that's all, linking R1b as THE IE marker is kinda dumb to say the least.