DNA study deals blow to theory of European origins

[snagglepuss]

A new study deals a blow to the idea that most European men are descended from farmers who migrated from the Near East 5,000-10,000 years ago.

snip

Archaeological finds show that modern humans first settled in Europe from about 40,000 years ago - during a time known as the Palaeolithic.

These people survived an Ice Age some 20,000 years ago by retreating to relatively warm refuges in the south of the continent, before expanding into northern Europe again when the ice melted.

But just a few thousand years after Europe had been resettled by these hunter-gatherers, the continent underwent momentous cultural change. Farmers spread westwards from the area that is now Turkey, bringing with them a new economy and way of life.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012

[Igel]

1. Somehow, one marker doesn't a theory destroy.

In fact, I don't recognize the theory. Sounds like something a few geneticists fervently argue over as most others shrug, while those who don't follow the ups and downs of specific alleles contently have a theory that's plausible and not likely to depend on a single gene.

Most Europeans descend from stock that's been there longer than agriculture. There was a wave of immigrants, but they were strongly diluted. The first wave was small, intermarried, spread agriculture, increased in numbers, and those "mongrel" children spread out; the kids intermarried, spread agriculture, increased in numbers, and their "mongrel" children spread out. Etc.

This shows up in a couple dozen alleles. The older (but not *that* much older) view that the farmers from Anatolia really swamped or exterminated the local populations was revived by Ivanov-Gamkrelidze but never really took off. (Izvinite, Vjacheslav Vsevolodovich.) Such massive genocide *can* happen, but it's not the way to bet. (Still, I&G have an interesting compendium of data and facts.)

A third source seems to come in from the east and is a mix of peoples, presumably mostly Indo-Europeans a few thousand BC, but also including Scythians and Huns. This shows up in quite a few different alleles.

Sometimes it's best to hedge your bets by not putting all your dough on one allele and building a all-encompassing theory of population movement on it. The more alleles, the lower the chance that an error in any one is going to undermine the reliability of your analysis.

[snagglepuss]

2. Thank you for such an informed response. I recently saw a Hertzog's

incredible Cave of Dreams which left me wondering who exactly were Europe's earliest inhabitants.

[scubadude]

3. Mongrel, now that is a scientifically meaningful term.

I wonder what the very first Humans were like? Perhaps they were a small group of people inbreeding. Hmmm, mongrels, a term to which we can all relate...

[Odin2005]

5. Ivanov and Gamkrelidze are good linguists, but awful historians.

They are one of the most ardent supporters of the notion that the Indo-European languages originated in Anatolia, which is BS. Proto-Indo-European was clearly spoken north of the Black Sea and the IE languages are related to the Uralic languages (Finnish, etc.).

[Odin2005]

4. Uh, haven't we known this for almost 20 years now?

The notion that most Europeans are descended from Near-Eastern farmers has been considered false for a while now. Only in the Mediterranean region do you see people with significant Near Eastern Farmer genetic markers.