What of homo ergastor (workman) skulls dating back 1.2 million years found in Albania in 2013 in caves sequestering saber tooth tigers? Why no Neanderthal DNA data? Must be around in the mix.
15
The article does not mention another Tocharian curiosity which may be significant to this discussion. The Indo-European languages are divided into two groups: the Centum Languages and the Satem Languages. The names are based on the word for "hundred," although there are other similaries within the respective groups. The Centum languages are found in Western Europe, and the Satems in Eastern Europe and South Asia. Tocharian, however, by far the easternmost IE language, was a Centum Language.
I'm sure the authors of the genetic study know this, and am surprised they didn't mention it
I'm sure the authors of the genetic study know this, and am surprised they didn't mention it
25
How, when, and where do the Neanderthals fit in? Most Euro/Americans have 2-3% Neanderthal genes.
11
Considering the DNA evidence doesn't even close to correlate with the significant time periods and geopolitical events of research already accomplished, I personally would discredit the cultural significance of it. Genetic diffusion, it seems to me this article provides greater support for the bigger conclusion which politicians are not required to identify from more comprehensive histories. Politicians and tyrants don't make culture or specie, agreed, nor did diversity prevent the required ignorance to fuel wars which often resulted in greater diffusion of culture when on a largish scale.
2
How wonderful to think of all this movement, and blending, and change. We tend to think of our moment in time as The Time, and of ourselves as The Representatives of humanity. But this information, with the technology that makes it possible, reminds me of how much we have changed, and how much we have yet to change. How much we have learned, and how much we have yet to learn. How wonderful to have that reminder, and to see ourselves as a tiny moment in this current of change.
24
"The first were hunter-gatherers who arrived some 45,000 years ago in Europe. Then came farmers who arrived from the Near East about 8,000 years ago."
But isn't the Earth only 6,000 years old?
But isn't the Earth only 6,000 years old?
29
Where did the first wave come from?
9
Still, if history and science have taught us anything, it is that passion and desire are not the same as truth. The human mind evolved to believe in gods. It did not evolve to believe in biology. Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was evolving. Thus it is in sharp contrast to the science of biology, which was developed as a product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms. The uncomfortable truth is that the two beliefs are not factually compatible. As a result, those who hunger for both intellectual and religious truth face disquieting choices. --O.E. Wilson
14
Well, smallish samples, but interesting. Perhaps the (possible) Yamnaya reintroduction of Indo-European represents the distinction between the Germanic languages and the Italo-Celtic languages.
More data needed.
More data needed.
8
Has Putin heard about this yet ? Now he will claim all of Europe belongs to "Mother Russia". Think the land grab in the Ukraine was bad ? You ain't seen nothing yet !
13
We need an updated version of "The Ascent of Man" (written and presented by Dr. Jacob Bronowski) to tell the story as we understand it today. Carl Zimmer's article fits right into Dr. Bronowski's series.
A history note, one of the directors and one of the producers of "The Ascent of Man" went on to produce Carl Sagan's "Cosmos".
A history note, one of the directors and one of the producers of "The Ascent of Man" went on to produce Carl Sagan's "Cosmos".
6
As a practicing human geneticist I do wonder about conclusions based on small sample numbers and isolated findings. Often the conclusions from such studies are turned around when someone discovers a new group of skeletons in some other cave somewhere else in East or West Asia. The high profile given to these publications is more based on the public curiosity of our origins than solid science. Publishing genetic findings today in top journals demands thousands or tens of thousands of samples whereas these archeological findings appear to me, admittedly a non-expert, to be given an awful lot of slack. I take most of these findings with a grain of salt and expect with a few years a new theory based on new 'finds' will pop up.
16
This is an interesting and worthwhile addition to a long and complex pre-history. This is not the whole story. We tend to look for "narratives" in the world around us. But consider the time frames involved. Only 5000 years separates us from the builders of the Egyptian pyramids. So much could have happened in the 45,000 years they are talking about, so much that we have not yet uncovered.
Now consider the following... Possibly the earliest evidence of the use of fire for cooking was found in a cave in France called Menez Dregan. This evidence possibly dates as far back as 450,000 years. That is 10 TIMES farther back than the hunter gatherers referred to in this article... 90 TIMES further back than the builders of the pyramids.
Might entire civilizations have risen, fallen and disappeared into dust in that time frame? Think of our own modern world. 100,000 years from now how much evidence will there be that we ever existed? Aside from perhaps a few sites of nuclear contamination I doubt there will be much. It would be a very lucky archeologist indeed who finds the evidence.
DNA comparisons may reveal connections. But it will take a lot more samples, continuous over the time frames involved, to trace a complete narrative.
Now consider the following... Possibly the earliest evidence of the use of fire for cooking was found in a cave in France called Menez Dregan. This evidence possibly dates as far back as 450,000 years. That is 10 TIMES farther back than the hunter gatherers referred to in this article... 90 TIMES further back than the builders of the pyramids.
Might entire civilizations have risen, fallen and disappeared into dust in that time frame? Think of our own modern world. 100,000 years from now how much evidence will there be that we ever existed? Aside from perhaps a few sites of nuclear contamination I doubt there will be much. It would be a very lucky archeologist indeed who finds the evidence.
DNA comparisons may reveal connections. But it will take a lot more samples, continuous over the time frames involved, to trace a complete narrative.
27
I am reminded that our Federal government has "returned" thousands of skeletons of persons thought to be ancient Native Americans for burial without DNA examination of same, all out of respect for religious (which is to say non-scientific) sentiments. The same careful DNA studies being done of old skeletons in Europe should be done of old skeletons found in the USA (and everywhere else, for that matter). The amazing story of human migration is still hiding in DNA puzzle pieces waiting to be analyzed.
44
See if you still feel the same if we dig up your grandmother s and grandfather s and defile there bodies in the name of science. People's of non Native American heratige are always for that. Have we ever suggested digging up your ancestors to do the same as you state in your comments? No!Since day one of contract with white men,we have Bern abused,dissrespected,defiled,enslaved,ect.ect.Rethink your ignorant notions and stop disrespecting our culture and lands!
17
So since the Celts are believed to have come from the Steppes of Russia, are the Yamnaya their direct ancestors?
8
Rivers and population remains dating/distribution would be interesting here. The Danube presented a considerable barrier in the Roman era to Western migrations (including wagons, large familial groups, some stock). Did these early movements with massive sheep flocks move South (i.e. to Greece) via the Danube delta (Black Sea creation from the Bosporus breach was pre 9,000 years ago?), then West and then south moving rivers in today's Bulgaria/Serbia? I would love to see more on the distribution and dating of the remains used for DNA sampling. A map of sites used please.
31
You all have it wrong. The ancestors of the Europeans were not who is claimed sin the article but little green( men and women from the sky who crash landed in central Asia near Novgorod Voliynska back on a warm August day in 6071 BC. They in turn met Adam and Eve, cain and Seth and Seth's kid Enoch.... they all partied a little, a little wine, a few sheep, under the stars.... to get what we have today. That is a motley crew of hodge podge mixed breeds and mutts called humans who were all pagans by the way. The notion that one mummy, skeleton, or bone can tell the lineage of humans is shortsighted considering how many branches of humans exist. It is speculation and I for one still like the alien connection. Makes for better movies.
6
Ah, the cultural backlash against science. Stop whining and crying.
Oops, I guess I'll get kicked out along with the rest of the nobel laureates.
Oops, I guess I'll get kicked out along with the rest of the nobel laureates.
4
It will be great when this new information is woven into the National Genographic Project and 23andme (etc.)
It is so exciting. I feel like a kid hearing a bedtime story! And the story keeps going.
It is so exciting. I feel like a kid hearing a bedtime story! And the story keeps going.
40
In a sense, there is nothing to see here. Interesting? Sure. It proves what I have often told my children at dinner table discussions of race and culture. "Most people are like most people." I will modify that as follows. "Most people are like most people and have been most of the time there have been people." Welcome to the big happy mess that is the human family.
5
For a delightful narrative, read "Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History," by William Ryan and Walter Pitman. Also "The Horse The Wheel And Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World" by David W. Anthony. Proto-Indo-Europeans were forced out of the Middle East by dryness from a mini Ice age. They migrated to a fresh water lake, which is now the (salt water) Black Sea. There was a cultural exchange; life was good. Then the ice melted and the Black Lake flooded (the Biblical Great Flood). People disbursed in all directions taking their culture and language with them. Research the origin of Indo-Europeans. It always says "near the Black Sea." They can't find the settlements because they are under water! This article adds more weight to this amazing story.
18
Southern Europe and South Asia have huge mountain ranges that would have influenced many immigrants moving out of Africa to follow coastlines and flatter terrain to the eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea area. From there, one could go west into Europe, north and east to Siberia or China, or east to Asia.
11
I am not Jennifer, but this website will not accept my comment under the registered name. Well, here it goes : The article states : "The eastward expansion of Yamnaya, evident in the genetic findings, also supports the theory, Dr. Willerslev said. Linguists have long puzzled over an Indo-European language once spoken in western China called Tocharian. It is only known from 1,200-year-old manuscripts discovered in ancient desert towns. It is possible that Tocharian was a vestige of the eastern spread of the Yamnaya."
Would it then be possible that the ancient settlements in Thailand called Baan Mai were made by Yamnaya ? The skeletons unearthed there are not Asian.
Would it then be possible that the ancient settlements in Thailand called Baan Mai were made by Yamnaya ? The skeletons unearthed there are not Asian.
16
Fascinating research. Is it, however, 'systematic' or basically random? It seems to me (a retired chemist) that archeology (and paleontology) is based on a purely random discovery of a site that is subsequently studied systematically.
The article implies research based on many sites but does not give their listing. It is probably not necessary in this series of articles by a generalist like Mr. Zimmer in this 'Matter' articles.
The article implies research based on many sites but does not give their listing. It is probably not necessary in this series of articles by a generalist like Mr. Zimmer in this 'Matter' articles.
5
Ladislav Nemec, please don't devalue Mr. Matter's articles. I find that he manages to merge traditional science and popular science in a way that satisfies both sides. I would call him more than "a generalist."
22
this is not a piece written for academics--tho they are obviously free to read it-- but for people with an interest in science or this particular topic. there are academic journals if you'd rather not read a generalist.
10
I'm sure that if you were truly interested in obtaining source material for the article, the author would be more than happy to oblige. This is the NYT after all, not the National Enquirer.
6
Sorry, but to me, the numbers don't add up. There are caves in South America that were inhabited by humans over 40,000 years ago, and we didn't produce our own species of humans here in the Western Hemisphere. The Chumash Indians inhabited the Channel Islands off the coast of California some 10,000 years ago, and there are similarities between the Chumash language and Polynesians. There were people who inhabited Ecuador some 7,000 years ago who may have come originally from Japan. The Bering Strait was crossable to both large mammals and humans from 50,000 BC to 11,700 BC, which resulted in waves of human beings spreading all of the way from Siberia down to Tiera del Fuego. I find it hard to believe that Europe, which is so close to Africa, was unsettled for thousands of years just so that people could wind up on this side of the Atlantic.
10
Jackie - nobody claimed that that was the case. There is justification in tribes calling themselves "the First Nations."
1
During the last ice age for thousands of years most of Europe was either under ice or inhospitably cold. (Same with the land route from Asia to North America.) The climate in Europe became relatively stable about only 12000 years ago. Whatever may have happened earlier, virtually all of the history/prehistory of modern European populations begins only then. (Same, at least roughly, with New World populations.)
5
These Yamnaya were the third to arrive, the most recent, not the first.. The first settlers of Europe appeared around 45'000 years ago.
4
I am 50% genetically similar to my brother, but humans are 99% the same genetically as chimpanzees. How is that possible?
3
You're not a chimp.
3
Who told you you're only 50% genetically similar to your brother? That would be where the flaw lies. You are 99.999999% or so similar to your brother, and way more than 50% similar to, say, a fish.
12
Seriously? You and your brother both have a 100% human genome. You are comparing values of markers within that genome. Chimps do not have a human genome.
10
Oldest Human Fossil found in Austria/Italian border tells a different story. Why don't we begin there? Work on his remains were long in coming. I last heard that his modern counterparts were from North Africa. What are we to make of all this stuff?
1
That 'fossil' was actually a mummy - and is the oldest mummy discovered in Europe, not the oldest fossil remains. Also he lived only 5,000 years ago - so has little to do with this article or area of inquiry.
10
ourtimes69 - hold your judgment and wait for more discoveries.
1
Oldest human fossil not equal to roots of modern Europeans. There is quite a difference of many, many, many, many generations. Do the math. One generation (in modern times) equals approximately 25-30 years. We are talking a difference of millions of years.
Get yer head out of the bible and stop putting so much emphasis on the number 6,000 - the age of the earth, as believed by Christian wingnuts. The lunacy is so widespread that the number should probably be banned.
Get yer head out of the bible and stop putting so much emphasis on the number 6,000 - the age of the earth, as believed by Christian wingnuts. The lunacy is so widespread that the number should probably be banned.
5
We should not forget about the other wave of migrations which happened at the fall of the Roman Empire. And of course there seems to be yet another wave of migrations coming in from Africa and the middle east right now.
All in all the genetic diversity of European people is a bit more pronounced than this article would suggest.
All in all the genetic diversity of European people is a bit more pronounced than this article would suggest.
4
This article concerns itself with ancient roots.
8
One measure of the importance of each new study like this is the extent to which it leads to discussion, both within the scientific community and the quite different NYT Comment community. In addition, a measure of the degree to which I become interested in the comments is the extent to which they reveal American beliefs about “race”.
I read every such article/report in a context provided by a now 11 year-old paper by David Serre and the giant in this field, Svante Pääbo: Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents (free pdf readily available).
Here in this article we read about “genetically distinct” populations and we read that the scientists and Carl Zimmer find it easy to speak of “today’s Europeans” not meaning all of us but only of a carefully bounded sub-group of today’s Europeans.
Take a look if you can at comments by Nicolas Dupre, Peppone, Roseberry, Paul Dresman, Mark Thomason and certainly more to come. All of these raise that question that I raise every other day here in Times Comment Land: “If every such study shows that mixing steadily goes on between any two “distinct groups” brought into contact, how can Americans believe that the American black “race” is distinct from the American white “race”?”
Thanks Carl Zimmer, researchers, and commenters. Questions?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
I read every such article/report in a context provided by a now 11 year-old paper by David Serre and the giant in this field, Svante Pääbo: Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents (free pdf readily available).
Here in this article we read about “genetically distinct” populations and we read that the scientists and Carl Zimmer find it easy to speak of “today’s Europeans” not meaning all of us but only of a carefully bounded sub-group of today’s Europeans.
Take a look if you can at comments by Nicolas Dupre, Peppone, Roseberry, Paul Dresman, Mark Thomason and certainly more to come. All of these raise that question that I raise every other day here in Times Comment Land: “If every such study shows that mixing steadily goes on between any two “distinct groups” brought into contact, how can Americans believe that the American black “race” is distinct from the American white “race”?”
Thanks Carl Zimmer, researchers, and commenters. Questions?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
15
A fair point. IO think the answer lies in the vague definition of race. I believe that the functiuon the term "race " serves is as a sort of shorthand. Here is how it works. We take an easily identifiable trait, like skin color. We call person's who from a distance appear darker in color "Black". Mentally, we then ascribe traits which we have been taught, either from parents and teachers, or from life exoperiences to that individual. Thus, we can either like or hate, respect or fear that individual, while they are still a block away, without ever speaking to that person and without evewn taking a momoent to think about it. It is not scientific, and everybody, includig Europeans and most animals do it. And for the record, this can work great injustices-but it is also a survival skill. Consider: Black teenager spots a light skinned person, 5 blockls away, in a blue uniform. He likley has a reaction and acts accordinly, and although that light skinned person could be the most decent person alive, the teenager likely does not think that-or react that way.
6
Ultimately, we all came out of Africa and share common forefathers and foremothers. If this article, which shares new information about a later and more particular place and time, rouses the interest of the non-academic and non-professional reader in learning more about this fascinating field, it would be wonderful. As more and more living persons have their DNA sequenced and ditto for the bones from ancient burials there is an explosion of new information to be analyzed and interpreted. This expands our knowledge of human history far beyond the bounds of the written word.
12
How about you go and LIVE between the Black "race" for lets say a year and then you come back and tell us that you cannot distinguish between the Black "race" and the White "race " !
1
It would be enlightening to relate the DNA evidence of migrations to climatological evidence. The last great ice age ended about 10 or 12 thousand years ago. Presumably most of the Northern hemisphere was barely habitable, except by mammoth hunters, before the melting of the glaciers. The 9,000 year ago migrations must have been facilitated by climate change. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned that are applicable to today's debates about fossil fuel exploitation and global warming.
13
Definitely, Steve M. The lesson is : adapt, adapt, adapt ! Be secure enough to cast of traditional solutions.
4
No lesson. Just reporting of research.
2
May be I missed something in this article. Where did the original hunters and gaterers come from?
9
It was not clear, but I believe the original people did come from Africa and populate the medit. first. I did enjoyed seeing the pbs program the Journey of Man that went over some of this DNA comparison. It was from around 2005 but still seems basically factual.
6
I agree. Where did these groups come from. Could it be they all have DNA that indicates they all came from Africa.
The migration from Africa to Europe came through what is now known as the Middle East and probably involved multiple waves. Those waves could have included those who settled for many thousands of years along the way, and with a possible mixing of heritage from those in Asia who migrated out of Africa - then migrated north and west.
2
I wanted to read most of the comments on this NYT article before I commented. I serious doubt that 300 generations of humanity would result in the vast differences of the races on earth today. That shoots the "evangelical" view of humans existing for only 6000 or so years.
I think scientists have only found a very small number of representative human remains to perform genetic studies on. It's the same with dinosaurs. We have most likely only found remains of less than one percent of all the dinosaur species. So, while their work is intriguing, it is far from being definitive. I cannot imagine that climate changes did not have some effect on the migration of man across the planet. We have found remains in glaciers, and certainly the people were not inhabiting those areas in great numbers. It remains a mystery, and there are many who have to always read the last page of a mystery first. Unfortunately, many pages of the human mystery are missing.
I think as we find more human remains, and perform more genetic testing, the human story will continue to change. In fact, the last page of the human mystery may never be written for us to read. Perhaps when man develops time travel, we can go back and take a real tour of the habitation of our planet by man. Since most scientists claim time is linear, and cannot run backwards, we may just have to settle for scientific guesses. It was a good read, but I reserve judgement until there is more information.
I think scientists have only found a very small number of representative human remains to perform genetic studies on. It's the same with dinosaurs. We have most likely only found remains of less than one percent of all the dinosaur species. So, while their work is intriguing, it is far from being definitive. I cannot imagine that climate changes did not have some effect on the migration of man across the planet. We have found remains in glaciers, and certainly the people were not inhabiting those areas in great numbers. It remains a mystery, and there are many who have to always read the last page of a mystery first. Unfortunately, many pages of the human mystery are missing.
I think as we find more human remains, and perform more genetic testing, the human story will continue to change. In fact, the last page of the human mystery may never be written for us to read. Perhaps when man develops time travel, we can go back and take a real tour of the habitation of our planet by man. Since most scientists claim time is linear, and cannot run backwards, we may just have to settle for scientific guesses. It was a good read, but I reserve judgement until there is more information.
10
Very good. Thank you. But where did the original hunters and gatherers come from?
1
LOL There is a theory that most bones don't last very long, so that only the bones of rare mutants last long enough to become fossils, and the rarest and most severely mutated bones last the longest. Hence, the older the fossil, the more abnormal the DNA. That accounts for the genetic divergence observed in fossils of different ages. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Great points! I'd like to mention something else worth considering. WHY do we find what we do find? We find it because it was PRESERVED, due to specific environmental conditions. We tend to find remains of only those creatures who died in either extremely dry areas or frozen areas. All other remains tend to deteriorate very quickly. On the other hand, it is the milder, more humid climates that tend to provide the best conditions for human survival. These would have been the most populated zones. In those areas we are very likely NOT to find remains.
This is one reason why I believe we will NEVER find a representative sample of human remains, a sample that covers all major population groups continuously across pre-history. We will probably never find more than a dozen pieces in our 1000 piece puzzle. How do we form a complete idea of the picture from that?
This is one reason why I believe we will NEVER find a representative sample of human remains, a sample that covers all major population groups continuously across pre-history. We will probably never find more than a dozen pieces in our 1000 piece puzzle. How do we form a complete idea of the picture from that?
2
Can someone explain to me why there is no mention in this article of the Celts and Germans, both of whom migrated into Europe starting around 2000 BCE? These peoples were not, so far as I know, part of Yamnaya culture. The Germans penetrated the Roman Empire less than 2,000 years ago. They and the Celts certainly contributed to the genetic heritage of modern Europeans. What am I missing here?
4
Because the scientists were examining the DNA of a different group of ancestors who seem to have emigrated 4000 years before the Celts and Germans.
10
@Jeff: Yeah, I get that. But the article seems to me to say that the genetic makeup of modern Europeans is attributable to just the three groups discussed in the article. There were repeated waves of Indo-Europeans who entered Europe starting around 2000 BCE and ending sometime in the second half of the first millennium CE. How can one discuss the "roots of modern Europe" without mentioning these groups?
5
There is another book that would be helpful in understanding the relationships of the Celts and Germans, and of many other peoples to the Yamnaya culture. That is J.P. Mallory's monograph, In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Dr. Mallory combines linguistics with a large amount of archaeological material creating a plausible account of the spread of the Indo-European languages. He provides insight into the incubation of the Celtic and Germanic language groups. Now these have been considered Indo-European going back to the time of the formulation of Grimm's Law in the early 1800s. Greek is also an Indo-European language. Both it and the Celtic languages show significant traces of the language spoken before the Indo-Europeans arrived and provided most of the basic structure and vocabulary of both languages. The Greek word 'thalassa' has no 'cousins in other Indo-European languages but many Greeks words, for example the words for numbers, do have related words across the Indo-European spectrum. The DNA results reported in this article provided considerable support for Dr. Mallory's conclusions.
5
Why does the author repeatedly refer to Turkey describing events took place 4-5 thousand years ago? Turkey has a strong connotation to Turks which came to the Asia Minor (proper geographical name) less than a thousand years ago.
11
I stumbled on this article quite by chance, thought the title looked moderately interesting, read it, and now I have moved a little farther along the evolutionary ruler. I'm guessing that's how evolution works: a little knowledge that, bit by bit, germinates, grows, flowers, mutates, either lasts or doesn't.
I love learning.
I love learning.
16
Where did the hunter-gatherers who arrrived 45,000 years ago arrive from? This is a curious omission from an otherwise interesting and informative article.
5
My thoughts exactly.
1
Interesting article. Please do more of this sort of discussion.
9
Yamnaya people are Turkic.
2
The point is they spoke a non-Turkic language. How are they Turkic?
1
There is a river named Yamuna in India. Coincidence?
3
I think you are confusing the present situation in Central Asia with the prehistoric Yamnaya culture. To anthropologists and linguists at least "Turkic" means a group of languages and cultures. The old Yamnaya culture, as the article says, is strongly associated with the origin and spread of
Indo-European languages. If they ever spoke a
Turkic language they certainly did not by about
5000 years ago. As far as anyone knows, anything that could meaningfully be called Turkic was not in the Yamnaya area at that time.
Indo-European languages. If they ever spoke a
Turkic language they certainly did not by about
5000 years ago. As far as anyone knows, anything that could meaningfully be called Turkic was not in the Yamnaya area at that time.
2
"A new infusion of DNA arrived — one that is still very common in living Europeans, especially in central and northern Europe." This is not correct. The author is talking about Y-haplogroup R1 (without saying so). R1 has some of the highest frequencies in the Spaniards (~80%).
5
Yes, I think he is talking about R1, which is R1b and R1a. Along with Spain, Ireland and Britain, Northern France, the Low Countries, western Germany and Norway have the highest amounts of R1b. In Ireland in Wales, it reaches to over 90%. And eastern Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, generally Eastern Europe are dominated by R1a. So I think he was right to say it is very common in Northern and Central Europe. Even though it is very common in Iberia, Southern Europe generally has more of the more typical´middle eastern´ Haplogroups like J, E,G, but even here there are frequencies of R1 up to say 40%.
6
As per Eupedia, Scandinavia has almost equal amounts of Y-haplogroups R1 and I (Sweden 37.5% and 42%: Norway 57.5% and 36%: and Denmark 48% and 41%). In contrast Spain is 71% R1, 7% I, and 9.5% J.
Given these numbers it is still totally misleading to write "A new infusion of DNA arrived — one that is still very common in living Europeans, especially in central and northern Europe". Also I did not mention earlier that Eastern Europe also has high R1 percentage ancestry (Russia 52%; Poland 70%; Belarus 56.5% etc.).
Given these numbers it is still totally misleading to write "A new infusion of DNA arrived — one that is still very common in living Europeans, especially in central and northern Europe". Also I did not mention earlier that Eastern Europe also has high R1 percentage ancestry (Russia 52%; Poland 70%; Belarus 56.5% etc.).
1
By any measure Spain is Southern Europe and Russia and Poland are Eastern Europe, neither of which is "central and northern Europe". Similar Scandinavia is definitely "norther Europe".
2
Everything that ever lived on Earth, animal, vegetable, or mold, has the same common ancestor from which we all evolved. The discovery of DNA, genetics and Darwin's evolution fit together in a marvelous saga.
12
I've always wondered about how scientists can truly know the DNA profiles from tribes from the distant past. How can we know that the individuals whose DNA happens to have been found are really representative of the tribe? I think of "Black Irish"...those kids in my Irish neighborhood that had very dark hair, while most of us were blonde/light brown...this was said to be because Romans invaded hundreds of years ago...many years later, I met Hazaras in Bamyan, Afghanistan, some of whom looked European, some Oriental, some East Asian...
The great Russian poet, Pushkin, had an African grandfather (perhaps great-grandfather)...suppose some researcher happened upon the grave of a centuries-ago Pushkin...would we now be seeing articles about a African movement into Russia, based on one individual's unusual ancestry?
In sum, how can we know that the baseline is correct? I can't get over the suspicion that scientists and students wanting to do "new" research, publish articles, get tenure, etc. might have rushed a bit too fast into this.
The great Russian poet, Pushkin, had an African grandfather (perhaps great-grandfather)...suppose some researcher happened upon the grave of a centuries-ago Pushkin...would we now be seeing articles about a African movement into Russia, based on one individual's unusual ancestry?
In sum, how can we know that the baseline is correct? I can't get over the suspicion that scientists and students wanting to do "new" research, publish articles, get tenure, etc. might have rushed a bit too fast into this.
6
This study involved over a hundred individuals from all across Eurasia.
5
When DNA mutates, this is what gives us different lineages of DNA. If one was to look up ´Population Genetics´, they would see ´haplogroups´ mentioned. These haplogroups are groups of lineages that have a common and exclusive DNA mutation. To determine what haplogroup someone is, their DNA is analysed for ´marker´ mutations. These are mutations that everyone with R1b carries, but are exclusive to that group. You and me, everybody has a marker mutation from a man who lived in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. But as time has gone by, humans have aqcuired ´extra´ markers that define our haplogroup.
To simplify (I hope!) using colours as genetic mutations
-The first people have ´blue´ as their defining mutation. They only have this. We will look back at this DNA 1000´s of years later and define this as the baseline for humans. This is haplogroup A.
-One man with Haplogroup A has a mutation in his DNA, which gives him ´green´ to add to the ´blue´. Because he has this new mutation, he becomes Haplogroup B
-One of this man´s descendants has a mutation in his DNA. He was born with ´blue´ and ´green´, but he developed a ´red´ mutation, so becomes genetically different and is Haplogroup C. And so on.
-There is nobody without ´blue´. But one person from Europe may have ´purple´ while someone from Mexico may have ´yellow but no purple´
For example, if someone had haplogroup D, I could tell you with 100% certainty that they are East Asian or have an East Asian ancestor
To simplify (I hope!) using colours as genetic mutations
-The first people have ´blue´ as their defining mutation. They only have this. We will look back at this DNA 1000´s of years later and define this as the baseline for humans. This is haplogroup A.
-One man with Haplogroup A has a mutation in his DNA, which gives him ´green´ to add to the ´blue´. Because he has this new mutation, he becomes Haplogroup B
-One of this man´s descendants has a mutation in his DNA. He was born with ´blue´ and ´green´, but he developed a ´red´ mutation, so becomes genetically different and is Haplogroup C. And so on.
-There is nobody without ´blue´. But one person from Europe may have ´purple´ while someone from Mexico may have ´yellow but no purple´
For example, if someone had haplogroup D, I could tell you with 100% certainty that they are East Asian or have an East Asian ancestor
14
Do women exist in these haplogroups? Because you only refer to men. Just wondering.
1
I forgot to say: Turkey, home of the Celts. Galatia. The Galatians, a book in the New Testament. The Galatians began to be Gall / Gaul / etc. They spoke Gaelic. :-)
1
Galls and Gauls spoke Gallic, the ancestor of French. Gaelic is a northern/British Isles language, sometimes confused with Irish.
1
Actually one group of Celts moved from Thrace south into the highlands of today's Turkey while other groups went West into what is today Germany, France, Spain and beyond.
So we are all a soupçon of this and a pinch of that; I imagine that, over time, as with now, the more adventurous travelled more, enquired more, inter-mingled more and integrated more.
It would be fascinating to compare the more adventurous over the millennia with the more conservative and stay-at-home groupings.
I imagine the DNA and IQ may be quite different?
What about Africa, our common birthplace - did this too continue to develop, or does this explain in part its continuance of a hunter-gatherer existence into and beyond the 19th century?
It would be fascinating to compare the more adventurous over the millennia with the more conservative and stay-at-home groupings.
I imagine the DNA and IQ may be quite different?
What about Africa, our common birthplace - did this too continue to develop, or does this explain in part its continuance of a hunter-gatherer existence into and beyond the 19th century?
7
Please do not confuse DNA with IQ tests. IQ tests are culture specific and within a society they vary on the basis of the cultural experience of different social groups. They have been debunked as marker of intelligence.
May I recommend the fascinating book by Jay Stephen Gould, THE MISMEASURE OF MAN? I'm sure you'll find it fascinating.
May I recommend the fascinating book by Jay Stephen Gould, THE MISMEASURE OF MAN? I'm sure you'll find it fascinating.
4
"What about Africa, our common birthplace - did this too continue to develop, or does this explain in part its continuance of a hunter-gatherer existence into and beyond the 19th century?"
Before the 19th century, Africa was a very diverse continent, just as it is now. Some human populations were hunter-gatherers; others practiced agriculture; others practiced both. Ethiopia has been an agricultural society for at least a couple of millennia. Northern Africa was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire.
Before the 19th century, Africa was a very diverse continent, just as it is now. Some human populations were hunter-gatherers; others practiced agriculture; others practiced both. Ethiopia has been an agricultural society for at least a couple of millennia. Northern Africa was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire.
4
The author is "Stephen Jay Gould"; on another note, I think you'll find that IQ tests do provide useful information. They have their problems, just like any other test, but they haven't been "debunked".
1
AS SCIENCE ADVANCES UNFORTUNATELY HUMANS NOT SO MUCH . . .
...for the conditions of the human psyche are quite destructive and quite immature. Yes, this information is both interesting and of value. But, there could be unintended negative consequences. E.g., the propagation of eugenics where some groups are thought to be better than others.
...for the conditions of the human psyche are quite destructive and quite immature. Yes, this information is both interesting and of value. But, there could be unintended negative consequences. E.g., the propagation of eugenics where some groups are thought to be better than others.
3
The more I read this article, the more suspect I became. It is obvious that the authors are trying to indicate European ancestry sprang up from some other place but Africa. We all know the birthplace of man, homo-sapien, is Africa. All humans share a common ancestry. Analyzing mankind's DNA, has already proven this. My thoughts regarding this article, speaks of Darwin's half-hearted attempts to classified the species, especially man. Modern DNA, analysis has proved he was wrong. Classifying man based on physical characteristics, only proved how biased he was. All humans are genetically the same.
1
And that is why we can breed with each other and create such lovely children.
I disagree. The study was of a certain group of remains. Nothing in it denies the probable origin of the human species in Africa.
20
Darwin was speaking of the whole human species, this at a time when we didn't know how to do DNA anylising. We didn't know about genes.
The scientists referred to in this article are not denying that humans first came from Africa and that those are the humans who populated the world. They are looking at much more recent migrations. Look up a timeline.
The scientists referred to in this article are not denying that humans first came from Africa and that those are the humans who populated the world. They are looking at much more recent migrations. Look up a timeline.
5
Everyone needs to know one thing about research like this: unlike the archeological finds (the skeletons and "ancient settlements"), these DNA based theories are not direct observations. They're not facts. They're the result of simulations based on simplified models of evolution known to be faulty.
Because different models and methods of analysis _will_ yield different results, there will never be consensus in the DNA-based analyses. There will always be new, quite possibly radically different, theories.
Articles like this tend to get carried away with the DNA studies, but fact is that when physical evidence (skeletons & setllements) conflict with the DNA evolution simulations, _the DNA simualtions are wrong_. One must never forget that.
Because different models and methods of analysis _will_ yield different results, there will never be consensus in the DNA-based analyses. There will always be new, quite possibly radically different, theories.
Articles like this tend to get carried away with the DNA studies, but fact is that when physical evidence (skeletons & setllements) conflict with the DNA evolution simulations, _the DNA simualtions are wrong_. One must never forget that.
2
You make a number of unsubstantiated assertions about faulty models, models that yield different results, DNA conflicting with 'physical evidence' (as if DNA is not physical evidence). What information do you have that these scientists did not have access to?
9
DNA is extracted from the remains. In addition there are dating techniques (Carbon 14 and now others) of the immediate surrondings of the remains.
It appears that every time we find new remains and artifacts we discover an ever increasing time span.
If your objections are based on your interpretation of religious beliefs, remember that a day of an infinite god is quite different than a day of a finite human creature.
It appears that every time we find new remains and artifacts we discover an ever increasing time span.
If your objections are based on your interpretation of religious beliefs, remember that a day of an infinite god is quite different than a day of a finite human creature.
6
The point of the article is the way the different kinds of evidence are turning out to be consistent with each other.
1
The DNA roots of modern Europeans is a matter of ineffable wonder. This article made my eyes leak a bit, leak for joy. I look forward to hunting up the "official scientific" articles and hopefully the future book.
I read almost 25 yrs ago J P Mallory's **In Search of the Indo-Europeans / Language, Archeology, and Myth** [London: Thames and Hudson, 1989 / 1991 paperback]. It is definitely a mind-bending, joy-making review-type account of all the archeology done up to that point in time. hmm. I didn't know, I had absolutely NO idea of what my personal history was until I read that book. Although more recent archeology may have added to and/or modified and/or altered some of it findings, it seems to be still on track. Read it; you will rejoice.
I read almost 25 yrs ago J P Mallory's **In Search of the Indo-Europeans / Language, Archeology, and Myth** [London: Thames and Hudson, 1989 / 1991 paperback]. It is definitely a mind-bending, joy-making review-type account of all the archeology done up to that point in time. hmm. I didn't know, I had absolutely NO idea of what my personal history was until I read that book. Although more recent archeology may have added to and/or modified and/or altered some of it findings, it seems to be still on track. Read it; you will rejoice.
32
This is fascinating. I'm amazed how we can decipher mass migration over millennia from DNA evidence.
18
Compare this to a recent similar review on the domestication of the dog in Science magazine. These relatively recent events remain hotly contested in the scientific community from one group's study to the next.
2
Can we please not engage in fruitless conversations about God when we are using completely different frames of reference. The frame of reference in these research studies is an attempt to use factual physical evidence to discern the pattern of migration over the last many thousands of years in one part of the world. Within their own frame of reference, these studies are worthy of much conversation. Outside that realm, in a debate about subjective "truth" and of faith, there is little to be said. There are plenty of other venues where we can ridicule and taunt each other to reinforce our own beliefs. Go there if that is what you want to do. Most of us are here to learn from others within the context of the frame of reference of these studies. Also, when someone makes a comment that displays simple ignorance combined with curiosity, rather than a different frame of reference, one should not put them down. The fact that they are here and reading the comments means this is a person that can be informed by other readers. These are the comments that deserve a polite and educated response.
78
Hmm, fortunately being human today means simultaneously entertaining several frames of reference and being able to critique received frames with new perspectives. These DNA findings lead one to increased skepticism about religion. Just thinking about all the different strains of homo sapiens and all the variety of language and culture that those strains developed in a vast time frame, it seems beyond audacity to claim, as many of the major religions do, an exclusive visitation of divinity and special election to a one and only truth. The human community seems even bigger than it did, more various, and at once more real and more transcendent than the airy nothings to which this or that religion gives a local habitation and a name.
7
Sorry but I am very doubtful that western Europeans have much if any DNA from the yamnaya of Ukraine. Perhaps they have input into the Slavic populations of the east. Really depends on the researchers definitions of "Europeans", but the Germanic and Celtic peoples were likely untouched
4
Why? There are no pure ethnic groups
3
@Tom Cuddy, to whom is this addressed to? Always good to use @ with name.
1
The Celts invaded Ukraine about 2000 years ago
“I don’t think we’re there yet,” he said. From Doctor Heggerty. Refreshing to read someone opine something like that. It seems that we are too ready to draw vast empirical conclusions from scan evidence, these day, perhaps, and not be cynical, to make some announcement and ensure more funding.
Referring back to the article on the the new subspecies of Triceratops, why isn't it taken into consideration that the individual was just that a sole victim of mutations
As far a migrations go, I thought the definitive work on this was performed with mitochondrial DNA examination?
Referring back to the article on the the new subspecies of Triceratops, why isn't it taken into consideration that the individual was just that a sole victim of mutations
As far a migrations go, I thought the definitive work on this was performed with mitochondrial DNA examination?
2
Is it possible to use the DNA of animals found in these sites to aid with the hypothesis? Over time, herders and farmers in isolated regions must have left their fingerprints on the particular species they were husbanding, which could probably only breed among themselves. If these people migrated, they would have brought their unique breeds with them.
16
I am sure the migrations of domesticated animals alongside humans can be studied in the same ways. So far as I know, that work hasn't been done yet. We are barely started on the humans.
That is part of the huge mass of data we can expect to come from future work. I hope and expect we will learn more than we can predict today, things we have not guessed. That is the fun, and there is much to come.
That is part of the huge mass of data we can expect to come from future work. I hope and expect we will learn more than we can predict today, things we have not guessed. That is the fun, and there is much to come.
2
Evolutionary theorist Gregory Cochran blogged back in February:
"The big new paper on European origins is out (by Wolfgang Haak, Iosif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, David Reich, etc) . ...
"In northern Europe, the newcomers didn’t tax the Neolithic farmers: mostly, they killed them. Razib Khan compares this to the original Mongol plan (kill them, kill them all) before that Khitan bureaucrat explained the joys of taxation. In the Corded Ware/Single Grave/Battleaxe culture, there’s no sign that the farmers are around as serfs: there are almost no buildings, almost no sign of agriculture.
"Archaeologists should read more Conan: Robert E. Howard was way closer to the mark than they were or are. Even good guys like David Anthony were influenced: but I’ll bet he’s over that now."
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/massive-migration/
"The big new paper on European origins is out (by Wolfgang Haak, Iosif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, David Reich, etc) . ...
"In northern Europe, the newcomers didn’t tax the Neolithic farmers: mostly, they killed them. Razib Khan compares this to the original Mongol plan (kill them, kill them all) before that Khitan bureaucrat explained the joys of taxation. In the Corded Ware/Single Grave/Battleaxe culture, there’s no sign that the farmers are around as serfs: there are almost no buildings, almost no sign of agriculture.
"Archaeologists should read more Conan: Robert E. Howard was way closer to the mark than they were or are. Even good guys like David Anthony were influenced: but I’ll bet he’s over that now."
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/massive-migration/
6
Seems like more peaceful co-existence reigned among less evolved Homo Sapiens? Took culture and religion to make us the killers we continue to be.
19
Don't oversimplify when talking about the indo-european expansion.
Every informed people know that the "tocharians" (now called more aptly the "Arsi-kuci", from the names of the cities they occupied since we don't know their original name) were a "western" indo-european people who, at some point of the expansion (not necessarily in western Europe at the time), went east, cohabited for some time with the proto-greeks (certainly not in Greece at the time), then some time with the proto-Aryans (not necessarily in central Asia), before finding their place in the tarim basin.
Id, implying that "yamnaya" people ARE the sole ancestors of the Indo-Europeans and that their culture IS the foundation of Indo-European spread is a bit of a stretch to me.
Now whether Yamnaya or else, the first Indo-European expansionnists, coming from southern Russia, were semi-nomadic, being also farmers, and new only one cereal : millet.
Every informed people know that the "tocharians" (now called more aptly the "Arsi-kuci", from the names of the cities they occupied since we don't know their original name) were a "western" indo-european people who, at some point of the expansion (not necessarily in western Europe at the time), went east, cohabited for some time with the proto-greeks (certainly not in Greece at the time), then some time with the proto-Aryans (not necessarily in central Asia), before finding their place in the tarim basin.
Id, implying that "yamnaya" people ARE the sole ancestors of the Indo-Europeans and that their culture IS the foundation of Indo-European spread is a bit of a stretch to me.
Now whether Yamnaya or else, the first Indo-European expansionnists, coming from southern Russia, were semi-nomadic, being also farmers, and new only one cereal : millet.
6
My family was part of the original hunter-gatherers. We didn't realize it at the time, but it was pretty much paradise. Yeah, it was a little cold sometimes, but there was a lot of game, and the berries and nuts were delicious, nutritious, and organic. We got plenty of exercise, and many nights, we would sleep under the stars.
Then the farmers arrived with their crazy language and their seeds and they kind of ruined the neighborhood. They just hung around, waiting for things to grow. They drove us nuts, but we got used to them. In fact, I fell in love with the daughter of one of the farming families and, well, I pretty much gave up my nomadic lifestyle (sometimes, I still hunt and gather a bit, but don't tell my wife!).
Then, the sheep herders arrived. Oy. The noise. The smell. The shearing.
I'm packing up my family and moving. I've heard there are some interesting islands off the Western coast of Gaul.
Then the farmers arrived with their crazy language and their seeds and they kind of ruined the neighborhood. They just hung around, waiting for things to grow. They drove us nuts, but we got used to them. In fact, I fell in love with the daughter of one of the farming families and, well, I pretty much gave up my nomadic lifestyle (sometimes, I still hunt and gather a bit, but don't tell my wife!).
Then, the sheep herders arrived. Oy. The noise. The smell. The shearing.
I'm packing up my family and moving. I've heard there are some interesting islands off the Western coast of Gaul.
196
And virtually NO gluten! Wow, paradise for sure!
4
I'd be curious to know if they have any idea what these various populations looked like. One would imagine that they do. Is this just deemed too sensitive to mention somehow?
5
they were very fashionable, and may well have looked quite gorgeous. they wore madras plaids and denim for most all occasions; for very special quasi-religious occasions they wore draping gold lamé shifts and gowns. this is the best guess based on current evidence.
33
I think that is a good question. I looked a bit myself on the web for such work.
I know we can identify some of the genes for some hair and eye characteristics. We can see height and build from many of the bones. I don't know how much more we can now decode from the DNA, but I expect it will increase a lot with time.
I hope we can get a very good picture of a great many people from these varied groups.
Personally I expect the developing picture will further undermine the concept of race, and we'll see an entirely different picture of humanity.
I know we can identify some of the genes for some hair and eye characteristics. We can see height and build from many of the bones. I don't know how much more we can now decode from the DNA, but I expect it will increase a lot with time.
I hope we can get a very good picture of a great many people from these varied groups.
Personally I expect the developing picture will further undermine the concept of race, and we'll see an entirely different picture of humanity.
10
@ Mark Thomason but to every reader of the last line of Mark's comment. Let's hear from readers who hold firm to the American belief in a distinct black and a distinct white "race".
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
My dual citizen logo tells you what I think of that belief.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
My dual citizen logo tells you what I think of that belief.
2
It comforts me that science destroys the notions of national identities by showing how close and diverse our genetic heritage is. In the end, it is worth building societies only to share common values. Admixture is the norm, not the exception...
43
That might be a bit nieve. We may share distant common ancestors, but various ethnic groups have evolved seperately, for example generating blue eyes and lactose tolerance in northern Europeans. People will always favour their own ethnic group because they share genes, fact of nature. We are programmed that way.
1
what about finding chimpanzee-ancestor fossils from 3 - 4 million years ago? If the divergence between chimps and humans was 6M years back, shouldn't the abundance of fossils be similar?
Two points, modern chimpanzees have not evolved much from our common ancestor because they faced much less selection pressure (still living in jungles after all). Also in such areas bones are much less likely to fossilize. I'd also bet human researchers are more interested in finding fossils along the human line. I'm sure there have been plenty ancient chimps found despite this.
5
Many thanks for this article! It is entirely possible that both the Middle Eastern farmers and the Yamnaya people spoke an Indo-european language. Ancient Greek is its own branch on the Indo-european family tree, just like the oldest attested Indo-european languages of Anatolia (Hittite and Luwian). It is entirely possible that the Greeks were originally an Anatolian people, who didn't develop writing until the Mycenaean period.
Conversely, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and Tocharian languages are traditionally believed to have come off the same stem. Maybe the Yamnaya culture was this stem. Still, it is important to note that DNA and language don't closely map. Most English-speakers today don't have Anglo-Saxon ancestors, whereas most Danes and Northern Germans do. There are probably just as many Danish and German speakers who genetically match the early English as there are English speakers.
Conversely, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and Tocharian languages are traditionally believed to have come off the same stem. Maybe the Yamnaya culture was this stem. Still, it is important to note that DNA and language don't closely map. Most English-speakers today don't have Anglo-Saxon ancestors, whereas most Danes and Northern Germans do. There are probably just as many Danish and German speakers who genetically match the early English as there are English speakers.
14
Language and DNA tracked more closely then. It's different now because of easy travel.
3
No, already in antiquity DNA and language did not match closely. Take the Romance language family. All Romance languages are versions of provincial Latin, which was spoken not primarily by the descendants of Italian conquerors but by self-romanizing descendants of the conquered (and is now spoken by hundreds of millions of native Americans conquered by those romanized Celts). The same is true of most Arabic speakers and other imperial populations. The idea that languages and DNA match very closely is an invention of 19th century nationalists and racists and is not at all vindicated by this type of research.
6
Possibly, but I think that ancient peoples very likely were more mobile than you make them out to be.
1
What a great article and what a great study! It gives us immense perspective on how minuscule our concepts of country and people are, when compared to the continuous mingling of families, tribes, cultures, maybe species that has taken us to this precise moment in time. We should pause.
41
Since reading Svante Paabo's book about sequencing the Neanderthal genome, I'm suspicious of ancient DNA results (unless they're from Paabo's lab). The closer the DNA is to modern human DNA, the more difficult the analysis because the main difficulty is the ubiquity of modern human DNA and contamination. But it's like a telescope into the human past, if we can just get the lens polished enough to get a reliable view. I'll wait hopefully for more.
4
Reminded me of megalithic site from 10,000 B.C.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/musi-photography
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/musi-photography
2
I think the Neandrathals were in Europe longer than anybody else, from one hundred thousand to thirty-five thousand. Probably the first wave of homo sapiens from forty-five thousand years on left their mark on the Etruscan and Basque languages which are not related to the Indo-european.
29
Does that mean the Adam and Eve story does not apply to Neanderthals, according to evangelical Christians? They wouldn't consider Neanderthals humans, would they?
2
The Genographic Project found that, over 60,000 years ago, the modern human species originated and migrated from the region in Africa that is now Ethiopia.
2
Modern humans migrated to Asia over 60,000 years ago, from Africa, not directly to Europe. Modern humans then first migrated to Europe from Asia. This has been known for decades.
6
DNA and geography - its simple as that.
I agree. No wonder the "Gods" of the ancient Greeks idolize the "Ethiopians". Check Greek mythology.
The article says: "Both studies indicate that today's Europeans descend from three groups who migrated into Europe at different stages of history." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "prehistory" rather than "history"?
9
Anything earlier than current events, is history.
5
I always thought 'History' is what is gathered a written by a culture about itself while prehistory is what we use when we do not have axcess to a people's own stories.
To my knowledge, events before the invention of writing are considered prehistory.
The problem with scientists is that each once finds something that describes 10 minutes of human interaction an from it cast the wildest yarns full of as much assumption, leaps of faith and wishful thinking as any religious text.
3
Joe, I don't think you understand how science works. Scientists create hypotheses based on partial evidence. Then experiment and observation refute or support the hypotheses. The general public frequently misunderstands the difference between scientific hunches and well-verified theories, and the fact that science is a process that is more complex and sophisticated than the simplified "let's do an experiment" version that they learned about in high school.
An example of this process would be the debate between scientists who believed that Neanderthals were a separate species, and that they were a variant of our own. The question was settled with a high degree of probability when it became possible to sequence Neadnerthal and human DNA, and it became apparent that they were separate species that had inerbred, so that modern Europeans have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA.
An example of this process would be the debate between scientists who believed that Neanderthals were a separate species, and that they were a variant of our own. The question was settled with a high degree of probability when it became possible to sequence Neadnerthal and human DNA, and it became apparent that they were separate species that had inerbred, so that modern Europeans have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA.
103
Josh, the orthodox definition of a species in zoology is that if species A interbreeds with species B, usually any offspring of A and B will be infertile.
An example of this infertility is the mule, the usually infertile offspring of a jack (male donkey) and a mare (female horse). (No male mules are fertile, but rarely some female mules (so-called 'Molly mules') will produce offspring when mated with a male horse or donkey). Hence, the horse and the donkey qualify as separate species.
As far as we know, it is not the case that the offspring of Neanderthals and so-called modern humans usually were infertile. Rather, it seems that usually offspring were fertile. Ergo, applying the rule above, Neanderthals and modern humans do not qualify as separate species. Rather, both are subspecies of the same species whom Linnaeus named with the binomial of 'Homo sapiens'. Adopting the customary trinomial used for naming subspecies, modern humans are thus 'Homo sapiens sapiens' [1], while Neanderthals are 'Homo sapiens neanderthalensis' [2].
1) Semino, Ornella, et al. "The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: AY chromosome perspective." Science 290.5494 (2000): 1155-1159. http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/186598.2000_Science_Semino_The_Genetic_Legacy...
2) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mitochondrion, complete genome; NCBI Reference Sequence: NC_011137.1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/196123578
An example of this infertility is the mule, the usually infertile offspring of a jack (male donkey) and a mare (female horse). (No male mules are fertile, but rarely some female mules (so-called 'Molly mules') will produce offspring when mated with a male horse or donkey). Hence, the horse and the donkey qualify as separate species.
As far as we know, it is not the case that the offspring of Neanderthals and so-called modern humans usually were infertile. Rather, it seems that usually offspring were fertile. Ergo, applying the rule above, Neanderthals and modern humans do not qualify as separate species. Rather, both are subspecies of the same species whom Linnaeus named with the binomial of 'Homo sapiens'. Adopting the customary trinomial used for naming subspecies, modern humans are thus 'Homo sapiens sapiens' [1], while Neanderthals are 'Homo sapiens neanderthalensis' [2].
1) Semino, Ornella, et al. "The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: AY chromosome perspective." Science 290.5494 (2000): 1155-1159. http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/186598.2000_Science_Semino_The_Genetic_Legacy...
2) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mitochondrion, complete genome; NCBI Reference Sequence: NC_011137.1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/196123578
18
The problem with the religious is that they accept these wild yarns and leaps of faith without question; scientists, on the other hand, speculate about the data, based on understandings of previously found data, and then adjust it when they again find new—and even contradictory—data. This is called "hypothesizing". The other is called "prosletyzing".
5
Really wonderful news that complicates even further our amazingly complex human tableau, east, west, north, south: we're a beautiful complication of everyone from redheaded Neanderthals to Yamnaya-Indo shepherds bringing a collage of stones, tools, words, colorful swirls. By campfires, we must have told the tale of the day, and danced, and sang, and dreamed a better way. It's epic.
If only humans could celebrate ourselves and our indelible traditions in nature and forget the wars. If only...
If only humans could celebrate ourselves and our indelible traditions in nature and forget the wars. If only...
99
I find it odd that there was no mention at all about the relevant time frame. They have the first group, hunter-gathers, arriving 45k ago DURING the Last Glacial Period which ended about 12k ago. Farming wasn't even possible until the ice and permafrost retreated! So, farmers followed retreating glaciers taking advantage of abundant water and cleared land.
72
Judged by language, Basques and Albanians do not fit this description. Are we to assume they were unique? What knowledge we have shows them each distinct in Europe, separate geographically, before the populations speaking the versions of Celt and German and Slavic of today. At least we know the Celts preceded the Germans, who were followed by the Slavs.
This conforms to results I received from being part of National Geographic's Genographic project. Up to 25% of my DNA comes through Western Asia with another blood haplogroup coming from what is today Ukraine, with a solid 2-3% Neanderthal line as well.
Soon I will be writing a letter to President Putin informing him that despite his claims to the contrary, Crimea really belongs to me.
Soon I will be writing a letter to President Putin informing him that despite his claims to the contrary, Crimea really belongs to me.
173
i love it when people argue about science and religion online because they think they're relatives whom they cannot stand are actually reading the same tired stupid points both groups continually make.
7
Technology can be very useful but as long as it can't predict tomorrow as the Bible did, what can I say, There's a God who sees the end from the beginning.
People bash the Bible and Christians without even knowing what the Bible says. What a way to to smart! And then the so-called Christians who doesn't know what the Bible say either join in perpetuating the ignorance.
People followed the Bible to conclude that man hasn't been around for more than 7000 years. Now, anyone can bash the book but that doesn't change what it says. The Bible says Britain will go down, and it has. It says America will go down, and it's going, that Germany will rise to lead EU and it's rising and leading, that people will run when no one is pursuing and it just happened yesterday even in white house.
Let anyone tell me what will happen in the next five years with accuracy as the Bible has done.
People bash the Bible and Christians without even knowing what the Bible says. What a way to to smart! And then the so-called Christians who doesn't know what the Bible say either join in perpetuating the ignorance.
People followed the Bible to conclude that man hasn't been around for more than 7000 years. Now, anyone can bash the book but that doesn't change what it says. The Bible says Britain will go down, and it has. It says America will go down, and it's going, that Germany will rise to lead EU and it's rising and leading, that people will run when no one is pursuing and it just happened yesterday even in white house.
Let anyone tell me what will happen in the next five years with accuracy as the Bible has done.
It the same bible that says the Sun goes around the Earth?
10
Had a little trouble following your point. This is science. The bible is a collection of fables. Neither one actually meet.
11
This just in: The world is round.
12
It's a little obnoxious that some partisans can't read a science article without turning it into a political polemic against their enemies. Commandeering science for a culture war is no more rational than denying science for a culture war. If you want to instill a respect for science beyond the dogma of politics, start with your own side's idiotic pseudoscientific opposition to gender traits and GMOs.
Or, as that ridiculous book would put it: take the beam from your own eye before digging the mote from someone else's.
Or, as that ridiculous book would put it: take the beam from your own eye before digging the mote from someone else's.
12
J. Nelson Leith, while I agree with you that the opposition to gender traits is pseudoscientific -- actually, which include "science" in that description? -- there's sound scientific and practical reason to be concerned about GMO's. It isn't the genetic alteration per se that is the problem, but irresponsible use of the same, e.g., the widespread use of harmful pesticides and herbicides.
Also, let's be real, the left isn't as bad as the right when it comes to ignoring science -- creationism and warming denial are off the scale in their irrationality.
Also, let's be real, the left isn't as bad as the right when it comes to ignoring science -- creationism and warming denial are off the scale in their irrationality.
13
what is opposition to gender traits?
If you mean, opposition to the idea that women are the loving, caring compassionate home-makers and men are the rational, emotionally distant, strong, working providers, I urge you to expand your concept of the variation in humanity: it's our experiences and our personal biology and chemistry that make us who we are, not our gender. For instance: as a woman, I hate kids and I'm not good at chores or cooking. Is that opposition to my "innate" gender traits, or just who I am as a person?
If you mean, opposition to the idea that women are the loving, caring compassionate home-makers and men are the rational, emotionally distant, strong, working providers, I urge you to expand your concept of the variation in humanity: it's our experiences and our personal biology and chemistry that make us who we are, not our gender. For instance: as a woman, I hate kids and I'm not good at chores or cooking. Is that opposition to my "innate" gender traits, or just who I am as a person?
2
Maybe this can explain why children of Indian origin always win the US spelling bee. They are fluent in languages derived from Sanskrit, the ancient mother tongue of English.
6
This makes no sense! Indo-Europeean is the ancient mother tongue of both the Sanskrit-derived languages and English, and English spelling is based on the phonetic English pronunciations of a few hundred years ago.
20
Actually some of the winning US spelling bee words were German. Nothing scientific but Just lookat the discrepancy between the SAT verbal scores of Indians versus East Asian/Chinese.
2
Josh.
American was being facetious.
American was being facetious.
3
When Vladimir Putin hears of the Yamnaya, he will use it as an excuse to take the rest of Europe.
65
While all of this is fascinating and offers new keys to unlocking the mystery of Europeans' origins, is there study going on of the origins of Asian and African cultures as well? It is clear that civilizations as complex and advanced or even greater that those in Europe took root in places other that Europe. How did these Near Eastern or Yamnaya migrants develop prior to their introduction in Europe? This is just a small part of the human story and any talk of "our species" is premature at best without those other pieces of the puzzle.
7
Man, could you possibly be more PC? There's research on Asian and African genetics as well. This study was about the population of Europe.
38
Because living Africans contain a considerable portion of the diversity of humans, they have received particular attention. Work correlating language and DNA in Africans has been done. This work still needs to be strengthened with DNA from ancient burials.
2
No single article can cover everything. Also, this is a report of a recent paper that took yrs of research and collection of rare ancient human remains happened to be found in Europe and Near East. It focuses on the origin of Europeans.
There are similar research in East Asia and when they publish results, perhaps East Asian news media will cover it. When Sub-Saharan Africans do it, they will report similarly.
It is preposterous and presumptuous to expect scientists with European human remains to have any results on East Asians, for example. When they discovered enough ancient Asian remains, some scientists will do it and publish. Don't bring PC in science.
There are similar research in East Asia and when they publish results, perhaps East Asian news media will cover it. When Sub-Saharan Africans do it, they will report similarly.
It is preposterous and presumptuous to expect scientists with European human remains to have any results on East Asians, for example. When they discovered enough ancient Asian remains, some scientists will do it and publish. Don't bring PC in science.
11
I am vaguely remembering some project - maybe a decade ago - with National Geographic - it was on TV - where they were studying DNA from all over the world - and traced huge numbers back to a common ancestor perhaps it was in Kazahkastan? (I also remember them telling the Havasupai Indians that they were descendants of this person - and they were very clear - "you have your story, we have ours. Don't you tell us who we are."
Does anyone recall that "definitive" study and how it relates to this one? Looking forward to some erudite responses!
Does anyone recall that "definitive" study and how it relates to this one? Looking forward to some erudite responses!
8
Yes, I remember seeing it 2 or 3 years ago on TV. The idea was that, in the migration eastward, some people stopped and some kept going over the Bering Strait. Those who remained behind were closely linked genetically to those who went ahead.
Really enjoyed this article. Particularly the information about the Yamnaya, which I had never heard of, and the possibility that most European languages are derived from theirs. I have always thought that the study of ancient languages would describe the movements of the earliest humans, but it turns out DNA is telling the story first! Fantastic!
42
Actually, linguists have been predicting predicting this migration for decades based on reconstructions of the proto-IE language. So they were the first, though DNA has proven them right. For a wonderful treatment of this topic I recommend J.P. Malloy's "In Search of the Indo-Europeans". Maybe one of my top 10 non-fiction books of all time, literally a book for the ages.
2
If you are interested in the history of the proto-Indo-European language, its descendants, and English in particular, I highly recommend 'The History of English Podcast' that can be found on iTunes. The first ten episodes focus on the origins of proto-Indo-European. The reconstructed vocabulary of proto-Indo-European gives hints as to how and where these people lived. The podcasts are very interesting and informative. So far there are 63 episodes and they average about 50 minutes each. It is a big commitment, but well worth it. I am currently working through them during my time in the kitchen every night. Enjoy!
25
I believe I have the entire set on VHS. I'm waiting for retirement to finally sit down and watch this series. I'm sure I'll be fascinated. I bought this set well before CD's and DVD's!
1
I did check it out. Thanks!
1
I enjoy reports like these. However, the most powerful reaction I have is to imagine what we will learn next from more work like this.
We will get more DNA tested from more times and places. We will understand the DNA of each individual in more detail. Eventually, we will see clusters of data link together, to show a much bigger picture from a mass of data.
I expect we will learn that people moved around far more than we'd previously assumed.
We assumed less because we have not had data. Now we will. Without data, such ideas are just wild guesses. It will be fascinating to see each new piece of the puzzle emerge, and rearrange what we "knew."
We will get more DNA tested from more times and places. We will understand the DNA of each individual in more detail. Eventually, we will see clusters of data link together, to show a much bigger picture from a mass of data.
I expect we will learn that people moved around far more than we'd previously assumed.
We assumed less because we have not had data. Now we will. Without data, such ideas are just wild guesses. It will be fascinating to see each new piece of the puzzle emerge, and rearrange what we "knew."
5
Mark, you might be surprised. Much research has been done and if anything it suggests that people moved around *less* than we thought. For example, it was once widely assumed that the English were Anglo-Saxons who had displaced the original Britons, but DNA studies find that the original population remained in place, with a genetic contribution from the invaders -- and that populations tend to stay in localities for thousands of years. The Basque, who speak a non-Indo-European language, may well be the same Cro-Magnons who made those magnificent cave paintings in prehistory!
That isn't to say that people don't migrate, but averaged over time, migration seems to be a fairy slow process.
That isn't to say that people don't migrate, but averaged over time, migration seems to be a fairy slow process.
3
Thanks. I hope and expect I will be surprised. That is the fun of it.
Basque descendants are everywhere in the Americas. Basque fishermen went up to Labrador to catch cod even before the first English colony was established in Virginia. There are Basque people in Nevada and Idaho. Euskera has been incorporated in other languages ( think of the word 'bizarre'). They migrate like everyone else.
1
I wonder why article keeps mentioning hunter gatherers, sheep herders, farmers? Did genome tell what they did? Can I sequence dnd of a Hollywood attorney in 3rd gen. Or Midwestern farmer in 4th gen and decipher this without knowing in advance?
If you make a point about genome study, better stick with genome data.
If you make a point about genome study, better stick with genome data.
The genes are physical objects collected from physical locations that have physical evidence of physical artifacts that have physical time clocks.
Duh.
Duh.
17
They're referred to as hunter-gatherers and farmers and sheephereders because of archaeological evidence. Agriculture didn't even exist 45,000 years ago! And if it had, it wouldn't have been possible to practice it in Europe during the ice age. So the original population had to be hunter-gatherers.
And it's long been known that farmers then spread into Europe from the Middle East, where, again, we know that old world agriculture originated. And it seems the Yamnaya left behind an abundance of archaeological evidence.
And it's long been known that farmers then spread into Europe from the Middle East, where, again, we know that old world agriculture originated. And it seems the Yamnaya left behind an abundance of archaeological evidence.
12
They can tell that because the remains were found in those contexts (h-g vs shepards vs farmers have very different archaeological signatures). Also, if they did any isotopic analysis on the bones, they'd be able to tell what the diet largely consisted of.
10
With such an influx of settlers from the areas that are now Russia and Ukraine, should Europe expect another Putin foray into western Europe to "liberate" former Russian people?
9
@brupic
@Joe
Be compassionate - allow all their dignity, as if they were your brothers or sisters who, despite their different thoughts and ways, are still worthy of a sibling's love.
Come to think of it, these DNA studies show that we are indeed brothers and sisters, born as we are into competitive predatory mammalian (nurturing herd animal) bones.
@Joe
Be compassionate - allow all their dignity, as if they were your brothers or sisters who, despite their different thoughts and ways, are still worthy of a sibling's love.
Come to think of it, these DNA studies show that we are indeed brothers and sisters, born as we are into competitive predatory mammalian (nurturing herd animal) bones.
3
For all the attention paid to the ancient sites in Egypt and Palestine - few appreciate ancient sites on the very edge of Europe like Newgrange and Skara Brae that tend to show a very ancient civilization and population.
There may be clues in Gaelic and Welsh "myth".
Of course, the Bible is myth, but not considered such - and it has perhaps a trace of historical accuracy, but for the most part is wildly inaccurate - as you'd expect from something written down centuries later, if not simply made up.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/time.html
No offense to the religious, but if you are going to seize upon the few things that may point to real events, you also need to accept the things that don't.
Imagine if similar attention were paid to the surviving Celtic myths, and those of the Basques {whom are oddly closely related, according to some studies, to the Welsh and Irish}
It may be noted, too, that a study suggested rather old european origin for ashkenazi jews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/science/ashkenazi-origins-may-be-with-...
Tying this together a bit - isn't it curious that after Jews, the Gaels {Irish/Highland Scots} get Tay Sachs the most?
This may trace to pre-indoeuropean populations, but I'm not aware of anyone explicitly making inquiry into the appearance of "Jewish" diseases amongst "Celts" !
There may be clues in Gaelic and Welsh "myth".
Of course, the Bible is myth, but not considered such - and it has perhaps a trace of historical accuracy, but for the most part is wildly inaccurate - as you'd expect from something written down centuries later, if not simply made up.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/time.html
No offense to the religious, but if you are going to seize upon the few things that may point to real events, you also need to accept the things that don't.
Imagine if similar attention were paid to the surviving Celtic myths, and those of the Basques {whom are oddly closely related, according to some studies, to the Welsh and Irish}
It may be noted, too, that a study suggested rather old european origin for ashkenazi jews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/science/ashkenazi-origins-may-be-with-...
Tying this together a bit - isn't it curious that after Jews, the Gaels {Irish/Highland Scots} get Tay Sachs the most?
This may trace to pre-indoeuropean populations, but I'm not aware of anyone explicitly making inquiry into the appearance of "Jewish" diseases amongst "Celts" !
12
Europe was founded by migrants, as this DNA study indicates.
2
Every region of the world was "founded" by migrants (except for a small area in Africa where homo sapiens evolved).
3
Well Europe returned the favor, by colonizing much of the rest of the world.
1
Part of my roots I believe are pre-christian germanic tribes that fought and then later mercenaried for the 1st-3rd century Romans. I'm receiving my ancestry.com dna kit this weekend and this type of information fascinates me!
5
This makes me curious as to how and why racialism developed. Our origins seem so very entwined.
4
Racism is a characteristic of patriarchal cultures (men love to organized themselves and their possessions from top to bottom) as a result racism exists all around the world in most countries and has existed for millennia.
2
@ Kim - Kim this will be my only comment/reply today, one hardly anybody but you probably will see. You end with a simple sentence that could be the basis for a New York Times series we will never see.
"Our origins seem so very entwined." Svante Pääbo would be asked by the Times to write the first article in the series.
Now to your first sentence: "...how and why racialism developed." I recommend you consider reading "Fatal Invention-How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-created Race in the Twenty-first Century" by Dorothy Roberts, Professor of Law and Sociology at U Penn. She notes that her parents taught her there is only one race, the human. She devoted 6 years of research leading to the book in which she makes the case that the concept of "race" is the "fatal invention of racists".
As far as I know I have never succeeded in getting a single Times commenter to read the book but it remains the most important book I have read in the past 10 years.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
"Our origins seem so very entwined." Svante Pääbo would be asked by the Times to write the first article in the series.
Now to your first sentence: "...how and why racialism developed." I recommend you consider reading "Fatal Invention-How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-created Race in the Twenty-first Century" by Dorothy Roberts, Professor of Law and Sociology at U Penn. She notes that her parents taught her there is only one race, the human. She devoted 6 years of research leading to the book in which she makes the case that the concept of "race" is the "fatal invention of racists".
As far as I know I have never succeeded in getting a single Times commenter to read the book but it remains the most important book I have read in the past 10 years.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
8
@ Kim - Earlier I wrote that my reply would be my only comment today. Then I discovered an OpEd that is, for the NYT, revolutionary. The OpEd is about the great variety of ethnicities-combinations represented in the US population and about the failure of the system used to classify us.
I provide the URL to my main comment there, not for the comment but to take you to the article and more important, to the best reply I have ever seen, a reply from Peter in Boston. I have thanked him there and will be sending his reply to Professor Kenneth Prewitt to show him that at least one American is thinking about the questions to be faced if proposals are made to change the US Census Bureau system for classifying all of us.
Enjoy
Larry
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/opinion/the-myth-of-a-white-minority.h...
I provide the URL to my main comment there, not for the comment but to take you to the article and more important, to the best reply I have ever seen, a reply from Peter in Boston. I have thanked him there and will be sending his reply to Professor Kenneth Prewitt to show him that at least one American is thinking about the questions to be faced if proposals are made to change the US Census Bureau system for classifying all of us.
Enjoy
Larry
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/opinion/the-myth-of-a-white-minority.h...
4
Great, no clue where we're going but we now know where we've come from and been. On any perilous journey has the wiser choice ever been made that the road looking back looks better than the road forward and maybe the right way to go? Or would that involve the matter of swallowing too much pride to say so and thus negate such a logical and rational option.
Luckily that's what cliffs are for for they allow no response time for debate as they come along so suddenly and the drop so precipitous and fatal, that nothing matters after them anymore.
Luckily that's what cliffs are for for they allow no response time for debate as they come along so suddenly and the drop so precipitous and fatal, that nothing matters after them anymore.
1
This type of discovery is genuinely fascinating. What I love about history, especially pre-history, is that it makes the present day seem insignifcant. To the humans who inhabited those skeletons, we're living in the far, far future.
13
Hopefully scientist will move forward expeditiously in mapping the global family tree. Perhaps information on our origins will give the us verses them types pause for thought.
Evangelicals suggest Adam and eve lived on earth around 4000-5000 BC. How does that reconcile with the discovery that Europe hunter gatherers arrived some 45,000 years ago, in an article last year you mention, "About 50,000 years ago, humans from Africa first set foot in Europe. They hunted woolly mammoths and other big game — sometimes to extinction. Eventually, they began grazing livestock and raising crops." Can someone please talk to our Christian Evangelicals who believe in the Genesis, word to word, literally?
10
I rationalize the beliefs of my Christian Evangelical friends, who are Bible literalists, by supposing that God may have created a world 4,000 years ago that included dinosaur bones in the ground, and a fully eroded Grand Canyon, all for our delight and investigation. If God did create the world 4,000 years ago, it's hard to believe he would have created a cue ball world with no history of erosion, no hills no valleys -- no "backstory," as my son says.
In the end, everyone's cosmology breaks down at the beginning, for no one can explain what came before the beginning. You may believe in the Big Bang as the creation of the Universe (as do I), but that begs the question of -- what created the Big Bang. Was it God? An intelligent being? If not, then what? We can ask what created the intelligent being, etc.
In the end, how you satisfy these personal questions is up to you. To criticize someone's reliance on world created 4,000 years ago by God, and substituting a world created 4 billion years ago by the Big Bang, doesn't really explain anything. Your religion for theirs.
I think the fossil record clearly shows evidence of evolution, as does current biology. God may have created man to evolve, and given us a backstory. If so, who cares whether God started the record in the middle of the song instead of letting it play from the beginning. Maybe he was impatient and didn't want to watch 4,000,000,000 years of ennui.
In the end, everyone's cosmology breaks down at the beginning, for no one can explain what came before the beginning. You may believe in the Big Bang as the creation of the Universe (as do I), but that begs the question of -- what created the Big Bang. Was it God? An intelligent being? If not, then what? We can ask what created the intelligent being, etc.
In the end, how you satisfy these personal questions is up to you. To criticize someone's reliance on world created 4,000 years ago by God, and substituting a world created 4 billion years ago by the Big Bang, doesn't really explain anything. Your religion for theirs.
I think the fossil record clearly shows evidence of evolution, as does current biology. God may have created man to evolve, and given us a backstory. If so, who cares whether God started the record in the middle of the song instead of letting it play from the beginning. Maybe he was impatient and didn't want to watch 4,000,000,000 years of ennui.
2
Science is not a religion. It is based on empirical facts and reason, and is self correcting.
7
It's incredible to me what a mixture of races we all are, and what an even greater mixture the world will be in a couple thousand years, providing we survive that long.
3
According to Pat Robertson, these ancient people rode dinosaurs from the Steppes of Russia to Jerusalem where they hooked up with Jesus and walked on water. So much for science.
9
Pat Robertson specifically said that young earth creationism is stupid - look it up.
Yes, Paul Heggarty's comments make the most sense to me: the Near Eastern population element is the foundation. It should be noted that a strong argument can be made for an original affinity between proto-Indo-European and the Semitic family.
Anyway, the subject is absolutely fascinating. As a classicist, I would love to know who were the first people to worship Zeus and Hestia, and who were the inventors of the dactylic hexameter.
Anyway, the subject is absolutely fascinating. As a classicist, I would love to know who were the first people to worship Zeus and Hestia, and who were the inventors of the dactylic hexameter.
31
I discovered this after reading your post and your interest about the origins of Hestia ...
http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Hestia.html
http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Hestia.html
2
my sisters and i had a haploid dna thing done a few years ago by the national geographic society. i'm in the same group as 90% of white european males from a number of countries. their lineage was very murky and inconclusive. one wonders if this new evidence could shed some light on their ancestral past. they recently had more analysis done that ultimately spiked the family rumor that our paternal grandfather had some Native American relatives.
3
Great work, but I wonder how many people are capable of grasping the concept of people migrating across thousands of miles, over thousands of years, and in the process building the foundation of what we have today?
I've been working on the family history for many years and even within a time span measured in hundreds, rather than thousands of years, I'm always amazed at the number of people who don't understand the context of their ancestors' lives. For example, that many of their ancestors were illiterate, and that English is a modern language in the overall scheme of things.
I'm sometimes reminded of a story I heard years ago, about a school district somewhere in the south that was debating whether to teach French in their schools. One of the audience allegedly stood up and said "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!".
I've been working on the family history for many years and even within a time span measured in hundreds, rather than thousands of years, I'm always amazed at the number of people who don't understand the context of their ancestors' lives. For example, that many of their ancestors were illiterate, and that English is a modern language in the overall scheme of things.
I'm sometimes reminded of a story I heard years ago, about a school district somewhere in the south that was debating whether to teach French in their schools. One of the audience allegedly stood up and said "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!".
146
Growing up in rural Oklahoma in the late 50s and 60s, I have actually heard people claim that "If the Kings James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." People often have trouble understanding the context of their own lives, much less that of their ancestors.
16
the story, I think, is more often stated as being by a governor in texas around 100 years ago talking about Spanish being taught.
3
I bet that's the same woman who shouted out during a debate about the ACA that she wanted the government to stay out of her Medicare.
9
Fascinating: The Near East is the older name (and more appropiate I believe) for what we call today the Middle East. I own maps of the National Geographic from the 1930's which still used Near East for the region of the Levant, Palestine (then UK mandate), Iraq, etc.
As a note, this early Indo-European might have led to Old Greek, Latin, Etruscan, Celtic, Gaellic, etc but some other European languages came later with the invasions of barbarians from what is today Russia, during the first few centuries after Christ. The most notable cases were the Francs, Saxons, Vandals, Goths, and western Slavs who took the Latin alphabet from Rome whereas the eastern Slavs took the Greek from Byzantium.
As a note, this early Indo-European might have led to Old Greek, Latin, Etruscan, Celtic, Gaellic, etc but some other European languages came later with the invasions of barbarians from what is today Russia, during the first few centuries after Christ. The most notable cases were the Francs, Saxons, Vandals, Goths, and western Slavs who took the Latin alphabet from Rome whereas the eastern Slavs took the Greek from Byzantium.
5
Another piece of the puzzle lies underneath the Black Sea, along the pre-inundation shoreline several hundred feet below the current sea level, where vestiges of ancient settlements have been detected by submersibles and sonar. Someone will eventually bring back skeletal remains from the submerged graves on opposing sides of the sea which will yield the DNA of civilizations that were displaced by rising sea waters ~ 10K years ago.
42
What a fascinating article. I hope, as we continue to learn about the pre-historic movements of people, that it erodes cultural beliefs and prejudices that anyone is "native", or genetically superior, or that any culture is 'timeless.' We may chose for practical or economic reasons to draw borders and include or exclude people, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking they are based on anything god-given or ancient.
81
One can believe that no culture is timeless, or any race superior, but still believe one culture is superior to another. What's wrong with having borders based upon culture?
2
Seemed to me that we already knew that people accompanied the spread of farming into Europe through various other means - although this undoubtedly clarifies the picture. I had not heard previously about Yamnaya people moving into Europe - that seems entirely new.
Fascinating, certainly, especially when we remember that these peoples are also the ancestors of most Americans.
In the end, there seems to be no limit to what we can find out through science.
Fascinating, certainly, especially when we remember that these peoples are also the ancestors of most Americans.
In the end, there seems to be no limit to what we can find out through science.
14
"I had not heard previously about Yamnaya people moving into Europe - that seems entirely new."
Actually, you have heard of them. They used to be called Aryans.
Actually, you have heard of them. They used to be called Aryans.
14
Steve is right. And the early Indo European language is related to Sanskrit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language
The Sanskrit speaking aryans were anything but uncivilized, together with Dravidians, they created ideal conditions in the subcontinent for language, learning, exploring, science, cosmology, astronomy, body and mind connection, understanding the root of it all, Consciousness. They explored in parallel, it was not one prophet or one messiah, their findings were collaborated by several sages, rishis, seers, over time and space. The discoveries, explorations were passed on in an oral tradition, kept alive through language. It is still alive today.
The Sanskrit speaking aryans were anything but uncivilized, together with Dravidians, they created ideal conditions in the subcontinent for language, learning, exploring, science, cosmology, astronomy, body and mind connection, understanding the root of it all, Consciousness. They explored in parallel, it was not one prophet or one messiah, their findings were collaborated by several sages, rishis, seers, over time and space. The discoveries, explorations were passed on in an oral tradition, kept alive through language. It is still alive today.
10
If I'm not mistaken, a recent special on PBS revealed that genetic testing indicates that Europe was initially populated by modern humans from somewhere just north of Iran. These are steppe people which must then be the population referred to as migrating 45,000 years ago. The second wave at 8,000 years ago came from Turkey. Then the last wave, the Yamnaya came 4,500 years ago from a location near the first wave. Through 40,000 years of cultural and physical evolution, a different people emerged from the same location as the first wave, intermingled and changed the continent's population.
Three waves of people populated Europe from the same general area. Today, we view these original locations as alien. See how powerful culture is in creating divisions between family members.
Three waves of people populated Europe from the same general area. Today, we view these original locations as alien. See how powerful culture is in creating divisions between family members.
46
Fascinating stuff, thanks. I'm guessing the first European group were what we refer to as the Neanderthals (as they were first found in Neanderthal, a valley in Germany), and it's been proven that there was intermixing of them with later groups, although there was probably some warfare when the second group arrived. Not too surprising to me that the Yamnaya would have spread over 4,000 miles, due to their lifestyle: nomadic shepherds. The grass is always greener over there, and they'd follow the sheep, and due to the success of their subsistence strategy, they'd have to expand due to overpopulation of their initial areas. It's also not surprising that they integrated peacefully, as shepherds don't tend to go to war until they run out of sheep, it's not good for their lifestyle.
I think too it should be kept in mind that we don't have the full picture here; this is based on DNA taken from 170 humans. From the period of 45,000 to 4,000 years ago, there had to be millions of humans having lived in Europe at some point, and they wouldn't necessarily come from these three groups. Easy to picture groups moving in from Northwest Africa, from Turkey, from Siberia north of the Yamnaya's turf, and so on. Some of these other possible incursions might be very tough to spot, as their ways might not have included burials in the ground, nor long-term settlements where artifacts would pile up.
I think too it should be kept in mind that we don't have the full picture here; this is based on DNA taken from 170 humans. From the period of 45,000 to 4,000 years ago, there had to be millions of humans having lived in Europe at some point, and they wouldn't necessarily come from these three groups. Easy to picture groups moving in from Northwest Africa, from Turkey, from Siberia north of the Yamnaya's turf, and so on. Some of these other possible incursions might be very tough to spot, as their ways might not have included burials in the ground, nor long-term settlements where artifacts would pile up.
7
The Neanderthals represent a mere 2-4% of DNA of modern Europeans, so the hunter-gatherers of 45,000 years ago are not Neanderthals. If they were, the article would have said so. (Reich, the leader of the Harvard group, was one of the people responsible for figuring out the Neanderthal contribution to the modern genome.
12
Fascinating stuff indeed. However I don’t think those first Europeans, which the article dates to 45.000, were Neanderthals. Research has pretty well established that the Neanderthals arrived in Europe much earlier, around 70.000. Scientists have also found through DNA analysis that there was some interbreeding between Neanderthals and European settlers around 50.000.
6
Dan, the Neanderthals were already long in Europe when that first group of hunter gatherers arrived 45,000 years ago. The two groups lived side-by-side for several thousand years and then the Neanderthals died out. I've seen it suggested that there was a higher rate of Neanderthal admixture in Europe's original H. sapien hunter-gatherer population than in today's Europeans, but I don't know if it's true or whether this study shed any light on the question.
8
A fascinating story of ancient globalization and genetic and cultural mixing, apparently peacefully. What once took a few thousand years through a process of foot and horse, and wary co-existence, now takes place much more quickly through airplanes and social media.
14
Globalization has always existed, even if it was snail paced. Parallel civilizations co existed, exchanged views, ideas, traded goods. Each influenced the other. We are one human race living on one planet earth, exchanging our oxygen and carbon di oxide.
4
I question the assumption that this cultural mixing was peaceful. It's lovely to imagine that all the sex that led to cultural mixing was joyful and consensual. But in the absence of convincing evidence about the nature of the contact or encounter, one can just as rightly assume that the women involved did not consent to a violent sexual act.
6
The movement of the mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA can reveal something about the direction of the interaction. For example, when Y chromosomes from elsewhere flow in to a population then outside males mated with local females. The mitochondrial DNA maps the flow of females.
7
'There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.'
~ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
And what a remarkable journey our species has taken, from our branching off from a common ancestor with chimpanzees 5-7 million years ago, to archaic ancestors who made tools and learned to harness fire, to those ancestors without whom, through their struggles and their lives, not one of us would be here.
~ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
And what a remarkable journey our species has taken, from our branching off from a common ancestor with chimpanzees 5-7 million years ago, to archaic ancestors who made tools and learned to harness fire, to those ancestors without whom, through their struggles and their lives, not one of us would be here.
176
I'd be here, just not in human form.
2
Fascinating! But, our present condition and national discourse must intrude.
Will the news of these exciting discoveries be permitted into the evangelical red state schools? Or, for that matter, into the vocabulary of the GOP?
How does a parent, mentor, or teacher who believes the earth is 6,000 years old reconcile this to a student who aspires to go to university?
"Well. . .yes. . .there's science and that DNA thing, but we prefer our scripture. It's not fact-based, but it is poetic."
Will the news of these exciting discoveries be permitted into the evangelical red state schools? Or, for that matter, into the vocabulary of the GOP?
How does a parent, mentor, or teacher who believes the earth is 6,000 years old reconcile this to a student who aspires to go to university?
"Well. . .yes. . .there's science and that DNA thing, but we prefer our scripture. It's not fact-based, but it is poetic."
209
"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed.' Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' " --Carl Sagan
357
Hmm. I was thinking that these lines are a nice fact-based complement to the poetic story of Cain and Abel:
"Until about 9,000 years ago, Europe was home to a genetically distinct population of hunter-gatherers, the researchers found. Then, between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago, the genetic profiles of the inhabitants in some parts of Europe abruptly changed, acquiring DNA from Near Eastern populations."
From Wikipedia:
"Modern scholars typically view the stories of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel to be about the development of civilization during the age of agriculture; not the beginnings of man, but when people first learned agriculture, replacing the ways of the hunter-gatherer."
"Until about 9,000 years ago, Europe was home to a genetically distinct population of hunter-gatherers, the researchers found. Then, between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago, the genetic profiles of the inhabitants in some parts of Europe abruptly changed, acquiring DNA from Near Eastern populations."
From Wikipedia:
"Modern scholars typically view the stories of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel to be about the development of civilization during the age of agriculture; not the beginnings of man, but when people first learned agriculture, replacing the ways of the hunter-gatherer."
18
Every time there is a new scientific finding or theory, the red herring of creationism pops up, with the ugly effect of muting debate and reducing depth of understanding of science within popular culture; instead of healthy debate, we get a simple dichotomy: "us" (the enlightened, rational, scientific folks) vs "them" (the pitiful creationists). The amazing findings reported here underscore just how little we've known up to now, and how little we now know, and surely will be debated and revised. Science is exploration, a messy business.
48
love that modern science and technology are unlocking our genetic journey. also, whenever I read stories about the age of our species, I always think it must be annoying to the born again crowd--so prevalent in the usa--that believes the universe is 6000 years old.
249
I love it, too. But, unfortunately, where religious belief is regarded as having greater validity than scientific evidence, no amount of evidence will change people's minds. They just disbelieve the evidence or ignore it. I used to think that as science developed and people became better educated this would change. But the intensity of curriculum battles in certain states has convinced me that the more science reveals, the more passionately religious believers defend Biblical "truth". When I think about it I can't help being reminded of the revival of literal interpretations of the Koran throughout much of the Arab world. All brands of fervent religious literalists are depressing, and potentially dangerous. Science is exciting but only to those who don't feel theatened by it.
63
Born Agains don't expose themselves to scientific inquiry and thus don't meet an annoying challenge.
15
Well, if you think about it, brupic, this research fits in with all other scientific findings that something did indeed trigger a huge leap in human development about 6,000 years ago, across the entire world, including in what is now Mexico and Peru, China, the Middle East and finally the Euro laggards. Humans have existed for a million years, scientists say, right, but worldwide, humans suddenly took up agriculture, writing, science, all at the same time, 6,000 years ago. Every new science discovery with the newest methods bear out what the Bible says, that SOMETHING happened about 6,000 years ago. Think about it before you bray.
1