Migrations from the steppe country of far eastern Europe were comprised almost entirely of men whereas migrations from Asia Minor (i.e. Turkey, Greece, etc) were typically comprised equally of men and women. (Science Daily: Genetic data show mainly men migrated from the Pontic steppe to Europe 5,000 years ago)
Male (blue) and female (red) contribution during the early Neolithic and later Neolithic/Bronze Age migrations.
Credit: Mattias Jakobsson
- SD
The underlying point to the interest in such things is that which made Europe what it is today is what made us what we are today regardless of where we are. That doesn't apply to the other paths out of Africa to Asia, etc but it's still the root for an enormous number of the world's citizens now.
Ed: yeah, the white ones
Fair enough since these migrations were late in human evolution but the color aspect isn't interesting. It's the movement of large numbers of people which draws interest since why should they do that. People usually identify with wherever we are born but these people didn't and large numbers of them decided to move.
This is yet another paper which has at its foundation a genetic study.
A new study, looking at the sex-specifically inherited X chromosome of prehistoric human remains, shows that hardly any women took part in the extensive migration from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe approximately 5,000 years ago. The great migration that brought farming practices to Europe 4,000 years earlier, on the other hand, consisted of both women and men. The difference in sex bias suggests that different social and cultural processes drove the two migrations.
- SD
The effect on Central Europe from these migrations was radical.
Genetic data suggest that modern European ancestry represents a mosaic of ancestral contributions from multiple waves of prehistoric migration events. Recent studies of genomic variation in prehistoric human remains have demonstrated that two mass migration events are particularly important to understanding European prehistory: the Neolithic spread of agriculture from Anatolia starting around 9,000 years ago, and migration from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe around 5,000 years ago. These migrations are coincident with large social, cultural, and linguistic changes, and each has been inferred to have replaced more than half of the contemporaneous gene pool of resident Central Europeans.
- SD
That last sentence is the one justifying the use of 'radical' relative to the changes which came from this.
The paper doesn't go too far with defining any actual differences in the cultures but they make a sound case for the different compositions in each type.
Ed: the male-only incursions were probably warriors
Probably so and maybe that shows the ancient model for expansion. Meanwhile, agrarian cultures grew but everyone went when they migrated. Unanswered in the paper is why should they do it.
There was another paper from six months to a year ago which revealed another genetic study which showed there was little genetic intermingling between the farmers which came from Greece, Turkey, Persia, etc and the people who came from anywhere else. That paper revealed those agrarian migrants were in Europe for centuries before there was significant interbreeding outside their own groups.
Note: regrettably, the science articles on Ithaka are not indexed and it would probably be nearly impossible to find that specific reference.
Ed: you bait the interested student but don't give up a fish!
You don't need to throw the interested students any fish. If they know where they might catch a fish, they will find the lake themselves. You know the truth of that from your own kids and this is just the same.
Male (blue) and female (red) contribution during the early Neolithic and later Neolithic/Bronze Age migrations.
Credit: Mattias Jakobsson
- SD
The underlying point to the interest in such things is that which made Europe what it is today is what made us what we are today regardless of where we are. That doesn't apply to the other paths out of Africa to Asia, etc but it's still the root for an enormous number of the world's citizens now.
Ed: yeah, the white ones
Fair enough since these migrations were late in human evolution but the color aspect isn't interesting. It's the movement of large numbers of people which draws interest since why should they do that. People usually identify with wherever we are born but these people didn't and large numbers of them decided to move.
This is yet another paper which has at its foundation a genetic study.
A new study, looking at the sex-specifically inherited X chromosome of prehistoric human remains, shows that hardly any women took part in the extensive migration from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe approximately 5,000 years ago. The great migration that brought farming practices to Europe 4,000 years earlier, on the other hand, consisted of both women and men. The difference in sex bias suggests that different social and cultural processes drove the two migrations.
- SD
The effect on Central Europe from these migrations was radical.
Genetic data suggest that modern European ancestry represents a mosaic of ancestral contributions from multiple waves of prehistoric migration events. Recent studies of genomic variation in prehistoric human remains have demonstrated that two mass migration events are particularly important to understanding European prehistory: the Neolithic spread of agriculture from Anatolia starting around 9,000 years ago, and migration from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe around 5,000 years ago. These migrations are coincident with large social, cultural, and linguistic changes, and each has been inferred to have replaced more than half of the contemporaneous gene pool of resident Central Europeans.
- SD
That last sentence is the one justifying the use of 'radical' relative to the changes which came from this.
The paper doesn't go too far with defining any actual differences in the cultures but they make a sound case for the different compositions in each type.
Ed: the male-only incursions were probably warriors
Probably so and maybe that shows the ancient model for expansion. Meanwhile, agrarian cultures grew but everyone went when they migrated. Unanswered in the paper is why should they do it.
There was another paper from six months to a year ago which revealed another genetic study which showed there was little genetic intermingling between the farmers which came from Greece, Turkey, Persia, etc and the people who came from anywhere else. That paper revealed those agrarian migrants were in Europe for centuries before there was significant interbreeding outside their own groups.
Note: regrettably, the science articles on Ithaka are not indexed and it would probably be nearly impossible to find that specific reference.
Ed: you bait the interested student but don't give up a fish!
You don't need to throw the interested students any fish. If they know where they might catch a fish, they will find the lake themselves. You know the truth of that from your own kids and this is just the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment