Paleolithic Europe populated from Asia

First Europeans Came From Asia, Not Africa, Tooth Study Suggests
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
August 6, 2007
Europe’s first early human colonizers were from Asia, not Africa, a new analysis of more than 5,000 ancient teeth suggests.
Researchers had traditionally assumed that Europe was settled in waves starting around two million years ago, as our ancient ancestors—collectively known as hominids—came over from Africa.
But the shapes of teeth from a number of hominid species suggest that arrivals from Asia played a greater role in colonizing Europe than hominids direct from Africa.
These Asian hominids may have originally come from Africa, the scientists note, but had evolved independently for some time.
“Asia was also an important center for hominid speciation,” said Maria Martinón-Torres, a scientist at the National Research Center on Human Evolution in Burgos, Spain, who led the study.
The finding suggests that the hominid family tree could be much more complex than previously thought (explore an interactive atlas of human migration).
Species from the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo arrived in Europe between two million and 300,000 years ago.
Until recently, a lack of fossils from this time period had made it difficult to piece together hominid evolution and migration patterns.
But using the latest fossil findings, Martinón-Torres and colleagues were able to examine more than 5,000 teeth from two-million-year-old Australopithecus and Homo skeletons from Africa, Asia, and Europe.
The shape of the teeth offered clues about each species’ genetic lineages.
“Teeth are like the safe-box of the genetic code,” Martinón-Torres said.
That’s because—compared to bones—teeth change shape very little once they are formed, and their shape is strongly influenced by genetics.
The researchers classified each of the teeth using more than 50 indicators, such as fissure patterns, overall size, and length-to-width ratio.
“We looked at the entire landscape of the teeth—the mountains, valleys, ridges—everything,” Martinón-Torres said.
What they found is that European teeth were more similar to Asian teeth than they were to African teeth.
However, the results don’t rule out African influence on European genes.
“This finding does not necessarily imply that there was not genetic flow between continents,” Martinón-Torres and colleagues write in their paper, “but emphasizes that this interchange could have been both ways.”
The work will be published in tomorrow’s issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Fluid Migrations
Rather than a one-way stream of people coming from Africa, Martinón-Torres and colleagues think there must have been a more fluid pattern of migrations.
“Just because people had come out of Africa didn’t mean that they couldn’t turn around and go back again,” she said.
The researcher also believes that climate, food, and geography were major influences on hominid migration patterns.
The Sahara, for example, presented a big barrier for movement out of Africa and directly into Europe (see photos and read a related feature about athletes who ran across the Sahara earlier this year).
Rather than struggling across the Sahara, it appears that human ancestors spread in many directions before arriving in Europe.
Erika Hagelberg, a geneticist from the University of Oslo in Norway, is impressed with the study, but cautious about how it should be interpreted.
“The study shows that the genetic impact of Asia on Europe is stronger than that of Africa. But the teeth can’t tell us the direction or the time when people migrated,” she said.
Nonetheless, the new study does complement direct gene studies and supports the idea that hominids evolved independently in many different parts of the world.
“The fossil teeth are a way to study the traits of past peoples,” Hagelberg said, “and help balance the work being done on the genes of people alive today.”

Well, duh, we knew that from the fossils. Nice to have corroborating evidence though.


5 responses to “Paleolithic Europe populated from Asia

  1. I think Oppenheimer argued something similar from the genetic evidence in the book ‘Out of Eden’.

  2. People of African decent and European decent are more closely related, by DNA analysis, than either one is to people of Asian decent.

  3. That’s incorrect Indigoblu.

    As I recall, the closest related people to Africans are Europeans, but Europeans are twice as closely related to Asians. There was a pretty sound explanation of it in wikipedia. The Asians are the nearest relatives of everyone but Africans.

    The separation date for Europeans and and Aisians is about 40k, from Africans 80k and probably more like 100k. There’s a chart with the fst distances around somewhere, tht shows the relative genetic distance between each group. Africans are the least related to anyone.

  4. Mathilda…
    You are right, they are closer to Asian than African.
    Have you seen this article?

  5. Read that article a while ago..

    I’m guessing life in Africa was rather more at the sharp end of natural selction until recently. A lot of European mutations of all sorts date to the Neolithic agricultural era, and it’s a lot more recent in Africa (8k vs an average of about, 3,000 years or less for most of Africa). Maybe that’s part of the reason why
    Europeans have collected more deviations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s