On the Relation of the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic Period

Dawkins, Boyd

doi:10.2307/2842225

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Neolithic transition, a shift from a foraging to a farming-based subsistence, marks one of the most substantial social, ecological, and economic transformations in the prehistory of West Eurasia. The process of neolithization has interested and fascinated archaeologists, anthropologists, demographers, epidemiologists, specialists in evolutionary medicine, and the general public for more than a 100 years ( Lubbock 1866 ; Dawkins 1894 ; Bogucki 1999 ; Johnson and Earle 2000 ; Chamberlain 2006 ; Bocquet-Appel and Bar-Yosef 2008 ). In retrospect, the Neolithic was a transformative period in which a mostly sedentary lifestyle, domestication of plants and animals, and the associated relative independence from nature with reliance on sustained food supplies came into being.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population Genetics and Signatures of Selection in Early Neolithic European Farmers

Childebayeva

Rohrlach

Barquera

et al. 2022

Molecular Biology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human expansion in the course of the Neolithic transition in western Eurasia has been one of the major topics in ancient DNA (aDNA) research in the last ten years. Multiple studies have shown that the spread of agriculture and animal husbandry from the Near East across Europe was accompanied by large-scale human expansions. Moreover, changes in subsistence and migration associated with the Neolithic transition have been hypothesized to involve genetic adaptation. Here we present high quality genome-wide data from the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) site Derenburg Meerenstieg II (DER) (N=32 individuals) in Central Germany. Population genetic analyses show that the DER individuals carried predominantly Anatolian Neolithic-like ancestry and a very limited degree of local hunter-gatherer admixture, similar to other early European farmers. Increasing the LBK cohort size to ∼100 individuals allowed us to perform various frequency- and haplotype-based analyses to investigate signatures of selection associated with changes following the adoption of the Neolithic lifestyle. In addition, we developed a new method called AIMLESS (Admixture-informed Maximum-likelihood Estimation for Selection Scans) that allowed us test for selection signatures in an admixture-aware fashion. Focusing on the intersection of results from these selection scans, we identified various loci associated with immune function (JAK1, HLA-DQB1) and metabolism (LMF1, LEPR, SORBS1), as well as skin color (SLC24A5, CD82) and folate synthesis (MTHFR, NBPF3). Our findings shed light on the evolutionary pressures, such as infectious disease and changing diet, that were faced by the early farmers of Western Eurasia.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population Genetics and Signatures of Selection in Early Neolithic European Farmers

Childebayeva

Rohrlach

Barquera

et al. 2022

Molecular Biology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Harrison himself reports Tylor (then president) as giving a lecture at 'the London Institute,' 15 most likely a reference to Tylor's (1892) presidential address read on 26 January 1892, in which he mentions interest raised by the eolithic controversy. At around the same time, Allen Brown (1893) and Boyd Dawkins (1894) both delivered papers at the Institute on the same subject, subsequently published in the Journal, and we have a set of comments on the reception of these papers from G. Worthington Smith in the Harrison notebooks. 16 Following Tylor's example, Edward Brabrook, president between 1895 and 1897, refers to the debate in his annual addresses for 1896, 1897 and 1898 (Brabrook 1896(Brabrook , 1897(Brabrook and 1898.…”

Section: Eoliths Make An Appearance At the Institute 1892-1900mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Great Eolith Debate and the Anthropological Institute

Muthana

Ellen

2020

BHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the 1880s onwards, the Anthropological Institute played a key role in arguments surrounding eoliths, both as a venue for significant events and through the pages of its journals. Eoliths, stone objects claimed to be man-made and regarded by 'eolithophiles' as the precursors of handaxes, had become an issue almost as soon as the first chipped flints had been accepted as artifacts in the mid-nineteenth century. The ensuing debate, that drew in many luminaries of the age-such as Edward Tylor, John Evans, Alfred Russel Wallace and Joseph Prestwich-in many ways exemplified the changing relationship between amateurs and professionals in the affairs of the Institute, and between the different branches of evolutionist anthropology, addressing questions of scientific method, the use of ethnographic analogies, and contributing to the splits between the branches, and the eventual supremacy of the professionals by the eve of the Second World War.

show abstract

On the Relation of the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic Period

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Population Genetics and Signatures of Selection in Early Neolithic European Farmers

Population Genetics and Signatures of Selection in Early Neolithic European Farmers

The Great Eolith Debate and the Anthropological Institute

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About