The use of quantitative traits in the study of human population structure

“…Regardless of the causes of the patterns of change, however, much of the variation observed in complex and multifactorial traits is likely to be the result of the interaction between genes and the environment (Crawford, 1998). In model-free analyses, including standard statistical methods such as Mahalanobis D 2 and MMD, it is difficult to estimate explicitly the potential effects of genetic drift, gene flow, and effective population size on among-group variation (Relethford and Lees, 1982;Relethford, 1991Relethford, , 1994. A model-free approach is, however, most frequently adopted in studies of physical anthro-pology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological affinities between Jomon and Ainu: reassessment based on nonmetric cranial traits

Shigematsu

Ishida

Goto

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reevaluates the relationship between the prehistoric Jomon and modern Ainu based on 18 nonmetric cranial traits. Although the two Ainu series from the northeast coast and central/ southern regions of Hokkaido Island are always associated with Jomon, significant differences between the Ainu and Jomon were detected in the frequencies of seven traits: metopism, supraorbital foramen, ovale-spinosum confluence, hypoglossal canal bridging, jugular foramen bridging, biasterionic suture vestige, and occipitomastoid bone. Regarding these traits, the Ainu series are more similar to the Okhotsk than to the Jomon series.

show abstract

“…It is also possible to apply a specifically model-bound approach to quantitative craniometric traits in much the same way as is possible with genetic allele data (e.g., Cheverud 1982;Konigsberg 1990a,b;Konigsberg and Ousley 1995;Relethford et al 1997;Relethford and Lees 1982;Relethford and Blangero 1990;Williams-Blangero et al 1990). Recent studies by Pinhasi and von Cramon-Taubadel (2009;von Cramon-Taubadel and Pinhasi 2011) used model-fitting methods to explicitly test the demic vs. indigenist models for the transition to agriculture in southeastern, central, and eastern Europe.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Craniometric Perspective on the Transition to Agriculture in Europe

Pinhasi

Cramon‐Taubadel

2012

Human Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debates surrounding the nature of the Neolithic demographic transition in Europe have historically centered on two opposing models: a "demic" diffusion model whereby incoming farmers from the Near East and Anatolia effectively replaced or completely assimilated indigenous Mesolithic foraging communities, and an "indigenist" model resting on the assumption that ideas relating to agriculture and animal domestication diffused from the Near East but with little or no gene flow. The extreme versions of these dichotomous models were heavily contested primarily on the basis of archeological and modern genetic data. However, in recent years a growing acceptance has arisen of the likelihood that both processes were ongoing throughout the Neolithic transition and that a more complex, regional approach is required to fully understand the change from a foraging to a primarily agricultural mode of subsistence in Europe. Craniometric data were particularly useful for testing these more complex scenarios, as they can reliably be employed as a proxy for the genetic relationships among Mesolithic and Neolithic populations. In contrast, modern genetic data assume that modern European populations accurately reflect the genetic structure of Europe at the time of the Neolithic transition, while ancient DNA data are still not geographically or temporally detailed enough to test continent-wide processes. Here, with particular emphasis on the role of craniometric analyses, we review the current state of knowledge regarding the cultural and biological nature of the Neolithic transition in Europe. Abstract Debates surrounding the nature of the Neolithic demographic transition in Europe have historically centered on two opposing models: a "demic" diffusion model whereby incoming farmers from the Near East and Anatolia effectively replaced or completely assimilated indigenous Mesolithic foraging communities, and an "indigenist" model resting on the assumption that ideas relating to agriculture and animal domestication diffused from the Near East but with little or no gene flow. The extreme versions of these dichotomous models were heavily contested primarily on the basis of archeological and modern genetic data. However, in recent years a growing acceptance has arisen of the likelihood that both processes were ongoing throughout the Neolithic transition and that a more complex, regional approach is required to fully understand the change from a foraging to a primarily agricultural mode of subsistence in Europe. Craniometric data were particularly useful for testing these more complex scenarios, as they can reliably be employed as a proxy for the genetic relationships among Mesolithic and Neolithic populations. In contrast, modern genetic data assume that modern European populations accurately reflect the genetic structure of Europe at the time of the Neolithic transition, while ancient DNA data are still not geographically or temporally detailed enough to test continent-wide processes. Here, with particular emphasis on the role of ...

show abstract

The use of quantitative traits in the study of human population structure

Cited by 104 publications

References 88 publications

Estimation of inbreeding, kinship, genetic distances, and population structure from surnames: The island of Hvar, Croatia

Estimation of inbreeding, kinship, genetic distances, and population structure from surnames: The island of Hvar, Croatia

Morphological affinities between Jomon and Ainu: reassessment based on nonmetric cranial traits

A Craniometric Perspective on the Transition to Agriculture in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About