Why Did European DNA Suddenly Change 4,000 Years Ago?

Daily Mail (London), April 23, 2013

The genetic makeup of Europe mysteriously transformed about 4,000-5,000 years ago, researchers have discovered.

An Australian team found the unexplained change while analysing several skeletons unearthed in central Europe that were up to 7,500 years old.

They say the rapid expansion of the Bell Beaker culture, which is believed to have been instrumental in building the monoliths at Stonehedge, could hold the key.

‘What is intriguing is that the genetic markers of this first pan-European culture, which was clearly very successful, were then suddenly replaced around 4,500 years ago, and we don’t know why,’ study co-author Alan Cooper of the University of Adelaide Australian Center for Ancient DNA said.

‘Something major happened, and the hunt is now on to find out what that was.’

Ancient DNA recovered from a series of skeletons in central Germany up to 7500 years old has been used to reconstruct the first detailed genetic history of modern Europe.

The study, published today in Nature Communications, reveals a dramatic series of events including major migrations from both Western Europe and Eurasia, and signs of an unexplained genetic turnover about 4000-5000 years ago.

The research was performed at the University of Adelaide’s Australian Centre for Ancient DNA.

Researchers used DNA extracted from bone and teeth samples from prehistoric human skeletons to sequence a group of maternal genetic lineages that are now carried by up to 45% of Europeans.

The international team also included the University of Mainz in Germany and the National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project.

‘This is the first high-resolution genetic record of these lineages through time, and it is fascinating that we can directly observe both human DNA evolving in ‘real-time’, and the dramatic population changes that have taken place in Europe,’ says joint lead author Dr Wolfgang Haak of ACAD.

‘We can follow over 4000 years of prehistory, from the earliest farmers through the early Bronze Age to modern times.

‘The record of this maternally inherited genetic group, called Haplogroup H, shows that the first farmers in Central Europe resulted from a wholesale cultural and genetic input via migration, beginning in Turkey and the Near East where farming originated and arriving in Germany around 7500 years ago,’ says joint lead author Dr Paul Brotherton, formerly at ACAD and now at the University of Huddersfield, UK.

The team developed new advances in molecular biology to sequence entire mitochondrial genomes from the ancient skeletons.

This is the first ancient population study using a large number of mitochondrial genomes.

‘We have established that the genetic foundations for modern Europe were only established in the Mid-Neolithic, after this major genetic transition around 4000 years ago,’ says Dr Haak.

‘This genetic diversity was then modified further by a series of incoming and expanding cultures from Iberia and Eastern Europe through the Late Neolithic.

‘The expansion of the Bell Beaker culture (named after their pots) appears to have been a key event, emerging in Iberia around 2800 BC and arriving in Germany several centuries later,’ says Dr Brotherton.

‘This is a very interesting group as they have been linked to the expansion of Celtic languages along the Atlantic coast and into central Europe.

‘These well-dated ancient genetic sequences provide a unique opportunity to investigate the demographic history of Europe,’ says Professor Cooper.

‘We can not only estimate population sizes but also accurately determine the evolutionary rate of the sequences, providing a far more accurate timescale of significant events in recent human evolution.’

The team has been working closely on the genetic prehistory of Europeans for the past 7-8 years.

Professor Kurt Alt of the University of Mainz said: ‘This work shows the power of archaeology and ancient DNA working together to reconstruct human evolutionary history through time.

‘We are currently expanding this approach to other transects across Europe.’

Genographic Project director Spencer Wells says: ‘Studies such as this on ancient remains serve as a valuable adjunct to the work we are doing with modern populations in the Genographic Project.

‘While the DNA of people alive today can reveal the end result of their ancestors’ ancient movements, to really understand the dynamics of how modern genetic patterns were created we need to study ancient material as well.’

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • sbuffalonative

    Punctuated equilibrium; bursts of genetic change:

    Whatever the mechanism for bursts of change, changes can be swift and dynamic.

    • Secret Tribunal

      Ian Jobling told the SPLC that we are supposed to just ignore the basis of some differences.

      Jonathan Bowden said the entire structure of society today is designed to prevent prejudice against minorities.

      You’ll be hearing a lot more about what dangerous means in “dangerous discoveries”.


      “Shaka and Wilson agree that if any temporary differences exist, it’s only because the gospel has not had enough time to make equality more evident, and would it please hurry up already.”

      • Michael_C_Scott

        Ian Jobling was the one who had me exiled from the AmRen discussion board years ago. I harbor him no ill-will, but I wonder why he was saying anything to the $PLC without the intercession of seconds at dawn.

      • Dude

        What a pretty girl in the Christian Studies Online ad. To think that she follows a religion from a race of humanoid rats.

        • David Ashton

          Jesus a humanoid rat?

    • JohnEngelman

      Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a hypothesis in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events.

      In their book “The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution,” Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argue that the development of agriculture was one of these episodes. Agriculture required different skills and predispositions than hunting. They said the development of urban civilization was another. Urban civilization genetically rewards superior intelligence while punishing physical aggressiveness and disobedience to authority.


      The development and spread of computer technology is a third of these episodes. It enables geniuses to amass vast fortunes. It enables those of superior intelligence to establish themselves in well paying professions. It reduces the economic value of jobs most people are able to learn.

      • dhs

        Addendum: When these people have to compete with millions of third world immigrants for these jobs.

      • Morris LeChat

        wasn’t it only a few months ago that academics were saying we were devolving and becoming less intelligent? I think the truth is that all of these theories and hypothesis are nothing.

        • JohnEngelman

          Dysgenics is coming to an end. Those on the left end of the IQ bell curve face limited economic prospects, so their ability to survive and reproduce is declining as well. Race does not matter to employers, so it does not matter biologically. What does matter is individual merit.

          • Morris LeChat

            mmm. race does matter to employers. It just doesn’t matter to you, you have this fetishistic idea of a new world order based on IQ and involving inflatable asian women. You live in a strange bubble that has nothing to do with reality. Like your women that are vulnerable to puncture by sharp objects your bubble is vulnerable to puncture by sharp comments and sharp realities.

          • JohnEngelman

            I am confident that if you visit the offices of the most successful and prestigious corporations in the United States you will find a large number of Jews, Orientals, and immigrants from India earning very generous incomes. You will find that the percentage of those people is quite a bit greater than their percentage of the U.S. population.

            They were not hired because of affirmative action policies. They were hired because they were deemed better qualified than the white Gentiles who applied for their jobs.

            I am not gloating about their success. They are working for those corporations. I am not. Nevertheless, I recognize what the truth is, even when the truth is not kind to my self image.

          • Morris LeChat

            well john, this time you offer your “confidence” and conjecture, but no links, no studies, nothing to back it up. You are full of it john.

      • David Ashton

        What a pleasant change to read these learned little lessons on human evolution, rather than the staccato repetitions that usually constitute your contributions, even if you get much of it from the internet, which most of us share, or from the Cochran -Harpending book. I would warn readers that biological anthropology is like most science not “fixed” for ever, and theories about origins change all the time.

      • Edruezzi

        The development of agriculture happened to recently to have a large effect on the human genome.

        • JohnEngelman

          So said Stephen J. Gould, who claimed that the races are innately equal.

          Caucasians began agriculture in the Near East 10,000 years ago. If we assume that a century has four generations, agriculture began 400 generations ago. A whole lot of evolution can happen with 400 generations.

          The Bantu began agriculture about 3,000 years ago. That gives them about 120 generations.

          Farmers need to defer gratification. They cannot eat their seed corn. They cannot butcher all of their farm animals. When blacks and whites earn the same amount of money, whites save more of it.

          Farmers need to clean up after butchering animals or the remains will decay and spread disease. Paleolithic hunters do not need to clean up after a hunt, because they are always moving. Black neighborhoods have more litter than white neighborhoods.

          Civilization increases the prolificacy of intelligent men, while reducing that of physically aggressive men. The Bantu never developed their own civilizations.

          All of the innate differences between blacks and whites can be explained by evolutionary pressures that took place during the past 10,000 years.

          • Edruezzi

            This is simple to debunk. Yes, farmers don’t eat their seed corn. Now consider another agricultural culture, 19th century America. Not only was it a farming culture, it featured literacy and the use of some machinery. Now, could a black person survive and propagate offspring in a culture equivalent in complexity and the need for abstract thought of 1800s America. I think so. The historical record shows they did so. If a Negro could handle 1800s America there’s no reason why they couldn’t handle early agricultural Europe. You did not need to be an Einstein to raise a crop in Neolithic Europe.

          • JohnEngelman

            Primitive agriculture may not seem to us to require much intelligence. That is because we are descended from people who had the intelligence to learn how to do it.

            Races that preserved a Paleolithic way of life into the twentieth century, like the Bushmen of southern Africa and the Australian Aborigines. are having a very difficult time learning what agriculture requires.

          • Edruezzi

            Thanks for your reply,
            Is the difficulty due to inherent genetic inabilities that literally render them too stupid to farm, or is it due to cultural practices that are based on an unfamiliarity with agriculture.
            As for the Bushmen, they have been a minority in Africa for millennia. A good indicator of how agriculture was flourishing in Africa before European colonization is the fact that Subsaharan Africa was able to supply millions of people to the Slave Trade and not become depopulated.
            You might also note that Subsaharan African agriculture sprang up in at least two or three places independently of any outside influence.

          • Edruezzi

            I thought the best argument for when innate racial differences emerged was the vast 40,000 to 50,000 year period between the migration out of Africa and the rise of agriculture. I continue to maintain that 10,000 years ago is too recent. Agriculture is also too weak a selective force. Read again the Victorian poets who condemned the monotony of the farm. Your average European farm before the mechanization of agriculture was no place to become a genius. I mean, why are the words hayseed, clodhopper, and hillbilly so derogatory?

            You might note that hunter gatherers
            needed to defer gratification as well. They probably needed more of that
            attitude, since the hunt is not certain. One reason tribes around the world
            took up agriculture was that it made life more certain. And even the stupidest
            Africans of today can farm. Presumably their stone age ancestors could do that

            As for your cleaning up after butchering argument, it doesn’t
            provide enough of a selection gradient. That’s what’s important. In the
            differentiation of races, we have to look for selection gradients that
            persisted for thousands of years. Only that could change gene frequencies in
            populations. Decaying animals won’t kill off enough people to result in natural
            selection. In fact it’s difficult to isolate a single disease spread by
            decaying flesh, The biggest diseases of World War I soldiers on the Western
            Front, who lived among decaying corpses, were diseases that had nothing to do
            with rotting flesh. And somehow, the litter in black neighborhoods hasn’t
            brought down their teen pregnancy rate. I suppose the litter of stone age
            Europe would have still less of an effect.

            It’s not clear that civilization increases the profligacy of
            smart men. In our modern age women don’t go for the smart guys. They like
            jocks, even if the jocks are stupid. Hollywood has made an industry out of
            films about that. The genius Newton was not exactly a lady’s man, and left no
            offspring. Who left more offspring in highly civilized Ancient Egypt, the court
            scribes or the peasants? Take a census of any suburban American neighborhood
            and it’s not clear that families of college grads have more children, or more
            importantly, raise more children to adulthood, than families of less educated
            parents, and we live in far more cognitively demanding times. It was possible
            for an ancient Greek or Egyptian or a 19th century European to live a happy
            life and raise more than enough children to continue his or her lineage while
            being illiterate, in spite of literacy existing in their cultures. In
            agricultural cultures like Ancient Greece or Medieval Europe or Colonial
            America, it’s not clear that the philosophers, Oxbridge dons and Harvard grads
            left more children behind than the peasant farmers. Welfare queens produce
            offspring without a high school education. It’s estimated that 16 million Asian
            and Central European men carry genetic markers indicating that they are
            descended from Genghis Khan. I don’t think the brainy scribes of any Chinese
            emperor’s court did that well.

            Also, Bantu agriculture is a lot older than you say it is. I
            think the date you gave is the date for their migration from their ancestral
            homeland on the Nigeria-Cameroon border. They had been farming for thousands of
            years before then.

    • Spencer E

      usually through a population bottle neck I believe

  • Secret Tribunal

    The shift happened when enough White women learned to say Whites Only.

    “Racism not only saves lives, it makes better lives.” -RevJed DeValley

    • Exoplanet Finder

      It makes better lives because it makes for a more intelligent social order, and on the personal level, makes people make better decisions. Well said!

    • Intrepid

      learned to say whites only? because there was tons of race mixing 5000 years ago? get real.

      • eunometic

        If there was “tons” of race mixing thousands of years ago then there would be no races now. You are perhaps referring to minor mixing within branches within the same race; the equivalent of a Celt mixing with a Saxon say?

        • invisible

          Race mixing in the past was generally the product of rape during military conquest. You win, you rape everything. There wasn’t much else going on back then I guess. Just a lot of killing and rape and farming and gathering.

    • Dude

      That wouldn’t cause a genetic shift. It would cause a halt in what would’ve been a continuous genetic shift beforehand. Also, why are you only blaming women here?

  • Veritas_lux_mea

    I’ll bet the Nation of Islam, with all their anthropological and scientific prowess, knows the answer. I can’t believe they weren’t consulted.

  • bigone4u

    Five thousand years from now anthropologists will unearth skeletons in what is now the USA and be asking, “What happened to the white DNA? It suddenly disappeared around 2050 or so. It’s a real mystery that we’re working to solve.”

    Of course, I’m probably wrong. With the white race gone, anthropolgy and all science will ultimately disappear. Five thousand years from now, the wars between savage races with access to white weapons of mass destruction will have left the earth a burned out cinder circling forever in the infinity of space.

    • pcmustgo

      Super interesting. Blacks and other groups are always bashing “whites” for “the rape of Africa and Egypt” , taking Egyptian statues back to Europe etc., putting mummies in museums, etc But what did the Egyptians do with the artifacts? Pillage them of course. They stole all the white marble that originally encased the pyramids. Muslims blow up Buhddist statues. Whites STUDY other cultures. Non-whites destroy them and any artifacts of them.

      • bigone4u

        I saw an article on a conspiracy website that claimed the pyramids were giant electrical generating stations. I didn’t read it, but it’s no more nonsensical than the idea that blacks with their superior brains built the pyramids.

        • nobody

          The Egyptians simply imported mexicans to build the pyramids. They accepted less than minimum wage per hour and they built it in five days. The only problem is that in those 5 days they had something like 1,000 children, and their primitive DNA devolved the entire area. This is why Egyptian culture seemed to regress over the years instead of progress, this is the reason.

          • Bossman

            Ancient Egyptians and ancient Mexicans are supposed to have evolved in the same region of central Asia. One group went East and another group went west. That accounts for pyramids being found in the two countries. Some books written by serious researchers have said that.

          • JohnEngelman

            The split between the ancestors of ancient Egyptians and ancient Mexicans happened about 40,000 years ago. That was long before the establishment of the Egyptian and Meso American civilizations.

          • Bossman

            Egyptian culture didn’t regress. It went as far as it could and then stagnated.

        • Hage

          That’s not a conspiracy, there is actual scientific evidence that they were built by a previous unknown race of people that actually taught the real Egyptians everything, know one knows who they were, but theories range from Atlanteans, basque, to berberids not Nordics. That idea is more credible then Vikings going to North Africa to built gigantic structures that modern technology can’t even replicate.

          The person that is pushing this idea is an engineer named Chris Dunn, he has actual experience and is quite knowledgeable in that he has actually worked in companies like Hewlett Packard and major corporations. His idea stems from the fact that are minerals and materials that correspond to that of a giant machine such as mercury, copper, marbles which resonate harmonically when certain sounds are played, I believe Dunn actually proved this when he experimented. He wanted to wire the pyramids with devices and technology but the Egyptian government forbid it, but the Egyptian Pyramids were definitely not tombs.

    • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

      Not even this…. much sooner, in fact within 200 years the oceans will have grown so acidic that ocean biology will mostly die off and the oxygen that it produces, most of what exists, will be gone. No one will be around in 300 years.

      • bigone4u

        And blacks will be blaming whites for the lack of oxygen with their dying breaths.

        • Erasmus

          But if it weren’t for whitey, they wouldn’t even know that oxygen even existed.

        • anonymous_amren

          For once the black people would be correct. We are the ones who accidentally destroyed the atmosphere, oceans, and climate. We did it for a good cause while not knowing any better, but we still did it.

    • Erasmus

      Anthropologists will be startled to discover the remains of our sophisticated culture buried beneath the strata of what will clearly be inferior ones.

    • Anon

      Either that, or they’ll be looking at North America, find a soil layer thick with lead and brass residue, and maybe some radioactive decay products in certain locations, and wonder why all African and mestizo DNA disappeared suddenly around 2020.

  • dhs

    I read something like this many decades ago; it was called the Aryan invasion of Europe and the Indian subcontinent. The book was written in the 1930’s.

    • nobody

      I have heard that the original inhabitants of India were much lighter, but eventually mongrelized and degenerated into what it is today, a filthy sewer of a country.

  • JohnEngelman

    2500 BC–2000 BC: The breakup into the proto [Indo European] languages of the attested dialects is complete. Proto-Greek is spoken in the Balkans, Proto-Indo-Iranian north of the Caspian in the emerging Andronovo culture. The Bronze Age reaches Central Europe with theBeaker culture, likely composed of various Centum dialects. The Tarim mummiespossibly correspond to proto-Tocharians.

    The genetic change in Europe can be explained by the spread of those speaking Indo European languages into Europe. Their mastery of agriculture meant that they had larger social units than the paleolithic peoples there, that is to say they had tribes of several thousand, rather than hunting bands of 25 to 100 members. Their mastery of bronze weapons gave them an advantage over hunter gatherers still using stone age weapons.

    The expansion of Indo European people into Europe resembled the expansion of Bantu people throughout sub Saharan Africa. This began about 3,500 years ago. The Bantu had agriculture, and iron weapons. Like the Indo Europeans they were fighting stone age hunters.

    • A. Windaus

      “Their mastery of bronze weapons gave them an advantage over hunter gatherers still using stone age weapons.”
      I think you’ve nailed it right there. Those who were smart enough to invent bronze weapons, and their fellow tribesmen smart enough to support those who could create them, went on to wipe out those who did not.

      • JohnEngelman

        Usually technological advances come before genetic changes. Those who are able to adjust to the advances survive and reproduce. Those who are unable to do not.

        Agriculture required the ability to plan at least a year into the future, and to defer gratification. No matter how hungry one gets one can not eat the seed corn. One can not butcher all of one’s farm animals.

        Agriculture also required the human body to adjust to a diet with less protein and more carbohydrate. Populations with little or no exposure to agriculture are more likely to suffer type 2 Diabetes.

        Whites began practicing agriculture over ten thousand years ago. Negroes began about three thousand years ago. Large numbers of them only began living in cities during the twentieth century.

        Every innate difference between whites and Negroes can be explained by Negroes’ closer proximity to the paleolithic era. When they make the same amount of money as whites they tend to save less. They have higher crime rates and lower average IQs because they only recently became exposed to the different selection pressures of urban civilization.

        The Negro tendency to litter can be explained by the fact that stone age hunters were migratory. They did not need to dispose of the remains of an animal they hunted and ate. Farmers do need to dispose of the remains of butchered animals, or they will spread disease.

        Australian Aborigines never practiced agriculture. I have not found data on this, but I suspect that they have higher crime rates than Negroes, that they are less prone to save money, and more prone to litter. I do know they have lower average IQs.

        • Dude

          They have the highest crime rate of all groups in Australia, with a murder rate 20 times that of Whites.

          • anonymous_amren

            I think it is higher than 20 times. Australia never reports statistics based on race, so how did you get that number?

        • Michael_C_Scott

          Abos are not more violent than Africans. Their crimes are mainly theft.

          • anonymous_amren

            Wrong. Aborigines are an order of magnitude more violent than Africans. There are parts of Australia where Aborigines cause so much trouble that all the white people (every one of whom is a hardcore racist because of exposure to Aborigines) are happy when African refugees are bussed in. They are like “Oh, thank god! Some more civilised people.”

        • concernedcollegekid

          If you haven’t ever seen or looked up pictures of Australian aborigines, I suggest doing so. It’s really fascinating – you get the distinct feeling you’re peering back tens of thousands of years in human evolutionary history. They have an “unfinished” look about them, much more so than Africans. I’ve researched them before and read that some of their women have a brain capacity that puts them in the homo erectus threshold or something. In other words, going by their average brain size, they are barely homo sapiens sapiens and some of them, taken individually, qualify as homo erectus. Wish I could cite this but can’t remember where I saw it.

          I attached a picture. There’s just something about them that doesn’t look… modern.


          • NeanderthalDNA

            Abos are interesting. On the one hand their skulls often look eerily like those of homo erectus…but it appears their genetics are recessive. After mixing a couple of generations with Whites the Abo part can become practically invisible.

            Science will figure this out soon…

          • concernedcollegekid

            Check out Samantha Harris, a part-white, part Australian Aboriginal model. (You have to google “Samantha Harris model” since a few famous people have that name…) She’s very interesting looking and definitely doesn’t have that white/black mulatto look. In some ways Aboriginals remind me of MUCH less refined-looking subcontinental Indians – the resemblance is slight and most Indians I’ve met have quite Caucasian-looking features but I think Aboriginals look way more like Indians than Africans look like Indians.

            Yes, someday maybe scientists studying the drift of populations across continents can shed some light on this.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            I think your observations are prescient. Recent genetic evidence (I’d provide the link but it’s late and I’m sure you can find it) repudiated non-DNA based speculation that the abos were closely related to East Asians (WHAT? A classic case of abnegation of the obvious) and indeed established/postulated a link with south Indian peoples like the Dravidians. But unlike the Bantu, their DNA seems to be recessive. Might this be like Neanderthal DNA? Older, once discredited theories postulated they were some form of primitive Caucasian. Maybe…

            Again…blind me with that SCIENCE, scientists!

          • Bossman

            Yeah, I believe very much the same thing. The original Africans who went to Europe may have looked like Australian aborigines who also look like southern Indians. That would make Australians aborigines proto-Caucasians.
            Are you Australian? Did all those early bachelors who went to Australia hump the native women? I would like to know that sort of thing.

          • concernedcollegekid

            Nope, I’m not Australian and I’ve never been there or seen an Aborigine in person. I just found out about Aborigines when I got into race realism because they are the lowest IQ group in the world, as far as I know.

          • Morris LeChat

            She looks like a Portuguese woman who has just had a bee sting her lips.

          • A European

            You clearly don’t know how the Portuguese look. She definitely doesn’t look Portuguese.

          • anonymous_amren

            Aborigines have a LOT of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. Africans have none. So that’s where the not-quite homo-sapiens look comes from.

            Even today, many Aborigines can barely count up to 5 (not an exaggeration).

          • concernedcollegekid

            This makes a lot of sense. Makes the idea of Aborigines as proto-Caucasians as opposed to close cousins of Africans seem very plausible. I’ve heard that Africans are actually the purest homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthal DNA is what makes the other races different and this lends support to that theory.

          • Morris LeChat

            you heard wrong, the latest info about africans is that they too have the DNA of a hominid that is not on the human family tree but was a dead end. It would seem the REAL story is that there was a species of “proto humans” that mixed with several different monkey type creatures. The different admixtures to this original strain created the different races. The races are indeed VERY different from each other, to the point of being almost different species.

          • David Ashton

            Those boomerangs – pretty clever, though, eh?

          • Morris LeChat

            If you think THEY are primitive, you should read about the extinct Tazmanians, The Tazmanians had devolved to the point where they lost ALL technology, even the simplest things such as spears were beyond them.

          • JohnEngelman

            Australian Aborigines are estimated to have average IQs of 62. The Kalahari Bushmen, who are believed to resemble the modern humans who left Africa 60,000 years ago more than any other race, are believed to have an average IQ of 54.


            Racial averages in the 100 range are believed to have evolved comparatively recently in response to the population pressures of urban civilization.

        • David Ashton

          I suspect that crime and alcoholism among the “Native Australians” are partly explained by the impact of a different culture on their own folkways. The effect of a foreign immigration on any existing society is usually disruptive, and lessons all round for us all.

          • anonymous_amren

            Obviously alcoholism is fully explained by the impact of white people. Aborigines aren’t even close to being smart enough to understand fermentation.
            But terrible crime has always been a normal part of their culture.

        • Edruezzi

          John, John,
          I hope you understand what a pre-20th Century city was like. Forget Hollywood costume dramas. Before the 1900s cities were filthy and squalid. They weren’t exactly great places to boost the IQ. They were also less numerous. Even in Europe, only a small fraction of the population lived in cities throughout antiquity and up to about 1890. Even Britain, the first country to industrialize, was overwhelmingly rural for most of its history. Same goes for America. For most of history most people have lived in villages. Cities cannot act as a selective force when most humanity lives outside them.

          • Edruezzi

            As for your argument about technological change, there is not a documented case of technological change leading to the dying out of a single human group, anywhere.
            The period from when agriculture appeared until modern times was not one that particularly favored the intelligent, in terms of the intelligent leaving more offspring. A Neanderthal would have found gainful employment on the farms of pre-Revolutionary America or in the Wild West, not to mention the Roman Empire or Ancient Egypt.
            Also you might want to cite a statistically grounded survey of the spending and saving habits of African Americans compared to whites. Last I heard, all Americans were low savers.

          • Edruezzi

            TheAs for your argument about technological change, there is not a documented case of technological change leading to the dying out of a single human group, anywhere.
            The period from when agriculture appeared until modern times was not one that particularly favored the intelligent, in terms of the intelligent leaving more offspring. A Neanderthal would have found gainful employment on the farms of pre-Revolutionary America or in the Wild West, not to mention the Roman Empire or Ancient Egypt.
            Also you might want to cite a statistically grounded survey of the spending and saving habits of African Americans compared to whites. Last I heard, all Americans were low savers.

          • Edruezzi

            These are just-so stories. It’s so easy to start with some glib pronouncement as to how Blacks evolved to prefer wearing do-rags compared to whites, cite some Wikipedia-level genetics and “prove’ that do-rag wearing is hereditary. Most people here could not finish the first paragraph of a peer-reviewed article in a genetics journal.
            As for your argument about technological change, there is not a documented case of technological change leading to the dying out of a single human group, anywhere.
            The period from when agriculture appeared until modern times was not one that particularly favored the intelligent, in terms of the intelligent leaving more offspring. A Neanderthal would have found gainful employment on the farms of pre-Revolutionary America or in the Wild West, not to mention the Roman Empire or Ancient Egypt.
            Also you might want to cite a statistically grounded survey of the spending and saving habits of African Americans compared to whites. Last I heard, all Americans were low savers.

        • Edruezzi

          Selection for the ability to resist type 2 diabetes is not the same as selection for high IQ. Besides, European agriculture was never very demanding. It was carried out by complete illiterates for millennia.

    • pcmustgo

      What do you think of that African migration into Europe? Do you think those “original” Europeans had black or dark skin like Africans and then got lighter?

      • JohnEngelman

        According to the out of Africa theory of human evolution, which is the scientific consensus, about 60,000 years ago one hundred to several hundred modern humans left Africa, probably crossing the Sinai Peninsula. At the time they resembled the Bushmen of southern Africa more than any other existing race.

        On the other side of the Sinai Peninsula they evolved into Caucasians and Mongoloids. As they moved north their skin became lighter. This was an evolutionary way of avoiding rickets. A light skinned people moving south will be come darker skinned to avoid skin cancer. this is what happened to the American Indians as they populated the new world.

        • josh

          Absolute horse hockey!! out of Africa is leftist kumbaya nonsense.John,YOUR people,the Chinese,have attacked this theory! You need to pay attention!

        • Michael_C_Scott

          Your post is vaguely dishonest. I recognize no “Out of Groidistan” theory. Whites did interbreed with Neanderthals in Europe, and we (they?) probably descended separately from Homo erectus in Asia. Add another 100 thousand years to your estimate.

          • JohnEngelman

            May 10, 2007 — Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia’s aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.

            The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years.

          • eunometic

            The genetic scientist are not to be trusted yet as having avjieved any reliable results. Many of their genetic clocks are calibrated on archeological and anthropological theories and dates that themselves are doubtfull assumptions,

            Of course a move to White skin could be quite rapid. Any trip to Africa will reveal frequent encounters with Albinos. If they haven’t been converted into medicine by a Which doctor they are pitifully sunburned from lack of a hat.

            The problem is that the out of Africa theory has ideological implications and favours lefty dogma. Phillip Rushton just used it to emphasise that African DNA was more primitive.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          Those modern Bushmen are interesting looking. One can see how they might have evolved into European and Asian.

          • Bossman

            They look to me to be both Black and Asian. White people are supposed to be in the middle of the three main racial divisions of mankind.

        • eunometic

          The out of Africa theory is likely to collapse. Christopher Stringer the man who developed the theory is thinking of recanting.

          • Martel

            Any source on his change of thought?

          • BaronBaal

            Have a link that proves he’s recanting? I can’t find one.

          • eunometic

            Try the google search string:
            challenge to out of africa theory
            The discovery that all humans bar blacks have Neanderthal ancestry (they had bigger brains than us, and the uncouth looking ones are now known to have been ill and deformed) opened the barriers though the theory stank anyway.
            Also try iSteve,

            Primates have been walking upright in Asia for millions of years. The Chinese and Russians have always remained skeptical.

          • BaronBaal

            Just read it. Nice to know that a renowned anthropologist is at least willing to concede that human evolution is much more complicated than had been previously thought.

          • icepeople
          • icepeople

            I agree with you, eunometic. I’m an editor of scholarly journals. This is the latest I’ve read on the subject.

            Re-Examining the Out-of-Africa Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids). Part 2. SNPs, Haplogroups and Haplotypes in the Y-Chromosome of Chimpanzee and Humans – Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii, Lyudmila E. Ryabchenko The Academy of DNA Genealogy, Newton, USA

            ‘The Out-of-Africa hypothesis arose in the middle of the 1980s, under heavy influence of DNA-related interpretations. One of the first articles (Stringer & Andrews, 1988), which initiated the idea, stated that “Genetic data on present human population relationships and data from the Pleistocene fossil hominid record are used to compare two contrasting models for the origin of modern humans”. We now know that early genetic data were inaccurate and that the hominid fossil record was (and still is) controversial. In the same year, by studying 42 world populations Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1988) found that the phylogenetic tree separates Africans from non-Africans. They took this as an indication that “the origin of modern humans was in Africa”, even though the opposite, that is “the origin of modern humans was not in Africa” would have been equally valid.’

          • icepeople

            Excuse me, I neglected to add the journal information for further study.

            Advances in Anthropology
            2012. Vol.2, No.4, 198-213
            Published Online November 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/aa)

          • David Ashton

            Thanks for this reference in biological anthropology which is an “on-going” science. As a Fellow of the RAI, I have not yet encountered an academic editor called Dr Icepeople, but I am relieved to think such as you exist among the Cultural Marxist and Deconstructionist Detritus.

          • Ralph

            Stringer isn’t thinking of recanting. He’s just acknowledging that the picture is more complicated than he originally thought. A couple of important points that Stringer makes and repeats concern the term “species.”

            Tradionally, a species is largely defined as a group that cannot bear viable offspring with other species. However, there are so many exceptions to this, that we may need to rethink the definition.

            If we follow this line of thought, might we not come to the conclusion that not only are Blacks not of the same race as Whites, but may be a different species?

            The other thing that Stringer is realizing is that while all humans emerged from some proto human, some lines diverged earlier and some later and there may have been gene transfer in a sort of out of Africa, back to Africa, out of Africa again.

          • Wednesday

            Zebras and horses can mate and produce viable offspring. Coyotes and dogs can mate and produce viable offspring. Homo Africanus and Homo Sapiens can mate and produce viable offspring. Whatever genetic overlap there may be, the behavioral differences between these phenotypes are empirically obvious. Whether you classify them as different species or not, a zebra is not a horse, a coyote is not a dog, and an african is not a …

          • JohnEngelman

            The out of Africa theory holds that human evolution began in Africa, and that modern humans evolved there 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

            Any genetic mingling with Neanderthals was minor, and resulted in offspring that were less intelligent than the modern humans who more recently left Africa.

          • JohnEngelman

            The informed consensus is that human evolution began in eastern Africa six million years ago when the Rift Valley separated the common ancestors of humans and chimpanzees.

            By one million years ago homo erectus had evolved in Africa. He had a modern human body, but his head would have looked ape like. His brain was smaller than those of modern humans. Some of these left Africa. In Europe and the Near East these evolved into Neanderthals. Further east less evolution occurred.

            Modern humans had evolved in Africa by 100,000 years ago. About 60,000 one hundred to several hundred of these left Africa. Some of these had children by Neanderthals, but little of this happened.

            Although Caucasians and Asians have some Neanderthal genes, the vast majority of their distinctly human genes came from Africa 60,000 years ago in people resembling the Bushmen of Southern Africa.

            Whether or not this is called “the out of Africa theory” is a matter of semantics. What matters is that nearly all of human evolution until 60,000 years ago happened in Africa. In other words, our ancestors 60,000 years ago looked much more Negro than Nordic.

        • Bossman

          The Bushmen of Southern Africa look like Blacks with Mongoloid features. Any way you slice it, Blacks and East Asians look like they belong to the extreme poles of the three main racial divisions of mankind.

          • JohnEngelman

            DNA evidence indicates that the Bushmen are the oldest surviving race. We all evolved from the Bushmen.

          • David Ashton

            Did we indeed?

          • JohnEngelman

            Voice of America March 07, 2011

            A new study traces the origin of modern humans to the primitive Bushmen tribes of southern Africa. The finding upends a widely-held scientific belief that modern humans originated in east Africa.

            The largest-ever genetic analysis of a remote tribe concludes that the Bushmen of southern Africa are the ancestral source of modern humans.

            The study by researchers at Stanford University in California was led by evolutionary geneticist Marcus Feldman. He notes that migrations out of eastern Africa some 60 to 70,000 years ago led to the seeding of modern humans across Asia, Europe and the Americas.

      • Bossman

        Those Africans who migrated to Europe may have looked liked Australian Aborigines or like the the people of southern India. Anthropologists still have trouble classifying Australian aborigines since they are neither black nor Asian. Perhaps proto-caucasion.

    • Morris LeChat

      boring people with your collection of “learnings’ again.

  • Exoplanet Finder

    The shift was an evolutionary advancement. No one buys into degeneracy theory anymore (google it), but they should. Its opposite, if the term existed, would be generacy theory. We generated. While the term doesn’t exist, the germ exists. We generated further on, for the cosmos evolves its best forms to greater complexity, and for us it was brain and brawn, sure, but also a special kind of bond with each other and with the European land that was our home. Others of us, on the Pontic Steppes, came in later and inherited the traits through Mendelian genetics if they didn’t also have them already. In short, we became amiable prehistoric copies of ourselves. The opposite effect, degeneracy, is also a law of nature, unfortunately. Every mulatto and mestizo born, and their mother, as well as badly conceived white kids, represent a further degenerated group of people, hence the increasing dole of assistance-recipients AND the inability of a still-white dominated government to adjust the course of the ship of state. We can enter a generative state of affairs again, and that should underlie every single policy decision made, as well as each and every one of our personal economic decisions. We are all part of the problem, yet we are at the same time part of the solution. Kaapla! (see your Klingon dictionary- and yes, even the Klingons used to be white, proving degeneracy can take place outside of the Earth context).

  • Homo_Occidentalis

    Don’t these racists know that race is just a social construct? All races are “more alike than they are different,” or so my high school in[doctrination]troduction to anthropology teacher told me years ago. Somebody call the NAACP; off to re-education camp and sensitivity workshops for this one.

  • Bobbala

    Shem. Ham and Japheth were brothers … their wives …

  • pcmustgo

    Wait , I am confused, was this a racial change, like from Black to White?

  • Ralph

    That’s about the time that our White skin (and other White mutations) took over from earlier versions.

    Just conjecture, but there may be something about the color “white” that is relevant across various types of organisms and not just humans.

    For example, white birch bark trees are known to have a DNA code that allows for many mutations. I suspect we White humans have a similar capability. Just look at the variety we have among our people: black hair, blond hair, red hair, straight hair, curly hair, and all our eye colors and much, much more.

    Whatever the cause, i suspect we Whites mutate faster than other races.

    You may have read that the heads of Whites in America are getting larger and that this has happened in just about 50 years time.

    • Dude

      Especially considering that our breeding patterns are mostly dysgenic, the cause is probably environmental.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      We are very teleological…

  • Inki Snowe

    The article is frustratingly vague about the specifics of this change. It’s impossible to theorize when provided with such airy-fairy non-information.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    I love science. This is great stuff. More to come!

  • LHathaway

    This article made it sound as if there have only been people in germany for 7,500 years. That’s about 40,000 years after humans are said to have migrated to north america.

  • Seb

    What did happen to European DNA 4500 years ago? Was it a meteor? Aliens? The end of the Flood of Noah? We’ll never know, but fortunately, it doesn’t matter, because race doesn’t exist and anyone who claims otherwise is a white supremacist.

  • Alexandra

    How long ago was the Flood? We all have Noah as a common ancestor. Shem is the ancestor of the Jews, Arabs, Orientals, and Amerinds; Japheth the ancestor of Whites; and Ham the ancestor of Blacks.

    • David Ashton

      If Noah were really the ancestor of the entire human species, there must have been some accelerated EVOLUTION since his little family clambered out of the “ark”.
      Most scripture commentators, and ethnologists, do not accept this particular racial explanation of the Table of Nations.

      The Biblical accounts of the Global Deluge are not entirely credible either.

    • Michael_C_Scott

      Jews consider Orientals not to be descendants of Noah.

    • Bossman

      These are just myths and allegorical tales. There was no flood and no Noah. Sub-Saharan Blacks and East Asians show the greatest adaptations to extreme climate.

      • anarchyst

        The “Ark” was a DNA bank . . .

  • Ralph

    Black obelisk ala 2001 A Space Odyssey? Not necessary. Just the fundamental forces of evolution and the propensity of Whites to evolve rapidly as a result of the sun’s rays and other forces that we are more susceptible to because of our white skin and our particular DNA code.

    I suspect that science will eventually confirm a scenario that will go something like this: There was a singularity in which the molecule of DNA made the leap from non-living minerals to living minerals.

    This molecule of DNA is self-programmed to survive and to try to fill every niche with itself by constantly multiplying, changing and adapting for all possible conditions where it could somehow find energy and prosper.

    This molecule of DNA is the eternal, never stopping, never tiring, backyard, trial and error, inventor, and it mindlessly tinkers and builds constantly on what it has built before. Thus, in one type of organism it will build arms and fingers. In others, the arms and fingers will be modified into wings or flippers. Air sacs in fish will be modified to be lungs in land organisms. And, so it goes. Where there is a possible source of energy, the molecule tries to find a way to make organisms that will not only live there, but will love living there. Vents spewing acid and toxic gas at the bottom of the ocean? DNA found a way to make tube worms that prosper there.

    The history of evolution is one of divergence. We White humans are one of the forms of humans that have diverged from earlier forms; and as always, we are modified from earlier forms. The process of divergence continues and some of us believe that the highest possible destiny of Whites is to diverge even more. No, we don’t want to improve mankind. We want to replace it with improved versions of ourselves. We believe that we now know enough about the fundamental processes of evolution such that we can avoid devolution and increase our evolution by using our brains to take the actions that will take us in the right direction and away from the wrong direction. Hint: The wrong direction is primarily miscegenation and a low White birth rate. The right direction is primarily reproductive isolation and a high White birth rate.

  • So whites in Europe suddenly became smarter 4-5 thousand years ago.

    Whatever happened it couldn’t have come from Africa as some would have us believe.

    Out of Africa = more bunkum.

  • Cosmic Sage

    Modern science is beginning to catch up with the metaphoric Biblical account of the creation of the first humans around 6000 years ago as recorded in the Book of Genesis. Whites should carefully consider the implications then of the mixing of their yet unexplained unique genetic code with those outside their species, lest such activity be contrary to the intent of its designer in the abuse of his trademarkl(DNA).

  • My thoughts…We are called Caucasian for a reason. After Northern Israel was conquered by the Assyrians they, and some of the Southern Kingdom of Judah, were moved out of the land and settled in Assyria. During the war between Assyria and Babylon the main group of Northern Israel moved through the Caucus Mountains and into Europe. This is supported by the Jewish historian Josephus in his Antiquity of the Jews.

    The prophet Isaiah addressed Israel in the Isles (British Isles)…”Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.” This is also why Jesus said that he is not sent but to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. The Jews were never “Lost”. It’s also why we are under attack.

    More on this can be read at http://www.truthinhistory.org/

    • David Ashton

      Sorry to say it, unfortunately BI theories have no basis in physical anthropology and not much uncontested basis in the Bible.

  • ” . . . the first farmers in Central Europe resulted from a wholesale cultural and genetic input via migration, beginning in Turkey and the Near East where farming originated and arriving in Germany around 7500 years . . .”
    ” . . . ‘This genetic diversity was then modified further by a series of incoming and expanding cultures from Iberia and Eastern Europe through the Late Neolithic.”

    Those muddy meds theories yet again. Does not everyone know nordics reign supreme?

  • Fr. John+

    The answer to this is easy. The creation of Adam, and adamkind (i.e., White, Caucasoid Homo sapiens sapiens) is a defining moment in Scripture. The Creation Science folk posit that the genalogies of the Bible, date back to roughly the same period. While one admits that assuming all hominids could not be created from a ‘primeaval pair,’ a ‘recreation event (tied to the Gap Theory in Science) demonstrably shows that both: a) this ‘genetic event,’ and b) the Creation of the Elect Race of YHWH’s choosing, occur at roughly the same time. Clearly, this science via DNA is merely tracing the Divine interposition of White Adamites into the already existing pre-Adamite world, ‘in the beginning’.

  • anarchyst

    White genocide is coming . . . every other race can have their own organizations
    that EXCLUDE OTHERS except whites. One-hundred years from now, those of other
    races will bemoan the fact that they destroyed humanity’s greatest achievers.
    Every other race has its good and bad, but white altruism, giving other races
    not only a “chance” but a “step up” with racial preferences and “affirmative
    action” will be the undoing of the white race. NO OTHER RACE has this altruistic
    “gene”. Every other race is in it for themselves . . .
    The concept of “altruism” for whites (only) was foisted on us by those of the “tribe”. . .

  • Sharon37

    What a vague article this is. What dramatic genetic changes have been noted from the ancient DNA to current Europeans? This article said a bunch of nothing.

  • Sharon37

    I thought this was a science blog and it turns out to be just a bunch of arrogant, self-congratulatory white men patting themselves on the back for causing so much destruction in the world. Most of the great inventions in this wonderful world came from Asians from which you all have only a small amount of Asian DNA. The gun powder you all used in the guns to conquer passive people and nations was invented by Asians. Every research community across the world is teeming with ASIANS. It won’t be white people who run the next era but the Asians. You all import Asians here for their great intellect and take credit for their work. Yeah, ‘Merica! I hope you all realize its futile to spend your lives hating other people and looking down on them. We are only on this planet for a little while until God calls us home. We are responsible for leaving the world better than when we came into it. I enjoy reading some of the posts here because someone made an interesting comment. He said, Whites study other cultures, more so than other races. Well, I will give you all that. But, you study them to see how you can take advantage of them and profit yourselves. You all have a predatory nature that is subdued yet still very much present. All of the things you have acquired cant be taken with you. Who is to say you won’t be reincarnated into a Sub Saharan African, starving and sick. Imagine if you do something NOW to prevent that from happening and the impact it will have. Your enemy isn’t Blacks, Asians, Mexicans. Your enemy is conquering the inhumanity of mankind. Ending poverty, expanding education for all who want it with emphasis on the gifted students, focusing on people’s strengths rather than weaknesses, finding cures, space travel, so many things left to explore and invent. You all sound like you are intelligent men but you have this deep ugliness inside of you that I pray God will remove from your heart.