It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Piontek and Vančata did in 2002 study the skeletal material from many of the areas that were affected by the neolithization. They found a great difference between the pre-neolithic and the neolithic groups in body size, body proportions, bone shape and robustness.
Combined with biological and ecological studies on the prehistoric environment (which the humans lived in), many anthropologists still discuss whether the changes of the Neolithic human body were only due to evolution, or if migration in some form should still be considered. This of course changes from area to area, but morphologically there seems to be some pronounced differences between the late Palaeolithic or Mesolithic skeletons and the Early Neolithic, in several parts of Europe. The changes are not only seen in the cranial form, but also in the limb proportions etc. These changes are explained as either genetic (migration) or ecological (evolution).
Cranial measurements show that the Mesolithic cranial forms are a mixture of the Palaeolithic and the Neolithic types. Thus some of the morphological changes around the neolithization must definitely be due to adaptation, and should therefore be seen as answer to both climatic changes and the effects of the changed diet (evolution due to ecological factors). This however still cannot explain why some groups change profoundly while others don’t - even though they all undergo the same cultural changes!
Studies on cranial morphology in Anatolia and the Levant reveal that the first farmers were a very mixed group. A variation like this is not known from the rest of Europe. This could be due to a genetic bottle neck among the Anatolian groups that only led a small genetic variation through to Europe.
There appears to be evidence for the division of the site along two main descent groups, or moieties.
These groups appear to be phenotypically distinct based on dental metrics and morphology, and they were physically separate from each other living at opposite ends of the site, north and south.
These groups likely exchanged mates with each other, although it is more likely that females were brought in from other sites.
Differences between males and females within Çatalhöyük and between Çatalhöyük, Aşıklı Höyük, and Musular indicate that Çatalhöyük likely participated in a patrilocal post-marital residence practice.
It appears that females were migrants from other sites in the region and that males were the less mobile sex within Çatalhöyük and without. In other words, males did not appear to emigrate from or migrate to Çatalhöyük at the scale that females appear to have done both.
The authors of this study suggest that there was a genetic bottleneck in Central Anatolia as populations moved into Europeand their data supports an exogenous origin of European Neolithic farmers.
It could, therefore, be possible that the Neolithic sites of Çatalhöyük and Aşıklı Höyük are in fact ancestral populations to this late sample, and other later populations.
This study found that house interment was only minimally related to biological affinity and that ties to the home were not solely based on biology.
It is likely that burial location choice, and by inference, the social structure of Çatalhöyük was much more complex and incorporated a different meaning of kin than one based solely on familial relations
I would assume its pretty simple and/or common sense brought to you by the coutesy of Nature and its surroundings In this case, the bees were their inspiration to even conceive such a program. The american indians are among many group of people where each tribe used or followed the learnings based on a particular species of animal (wolves, eagle, coyote etc etc). Similarly there are others around the world where their religious views and/or fundamental principles revolve around nature and certainly animals including the Hindus where many of them are worshipped as gods. I'm just curious and wondering as per how much have the animals learned from humans OTOH Ofcourse there are few examples but not many.
Originally posted by Kantzveldt
reply to post by hp1229
That the early Neoltihic people ever concieved of such a project of course fantastical, with outside agency for any such undertaking highly likely.
The given reason for these profound changes from the core Neolithic region is that a 'genetic bottleneck' had occured, which is to say a great many diverse variations went into the mix, but what emerged was of a more particular nature, which is of course what one will observe with any programme of selective breeding.
That the early Neoltihic people ever concieved of such a project of course fantastical, with outside agency for any such undertaking highly likely.