A tectonic-genetic-linguistic model for migration of Middle
Eastern people (M172) into Europe, and proposed tests thereof
Eric R. Force (ejforce@aol.com)
Followers of this blog and/or three papers by myself and my
colleagues (1) are aware of apparent links between active tectonic boundaries
and the propagation of cultural complexity in antiquity (along with related
phenomena in the modern world). The
most basic observation is spatial, i.e. that ancient complex cultures plot
along tectonic-plate boundaries like beads on a string. Probably this distribution is a result
of a forced pace of change due to tectonism along these boundaries; other
possible forms of a solution and other ways of addressing the problem are
discussed at length in some previous postings.
This posting proposes another dimension to the linkage-- that migrants from the Middle East carrying the genetic marker M172 were for some
reason following the plate boundary they originated on. There is a possibility (2) that this migration marks the initial introduction of agriculture into Europe via Neolithic
(perhaps pre-IndoEuropean-speaking) farmers from the Middle East. In this scenario, agriculture was
introduced into Europe by relatively few agricultural migrants, and spread through the remainder of western and northern Europe
without their help, as shown by the abundance of marker M173 there. But this Neolithic age assignment of M172 in Europe is currently under debate (most easily seen on the internet), with some geneticists holding that it is of the Bronze Age.
Here too the basic observation is spatial— marker M172 derived from that region is present mostly in southern, especially southeastern Europe, and rare elsewhere in Europe (2, 3). The distribution has been explained as the actual migrants following the agricultural climate they were already familiar with (2). In detail, however, the spatial distribution suggests otherwise. The abundance of M172 and related markers is strong along the northern shore of the Eastern Mediterranean as far west as Calabria, but falls sharply on the northern shore of the western Mediterranean past that point (3). This distribution is that of the southern margin of the Eurasian plate, which from the Middle East winds its way via Greece, Albania, and eastern Italy to Calabria and Sicily before tracing the shore of North Africa westward.
Here too the basic observation is spatial— marker M172 derived from that region is present mostly in southern, especially southeastern Europe, and rare elsewhere in Europe (2, 3). The distribution has been explained as the actual migrants following the agricultural climate they were already familiar with (2). In detail, however, the spatial distribution suggests otherwise. The abundance of M172 and related markers is strong along the northern shore of the Eastern Mediterranean as far west as Calabria, but falls sharply on the northern shore of the western Mediterranean past that point (3). This distribution is that of the southern margin of the Eurasian plate, which from the Middle East winds its way via Greece, Albania, and eastern Italy to Calabria and Sicily before tracing the shore of North Africa westward.
If the migration is Neolithic, my suggestion has some linguistic support in the
distribution of relict pre-Indo-European languages such as Lemnian, and from
place names in Greece (2). The
plausibility of language spread (and perhaps genetic migration) along tectonic
boundaries is supported by the vectors of spread of ancient languages
elsewhere, e.g. Akkadian, Sanskrit, and Quechua (4). If the migration is of the Bronze Age or younger, the genetic evidence supports the propagation of cultural attributes following tectonic boundaries I have proposed in this blog and elsewhere (1).
Tests of these hypotheses could compare locales in southern
Europe that are more obviously tectonic than agricultural—Cyprus, some Aegean
islands, Crete, and Sicily—in contrast with tectonically quiescent locales in
northern and western Europe.
Similarly, it seems possible that populations along the northern shore
of Africa west of Sicily, i.e. the continuation of the plate boundary, might
continue the M172 trend.
Notes
1. Force 2008, Force and McFadgen 2010, 2012
2. Wells 2002
3. Semino et al 2000
4. my assembly of relations in Ostler 2005
References
Force,
E. R. (2008), Tectonic environments of ancient civilizations in the Eastern hemisphere,
Geoarchaeology, 23, 644-653
Force,
E. R., and B. G. McFadgen (2010), Tectonic environments of ancient
civilizations: opportunities for archaeoseismological and anthropological
studies, in Ancient Earthquakes, edited by M. Sintubin, I. S. Stewart,
T. M. Niemi, and E. Altunel, pp. 21-28, Geological Society of America Special
Paper 471.
-----, 2012, Influences of active
tectonism on human development—a review and Neolithic example: American Geophyscial Union Monograph 198, p. 195-202.
Ostler, Nicholas, 2005, Empires of the
word: a language history of the world:
Harper
Semino, Ornella and 16 others, 2000, The
genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: a Y
chromosome perspective: Science v.
290, p. 1155-1159
Wells, Spencer, 2002, The journey of
man: a genetic odyssey: Princeton
1 comment:
The location of ancient complex cultures in close proximity to tectonic-plate boundaries has been discussed and explored in previous postings on this blog. For such cultures there must be numerous advantages to selecting the specific locations in spite of the destructive risks that such locations present.
To survive and indeed thrive in a location of active tectonic-plate activity a mind-set that is not only inventive but also open to lateral thinking is required. A mind that is skilled in beneficial swift analysis, evaluation and decision making.
The benefits of siting cultures in close proximity to tectonic-plate boundaries are varied and complex in their own right. These would include soil fertility, as discussed in previous postings, together with exposure of beneficial minerals. Water supplies will have different chemical compositions compared to the water supplies that are distant from tectonic-plate boundary areas. Furthermore, water supplies in areas of recent tectonic activity are likely to have chemical compositions different to areas of ancient tectonic activity.
Once the benefits of siting cultures close to tectonic-plate boundaries is more fully assembled it would seem reasonable to expect cultures to exchange and communicate with similar like minded peoples. Much in the way that a rapidly evolving "open source" culture is presently unraveling itself in the present world. So, perhaps the "plotting of ancient complex cultures along tectonic-plate boundaries like beads on a string" could be expected as inevitable. Communication and exchange along these boundaries will over time inevitably tend to morph together the languages found along these boundaries.
Is there evidence of there being key characteristics of language found along a given tectonic-plate boundary ? If so, are these characteristics found to be significantly different to the languages found along tectonic-plate boundary in an entirely different part of the world ?
In addition, are there critical differences between the languages found along tectonic-plate boundaries compared with languages of civilisations sited away from areas of tectonic plate activity ?
Alastair Gill
Post a Comment