PDA

View Full Version : Sima de los Huesos specimen early Neandertals or related to early Neandertals



epoch
21-09-15, 20:43
http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/09/dna-neandertal-relative-may-shake-human-family-tree

From a tweet by Pontus Skoglund:

https://twitter.com/pontus_skoglund/status/642353130999562240

It appears the Sima de los Huesos samples are early Neandertals or related to early Neandertals. Two years ago mtDNA of one was published, which was more related to Denisovans than to human of Neanderthal mtDNA. This led John Hawks to write a rather interesting article about it:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/sima-de-los-huesos-dna-meyer-2013.html

As it now turns out these samples are more Neanderthal than anybody expected, but as its mtDNA is more Denisovan (The distance between mtDNA of Simo de los Huesos and Denisova is about as large as the distance between men and neanderthal says Hawks) the mystery remains. The sciencemag article has someone suggesting that the mtDNA is a relic of Homo Erectus inbreeding. Denisovans are said to have signs of an unknown inbreeding as well. Could that be Homo Erectus as well?

PS: Apparently 3 new Denisovan samples are to be published: two men and a woman

https://twitter.com/irreverentideas/status/642293099650248704

epoch
21-09-15, 20:56
Here is an article about the new Denisovan finds:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/new-dna-tests-ancient-denisovan-people-shows-them-occupying-altai-cave-020532


The Denisovan inhabitants in that one cave were not closely related. They had more genetic variation among them than all the Neanderthals so far sequenced, although Neanderthals are known to be similar genetically

bicicleur
21-09-15, 22:51
7429

http://www.cell.com/action/showImagesData?pii=S0960-9822%2813%2900215-7

this tree is based on mtDNA

it would be nice if they could fit Sima de los Huesos somewhere in the tree

Obi Rakhmat also has a history of 200.000 years, IMO Denisovans
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/obi-rakhmat-grotto/
87000 year ago Neanderthals arrived here
and Neanderthals arrived in Altaï Mts much later

7430

if they test 170.000 year old Denisovans in Altaï, I expect no admixture from Neanderthals yet

epoch
21-09-15, 22:57
@bicicleur

What would "Cro-Magnon-1" be in that first graph? Any idea?

bicicleur
21-09-15, 23:06
got it :

7431

http://dienekes.blogspot.be/2013/12/400-thousand-year-old-human-mtdna-from.html

bicicleur
21-09-15, 23:14
@bicicleur

What would "Cro-Magnon-1" be in that first graph? Any idea?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213002157

see table 1, at the bottom

a skeleton, once tought to be paleolithic, but after carbon dating appeared to be only 690 years old

LeBrok
21-09-15, 23:25
As expected all hominids had sex with each other. Just put them in one room (cave), lol.

I'm still expecting to find the one who gave East Asians their characteristic look.

bicicleur
22-09-15, 08:15
As expected all hominids had sex with each other. Just put them in one room (cave), lol.

I'm still expecting to find the one who gave East Asians their characteristic look.

or maybe Neanderthals entered a cave full of Denisovans, raped all the women and then threw them all out of the cave

at least, that is how the chronology looks like

the Central-Asian corridor, between Hindu Kush and Altaï Mts is populated since at least 200 ka, presumably by Denisovans
as I mentioned above, Neanderthals arrived 87 ka and drove further and furhter northeast

Soanians lived in the Hindu Kush, the Punjab and Ganges Plain, 500-125 ka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soanian
I wonder, maybe they were Denisovan too and mixed with modern humans during their journey to East Asia

epoch
22-09-15, 10:43
As expected all hominids had sex with each other. Just put them in one room (cave), lol.

I'm still expecting to find the one who gave East Asians their characteristic look.

Tribal societies often - maybe not always - do not work like that. Read Napoleon Chagnon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/napoleon-chagnon-americas-most-controversial-anthropologist.html

Especially raids for women must have been common.

http://culture-of-peace.info/books/history/pre-neolithic.html


"Although the declared objectives of their wars are to capture women and to show other groups that they are ready to defend their sovereignty by force, nevertheless, the demonstrable result, apart from the capture of women and the gain in prestige, is that the winners often exterminate the losers or force them to abandon territory. It is this result that counts, even though the motivations put forward by those involved are different . . Wright states this clearly: 'The function of an activity may be broader than its intention.'"

LeBrok
22-09-15, 16:34
Tribal societies often - maybe not always - do not work like that. Read Napoleon Chagnon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/napoleon-chagnon-americas-most-controversial-anthropologist.html

Especially raids for women must have been common.

http://culture-of-peace.info/books/history/pre-neolithic.html

The surprise here for many is that they must have considered themselves as one humankind, same kind, to accept them in their tribe, or get sexually excited (lust) seeing somewhat different hominid. Either it was by raids, adoption of lonely/lost individuals, romantic love, political marriage between tribes are just forms of social interaction.

LeBrok
22-09-15, 16:36
or maybe Neanderthals entered a cave full of Denisovans, raped all the women and then threw them all out of the cave

at least, that is how the chronology looks like
I don't think a lonely woman could have risen a child back then. Man, the hunter, was needed to bring home bacon, for their survival.

epoch
22-09-15, 20:53
The surprise here for many is that they must have considered themselves as one humankind, same kind, to accept them in their tribe, or get sexually excited (lust) seeing somewhat different hominid. Either it was by raids, adoption of lonely/lost individuals, romantic love, political marriage between tribes are just forms of social interaction.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no Neanderthal mtdna nor Y-DNA among living people. However, Dienekes had an article which hinted on male hybrid infertility. That allows for the scenario that AMH women were raped and left at their tribe, giving birth to girls and boys of which only the girls reproduce, girls which would carry 50% neanderthal autosomical DNA and exclusively AMH mtDNA.

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/01/neandertal-admixture-in-modern-humans.html


An unexpected finding is that regions with reduced Neanderthal ancestry are enriched in genes, implying selection to remove genetic material derived from Neanderthals. Genes that are more highly expressed in testes than in any other tissue are especially reduced in Neanderthal ancestry, and there is an approximately fivefold reduction of Neanderthal ancestry on the X chromosome, which is known from studies of diverse species to be especially dense in male hybrid sterility genes10, 11, 12. These results suggest that part of the explanation for genomic regions of reduced Neanderthal ancestry is Neanderthal alleles that caused decreased fertility in males when moved to a modern human genetic background.


I am speculating here, mind you.

epoch
22-09-15, 21:18
Another thing is this. If this DNA does, as the article suggests, push back the origin of AMH then Y-DNA A00(Perry) becomes AMH again. A00(Perry) was the Y chromosome that must have split somewhat around 270.000 years ago, which would place its origin before AMH origin in the old scenario. So the pushing back of the date of origin fits this Y-DNA issues as well.

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_A_%28Y-DNA%29#A00_.28Perry.27s_Y-chromosome.29

bicicleur
23-09-15, 09:58
On the other hand, there is absolutely no Neanderthal mtdna nor Y-DNA among living people. However, Dienekes had an article which hinted on male hybrid infertility. That allows for the scenario that AMH women were raped and left at their tribe, giving birth to girls and boys of which only the girls reproduce, girls which would carry 50% neanderthal autosomical DNA and exclusively AMH mtDNA.

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2014/01/neandertal-admixture-in-modern-humans.html




I am speculating here, mind you.

you're right
there was plenty of oportunity to blend
but admixture remains limited

bicicleur
23-09-15, 09:59
Another thing is this. If this DNA does, as the article suggests, push back the origin of AMH then Y-DNA A00(Perry) becomes AMH again. A00(Perry) was the Y chromosome that must have split somewhat around 270.000 years ago, which would place its origin before AMH origin in the old scenario. So the pushing back of the date of origin fits this Y-DNA issues as well.

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_A_%28Y-DNA%29#A00_.28Perry.27s_Y-chromosome.29

TMRCA for A00 is just 800 years
this tribe remained isolated all the time

epoch
23-09-15, 14:12
TMRCA for A00 is just 800 years
this tribe remained isolated all the time

Yes. This may give the impression that maybe we'll find some Neanderthal mtDNA and/or Y-DNA. However, the situation in Africa is completely different as the neanderthal-admixed are part of a grand diaspora and its tribes, peoples and whatnot, that most probably only emerged after the admixture event. So while isolated tribes in Africa clearly may yield very ancient surprises, ancient admixture in Non-Subsaharans should pop up everywhere. This also would account for uniparental markers, even if at a very, very low frequency. See C v20 for instance.

Oddly enough we have also not found Denisovan mtDNA or Y-DNA.