quote: CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES HEADQUARTERS—The biological makeup of humans in East Asia is shaping up to be a very complex story, with greater diversity and more distant contacts than previously known, according to a new study in Current Biologyanalyzing the genome of a man that died in the Tianyuan Cave near Beijing, China 40,000 years ago. His bones had enough DNA molecules left that a team led by Professor FU Qiaomei, at the Molecular Paleontology Lab at the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), could use advanced ancient DNA sequencing techniques to retrieve DNA from him that spans the human genome.
Though several ancient humans have been sequenced in Europe and Siberia, few have been sequenced from East Asia, particularly China, where the archaeological record shows a rich history for early modern humans. This new study on the Tianyuan man marks the earliest ancient DNA from East Asia, and the first ancient genome-wide data from China.
The Tianyuan man was studied in 2013 by the same lab. Then, they found that he showed a closer relationship to present-day Asians than present-day Europeans, suggesting present-day Asian history in the region extends as far back as 40,000 years ago. With new molecular techniques only published in the last two years, Professor FU and her team, in a joint collaboration with experts at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology and UC Berkeley, sequenced and analyzed more regions of the genome, particularly at positions also sequenced in other ancient humans.
Since 2013, DNA generated from ancient Europeans has shown that all present-day Europeans derive some of their population history from a prehistoric population that separated from other early non-African populations soon after the migration out of Africa. The mixed ancestry of present-day Europeans could bias tests of genetic similarity, including the results found for the Tianyuan man. With the newly published data, however, the Fu lab showed that his genetic similarity to Asians remained in comparisons including ancient Europeans without mixed ancestry. They confirmed that the closest relationship he shares is with present-day Asians. That was not, however, the most exciting result they found.
With a close relationship to present-day Asians, they expected him to act similarly to present-day Asian populations with respect to Europeans. It was a surprise when they found that a 35,000-year-old individual from Belgium, GoyetQ116-1, who in other ways behaved as an ancient European, shared some genetic similarity to the Tianyuan individual that no other ancient Europeans shared. It is unlikely that this is due to direct interactions between populations near the east and west coasts of Eurasia, since other ancient Europeans do not show a similar result. Instead, the researchers suggested that the two populations represented by the Tianyuan and GoyetQ116-1 individuals derived some of their ancestry from the same sub-population prior to the European-Asian separation. The genetic relationship observed between these two ancient individuals is direct evidence that European and Asian populations have a complex history.
A second unexpected result shed some light on human genetic diversity in prehistoric East Asia. In 2015, a study comparing present-day populations in Asia, the Pacific and the Americas showed that some Native American populations from South America had an unusual connection to some populations south of mainland Asia, most notably the Melanesian Papuan and the Andamanese Onge. That study proposed that the population that crossed into the Americas around 20,000 years ago could not be thought of as a single unit. Instead, one or more related but distinct populations crossed at around the same time period, and at least one of these groups had additional ties to an Asian population that also contributed to the present-day Papuan and Onge.
No trace of this connection is observed in present-day East Asians and Siberians, but unlike them, the Tianyuan man also possesses genetic similarities to the same South Americans, in a pattern similar to that found for the Papuan and Onge. The new study directly confirms that the multiple ancestries represented in Native Americans were all from populations in mainland Asia. What is intriguing, however, is that the migration to the Americas occurred approximately 20,000 years ago, but the Tianyuan individual is twice that age. Thus, the population diversity represented in the Americas must have persisted in mainland Asia in two or more distinct populations since 40,000 years ago.
posted
What's with this broad generalization when reporting certain regions of the world? I want to know specifics though this paper had some interesting tibits.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: An East Asian possessing affinity with Indigenous Americans. Interesting.
The idea is not surprising at all. Autosomal results prior to Ancient DNA always hinted at this. The AGE of the remains is whats interesting.
Its implications for other regions around the world is what I look forward to.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Northern native look far more Chinese than southern and central natives so it isn't all that surprising.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Always had a lingering suspicion that GoyetQ-116's mtDNA M represents an affinity not shared with most other UP Europeans. They were trying to pass GoyetQ-116's mtDNA off as a European heritage that died off. It may have died off, but it's definitely not a European heritage.
Just superimpose a map of mtDNA M on Tianyuang's global affinities. Tianyuang's affinities seem mtDNA M mediated, and entirely distinct from the mtDNA N-dominated OOA wave that today survives mostly in western Eurasia and the Sahul. Looks like Mellars was right all along about a distinctive OOA presence in Asia, albeit not in the way he envisioned it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is not about the general East Asian ancestry of Native Americans. The majority of all Amerindians' ancestry is North East Asian, related to Chinese, Mongols, Samoyeds, Tungus, etc. It's also not about more recent gene flow from Arctic bringing additional East Asian ancestry - which is probably what you are thinking of with northern Natives, Thereal. This is about something else entirely.
So certain indigenous people of the Amazon turn out to be slightly more closely related to Papuans, Melanesians, Australian Aborigines, etc, and Onge (from the Andamanese islands) than other Amerindians are. Amerindians are thought to pretty much all descend from the same relatively small founding population and hence any one Amerindian group normally will have almost exactly the same degree of relationship to any population outside of the Americas as any other Amerindian group (barring obviously Post-Columbian ancestry, and also that Arctic gene flow mentioned earlier).
So Amazonians have a few percent of some kind of ancestry that is closer to these indigenous Indo-Pacific populations than to North East Asians (we can call this 'Paleo-Asian'). The mystery population that contributed it is called 'Population Y'. We don't know how the heck they ended up in the middle of the Amazon specifically.
Tianyuan Man, 40 000 years old, comes from a cave in the Beijing area. A small part of his genome were actually sequenced several years ago, but now his whole genome has been done. He isn't directly ancestral to modern East Asians to any significant degree, but he does turn out to be a kind of Paleo-Asian; the Amazonians are related to him as well.
Also GoyetQ116-1, who is from Belgium and 35 000 years old, has some of this Tianyuan-related ancestry too (mostly he is like other Ice Age Europeans). So it seems this kind of Paleo-Asian got around back in the day. (I suspect that we will find small amounts of it are all over the place, but I could be wrong, and that isn't in the actual study.)
Anyway, finding the potential source of ancestry found in Amerindians in northern China should not come as a surprise to anyone, because they come from Northeast Asia! But the Population Y mystery remains.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Just superimpose a map of mtDNA M on Tianyuang's global affinities. Tianyuang's affinities seem mtDNA M mediated, and entirely distinct from the mtDNA N-dominated OOA wave that today survives mostly in western Eurasia and the Sahul.
Tianyuan was haplogroup R (specifically B) and Sahul has more of the Paleo-Asian element than places with more M. So I don't think that makes sense. Not to say that the Paleo-Asian in GoyetQ116-1 isn't linked to his M, that's surely plausible.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Just superimpose a map of mtDNA M on Tianyuang's global affinities. Tianyuang's affinities seem mtDNA M mediated, and entirely distinct from the mtDNA N-dominated OOA wave that today survives mostly in western Eurasia and the Sahul
Tianyuan was haplogroup R (specifically B) and Sahul has more of the Paleo-Asian element than places with more M. So I don't think that makes sense. Not to say that the Paleo-Asian in GoyetQ116-1 isn't linked to his M, that's surely plausible.
True. Just remember that Tianyuan just has this affinity. Tianyuan is not necessarily the source of this affinity, and so he doesn't necessarily have to have mtDNA M in the scenario I just painted. MtDNA M could easily be in his pedigree (e.g. if his father had mtDNA M he wouldn't have inherited it) even if he doesn't carry it. And, quite possibly, since mtDNA N is older according to some sources (e.g. Behar et al 2012), the mtDNA M people could also have carried some mtDNA N.
It might look like a hasty conclusion drawn from a couple of aDNA samples, but there is a lot of evidence to support it. Start with Mellars' research if you're interested.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, most interestingly it was surprising that when they compared Tianyuan to the 35,000-year-old individual from Belgium, GoyetQ116-1, who in other ways reflected an ancient European, he shared some genetic similarity to the Tianyuan individual that no other ancient Europeans shared.
Why? Because they had domestic dogs from Phu Quoc Island.
posted
My personal opinion on this is that across Eurasia there were many aboriginal types with a wide diversity in features and hair textures, including straight hair which we see remnants of in India, Australia and the Pacific. Those populations in the north becoming the later East Asian populations we see today. There are still some pockets of these northern Aboriginals in the Eskimo and parts of Tibet and Northern India. And it is that kind of aboriginal type of mainland Asian that settled the Americas.
Unfortunately many people have the opinion that the only aboriginal "type" of mainland Asia is the short Negrito which is absolutely not correct.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M: "Unfortunately many people have the opinion that the only aboriginal "type" of mainland Asia is the short Negrito which is absolutely not correct."
Pygmies, actually, first along the tropical belt, now mostly admixed with later arrivals including AMHs OOA2; Denisovans in Papuans & Australians and some Philippinos.
posted
Doug M, your academic link from China is a little bit incomplete, and not on the point! Therefore, I decide to post a link about Tianyuan Man written by Ann Gibbons, which has more details in all aspects, including his European inherited Neanderthal DNA, and the Tribe names of Amerindians living in South America, which share DNA with Tianyuan Man. I am also posting 2 videos from Brazil about an isolated tribe from Peru, which crossed the border to ask for help, because they were attacked by WHITE MEN. As you will see in those videos, there is no doubt those nude isolated Amerindians living in the Amazonas Forest, are in fact Mongoloids, possible from East China, because they still have mongoloid eyes with tight epicanthic folds.
Was this ancient person from China the offspring of modern humans and Neandertals?
By Ann GibbonsOct. 12, 2017 , 12:00 PM
When scientists excavated a 40,000-year-old skeleton in China in 2003, they thought they had discovered the offspring of a Neandertal and a modern human. But ancient DNA now reveals that the “Tianyuan Man” has only traces of Neandertal DNA and none detectable from another type of extinct human known as a Denisovan. Instead, he was a full-fledged member of our species, Homo sapiens, and a distant relative of people who today live in East Asia and South America. The work could help scientists retrace some of the earliest steps of human migration.
“The paper is very exciting because it is the first genome to fill a really big gap, both geographically and temporally, in East Asia,” says paleogeneticist Pontus Skoglund of Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in the work.
The first modern humans arose in Africa about 300,000 years ago. By 60,000 years ago, a subset swept out of Africa and mated with Neandertals, perhaps in the Middle East. After that, they spread around the world—DNA from ancient humans in Europe, western Asia, and the Americas has revealed the identity of those early migrants and whether they were related to people living today, especially in Europe. But the trail grows cold in eastern Asia, where warmer climates have made it hard to get ancient DNA from fossils.
The new genome sheds some light on those missing years. In the first genome-wide study of an ancient East Asian, researchers led by Qiaomei Fu, a paleogeneticist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, extracted DNA from the thighbone of the Tianyuan Man—so named because he was found in Tianyuan Cave, 56 kilometers southwest of Beijing.
The team calculated that the Tianyuan Man inherited about as much Neandertal DNA—4% to 5%—as ancient Europeans and Asians of similar age. That’s a bit higher than the 1.8% to 2.6% of Neandertal DNA in living Europeans and Asians. The Tianyuan Man did not have any detectable DNA from Denisovans, an elusive cousin of Neandertals known only from their DNA extracted from a few teeth and small bones from a Siberian cave and from traces of their DNA that can still be found in people in Melanesia—where they got it is a major mystery.
A big surprise is that the Tianyuan Man shares DNA with one ancient European—a 35,000-year-old modern human from Goyet Caves in Belgium. But he doesn’t share it with other ancient humans who lived at roughly the same time in Romania and Siberia—or with living Europeans. But the Tianyuan Man is most closely related to living people in east Asia—including in China, Japan, and the Koreas—and in Southeast Asia, including Papua New Guinea and Australia.
All of this suggests that the Tianyuan Man was not a direct ancestor, but rather a distant cousin, of a founding population in Asia that gave rise to present-day Asians, Fu’s team reports today in Current Biology. It also shows that these ancient “populations moved around a lot and intermixed,” says paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis in Missouri, who is not a co-author.
And some left offspring whereas others did not. “I find it interesting that … some of the early modern colonizers of Eurasia were successful while others were not,” says co-author Svante Pääbo, a paleogeneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.
The Tianyuan Man also was a distant relative of Native Americans living today in the Amazon of South America, such as the Karitiana and Surui peoples of Brazil and the Chane people of northern Argentina and southern Bolivia. They inherited about 9% to 15% of their DNA from an ancestral population in Asia that also gave rise to the Tianyuan Man. But he is not an ancestor to ancient or living Native Americans in North America, which suggests there were two different source populations in Asia for Native Americans.
This is welcome news to Skoglund, who found in a separate study in 2015 that the Karitiana and Surui peoples are closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans, and Andaman Islanders. At the time, he predicted that they came from the same “ghost” source population in Asia, which was separate from another Asian population that gave rise to Native Americans in North America. “It’s fascinating that a prediction of a ‘ghost population’ based on modern-day populations alone can be confirmed in this way,” he says.
posted
The sample used in the study were the archaic humanoids: Altai Neanderthals, and the Denisova; the western Eurasian clade was represented by Mal’ta 1 and , Ust’-Ishim individuals; indigenous populations from , New Guinea, Australia, Onge ( from the Andaman Islands), and the Ami (aboriginal Taiwanese) represented the eastern clade.
The basic error in this method is that the authors are comparing ancient and modern DNA, with the full knowledge that the ancient DNA, rarely corresponds to contemporary populations. In addition the authors use the date of the Ust’-Ishim individual as the terminal date for the separation of the eastern and western clades.
Granted, the authors acknowledge that the Ust’-Ishim individual shows no admixture in Australasians . But this is not surprising , there are no living descendants of Ust’-Ishim. As a result, s/ he can not represent the point when the eastern and western clades separated .
Interestingly, the Tianyuan DNA, belongs to the mtDNA R macrohaplogroup, namely haplogroup B, in addition a deletion of a 9-bp motif (5′-CCCCCTCTA-3′, revised Cambridge reference sequence positions 8,281–8,289). This haplogroup is not carried by the indigenous populations from , New Guinea, Australia, Onge ( from the Andaman Islands), and the Ami (aboriginal Taiwanese) that represented the eastern clade in this study.
The failure to adequately discuss the Tianyuan DNA, makes the conclusion of the paper suspect, since the authors are claiming that the Australasians, represent the eastern clade, eventhough the Tianyuan individual is 45ky old. Moreover, the presence of the 9-bp motif clearly indicates an African influence among the Tianyuan.
The argument implying that Tianyuan man relates to Native Americans is pure bs. It is bs because Asians could not cross the Bearing Straits until 25,000 years after this man had died. Given the separation in time between the Native Americans and Tianyuan man make this proposition ludicrous.
Reference: Qiaomei Fu et al. DNA analysis of an early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, China. PNAS, published online before print January 22, 2013. http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2223.full
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tried to get your attention here, but seems like you missed it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Happy New Year to everyone and sorry for the late response as I have been meaning to since I saw your post above Swenet.
I have a few cents to add to this topic if not a dollar.
First of all, it's no surprise that pre-Holocene populations in East Asia were more diverse than they are today as was the case with all human populations back then. But I agree with Swenet in his suspicions that GoyetQ116-1 probably represents an outlier of sorts. We know there are populations in Europe today who are genetic outliers in that they share more affinities with East Asians, specifically siberians. I've read of evidence connecting the Gravettian Culture to the Mal'ta-Buret Culture of North Asia though GoyetQ116-1 corresponds to the Aurignacian Culture. Lastly, as far as the Australasian ancestry seen in some Indigenous Americans though not found modern East Asians but apparently found in UP Tianyuan man, this was explained about 3 years ago by David Reich's theory of a ghost population he calls 'Population Y' that once existed in East Asia. The autosomal features are actually not directly Australasian but from this 'Population Y' which contributed their genes to both Amerindian ancestors to their north and Australasian ancestors to their south! I will explain more on that in Red's thread here.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
But I also think mtDNA N actually represents an OOA migration event distinct from M (the latter, I think spread with D-M174, while the former spread with CF).
If this is correct, this OOA migration could have happened shortly before 35ky ago, as this is when we find assemblages in India (e.g. at Patne) that have distinct links with assemblages in Sub-Saharan Africa (specifically, in parts of SSA along the Indian Ocean). The links are different from how the Aurignacian and Ahmarian link to these SSA assemblages (i.e. assemblages found at sites like Patne are much closer to the SSA ones, while the Ahmarian and Aurignacian are closer to others, found in North Africa). This is consistent with these Indian industries representing another (and later) OOA migration.
Read the paper below to get up to speed quickly (if you're not already). Although be mindful that Mellars et al lump all Indian microlithic industries together, even though the full suite of commonalities with the SSA assemblages are much younger than his combined sample. Because of this, he overestimates the age of the SSA commonalities and makes his ideas more vulnerable to refutation. He also fails to realize that mtDNA M and N cannot be lumped as if they have the same distribution. Their unique distributions should be taken into account. This doesn't mean one has to subscribe to my idea of two OOA migrations. However, to treat M and N as having the same genetic history (and merely having preserved better in Asia compared to West Eurasia) is clearly wrong.
posted
^ Sorry again for the late response as I have not only been busy with work but also taking care of flu-ridden family members so I don't have the time to post here like I wanted.
To get to your point I too have long theorized two seperate OOA events with regards to mtDNA hgs M & N which is hinted at in both their respective distribution and variance patterns, even if both are derived from a common hg MN. Though what I haven't been able to do was successfully associate each maternal clades to their paternal counterparts. I'm also unable to associate any of these clades with archaeology though I know that a good source of this archaeology is found in South Asia (India) if not Southwest Asia (Arabia) though the latter is more scarce in matrial finds.
With regards to Y-DNA clades DE and CF I personally believe the latter actually could be split into two events with C leaving Africa first followed by F. What is your take on this?
Thanks for the paper, I'm not as fimiliar with Terminal Pleistocene South Asian archaeology as I am with archaeology of Southeast and East Asia of the same time period. It will be a while before I'll finish the paper for me to give my opinions on it.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: An East Asian possessing affinity with Indigenous Americans. Interesting.
The idea is not surprising at all. Autosomal results prior to Ancient DNA always hinted at this. The AGE of the remains is whats interesting.
Its implications for other regions around the world is what I look forward to.
Beyoku is right, not only is China not that far from the Russian Far East (from where the ancestors of Amerindians originated) but both skeletal remains as well as genetics (both uniparental signatures and autosomes) show this.
Here's a more detailed map
And here are maps showing uniparental clades
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Sorry again for the late response as I have not only been busy with work but also taking care of flu-ridden family members so I don't have the time to post here like I wanted.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Thanks for the paper, I'm not as fimiliar with Terminal Pleistocene South Asian archaeology as I am with archaeology of Southeast and East Asia of the same time period. It will be a while before I'll finish the paper for me to give my opinions on it.
We understand. Fam and work comes first. Take your time.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To get to your point I too have long theorized two seperate OOA events with regards to mtDNA hgs M & N which is hinted at in both their respective distribution and variance patterns, even if both are derived from a common hg MN. Though what I haven't been able to do was successfully associate each maternal clades to their paternal counterparts. I'm also unable to associate any of these clades with archaeology though I know that a good source of this archaeology is found in South Asia (India) if not Southwest Asia (Arabia) though the latter is more scarce in matrial finds.
Yeah. When you try to reconstruct prehistoric populations, you will inevitably stumble on data that can throw you off. Physical anthropology has it, but genetics definitely has it, too (despite being worshipped in some quarters as the holy grail of bioanthropology).
In the scenario that mtDNA M represents a separate OOA event, if carriers of this hg were more successful reproducing, you could get a distribution pattern where M seemingly has no male counterpart. This can throw people off, as it leads them to assume that M and N are associated with the same male counterparts. Something similar is going on in our uniparental trees, where the Y-DNA tree is seemingly older than the mtDNA tree. Some people have gone so far as to say that the Y-DNA Adam originated in North/West Africa, while mtDNA Eve originated in southern Africa. Of course, the Y-DNA tree is not really older, and both trees don't have different regional origins. We just haven't found the maternal lineages that push back the mtDNA tree to the same degree. And we may never find the maternal counterparts of A00 and A0, because, just like mtDNA M was more successful than her male counterpart, A00 and A0 were more successful than their female counterparts.
I used to think that Lake Mungo's mtDNA was related to Y-DNA A0 and A00. You might remember that from our previous discussions. In 2016 a paper was published that seems to have put a nail in that coffin. See Heupink et al.
quote:With regards to Y-DNA clades DE and CF I personally believe the latter actually could be split into two events with C leaving Africa first followed by F. What is your take on this?
That's a tempting idea I've played around with myself. An ancient presence of F subclades in Africa certainly would explain why traces of SSA ancestry and Basal Eurasian are far more associated with Y-DNA F (i.e. Y-DNA G) in farmers, than they are with E-M78. (Although there may be nothing to 'explain', as E-M78 and related E lineages could simply have decreased due to founder effect early on in the history of farming). Also, based on some archaeological clues I can tell that CT carriers were originally much more numerous than just C, D, E and F. This supports a retention of some CT* in Africa long after the initial OOA event. But as for F being fully African (i.e. not just some subclades, like the aforementioned Y-DNA G, but the full hg), it depends on how long you propose it would have stayed. F as a whole remaining in Africa longer is constrained by ancient DNA. For instance, Ust-Ishim and Oase are early F carriers in Eurasia and Ust-Ishim is pretty old at 44ky. Since Ust-Ishim is an early lineage within a subclade most Asian F carriers belong to (i.e. K-M9), that entire Asian subclade must have already been outside of Africa by 44ky ago.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yeah. When you try to reconstruct prehistoric populations, you will inevitably stumble on data that can throw you off. Physical anthropology has it, but genetics definitely has it, too (despite being worshipped in some quarters as the holy grail of bioanthropology).
In the scenario that mtDNA M represents a separate OOA event, if carriers of this hg were more successful reproducing, you could get a distribution pattern where M seemingly has no male counterpart. This can throw people off, as it leads them to assume that M and N are associated with the same male counterparts. Something similar is going on in our uniparental trees, where the Y-DNA tree is seemingly older than the mtDNA tree. Some people have gone so far as to say that the Y-DNA Adam originated in North/West Africa, while mtDNA Eve originated in southern Africa. Of course, the Y-DNA tree is not really older, and both trees don't have different regional origins. We just haven't found the maternal lineages that push back the mtDNA tree to the same degree. And we may never find the maternal counterparts of A00 and A0, because, just like mtDNA M was more successful than her male counterpart, A00 and A0 were more successful than their female counterparts.
So judging by the archaeological record, what culture in South Asia do you associate with M carriers and which with N carriers??
quote:I used to think that Lake Mungo's mtDNA was related to Y-DNA A0 and A00. You might remember that from our previous discussions. In 2016 a paper was published that seems to have put a nail in that coffin. See Heupink et al.
Yes I remember that. Even some white Australians were quick to deny the Aborigines First Nation status. The DNA had to come from another set of remains not far from Mungo. The problem unfortunately is that all the well known prehistoric remains in Australasia are either too degraded or there non at all because the remains are completely fossilized.
quote:That's a tempting idea I've played around with myself. An ancient presence of F subclades in Africa certainly would explain why traces of SSA ancestry and Basal Eurasian are far more associated with Y-DNA F (i.e. Y-DNA G) in farmers, than they are with E-M78. (Although there may be nothing to 'explain', as E-M78 and related E lineages could simply have decreased due to founder effect early on in the history of farming). Also, based on some archaeological clues I can tell that CT carriers were originally much more numerous than just C, D, E and F. This supports a retention of some CT* in Africa long after the initial OOA event. But as for F being fully African (i.e. not just some subclades, like the aforementioned Y-DNA G, but the full hg), it depends on how long you propose it would have stayed. F as a whole remaining in Africa longer is constrained by ancient DNA. For instance, Ust-Ishim and Oase are early F carriers in Eurasia and Ust-Ishim is pretty old at 44ky. Since Ust-Ishim is an early lineage within a subclade most Asian F carriers belong to (i.e. K-M9), that entire Asian subclade must have already been outside of Africa by 44ky ago.
So what do you make of the basal F*-M89 and F1 carriers found in rural areas of the Kordofan in Sudan?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yeah. When you try to reconstruct prehistoric populations, you will inevitably stumble on data that can throw you off. Physical anthropology has it, but genetics definitely has it, too (despite being worshipped in some quarters as the holy grail of bioanthropology).
In the scenario that mtDNA M represents a separate OOA event, if carriers of this hg were more successful reproducing, you could get a distribution pattern where M seemingly has no male counterpart. This can throw people off, as it leads them to assume that M and N are associated with the same male counterparts. Something similar is going on in our uniparental trees, where the Y-DNA tree is seemingly older than the mtDNA tree. Some people have gone so far as to say that the Y-DNA Adam originated in North/West Africa, while mtDNA Eve originated in southern Africa. Of course, the Y-DNA tree is not really older, and both trees don't have different regional origins. We just haven't found the maternal lineages that push back the mtDNA tree to the same degree. And we may never find the maternal counterparts of A00 and A0, because, just like mtDNA M was more successful than her male counterpart, A00 and A0 were more successful than their female counterparts.[/qb]
So judging by the archaeological record, what culture in South Asia do you associate with M carriers and which with N carriers??
See these microlithic tools dating to 45kya:
quote:We extend the continuity of microblade technology in the Indian Subcontinent to 45 ka, on the basis of optical dating of microblade assemblages from the site of Mehtakheri, (22° 13' 44′′ N Lat 76° 01' 36′′ E Long) in Madhya Pradesh, India.
Aside from their superficial similarities with southeast African industries (i.e. mere microlithization), these tools lack close commonalities with southeast African industries. The way I see it, the ones before 55ky are completely disqualified from being associated with N carriers, the ones in between 55-35ky are good candidates for being N carriers or for being mixed with them, and the ones that date to ~35ky and younger are good candidates for being M carriers or mixed with them.
BTW, I'm only citing that paper as a possible example of mtDNA N carriers in the region, since you asked me that question. The authors don't say that mtDNA M or any of these assemblages represent another OOA migration.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's a tempting idea I've played around with myself. An ancient presence of F subclades in Africa certainly would explain why traces of SSA ancestry and Basal Eurasian are far more associated with Y-DNA F (i.e. Y-DNA G) in farmers, than they are with E-M78. (Although there may be nothing to 'explain', as E-M78 and related E lineages could simply have decreased due to founder effect early on in the history of farming). Also, based on some archaeological clues I can tell that CT carriers were originally much more numerous than just C, D, E and F. This supports a retention of some CT* in Africa long after the initial OOA event. But as for F being fully African (i.e. not just some subclades, like the aforementioned Y-DNA G, but the full hg), it depends on how long you propose it would have stayed. F as a whole remaining in Africa longer is constrained by ancient DNA. For instance, Ust-Ishim and Oase are early F carriers in Eurasia and Ust-Ishim is pretty old at 44ky. Since Ust-Ishim is an early lineage within a subclade most Asian F carriers belong to (i.e. K-M9), that entire Asian subclade must have already been outside of Africa by 44ky ago.
So what do you make of the basal F*-M89 and F1 carriers found in rural areas of the Kordofan in Sudan?
The only paper I'm aware of that explicitly listed Sudanese Y chromosomes as 'Y-DNA F', is the Hassan aDNA paper. They were testing for the upstream F-M89 mutation, so we don't actually know where these F Y-DNAs fall (i.e. whether they fall in or outside of Eurasian haplogroups).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I recall a paper years before the Hassan study you speak of wherein both M89 (F*) and P91 (F1) found in Kordofan populations, though they attribute it to back-migration. I've been trying to find that paper ever since.
What I'm curious about are the archaeological sites in SW Asia. The Mellars et al. paper you cited as well as others always focus on India. the Rose finding in Oman of a Nubian derived Middle Stone Age culture is the only one I've heard of.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're absolutely right. Hassan 2008 is another example of a paper where Sudanese Y-DNAs are specifically listed as F. Don't know how I forgot this, because the Hassan aDNA thesis includes this 2008 paper.
quote:What I'm curious about are the archaeological sites in SW Asia. The Mellars et al. paper you cited as well as others always focus on India. the Rose finding in Oman of a Nubian derived Middle Stone Age culture is the only one I've heard of.
The industries are unrelated. The Nubian Complex is more related to the Aterian. The Indian industries are more advanced. Aterian and Nubian Complex are Middle Stone age, which became widespread 300ky ago. The Indian industries discussed by Mellars et al are part of a wider phenomenon that only became widespread globally ~40-30ky ago. An archaeologist named Clark ranked industries based on how advanced they are. He ranked them from Mode 1-5, with 1 being more primitive than 5. The Indian industries discussed by Mellars are Mode 5, while the Nubian Complex tools are Mode 3.
quote:In the 1960s, Grahame Clark attempted to make sense of the evolution of stone tools globally, and devised a system based on five lithic modes, based primarily on European stone tools but applied worldwide, that demonstrated the evolution of stone tools from simple to complex. The stone tool technology five modes, devised by Grahame Clark (Clark, 1969; Shea, 2013), were:
Mode 1 Characteristics: Pebble cores and flake tools Time period: Lower Paleolithic (early) Representative industries from Western Europe: Chellean, Clactonian, Tayacian
Mode 2 Characteristics: Large bifacial cutting tools made from flakes and cores Time period: Lower Paleolithic (later) Representative industries from Western Europe: Abbevillian, Acheulian
Mode 3 Characteristics: Flake tools struck from prepared cores Time period: Middle Paleolithic Representative industries from Western Europe: Levalloisian Mousterian
Mode 4 Characteristics: Punch-struck prismatic blades retouched into various specialized forms Time period: Upper Paleolithic Representative industries from Western Europe: Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean
Mode 5 Characteristics: Retouched microliths and other retouched components of composite tools Time period: Later Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Representative industries from Western Europe: Azilian, Magdalenian, Maglemosian, Sauveterrian, Tardenoisian
^They talk about Eurasian industries here, but the same applies to Africa. In Africa Mode 5 is more common than Mode 4, while it's reversed in West Eurasia. This is why the industries I associate with mtDNA M stick out like a sore thumb. These Indian industries are more similar to African industries in key respects. Under the explanation that there was a single OOA migration of both mtDNA M and N, you'd expect these Indian industries to be derived from (or at least parallel to) contemporary West Eurasian industries. But they aren't.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFAICT the Hassan et al F* is F(xG, I, J, K). One possibility would be H2-P96, fairly rare nowadays but was around in Levant Neolithic. Of course could be something unique too, too bad there are not many full Y sequences from Sudan.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
The argument implying that Tianyuan man relates to Native Americans is pure bs. It is bs because Asians could not cross the Bearing Straits until 25,000 years after this man had died. Given the separation in time between the Native Americans and Tianyuan man make this proposition ludicrous. ____________________________________________
Mr. Winters, I understand Chinese emergency to fit in as the one of "WORLD'S CONTROLLERS", and trying to prove it through DNA tests of their ancient cave people. Their DNA tests results are complying to their recent territorial, economic, and financial ambitions in Africa and around the World.
I noticed, it is not only trade, but it is as well the beginning of military power over Africa, as you may know about their first military base in the West, which is located in Africa at Djibouti.
The objectivity of China and India geneticists is to prove that Homo Sapiens origin is Easter and South Asia, rather than Africa. Actually, geneticists from both countries are insanely and corruptly competing among themselves by producing unreliable DNA results.
They must first take a profound look into their own history, before publish their pathetic DNA results attempts, compatible to recent simpleminded theory of fully developed Homo Sapiens from Asia return to Africa.
Starting with, the earlier last waves of African Homo Sapiens arrival on Eastern and South Asia, in 14000 years, those regions, still be roamed by creatures like Ape mixed with hominids, Ape like transitional appearance to homo Erectus, due to interbreed among Africans hominids and Eastern Asia large monkey called Orangutan which has been recently elevated to "Great Ape" status by Europeans.
Those Asian creatures transitional Ape to hominids, then interbreed with Rheus monkey which inhabited India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Burma, Thailand, Afghanistan, Vietnam, southern China, Malesia regions, and Snow monkey from Japan, resulting to a new Ape like transitional to Homo Erectus Asian species.
Those creatures, are present day Idols of Indian religions, as well in their written history which was passed to them, by their ancestors oral tales. They also were among Asian homo Sapiens emigration by the Sea to American Continent. You can see their images in Colombia, at Saint Augustine region. Their sculptures images captured their enormous and long Ape like canine teeth. Their images with Ape anatomy called Chiyou, are present as well, as an primitive ancestors of a Chinese king, on the tomb relief of the Han dynasty 206BC– 220AC.
Eventually, these apes mixed with hominids, interbreed with fully developed hominids, creating "Asian hominids". These Asian hominids interbreed with African Homo Sapiens, actually creating South Asians and Eastern Asian humanoids. Then, Asian humanoids interbreed with African homo Sapiens,resulting on "Asian Modern Humans"
These Asians transitional half Ape and half hominid creatures, and Modern Asian Humanoids, were living side by side, alive, and roaming in China, and India by the time fully developed African Homo Sapiens established the first Chinese Xia dynasty in 2000sBC. And is very possible that African Homo Sapiens interbreed and inbreed with Asian Humanoids established other dynasties in China.
Now... those Eastern and South Asia, emigrants to American Continent, didn't arrived only by crossing the Bering Strait. They arrived by the Sea on "BOAT" as well...Unless, Mr. Winters, you can explain a better theory of how hundred of thousands of them, arrived and settled as well on distant Islands thousands of miles from American Continent coastline, located on the middle of North and South of Pacific Ocean, such as Easter and Hawaii Islands, located in the middle of Pacific Ocean...
But, please, don't say they walked or swimmed from Asia to these Islands.
By the way...I am South American. One of my maternal ancestors was an Asian Amerindian. One of my paternal ancestor, was an African slave, over 6 feet tall, within origin of Omo River Valley in Sudan. Both of them have child and married white Europeans. Therefore, I am a diverged specie from the union of all you can image from Asia, Africa, and Europe. I can look down to all of them with my own genetic rights to criticize and point their crimes against humanity, and as well, their past glories and actual achievement. The problem is: if I mention their crimes, whites and blacks say I am racist or even antisemitic, when I mentioned that my African slave ancestor was transported from Africa, sold, and owned by Jews, even if two of my maternal and paternal ancestors were Jewish as well....I am not only the result of races, but, as well many of those races ethnic groups...
Just for the records...
-------------------- ---lnnnnn* Posts: 198 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now...I am finishing my thoughts in this topic, of Central and Eastern Asians subhumans and humanoids, by posting a video by David Bowie. He was a brilliant guy, and he knew well the history and the origins of his white people without shame of himself.
In his last video, he had a white woman with tail, walking in the cave and roaming around an ancient village, which I believe to be an Assyrian village, where the first Central and Eastern Asian subhumans with tails was officially recorded in ancient history and engraved on the Black Obelisk of Assyrian king Shalmaneser III, showing humanoids with tails, dragged by Assyrian warriors on leaches, on their return from expedition which I think was Afghanistan, but could be an extended expedition even far Eastern, perhaps on border of China?
Ladies and Gentlemans here is David Bowie's video BLACKSTAR
posted
By the way...By request of David Bowie, which was born and raised in England, his ashes was scattered on the Indonesian island of Bali in line with “Buddhist rituals”
He wanted to go back to the very beginning of his own race...remember Orangutan? which is originally from Indonesia?
-------------------- ---lnnnnn* Posts: 198 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since the conversation is increasingly going off topic, I'll post the reply here if nobody minds. Already had a discussion here with DJ about Asia, Africa, and lithic industries, so there is some fit.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And the fact that you and I never bought into the outright dismissal of old anthropology is what is helping us in investigating these areas of anthropology that have been mishandled by scholars. I appreciate that you never went along with that bandwagon.[/qb]
Yes, well not only have I always been independent minded and always questioned things but I know that despite whatever errors scholars of the past had I knew they weren't wrong about everything. You basically take what's accurate and correct and leave the rest alone. This goes equally for early Africanist scholars like Cheikh Diop as it is does for white supremacist scholars like Carleton Coon. To put it simply, whatever erroneous theories or conclusions they may have had, you can't dismiss the objective material data they both collected.
100%.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And yeah, I've always questioned the in situ change theory as well. It never made sense how Mesolithic Nubians and late Holocene Egypto-Nubians could be the same people as if craniofacial changes that drastic could happen in so short a time. And I recognize the same exact patter with Paleo-Americans as you pointed out.
Right. And some of the differences simply cannot be reconciled, even considering adaptation. In addition to a big morphological gap in metric features, there is also a big morphological gap in non-metric features (Mesolithic Nubian teeth have non-metric affinity with Sub-Saharan Africans, while predynastic Nubian teeth have affinity with Ibero-Maurusians, Irish' Natufian sample, and other North African[-influenced] samples). It seems obvious to me that, unlike the metric gap (which could be argued to have some degree of plasticity), the non-metric features used by Irish are highly correlated with ancestry.
As you know, when it comes to Palaeo-Indians, similar objections can be raised. Why would craniofacial plasticity turn Palaeo-Indians into Sinodont populations? Sinodonty is highly correlated with ancestry, and not a simple adaptation. It's like Brace's concept of "trivial traits":
Traits that show associations with each other only within the context of a given region, then, inevitably have no adaptive significance. When a large number of features occur together in a given geographic area, the principal agent controlling their occurrence is the sharing of genes between neighboring groups that are by definition relatives. Traits that combine to produce a picture of delimited regional occurrence of necessity then will be nonadaptive or trivial traits. Clines and clusters versus “Race:” a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.1330360603
One would not expect Sinodonty to show up in America unless there was actual migration from an Asian Sinodont population. Likewise, one would not expect Sundadonty to show up in America unless there was actual migration from an Asian Sundadont population.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:BTW, I just edited my previous post and added a paper. Can you read it and let me know what you think? Are we being told lies by mainstream science about sapiens/LSA/UP tools only being 50ky old, or do you think they have valid reasons for under-reporting and downplaying the importance of this information?
I have yet to read the entire paper but it wouldn't surprise me that mainstream science is lying again. It's not like the first time. Recall how lithic industries were originally measured and still today often named by what happened in Europe, as if all early human development was based on Europeans. And although I don't buy into the 'Catastrophic Civilizations' theory, I do believe human cultures during the Paleolithic were likely more advanced than most believe. [/qb]
Please let me know when you've read the paper. It's less than 5 pages, but take your time.
I want to know how you solve the riddle of UP/LSA-like industries being stratigraphically sandwiched by more archaic tools. For instance, see the position of the Howiesons Poort here. Notice that it does not connect to any period in which the LSA was dominant. The appearance of the Howiesons Poort is abrupt and seemingly out of nowhere. And then it disappears again to be followed by more archaic industries.
Even though Vishnyatsky (the author) calls out the phenomenon (for which I'm very grateful because people like him prevent it from being swept under the rug), he is baffled by it and has not solved it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Up for the relevance of the implications in regards to populations genetics. Also, since I failed to address some important points before I could address the article. Mind you, the remains in discussion—Tianyuan Man 1 is only comprised of a right mandible and a right femur and right tibia, though the examination of such has yielded some interesting finds: https://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6573
ABSTRACT Thirty-four elements of an early modern human (EMH) were found in Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, China in 2003. Dated to 42,000–39,000 calendrical years before present by using direct accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon, the Tianyuan 1 skeleton is among the oldest directly dated EMHs in eastern Eurasia. Morphological comparison shows Tianyuan 1 to have a series of derived modern human characteristics, including a projecting tuber symphyseos, a high anterior symphyseal angle, a broad scapular glenoid fossa, a reduced hamulus, a gluteal buttress, and a pilaster on the femora. Other features of Tianyuan 1 that are more common among EMHs are its modest humeral pectoralis major tuberosities, anteriorly rotated radial tuberosity, reduced radial curvature, and modest talar trochlea. It also lacks several mandibular features common among western Eurasian late archaic humans, including mandibular foramen bridging, mandibular notch asymmetry, and a large superior medial pterygoid tubercle. However, Tianyuan 1 exhibits several late archaic human features, such as its anterior to posterior dental proportions, a large hamulus length, and a broad and rounded distal phalangeal tuberosity. This morphological pattern implies that a simple spread of modern humans from Africa is unlikely.
Discussion The Tianyuan 1 partial skeleton, as the first east Asian well dated modern human associated skeleton >30 ka 14C BP, provides secure documentation of a suite of derived modern human characteristics in eastern Asia at this time period; among eastern Eurasian early modern remains, only the immature Niah Cave cranium is securely at least as old. These derived modern human features include the strongly projecting tuber symphyseos and high anterior symphyseal angle, the relatively broad scapular glenoid fossa, the reduced hamulus, and the presence of a gluteal buttress and a pronounced pilaster on the femora. Other features that are more common among EMHs include the modest pectoralis major tuberosities of the humeri, the anteriorly rotated radial tuberosity, the relatively straight radial diaphysis, and a modest talar trochlea. These are combined with the absence of several mandibular features (retromolar space, mandibular foramen bridging, mandibular notch asymmetry, and large superior medial pterygoid tubercle) that are common among the Neandertals and rare among Middle and Upper Paleolithic modern humans, but for which the eastern Eurasian late archaic pattern is unknown. At the same time, Tianyuan 1 exhibits several features that place it close to the late archaic humans (represented primarily by the Neandertals) or between them and EMHs. These include the anterior to posterior dental proportions, the proximodistal enlargement of the hamulus, the subcircular and radioulnarly enlarged distal phalangeal tuberosity, and the elevated tibial robusticity despite the linearly elongated body proportions implied by its high crural index. Given the dearth of late archaic human remains in eastern Eurasia, it is not possible to use Tianyuan 1 to support a specific phylogenetic model for the appearance of modern humans in the region, other than to make it likely that there was at least substantial gene flow from earlier modern human populations to the south and west of Tianyuan Cave. This is supported by the derived modern human features previously present in the MPMHs and the high crural index of Tianyuan 1, suggesting some relatively recent ancestry among more equatorial populations. At the same time, the presence of several archaic features, lost or rare in the MPMH sample, implies that a simple spread of modern human morphology eastward from Africa is unlikely, an inference already supported by the south Asian and Australo-melanesian morphology present in the slightly younger remains from Fa Hein, Batadomba lena, and Moh Khiew and especially the contemporaneous Niah Cave 1. More importantly, Tianyuan 1 provides a secure basis for analyzing the morphology and paleobiology of EMHs in eastern Eurasia close to the time of the probable transition from regional late archaic humans to modern humans. With the inevitable addition of more, securely dated, late archaic humans and EMHs from the region, it should become possible to understand the interregional dynamics of this period in human evolution.
What is implied from the morphology of the remains is not a simple demographic spread directly from Africa, but rather demographic admixture with either earlier Sapiens populations and/or Hominid species.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Tianyuan man was studied in 2013 by the same lab. Then, they found that he showed a closer relationship to present-day Asians than present-day Europeans, suggesting present-day Asian history in the region extends as far back as 40,000 years ago. With new molecular techniques only published in the last two years, Professor FU and her team, in a joint collaboration with experts at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology and UC Berkeley, sequenced and analyzed more regions of the genome, particularly at positions also sequenced in other ancient humans.
Why? Was Max Planck expecting ancient European/Aryan ancestors?! LOL
Since 2013, DNA generated from ancient Europeans has shown that all present-day Europeans derive some of their population history from a prehistoric population that separated from other early non-African populations soon after the migration out of Africa. The mixed ancestry of present-day Europeans could bias tests of genetic similarity, including the results found for the Tianyuan man. With the newly published data, however, the Fu lab showed that his genetic similarity to Asians remained in comparisons including ancient Europeans without mixed ancestry. They confirmed that the closest relationship he shares is with present-day Asians. That was not, however, the most exciting result they found.
LOL Notice how they avoid saying whom modern Europeans are mixed with—Africans! This is why on all PCAs Europeans as well as Southwest Asians pull closest to Africans than other Eurasian/OOA populations.
With a close relationship to present-day Asians, they expected him to act similarly to present-day Asian populations with respect to Europeans. It was a surprise when they found that a 35,000-year-old individual from Belgium, GoyetQ116-1, who in other ways behaved as an ancient European, shared some genetic similarity to the Tianyuan individual that no other ancient Europeans shared. It is unlikely that this is due to direct interactions between populations near the east and west coasts of Eurasia, since other ancient Europeans do not show a similar result. Instead, the researchers suggested that the two populations represented by the Tianyuan and GoyetQ116-1 individuals derived some of their ancestry from the same sub-population prior to the European-Asian separation. The genetic relationship observed between these two ancient individuals is direct evidence that European and Asian populations have a complex history.
Complex indeed! Not only do Europeans and East Asians share a common ancestry in Central Asia, but apparently that ancestral Central Asian population persisted and continued gene-flow to both offshoots. What’s more is that these Central Asians were most likely ancestral to Ancestral Northern Eurasians (ANE) who were the first inhabitants of Ice Age Siberia. But more on that elsewhere.
A second unexpected result shed some light on human genetic diversity in prehistoric East Asia. In 2015, a study comparing present-day populations in Asia, the Pacific and the Americas showed that some Native American populations from South America had an unusual connection to some populations south of mainland Asia, most notably the Melanesian Papuan and the Andamanese Onge. That study proposed that the population that crossed into the Americas around 20,000 years ago could not be thought of as a single unit. Instead, one or more related but distinct populations crossed at around the same time period, and at least one of these groups had additional ties to an Asian population that also contributed to the present-day Papuan and Onge.
No trace of this connection is observed in present-day East Asians and Siberians, but unlike them, the Tianyuan man also possesses genetic similarities to the same South Americans, in a pattern similar to that found for the Papuan and Onge. The new study directly confirms that the multiple ancestries represented in Native Americans were all from populations in mainland Asia. What is intriguing, however, is that the migration to the Americas occurred approximately 20,000 years ago, but the Tianyuan individual is twice that age. Thus, the population diversity represented in the Americas must have persisted in mainland Asia in two or more distinct populations since 40,000 years ago.
So Tianyuan man could very well be a representative of Population Y or at least very close to being one!
You can read the actual paper from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in cell.com entitled '40,000-Year-Old Individual from Asia Provides Insight into Early Population Structure in Eurasia' since I can't post the url tag here.
And here is their phylogenetic chart:
So it looks like I’m correct that Population Y is essentially ‘Basal East Asian’, while modern East Asians are more derived. Speaking of which, here is another article:
Mysterious East Asians Vanished During the Ice Age. A New Group Replaced Them. The ancestors of today's East Asians moved into the region about 19,000 years ago, and in doing so, they replaced the mysterious people who were living there before them, a new study finds. Researchers learned about these mysterious people by comparing the genetics of "Tianyuan man," a 40,000-year-old individual found in Tianyuan Cave in Beijing, with DNA from ancient human remains belonging to 25 individuals from the Amur region, which includes parts of eastern China and Russia. The team found that Tianyuan man's ancestry was likely widespread from 40,000 years to 33,000 years ago across East Asia. But then, it disappeared and a new population emerged around 19,000 years ago, just as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) — when the ice sheets were at their maximum extent from about 26,500 years to 19,000 years ago — was ending, said study senior author Qiaomei Fu, a paleogeneticist at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing… To investigate, Fu and her colleagues compared the DNA of Tianyuan man with the ancient remains of people living in the Amur region, which includes Songnen Plain in northeastern China, between 33,000 and 3,400 years ago… .. The ancient DNA analysis revealed that the oldest person they studied, a Pleistocene female known as AR33K, who lived about 33,000 years ago in the Amur region (AR stands for Amur and 33K stands for 33,000), had the highest genetic similarity with Tianyuan man, compared with all other published ancient and modern individuals from East Asia, Fu said.
Another ancient woman, whose DNA was described in a previous study, lived about 34,000 years ago in Salkhit Valley in northeastern Mongolia. This woman was found about 720 miles (1,159 kilometers) from AR33K and about 692 miles (1,114 km) from Tianyuan Cave. A 2020 study in the journal Science found that the Salkhit woman shared 75% of her genetics with Tianyuan man and 25% with another ancient East Asian group that lived along the Yana river in North Siberia. Given that both AR33K and the Tianyuan man share about 75% of their DNA with the Salkhit woman, it's possible that these people were part of related groups that traveled across East Asia for at least 7,000 years, Fu told Science magazine.
However, unlike the Salkhit woman, AR33K does not have more Yana-related ancestry than Tianyuan man does, the researchers wrote in the new study. "This probably indicates that Tianyuan/AR33K ancestry was widespread before the LGM in northern East Asia, both geographically, from northern China to Mongolia and the Amur region, and temporally, from 40,000 to 33,000 years ago," Fu told Live Science in the email.
To explain the Salkhit woman's genetics, perhaps people with Tianyuan-related ancestry paired off with people of Yana-related ancestry in Mongolia, but stayed isolated from ancient people in the Amur region before the LGM, the researchers wrote in the study.
Another standout individual from the study, AR19K, who lived in the Amur region about 19,000 years ago toward the end of the LGM, caught the researchers' attention. AR19K's genetic ancestry is distinct from Tianyuan and AR33K, "indicating a potential population shift," Fu said. In other words, while AR33K and Tianyuan passed on some genes to modern East Asians (Fu called them "basal to all East Asians"), the populations they came from vanished at some point during the LGM.
In fact, AR19K is "the earliest northern East Asian yet identified," meaning this individual is ancestral to ancient northern East Asians. The identification of this northern East Asian ancestor "indicates that north-south genetic separation in East Asia is as early as 19,000 years ago, 10,000 years earlier than previously discovered," Fu said.
Some East Asia areas have had remarkable genetic ties to the past, the younger samples revealed. For instance, researchers previously thought that modern populations in the Amur region had an 8,000-year genetic continuity with Neolithic foragers and farmers who lived at Devil's Gate cave in Far Eastern Russia and the Amur region. But the new analyses showed that this continuity goes back 14,000 years, or "6,000 years earlier than previously proposed," Fu said.
Here is another study published in 2020 on the genome of the Ikawazu Jomon:
Again, this is further proof of many proofs that phenotypic and genetic diversity was greater in the Late Pleistocene than in the Holocene Epoch we currently live in which began about 12-11.5 k years ago.
Razib Khan wrote an article on this issue of deep genetic origins for East Eurasians here.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It’s unfortunate we only have jaw fragments of Tianyuan 1 and not the whole cranium; however this was not the only human remains discovered in Zhoukoudian Upper Cave. There were others discovered even earlier (1933-1934) in the Upper Cave area with their crania more or less intact, specifically three skulls UC 101, 102, and 103. Unfortunately the skulls were lost during World War II and only the casts of those skulls remain with the cast of UC 102 being badly damaged. All three skulls were found in the same stratum which dates to 35-33k years BP which is just slightly younger than Tianyuan 1. Curiously, though all three skulls were found roughly around the same stratum suggesting contemporaneous burials they were very different in features as to suggest greater heterogeneity despite sharing the same sinodontic complex!
from left to right: 102, 101, 103
The first skull discovered--UC 101 is perhaps the most famous of the three and was dubbed ‘Lǎo-Rén’ meaning ‘Old Man’ in Chinese. It was also the skull studied in most detail mostly due to its better preservation and clearly adult status whereas the other two skulls were not as well preserved and were of younger sub-adults or juveniles. Experts who’ve assessed both skull and cast agree that 101 displays “Proto-Mongoloid” morphology. Interestingly this morphology was found to be closest to early Paleoamericans and Archaic Indians of North America such as Spirit Cave followed by Polynesians and Ainu.
Comparison of UC 101 with the Spirit Cave Man:
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
..Meanwhile, UC 102 was described as “negroid” or more specifically “Melanesoid” in appearance as Clyde has mentioned a couple of times in his reference to ancient black Chinese.
UC 102
And then you have UC 103 whose morphology is somewhat more ambiguous. Early experts initially identified it as “Eskimo” while recent assessments suggest Australo-Melanesian affinities primarily along with Eskimo affinities.
UC 103
The features seem somewhat reminiscent of some of the Santa Lagoa Paleoindians.
Here is an excellent paper on the subject: 'The Morphometric Relationship of Upper Cave 101 and 103 to Modern Homo sapiens'
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] It’s unfortunate we only have jaw fragments of Tianyuan 1 and not the whole cranium; however this was not the only human remains discovered in Zhoukoudian Cave. There were others discovered even earlier (1933-1934) in the Upper Cave area with their crania more or less intact, specifically three skulls UC 101, 102, and 103. Unfortunately the skulls were lost during World War II and only the casts of those skulls remain with the cast of UC 102 being badly damaged. All three skulls were found in the same stratum which dates to 35-33k years BP which is just slightly younger than Tianyuan 1.
There were also much older remains of Homo erectus found in the Zhoukoudian caves. They were also lost during the war.
A couple of teeth were preserved though, in the collections of the Swedish paleontologist Otto Zdansky (1894 - 1988). As late as 2011 another tooth were found in a box (at the Evolution museum in Uppsala, Sweden) which housed paleontological material collected by Zdansky.
The teeth in the Evolution Museum's collections are the first four specimens found of the Peking man and the only preserved remains from the original and historically important collections from Zhoukoudian.
The three original teeth, discovered and described by Otto Zdansky.
The new tooth seen from different angles, an upper right canine from a Peking man, discovered in 2011 in the Evolution Museum's collections
quote: Hominins with morphology similar to present-day humans appear in the fossil record across Eurasia between 40,000 and 50,000 y ago. The genetic relationships between these early modern humans and present-day human populations have not been established. We have extracted DNA from a 40,000-y-old anatomically modern human from Tianyuan Cave outside Beijing, China. Using a highly scalable hybridization enrichment strategy, we determined the DNA sequences of the mitochondrial genome, the entire nonrepetitive portion of chromosome 21 (∼30 Mbp), and over 3,000 polymorphic sites across the nuclear genome of this individual. The nuclear DNA sequences determined from this early modern human reveal that the Tianyuan individual derived from a population that was ancestral to many present-day Asians and Native Americans but postdated the divergence of Asians from Europeans. They also show that this individual carried proportions of DNA variants derived from archaic humans similar to present-day people in mainland Asia.
To begin to explore the genetic relationships of early modern humans with present-day humans, we have analyzed a partial human skeleton that was unearthed in 2003, along with abundant late Pleistocene faunal remains, in the Tianyuan Cave near the Zhoukoudian site in northern China, about 50 km southwest of Beijing. The skeleton was radiocarbon-dated to 34,430 ± 510 y before present (BP) (uncalibrated), which corresponds to ∼40,000 calendar years BP (2). A morphological analysis of the skeleton (3) confirms initial assessments (4) that this individual is a modern human, but suggests that it carries some archaic traits that could indicate gene flow from earlier hominin forms. The Tianyuan skeleton is thus one of a small number of early modern humans more than 30,000 y old discovered across Eurasia (2) and an even smaller number known from East Asia (5).
It is funny how the meaning of "archaic" and "early modern" human used to mean black, as in populations of Australian Aborigines, Papuans and so forth. But now it mean "neanderthal mixed" or "denisovan mixed", where the African origin is downplayed. This all goes back to the convoluted DNA model of Eurasia as not directly tied to any African basal DNA lineages.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is also interesting to read about the relation of the individuals from Bacho Kiro cave in Bulgaria with later ancient humans in East Asia and even America.
quote: An international research team has sequenced the genomes of the oldest securely dated modern humans in Europe who lived around 45,000 years ago in Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. By comparing their genomes to the genomes of people who lived later in Europe and in Asia the researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, show that this early human group in Europe contributed genes to later people, particularly present-day East Asians. The researchers also identified large stretches of Neandertal DNA in the genomes of the Bacho Kiro Cave people, showing that they had Neandertal ancestors about five to seven generations back in their family histories. This suggests that mixture with Neandertals was the rule rather than the exception when the first modern humans arrived in Europe.
quote: It was previously thought that bearers of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic died out without contributing genetically to modern humans arriving later. However, the researchers now show that the oldest Bacho Kiro Cave individuals, or groups closely related to them, contributed genes to present-day people. Surprisingly, this contribution is found particularly in East Asia and the Americas rather than in Europe where the Bacho Kiro Cave people lived. These genetic links to Asia mirror the links seen between the Initial Upper Palaeolithic stone tools and personal ornaments found in Bacho Kiro Cave and tools and ancient jewelry found across Eurasia to Mongolia.
Genomes of the earliest Europeans Ancient genomes shed new light on the earliest Europeans and their relationships with Neandertals Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. 2021
quote: Abstract Modern humans appeared in Europe by at least 45,000 years ago1,2,3,4,5, but the extent of their interactions with Neanderthals, who disappeared by about 40,000 years ago6, and their relationship to the broader expansion of modern humans outside Africa are poorly understood. Here we present genome-wide data from three individuals dated to between 45,930 and 42,580 years ago from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria1,2. They are the earliest Late Pleistocene modern humans known to have been recovered in Europe so far, and were found in association with an Initial Upper Palaeolithic artefact assemblage. Unlike two previously studied individuals of similar ages from Romania7 and Siberia8 who did not contribute detectably to later populations, these individuals are more closely related to present-day and ancient populations in East Asia and the Americas than to later west Eurasian populations. This indicates that they belonged to a modern human migration into Europe that was not previously known from the genetic record, and provides evidence that there was at least some continuity between the earliest modern humans in Europe and later people in Eurasia. Moreover, we find that all three individuals had Neanderthal ancestors a few generations back in their family history, confirming that the first European modern humans mixed with Neanderthals and suggesting that such mixing could have been common.
Initial Upper Palaeolithic humans in Europe had recent Neanderthal ancestry Nature 2021
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is also interesting to read about the relation of the individuals from Bacho Kiro cave in Bulgaria with later ancient humans in East Asia and even America.
quote: An international research team has sequenced the genomes of the oldest securely dated modern humans in Europe who lived around 45,000 years ago in Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. By comparing their genomes to the genomes of people who lived later in Europe and in Asia the researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, show that this early human group in Europe contributed genes to later people, particularly present-day East Asians. The researchers also identified large stretches of Neandertal DNA in the genomes of the Bacho Kiro Cave people, showing that they had Neandertal ancestors about five to seven generations back in their family histories. This suggests that mixture with Neandertals was the rule rather than the exception when the first modern humans arrived in Europe.
quote: It was previously thought that bearers of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic died out without contributing genetically to modern humans arriving later. However, the researchers now show that the oldest Bacho Kiro Cave individuals, or groups closely related to them, contributed genes to present-day people. Surprisingly, this contribution is found particularly in East Asia and the Americas rather than in Europe where the Bacho Kiro Cave people lived. These genetic links to Asia mirror the links seen between the Initial Upper Palaeolithic stone tools and personal ornaments found in Bacho Kiro Cave and tools and ancient jewelry found across Eurasia to Mongolia.
Genomes of the earliest Europeans Ancient genomes shed new light on the earliest Europeans and their relationships with Neandertals Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. 2021
quote: Abstract Modern humans appeared in Europe by at least 45,000 years ago1,2,3,4,5, but the extent of their interactions with Neanderthals, who disappeared by about 40,000 years ago6, and their relationship to the broader expansion of modern humans outside Africa are poorly understood. Here we present genome-wide data from three individuals dated to between 45,930 and 42,580 years ago from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria1,2. They are the earliest Late Pleistocene modern humans known to have been recovered in Europe so far, and were found in association with an Initial Upper Palaeolithic artefact assemblage. Unlike two previously studied individuals of similar ages from Romania7 and Siberia8 who did not contribute detectably to later populations, these individuals are more closely related to present-day and ancient populations in East Asia and the Americas than to later west Eurasian populations. This indicates that they belonged to a modern human migration into Europe that was not previously known from the genetic record, and provides evidence that there was at least some continuity between the earliest modern humans in Europe and later people in Eurasia. Moreover, we find that all three individuals had Neanderthal ancestors a few generations back in their family history, confirming that the first European modern humans mixed with Neanderthals and suggesting that such mixing could have been common.
Initial Upper Palaeolithic humans in Europe had recent Neanderthal ancestry Nature 2021
I have always had my doubts about this idea of "neanderthal mixture" for modern humans because "robust" and "archaic" hominids first arose in Africa to begin with and modern humans evolved from that. Not to mention many ancient hominid remains from Africa are still considered 'archaic' and 'robust' even if they are classified as AMH. So modern humans did not need to mix with Neanderthals to acquire 'archaic' or 'robust' features, when the fossil record in Africa shows otherwise. Not to mention modern humans inherited genes from these other hominids because they are all on the same family tree.
Either way, this idea that OOA Africans in Europe suddenly and magically split from their African ancestors on the DNA tree because of 'sex breeding' with Neanderthals is just ridiculous to me. But that is the current theory which then leads to the East Asians and Native Americans also having this supposed ancestry. But either way, Australian Aboriginal populations and other Asian aboriginal groups are the closest living relatives of these ancient OOA populations and I don't see how this neanderthal mixture theory changes anything as that is the best evidence for what these ancient populations would have looked like.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Europeans are said to be mixed with Neanderthals, and Australasians are said to be mixed with Denisovans. Even peoples in Africa have been theoreticized to be somewhat mixed with some kind of archaic ghost population. Maybe these mixing were relatively common during the times where there lived more than one human species on Earth (if one at all can say that Neanderthals, Denisovans and anatomically modern humans can be regarded as separate species. If they could mix and get fertile offspring together, it is somewhat doubtful if they can be regarded as such).
The people in the Bulgarian cave seems to be among the oldest AMH:s in Europe. It is interesting that they seem to have a genetic connection with Asia and not with later Europeans. Other early humans in Europe either seem to belong to lineages that are no more, or are related with later Europeans. It seems that the patterns of migration, and mixing and local adaptations after OOA are a bit complicated, or at least not yet fully investigated.
Here is an old European specimen who seems not to have contributed to modern Europeans or Asians.
quote: Modern humans expanded into Eurasia more than 40,000 years ago following their dispersal out of Africa. These Eurasians carried ~2–3% Neanderthal ancestry in their genomes, originating from admixture with Neanderthals that took place sometime between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago, probably in the Middle East. In Europe, the modern human expansion preceded the disappearance of Neanderthals from the fossil record by 3,000–5,000 years. The genetic makeup of the first Europeans who colonized the continent more than 40,000 years ago remains poorly understood since few specimens have been studied. Here, we analyse a genome generated from the skull of a female individual from Zlatý kůň, Czechia. We found that she belonged to a population that appears to have contributed genetically neither to later Europeans nor to Asians. Her genome carries ~3% Neanderthal ancestry, similar to those of other Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. However, the lengths of the Neanderthal segments are longer than those observed in the currently oldest modern human genome of the ~45,000-year-old Ust’-Ishim individual from Siberia, suggesting that this individual from Zlatý kůň is one of the earliest Eurasian inhabitants following the expansion out of Africa.
quote: Even when excluding the H. naledi material, African LMP fossils exhibit extremely variable morphologies. The Omo I22 and Herto specimens24 have a modern-like anatomy that includes the presence of the two cranio-mandibular apomorphies of the species—cranial proportions that result in a tall vault (basi-bregmatic height) and a chin, and are generally considered the earliest undisputed remains of H. sapiens16,17. All other LMP African fossils show a mosaic of derived and archaic characters. For instance, the Jebel Irhoud remains were originally described as showing strong similarities with Neandertals33, while the study of the new Irhoud remains emphasises their affinities with H. sapiens, despite the absence of key modern humans apomorphies (i.e., tall and globular vault, and inverted T chin)18. The Guomde25, Ngaloba30, Eliye Springs27 and Florisbad34 specimens along with Omo II22 and possibly the pathological Singa calvarium35, have been mostly referred to as ‘archaic H. sapiens’, a category grouping isolated fossils with disparate morphologies. This situation challenges any attempt at identifying the evolutionary mechanisms that may explain the morphological pattern in the African LMP fossil record, as well as identifying the ancestral population, or populations, of modern humans.
Here, we use a phylogenetic modelling method36 to statistically estimate the full cranial morphology of hypothetical virtual Last Common Ancestors (vLCAs) to all modern humans on the basis of two simplified phylogenies of the genus Homo (Fig. 1, Table 1, Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 and Supplementary Fig. 1), and through this virtual LMP African fossil, explore the morphological diversity of the five most complete real African LMP hominins to quantitatively assess how the populations from whom those fossils are drawn may have played a role in the origin of H. sapiens.
There is no guarantee that the that many of the OOA populations did not look like more "generalized" hominids similar to Australian Aborigines. There is a lot of diversity in the African hominid fossil record. This idea that modern humans emerged in Africa but only ran into 'archaic' humans outside of Africa is backwards. If anything they ran into them in Africa first, especially since the earliest dates for AMH in Africa have been pushed back to 300 kya.
And on top of that why do Australian Aborigines, who supposedly left Africa 60,000 years ago, along with the Andaman Islanders not have any Neanderthal ancestry? If they are the closest populations to the first OOA migrants then they should have Neanderthal ancestry if the theory of Neanderthal mixture is correct. Otherwise, something is off. So having multiple types of AMH from robust to gracile in early Asian hominids is not necessarily a sign of other hominid species in Asia. Also, the only thing that they have for Denisovans for the most part is DNA.
quote: A fully sequenced high-quality genome has revealed in 2010 the existence of a human population in Asia, the Denisovans, related to and contemporaneous with Neanderthals. Only five skeletal remains are known from Denisovans, mostly molars; the proximal fragment of a fifth finger phalanx used to generate the genome, however, was too incomplete to yield useful morphological information. Here, we demonstrate through ancient DNA analysis that a distal fragment of a fifth finger phalanx from the Denisova Cave is the larger, missing part of this phalanx. Our morphometric analysis shows that its dimensions and shape are within the variability of Homo sapiens and distinct from the Neanderthal fifth finger phalanges. Thus, unlike Denisovan molars, which display archaic characteristics not found in modern humans, the only morphologically informative Denisovan postcranial bone identified to date is suggested here to be plesiomorphic and shared between Denisovans and modern humans.
posted
Perhaps also the ancestors to Australasians mated with Neanderthals
quote: International scientists analysed the blood types of some ancient human ancestors, the Denisovans and the Neanderthals, by looking at their DNA, and say their genes for blood type suggest both groups originated in Africa. They also found a distinct genetic link between the Neanderthal blood types and those of an Aboriginal Australian and an indigenous Papuan, suggesting modern humans mated with Neanderthals before they migrated to Southeast Asia. In addition, they found Neanderthals had blood type genetics associated with diseases that affect newborns and fetuses, and low genetic diversity for blood type genes, compared with modern humans. This fits with other evidence suggesting a small gene pool and reproductive problems contributed to their eventual demise, the authors say.
There seems to be a lot of discussions about mixing between AMH with Neanderthals, Denisovans and some archaic ancestor in Africa and maybe also some unknown archaic ancestor in South East Asia. Also Neanderthals and Denisovans can have mixed with each other.
We need more specimens and more research to entangle who mixed with whom, and where and when.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Perhaps also the ancestors to Australasians mated with Neanderthals
quote: International scientists analysed the blood types of some ancient human ancestors, the Denisovans and the Neanderthals, by looking at their DNA, and say their genes for blood type suggest both groups originated in Africa. They also found a distinct genetic link between the Neanderthal blood types and those of an Aboriginal Australian and an indigenous Papuan, suggesting modern humans mated with Neanderthals before they migrated to Southeast Asia. In addition, they found Neanderthals had blood type genetics associated with diseases that affect newborns and fetuses, and low genetic diversity for blood type genes, compared with modern humans. This fits with other evidence suggesting a small gene pool and reproductive problems contributed to their eventual demise, the authors say.
There seems to be a lot of discussions about mixing between AMH with Neanderthals, Denisovans and some archaic ancestor in Africa and maybe also some unknown archaic ancestor in South East Asia. Also Neanderthals and Denisovans can have mixed with each other.
We need more specimens and more research to entangle who mixed with whom, and where and when.
I am glad to see that geneticists are finally admitting that Neanderthal originated in Africa.
. . . .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Undifferentiated L1'2'3'4'5'6 has been found in Neanderthal fossils from the Caucasus (Mezmaiskaya cave) and the Altai (Denisova Cave), dated to before 50 kya. This suggests that an earlier wave of expansion of Homo sapiens left Africa between about 200–130 kya (during the Penultimate Glacial Period, c.f. Skhul and Qafzeh hominins) and left genetic traces by interbreeding with Neanderthals before disappearing.
Source Wiki
They claim not to be able to get YDNA from Neanderthal fossils
How Neanderthals Lost Their Y Chromosome with Martin Petr, PhD 13,819 views Dec 20, 2020
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Today we have a small collection of bones from Denisovans: from Denisova cave in the Altai, from Baishiya Karst Cave in the Tibetan plateau and from Tam Ngu Hao 2 (Cobra Cave) limestone cave in the Annamite Mountains in Laos. We also have samples of DNA.
The bones are too few to exactly know how Denisovans looked like but some attempt to reconstruct them from their DNA has been made.
Here is an article about that
First portrait of mysterious Denisovans drawn from DNA. Scientists analysed chemical changes to the ancient humans’ DNA to reveal broad, Neanderthal-like facial features. Nature, 2019
quote: Now, computational biologists have produced a rough sketch of Denisovan anatomy based on epigenetic changes — chemical modifications to DNA that can alter gene activity. Their approach reveals that Denisovans were similar in appearance to Neanderthals but had some subtle differences, such as a wider jaw and skull.
“It does help to paint a clearer picture of how they might have looked. Just the idea that it’s possible to use the DNA to predict morphology so well is very impressive,” says Bence Viola, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of Toronto in Canada who has analysed Denisovan remains, but was not involved in this research.
An artist’s impression of a young female Denisovan, based on skeletal traits derived from ancient DNA.
posted
^ I'm trying to discuss Anatomically Modern Humans of East Asia not other Hominids.
It should come as no surprise that the earlier the crania, the more 'generalized' they appear. One would expect the earliest East Asians to resemble in some way the earliest Europeans.
Take for example the ways the Upper Cave skulls resemble Oase 1 skull of Romania.
UC 103
UC 102
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the skull from Zlaty Kun from Czechia in comparison with Oase and UC 102. It seems that the people in Zlaty Kun did not contribute to later populations in Europe and Asia. Some early groups seem just to have gone extinct at some point in time.
Unfortunately there is no complete skull from Bacho Kiro, which inhabitants were related to todays Asians and Native Americans.
Both the people at Bacho Kiro and Zlaty Kun had Neanderthal admixture. One can wonder how different admixtures with Neanderthals and/or Denisovans affected the morphology of early Homo sapiens in Europe and Asia.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, but I'm sure you're aware of the biases and thus errors associated with reconstructions. Without an accurate assessment of population tissue depth not to mention soft tissue parts, an artist can make a reconstruction look like whatever he desires. They made UC101 look Chinese there when we know he looks more like the Spirit Cave Man albeit with more archaic features.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic