Long genetic and social isolation in Neanderthals before their extinction
cell.com
cell.com
Multiple Neanderthal groups in Europe geographically fairly close, on the brink of extinction, yet no interbreeding for 50,000 years.
The stories that pop into my mind!
If I read the map correctly.
so what they found is not at odds with what you are suggesting, but there are other explanations, and not much data
What evidence do you suggest supports this for 50k years?
The group Thorin was from may have been close to extinction when he died, but when genetic isolation started they were 50k years away from being that close to extinction. It seems remarkable based on what we know of hunter gathers or even animal population structure and movement, that there would be no mixing for that long.
there is no evidence that they were near to each other for 50K years, only that their genomes diverged 50k years ago which was the last time they were near each other.
At the separate-times-and-places that they died in "France", the recent migrants may only have arrived in the last few months, having spent the previous 50K years over in that other far away place, and died only somewhat near each other a decade apart
the mixed genome of early modern humans and the lack of mixing of Neanderthals is a separate piece of evidence, and it may point to Neanderthals not being as sexy-social, but that's just a "may".
It isn't out of the question that groups could have moved quite a bit since there is evidence of turnover in either Caucasus or Western Europe later on, but I am not sure coming from somewhere else solves the puzzle. Existing evidence suggests that the MRCA of known late Neanderthals including those predating Thorin was in Europe [2].
So Thorin's lineage could have traveled from somewhere without other hominids and beelined for this site ten years prior, but it is not very parsimonious considering he was in a layer with the same PNII style artifacts for thousands of years before and after him? However, the PNII artifacts don't appear to be rooted in the previous ones of the region so perhaps there was an older exotic origin.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature26151 [2] https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.aaw5873
As far as our observations of Stone Age people go, if they catch someone, they either kill them or make them a permanent member of the group.
Clan of the Cave Bear ?
That's a pretty wild claim
This suggests that humans socially dominated Neanderthals when they came into contact.
The evidence does show that humans were vastly superior at making weapons.
H. sapiens mtDNA was also found in "recent" neanderthal remains.
That's a rather bold claim about one of the world's foremost paleoanthropologists.
"When you are searching for ancient DNA [from 40,000 to 45,000 years ago] … all these early sapiens have recent Neanderthal DNA, and that's why we have [Neanderthal DNA] today. But when you reach and you try to extract DNA from the last Neanderthals, contemporaries of these early sapiens — let's say between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago — there's not a single Neanderthal with sapiens DNA." https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/simply-did-not-work-...
Oh, wait, it was...
“… most Neanderthal homologous regions in sub-Saharan African populations originate from migration of AMH [anatomically modern human] populations from Africa to Eurasia ∼250 kya, and subsequent admixture with Neanderthals, resulting in ∼6% AMH ancestry in Neanderthals. These results indicate that there have been multiple migration events of AMHs out of Africa and that Neanderthal and AMH gene flow has been bi-directional.”
This is, admittedly, research published after Slimak’s book came out, and referring to an earlier time period.
It's interesting that according to https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/humans-and-neanderth... "This group of humans died out".
Why? Is it because it is assumed that the dominant specie would steal the women (who would spread these traces in the dominant specie)?
Isn't it possible that the dominant specie would also just rape, but not steal the women? (which would presumably cause the opposite genetic "flow")
Different modern human populations have indeed different trace amounts of genetics of other lines of humans, but it’s „homo sapiens sapiens plus 1-4% homo sapient x“ for all of them.
The Wiki page is a good source of references: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archai...
For example, an African person can have 0.1% European genes and still may look fully blonde with blue eyes and European facial features.
What matters is what that 0.1% is bringing. If those genes are largely not affecting anything at 20% well then why we should care if it's 0.1% or 20%
"but some countries and backgrounds have a maximum of 3% per human. The average is about 2% outside Africa."
as mostly false
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10406...
an extra/supernumerary tooth in another part of the mouth would be called, front to back, a mesiodens or a paramolar
supernumerary teeth may be:
Supplemental (where the tooth has a normal shape for the teeth in that series);
Tuberculate (also called barrel shaped);
Conical (also called peg shaped);
Compound odontoma (multiple small tooth-like forms);
Complex odontoma (a disorganized mass of dental tissue)
(most of that info is from wikipedia, but it did not have the definition of distomolar, had to chase that down in wiktionary)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdontia which cites Oxford Handbook of Clinical Dentistry.