Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Human-Neandertal Mixing Evidence Uncovered

A reexamination of ancient human bones from Romania reveals more evidence that humans and Neandertals interbred.

Erik Trinkaus, Ph.D., Washington University Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor in Arts & Sciences, and colleagues radiocarbon-dated and analyzed the shapes of human bones from Romania's Petera Muierii (Cave of the Old Woman). The fossils, discovered in 1952, add to the small number of early modern human remains from Europe known to be more than 28,000 years old.

For more:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061103083616.htm

That's interesting. I hope they can do some DNA and mtDNA analysis on these bones. (Are they really "fossils" I wonder?)

Hey, thanks Dan. Erik Trinkaus has been a supporter of Neanderthal/modern human interbreeding for many years. My own knowledge of genetics, animal and plant breeding and the formation of breed hybrids has led me to agree with him (I have a degree in agricultural science). As I have said many times the belief in a single origin for modern humans owes a great deal to Western mythologies.

It will be very interesting to reconcile all of the data available on this subject. Since the mtDNA studies, thus far, have shown no evidence of mixing, could this mean that:

A. we don't have a large enough sample of Neandertal mtDNA?

B. crosses were sterile?

C. male Neandertal X female Homo sapiens were viable, but the opposite cross was not?

D. hybrids were socially ostacized?

E. these remains were from an individual who was an atypical Neandertal?

F. none or some of the above?

Soilguy. I think the answer is F(a).

For a start, for various reasons it is doubtful that the selective advantage mtEve had was because of any change in the mitochondrial DNA. It is also unlikely it was through any particular nuclear DNA she had. Her daughters would have half her nuc. DNA, her grandaughters quarter and so on. We know anyway that mtDNA and nuclear DNA can have separate origins.

The distribution of many more recent mtDNA and Y-chromosome lines is interpreted as showing cultural expansions. I see no reason why the separate human and Neanderthal mtDNA lines would be anything other than that. Especially seeing that research suggests culture is inherited from our parents, particularly from our mother.

There certainly seems to have been a cultural expansion from Africa that gave rise to a selective sweep for the mtDNA lines in that culture. But this doesn't rule out the likelihood of interbreeding with resident populations. In fact other evidence supports the idea that this is exactly what happened. Fewer Neanderthal women may have been absorbed into the expanding culture than males but this is not necessarily so. In a population of fixed size mtDNA lines reduce anyway.

There was possibly more mixing between populations at that time than there has been in some countries in more modern times. The instruments of genocide have been greatly perfected over the millenia.

Another bit of information you might find interesting. A gene the scientists think come from Neanderthals.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Human-Brain-Carries-at-Least-One-Neanderthal-Gene-39515.shtml

It is about time someone looked into Neanderthal / Human crossbreeding. I have believed that was the case most of my life.

My best friend growing up had so many Neanderthal characteristics that I told him when he died I was going to dig up his bones and claim to have found the missing link. Carbon dating foiled that plan however.

He was of Basque / Native American decent. The Basque claim to be the descendants of the original inhabitants of Europe. They come from the mountain range between Spain and the French. This also was the last area where the Neanderthal lived. A study of their genetic makeup may shed light on this.

You may well be correct Aireal but I suspect, due to the implied insult in calling someone a Neandertal, most would not be appreciative of the suggestion. <g>

Aireal. The Basques are certainly an interesting group. They are one of the few groups in Europe whose language is not part of the Indo-European language family. Their language is possibly connected to some Georgian languages but this is disputed.

Interestingly genetically the Basques show a connection to the Irish whose language is definitely Indo-European. I'll try to find a link if you wish. Possibly both languages were introduced to pre-existing populations. We know language is readily adopted by non-native speakers.

DA Morgan and TerryNewZealand

Many people would be insulted by calling them Neanderthal, but he took it as a compliment. His physical prowess was extraordinary, which helped him excel in the martial arts and he was fearless besides. Like the Basque, he was a natural born spelunker and loved crawling in caves. This was in the end the cause of his early death. He caught histoplasmosis from bat droppings, which eventually caused lung failure. He was not only my best friend, but my ritual blood brother, I am also Native American.

What little I know about the Basque came from him, and he was the one who first suggested that they had more Neanderthal in their genes than other groups. At that time, 35 years ago, most scientists did not think we had any Neanderthal genes in our make up. Also at that time, their language was thought not to be related to any others, and DNA was not even an option. So my info on them is a little outdated.

Aireal. A couple of sites re. similarity between Basques and Irish:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Nature2000.pdf

These Y-chromosome types must go back to before the expansion of the Indo-European group of languages but not back to Neanderthal. It seems Y-chromosomes tend to get replaced over time in any population.

I've already posted this one re. Native American origins way back on "Out of Asia not Africa" but you might care to look and comment:

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Karafet_et_al.1999.pdf

TerryNewZealand

I will have to check those links out, thanks. The one about native americans I am of course interested in. Personally I think we cam here from several regions over time and mixed. This is based mainly on old legends and tales told by old ones. Be nice to see a scientific take on it.

Aireal. That is in fact pretty much what the evidence suggests. The researchers showed the basal Y-chromosome type of most Native Americans comes from Central Asia. It's found most commonly these days amoung the People called Kets and Selkups. The article doesn't actually explain the gap between Central Asia and Alaska but other evidence shows Y-chromosomes in that region have been diluted by a more recent movement north of Y-chromosome types from Southeast Asia.

On the other hand the mitochondrial DNA of Native Americans shares characteristics with mtDNA from further south in Asia: Mongolia, Tibet Northern China and Korea.

Therefore even the earliest inhabitants seem to have been a mixture of at least two groups people.

Genetic and linguistic evidence suggests at least two more groups migrated from Asia before any modern Europeans reached America.

Terrynewzealand

Thank you very much for that info. I believe that ancient writings and oral traditions have at their core a kernel of truth. Discovering that hidden kernel of truth from them alone is hard. It is nice to have scientific confirmation of what they suggest.

Charles