Early European man had a Neanderthal Great Great Grand parent

I have already posted a teaser to this story here,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
But after reading the original source more thoroughly, I decided to start a new thread. In Europe, there was at least one admixture event between AMH and HSN, that was independent of other events in the Levant or east Asia.

This 40,000–year–old human mandible, found in a Romanian cave, has a mix of human and Neanderthal traits; genetic analysis suggests the individual had a close Neanderthal ancestor 4–6 generations back.

One of Europe’s earliest known humans had a close Neanderthal ancestor: perhaps as close as a great-great-grandparent.
The finding, announced on 8 May at the Biology of Genomes meeting in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, questions the idea that humans and Neanderthals interbred only in the Middle East, more than 50,000 years ago.
Qiaomei Fu, a palaeogenomicist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, told the meeting how she and her colleagues had sequenced DNA from a 40,000-year-old jawbone that represents some of the earliest modern-human remains in Europe. They estimate that 5–11% of the bone's genome is Neanderthal, including large chunks of several chromosomes. (The genetic analysis also shows that the individual was a man). By analysing how lengths of DNA inherited from any one ancestor shorten with each generation, the team estimated that the man had a Neanderthal ancestor in the previous 4–6 generations. (The researchers declined to comment on the work because it has not yet been published in a journal).

On the short side 4 generations is only back to your great grand parents, and 6 generations is only your great great great grand parents.

When human met Neanderthal
All humans who trace their ancestry beyond sub-Saharan Africa carry a sliver of Neanderthal DNA — around 1–4% of their genomes. Researchers have long thought it most likely that early humans exiting Africa interbred with resident Neanderthals somewhere in the Middle East around 50,000—60,000 years ago, before travelling on to Asia, Europe and the rest of the world.
That possibility has gained support in the past year. Last year, a team that included Fu used the genome of a 45,000-year-old human from Siberia to date his Neanderthal ancestors to between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago (when modern humans were probably starting to leave Africa)2. Another reported finding the 55,000-year-old partial skull of a human in an Israeli cave not far from sites at which Neanderthals lived around the same time3.
But radiocarbon dating of remains from sites across the continent suggests that humans and Neanderthals lived together in Europe for up to 5,000 years in some areas — plenty of time for them to have met and interbred there, too4.

Neanderthal Grandparent

Well then, the whole notion of a single discrete breeding event has certainly gone out the window. There are admixture events in the levant, in central europe, a site in italy yeilded remains of a hybrid child, and then there is the east asian events.

Not very suprising since there were plenty of Neanderthals living in Europe I thought this was common knowledge the only people who would not have Neanderthal blood are original African homo erectus since they lived in western/north Africa and there wasnt any Neanderthals running through there.

a reply to: punkinworks10
Are you familiar with Danny Vendramini's predation theory on Neanderthals? He theorizes that this sexual union was anything but willing for us humans. He goes on to say we were hunted and eaten or even raped by Neanderthals.
Not a pretty picture, especially what he believes Neanderthals really looked like.

Here's a link to his page.
Them and Us
Scroll down and and see what he believes they really looked like. Yeesh!

a reply to: punkinworks10

40k years old? This correlates with the theory on the origins of Rh negative blood. It is suggested that the genetic entanglement of the neanderthal, solicited this miraculous mutation, looming around the Basque region of Europe.

I'm not yet sold on this proclivity. It begs for audit. A species endowed with such sanguine Elan' vitae, just fade to oblivion, post boon. The labors of navigating spin....

a reply to: TheLieWeLive
No I was not aware Mr. Mendravini's site, and would have remained blissfully so.

All I have to say is REALLY?

It's astronishingly rediculous.

Homo Sapiens Neanderthal looked nothing like that,

a reply to: punkinworks10

Yes really.

You can lead a horse to water but...

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: punkinworks10

Yes really.

You can lead a horse to water but...

But what? You cant make them do any due dilligence to see if the rest of paleoanthropology supports ANY part of the ludicrous amd preposterous notions on that website or its related hypothesis? As Punkinworks points out, Homo Neanderthalensis looks absolutely nothing like the backwater morphology depicted in oictures on the site you link. Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence that moddrn humans and neanderthal lived, if not side by side, at least in close proximity to one another. And quite peacefully at that. Each species shared knowledge with the other teaching each other in the process. From the superior lithic technologies of the Levantine Neanderthal to the burial practices of the humans leaving Africa, the practices began to overlap as did the genetics. There was no predation between the 2. The only verifiable predation period was neanderthals practicing cannibalism in some areas of Europe, but none against the new humans who had recently left Africa.

a reply to: peter vlar

Hi Peter V,

Glad you came by, seeing as how it is right up your alley

 That depiction is down right funny as H.

As you said, HSN passed knowledge to us, and that kind of transfer requires cooperation and and civil behaviour.

  The canabalism for the most part is on the part of modern humans, but not all. Some new work from Britain suggests that the cresswellian culture was very cannibalistic. 

Highly fragmentary fossil bones were found in Gough's Cave. They had marks that suggested actions of skinning, dismembering, defleshing and marrow extraction. The excavations of 1986-1987 noted that human and animal remains were mixed, with no particular distribution or arrangement of the human bones. They also show the signs of the same treatments as the animal bones. These findings were interpreted in the sense of a nutritional cannibalism. However, slight differences from other sites in skull treatment leave open the possibility of elements of ritual cannibalism.[8]

en.m.wikipedia.org...


The paper I read a couple of weeks ago wakes a good case for nutritional canabalism, for me it's the human skull drinking cup that have been identified.


And, I believe was usually driven by extreme need, up to a point, but there some populations that slip into that niche because it's easy for the most part.

 Humans are the easiest animal to hunt , because we know how the prey thinks.

 

 

 So internet yahoos aside, what are your thoughts on this paper.

  I wonder how this individual is related to some of the other recently described individuals such as kostenki14 or Ust-Ishim? Which both have admixture events 50k+ years ago, while this man who lived 14,000 years later had a Neanderthal great grand parent, maybe only 100-125 years earlier.

 

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: peter vlar

Hi Peter V,

Glad you came by, seeing as how it is right up your alley

 That depiction is down right funny as H.

As you said, HSN passed knowledge to us, and that kind of transfer requires cooperation and and civil behaviour.

not only does the sharing of lithic making indicate a high level of cooperation but some of the graves found in the Levant show at least a high degree of familiarity and friendship if not familial ties. Otherwise the HSS and HN would not have been burying their dead in the same places with similar grave goods. It's just not an honor you give to your enemies or people who are raiding you and your associates for food and women.

 

The canabalism for the most part is on the part of modern humans, but not all. Some new work from Britain suggests that the cresswellian culture was very cannibalistic. 

en.m.wikipedia.org...

I'm somewhat familiar with the Creswellian incidences of Cannibalism. I'm not entirely sure if I agree with the conclusions that it is an either or proposition regarding nutritional vs. ritual cannibalism. It could very well be both in the sense that they were eating the marrow of their deceased ritualistically to imbibe their essence while being highly aware of the nutritional benefits as well. But that's just a little spitballing and conjecture on my end.

The paper I read a couple of weeks ago wakes a good case for nutritional canabalism, for me it's the human skull drinking cup that have been identified.

It certainly makes sense and I definitely can't come up with a good argument against it.

And, I believe was usually driven by extreme need, up to a point, but there some populations that slip into that niche because it's easy for the most part.

It's hard to be terribly definitive based on the amount of evidence at hand but again...logical conclusions that I can't really argue with.

 Humans are the easiest animal to hunt , because we know how the prey thinks.

Too true!
 

 

 So internet yahoos aside, what are your thoughts on this paper.

Seeing as how this individual had pure Neanderthal in his recent ancestry, 150 years or less, it gives us a slightly better peek inside the narrow window towards the end of their reign in Europe. I think its important in that it demonstrates definitively that the gene exchange wasn't isolated to the event associated with the remains from Denisova cave at 50-60 KA and that humans and Neanderthal continued to have friendly relations and breeding events right up to their eventual collapse as an independent species.

 

I wonder how this individual is related to some of the other recently described individuals such as kostenki14 or Ust-Ishim? Which both have admixture events 50k+ years ago, while this man who lived 14,000 years later had a Neanderthal great grand parent, maybe only 100-125 years earlier.

I would be very interested to see how this mans genetics stand up to Kostenski-14 especially as those remains pushed back the age for what would be considered a "modern European" by over 30KA from initial estimates of 5K back to 36KA so seeing as how the Romanian jaw bone is only a few thousand years older than those remains at 40KA, it would be really interesting to see if they were comprised of all 3 groups of migrants(African, ME and NW Asian/Russian Steppes for anyone else reading this) or just one or maybe two of those particular groups. This is such a critical moment in history and we keep getting just a little bit closer to answers. Every step closer to one answer though always brings up a handful of new questions, hence it being such a critical and fascinating time frame to be looking into, especially now that we know about Denisovans and we know based on genetics that there is another, as yet unidentified, hominid out there...somewhere.

It was also awesome to see Qiaomei Fu be vindicated after working with this mandible for over a decade now and have the genetics verify his initial observations from 2004 where he originally postulated based on morphological features that this jaw was the result of admixture.


For anyone else reading this and wondering what the hell we're talking about, here's an article on Ust-Ishim femur-

news.sciencemag.org...

A view of Ust-Ishim "from the Americas" anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

And Dienekes blog article- dienekes.blogspot.com...


and here is one on the Kostenski-14 remains
 
news.sciencemag.org...

Dienekes blog article- dienekes.blogspot.com...

anthropology.net- anthropology.net...

Eurogenes blog- eurogenes.blogspot.com...

a reply to: peter vlar

Could you point me to an intact Neanderthal body so I can verify they didn't look like this?


Mr. Vendramini only took the same skeletal structure we have proven a Neanderthal has and applied chimpanzee body and facial muscle ratios instead of human. How backwater is the thought if we don't really 100% know what they looked like? Are we not like 99% genetically coded similar to Chimps?

Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence that moddrn humans and neanderthal lived, if not side by side, at least in close proximity to one another. And quite peacefully at that. Each species shared knowledge with the other teaching each other in the process.

You can learn and teach each other and not be peaceful about it. Observation is all the interaction we would need. We are great at copying. If we lived so peacefully with them where are all the Neanderthal now? We breed them completely out of existence? Some unknown variable that killed our closest relative completely into extinction but not affecting us. Global warming perhaps?

There was no predation between the 2. The only verifiable predation period was neanderthals practicing cannibalism in some areas of Europe

There was no predation... but this one verifiable time...?

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: peter vlar

Could you point me to an intact Neanderthal body so I can verify they didn't look like this?

Anyone who has done some basic research or even taken some anthro 100 level courses can tell you that you do not need an intact body to properly reconstruct skeletal remains and get an extremely accurate picture of what the individual looked like in life. This has been verified by doing reconstructions of missing persons and comparing the reconstructed model to photos etc... of the person when living. Attachment point scars tell you how large muscle mass was and how ligaments and tendons were arranged so that you know their posture when factoring in bone degeneration, arthritis and other osteopathic disorders, decoded genomes indicate things like skin color, hair color, eye color and amounts of body hair. Do I need to go on?

Mr. Vendramini only took the same skeletal structure we have proven a Neanderthal has and applied chimpanzee body and facial muscle ratios instead of human. How backwater is the thought if we don't really 100% know what they looked like? Are we not like 99% genetically coded similar to Chimps?

But we DO know what they looked like so it entirely IS backwater when he's arbitrarily altering morphologies in contradiction to known science. It's charlatanism for profit and anyone who thinks that is OK should be ashamed of themselves.

Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence that moddrn humans and neanderthal lived, if not side by side, at least in close proximity to one another. And quite peacefully at that. Each species shared knowledge with the other teaching each other in the process.

You can learn and teach each other and not be peaceful about it. Observation is all the interaction we would need. We are great at copying.

Observation from afar does NOT teach one how to copy lithic technologies. First hand experience and practice...lots of practice with oversight from a trained pro is the only way to learn how to make those tool properly. How do you explain sites where both species lived side by side and buried their dead together with similar grave goods? That's absolutely NOT the actions of two groups who are at odds with one another.

If we lived so peacefully with them where are all the Neanderthal now? We breed them completely out of existence? Some unknown variable that killed our closest relative completely into extinction but not affecting us. Global warming perhaps?

Neanderthal populations were already on the decline before homo sapiens left Africa. The Toba even reduced their numbers even further and almost wiped out Homo Sapiens as well reducing world wide population numbers to below 10,000. And that's an optimistic estimate. We aren't the same people who left Africa 60KA either. We are the sum of our own ancestors which in Europe is comprised of 3 distinct groups of modern humans as well as admixture with Neanderthal and Denisovan as well as an as yet undiscovered hominid for which there is genetic evidence of but no physical evidence as yet. Neither species who met in the Levant, Middle East and Europe has survived genetically intact today and none of it required violence to occur.



]

There was no predation... but this one verifiable time...?

I should have been clearer. There are recorded instances of cannibalism. Just not cannibalism of one species by the other. It was, based on all evidence currently known, always Neanderthal cannibalizing Neanderthal and Humans cannibalizing humans. There is no way to prove any predation either way though. It could very well have been cannibalism of recently deceased members of the same HG groups or family members. It could have been ritualistic or nutritional. There's very little evidence to indicate one way or the other, therefore no evidence in support of Neanderthal Predation Hypothesis.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
Mr. Vendramini only took the same skeletal structure we have proven a Neanderthal has and applied chimpanzee body and facial muscle ratios instead of human. How backwater is the thought if we don't really 100% know what they looked like? Are we not like 99% genetically coded similar to Chimps?

Can we tell the difference between a chimp skeleton and a Neanderthal skeleton?

You apply the principles of muscular morphology to the base you begin with. Seeing as how you begin with the skeleton, why would anyone attempt to apply the morphology of a clearly different base structure (chimp skeleton) to an obviously incompatible skeleton?

What would you say to applying, for example, rodent body and facial muscle ratios to the skeleton?
TMNT?

Harte

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

The were vampires, you know.

a reply to: peter vlar

It's charlatanism for profit and anyone who thinks that is OK should be ashamed of themselves.

'Ashamed' is a little strong. 'Deeply embarrassed by one's own gullibility' seems to fit the case a little better.

a reply to: Astyanax

Yeah, you're right. I was a little heavy handed with that comment. Embarresed is definitely more apropos in this i stance.