DOCSLIB.ORG

What Makes a Modern Human We Probably All Carry Genes from Archaic Species Such As Neanderthals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Makes a Modern Human We Probably All Carry Genes from Archaic Species Such As Neanderthals COMMENT NATURAL HISTORY Edward EARTH SCIENCE How rocks and MUSIC Philip Glass on Einstein EMPLOYMENT The skills gained Lear’s forgotten work life evolved together on our and the unpredictability of in PhD training make it on ornithology p.36 planet p.39 opera composition p.40 worth the money p.41 ILLUSTRATION BY CHRISTIAN DARKIN CHRISTIAN BY ILLUSTRATION What makes a modern human We probably all carry genes from archaic species such as Neanderthals. Chris Stringer explains why the DNA we have in common is more important than any differences. n many ways, what makes a modern we were trying to set up strict criteria, based non-modern (or, in palaeontological human is obvious. Compared with our on cranial measurements, to test whether terms, archaic). What I did not foresee evolutionary forebears, Homo sapiens is controversial fossils from Omo Kibish in was that some researchers who were not Icharacterized by a lightly built skeleton and Ethiopia were within the range of human impressed with our test would reverse it, several novel skull features. But attempts to skeletal variation today — anatomically applying it back onto the skeletal range of distinguish the traits of modern humans modern humans. all modern humans to claim that our diag- from those of our ancestors can be fraught Our results suggested that one skull nosis wrongly excluded some skulls of with problems. was modern, whereas the other was recent populations from being modern2. Decades ago, a colleague and I got into This, they suggested, implied that some difficulties over an attempt to define (or, as PEOPLING THE PLANET people today were more ‘modern’ than oth- I prefer, diagnose) modern humans using Interactive map of migrations: ers. Although I disputed what I considered the skeletal morphology that is preserved in go.nature.com/nmz8gd to be a misuse of our test, I had to recognize fossils1. Our attempt was well-intentioned: the dangers inherent in this prescriptive 3 MAY 2012 | VOL 485 | NATURE | 33 © 2012 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved COMMENT approach to modern human variation. originated through different mechanisms that the Neanderthals represented a lineage Today, scientists are facing a similar and over different time scales3. The first set and species that was separate from all recent situation. In 2010, DNA evidence showed includes features shared by all living humans humans. However, increasingly complete that after modern humans left Africa about — such as a high and rounded skull, small genomic reconstructions from Neanderthal 60,000 years ago, they bred for a short period brow ridge and a bony chin on the lower fossils4 and from a newly characterized group of time with archaic humans — and, as a jaw3 — that make it clear a skull belongs to called Denisovans — so far known only from result, some populations today have more H. sapiens, and not an ancient form. These a single cave in southern Siberia5 — have archaic genes than others3. These genes traits had evolved in Africa by 100,000 years shown these hominins to be related popula- might be expressed in the phenotype, and ago, and were exported from there in an exo- tions that descended from the earlier species may require a rethink about how and when dus that began about 60,000 years ago. Homo heidelbergensis, which also gave rise to regional variation developed in H. sapiens. The second set of traits belonging to H. sapiens (see ‘A winding path’). Those with alternative agendas may also modern humans Comparative genomic studies have try to use these new data to rank modern “It is not yet include the regional revealed elements of DNA that are unique human populations in terms of supposedly clear whether or ‘racial’ features that to each of the three groups (recent humans, different degrees of modernity. Already I’m the archaic differentiate human Neanderthals and Denisovans), some of reading blogs that speculate about whether DNA many of populations, such as which could be expressed in the phenotype, some groups are less ‘modern’ than others, facial shape, form of and that may be related to such things as the and I fear that such discussions endanger the us carry is tied the eyelids, type of physiology of the brain, skin, skeleton and considerable progress promised by palaeo- to any visible hair, skin pigmenta- even sperm4,5. But the biggest surprise for genetic research. traits.” tion and physique. many researchers was the evidence from So to highlight these issues and steer the I have argued that whole genome scans that modern humans debate in a positive direction, I would like these regional features were added as peo- living outside Africa each carry about 2.5% of to assert that the term modern humans, by ple spread in small numbers after the shared their DNA from Neanderthals; furthermore, definition, equally describes all humans liv- modern human template had evolved in people living today in Australia and New ing today. Some of us may have more DNA Africa. The processes involved were natu- Guinea (Australasians) carry about 5% of from archaic populations than others, but ral selection (Charles Darwin’s favoured Denisovan DNA4,5 (see ‘Patchwork planet’). the great majority of our genes, morphol- evolutionary mechanism in his 1859 On the The most likely explanation is interbreed- ogy and behaviour derives from our com- Origin of Species), different sexual or cul- ing, such as when modern humans emerged mon African heritage. And what unites us tural preferences (emphasized in Darwin’s from Africa into Eurasia about 60,000 years should take precedence over that which 1871 volume The Descent of Man), a founder ago and met Neanderthals, and when the distinguishes us from each other. effect as remote regions were colonized by ancestors of Australasians met some Den- small pioneer groups, and drift, as newly isovans. Scientists are continuing to study OUT OF AFRICA separated populations diverged through these archaic genomes in detail, and are find- For the past 25 years, there has been a fierce random processes. ing clear variation within and between non- debate about whether our species evolved That dispersal event potentially brought African people in the amount and kind of from distinct ancestors who were spread early modern humans into the realms of archaic DNA that survives in their genomes across the Old World (multiregional evo- other hominin populations living outside today. In short, people living outside Africa lution) or whether, as I have advocated, we Africa, including the Neanderthals in western carry different quantities, and distinct evolved recently in only one area — Africa Eurasia, and Homo floresiensis and the ancient remnants, of archaic DNA from those inter- (recent African origin). I have argued that species Homo erectus in Indonesia. The first breeding events. Some African populations the physical traits of modern humans can be DNA to be successfully recovered from Nean- may also contain genes from ancient groups divided into two sets of features, which have derthal fossils seemed to support the view as a result of interbreeding, as shown by recent DNA evidence6 and 15,000-year-old A WINDING PATH fossils from Central and West Africa, which H. sapiens spread from Africa to After early modern humans left Africa around 60,000 years ago (top have some ancestral traits such as a longer, western Asia and then to Europe and 3 right), they spread across the globe and interbred with other southern Asia, eventually reaching lower braincase . descendants of Homo heidelbergensis. Australasia and the Americas. This evidence of interbreeding between 0 groups that palaeontologists call separate Homo sapiens species raises two crucial questions. First, Denisovans Neanderthals Homo oresiensis given that most of us learned at school that Homo erectus 0.4 species don’t interbreed, should we change the definition we use for a species? Or Homo heidelbergensis should we remove the taxonomic separa- 0.8 tions erected purely from the morphology of Homo antecessor fossils, and sink H. heidelbergensis, Neander- thals and Denisovans into H. sapiens? And H. heidelbergensis originated from second, how does the evidence of interbreed- 1.2 Million years ago H. erectus in an ing affect our concept of modern humans, unknown location and dispersed across when the genomes of people today appar- Homo erectus Africa, southern Asia ently contain differing levels of archaic genes? and southern Europe. 1.6 LAID TO REST H. oresiensis originated H. erectus spread to western Asia, then in an unknown location east Asia and Indonesia. Its presence In my view, the evidence that H. sapiens and reached remote in Europe is uncertain, but it gave rise interbred with archaic humans does not yet 2.0 parts of Indonesia. to H. antecessor, found in Spain. require a merging of these close relatives Wavy branch edges suggest presumed uctuations in population. into a single expanded concept of H. sapiens. 34 | NATURE | VOL 485 | 3 MAY 2012 © 2012 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved COMMENT PATCHWORK PLANET Most people’s genomes contain remnants of archaic DNA from ancient interbreeding3–6. 2% 2.5% 2.5% 5% Genes* African Unknown archaic African source 98% 97.5% 92.5% Neanderthal Denisovan *Figures are approximate, and for Africa, based on limited data6. Sub-Saharan Africa Eurasia and Americas Australia and New Guinea Doing so would produce a species that had to continue the progress recently made in a range of morphological variation sev- studying the origins of modern human vari- eral times that found in humans today, or ation, they will need to think long and hard in other existing primate species. These about their aims, and the lexicon they use. human lineages were distinct enough to One thing should be reiterated: all living build up well-differentiated genotypes and humans are members of the extant species phenotypes (although we know little of the H.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Defining the Genus Homo
    Defining the Genus Homo Mark Collard and Bernard Wood Contents Introduction ..................................................................................... 2108 Changing Interpretations of Genus Homo ..................................................... 2109 Is Genus Homo a “Good” Genus? ............................................................. 2114 Updating Wood and Collard’s (1999) Review of Genus Homo .............................. 2126 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 2137 Cross-References ............................................................................... 2138 References ...................................................................................... 2138 Abstract The definition of the genus Homo is an important but under-researched topic. In this chapter we show that interpretations of Homo have changed greatly over the last 150 years as a result of the incorporation of new fossil species, the discovery of fossil evidence that changed our perceptions of its component species, and reassessments of the functional capabilities of species previously allocated to Homo. We also show that these changes have been made in an ad hoc fashion. Criteria for recognizing fossil specimens of Homo have been outlined on a M. Collard (*) Human Evolutionary Studies Program and Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada Department of Archaeology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK e-mail: [email protected] B. Wood Center for the Advanced
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 and Human Rights: We Are All in This Together
    COVID-19 and Human Rights We are all in this together APRIL 2020 Human rights are critical – for the response and the recovery They put people at the centre and produce better outcomes Human rights are key in shaping the pandemic response, both for the public health emergency and the broader impact on people’s lives and livelihoods. Human rights put people centre-stage. Responses that are shaped by and respect human rights result in better outcomes in beating the pandemic, ensuring healthcare for everyone and preserving human dignity. But they also focus our attention on who is suffering most, why, and what can be done about it. They prepare the ground now for emerging from this crisis with more equitable and sustainable societies, development and peace. Why are human rights equip States and whole societies to respond to so important to the threats and crises in a way that puts people at the centre. Observing the crisis and its impact COVID-19 response? through a human rights lens puts a focus on how it is affecting people on the ground, partic- The world is facing an unprecedented crisis. ularly the most vulnerable among us, and what At its core is a global public health emer- can be done about it now, and in the long term. gency on a scale not seen for a century, Although this paper presents recommenda- requiring a global response with far-reaching tions, it is worth underlining that human rights consequences for our economic, social and are obligations which States must abide by. political lives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolutionary History of the Human Face
    This is a repository copy of The evolutionary history of the human face. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/145560/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Lacruz, Rodrigo S, Stringer, Chris B, Kimbel, William H et al. (5 more authors) (2019) The evolutionary history of the human face. Nature Ecology and Evolution. pp. 726-736. ISSN 2397-334X https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0865-7 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF THE HUMAN FACE Rodrigo S. Lacruz1*, Chris B. Stringer2, William H. Kimbel3, Bernard Wood4, Katerina Harvati5, Paul O’Higgins6, Timothy G. Bromage7, Juan-Luis Arsuaga8 1* Department of Basic Science and Craniofacial Biology, New York University College of Dentistry; and NYCEP, New York, USA. 2 Department of Earth Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, UK 3 Institute of Human Origins and School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Habilis
    COMMENT SUSTAINABILITY Citizens and POLICY End the bureaucracy THEATRE Shakespeare’s ENVIRONMENT James Lovelock businesses must track that is holding back science world was steeped in on surprisingly optimistic governments’ progress p.33 in India p.36 practical discovery p.39 form p.41 The foot of the apeman that palaeo­ ‘handy man’, anthropologists had been Homo habilis. recovering in southern Africa since the 1920s. This, the thinking went, was replaced by the taller, larger-brained Homo erectus from Asia, which spread to Europe and evolved into Nean­ derthals, which evolved into Homo sapiens. But what lay between the australopiths and H. erectus, the first known human? BETTING ON AFRICA Until the 1960s, H. erectus had been found only in Asia. But when primitive stone-chop­ LIBRARY PICTURE EVANS MUSEUM/MARY HISTORY NATURAL ping tools were uncovered at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, Leakey became convinced that this is where he would find the earliest stone- tool makers, who he assumed would belong to our genus. Maybe, like the australopiths, our human ancestors also originated in Africa. In 1931, Leakey began intensive prospect­ ing and excavation at Olduvai Gorge, 33 years before he announced the new human species. Now tourists travel to Olduvai on paved roads in air-conditioned buses; in the 1930s in the rainy season, the journey from Nairobi could take weeks. The ravines at Olduvai offered unparalleled access to ancient strata, but field­ work was no picnic in the park. Water was often scarce. Leakey and his team had to learn to share Olduvai with all of the wild animals that lived there, lions included.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fate of the Neanderthals Announcement
    The Fate of the Neanderthals Announcement The first midterm exam will take place in class on Monday, October 1. You only need to bring a pencil or pen with you. The exam will have 2 parts: 1) 16 multiple choice questions (1 point each, 15 minutes) 2) 6 out of 7 short IDs (4 points each, 30 minutes) Sample questions are posted on the course website. After Homo erectus, several species of archaic Homo emerged during the Middle Paleolithic Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are often called “Archaic Homo” or “Archaic Humans” Neanderthals Homo sapiens Denisovans (400-30kya) (200kya-present) (40kya) Europe and Middle East Africa first Asia Homo heidelbergensis (600-200kya) Africa, Europe, and the Middle East Homo erectus (2mya-150kya?) Africa and Asia. Europe? Outline of Today’s Class: The Fate of the Neanderthals 1) Neanderthal biology and behavior 2) Modern humans - Early expansions out of Africa >100kya - Later expansions out of Africa 60kya associated with Upper Paleolithic modern human behavior 3) Neanderthal ancient DNA and clues about Neanderthal extinction The Neanderthals (300kya-30kya) • First fossils discovered in 1856 in the Neander Valley, Germany. • Large brains, large noses, and large brow ridges. Short, stocky bodies. • Cold-weather adapted to life during the Pleistocene “Ice Ages” (ca. 736kya-11.7kya). • Covered a wide geographic range extending from Europe to the Near Boyd & Silk (2014). East and West Asia. • Neanderthals living in different regions had different diets and behaviors (e.g., European Neanderthals hunted large game whereas Near Eastern Neanderthals had a more diverse diet of plants and small animals).
    [Show full text]
  • Microremains from El Miron Cave Human Dental Calculus Suggest A
    Journal of Archaeological Science 60 (2015) 39e46 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas Microremains from El Miron Cave human dental calculus suggest a mixed planteanimal subsistence economy during the Magdalenian in Northern Iberia * Robert C. Power a, , Domingo C. Salazar-García b, c, d, e, Lawrence G. Straus f, g, Manuel R. Gonzalez Morales g, Amanda G. Henry a a Research Group on Plant Foods in Hominin Dietary Ecology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany b Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa c Departament de Prehistoria i Arqueologia, Universitat de Valencia, Valencia, Spain d Aix Marseille Universite, CNRS, Ministere de la culture et de la communication, LAMPEA UMR 7269, 13090 Aix-en-Provence, France e Department of Human Evolution, Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany f Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA g Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistoricas de Cantabria, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain article info abstract Article history: Despite more than a century of detailed investigation of the Magdalenian period in Northern Iberia, our Available online 13 April 2015 understanding of the diets during this period is limited. Methodologies for the reconstruction of Late Glacial subsistence strategies have overwhelmingly targeted animal exploitation, thus revealing only a Keywords: portion of the dietary spectrum. Retrieving food debris from calculus offers a means to provide missing Upper Palaeolithic information on other components of diet. We undertook analysis of human dental calculus samples from Archaeobotany Magdalenian individuals (including the “Red Lady”) at El Miron Cave (Cantabria, Spain), as well as several Palaeolithic diet control samples, to better understand the less visible dietary components.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Years on Ice Age Europe Network Celebrates – Page 5
    network of heritage sites Magazine Issue 2 aPriL 2018 neanderthal rock art Latest research from spanish caves – page 6 Underground theatre British cave balances performances with conservation – page 16 Caves with ice age art get UnesCo Label germany’s swabian Jura awarded world heritage status – page 40 5 Years On ice age europe network celebrates – page 5 tewww.ice-age-europe.euLLING the STORY of iCe AGE PeoPLe in eUROPe anD eXPL ORING PLEISTOCene CULtURAL HERITAGE IntrOductIOn network of heritage sites welcome to the second edition of the ice age europe magazine! Ice Age europe Magazine – issue 2/2018 issn 2568­4353 after the successful launch last year we are happy to present editorial board the new issue, which is again brimming with exciting contri­ katrin hieke, gerd­Christian weniger, nick Powe butions. the magazine showcases the many activities taking Publication editing place in research and conservation, exhibition, education and katrin hieke communication at each of the ice age europe member sites. Layout and design Brightsea Creative, exeter, Uk; in addition, we are pleased to present two special guest Beate tebartz grafik Design, Düsseldorf, germany contributions: the first by Paul Pettitt, University of Durham, cover photo gives a brief overview of a groundbreaking discovery, which fashionable little sapiens © fumane Cave proved in february 2018 that the neanderthals were the first Inside front cover photo cave artists before modern humans. the second by nuria sanz, water bird – hohle fels © urmu, director of UnesCo in Mexico and general coor­­­di nator of the Photo: burkert ideenreich heaDs programme, reports on the new initiative for a serial transnational nomination of neanderthal sites as world heritage, for which this network laid the foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • How Did Language Begin?
    How did language begin? Written by Ray Jackendoff What does the question mean? In asking about the origins of human language, we first have to make clear what the question is. The question is not how languages gradually developed over time into the languages of the world today. Rather, it is how the human species developed over time so that we — and not our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobos — became capable of using language. And what an amazing development this was! No other natural communication system is like human language. Human language can express thoughts on an unlimited number of topics (the weather, the war, the past, the future, mathematics, gossip, fairy tales, how to fix the sink...). It can be used not just to convey information, but to solicit information (ques- tions) and to give orders. Unlike any other animal communication system, it contains an expression for negation — what is not the case. Every human lan- guage has a vocabulary of tens of thousands of words, built up from several dozen speech sounds. Speakers can build an unlimited number of phrases and sentences out of words plus a smallish collec- tion of prefixes and suffixes, and the meanings of sentences are built from the meanings of the individ- ual words. What is still more remarkable is that every normal child learns the whole system from hearing others use it. Animal communication systems, in contrast, typically have at most a few dozen distinct calls, and they are used only to communicate immediate issues such as food, danger, threat, or reconciliation.
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Heidelbergensis: the Ot Ol to Our Success Alexander Burkard Virginia Commonwealth University
    Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Auctus: The ourJ nal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Scholarship 2016 Homo heidelbergensis: The oT ol to Our Success Alexander Burkard Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/auctus Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons, and the Biology Commons © The Author(s) Downloaded from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/auctus/47 This Social Sciences is brought to you for free and open access by VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Auctus: The ourJ nal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Scholarship by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Homo heidelbergensis: The Tool to Our Success By Alexander Burkard Homo heidelbergensis, a physiological variant of the species Homo sapien, is an extinct spe- cies that existed in both Europe and parts of Asia from 700,000 years ago to roughly 300,000 years ago (carbon dating). This “subspecies” of Homo sapiens, as it is formally classified, is a direct ancestor of anatomically modern humans, and is understood to have many of the same physiological characteristics as those of anatomically modern humans while still expressing many of the same physiological attributes of Homo erectus, an earlier human ancestor. Since Homo heidelbergensis represents attributes of both species, it has therefore earned the classifica- tion as a subspecies of Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. Homo heidelbergensis, like anatomically modern humans, is the byproduct of millions of years of natural selection and genetic variation. It is understood through current scientific theory that roughly 200,000 years ago (carbon dat- ing), archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus left Africa in pursuit of the small and large animal game that were migrating north into Europe and Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Evolutionary Calendar - Evolution in a Year)I------1 January • December F------{( March ) ( June September
    The Human Evolutionary Calendar - Evolution in a Year)I---------1 January • December f-------{( March ) ( June September SahelanthropusTchadensi Australopithecus sediba Homo rh odes iensis Ardipithecus ramidus 7,000,000 - 6,000,000 yrs. 2,000,000 - , ,750,000 yrs. 300,000 -125,000 yrs. 3,200,000 • 4,300,000 yrs. Homo rudolfensis Orrorin tugenensis 1,900,000 - 1.750,000 yrs. Homo pekin ensi s 6, 100,000 - 5,BOO,Oci:l yrs. 700,000 - 500,000 yrs. Australopit ec us anamensis 4,200,00 - 3,900,000 yrs. Ardipithecus kadabba 5,750,000 - 5,200,000 yrs. Ho m o Ergaster 1,900,000 - 1,3,000,000 yrs. Homo heidelberge nsis 700,000 • 200,000 yrs. Australopithecus afarensis Homo erectus 3,900,000 - 2,900,000 yrs. 1,800,000 • 250,000 yrs. Ho mo antecessor Australopithecus africa nus Ho mo habilis 1,000,000 -700,000 yrs. 3,800,000 - 3,000,000 yrs. 2,350,000 - 1,450,000 yrs. Ho m o g eorgicus Kenya nthropus platyo ps 1,800,000- 1.3000,000 yrs. 3,500,000 - 3,200,000 yrs. Ho m o nea nderthalensis 200,000 · 28,000 yrs. Paranthropus bo ise i Paranthropus aethiopicu 2,275,000- 1,250,000 yrs. De nisova ho minins 2,650,000 - 2,300,000 yrs. 200,000 - 30,000 yrs. Paranthropus robustus/crass iden s Australopithecus garhi 1,750,000- 1,200,000 yrs. 2,750,000 - 2.400,000 yrs. Red Deer Cave Peo ple ?- 11,000yrs. Ho mo sa piens sapien s 200~ Ho m o fl o res iensis 100,000 • 13,000 yrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Deepening Histories and the Deep Past
    12. Lives and Lines Integrating molecular genetics, the ‘origins of modern humans’ and Indigenous knowledge Martin Porr Introduction Within Palaeolithic archaeology and palaeoanthropology a general consensus seems to have formed over the last decades that modern humans – people like us – originated in Africa around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago and subsequently migrated into the remaining parts of the Old and New World to reach Australia by about 50,000 years ago and Patagonia by about 13,000 years ago.1 This view is encapsulated in describing Africa as ‘the cradle of humankind’. This usually refers to the origins of the genus Homo between two and three million years ago, but it is readily extended to the processes leading to the origins of our species Homo sapiens sapiens.2 A narrative is created that consequently imagines the repeated origins of species of human beings in Sub-Saharan Africa and their subsequent colonisation of different parts of the world. In the course of these conquests other human species are replaced, such as the Neanderthals in western and central Eurasia.3 These processes are described with the terms ‘Out-of-Africa I’ (connected to Homo ergaster/erectus around two million years ago) and ‘Out-of-Africa II’ (connected to Homo sapiens sapiens about 100,000 years ago). It is probably fair to say that this description relates to the most widely accepted view of ‘human origins’ both in academia as well as the public sphere.4 Analysis of ancient DNA, historical DNA samples and samples from living human populations molecular genetics increasingly contributes to our understanding of the deep past and generally, and seems to support this ‘standard model of human origins’, beginning with the establishment of the mitochondrial ‘Eve’ hypothesis from the 1980s onwards.5 In 2011 an Australian Indigenous genome was for the first time analysed – a 100-year-old hair sample from the Western Australian 1 Oppenheimer 2004, 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Paranthropus Boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard A
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Biological Sciences Faculty Research Biological Sciences Fall 11-28-2007 Paranthropus boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard A. Wood George Washington University Paul J. Constantino Biological Sciences, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty Part of the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Wood B and Constantino P. Paranthropus boisei: Fifty years of evidence and analysis. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 50:106-132. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Faculty Research by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 50:106–132 (2007) Paranthropus boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard Wood* and Paul Constantino Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052 KEY WORDS Paranthropus; boisei; aethiopicus; human evolution; Africa ABSTRACT Paranthropus boisei is a hominin taxon ers can trace the evolution of metric and nonmetric var- with a distinctive cranial and dental morphology. Its iables across hundreds of thousands of years. This pa- hypodigm has been recovered from sites with good per is a detailed1 review of half a century’s worth of fos- stratigraphic and chronological control, and for some sil evidence and analysis of P. boi se i and traces how morphological regions, such as the mandible and the both its evolutionary history and our understanding of mandibular dentition, the samples are not only rela- its evolutionary history have evolved during the past tively well dated, but they are, by paleontological 50 years.
    [Show full text]