PDA

View Full Version : DNA from Ancient Human in Romania shows Recent Neanderthal Ancestry



Jean M
05-09-2015, 09:46 AM
https://www.genomeweb.com/genetic-research/team-characterizing-dna-ancient-human-recent-neanderthal-ancestry


An international team has discovered recent Neanderthal ancestry in an ancient jaw sample from a modern human who lived in present-day Romania roughly 37,000 to 42,000 years ago, attendees heard at the Biology of Genomes meeting.

The finding clashes with the notion that most mixing between modern humans and Neanderthals occurred in the Middle East shortly after humans migrated out of Africa, explained Qiaomei Fu, a researcher affiliated with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Harvard Medical School. Fu presented the work during a session on evolutionary and non-human genomics here today.

Instead, genetic patterns in the ancient human hint at the potential of admixture between modern humans and Neanderthals in Europe that may have persisted until not long before Neanderthals disappeared from the continent some 40,000 years ago....

In this case, she and her colleagues focused on DNA from a mandible found at the Pestera cu Oase site in Romania..

In particular, Fu said, roughly half of the Oase 1 individual's chromosome 12 sequence coincided with Neanderthals rather than modern humans. Based on the SNP patterns detected in the sample, the researchers estimated that the individual had a Neanderthal ancestor within the past four to six generations, pointing to later-than-anticipated admixture between Neanderthals and the modern human population to which Oase 1 belonged...

Meanwhile, comparisons between genetic variants in Oase 1 and those in present-day populations or previously sequenced ancient samples suggested that the ancient individual from Romania belonged to a population that ... resembled both European and Asian populations... it appears to have been far removed from agricultural populations in Europe and does not appear to have contributed much genetically to present-day human populations.

The team is continuing to tease apart patterns from genetic profiles in the sample, including genotyping ... the Oase 1 individual's Y chromosome....

alan
05-09-2015, 10:40 AM
More evidence of beer googles in early man

alan
05-09-2015, 10:41 AM
More evidence of beer googles in early man

Or maybe hallucinogenic mushroom googles as beer didnt exist

Coldmountains
05-09-2015, 01:08 PM
Is it really proven that Humans mixed with Neanderthals? Where is Neanderthal Y-DNA or mtdna ? I still think that the the so called Neanderthal admixture is just showing some archaic genetic similarities between proto-Eurasians and Neanderthals/proto-Neanderthals but not actual admixture after migration out of africa. Archaic humans often score quite high in "archaic and primitive" components like oceanian, sub-Saharan or south asian so maybe higher Neanderthal admixture among archaic humans is rather showing incomplete differentiation and "evolution" and not real Neanderthal ancestry

Generalissimo
05-09-2015, 02:30 PM
Ust'-Ishim is estimated to have less Neanderthal ancestry than present-day East Asians, but in longer chunks. So whatever this is, it isn't a signal of a lack of differentiation.

Anyway, I'm just waiting for Parasar to come along and claim that Oase 1 was a "Basal European" like Stuttgart.

Kale
05-09-2015, 06:46 PM
I'm going to guess right now and say...
MtDNA: R*
YDna: F*

D-stats...
Chimp;African - Oase;Anybody....will be significantly positive
African;UstIshim - Oase;ENF...will be insignificant
African;Oase - WHG;Han...will be borderline significantly negative
African;Oase - K14;Han...a little more negative than above
African;Oase - WHG;Papuan...will be insignificant

jeanL
05-09-2015, 07:12 PM
This seems to prove that mixture with Neanderthals happen more than once and in regional areas. There appears to have been a homogenizing factor in Europeans though. The data is scant, but we see people such as Oetzi with higher Neanderthal. Also, the fact that both Ust-Ishim and K14 had presumed admixture that dated to the same timeframe while Oase-1 has relatively recent admixture goes to show that the admixture is indeed very real and not the by-product of archaic shared structure.

Krefter
05-09-2015, 07:29 PM
In the article (https://www.genomeweb.com/genetic-research/team-characterizing-dna-ancient-human-recent-neanderthal-ancestry) they say Oase-1 was "....already somehow European", but distant from Neolithic Europeans. Obviously he of the Crown Eurasian branch, and related or ancestral to the "West Eurasian" branch. It seems people are missing this. He doesn't appear to be like Ush_ist but more like K14.

Krefter
05-09-2015, 07:32 PM
Oase-1's Y DNA will certainly come out CF. My guess is C, IJ, or P1.

Megalophias
05-09-2015, 08:12 PM
Is it really proven that Humans mixed with Neanderthals? Where is Neanderthal Y-DNA or mtdna ? I still think that the the so called Neanderthal admixture is just showing some archaic genetic similarities between proto-Eurasians and Neanderthals/proto-Neanderthals but not actual admixture after migration out of africa. Archaic humans often score quite high in "archaic and primitive" components like oceanian, sub-Saharan or south asian so maybe higher Neanderthal admixture among archaic humans is rather showing incomplete differentiation and "evolution" and not real Neanderthal ancestry

This explanation has been rejected by almost everyone, although Eriksson and Manica seem to be plugging away at it.

"The date of interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans" - http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2238
"Ancient structure in Africa unlikely to explain Neanderthal and non-African genetic similarity" - http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/04/18/molbev.mss117.short
Criticized in "The Doubly Conditioned Frequency Spectrum Does Not Distinguish between Ancient Popuation Structure and Hybridization"- http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/6/1618.abstract
"Neandertal Admixture in Eurasia Confirmed by Maximum-Likelihood Analysis of Three Genomes" - http://www.genetics.org/content/196/4/1241.abstract

Patterns of linkage disequilibrium and differential selection strongly support admixture over ancestral population structure.

As for surviving archaic uniparental lineages, well, how many modern human lineages survive from back then? Assuming the main episode of admixture happened not long before the Upper Paleolithic, as seems likely, we have C, D, F, and possibly E from Eurasia. I don't know how many mtDNA, but probably not very many. So it would be very easy for any archaic lineages to just be lost to drift - assuming there was no selective pressure against them, which there may well have been.

It is possible that Lake Mungo 3 from Australia was carrying archaic mtDNA, though unfortunately that study was done so long ago that the results are questionable.

R.Rocca
05-09-2015, 11:08 PM
Is it really proven that Humans mixed with Neanderthals? Where is Neanderthal Y-DNA or mtdna ? I still think that the the so called Neanderthal admixture is just showing some archaic genetic similarities between proto-Eurasians and Neanderthals/proto-Neanderthals but not actual admixture after migration out of africa. Archaic humans often score quite high in "archaic and primitive" components like oceanian, sub-Saharan or south asian so maybe higher Neanderthal admixture among archaic humans is rather showing incomplete differentiation and "evolution" and not real Neanderthal ancestry

Studies have already come out and shown several Neanderthal mtDNA lineages, and they are not human.

tamilgangster
05-09-2015, 11:12 PM
Is it really proven that Humans mixed with Neanderthals? Where is Neanderthal Y-DNA or mtdna ? I still think that the the so called Neanderthal admixture is just showing some archaic genetic similarities between proto-Eurasians and Neanderthals/proto-Neanderthals but not actual admixture after migration out of africa. Archaic humans often score quite high in "archaic and primitive" components like oceanian, sub-Saharan or south asian so maybe higher Neanderthal admixture among archaic humans is rather showing incomplete differentiation and "evolution" and not real Neanderthal ancestry

Khoisan. Pygmies, Ist ushim etc have very low levels if any of archaic hominid ancestry and lack neanderthal admixture. It still exists though in higher ratios among Northern europeans and among East asians.

tamilgangster
05-09-2015, 11:13 PM
In the article (https://www.genomeweb.com/genetic-research/team-characterizing-dna-ancient-human-recent-neanderthal-ancestry) they say Oase-1 was "....already somehow European", but distant from Neolithic Europeans. Obviously he of the Crown Eurasian branch, and related or ancestral to the "West Eurasian" branch. It seems people are missing this. He doesn't appear to be like Ush_ist but more like K14.

He was most likely WHG type and is possibly related to Ust Ishim type which was one of the first migrations into europe

tamilgangster
05-09-2015, 11:20 PM
This seems to prove that mixture with Neanderthals happen more than once and in regional areas. There appears to have been a homogenizing factor in Europeans though. The data is scant, but we see people such as Oetzi with higher Neanderthal. Also, the fact that both Ust-Ishim and K14 had presumed admixture that dated to the same timeframe while Oase-1 has relatively recent admixture goes to show that the admixture is indeed very real and not the by-product of archaic shared structure.

THe idea that the only time humans mixed with neanderthals when the original OOA left africa is bullshit. Because Higher levels of neanderthal admixture has been found among Norther Europeans and even East asians than among basal eurasians. Also due to DNA testing being fairly new and the shortage of archaic hominid DNA samples, much of the proto hominid admixture has not been detected yet. It is very likely that many human population mixed with neanderthals, denisovans and other protohomonids much more and possibly contribute alot towards our DNA

GailT
05-09-2015, 11:29 PM
In particular, Fu said, roughly half of the Oase 1 individual's chromosome 12 sequence coincided with Neanderthals rather than modern humans. Based on the SNP patterns detected in the sample, the researchers estimated that the individual had a Neanderthal ancestor within the past four to six generations


There is a small possibility this individual might have either y-DNA or mtDNA Neandertal ancestry, 1/8 to 1/32 if the 4-6 generations estimate is correct (and assuming there was no decrease in fitness associated with Neandertal Y or mtDNA),

It is also possible that there were human-Neandertal hybrids who were part of populations who died out and thus did not contribute DNA to modern populations. If that is the case, it is possible that surviving Neandertal DNA in modern populations is attributed to a 50k admixture event while DNA from subsequent admixture events was lost.

J Man
05-09-2015, 11:40 PM
Khoisan. Pygmies, Ist ushim etc have very low levels if any of archaic hominid ancestry and lack neanderthal admixture. It still exists though in higher ratios among Northern europeans and among East asians.

It is very likely that the Pygmies have some archaic human ancestry. Actually most SSA groups probably do.It is African archaic human ancestry though which is very different from Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry.

Krefter
05-09-2015, 11:41 PM
Studies have already come out and shown several Neanderthal mtDNA lineages, and they are not human.

No way? Where?

Krefter
05-09-2015, 11:43 PM
It is very likely that the Pygmies have some archaic human ancestry. Actually most SSA groups probably do.It is African archaic human ancestry though which is very different from Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry.

All humans today trace back to a maternal ancestor the archaic mtDNA sequences we have don't. Although Africa has so many extremely basal lineages, how do we know some aren't from groups who contributed little autosomally, and therefore can be considered archaic.

yxc
05-10-2015, 12:06 AM
researchers estimated that Neanderthal's mtdna from 40-29kya diverged 425kya or so from the pre-L.

I say WHG is not earlier than Magdalenian

Megalophias
05-10-2015, 12:37 AM
Khoisan. Pygmies, Ist ushim etc have very low levels if any of archaic hominid ancestry and lack neanderthal admixture. It still exists though in higher ratios among Northern europeans and among East asians.

Ust Ishim has Neanderthal mixture at normal Eurasian level.

J Man
05-10-2015, 02:07 AM
All humans today trace back to a maternal ancestor the archaic mtDNA sequences we have don't. Although Africa has so many extremely basal lineages, how do we know some aren't from groups who contributed little autosomally, and therefore can be considered archaic.

SSA peoples likely have inherited some autosomal DNA from archaic African humans.

parasar
05-10-2015, 04:10 AM
Ust Ishim has Neanderthal mixture at normal Eurasian level.


Khoisan. Pygmies, Ist ushim etc have very low levels if any of archaic hominid ancestry and lack neanderthal admixture. It still exists though in higher ratios among Northern europeans and among East asians.

I would go further than Megalophias and say Ush-Ishim is beyond (length wise) the norm for Eurasians, and well beyond basal Eurasian heavy populations.

tamilgangster
05-10-2015, 06:05 AM
It is very likely that the Pygmies have some archaic human ancestry. Actually most SSA groups probably do.It is African archaic human ancestry though which is very different from Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry.

Pygmies based on modern day genetic testing have no reported admixture from neanderthals or other archaic homonids. There was a basal eurasian back migration into africa, leaving traces of neanderthal DNA, but Pygmies were not affected by this back migration

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/neandertal-admixture-in-africans-a-back-migration-confirmed/

yxc
05-10-2015, 09:57 AM
I was wrong ! Neanderthal dna was only partially revealed from three different sites in western part of Europe alone , another from Mezmaiskaya cave on northern slopes of Caucasus mountain range was occasionally reported as just 29 ka and its dna was reportedly more compatible to a currently existing form of Neandertal Intogression N.I. in a paper from 20134556

R.Rocca
05-10-2015, 01:00 PM
No way? Where?

See the bottom of the mtDNA tree where Neanderthal and Denisova mtDNA form their own hominin branches...

Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/fig_tab/nature08976_F3.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/images/nature08976-f3.2.jpg

J Man
05-10-2015, 02:32 PM
Pygmies based on modern day genetic testing have no reported admixture from neanderthals or other archaic homonids. There was a basal eurasian back migration into africa, leaving traces of neanderthal DNA, but Pygmies were not affected by this back migration

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/neandertal-admixture-in-africans-a-back-migration-confirmed/

Right but they still likely have archaic human admixture but it is of a different variety. It comes from African archaic humans that were different genetically compared to the Neanderthals.

Kale
05-10-2015, 03:04 PM
Pygmies based on modern day genetic testing have no reported admixture from neanderthals or other archaic homonids. There was a basal eurasian back migration into africa, leaving traces of neanderthal DNA, but Pygmies were not affected by this back migration

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/neandertal-admixture-in-africans-a-back-migration-confirmed/

"contemporary African populations contain a small proportion of genetic material (≈2%) that introgressed ≈35 kya from an archaic population that split from the ancestors of anatomically modern humans ≈700 kya."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3174671/

Eurasians are ~2% Neanderthal, so unless Africans are 100% Eurasian...There is some archaic admixture specific to modern Africans.

parasar
05-11-2015, 08:02 PM
Ust'-Ishim is estimated to have less Neanderthal ancestry than present-day East Asians, but in longer chunks. So whatever this is, it isn't a signal of a lack of differentiation.

Anyway, I'm just waiting for Parasar to come along and claim that Oase 1 was a "Basal European" like Stuttgart.

Impossible, IMO - Oase 1 is very distant from the Neolithics. I think that the basal portion lacked Neanderthal admixture, but we also know that the Icemen had good chunks of Neanderthal.

parasar
05-11-2015, 08:09 PM
This explanation has been rejected by almost everyone, although Eriksson and Manica seem to be plugging away at it.

...
Oase 1 may finally confirm as he could have a Neanderthal Y or mtDNA line as "roughly half of the Oase 1 individual's chromosome 12 sequence coincided with Neanderthals" and "has unilateral mandibular foramen lingular bridging, an apparently derived Neandertal feature." http://www.pnas.org/content/100/20/11231.full

Passa
05-11-2015, 09:00 PM
Oase 1 may finally confirm as he could have a Neanderthal Y or mtDNA line as "roughly half of the Oase 1 individual's chromosome 12 sequence coincided with Neanderthals" and "has unilateral mandibular foramen lingular bridging, an apparently derived Neandertal feature." http://www.pnas.org/content/100/20/11231.full

4562 Oase 1 does not have a Neanderthal Y chromosome

parasar
05-11-2015, 09:30 PM
4562 Oase 1 does not have a Neanderthal Y chromosome
Maybe I am reading incorrectly, but "modern human Y does not have identified neandertal" could be referring to known modern human Y lineages, but your read may be correct.
All the comments are not about Oase 1 eg - "1-4% geneflow from Neandertal to modern human (not present in African humans)"

parasar
05-12-2015, 02:18 PM
Team Characterizing DNA from Ancient Human with Recent Neanderthal Ancestry (https://www.genomeweb.com/genetic-research/team-characterizing-dna-ancient-human-recent-neanderthal-ancestry):

So now we have EMH with Neanderthal characteristics:
Manot 1 in southern Levant at 54.7k years BP
Oase 1 in SE Europe at 39.5k years BP.
Ust-Ishim in middle Siberia at 45k years BP.

Each of these could be entirely separate admixture events.

In the Manot 1 paper it was noted - "the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations."

But now we know that Oase 1 has to be separate based on the closeness of the admixture date.

But it is entirely possible that Ust-Ishim's admixture is not related to Manot 1's but happened in the Altai. Longer segments in Ust-Ishim too give that indication.

Under the simplifying assumption that the gene flow occurred as a single event, and assuming a generation time of 29 years, we estimate that the admixture between the ancestors of the Ust’-Ishim individual and Neanderthals occurred approximately 50,000 to 60,000 years BP, which is close to the time of the major expansion of modern humans out of Africa and the Middle East. How-ever, we also note that the presence of some longer fragments (Fig. 5) may indicate that additional admixture occurred even later.

Kale
05-12-2015, 05:29 PM
I think any introgression dated to "50,000-60,000 years BP" is almost certainly going to be extraneous to the initial Middle Eastern mixture...that's when we see expansion in almost every direction...and it seems to be Neanderthal were in each and every one of those directions (Europe, Caucasus, Central Asia...maybe even South enough in Central Asia to hitch up with the future peoples of India)

Jean M
05-13-2015, 05:05 PM
To add to the debate: More mystery about Neanderthal and modern humans: How reliable is ancient DNA analysis?
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/05/12/more-mystery-about-neanderthal-and-humans-how-reliable-is-ancient-dna-analysis/


To be perfectly clear, Paabo and his colleagues did not really sequence “the whole Neandertal genome” in precisely the same sense that the whole genome of a person living today can be sequenced and analyzed. As soon as any organism dies, its DNA begins to break down and decay as the nucleotide bonds fall apart. Chemical reactions with water in the ground accelerate the decay. After examining such factors, Danish and Australian researchers reported in 2012 that DNA has a half-life of only 521 years.

Thus, the analysis of ancient, partially decayed, and fragmentary DNA inevitably includes making certain assumptions and decisions about missing and degraded pieces, in order to fill in the gaps as best as possible. Some decisions about assembling Neanderthal sequences are based on sophisticated algorithms involving the use of modern human and chimpanzee genomes as guides. Further challenges are presented by the need to filter out contamination by modern DNA, such as from the researchers who handled the bones or from microorganisms that lived within or among the buried bones.

These challenges and complexities raise the possibility of the inadvertent introduction of errors in the sequencing process—even when all precautions are taken by highly professional researchers. These issues also open up any obtained data to different interpretations and to possible limitations in the application of the data.

Nevertheless, these analytical limitations have not prevented some media outlets from reporting each latest find as if it is clearly definitive and absolutely conclusive. This can give the public faulty impressions of the findings. ....

The current “consensus” among anthropologists is that there was some degree of inbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans. This consensus is largely based on Paabo’s research findings about DNA sequencing, which always receive a great deal of media coverage. However, even with this general agreement, much remains uncertain regarding the timing and other details of possible inbreeding....

According to a model developed by Cambridge evolutionary ecologists Andrea Manica and Anders Eriksson, “There was an ancestor of both Neanderthal and modern humans—some archaeologists would call that Homo heidelbergensis—that would have covered Africa and Europe about half a million years ago.”

In other words, just because some people today apparently share certain segments of DNA with extinct Neanderthals, that does not necessarily mean that interbreeding occurred. Yes, it is perfectly legitimate for different researchers to interpret scientific data differently—especially when the application of the technology involved in the research is relatively new.

Kale
05-13-2015, 05:22 PM
In other words, just because some people today apparently share certain segments of DNA with extinct Neanderthals, that does not necessarily mean that interbreeding occurred.

Well, that is a reasonable idea to consider...but I don't think it will be once Oase1's data is released.

Jean M
05-13-2015, 06:19 PM
Well, that is a reasonable idea to consider...but I don't think it will be once Oase1's data is released.

It is on its way: http://www.nature.com/news/early-european-may-have-had-neanderthal-great-great-grandparent-1.17534



Early European may have had Neanderthal great-great-grandparent: Genome of 40,000-year-old jaw from Romania suggests humans interbred with Neanderthals in Europe.

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).

Kale
05-15-2015, 05:37 PM
Just for anyone who is interesting. I'm almost positive Oase1 is the skull they did that questionable George Foreman like reconstruction of.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CE4BGW3UgAAV89N.jpg

Krefter
05-15-2015, 06:18 PM
Just for anyone who is interesting. I'm almost positive Oase1 is the skull they did that questionable George Foreman like reconstruction of.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CE4BGW3UgAAV89N.jpg

It's weird that he and K14 don't have the Caucasoid facial features yet are largely ancestral(or cousins of their ancestors) to Europeans and some extent West Asians. I wonder how for example Norweigans and Bedouin could share some of the same facial features, yet one being like 80% WHG/ANE and the other mostly basal Eurasian. Maybe it has more to do with ENF and or selection of traits.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8d/89/f7/8d89f76be87d3d6b9ca63bc884cdd24f.jpghttp://www.kharlanov.info/images/photos/thumb-img_45_2009.jpg

Jean M
05-15-2015, 06:30 PM
Just for anyone who is interesting. I'm almost positive Oase1 is the skull they did that questionable George Foreman like reconstruction of.

Yes it is. It is by forensic facial reconstruction artist Richard Neave.

Kale
05-15-2015, 07:19 PM
It's weird that he and K14 don't have the Caucasoid facial features yet are largely ancestral(or cousins of their ancestors) to Europeans and some extent West Asians. I wonder how for example Norweigans and Bedouin could share some of the same facial features, yet one being like 80% WHG/ANE and the other mostly basal Eurasian. Maybe it has more to do with ENF and or selection of traits.

Well to be fair, they got a bit carried away in that particular reconstruction. Here's the skull from which that reconstruction was based.
http://donsmaps.com/images8/oaseskullsingle.jpg

...To me the skull looks like a rather undifferentiated sort of Caucasian. Somewhat rectangular orbitals, moderately cheek and nose width, prominent nasal bones, slight midfacial projection, minimal prognathism, etc. ...Given the right pigmentation and hairform, the individual wouldn't look terribly exotic in Europe or the Middle East.

R.Rocca
05-15-2015, 10:52 PM
Just for anyone who is interesting. I'm almost positive Oase1 is the skull they did that questionable George Foreman like reconstruction of.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CE4BGW3UgAAV89N.jpg

Looks like a burn victim that has several layers of skin missing.

Jean M
05-16-2015, 12:33 PM
What we really need is a full genome from an early Homo sapiens from Africa. We may get it. See http://www.sahra.org.za/sahris/sites/default/files/additionaldocs/Die%20Kelders%20Proposal%20final.pdf

Proposal to Sample Middle Stone Age Animal and Homo sapiens Specimens from Die Kelders Cave 1, Western Cape Province, South Africa, for Ancient DNA


The MSA deposits of Die Kelders Cave 1 (DK1), which date to between 70-60 kya, have produced 29 hominin specimens.... We propose to re-sample one hominin specimen (molar tooth root) and to sample two additional hominin specimens (two premolar roots) for ancient DNA.

Kale
05-16-2015, 01:15 PM
^ Now that is something I want to see. Ancient stuff from Europe is nice and all, but let's mix it up a bit shall we?

Passa
05-29-2015, 04:59 AM
The DNA of the famous Hofmeyr skull is also being analysed https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=tfFnVff-BMasUZnugbgN&url=http://www.sahra.org.za/sahris/sites/default/files/additionaldocs/Grine_Proposal_Hofmeyr_DNA.pdf&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHYYFKg1ihtkSahhFpcUBdwzFQ_BA&sig2=BYl67R8iklGZn9fCJUn7Lw

Kale
05-29-2015, 12:56 PM
The DNA of the famous Hofmeyr skull is also being analysed https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=tfFnVff-BMasUZnugbgN&url=http://www.sahra.org.za/sahris/sites/default/files/additionaldocs/Grine_Proposal_Hofmeyr_DNA.pdf&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHYYFKg1ihtkSahhFpcUBdwzFQ_BA&sig2=BYl67R8iklGZn9fCJUn7Lw

Well, the proposal said they would be taking samples last summer...so if there isn't any new info, then I doubt it's going to happen (at least for now).

Sangarius
05-29-2015, 01:59 PM
Well, the proposal said they would be taking samples last summer...so if there isn't any new info, then I doubt it's going to happen (at least for now).

I posted about the sampling of the Hofmeyr skull earlier this year on another forum and had found the following article, which states that they did take a sample last summer:


THE world-famous 36000-year-old Hofmeyr skull, kept under lock and key at the East London Museum and which supports the “Out of Africa” theory that all modern humans originated in Africa, underwent a delicate operation yesterday.

Clad in a surgical mask and gloves and brandishing a small electric drill, the world’s leading expert on the skull, Professor Fred Grine, of New York’s Stony Brook University, carefully sliced the ancient cranium, as bone dust billowed all about him.

The extraordinary procedure was observed by eagle-eyed East London Museum scientist Kevin Cole who, along with the museum board, had given Grine the green light to perform it.

The carefully bagged slivers of skull are destined for Copenhagen where intricate DNA tests will be performed.

...
http://www.heraldlive.co.za/famous-skull-sliced-in-the-name-of-science/

Kale
05-29-2015, 03:01 PM
Awesome, hopefully we'll see something about it soon then. Would they publish anything if they failed to retrieve DNA? Or if the testing was cancelled? It's been almost a year, results should be here if not right around the corner right?

Passa
06-14-2015, 04:59 PM
A better reconstruction of Oase


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wIXCiYCiiw&feature=youtu.be