tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post286449802890822492..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Morphometric analysis of Zuttiyeh (Freidline et al. 2012)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80026181749970353302012-08-06T18:34:00.847+03:002012-08-06T18:34:00.847+03:00"It would appear that aspects of modernity ap..."It would appear that aspects of modernity appeared throughout the Old World during the last few hundred thousand years."<br /><br />Am in agreement on this.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-75894976791134398722012-08-06T12:22:19.035+03:002012-08-06T12:22:19.035+03:00"Neanderthals appear to diverge starting some..."Neanderthals appear to diverge starting some time around 350,000 ya and seem to be fully formed by ~150,000 ya - the latter date being closer to the start date in the formation to fully modern human skulls". <br /><br />But Neanderthals became fully formed in Europe, and 'modern humans became fully formed in Africa/Arabia. The dates are basically irrelevant as I would not expect the various geographic varieties of any species to form spontaneously. Besides which the two subspecies (or whatever we may wish to call them) diverged much earlier than the time that either became fully formed. <br /><br />"In fact, if the dating of 200-500ka is correct, that is the most surprising finding: that Zuttiyeh is rather modern". <br /><br />I agree that it is surprising under the conventional view of human evolution, where it is believed that some suddenly superior species was able to rapidly expand considerably at the expense of all closely related species. However it makes complete sense under a gene flow model of human evolution where change toward modernity would be gradual (punctuated equilibrium?). <br /><br />"At any rate, I don't believe in a pan-Old World Heidelbergensis continuum - Denisova tells us otherwise". <br /><br />As doeas common sense. Virtually all widespread species show geographic variation, to some degree at least. Some considerably so. It would be extremely surprising if H. erectus/heidelbergensis did not similarly display geographic variation. <br /><br />"I still believe that Nenaderthals were largely relegated to Europe, with the occasional spill into the Levant and a single very late one all the way to Iran" <br /><br />I agree absolutely. In fact it seems likely that Neanderthal presence even in the Levant is later than the appearance of 'modern' humans there. Of course it is possible that they periodically managed to reach the region during times of cooling climate. <br /><br />"while (fossils unfortunately missing) Heidelbergensis continued in Asia (and erectus in SE Asia)". <br /><br />I very strongly suspect that elements of heidelbergensis (or something similar) made it into SE Asia. H. erectus there seems to move somewhat towards 'modernity' even in that remote region. <br /><br />"I just doubt that after Heidelbergensis, that gene flow made it far away from that area (given anatomic and DNA results, so far)". <br /><br />But mt-DNA and Y-DNA demonstrate huge expansions since heidelbergensis. And I think it very likely that many of us under-estimate ancient humans' mobility.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22928999081810988042012-08-05T11:36:34.449+03:002012-08-05T11:36:34.449+03:00In fact what seems to happen is that Neanderthals ...<i>In fact what seems to happen is that Neanderthals and 'modern' humans are just two of several regional varieties of H. heidelbergensis.</i> <br /><br />Terry,<br /><br />There is a difference in time scales: Neanderthals appear to diverge starting some time around 350,000 ya and seem to be fully formed by ~150,000 ya - the latter date being closer to the start date in the formation to fully modern human skulls. <br /><br />In fact, if the dating of 200-500ka is correct, that is the most surprising finding: that Zuttiyeh is rather modern.<br /><br />At any rate, I don't believe in a pan-Old World Heidelbergensis continuum - Denisova tells us otherwise. I still believe that Nenaderthals were largely relegated to Europe, with the occasional spill into the Levant and a single very late one all the way to Iran, while (fossils unfortunately missing) Heidelbergensis continued in Asia (and erectus in SE Asia). But, yeah, the near East was definitely a good region for mixing, including African groups.<br /><br />I just doubt that after Heidelbergensis, that gene flow made it far away from that area (given anatomic and DNA results, so far).eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66937860980989008732012-08-05T06:45:16.939+03:002012-08-05T06:45:16.939+03:00"It may well appear that late Neandertals wer..."It may well appear that late Neandertals were not diverging away from a modern humans, but rather changing from the ancestral heidelbergensis state in the same way that modern humans are". <br /><br />And: <br /><br />"Zuttiyeh appears linked to Neandertal and transitional H. sapiens. It is unclear where to place it, except to say that it is an archaic-looking human who is in the process of evolving in the same direction that both Neandertals and modern humans did". <br /><br />The most likely explanation for that is that genes were flowing backwards and forwards around much of Eurasia. At no point do we get a sudden change. Parallel evolution is a most unlikely explanation as the regions the species occupied had widely differing ecological conditions. 'Gene flow' is also supported by the following: <br /><br />"There does not appear to be any good evidence in this data that H. heidelbergensis underwent a split that led to modern humans and Neandertals. On the contrary, often younger skulls appear more archaic than older ones, and skulls from the same period/region seem to occupy different positions in the archaic/modern range". <br /><br />In fact what seems to happen is that Neanderthals and 'modern' humans are just two of several regional varieties of H. heidelbergensis. <br /><br />"The simple story of our origins is that our common ancestor H. heidelbergensis split into an African and Eurasian lineage that eventually evolved into H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis, and finally the former replaced the latter, with perhaps a little admixture along the way". <br /><br />I completely agree. <br /><br />"Modern humans appear distinctive, with their closest pre-100ka relatives being the Mt. Carmel hominins from the Levant (Skhul and Qafzeh), as well as, intriguingly, late Near Eastern Neandertals (Amud and Shanidar)" <br /><br />I agree with you that that argues in favour of some level of Eurasian origin for modern humans. And a wide expansion of a particular gene combination at some relatively recent period. <br /><br />"There probably was a long, drawn-out road to us". <br /><br />Yes. No sudden expansion of some vastly superior species that replaced all other closely related species.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68255728683327466902012-08-04T22:50:08.787+03:002012-08-04T22:50:08.787+03:00Dieneke, will you do a model-based clustering anal...Dieneke, will you do a model-based clustering analysis of these skulls (and more) like the ones you did before?Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.com