3 ms·

There is the interesting hypothesis that the first people to reach Australia were the Denosovans and African peoples came much later. It would explain a lot of

There is the interesting hypothesis that the first people to reach Australia were the Denosovans and African peoples came much later. It would explain a lot of interesting observations about the peopling of Australia, not least evidence of there being people in Australia before African peoples had left the Middle East and why you can only find significant Denosovan genetic ancestory on the Australasian side of the Wallace line.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Your use of "African" seems confusing here. In particular the line "evidence of there being people in Australia before African peoples had left the Middle East" seems to suggest you think Denosovan people didn't originate in Africa.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Well the Denosovans really originated in East Asia somewhere as their ancestors left Africa a long time ago. We don't really have a good name for the ancient sub-Saharan humans that have contributed most of the genetic background to all living humans. The problem with the peopling of Australia is the time has been push back so far now (80K BCE) that it is before the ancient sub-Saharans really got much further than the Middle East.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  We (sapiens) and perhaps late model erectus are the African species/subspecies of the archaic human group. Denisovans are Asian and neanderthals are European. It's all based on migration theories which are far from certain, currently. The story gets more complex with every find. The morrocan find is a spanner, as it "proves" a wide distribution of sapiens early on. This essentially excludes the idea of a migration out of the horn of Africa 200kya, the original out of Africa theory. Modern variations have gotten bigger. In the Levant neanderthals follow sapiens in the archeological record. The early sapiens are a little more neanderthal looking, especially the brows. This has lead some to a theory that neanderthals evolved from sapiens, and arboreal subspecies. The Australian story is even more confusing. 70kya is before behavioural modernity. But, seagoing boats are unmistakably modern behaviour. If modernity is strongly genetic, did (almost identical evidence) modernity evolve separately in Oz?... A lot of mystery still. We have very few finds.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    You are making a very large assumption about the evolution of modernity in Australia.
    - dalbasal 9y ago
      What assumption? The only assumptions I (well, prominent theories) I make are that (a) people got there 45-70kybp and (b) they achieved behavioral modernity (art, tools etc.) around that time or shortly after.
etiam 9y ago
It's Denisovans, after the discovery site in the Denisova cave.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Interesting autocorrect on my iPad, but yes you are right :)
  - etiam 9y ago
    In some cases better known as the autofail. :) That is a curious change, yes. These things happen, but since people seemed to be following suit I'm glad we cleared that up.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

Your use of "African" seems confusing here. In particular the line "evidence of there being people in Australia before African peoples had left the Middle East" seems to suggest you think Denosovan people didn't originate in Africa.

danieltillett 9y ago
Well the Denosovans really originated in East Asia somewhere as their ancestors left Africa a long time ago. We don't really have a good name for the ancient sub-Saharan humans that have contributed most of the genetic background to all living humans. The problem with the peopling of Australia is the time has been push back so far now (80K BCE) that it is before the ancient sub-Saharans really got much further than the Middle East.
dalbasal 9y ago
We (sapiens) and perhaps late model erectus are the African species/subspecies of the archaic human group. Denisovans are Asian and neanderthals are European. It's all based on migration theories which are far from certain, currently. The story gets more complex with every find. The morrocan find is a spanner, as it "proves" a wide distribution of sapiens early on. This essentially excludes the idea of a migration out of the horn of Africa 200kya, the original out of Africa theory. Modern variations have gotten bigger. In the Levant neanderthals follow sapiens in the archeological record. The early sapiens are a little more neanderthal looking, especially the brows. This has lead some to a theory that neanderthals evolved from sapiens, and arboreal subspecies. The Australian story is even more confusing. 70kya is before behavioural modernity. But, seagoing boats are unmistakably modern behaviour. If modernity is strongly genetic, did (almost identical evidence) modernity evolve separately in Oz?... A lot of mystery still. We have very few finds.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  You are making a very large assumption about the evolution of modernity in Australia.
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    What assumption? The only assumptions I (well, prominent theories) I make are that (a) people got there 45-70kybp and (b) they achieved behavioral modernity (art, tools etc.) around that time or shortly after.

etiam 9y ago

It's Denisovans, after the discovery site in the Denisova cave.

danieltillett 9y ago
Interesting autocorrect on my iPad, but yes you are right :)
- etiam 9y ago
  In some cases better known as the autofail. :) That is a curious change, yes. These things happen, but since people seemed to be following suit I'm glad we cleared that up.