11 ms·
Remains of nine Neanderthals found in cave south of Rome
- f6v 5y agoIt'd be cool if the dental calculus was preserved. The microbiome sequencing can tell a lot about how people (in a sense that we have some neanderthal DNA) and microbes co-evolved [0]. [0] https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21674 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21674
- ljf 5y agoThe article explains that tartar has been tested - that in this instance is the same thing as calculus https://johnrcarsondds.com/plaque-tartar-calculus-difference/ https://johnrcarsondds.com/plaque-tartar-calculus-difference...
- yhoneycomb 5y agoCan someone who knows more about anthropology explain to me what makes Neanderthals their own species and not just a separate race?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pedrosorio 5y agoThe answer is that species is a fuzzy concept defined a long time ago: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-neanderthals-same-species-as-us.html https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-neanderthals-same-species... https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Homo-sapiens-and-Neanderthals-considered-to-be-separate-species https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Homo-sapiens-and-Neanderthals-...
- daveslash 5y agoStack Exchange Biology is another good Q&A resource that has an answer. https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39664/how-could-humans-have-interbred-with-neanderthals-if-were-a-different-species https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39664/how-could-...
- nicklecompte 5y agoThe short answer is that it is far from a settled question - many people say “Homo sapiens neanderthalis” as the proposed subspecies. The fact that modern humans and Neanderthals crossbred and apparently had viable offspring is strong evidence for this understanding (but not necessarily conclusive; sometimes mules are fertile). That said, Neanderthals rapidly went extinct after modern human contact, and are vastly genetically different from us compared to any two randomly chosen modern humans. They do not appear to have formed especially sophisticated technology or formed any society as complex as a simple tribe. So there are still meaningful biological differences between Neanderthals and modern humans that don’t require the delicate machinery of anthropology to understand. Note: a difficulty here is that “species” is actually a very fuzzy concept, one that Nature itself doesn’t seem to care much about. “Subspecies” is even more vague. Outside of modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) there had been only one other conclusively identified “race”[1] of Homo sapiens, the Homo sapiens idaltu. Perhaps there will be more evidence to put Neanderthals in there as well, but the consensus is that they were a separate but closely-related species. [1] “Race” in the scientific sense as a synonym for subspecies, not the social sense of “ethnic group, but with more negative overtones.”
- fpoling 5y agoModern humans have very low genetic diversity. There are more genetic variations among apes in a single group than among all humans on the whole planet. A typical interpretation of this is that we are descendants of small group of survivors, but whatever the reason the consequences is that the genetic variation between Neanderthals and humans can be in fact within normal variation within single species, we just do not have enough data.
- redis_mlc 5y ago> whatever the reason Both Iceland and Italy have had multiple serious eruptions that could have wrapped around 2 or more winters in Europe and N. Africa, starving almost everybody. I once read that our mitochondria indicates the human population was down to 5,000 at one time. Here's one article mentioning the Toba explosion 70,000 years ago and blocking the sun for 6 years. There's still a Lake Toba: https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/h...
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y agoSo, the root problem here is that species are not defined by crisp barriers, particularly when we're talking about early homonids. So the old elementary school definition of species as reproductive compatibility is just one thing considered today in choosing where to put the line. Other considerations are morphology and genetic drift. By both those measures Neanderthals are different enough to justify being a separate species, though there is some debate. Take a look at this diagram from wiki and you can see that the evolution of humans was not some sort of clean branching tree, but a messy web including substantial horizontal gene transfer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution#/media/File:Homo_sapiens_lineage.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution#/media/... Race is a social construct with a tenuous connection to underlying biology.
- tasogare 5y ago> Race is a social construct with a tenuous connection to underlying biology. Yes, the connection is so tenous that exactly 100% of Japanese people can guess I am a foreigner and ask where I’m from. And this despite clothing in Uniqlo.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y agoWhat I mean by that statement is that the visual traits used to anchor race are a very small number of relatively trivial genes. But more importantly, an accurate historical reading of racial categorization as practiced particularly in the 19th and 20th century in the US reveals that the definition of race isn't even contingent on visible differences. If you go read the writing of our founding fathers you'll find ample examples of how "white" was only applied to Anglo, Norman, Saxon, and similar ethnic groups. Germans, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans... All of these groups were initially considered not white in US history, only to later be assimilated as white in proximate rapid reactions to immigration waves and resulting xenophobia, or similar political/social winds. A similar assimilation is currently emerging with latino Americans. The point is, yes, Japanese folk recognize you as other readily, but that other is based on what are superficial and trivial biological variations in appearance. Japan is pretty infamous for its xenophobia so I'm not quite sure why you'd bring that up as rebuttal of what I'm saying fundamentally, which remains that race is a social construct with a tenuous connection to biology.
- suifbwish 5y agoBecause 19th century English majors were masquerading as scientists.
- Meandering 5y agoRace is a colloquial term that references a subset of a species. The exact definition of race is very fuzzy due to historical, political, and sociological implications. Looking at the taxonomy structure in biology[1], I think Neanderthals should be considered an independent species. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank
- xtiansimon 5y agoNo expert, but Neanderthal brain size is reportedly larger than Homoerectus (1400 cm^3 versus < 1200 cm^3).
- Sylvanius 5y agoVery interesting discussion. The question of the species as a fuzzy concept goes back to Darwin himself: “From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term species, as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms”. Darwin’s statement can be understood today because if you reason in terms of a conceptual discontinuity between species you allow creationists of any kind to imply the intervention of a divinity (something that still happens today); and also: how would you cope with species in statu nascendi? Notwithstanding that, a sharp criterion that consent us to put a sound demarcation is the issue of “genome incompatibility”: once a genetic barrier has been established between the individuals of any two populations, as the (possible) hybrids are not viable or are sterile, we know that it cannot be reversed by natural means, and the genetic pools of those populations will diverge more and more with time. Therefore, they should be considered as separate species. What about Neanderthals and sapiens? It seems that hybridization occurred when the sapiens who invaded Europe some 50,000 years ago encountered the Neanderthals, who had remained separated from the common ancestor for at least 500,000 years (I do not consider this as an established fact, as it is possible, however improbable, that the segments of Neanderthal’s genome we observe in today Europeans are remnants of common ancestry, which have been preserved in Europeans and lost from today Africans by selection or drift). This would be a strong argument in favor of them being a single species. I personally prefer this view also because it helps to support a less “supremacist” view of our biological roots, showing that not only is our species subdivided in phenotypically recognizable populations, but that it was once subdivided in morphologically distinct subspecies.
- briefcomment 5y agoNine Neanderthals were hunted by a pack of Hyenas? Wow, didn't realize Hyenas could be so aggressive, and couldn't be warded off by sticks and maybe fire.
- nicklecompte 5y agoThey could have been ill or mostly elderly - in fact that seems quite probable. And we don’t know much about Neanderthal behavior but they may have been less able to outwit/intimidate hyenas than modern humans. That said, if “pack” means 50 hyenas, 10 humans with primitive spears could quickly run into trouble. In the wild hyena packs can be as large as 100.
- matco11 5y agothat’s not what they say it happened. The human remains accumulated there over time. From the article: > Experts believe the individuals lived in different time periods. Some bones could be as old as 50,000 to 68,000 years, whereas the most ancient remains are believed to be 100,000 years old.
- lostlogin 5y agoIt’s surprising to me how large those bone fragments are. Hyenas crush bone and have spectacularly strong jaws. If that cave was somewhere they lived or rested, I’d have expected any bones to be completely destroyed by chewing, yet the photo doesn’t show that.
- masklinn 5y agoHyenas eat bones to supplement their calcium and phosphorus intake. Well-fed hyenas without such deficiencies would likely not bother.
- the_af 5y agoA misconception about Hyenas is that they are primarily scavengers. They are not -- they are hunters, and pretty aggressive at that. I read more than once that the traditional relationship between lions and hyenas as popular culture has it is actually backwards: hyenas mostly hunt, and lions mostly steal their kills. Also, a single lion (or two) facing a pack of hyenas is in dire peril. Hyenas are clever, strong and dangerous. There are YouTube videos about this.
- LightG 5y agoI don't get it. How did they get to Rome from Florida? And I thought Italy was on the US no-fly covid red list? The plot thickens. Oh come on ... you know you laughed.
- jonnycomputer 5y agoI think there is a rule about humor on HN somewhere. /s
- redis_mlc 5y agoFlorida currently is one of the few US states that represents American traditional values, independence and freedom. Gov. Ron DeSantis will likely be elected US President shortly. So I guess the joke's on you, Marxist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_DeSantis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_DeSantis
- hkt 5y agoThe wording of this title was sufficiently ambiguous that I assumed the Neanderthals had died recently. This changed the story very significantly..! Still, amazing find, and a wonderful reminder that there is much to discover in the archaeological record, wherever we go.
- thedogeye 5y agoDiscovering I am 4% Neanderthal was one of the strangest days of my life. Thanks 23andMe!
- rvense 5y agoAren't all Europeans?
- rantwasp 5y agoit’s more like 1.5-2% typically
- tomjakubowski 5y agoEvery continent has some Neanderthal DNA flowing around. Neanderthals were all over Eurasia, and some of their hybrid descendants moved to Africa. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/everyone-has-neanderthal-dna-in-their-genome-new-genetic-analysis-shows https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/everyone-has-n...
- danans 5y agoAll non Sub-Saharan-Africans possess Neanderthal DNA, highest among some East Asian populations.
- juskrey 5y ago23andMe also thanks for your data
- dang 5y ago"Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- PicassoCTs 5y agoAnd thank you random citizen, for offering the DNA of yours and your family + decedents to all insurance companies out there.
- jonnycomputer 5y agoThese headlines kept popping up an image of a comedy flick in which ... A family of neanderthals vacationing to Rome .. got lost on their tour bus ... driven by Roberto Benigni ... Silly I know. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102536/mediaviewer/rm2617487872/?context=default https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102536/mediaviewer/rm261748787...
- eternalban 5y agoThe sheep romance dialog is hysterically funny. It was a Roman Catholic priest that was driven by Benigni's character, however.
- rmk 5y agoIf the first remains were found in 1939, how was there a gap of 80+ years before further remains were found? Is there someone who's familiar with archeology who can explain how?
- bena 5y agoFossilization is rare. It's as simple as that.
- masklinn 5y agoYou might have misunderstood GP's question: remains were found in this exact cave in 1939, they're wondering why there's such a gap in a cave known to have held fossils. Dozens of remains have been found elsewhere in europe in the meantime. There have been so many such discoveries that the Wikipedia List of Neanderthal fossils doesn't even bother listing them, only a dozen "notable" finds.
- rmk 5y agoYes, I understand that fossilization is rare, but that makes it even more puzzling: you'd want to dig furiously if you did find remains in a confined area.
- bena 5y agoCave systems can be quite large. It could have taken 80 years to get through enough of the cave. And then you have to consider it's a variation of the halting problem. Until you find something, you can't know if you're actually going to find something or nothing. So do you keep digging in this spot or do you move to another spot? So while they already found remains in this cave, the new remains probably weren't in the immediate area. 5 days, 5 years, 50 years, none of those timeframes would be surprising. It all tracks.
- RosanaAnaDana 5y agoThere is a definite policy among some paleontological research groups to intentionally not excavate a site fully, understanding that techniques and technologies will improve with time, and they understand that current methods may limit futures researchers ability to do their work.
- Adomlaramaxa 5y agoUniversity Of Sydney Assignment Help The tutors help clara smith is currently pursuing his PhD at the University of Sydney. she joined Allessay writer a couple of years ago as an expert who offers support to the students who don't know Do My Homework about. See more- <a href="https://www.thetutorshelp.com/university-of-sydney-assignment-help.php">University https://www.thetutorshelp.com/university-of-sydney-assignmen... Of Sydney Assignment Help</a>
- Adomlaramaxa 5y agoGriffith University Assignment Help The tutors help Are you studying at Griffith University and looking for assignment support? It is a leading university and offers students many assignments to help them to better understand and learn. See more- <a href="https://www.thetutorshelp.com/griffith-university-assignment-help.php https://www.thetutorshelp.com/griffith-university-assignment..."> Griffith University Assignment Help</a>
- daveslash 5y agoThe cave is well known as a source of bones of ancient human ancestors, and bones range in age of 50,000 to 100,000 years old, and these particular bones are the result of humans being hunted and killed by hyenas? Very cool find, and obviously of scientific value - but this just sounds like cave of death to me.