Oldest ever human genome sequence may rewrite human history

They look very human to me, just a different race
There bone structure looks identical to modern human, just a different size

Is this just poor dating skills

originally posted by: Raggedyman
They look very human to me, just a different race
There bone structure looks identical to modern human, just a different size

Is this just poor dating skills

Not at all. Perhaps it's just lack of context and poor photo choice for the article. Here is a better representation of crania from Sima de los Huesos-

And this is from Homo Sapiens Sapiens-

In the first photo from Sima de los Huesos, the cranium exhibits morphologies consistent with H. Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal. Particularly so with the occipital bun at the back of the skull, a more prominent supraorbital ridge(but not quite as pronounced as it is in younger Neanderthal from the last 100 KA), no chin, slightly larger eyes than in the HSS and the eyes are wider apart than in the HSS.

The second cranium of the HSS has no supraorbital ridge, a defined chin, lack of occipital bun and eyes that are closer together than in the Sima de los Huesos exemplar.

The Sima exemplar doesn't have enough dentition to compare but if it did, I could demonstrate large differences in the dentition. If you would prefer to compare older Heidelbergensis crania to Neanderthal crania, I'm sure I've got something I can upload for you but I think the differences between Sima exemplars and modern HSS is pretty evident.

a reply to: peter vlar

Yeah, sounds the deal

My issue is that while the skull features are slightly different, the rest of the skeleton looks very human

Even today we have a varied amount of skull differences
as evidence
Sorry its not peered reviewed but you know, you can believe what you like and all that

johnhawks.net...

Here are some traits that vary between skulls with different race backgrounds. Most of them are on the face or palate.
• Shape of the eye orbits, viewed from the front. Africans tend to a more rectangular shape, East Asians more circular, Europeans tend to have an ``aviator glasses'' shape.
• Nasal sill: Europeans tend to have a pronounced angulation dividing the nasal floor from the anterior surface of the maxilla; Africans tend to lack a sharp angulation, Asians tend to be intermediate.
• Nasal bridge: Africans tend to have an arching, ``Quonset hut'' shape, Europeans tend to have high nasal bones with a peaked angle, Asians tend to have low nasal bones with a slight angulation.
• Nasal aperture: Africans tend to have wide nasal apertures, Europeans narrow.
• Subnasal prognathism: Africans tend to have maxillae that project more anteriorly (prognathic) below the nose, Europeans tend to be less projecting.
• Zygomatic form: Asians tend to have anteriorly projecting cheekbones. The border of the frontal process (lateral to the orbit) faces forward. In Europeans and Africans, these face more laterally and the zygomatic recedes more posteriorly.



Of course we know that Neanderthals had a larger brain, better physically capable due to size and assumed strength, yet they disappeared or were just as human as we are now as many believe

www.theguardian.com...

and interbred, with homo sapiens, meaning we were are the same?

news.discovery.com...


different skull shape but!

a reply to: Ghost147

Just wanted to point out that in 2014,

excavators Arsuaga et al reported new dates from a suite of different dating techniques, including Uranium series (U-series) dating of speleothems, thermally transferred optically stimulated luminescence (TT-OSL) and post-infrared stimulated luminescence (pIR-IR) dating of sedimentary quartz and feldspar grains, electron spin resonance (ESR) dating of sedimentary quartz, combined ESR/U-series dating of fossil teeth, paleomagnetic analysis of sediments, and biostratigraphy. Dates from most of these techniques clustered around 430,000 years ago.

This gives a little more credence than just using DNA to establish a molecular clock and that the individual methodologies support a date of roughly 430 KA.

a reply to: Raggedyman
Of course it looks human it is.
Although we are all "humans", Neanderthal and AMH have very different skeletons other just differnt shaped skulls.
First the larger HSN brain is due to the enlarged visual processing area to handle the low light conditions that larger eyes evolved to exploit.
HSN's shoulder was built differently from AMH, they could not throw overhand. The way their hips and lower legs are constructed meant they were good walkers but not so good runners, while AMH is built to run.
These two particlar physical traits are illustrated by HSN in their hunting habbits. They tended to larger slower animals compared to AMH, rabbits are all but missing from HSN sites, they are hard to hunt if you cant run or throw, while rabbits are prominent in any habitat that has them at AMH sites.

One of the best things about this grouping of spanish sites, is that they cover so much time you can see the evolution of the skull and face from HA through the Homo heidlburgensis /sima homonins and finally on to HSN.

a reply to: 727Sky

So, they have degraded samples and only looked at a tenth of a percent, but there is a huge breakthrough? Maybe I am missing something......or maybe this is much ado about nothing.

a reply to: peter vlar

Do you have a citation that indicates where you derived the 1150 cc cranial capacity for Denisovans? I'm calling Bull on this as the entire physical remains of Denisovans can fit in the palm of my hand at a couple of phalanges and a couple of teeth.

ha, didnt know that actually..

Likewise for the chimpanzee cranial capacity as they range from 320cc to 480 cc giving them an average of 400 cc.

I found the range from 110CC to 500CC, does seem like a big difference when i look at it..

Instead, they were domesticated at lower latitudes and then bred with indigenous Taimyr Wolves as Human populations moved North.

And now you put a how, and not a why.. So im gonna try to elaborate this, if food source is rare.. Ill change it, why do you think there is a problem with building a cultural society in warmer countries?
And now ill put the other context in, why do you need to domesticate wolves in lower latitudes? Cause it doesnt fill a purpose, the domestication always followed with a why, not a how.. Same goes for the human domestication...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Yeah, sounds the deal

My issue is that while the skull features are slightly different, the rest of the skeleton looks very human

Cranial morphology is a bit beyond "slightly different" between these exemplars and HSS. Certainly, there is variation in morphology amongst all HSS but compared to the Sima de los Huesos remains, the differences are very contrasting and well outside the averages for HSS As for the post cranial anatomy, I can only find other copies of the picture associated with the OP and this other one that gives a better view of the pelvis-

Both the angle and density of the iliac crest is a Neanderthal trait and not seen in AMH, EEH or HSS. The talus, Navicular bone and metatarsals are also significantly larger and more dense than what you will find in HSS/AMH/EEH. Another tell tale indicator of Neanderthal is the shoulder which due to the density of the post cranial skeleton and their shorter stature, lacked backwards displacement which prohibited them from throwing overhand very well. The Femurs as well as Tibia and Fibula in the skeleton from the OP are also shorter, wider and more dense. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything but this is pretty clearly an Archaic Neanderthal or possibly what was the common ancestor of the Neanderthal we are more familiar with from 300 KA until 30-40 KA and Denisovans. We have no way to know for sure just yet because all we have of Denisovans are teeth and phalanges.


To someone who hasn't taken the time to study every detail of the entire genus, the post cranial skeleton will look pretty similar for the most part.As I note above, Neanderthals are shorter and more densely boned than we are. H. Erectus for example, was actually better suited to bipedalism and would have had fewer back problems than we do today and could walk and run farther than we can. There are definitely differences between the post cranial remains of every member of our genus though.

Even today we have a varied amount of skull differences
as evidence
Sorry its not peered reviewed but you know, you can believe what you like and all that

johnhawks.net...

Here are some traits that vary between skulls with different race backgrounds. Most of them are on the face or palate.
• Shape of the eye orbits, viewed from the front. Africans tend to a more rectangular shape, East Asians more circular, Europeans tend to have an ``aviator glasses'' shape.
• Nasal sill: Europeans tend to have a pronounced angulation dividing the nasal floor from the anterior surface of the maxilla; Africans tend to lack a sharp angulation, Asians tend to be intermediate.
• Nasal bridge: Africans tend to have an arching, ``Quonset hut'' shape, Europeans tend to have high nasal bones with a peaked angle, Asians tend to have low nasal bones with a slight angulation.
• Nasal aperture: Africans tend to have wide nasal apertures, Europeans narrow.
• Subnasal prognathism: Africans tend to have maxillae that project more anteriorly (prognathic) below the nose, Europeans tend to be less projecting.
• Zygomatic form: Asians tend to have anteriorly projecting cheekbones. The border of the frontal process (lateral to the orbit) faces forward. In Europeans and Africans, these face more laterally and the zygomatic recedes more posteriorly.

I wouldn't worry about the blog being peer reviewed, John Hawkes is widely respected in Anthropology and has published many peer reviewed papers from which he draws from. With that said, all of the cranial morphology as depicted by Hawkes is spot on but also well within what we would refer to as the averages for the species. There will be overlap between the varying "races" and it isn't always that cut and dry. Compare any of the above and none of them match up with Neanderthal.

Of course we know that Neanderthals had a larger brain, better physically capable due to size and assumed strength, yet they disappeared or were just as human as we are now as many believe

While their brains were slightly larger on average, their brains were organized differently. Their visual cortex was considerably larger than ours is and they had larger eyes as well and could see better in dimmer light conditions. That benefit also had drawbacks as they had decreased room for areas related to social cognition. This means that while they did live in familial groups of up to 20 or so individuals, their ability to cooperate on a large scale was less than that of HSS. They were TOO specialized for Ice Age Europe and colder climates. This is why aside from the Northern edge of Morocco at Gibraltar, no Neanderthal ever made their way into Africa and only made it to the Levant and Iraq during particularly cold period to which they were well suited. One other thing to note, there is a direct correlation between body mass and cranial capacity. Neanderthal may have been shorter but they had more mass than we do. One of my first projects was taking measurements of attachment point scars on long bones and I can assure you, they were much stronger and had much larger builds than we do.

www.theguardian.com...

and interbred, with homo sapiens, meaning we were are the same?
news.discovery.com...

It means we are all of the same genus and closely related. Neanderthal, Denisovan and HSS all trace their origins to Heidelbergensis which finds its own origins in H. Erectus. None of that means that the remains from Sima de los Huesos are a corollary for simile with Homo Sapiens Sapiens. All of the people living today are the products if 100's of millennia of admixture between nearly every contemporaneous member of our genus. They also had admixture events with Denisovan, as did we as well as another mystery hominid for which no physical remains have been located as yet.

different skull shape but!

And also genetically distinct. This goes well beyond morphology.

a reply to: Tsuro

the why is to guard against other large predators. Domesticated wolves would provide an earlier warning of impending predation.

a reply to: peter vlar

Im gonna bet on that Animals avoided humans more likely than the other way around.. Only specie that attacks humans are reptiles, mammals runs.. Or defend themselves..

And you could point out the large animals, 35kya in the southern latitudes.. The way you domesticate anything is by giving it food..

Why would people move north during the ice age??

I know you know a lot about the specie.. But doesnt it seem illogical to you..?

a reply to: Tsuro

There weren't glaciers or ice sheets in Easter Siberia. It was much more temperate 40 KA. Glaciers and large ice sheets were relegated to Europe and North America. People lived in permanent settlements on Beringia for thousands of years and it had a mild climate with lush flora and fauna. Herds of megafauna migrated back and forth from North America to the Siberian side and it was like living in a hunter gatherers supermarket.

There were plenty of predators who liked eating humans. In fact, there are a number of bones from the Sima de los Hueros site that show signs of being chewed on. Smilodon is just one example but there were any number of predators like cave bears, creodonts, raptors, hyenas, lions, other groups of humans. Meat is meat.

a reply to: peter vlar

Honest question; HS always hunt in pack, can you see anyone of the above the reason for domestication of wolves..

Dog trait; tracking.. Its not more difficult.. Do you see a wolf being able to protect themselves from a pack of humans with spears?

Its a symbiotic relationship, which developed into a mans best friend..

Humans arent adapted for hunting without tools, wolves are..

a reply to: Tsuro

I'm not saying that they weren't eventually trained to aid in hunting. What better tool to have on hand to drive a herd or a mammoth into a kill box than humans and canines cooperating? But you don't go from 0 to 60 overnight. Domestication of a wild animal is a lengthy process over many, many generations. If the canines don't think of themselves as part of your pack, they're going to be aggressive towards you. Maintaining a semi domesticated canine at a perimeter or entrance to an encampment is going to be easier to accomplish sooner than teaching the canines to cooperate with their handlers. Let's be honest though, there's no way to know for certain and it's all highly speculative. All we can say with great certainty is that we definitely tamed wolves of a species that do not exist anymore and we have a rough timeframe and location based on genetic analysis. Hopefully more finds will enable us to piece it together and obtain more specific answers to an age old question.

a reply to: punkinworks10

What?
Am I to take your word on that?

The skeletons look identical, what makes you say they cant throw overhand, evidence???
Hunting rabbits is about trapping, cut the rabbit crap out, throw stones or arrows.
nonsense. HSN, Big Brain, invent an arrow or spear, tie a trap, catching a rabbit isn't rocket science.

All you have offered is assumption and baseless wild statements

Hips and legs could mean they were old people, not young.
Where do you get this stuff from.

a reply to: peter vlar

Well thanks for disagreeing and then agreeing or whatever.

The skulls are different, but so is comparing a childs skull to an elderly human skull, one is very different from the other.

We are all human, I agree, these so called earlier species are just as human as you and I

Genetically distinct, yeah sure, kinda like how a human is genetically distinct from a pig, you know, that unbalanced argument we can all throw out there to make things sound how we want it to baffle with bulldust and not science

www.abc.net.au...

Childish

a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh please, the only thing childish is your willful ignorance and out of hand dismissal of anything that doesn't include your myopic worldview. Show what's wrong with the science involved if you're able to. Again, since you don't seem to be able to read, it's far more than cranial morphology that differentiates the remains. For the record, a second year Anthropology major can distinguish between an adult cranium and a child's cranium. They're not different. The skull from Sima de Los Hueros, as well as the entire post cranial anatomy is markedly different than that of a Homo Sapiens Sapiens. You simply have no interest in anything other than remaining ignorant. You haven't disputed the science with anything resembling a cogent thought in any single thread you've participated in. If you believe the results of this site are incorrect, please with all your vast knowledge demonstrate what the errors are. We are more different than these archaic people than a Siberian Husky is from a Taimyn Wolf, their closest extent relation.

a reply to: peter vlar

I hint the biggest secret; wolves eat meat, kinda hard domesticating them with berries and bananas

a reply to: peter vlar

Funny watching the myopic world view that science is best, ESPECIALLY when it proves itself wrong.

It is indeed just as hilarious as any religious tack.

And equally useless.

originally posted by: Tsuro
a reply to: peter vlar

I hint the biggest secret; wolves eat meat, kinda hard domesticating them with berries and bananas

Around here they domesticate, Elephants, Monkeys, water buffalo, and just about any critter you can think of. The secret is to get them young, feed them, and cohabitation.. There was a nat geo a few years ago about a guy who went and became part of a modern day wolf pack.

It isn't rocket science and those who think it is a problem to domesticate wild animals need to leave the library or computer and go see the world. Just one of several stories about living with wolves.

youtu.be...


Around here 7 year old ride, water and feed water buffaloes.. Monkeys are not so much pets as they once were...but... we have a few golf courses where the little buggers will steal anything on a golf cart... Let them have whatever unless you can scare them away for their teeth are about 3 inches long and they know how to use them..

a reply to: 727Sky

The easiest way to domesticate anything, including HS, is to feed them and a full belly of food will shut down major parts of reptilian parts of the brain.. Im pretty sure the wolves on a empty belly would kill and eat him..
How do you domesticate grass eater, oh, its often with violence, barbed wire, electric field, whip.. A carnivore will always go to the hand that feeds it..

If i can make humans eat meat, well they do actually, if i can make a HS eat of nature, roots, plants, whatever you like.. Im pretty sure id get a peaceful relationship... success
In the colder climate, well you eat meat for survival or did..

Now im gonna go get me a hamburger