Remains of nine Neanderthals found in cave south of Rome(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Remains of nine Neanderthals found in cave south of Rome
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/08/remains-of-nine-neanderthals-found-in-cave-south-of-rome
91 comments
The article explains that tartar has been tested - that in this instance is the same thing as calculus https://johnrcarsondds.com/plaque-tartar-calculus-difference...
Can someone who knows more about anthropology explain to me what makes Neanderthals their own species and not just a separate race?
The 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.”
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.”
Modern 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.
> 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/h...
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/h...
For this specific theory involving a massive eruption that blocks the sun for years and staves most of the humans, why would other apes--or really anything else that shares the property of generally eating things from the transitive closure of "runs off sunlight"--not have had the same problem?
Coming back to this after sleeping I am, if anything, even more confused, as I would have expected that, of all the animals, humans would have had the best hope of being the least effected by such a b"light", as we are the smartest, and often most rapidly adaptable (as we can learn new behaviors almost on a dime), species and so, tp the extent to which there were still something to eat, I would have hoped we would have the least amount of population decline...
its more because only a very small subset of humans left Africa and populated the rest of the world.
There is more diversity in sub-saharan Africa than the ret of the world combined.
There is more diversity in sub-saharan Africa than the ret of the world combined.
But neanderthals are found in europe, not africa. Doesn't it go against your argument?
There were very few Neanderthals in Europe who had viable offspring with modern humans compared to the size of the (otherwise quite heterogenous) migration wave coming from Africa - and their DNA was obviously very similar to ours from the beginning. So it makes sense that the net impact on genetic diversity wasn’t very large, even if it is detectable.
So, 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/...
Race is a social construct with a tenuous connection to underlying biology.
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/...
Race is a social construct with a tenuous connection to underlying biology.
> 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.
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.
What 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.
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.
The answer is that species is a fuzzy concept defined a long time ago:
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-neanderthals-same-species...
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Homo-sapiens-and-Neanderthals-...
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Homo-sapiens-and-Neanderthals-...
Stack Exchange Biology is another good Q&A resource that has an answer. https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39664/how-could-...
Very 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.
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.
Race 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
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
No expert, but Neanderthal brain size is reportedly larger than Homoerectus (1400 cm^3 versus < 1200 cm^3).
[deleted]
Because 19th century English majors were masquerading as scientists.
If 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?
Looking at NESPOS, it seems like there have been minor discoveries (mandibles) in 2002:
https://www.nespos.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=29887333
https://www.nespos.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=29887335
> Is there someone who's familiar with archeology who can explain how?
Lack of funding, lack of opportunity, ill-luck, the site might be large as well so if the fossils were not obviously visible it can take a long time to find them, especially as you'd want to be very careful in order to avoid both damaging fossils and damaging (and possibly bringing down) the cave itself.
https://www.nespos.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=29887333
https://www.nespos.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=29887335
> Is there someone who's familiar with archeology who can explain how?
Lack of funding, lack of opportunity, ill-luck, the site might be large as well so if the fossils were not obviously visible it can take a long time to find them, especially as you'd want to be very careful in order to avoid both damaging fossils and damaging (and possibly bringing down) the cave itself.
Fossilization is rare. It's as simple as that.
You 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.
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.
Yes, 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.
There 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.
Cave 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.
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.
Nine 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.
A 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.
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.
Like this one. Wanna see a scared lion? https://youtu.be/a5V6gdu5ih8
I like this video a lot, both because it shows the lion in peril against the pack of hyenas but also because it shows that it only takes one additional lion to change the balance completely. When the second lion shows up around 2:50 the hyenas just disperse and don't even bother fighting.
The first lion seems in a bad shape, though. That being said, the video mentions that he strayed a bit from his family's territory. Which suggests that lions are not that safe alone.
In general, if you read about the savanna, the consensus seems to be lions and hyenas tend to avoid picking fair fights with the other, because both pose a serious danger. And lions very often steal hyena's kills, subverting the image from The Lion King.
Hyenas are very clever social animals and very good hunters. And very dangerous, too.
Hyenas are very clever social animals and very good hunters. And very dangerous, too.
also hyenas can open doors with lever handles. there was one that escaped into the hallways at a university lab while i was there. luckily no one was hurt.
I genuinely thought this was a Lion King reference at first.
I would have have given a kidney to see that.
Some poor university student nearly did.
They might oblige you for one.
it was sedated, but still a danger. not sure how it initially got loose, but it was assumed that it wouldn't be able to leave the room, which quickly was disproven.
that’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.
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.
It’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.
Hyenas eat bones to supplement their calcium and phosphorus intake. Well-fed hyenas without such deficiencies would likely not bother.
They 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.
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.
It took thousands of years to make them nine. The bones are from different periods.
Hyenas are notorious for being assholes
But any carnivorous pack animal is just an Alpha's decision to attack away from being a problem. The scarcer food gets, the more riskier sources they'll pursue.
But any carnivorous pack animal is just an Alpha's decision to attack away from being a problem. The scarcer food gets, the more riskier sources they'll pursue.
If you read the article, you will see that the individuals were dragged into the cave over a span of tens of thousands of years. They were not hunted en-masse.
The 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.
Very cool find, and obviously of scientific value - but this just sounds like cave of death to me.
Discovering I am 4% Neanderthal was one of the strangest days of my life. Thanks 23andMe!
Aren't all Europeans?
All non Sub-Saharan-Africans possess Neanderthal DNA, highest among some East Asian populations.
it’s more like 1.5-2% typically
Every 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-n...
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/everyone-has-n...
23andMe also thanks for your data
"Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
And thank you random citizen, for offering the DNA of yours and your family + decedents to all insurance companies out there.
Naïvely speaking, 23andMe cannot trade your data to anybody...
They obviously cooperate with subpoenas they receive, and I would not ve surprised if a data breach happens at some point
I wonder if there is an anonymous version of the service.
I wonder if there is an anonymous version of the service.
There is absolutely no way an insurance company would risk using stolen genetic data to tweak their premiums.
Would they love to buy the data legally? Of course. But they are not going to buy it off of Russian hackers.
Would they love to buy the data legally? Of course. But they are not going to buy it off of Russian hackers.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-gsk-invested-300-million...
They sell it to drug makers for studies.. and if they sell metadata to this pairing (drug + your id) this is a giveaway for inherited genetic diseases.
They sell it to drug makers for studies.. and if they sell metadata to this pairing (drug + your id) this is a giveaway for inherited genetic diseases.
It's hard for me to be upset at my data helping cure disease and save lives like this.
It's very naive to assume it'll only ever be used for benevolent purposes.
The situation the above commenter was bringing up was that in the near future your genetic information has a good chance of being used by insurance companies pre-judge you, your offspring and your relatives to raise or lower healthcare rates based on information found in that data.
The situation the above commenter was bringing up was that in the near future your genetic information has a good chance of being used by insurance companies pre-judge you, your offspring and your relatives to raise or lower healthcare rates based on information found in that data.
> pre-judge you
If it’s based off accurate genetic data, is it still prejudgment? We already accept that car insurance is higher for young males without getting mad about it.
Using all available data to make a proper risk assessment seems like a reasonable thing to do.
If it’s based off accurate genetic data, is it still prejudgment? We already accept that car insurance is higher for young males without getting mad about it.
Using all available data to make a proper risk assessment seems like a reasonable thing to do.
I see this as an extension of the idea that we should not be the sole bearer of the consequences of burdens that are not our fault. Where is the fairness in my having both a shortened lifespan and the financial devastation of a chronic, terminal illness? There is none.
(This was meant as a reply to a sibling comment but the "reply" button is absent).
(This was meant as a reply to a sibling comment but the "reply" button is absent).
If your genetics predispose you for a shorter life, you can benefit financially by not having to save for retirement.
Genetic predisposition is not a sure thing, so I think most people would still save for retirement, genetics aside. I'm somewhat convinced that I will die young of health complications or social strife in the wake of global warming, but I am still saving for retirement. In any case, I think it is unreasonable to claim that it evens out somehow. It's unfortunate that most people don't learn how strong an advantage it is to be in good health until they aren't anymore.
I was more thinking that you could buy a cheaper pension plan if you're expected to die at 70 rather than 85, on average.
The pension company can handle the uncertainty, since it averages out.
The pension company can handle the uncertainty, since it averages out.
We know my genetic info is being used today in research that cures disease and saves lives.
I sleep well knowing that.
You're saying that there is a "good chance" that some time in the future US insurance companies will illegally use this info to deny people insurance.
I disagree with that probability analysis. Time will tell.
I sleep well knowing that.
You're saying that there is a "good chance" that some time in the future US insurance companies will illegally use this info to deny people insurance.
I disagree with that probability analysis. Time will tell.
Since it has already been brought up... is there a hypothetical way to anonymously submit your data? Say, an alias and using a Visa gift card, perhaps?
Even if there was, you need to be aware that the DNA has much more personal information than your name and surname, there can be multiple Joe Does, but probably just you with your DNA. Also Joe Doe doesn't tell anything about your race, sex, appearance, nor conditions while DNA can. Using the DNA you can be traced even if you submit it anonymously e.g. one of your relatives may upload their DNA which will point to you.
> Also Joe Doe doesn't tell anything about your race, sex, appearance, nor conditions while DNA can.
Strange thing to say. Joe Doe is male, and Anglophone.
Strange thing to say. Joe Doe is male, and Anglophone.
It is illegal for insurance companies to use that data (in the US at least).
No, it's only illegal for health insurance providers to discriminate based on genetic data, but other types of insurers are free to use it. The legislation that makes it illegal also doesn't apply if your employer employs less than 15 people.
The paternalistic lecturing around here is unreal. Grandparent didn't ask for your opinion about 23andme privacy policies, and it's not remotely on topic.
To be fair, you aren’t making the decision just for yourself when you sell your data to 23andme. You’re doing it for all your relatives and descendants too. The GP made the pint flippantly but I think it is worth seriously considering whether business models like that should be allowed.
Nitpicking individuals is not likely to address that problem. And it wasn't even close to the subject of conversation. This is simple common decency. It also happens to be HN guidelines:
Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents
Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents
OP only offered their own DNA, and received a service they desired in return.
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Snap I wonder how closely we are related?
The 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.
Still, amazing find, and a wonderful reminder that there is much to discover in the archaeological record, wherever we go.
LightG(2)
These 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/rm261748787...
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/rm261748787...
The sheep romance dialog is hysterically funny. It was a Roman Catholic priest that was driven by Benigni's character, however.
[0] https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21674