Palaeogeneticists certainly have the bit between their teeth as DNA sequencing methods become faster and more productive and statistical methods of sequence analysis and comparison are made more powerful. Only last month I reported on the two-way breeding unearthed from the data on single-chromosome DNA extracted from Croatian and Spanish Neanderthals, as well as some of the tangible inheritance from Neanderthals found in living non-African people. Now a team of statisticians, anthropologists and genetic sequencers have applied the new approaches to the genomes of over 1500 non-Africans, including 35 living Melanesian people from Papua-New Guinea (Vernot, B. and 16 others 2016. Excavating Neandertal and Denisovan DNA from the genomes of Melanesian individuals. Science, v. 351 doi:10.1126/science.aad9416). Melanesians had previously shown evidence of hybridization with both Neanderthals and Denisovans. The most interesting outcome is that the analyses pointed towards yet more instances of interbreeding between ancestors of modern non-Africans and Neanderthals. Many East Asians have 3 Neanderthals in their family trees, for Europeans and South Asians the score is 2, while Melanesians show descent from one Neanderthal and one Denisovan. Moreover, it emerges that interbreeding episodes were at different times among different populations since anatomically modern humans migrated from Africa, beginning perhaps as long ago as 130 ka and recurring later, after different regional groups of AMH had proceeded on their separate ways.
A second study (Sankararaman, S. et al. 2016. The combined landscape of Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in modern humans. Current Biology, v. 26, p. 1-7) has teased out evidence for Denisovan ancestry among South Asians, their admixture with Melanesians after that group acquired Neanderthal forebears, and significant signs of dwindling fertility among hybrid males.
Early 2016 has been very fertile as regards palaeoanthropology. Katherine Zink and Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University focus on the small teeth of Homo erectus and later humans, wondering if they arose following a major shift in culinary practices (Zink, K.D. & Lieberman, D.E. 2016. Impact of meat and lower Palaeolithic food processing techniques on chewing in humans. Nature, v. 531, p. 500-503). Their work is based on experiments to discover how much chewing is needed to make it possible to swallow different uncooked foodstuffs (assuming that cooking did not arise until after 500 ka). It seems that simply introducing meat to the diet would have reduced mastication by around 13% (2 million chews) per year, with a 15% reduction in applied chewing force. Simply slicing and pounding takes out another 750 thousand annual chews and gives a 12% fall in average biting force. So, here’s a link between tools and human gnashers as well as with development of the hand. Fascinating, perhaps, but every hominin species since 7 Ma old Sahelanthropus tchadensis had far smaller canine teeth than are the norm among non-hominin living and fossil apes. Something else was going on with dentition during our evolution, which may have been a loss of the need for threatening teeth. From ‘Do that again and I’ll bite you’, to ‘Let’s chew this over’…
More on Neanderthals, Denisovans and anatomically modern humans