Using hominin introgression to trace modern human dispersals

Teixeira, João C.; Cooper, Alan

doi:10.1073/pnas.1904824116

Cited by 28 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cooper & Stringer ; Jacobs et al . ; Teixeira & Cooper ), there is so far no serious challenge to the proposition that the colonisation of Sahul was only achieved by Homo sapiens and never by archaic humans. However a radical extension of this time frame, perhaps to 80+ ka on the published Madjedbebe evidence, would call this view into question (but see critical assessment of Madjedbebe claims in O'Connell et al .…”

Section: Historical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…). Recent genetic analyses indicate the presence of at least three archaic groups in these populations – Denisovans and two less well‐known entities labeled EH (extinct hominins) 1 and 2 (Teixeira & Cooper ). Resource competition with incoming AMH seems likely and if AMH populations were larger, their technologies more complex and their subsistence economies more broadly based, as the available evidence suggests, then rapid displacement of the indigenous archaics would have been inevitable.…”

Section: Genomic Data Demand the Attention Of Archaeologistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resource competition with incoming AMH seems likely and if AMH populations were larger, their technologies more complex and their subsistence economies more broadly based, as the available evidence suggests, then rapid displacement of the indigenous archaics would have been inevitable. Genetic data suggest it was accompanied by significant archaic‐AMH introgression: evidence of interbreeding between AMH, Denisovans, EH1 and to a lesser extent EH2 is present in modern human genomes throughout Wallacea, New Guinea and Australia (Teixeira & Cooper : fig. 2).…”

Section: Genomic Data Demand the Attention Of Archaeologistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A different paradigm for the initial colonisation of Sahul

Allen

O’Connell

2020

Archaeology in Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The questions of when and how humans reached Sahul, the Pleistocene continent of Australia and New Guinea, has remained a central issue of Australian archaeology since its development as an academic discipline in the mid-twentieth century. Modelling this event has persistently appealed to minimal assumptions -the simplest watercraft, the shortest routes, the smallest viable colonising groups. This paper argues that Australian archaeology can no longer ignore the way our understanding of this initial colonisation is being reshaped by current genomic research. It reviews this evidence and concludes that a colonising wave of hundreds or perhaps low thousands of people was involved. If correct, it suggests that we need to rethink our models, modify or discard the minimalist assumptions that have so far driven them and consider how this different paradigm affects our understanding of early settlement in Sahul. RÉSUMÉ La question de savoir quand et comment les hommes ont atteint Sahul, le continent pléistocène regroupant l'Australie et laNouvelle-Guinée, persiste comme une problématique centrale de l'archéologie australienne depuis son essor en tant que discipline universitaire au milieu du vingtième siècle. La modélisation de cetévénement s'est appuyée de façon récurrente sur des présupposés minimalistes, impliquant les moyens de navigation les plus simples, les routes les plus courtes, les groupes de colonisation viable les plus restreints. Ce papier soutient que l'archéologie australienne ne peut plus ignorer combien notre compréhension de ce peuplement initial se trouve aujourd'hui redéfinie par la recherche génomique en cours. Il passe en revue les données et conclue que plusieurs centaines ou quelques milliers de personnes ont participéà cette vague de peuplement. Si cette hypothèse est correcte, elle implique que nous repensions nos modèles, que nous modifiions ou abandonnions les présupposés minimalistes qui ont jusqu'à présent défini ceux-ci et que nous analysions comment ce nouveau paradigme influence notre compréhension du premier peuplement de Sahul.

show abstract

Section: Historical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Genomic Data Demand the Attention Of Archaeologistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Genomic Data Demand the Attention Of Archaeologistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A different paradigm for the initial colonisation of Sahul

Allen

O’Connell

2020

Archaeology in Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Present-day populations living in ISEA, New Guinea and Australia harbour significant genetic ancestry from Denisovans, a sister lineage to Neanderthals, for which the fossil record remains scarce and mostly limited to the eponymous cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia 12,13 , along with a >160,000-year-old mandible found in the Tibetan Plateau 14 . Despite this geographically circumscribed record, the spatial and genetic patterns of Denisovan admixture in modern human populations point to several independent events of AMH-Denisovan interbreeding occurring during the migratory movements that brought AMH through ISEA into Sahul (the former continental landmass that connected New Guinea with Australia up to 8ka) [15][16][17] . These events may have involved different Denisovan populations living in ISEA, including the Philippines 18 , New Guinea 16 and, potentially, Flores 17,19 .…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite this geographically circumscribed record, the spatial and genetic patterns of Denisovan admixture in modern human populations point to several independent events of AMH-Denisovan interbreeding occurring during the migratory movements that brought AMH through ISEA into Sahul (the former continental landmass that connected New Guinea with Australia up to 8ka) [15][16][17] . These events may have involved different Denisovan populations living in ISEA, including the Philippines 18 , New Guinea 16 and, potentially, Flores 17,19 .…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introgression, hominin dispersal and megafaunal survival in Late Pleistocene Island Southeast Asia

Teixeira

Jacobs

Stringer

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hominin fossil record of Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) indicates that at least two endemic ‘super-archaic’ species – Homo luzonensis and H. floresiensis – were present around the time anatomically modern humans (AMH) arrived in the region >50,000 years ago. Contemporary human populations carry signals consistent with interbreeding events with Denisovans in ISEA – a species that is thought to be more closely related to AMH than the super-archaic endemic ISEA hominins. To query this disparity between fossil and genetic evidence, we performed a comprehensive search for super-archaic introgression in >400 modern human genomes. Our results corroborate widespread Denisovan ancestry in ISEA populations but fail to detect any super-archaic admixture signals. By highlighting local megafaunal survival east of the Wallace Line as a potential signature of deep, pre-H. sapiens hominin-faunal interaction, we propose that this understudied region may hold the key to unlocking significant chapters in Denisovan prehistory.

show abstract

Morphology, evolution, and the whole organism imperative: Why evolutionary questions need multi‐trait evolutionary quantitative genetics

Auerbach

Savell

Agosto

2023

American Journal of Biological Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since Washburn's New Physical Anthropology, researchers have sought to understand the complexities of morphological evolution among anatomical regions in human and non‐human primates. Researchers continue, however, to preferentially use comparative and functional approaches to examine complex traits, but these methods cannot address questions about evolutionary process and often conflate function with fitness. Moreover, researchers also tend to examine anatomical elements in isolation, which implicitly assumes independent evolution among different body regions. In this paper, we argue that questions asked in primate evolution are best examined using multiple anatomical regions subjected to model‐bound methods built from an understanding of evolutionary quantitative genetics. A nascent but expanding number of studies over the last two decades use this approach, examining morphological integration, evolvability, and selection modeling. To help readers learn how to use these methods, we review fundamentals of evolutionary processes within a quantitative genetic framework, explore the importance of neutral evolutionary theory, and explain the basics of evolutionary quantitative genetics, namely the calculation of evolutionary potential for multiple traits in response to selection. Leveraging these methods, we demonstrate their use to understand non‐independence in possible evolutionary responses across the limbs, limb girdles, and basicranium of humans. Our results show that model‐bound quantitative genetic methods can reveal unexpected genetic covariances among traits that create a novel but measurable understanding of evolutionary complexity among multiple traits. We advocate for evolutionary quantitative genetic methods to be a standard whenever appropriate to keep studies of primate morphological evolution relevant for the next seventy years and beyond.

show abstract

Using hominin introgression to trace modern human dispersals

Cited by 28 publications

References 49 publications

A different paradigm for the initial colonisation of Sahul

A different paradigm for the initial colonisation of Sahul

Introgression, hominin dispersal and megafaunal survival in Late Pleistocene Island Southeast Asia

Morphology, evolution, and the whole organism imperative: Why evolutionary questions need multi‐trait evolutionary quantitative genetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About