Guide to Patagonia's Monsters & Mysterious beings

I have written a book on this intriguing subject which has just been published.
In this blog I will post excerpts and other interesting texts on this fascinating subject.

Austin Whittall

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

Ancient H. erectus introgression into Denisovans and Neanderthals

A recent paper used statistical tools to look into ancient introgressions in the modern human line. The authors reported in their abastract that "We identify 3% of the Neanderthal genome that is putatively introgressed from ancient humans, and estimate that the gene flow occurred between 200-300kya. We find no convincing evidence that negative selection acted against these regions. Finally, we predict that 1% of the Denisovan genome was introgressed from an unsequenced, but highly diverged, archaic hominin ancestor. About 15% of these “super-archaic” regions—comprising at least about 4Mb—were, in turn, introgressed into modern humans and continue to exist in the genomes of people alive today.".

You can read the full text of the paper here (Hubisz MJ, Williams AL, Siepel A (2020) Mapping gene flow between ancient hominins through demography-aware inference of the ancestral recombination graph. PLoS Genet 16(8): e1008895.

Some higlights:

  • The program they used "calls nearly 0.5% introgression from the Neanderthal into each of the African individuals. These calls are likely explained by a combination of false positives and back-migration into Africa from Europe. However, another possibility is that some regions introgressed into Neanderthals from ancient humans may be assigned the wrong direction". So they did find Neanderthal introgression in Africans but seem to write it off as a fabricaton of the program or false positives, and maybe back-migration.
  • "We identify 1% of the Denisovan genome as introgressed from a super-archaic hominin—roughly double the estimated false positive rate (0.49%) for this event. Our apparent weak power for these events (another group has estimated ∼6% introgression) suggests that the super-archaic divergence may have been somewhat recent (perhaps closer to 1Mya than 1.5Mya). Still, this analysis resulted in 27Mb of sequence that may represent a partial genome sequence from a previously unsequenced archaic hominin. In addition, ARGweaver-D predicted that a small fraction of the Neanderthal genomes is introgressed from a super-archaic hominin (0.75% for Altai and 0.70% for Vindija), an event that has not been previously hypothesized. However, these fractions only slightly exceed the estimated false positive rate (0.65%), so these results are likely dominated by spurious predictions."
    This is indeed interesting. The time frame means surely an introgression from Homo erectus into Denisovans, in Asia. And also a probable admixture of H. erecrtus with Neanderthals!
  • The introgression between the super-archaic into Denisovans was relatively recent: "...suggests that tmig > 225kya for the for the Sup→Den event"
  • "our analysis suggests that at least about 4Mb of modern human genomes derives from an unknown but highly diverged archaic hominin, possibly Homo erectus, through at least two separate introgression events".
  • The authors validate an early admixture of Humans into Neanderthals in Asia some 200 to 300 kya: "Our follow-up analysis based on the frequencies of introgressed elements among the two diploid Neanderthal genomes suggests that the Hum→Nea gene flow occurred roughly between 200 and 300kya, within the limits of accuracy imposed by our assumed demographic model, mutation rates, and generation time. As previously noted, because contact between modern humans and Neanderthals most likely took place in Eurasia, this timeline appears to be inconsistent with a genetic exchange involving the direct ancestors of most present-day Eurasians, who migrated out of Africa ∼50kya. Instead, our timeline suggests an earlier migration, occurring at least 200kya.". Yet they assume (without explaining why) that "These early migrating humans may later have gone extinct, leaving a genetic trace only in introgressed segments in Neanderthals."
  • They "only detected a low rate of Sup→Afr introgression, somewhat below our estimated false positive rate." which is attributed to using a large population size, based on the assumption of their model -Africa as cradle of mankind had the largest population size.
  • On ancient introgressions: "It is plausible that if Homo erectus mixed with the Denisovans, they may have also mixed with Neanderthals, perhaps in the Middle East; or perhaps DNA passed from Homo erectus to Neanderthal through the Denisovans. Altogether, given the number of gene flow events now documented among ancient hominins, it may be reasonable to assume that genetic exchange was likely whenever two groups overlapped in time and space."
  • The authors did not discriminate between Africans and Non-Africans in this study: "When analyzing non-African humans, we only included the “recent” migration bands from Neanderthals and Denisovans into humans, whereas when looking for older introgression events, we excluded the “recent” bands as well as non-African humans. Throughout this paper, all humans are placed in the same population; we do not model divergences within human populations... on this time scale, the European/African split is very recent, so that we did not model the population divergence among modern humans or recent growth in out-of-Africa populations".

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2020 by Austin Whittall © 


  1. Very interesting research (and your remarks too), as further light is shed on what could have happened in Asia/Eurasia in terms of genus Homo evolution at Mid/Mid-Upper Pleistocene ages… a complex scenario of interactions comprising at least three “actors” ; the well known Neanderthals, the enigmatic Denisovans (a “sister lineage” of the former, though clearly differentiated genetically)… and the “omnipresent” H. erectus, the Homo species with the widest geographic and chronological dispersion.
    I speculate that not only these species could have perfectly admixed between each other (Far Eastern transitional species may provide support on this), but also that H. erectus could have had a major role in this interchange of genes…
    What is particularly interesting to me too, is that all this happened in contemporaneous ages with Africa´s evolution (its “own” one, in my tentative opinion) towards its first prototypes of Homo within H. sapiens parameters.
    Needless to say, is that further acknowledge on the degree of relation between these two scenarios (Asia/Eurasia´s and Africa´s) will help to clarify this still diffuse panorama.
    Best regards

  2. Allhough hypothetical, The first Human aka Adam was kicked out of 'Paradise' (which was NOT Africa) into Africa from where the first human migrated towards Sunda-Land (Southeast Asia) and Sahul-Land (Australia, Tasmania + Papua Island).
    In Sunda-Land and Sahul-Land the so-called Homo Erectus (evolved from closely related relatives of the first human / Adam) came into existence (Noah - second Adam?).

    At one point in time Sunda-Land and Sahul-Land flooded because of rising sea-levels (Noah's Flood story?) which caused Homo Erectus (Noah - Second Adam?) to migrate out of Sunda-Land (and out of Sahul-Land?) into Northern Southeast Asia than westwards into South Asia and Asia Minor / Middle-East in the region of Ararat where they mixed with the Neanderthal.
    From the locality of Ararat the mixed Homo Erectus-Neanderthal migrated soutwards into (East-)Africa (INTO Africa hypothesis of at least the offspring of the second Adam which is Noah), westwards into Europe and north(-east)wards through the Caucasus into Eurasia. While Homo Erectus-Neanderthal in Europe stayed more or less unmixed the Eurasian Erectus-Neanderthal mixed with Denisovans and migrated further east into East Asia.
    Eventually Homo Erectus-Neanderthal in Africa evolved into Homo Sapiens and spread out of Africa (about 50-60k years ago) and mixed with Erectus-Neanderthal in Europe and mixed with Erectus-Neanderthal-Denisovan in Eurasia into East Asia and beyond (Oceania and Americas).

    In this scenario it could be that the pre-Homo Sapiens (Erectus?) in Sahul-Land was the actual 'Noah' while his offspring migrated towards the west into the Ararat mountain region.

    Another interesting indirect link to this scenario could come from some so-called Egyptologists / linguists ;mohamed ibrahim and yousef awyan; who translated a name from some disputed hieroglyphs also known as Gosford Glyphs found in Australia as meaning PENU.
    If PENU is actually Pen Nu, could it infact be Ben Nu(a)/Noa/Noah?) or in other words mean 'House of Nu/Nua/Noa/Noah?.
    It would make sense; indigenous people on various islands (and lands/continents?) surrounding Australia are often known by Austronesian speaking people/population as 'Orang Benua', 'Anak Benua', 'Tangata Whenua'; basically meaning people (also children) of the land and possibly meaning people / children of the house of Noah; giving Noah's Flood story (into Ararat?) credibility.
    Further more, there are many similarities in art forms between Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey (southwest off mount Ararat) and Australian Aboriginal art.

    Hope the info is of any help. - Urisahatu -

    Links - Gosford Glyphs Analysis: - Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3

    Links - Gobekli Tepe (Southern Turkey) comparison Australian Aboriginals:


Hits since Sept. 2009:
Copyright © 2009-2018 by Austin Victor Whittall.
Todos los derechos reservados por Austin Whittall para esta edición en idioma español y / o inglés. No se permite la reproducción parcial o total, el almacenamiento, el alquiler, la transmisión o la transformación de este libro, en cualquier forma o por cualquier medio, sea electrónico o mecánico, mediante fotocopias, digitalización u otros métodos, sin el permiso previo y escrito del autor, excepto por un periodista, quien puede tomar cortos pasajes para ser usados en un comentario sobre esta obra para ser publicado en una revista o periódico. Su infracción está penada por las leyes 11.723 y 25.446.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other - except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without prior written permission from the author, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review.

Please read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy before accessing this blog.

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

Patagonian Monsters -