Translate

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


Showing posts with label M haplogroup. Show all posts
Showing posts with label M haplogroup. Show all posts

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Loss of Amerindian genetic diversity post 1492


In a reply to a comment posted by a reader yesterday, I ratified my belief that the impact of the contact between Europeans and Native Americans was devastating for the latter. I have posted about this in the past:


"These studies overlook a unique situation which did not occur in other parts of the Old World: European discovery and conquest after 1492 AD provoked a massive eradication of native populations. This decreased the Amerindian gene pools dramatically (to between 33% and 4% of their original sizes). Over 80 M people died due to war and, mostly, microbia (measles, influenza, smallpox). Selective pressure acted to favor those better equipped to face the new environment.
It was this combination of disease and war-caused bottleneck plus natural selection that distorted the pre-Hispanic gene-frequency distribution obliterating genetic lineages, and obscuring ancestral frequency patterns. The pre-Hispanic genetic map of America was different and may have been much richer (i.e. similar to that of Asia or Austronesia). Studies that analyze gene frequencies in the New World do not seem to bear this in mind"


Of course, I never actually did some deeper research into the matter or looked into its genetic implications from a solid scientific point of view, although in other posts I have mentioned time and time again that the real bottleneck in Amerindian popultions took place after the discovery of America, and that it wiped out complete lineages.


Today's post will substantiate my claims that the diseases and war between natives and European conquerors led to a vast loss of genetic diversity in the Americas.


Massive death toll


Here in Argentina, during our school days they teach us about the Pre-Hispanic period in detail. We learn about the native cultures of Argentina and the Peruvian and Mesoamerican civilizations. We are later taught about Columbus and his voyages of discovery and the later conquest of America by Cortez, Pizarro, Valdivia and similar individuals. We learn about the Colonial institutions, the Viceroyalties, and the political and social aspects of colonial life. The gory details of death and the atrocities of conquest and subjugation are not mentioned.


But those students eager to read more about this period learn about the wars that took place between Spaniards and natives between 1492 and 1810. The use of cavalry, gunpowder, fire arms and war dogs gave the Spaniards a great advantage over the native troops who ony had bows and arrows, darts, spears and maces to fight the Europeans.


To make matters worse, the Spanish were aided by disease (flu and smallpox) which ran wild among the natives, decimating them.


Contemporary engraving of smallpox among Mexican Natives in the XVth century.

The image above shows native Mexicans infected with smallpox, an Old World disease for which Americans had no immunity. The image is from the Florentine Codex prepared by a Franciscan friar, Bernardo de Sahagún during the 1500s. Its original title was "La Historia Universal de las Cosas de Nueva España", that is: "the Universal History of the Things of New Spain" (Mexico).


A little known fact is that Hern´ Cortez defeatied the Mexican Aztecs at their capital city of Tenochtitlan in 1520 while the natives were dying by the thousands, infected with smallpox they had caught from the Spaniards!


The Spanish knew the devastating effects of smallpox on the Indians. It had destroyed the natives in the Caribbean islands during the first phases of discovery. For instance the epidemic of 1518 in the Caribbean was terrible: "There occurred an epidemic of smallpox so virulent that it left Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Jamaica and cuba desolated of Indians" [3]. This actually was the reason that slaves were brought from Africa to work in the fields, there were no more natives available: The local Taino aboriginals declined from over 1 million to less than 1,000 individuals by 1550.


War against the Aztec or Inca was, however quite limited. The other native societies offered more resistance. The Maya had no central government which if taken would lead to a total surrender as happened in Mexico or Peru. They had to be taken a village at a time. They were subdued by 1697.


Even minor civilizations were problematic: for instance, the Mapuche in Chile. They engaged the Spaniards and, in 1536, just after they arrived, torching the recently founded town of Santiago (which nowadays is the capital city of Chile). The Spaniards held firmly on and pushed the Mapuche south, into the Chilean Lake District. War raged on for years but the Spaniards managed to settle the Lake District in the 1560s, after defeating the native chief Caupolicán (1558) and impaling him.


The Araucanian or Arauco wars simmered on and the towns of Villarica, Osorno, Angol, La Imperial, were razed in 1598. The Spanish government retreated north and consolidated their frontier along the Bío Bío River. Native raids and uprisings led to a negotiation in the mid 1640s which concluded in an uneasy truce that lasted from 1665 to the 1860s.


arauco war
War with the Mapuches. Ancient engraving [1].

In northwestern Argentina, the Kakán natives or Diaguita that lived in the fertile river valleys of the Andean foothills resisted Spanish occupation for over a century: the "Calchaquí Wars".


The area nowadays is a tourist attraction traversed by Argentina's National Highway Ruta 40, with cacti, arid mountains towering over 6,000 m (19,700 ft.) and the highest vineyards in the whole world, but the hundreds of "antigales" or ruins of native villages attest to a violent past.


Among the ruins is the settlement of the Kilmes or Quilmes natives. They lived by the Calchaqui River valley in Tucuman province, Argentina and firmly resisted the Spanish invaders. They held out in their mountain fortress against the Spaniards for decades during the Calchaqui Wars (1560 - 1666) but were defeated in an unexpected mid-winter raid in which the Spanish were aided by a traitorous group of neighboring natives.


Their village was destroyed, and the natives were transplanted en masse to Buenos Aires and forced to walk there (1,200 km or 746 mi.). Hundreds died on the way. They were "reducido" (restrained) in what is now a suburb of Buenos Aires, that adopted their name: the town of Quilmes. Finally, in 1812 the remaining three descendants of the Kilmes were set free.


The Kakan or Diaguita language is lost, nobody speaks it, it survives in place names recorded by the Spaniards in the 1500s, but the meaning is mostly unknown.


Other regions were left untouched by Spanish troops, but the European disease reached them (Amazon, Chacoans, Patagonian natives).


The European presence weakened the locals in many ways: the domestic animals that they introduced brought new diseases with them that infected the natives (tapeworm for instance). The natives were forced to leave their traditional villages and were gathered in other more densely and unhealthy towns built by the Spaniards. Lack of hygene and overcrowding soon promoted the spread of diseases (cholera and TB). Even the quality of the food intake fell. Less animal protein and more carbohydrates were ingested by the natives. Children were undernourished and tooth decay increased.


American Colonies and British bio-warfare in the 1700s


Even the North American colonies used terrible weapons against the natives. The English Commander officer during the French and Indian War (1754-1763), Lord Jeffrey Amherst, considered the natives' lives worthless and believed that they should be exterminated. He arranged for blankets infected with smallpox be sent to the natives to spread disease among them [2]. He was a pioneer in bio-warfare, using lethal (for the Indians) germs as a weapon.


After the Independence wars, the young American nations advanced their frontiers and soon the whole continent was under the control of Western people. I will not delve in the US opening the West or the Chaco and Patagonian wars of Argentina and Chile. Those were military campaigns with clear goals, and they did not intend to deliberately destroy civilians, only subdue them to the central governments.


Post-Colonial Genocide 1850 - 1900

Devastation continued once the colonial period had finished. The well intended Anglican Missionaries in Tierra del Fuego set out to civilize the Yamana (or Yaghan) canoe people living there. The natives had managed to adapt to the harsh Fuegian environment for over 6,000 years, but the American and European whalers of the mid 1800s wiped out the sea mammals that they hunted. Starvation began the process of extinction.


Mingling with the whalers put these formerly isolated natives in contact with tuberculosis, smallpox, tifus, whooping cough and measles. From a population of over 3,000 in 1850, the natives which had gathered at the Mission in Ushuaia (known by the natives as "welapatux-waia" or "Bay of death"), dropped dramatically. By 1900 their culture had vanished. By 1995 only 74 persons state that they have a Yamana ancestry.


The consequences from a genetic perspective


The dreadful impact of discovery and conquest can be imagined just by looking at the death toll: "the American Indians were at least seventy million or maybe more when the foreigners showed up on the horizon. One and a half centuries later, they were reduced to only three and half million". [4]


That is one incredibly big bottleneck: only 1 out of 20 natives survived. This means that 95% of the genetic diversity of America died out. Perhaps the real figure is not 95% (below we will see a paper mentioning a 50% drop) [7], but still, it is clear that what is left today is just a pale shadow of the diversity that once existed in America.


Death and decreasing diversity

Disease and War cause extreme reduction in population sizes and this impacts noticeably on its genetic diversity [6]. In Europe, the Black Death or plague in 1347-1351 caused a very high death toll (between 30 and 50% of the population died) [5], and the effects of this disease-caused bottleneck are even visible in the current genetic diversity of Britons: [5]


A paper [5] shows a dramatic decrease in Diversity as measured by haplotypes ⁄ sampled individuals:


  • 0.84: Saxon Britain
  • 0.75: Ancient Britain
  • 0.45: Modern England

In other words currently 53% (0.45⁄0.84) of the former genetic diversity survives, 47% was lost.


See Table 1 in [5] for a full set of data showing a considerable drop in genetic diversity. The finding surprised the authors: "Based on the assumption that modern England is more cosmopolitan, higher geneitc diversity in the ancient sample was unexpected" [5]. And the reason for this was the bottleneck caused by the Black Death and the Great Plague of 1665 - 1666 (which wiped out 20% of the population of London).


The paper's comments regarding the impact of a disease on diversity are also valid for America, though we can imagine an even more drastic effect among the Amerindians due to the severity of their bottleneck:


"Because most human haplotypes are rare, lineages could have been forced to extinction even without a severe population bottleneck (millions remained). This is especially true if related families were lost when whole villages perished (either through shared susceptibility or environment). Furthermore, during the plagues some families were apparently more resistant than others, which could have led to high variance in the number of daughters surviving among different families and a consequent loss of mtDNA diversity at the population level. [5]


The upheaval caused by disease also favored some haplotypes more than others: an ancient haploytpe known as the Cambridge reference sequence (CRS) was found at 6.3% frequencies in the ancients but subsequently grew to almost 22% among modern Britons. [5]


A Native American study


So if this is what a mere 33 - 50% reduction in population caused in Europe, imagine Amerindians, whose population fell by 50 - 95%!


A very interesting paper by Brendan D. O'Fallon and Lars Fehren-Schmitz, (2011) [7] addresses the genetic impact of European contact in Native Americans. They are more cautious in their population decrease figures, but even so the value they estimate is very high: "Native Americans suffered a significant, although transient, contraction in population size some 500 y before the present, during which female effective size was reduced by ~50%" from the maximum it had reached about 5 ky BP. [7]


The authors compared ancient (3,000 BC to 1,200 C.E.) mtDNA and modern samples from North and South America to study how the population bottleneck impacted on diversity. They found that it "affected haplogroups C and D disproportionately" (D1 was hit worse than C or A2, B2 and X2a), and that "the depopulation was not localized to particular regions or communities, and instead, was likely to have been widespread... [and] had an especially severe impact on the most populous regions." [7]


Figure 4. in the paper, shown below clearly marks the "lost" haplotypes: "blue" in South America, "red" in North America, while gray represents the extant lineages.


lost genetic diversity Amerindian

It is interesting to see that most of the "lost" branches don't have any descent today they simply disappeared (it is not the case of a four pronged fork where 3 prongs died but one survived, in these lineages all prongs went extinct9.


The ancient samples they used came from 16 sites which is quite a lot, but they originated in only three geographic locations: SW Ontario, Canada; Fulton County, Illinois US and Palpa, Peru. Imagine if more locations from across America are added, will new haplogroups be found? I believe so.


For instance, take haplogroup M, which has not been found in any contemporary Native American group but has been reported at least twice in ancient remains (see my post on Ancient migrants into America with Hg M) and another recent study (Carpenter et al., 212) [8] which found mtDNA belonging halpogroup in pre-Columbian Chachapoyan and Chachapoya-Inca remains dated at 1,000 and 1,500 AD. They came from the Laguna de ls Cóndores site in Peru.


So, having said this and looking at the tree above I imagine that much more diversity was much more ample than we can imagine and that haplogroups other than M may have also existed in America and got lost in the discovery debacle.


Sources


[1] From Gerónimo de Bibar Crónica y relación copiosa y verdadera de los reynos de Chile
[2] Lord Jeffrey1 Amherst's letters discussing germ warfare against American Indians. www.nativeweb.org.
[3] Oviedo y Valdes G. F. (1851-1855), Historia General y Natuarl de las Indias..., Vol 1. 105.
[4] Bernardo Veksler, Una Visión Crítica de la conquista de America [5] A.L Töpf, M.T.P Gilbert, R.C Fleischer and A.R Hoelzel, (2007). Ancient human mtDNA genotypes from England reveal lost variation over the last millennium. Biol Lett. Oct 22, 2007; 3(5): 550–553. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0269
[6] Montgomery Slatkin, (2004). A Population-Genetic Test of Founder Effects and Implications for Ashkenazi Jewish Diseases. Am J Hum Genet. Aug 2004; 75(2): 282–293. doi: 10.1086/423146
[7] Brendan D. O'Fallon and Lars Fehren-Schmitz, (2011). Native Americans experienced a strong population bottleneck coincident with European contact. Pnas 20444–20448, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1112563108
[8] Meredith L. Carpenter, et al., (2013). Pulling out the 1%: Whole-Genome Capture for the Targeted Enrichment of Ancient DNA Sequencing Libraries. Am J Hum Genet. Nov 7, 2013; 93(5): 852–864. Table S1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.10.002



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2014 by Austin Whittall © 

Monday, June 16, 2014

The first people to leave Africa and genes


This is the first post of a series which will deal with a possible archaic origin of the Y chromosome C haplogroup in humans. The idea surfaced in my mind while looking at the migratory route purportedly taken by modern humans when they left their homeland in Africa some 60 to 70 kya. After crossing the Bab-El-Mandeb Strait at the southern tip of the Red Sea, they stuck to a coastal route and advanced into Asia along the shores of Southern Arabia. After crossing the Persian Gulf at the Strait of Hormuz, the old a group carrying the C haplogroup in their Y chromosomes took a Southeastern direction, towards South Asia, other groups went North and East. mtDNA haplogroup M also split at Hormuz from N, and took exactly the same Southern path towards South East Asia.


I recalled that Homo erectus had inhabited this part of the world and wondered if there was a link between these apparently disconnected events.


I prepared a map (below), showing this migratory route where the initial OOA episode is the blue arrow and the C haplogroup dispersal is shown in red arrows. The yellow shaded regions are those where C hg is currently found:


Map showing current range (yellow) and dispersal route of C haplogroup (Y chromosome)
The Homo erectus territory is in green

Copyright © 2014 by Austin Whittall

Occam's razor to seek simple answers


The simplest explanation is this: humans are intelligent beings that follow corridors offering food, water and shelter. It is very likely that H. erectus took this coastal route because it offered all three elements and thus guaranteed survival. The modern humans that followed them 1.5 My later had the same needs and would have taken the same route if it continued to provide a competitive advantage.


So, it is not a coincidence but a logical series of factors that caused H. sapiens carrying haplogroups M (mtDNA) and C (Y chromosome) to follow the same path as H. erectus did one and a half million years earlier.


But there could be an alternative explanation to these coinciding dispersal routes: H. erectus carried the M and C haplogroups with them as they migrated along this route... and this post (and some others to follow) is the outcome. Yes, I must explain why I believe that these haplogroups even existed 1.5 Mya and were to be found in non-sapiens hominins...


The first to leave Africa


That our oldest ancestors evolved in Africa is not questioned (and it will not be questioned here either) because there is ample proof of ancient remains dating back several million years. The Australopithecines are undoubtably our most primitive relatives, and we evolved from them and their descent.


The appearance of an intelligent mind soon led to the manfacture of stone tools and the urge to discover new horizons beyond their original homeland. The existence of appropriate ecological setting and adequate resources to sustain them, enabled our hominin ancestors to move out of Africa and into Eurasia roughly 2 Mya.


The formerly accepted picture was that Homo habilis and their predecessors were too small and primitive to cope with the complexities of migrating out of Africa. Their Mode 1 flake and core stone tools (Oldowan industry) were too rudimentary. Furthermore, the dating of Asian sites showed that they were not older than 500 - 800 kya., long after the disappearance of H. habilis.


So it was their succesors, the H. erectus, who made it out of Africa first. They took their Mode 2 (or Acheulean) toolage with them into Western Eurasia yet those who went beyond India (crossing the "Movius line") and entering China and India, somehow did not use these stone tools.


But then a series of findings in Eurasia have upset this neat scenario:


  • Israel. 'Ubbeidiya site, in the Jordan River valley. 1.4 - 1.6 Mya. Tools with Flake and Core Mode 1 similarities. [1][2]
  • Dmanisi, Georgia. Crania, bones and tools (1.78 Mya) with Oldowan affinities or maybe even pre-Oldowan since many lack retouching. The remains are similar to the African H. erectus (known as H. ergaster) but have smaller crania and therefore closer to H. habilis. This suggests a pre-erectus dispersal: [3]
       ♦ Skull sizes from 546 cm3 to 730 cm3 vs. H. habilis' 509 to 687 cm3.
       ♦ Small bodied: 146 to 166 cm, 47 to 50 kg, similar to H. habilis but in the lower range of H. erectus.
  • Pakistan, Pabbi Hills, with a Pre-Acheulean assemblage of 2.2 - 0.9 My.


This of course upsets the previous picture: if the smallest and most primitive H. erectus remains are found in Georgia then, they may have evolved there from even earlier hominins (H. habilis), and dispersed from this point towards Africa (an Into Africa Migration) and Eastern Asia. Since Indonesian remains are about 1.8 My old, then the dispersal took place quickly. [4]


This means therefore not one or two, but multiple migratory waves: H. habilis OOA, archaic H. erectus movin on towards Asia. And maybe, even into Europe (1 - 1.2 Mya).


Mode 2 Acheulean tools are found in Africa 1.8 Mya, and later in the periphery, does this mean that they originated in Africa? : Isampur India (1.2 Mya), 800 kya in China and Ngebung, Java. Europe sees them 600 - 700 kya; Eastern Europe and the Caucasus is late (after 300 kya). [5]


This is under debate: the large flaked core (piece R001) from Riwat, Pakistan was dated [6][9][10] to the Olduvai event c. 1.8 Mya. It is different to the other tools from Africa, Europe or China. It is old yet clearly Acheulean and maybe even older than African tools.


This has suggested that Eurasia may have played an active role in the shaping of our hominin ancestors: with speciation taking place there and migrations back into Africa with subsequent dispersals just like happened with certain mammals: "more taxa migrating into than out of Africa" [7].


This would allow the African H. ergaster to have originated in Asia.


The Migratory Route


We can envisage a route from East Africa across Ethiopia and into Saudi Arabia: This would be the main exit route from Africa in an H. erectus OOA event. Yet no remains have been found, only Acheulean tools at two separate sites: one close to the Red Sea (Wadi Fatimah), another at Daw ādmi. Unfortunately no dating is provided. [8]


As seen above there are tools but no remains in Pakistan; the next sites should be in India:


India


The earliest fossil remains and Acheulean handaxes in India are from Hathnora in Narmada Valley, Madhya Pradesh. The Middle Pleistocene (c. 500 kya) skull of an H. erectus was discovered there in 1982. [18]


The date is much later than other remains from sites in Western and Eastern Asia. So it is likely that H. erectus reached India 1 My before the Narmada remains.


Expansion after India


There are other H. erectus sites in Indian Subcontinent: in Nepal (Satpati) in the North, Attirampakkam in the South (1 Mya) and the centrally located ones at Hunsgi-Baichbal, Anagwadi and Godavari.


H. erectus continued advancing east, closed in by the Himalayas on the North reached current Myanmar. From here there is a split, in two directions, one North, into China, another South towards Indonesia.


The Southeast Asian H. erectus


Indonesia. It was on the banks of the Solo River in Java, that Eugene Dubois discovered the remains of the first H. erectus in 1891. He named the species Pithecanthropus erectus or "Upright ape man".


It is probably distinct from the African H. ergaster and the oldest remains are those found at Mojokerto (skull) 1.81 Mya and Sanigran (1.6 –1.7 Mya).


H. erectus thrived in Indonesia until quite recently: the remains from Ngandong and Sambungmacan in Java are the youngest H. erectus fossils ever found. They have been dated to between 40 and 70 kya. This means that they were coeval with the Homo sapiens that entered Australia and Southern Asia. [12]


These late H. erectus, when compared to those from other sites, are "the most derived population" [4] and have brain volumes larger than previous Indonesian H. erectus, closely approaching the mean values of extant Australian Aboriginals [13].


Their persistence until such recent times both here and in China (see below) is surprising and it raises the question of why did they disappear in Africa if they were so well adapted to survive?


Australia


No H. erectus fossils have been found in Australia. Nevertheless, robust H. sapiens remains showing possible signs of admixture were found there in 1982: the Willandra Lakes Hominid (WLH) 50. They date to between 12.2 and 32.8 kya and are clearly Human but with singular features: stron brows and thick cranium. [14]


They have a statistically significant [13] correlation with the Ngandong fossils and both may share a common ancestor with modern Native Australians. In other words they are linked to each other by "a reticulating evolutionary relationship" [13].


The Northeast Asian H. erectus


Other groups moved north, towards cooler climes in China and Korea.

South Korea, the Imjin-Hantan River Basins (IHRB) have yielded Acheulean biface handaxes. The dating of the sediments that contain them indicate that "the earliest hominin occupation of the IHRB may be slightly older than the 350 ka" [15]. Not tremendously old, but clearly pre-sapiens.


China a long persistence of H. erectus


The famous Peking Man, from the Zhoukoudian site close to Beijing, was discovered in the 1920s and named Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Chinese Man). The remains originally believed to be c. 300 ky old have been pushed further back: 750 kya.


China has several sites with archaic toolage: Bose, Luonan and the very ancient Nihewan site, at a high northern latitude, dated to a mean age of 1119 +⁄- 139 ka. [16]


As in Indonesia, Homo erectus survived until recently at the Lantian site close to Xi'an in Northern China; Acheulean assemblies dated to between 70 and 30 kya have been found there, suggesting the suvival of H. erectus there until " the later period of the late Pleistocene" [17].


Some comments


The idea of dynamic interacting groups of people, moving from place to place, even back-migrating if necessary, is much more exciting than the linear models so commonly found in the study of our ancestry, where admixture events were not even considered until relatively recently.


Clearly the paucity in fieldwork in Asia compared to Europe or Africa is one of the reasons for the lack of solid evidence regarding archaic remains and tools. The dating issues are perhaps complicated in Asia when compared to Africa due to soil conditions or climate.


Another factor to take into accunt is mindset; precocieved notions tend to fog the clear vision needed to identify remains or toolage as such: if you are not expecting to find tools 1.5 Mya, then you will never dig into strata of that age or older. Probably, as suggested by Dennell,[7] our australopithecine ancestors left Africa long before H. habilis (say 3 Mya), but nobody has bothered to investigate it.


Homo erectus was a versatile creature that adapted to a wide range of environments and survived for over 1.8 My. They surely admixed with modern humans (Isn't it surprising that H. erectus admixture has not yet been studied seriously - yes, there are some papers mentioning introgression with archaic "X" hominins, but not much refrence to H. erectus being "X") and perhaps were absorbed so thoroughly that they just disappeared.


Now, did they stop in China, or did they keep on marching north, into Siberia? They could cope with cold climates in North China, why would they stop there and not go on? I propose that they did, and reached America, but that is the subject of another post.


To be continued in Part 2


Sources


[1] Bar Yosef, O., Goren-Inbar, N., (1993). The Lithic Assemblage of 'Ubeidiya. A Lower Palaeolithic Site in the Jordan Valley. Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
[2] Gaudzinski, S., (2004). Subsistence patterns of Early Pleistocene hominids in the Levant -taphonomic evidence from the 'Ubeidiya Formation (Israel)". Journal of Archaeological Science 31(1):65-75
[3] David Lordkipanidze et al., (2013). A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo. Science 18 October 2013. Vol. 342 no. 6156 pp. 326-331; doi: 10.1126/science.1238484
[4] Miriam Frankel, 28 July 2010, Notes from an excavation, News. Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2010.377
[5] Doronichev V.B., (2008). The Lower Palaeolithic in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus: A Reappraisal of the Data and New Approaches. PaleoAnthropology 107–157.
[6] Rendell, H., W. Hailwood, and R. W. Dennell. (1987) Magnetic polarity stratigraphy of Upper Siwalik Sub-Group, Soan Valley, Pakistan: implications for early human occupance of Asia. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 85:488-496.
[7] Robin Dennell and Wil Roebroeks, (2005). An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa. Nature 438, 1099-1104 (22 December 2005) doi:10.1038/nature04259
[8] Michael D. Petraglia, Nick Drake, Abdullah Alsharekh, (2009). Chap. 8. Acheulean Landscapes and Large Cutting Tools Assemblages in the Arabian peninsula from "The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics". Eds. Michael D. Petraglia, Jeffrey I. Rose. Springer, Nov 27, 2009.
[9] Hurcombe, L., Dennel, R., et al., (1994). Archaeological evidence for hominids in Northern Pakistan before one million years ago J.L. Franzen (ed.) 100 Years of Pithecanthropus, the Homo erectus problem. Courier Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg 171: Frankfurt. 151-155.
[10] Hurcombe, L. (2004). The lithic evidence from the Pabbi Hills. R.Dennell (ed) Early Hominin Landscapes in Northern Pakistan; Investigations in the Pabbi Hills. Oxford: BAR S1265, pp 222-291
[11] Anek R. Sankhyan et al., New Postcranial Hominin Fossils from the Central Narmada Valley, India. Advances in Anthropology 2012. Vol.2, No.3, 125-131
[12] Yuji Yokoyama, (2008). Gamma-ray spectrometric dating of late Homo erectus skulls from Ngandong and Sambungmacan, Central Java, Indonesia. Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 55, 2, Aug. 2008, 274–277
[13] John Hawks et al., (2000) An Australasian test of the recent African origin theory using the WLH-50 calvarium. Journal of Human Evolution (2000) 39, 1–22, doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0384
[14] Grün R., et al.,m (2011). Stratigraphy and chronology of the WLH 50 human remains, Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area, Australia. J Hum Evol. 2011 May;60(5):597-604. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.12.001
[15] Kidong Bae, Christopher J. Bae and Kiryong Kim, (2012). The age of the Paleolithic handaxes from the Imjine Hantan River Basins, South Korea. Quaternary International 281 (2012) 14 -25
[16] Chun-Ru Liu et al., (2013) ESR Dating of the donggutuo Paleolithic site in the Nihewan Basin, Northern China. Geochronometria 40(4) 2013: 348-354. doi: 10.2478/s13386-013-0127-4
[17] Shejiang Wang et al., (2014). Newly discovered Palaeolithic artefacts from loess deposits and their ages in Lantian, central China. Chinese Science Bulletin Jan- 2014. 10.1007/s11434-013-0105-5
[18] Marie-Antoinette de Lumey and Arun Sonakia, (1985). Premier Decouverte D'un Homo Erectus sur Le Continent Indien A Hathinora, Dans la Moyenne Valle De La Narmada. L'Anthropologie (Paris), T. 89 n.1. 13-61



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2014 by Austin Whittall © 
Hits since Sept. 2009:
Copyright © 2009-2025 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 - https://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/