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 archaic hominins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label archaic hominins. Show all posts

Saturday, August 1, 2026

Archaic Admixture (within Africa) a new paper (Science Jul. 30, 2026)


A paper published in the non-peer reviewed BioRxiv last March (see my post on it) has been now published in Science, on July 30, 2026 (Yulin Zhang et al., Recovering signatures of archaic hominin introgression using ancestral recombination graphs. Science 0,eaef8874 DOI:10.1126/science.aef8874). It discusses ghost introgressions in modern human populations. My original post highlighted its main points. Today, re-reading the article, I found some interesting points, which I discuss below.


Heterozygosity and archaic introgression


All research about Amerindians and all other non-Africans, stresses that they have higher homozygosity than Africans, a signal of a lower diversity in their genes. They are less heterozygous. I have argued in several posts that the higher heterozygosity observed in Africans could come from their recent admixture with archaics that survived until recently, within Africa.


This paper reported that (highlighting is mine) "Several additional lines of evidence support our results of ghost ancestry in modern humans. First, we find that genomic regions harboring ghost ancestry exhibit elevated heterozygosity levels, a pattern also observed for Neanderthal and Denisovan segments (fig. S25). The elevation in heterozygosity is consistent with a model of introgression from a deeply divergent lineage..."


The authors note that sub-Saharan Africans have the highest levels of super-archaic ghost admixture, and non-Africans have much lower values, but they attribute it to a bottleneck effect following the Out Of Africa (OOA) migration, ignoring the possibility of recent admixture within Africa: "We find that ghost ancestry peaks are over-represented in sub-Saharan African populations relative to non-African populations, which is consistent with the lower genetic diversity in non-Africans."


Africans and admixture there, in Africa


Regarding "deserts" where ghost presence is lacking, they attribute it to the same cause, the OOA migration: !We also identify 97 deserts of ghost ancestry (i.e., regions that are at least 10 Mbp long and have less than 0.1% frequency of ghost ancestry). These deserts are only found in non-African populations, with nearly half (43.3%) shared between different non-African groups, likely formed during the OOA bottleneck (supplementary section S6.3 and figs. S37 and S38). We do not identify any ghost ancestry deserts in sub-Saharan Africans." A plausible explanation for this is that ghosts introgressed within Africa, leading to a total lack of deserts there, while in the rest of the world, deserts point at a lack of superarchaic admixing.


In my original post I highlighted their comment about the source of the ghost population, I will once again quote the authors comments: "The ghost lineage, with a divergence time similar to Neanderthals, could plausibly correspond to Middle Pleistocene Homo groups or African Homo heidelbergensis populations that directly admixed with modern human ancestors before the OOA dispersal. For the super-archaic lineage, one potential candidate—compatible with the split time of approximately 1.8 Mya—is Homo erectus, as suggested by earlier studies."



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Tuesday, June 2, 2026

Archaics and recent humans in Africa: the evidence from stone tools


An article published in Nature in February 2025 (Ben Arous, E., Blinkhorn, J.A., Elliott, S. et al. Humans in Africa’s wet tropical forests 150 thousand years ago. Nature 640, 402–407 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08613-y) found that the belief that humans didn't enter the African jungles until recently was mistaken. The paper found "late Middle Pleistocene material culture and a wet tropical forest in southern Côte d'Ivoire, a region of present-day rainforest... demonstrat[ing] that Africa's forests were not a major ecological barrier for H. sapiens as early as around 150 ka."


I found it interesting because of the different papers (see the list at the end of this post) suggesting archaic admixture into modern humans in Western Africa, which does indicate that modern African humans did enter the jungles in that region. But, in this paper, the authors mention stone tool assemblages which in my opinion seem rather "primitive", lacking the refined appearance you'd expect from tools made by human beings 150 kya. After all, our species is said to have developed in Africa 300 kya, and left it in two waves, one, around 100 kya which is believed to have failed, and the second one that peopled the World, 60 kya. So, why would they produce tools that look so primitive? See below, an image with the upper "Unit C" tools dated to 20-12 ky and the older "Unit D" dated to 55-150 kya.


stone tools west Africa c.150 kya
Figure S4: Stone tools from Units C and D at Bete I and III from Lioubin and Guede, and photos taken of the remaining artefact collection at the Institut des Sciences Anthropologiques de Developpement (ISAD) in 2021. Unit C: A) ‘end-scraper’, B) ‘point’, C) ‘end-scraper à museau’, D) ‘double-ended carinated end-scraper’, E) ‘small handaxe’, F) ‘fragment of a bifacial foliate piece’, G) ‘point Levallois’, H) ‘combination tool’, I) ‘end-scraper with spine’, J) ‘short foliate biface’, and K-N) ‘cores’. Unit D: O) ‘side and end chopper’, P) ‘biface - trihedral’, Q) bifacial LCT (our term), R) ‘pick with double-flat cross-section of the body and centred quadrihedral distal point’, S) ‘pick with double-flat cross section of the body and centred trihedral distal point’, T–U) bifacial pieces (our term). A-N and O, P, R and S are from Lioubin and Guede. Suppl. Mat.

The more recent upper layer exhibits, according to the authors Levallois flakes and points, while the underlying and older stone artifacts are more massive and coarse-looking: "The assemblage in Unit D, featuring large tools alongside a small tool component, may support long-held views that the diverse heavy-duty tool assemblages seen in Central and West Africa are convergent adaptive solutions to tropical forest habitation."


Sangoan toolage


In the Supplementary Material, the authors mention two types of stone industries present in Pleistocene Africa, the Sangoan and the Lupemban. Sangoan, first discovered in Sangoa, Uganda "described as late Acheulian adaptations, transitional between the Acheulean and the MSA, or as belonging to the early MSA. They are generally characterised as featuring ‘rugged’ or ‘heavy-duty’ core tools, dominated by thick bifaces, picks, choppers, and core scrapers, referred to collectively as large cutting tools (LCTs)."


The literature describes them as a transition from Early Stone Age Acheulean tool technology to Middle Stone Age tools. To me, as an amateyr un the field, this spells tools made by less advanced hominins. Acheulean tools were the mark of H. erectus, and these crude Sangoan tools are common in Central Africa during the Upper Pleistocene, and coexist with Modern Humans in West Africa 150 kya? Strange overlapping of superarchaic hominins with modern H. sapiens.


The coarse and heavy build of Sangoan tools is believed to be due to their use in forested environment, for chopping or digging for edible roots and tubers. They have been found at Kalambo Falls in Zambia and dated to 500-300 kya. Clearly not the work of Homo sapiens, we appeared only 300 kya. In Simbi, Kenya their age is between 50-200 kya, indicating a survival of an ancient technology overlapping the appearance of modern humans and possibly, the survival of the archaics that made the Sangoan stone tools.


Lupemban


The Lupemban, on the other hand, named for a brook in Zaire, is different it displays careful crafting using Levallois core and flake technology, resulting in refined lanceolate, bifacial points. The oldest Lupemban tools are 266-132 kya. Overlapping with the more primitive Sangoan, as if two different groups of less, and more advanced hominins created them to exploit the forests and jungles (see this source for a comprehensive text on this industry).


Closing Comments


Rather than showing that modern humans were living in the West African jungles 150,000 years ago, the paper by J.A., Elliott, S. et al. seems to suggest an overlapping of different people in that area, namely archaics with early stone age Lupemban tools and modern humans with Sangoan ones.


Why would archaeologists ignore the signal provided by the Acheulean-like Sangoan tools and attribute them to modern humans living in a forested environment? In Eurasia, stone technologies, like the Mousterian are a clear indication of Neanderthal craft, why wouldn't the Sangoan be taken as a lithic technology developed by non-sapiens people? It seems to me that archaeologists focused on Africa have the obligation to defend the antiquity of Homo sapiens in that continent and ignore facts that indicate the opposite.


Below are some posts on the admixture of archaics and moderns within Africa:



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Thursday, April 9, 2026

All the Introgression posts in one place


I decided to index the posts and the papers that I cited in them, to have in one single post, links to all of them. Over the years I posted about Neanderthal, Denisovan, Ghost, Super-Archaics, and unknown archaics introgressing (or not) with Modern Humans or with the ancestors of our lineage at different times (before the split with Neanderthals and Denisovans, or after that split), and also with humans injecting alleles into Neanderthals! Very confusing, and sometimes contradictory.


Our lewd ancestors and their dallies


What is the basis of these events? Politely termed admixture and introgression, the only way our ancestors could have exchanged genes is through sexual intercourse. They were sexually aggressive.


Research by Emma Nelson, Campbell Rolian, Lisa Cashmore, Susanne Shultz, 2010 (Digit ratios predict polygyny in early apes, Ardipithecus, Neanderthals and early modern humans but not in Australopithecus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 2010; DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1740) reported that the finger bones of fossil ancestors (bones that are affected by sex hormones in the womb), can predict their levels of promiscuity and competitiveness (polygynous hominins! who had more than one mate). This study found that Ardipithecus ramidus, Neanderthals, and early anatomically modern human (like Qafzeh 9) were more polygynous than modern humans, while Australopiths had a lower polygyny. Strong sex drives that led to many mating events.


Below I list my posts with the corresponding citations, and the outline of the research in them.


Continues below, after the picture with Hollywood's fantasy about love 1 million years ago (the actors look too tanned and clean don't they?).


One Million Years B.C. (1966), prehistoric love and survival, with Rachel Welch and John Richardson. Source

Last Updated on April 18, 2026



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Sunday, April 5, 2026

Neanderthals actually came from Human Beings! (March 2026 paper says)


A very interesting suggestion was prepublished on March 13 in Biorxiv by David Reich, 2026, it is work in progress, and a model, but its title tells it all: Hypothesis: A modern human range expansion ~300,000 years ago explains Neandertal origins.


Trying to explain why the split date between the human lineage and Neanderthals differs when you consider nuclear DNA (765-550 kya) or mtDNA (365-400 kya), or why the original Y chromosome of Neanderthals appears to have vanished, and what we have found is so similar to ours, and that their mtDNA is remarkably similar to ours, Reich suggests that they are a population that arose from modern humans introgression with archaics in Europe. This also explains some incongruent dates and other oddities found in the Atapuerca Sima de los Huesos remains. Simple hypothesis that is very similar to the proposal maed by Cosimo Posth published in Nature, which I commented in a post back in 2017 (An even older Out of Africa event (270kya)!!). Posth suggested that African inflow was "responsible for providing the mtDNA to the Late Pleistocene Neanderthals might have been an even earlier Middle Pleistocene gene flow from Africa, occurring in a time interval that we date between 413 and 268 ka... The temporal corridor for this introgression event between 460 ka and 219 ka is compatible with the evidence of archaeological similarities between Africa and western Eurasia during the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition39 and potentially may explain the dissimilarities in Middle Paleolithic industries between eastern and western Eurasia. Environmental changes across this time span might have facilitated a hominin expansion out of Africa and potentially spread cultural innovations such as the Levallois technology into Eurasia." Reich developed the concept. Below is the Abstract of Reich's paper


"Abstract.
This paper demonstrates the feasibility of the hypothesis that Neandertals formed when a population using recently developed Levallois stone tool technology expanded between 400-250 thousand years ago (ka). In Europe, their range expansion into an area with Sima de los Huesos-like people led to massive introgression of local archaic genes producing a population with around 95% archaic ancestry (Neandertals); if this range expansion was sex-biased it would provide a simple explanation for why Neandertals retain modern human lineage Y chromosomes or mitochondrial DNA. In Africa, interbreeding with local archaic humans led to more modest archaic admixture and the deep substructure detected in all modern humans today. This proposal explains four previously perplexing similarities of modern humans and Neandertals—sharing of mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosomes, Levallois tools, and 300-200 ka date of formation by mixture—even while Neandertals and Denisovans cluster genome-wide.
"


This is the paper: Hypothesis: A modern human range expansion ~300,000 years ago explains Neandertal origins David Reich. bioRxiv 2026.03.11.711219; doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.11.711219.


This paper is interesting because it also mentions humans mixing with archaics inside of Africa, a source of diversity:


"... ancestors of all modern humans including sub-Saharan Africans were deeply substructured, due to the coming together a few hundred thousand years ago of lineages that began diverging a million or more years ago. For example, ref. 16 models modern human ancestry as largely derived from a mixture of about 80% from a lineage that was most closely related to Neandertals and Denisovans, and 20% from a lineage that diverged from it around 1.5 million years ago, with the two coming together around 300 ka. The remixture is estimated to date to around the same time as the genetically inferred interbreeding of modern humans and archaic humans in the ancestors of Neandertals 300-200 ka. This raises the possibility that these mixtures in Europe and Africa had related causes: a range expansion of a successful population interbreeding with local archaic groups. In Europe, there was massive introgression of local genes because barriers to producing viable offspring were few. In Africa, the mixture was with a more divergent archaic lineage, result in a lower γ (cross-group interbreeding rate), and less introgression..."



This is the reference "ref. 16" cited above: Cousins T, Scally A, Durbin R, (2025) A structured coalescent model reveals deep ancestral structure shared by all modern humans. Nat Genet 57, 856–864.


Comments


I am surprised at the different conclusions that the same datasets of human genes and fossils produce (some are mutually exclusive): humans and Neanderthals are the same, humans and Neanderths split after the Denisovans split, Denisovans and humans split after the Neanderthal split, dates that range from 500 to over 1 million years, introgressions all over (Denisovan to Neanderthal to Human, Human to Neanderthal, Denisovan to Human, one or more lineages of superarchaics introgressing into different hominins). Surely they can't all be right.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Tuesday, March 31, 2026

Bipedal Apes first appeared in Europe (March 2026 paper)


A paper published on March 4, 2026 by Spassov, N., Youlatos, D., Böhme, M. et al. A (n early form of terrestrial hominine bipedalism in the Late Miocene of Bulgaria. Palaeobio Palaeoenv (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12549-025-00691-0) posits that the analysis of the bones of a hominine that is possibly a Graecopithecus discovered in Azmaka (Bulgaria), which is 7.2 million years old, including a very well preserved femur, shows it walked on two feet-


In line with my previous posts, this paper supports a Eurasian origin for hominines, and their migration back into Africa, as ancestors of gorillas, chimpanzees, and our homo ancestors: "The wooded-grassland savanna environment of the early Messinian locality of Azmaka suggests that terrestrial bipedalism likely evolved in a non-forested setting. The early Messinian age is critical to our understanding of mammalian palaeobiogeography and the intercontinental dispersals between Eurasia and Africa. We hypothesise that the descendants of the Azmaka hominine may have dispersed from Eurasia into Africa under the influence of climatic and environmental changes in the eastern Mediterranean. If such dispersal occurred, it may have been associated with subsequent re-occupation of more forested settings in both the ancestors of African apes and hominins."


Graecopithecus was a hominin


The paper in its final comment concludes that "If the Azmaka femur is attributable to Graecopithecus, the fact that it is bipedal (although transitional) represents additional evidence that this genus is a hominin".




Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Monday, March 23, 2026

When did we share our last common ancestor with Chimpanzees?


Many molecular clocks are based on the divergence between human beings and chimpanzees. In my previous post I mentioned the calculation method and how it is used to work out the age of a "most recent common ancetstor", based on genetic divergence (mutations), and mutation rates (μ). I pointed out the variability of these μ, today we will look into the age estimations for the most recent common ancestors of humans and chimpanzees, all calculated using genetic molecular clocks, except for the work of Sarich and Wilson back in 1967.


Yes, as expected, there is a wide dispersion of values, frm 4.1 to 13 million years!


This is a summary of the different dates provided by studies over the course of the past 59 years, dates given in million years ago (Ma):



I like the ones that consider variable mutation rates (see my previous post), because it seems more realistic.


chimp
Chimpanzee. Source

No fossils


The main problem is that there are no fossils of the ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. There are other ape fossils which have been dated, in Africa and Eurasia, but the exact relationship with the common ancestor of chimps and humans is the subject of intense debate in scholarly circles.


Reasons for not finding fossils: it is not easy to work in Africa, with the common civil wars, warlords, corruption, lack of access to potential sites, funding issues, and also excuse that the tropical African environment isn't the best to create fossils (It baffles me how Java man was discovered in a tropical setting in Asia!)


There are over 6000 fossils of hominins and 31 species (Foley and Lahr, 2024) but just a handful of ape fossils. There are some like the Ororrin, the Sahelanthropus and the Ardipithecus that could belong (or not) to the clade leading to chimps and humans. But Foley and Lahr write that "These groups may be entirely different, representing taxa that belong to none of the extant hominine lineages or they may belong to an early form of African ape, which... overlapped geographically with later hominins." Clearly, the situation is complex and unresolved.


Previously I posted about Miocene (a period spanning 23 to 5-3 Ma) apes found in Europe and Western Asia, and the lack of fossils from Africa suggesting an Eurasian origin for them followed by a migration into Africa as climate turned worse in their homeland. There are some African fossils dating back to the Miocene epoch the oldest date back to the early Miocene (16 to 22 Ma), in Kenya and Uganda, too far from the split of Chimps and Humans to be relevant for our post.


Kunimatsu, 2007 reported an ape from the Late Miocene epoch, named Nakalipithecus nakayamai, its remains were unearthed in Kenya and it "could be close to the last common ancestor of the extant African apes and humans." It was the size of female gorillas and orangutans. The authors dated it to 9.8-9.88 Ma.


Also in 2007, Suwa et al., reported another finding, some teeth with a gorilla-like appearane which were assigned to a new species, Chororapithecus abyssinicus from Chorora, Ethiopia. This great ape was dated to 8 Ma. It is possible that it is related to N. nakayamai.


The Sahelanthropus tchadensis, reported by Brunet et al., 2002, and 2005, was named for the Sahel region of Chad lived 7 Ma. Leg bones and a skull were recovered. We don't know if it is an ancestor of chimpancees and humans or just a separate branch like the Gorillas.


Orrorin lived in Kenya some 6 Ma. It was first described as closer to humans, but later studies placed it close to australopithecines. Almecija et al., (2013) place it as "intermediate between Miocene apes and australopiths".

The Ardipithecus ramidus seems to have evolved after humans and chimpancees separated (4.4 Ma). Partial remains have been recovered in the Afar region of Ethiopia, and it seems to have been adapted to living in the trees, and was also bipedal but not very efficient walking on two feet. It was the size of a chimp, and had a brain equivalent to theirs too. They may have split from the ancestor of the hominini tribe that encompasses humans and chimpancees and not be a direct human ancestor.


Much more recent are chimpanzee fossils, the very first! unearthed by McBrearty and Jablonski (2005) in Kenya, Eastern Africa, far from their current distribution in Central and Western Africa. They lived close to a hominin species, but they are relatively close in time to us, around 545-284 ky old.


Eurasian origin


Finally, I must mention Frances A. M. Mansfield and Mario Vaneechoutte (2024) who propose a Eurasian origin for Chimpancees and Gorillas, this is an unorthodox and thought provoking point of view. I highlighted their comments on Chimpancees.


"While the established paradigm of human evolution asserts that the lineages leading to the extant great apes and Homo arose in Africa, the large number of fossil discoveries from Europe in recent decades support arguments for a European origin of the Hominidae (all great apes) and plausibly, also a European common ancestor of the Homininae (African great apes, Australopithecus species, and the genus Homo).
Meanwhile, a lack of consensus remains regarding the phylogenetic placement of australopithecine fossil species in Africa, with substantial evidence indicating that some of them may align more closely to extant African great apes than to Homo. Based on a novel interpretation of existing fossil, genetic, paleogeographic and paleoclimatic evidence, this paper aims to put forward a new hypothesis regarding the separate divergences of Gorilla, Pan, and Homo.
We support existing arguments that the last common ancestor of African great apes and Homo may have lived in Europe in the late Miocene, and we put forward a new hypothesis as to where, when, and why the separate lineages may have started to diverge. Extreme conditions during the Vallesian Crisis (11.6-8.0 Ma) and the Messinian Salinity Crisis (6.0-5.3 Ma) may have forced separate branches of European hominids to migrate out of the Mediterranean region.
We argue that the lineages leading to Gorilla and Pan independently migrated into Africa, while the lineage leading to Homo went in another direction. Thereafter, the Zanclean Megaflood (5.3 Ma) —which caused the Mediterranean to refill very quickly— may have cut off the migration route between Eurasia and Africa at the Sinai Peninsula, isolating a small population (the putative Homo lineage) on the Arabian Peninsula / Red Sea coast during a period of hyperaridity. The other group (Pan lineage) crossed into Africa, where it subsequently diversified into various species of Australopithecus.
"


The authors note that "Upon reviewing the descriptions of presumed hominin fossils from Africa from the late Miocene to the early Pleistocene (from Sahelanthropus tchadensis, ~7.0 Ma, through H. habilis, ~2.31–1.65 Ma) one finds, contrary to expectation, that many of the earlier species tend to display a number of presumed derived features, while later species often display more presumed primitive features.... Meanwhile, detailed analyses of Australopithecus fossils reveal that, other than features related to bipedalism, they tend to display many characters more similar to great apes than to humans... Finally, most students of paleoanthropology agree that the earliest Homo erectus/H. ergaster fossil specimens bear marked dissimilarities with any presumed Australopithecus ancestor, which makes it difficult to establish any direct transition or relationship between the two groups."


The Retrovirus


The paper also mentions the strange case of retroviral genes (originating in a virus) that entered the genome of all African primates except Homo (us and our ancestors), this introgressed region known as Pan troglodytes endogenous retrovirus 1 (PTERV1), which is completely absent from the human genome. PtERV-1 is believed to have ocurred 3 to 4 million years ago when the retrovirus infected chimpanzees and gorillas.


The paper states that "This strongly indicates that our ancestors were most probably not even in Africa during the Pliocene (Benveniste and Todaro 1976, Polavarapu et al. 2006), but this is rarely commented upon, and attempts to explain how Homo ancestors may have managed to evade viruses that affected all other extant African apes have proved inconclusive (Kaiser et al. 2007, PerezCaballero et al. 2008). The most parsimonious explanation is that our ancestors were not in Africa during the middle Pliocene and may instead have evolved in “an ecological niche that physically separated them from the source of the infectious PtERV1 virus” (Kaiser et al. 2007b)." They made a good point!


The paper argues the following (a long quote, but worth the while reading it); LCA is the Last Common Ancestor:


"We propose that the species representing the LCA of humans and chimpanzees formed part of a continuous migration of fauna from southern Eurasia to northern Africa during the Messinian, between 5.9–5.3 Ma, via Anatolia and across the northern Sinai region of the Arabian Peninsula. Ultimately, a small group of individuals, ancestral to Homo, may have been cut off and separated from other hominids, ancestral to Pan, when, at 5.33 Ma, the Zanclean flood refilled the Mediterranean and submerged the land bridge between the African and Arabian plates, at which point the connection between the two continents was lost. This date would be consistent with the majority of genetic analyses for the timing of the Pan/Homo divergence. The lineage that made it to the African continent—eventually leading to the Pan lineage—may have migrated south along the African Red Sea and/or Nile River valley and continued southward at Afar, following the many substantial waterways and lakes along the East African Rift Valley and Coastal Forest. This may explain why existing fossil evidence fails to demonstrate a clear progression from primitive/ape-like features towards more derived/human-like features, and why there is no obvious progression from quadrupedalism towards bipedalism in the australopithecines...
We suggest that, unlike the ancestors of australopithecines and extant African apes, the proto-human group remained isolated on the Arabian Peninsula. Between 5.6 and 3.3 Ma, the Arabian Peninsula went through a stage of hyperaridity (Böhme 2021), so any species trapped there would have been isolated between the Red Sea and a lifeless desert—an impenetrable barrier... Unfortunately, there is no fossil evidence to support this scenario... Moreover, the Arabian Peninsula presents a location from where a new genus, Homo, could migrate coastally in multiple directions (Africa to the west, Dmanisi, Georgia to the north, Pakistan, China and Indonesia to the east) only once sea levels fell again in the early Pleistocene, thereby giving rise to multiple variations of Homo erectus/ergaster.
"


Closing Comments


In this post we have mentioned the wide range and variable dates for the last common ancestor shared by human beings and chimpanzees, which is the outcome of the variability of mutation rate values mentioned in my previous post. We also described the lack of fossils in Africa that could help clearly define the transition between Miocene apes and the first homo individuals. Both genetic and archaeological-paleontological finds offer weak backing to the African origin of our ancestors.


I notice, time and time again, an effort to "fit" or "adapt" findings to the accepted timelines and chronologies, and to support the African origin of the great apes. Perhaps Mansfield and Vaneechoutte are on the right track, and their hypothesis explains the early Georgian fossils at Dmanisi.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Monday, March 2, 2026

Hominins evolved in Eurasia, not Africa


The Graecopithecus is of interest for several reasons, one, is that its foot prints showing a bipedal walking position were dated to 6.15 million years ago (Ma), the second is that they were found on Crete, an island that at that time was isolated in the eastern Mediterranean, and was never in contact with Africa, and finally, its age places it outside of Africa, as the oldest member of the hominin family! Let's look at each of these points.


Graecopyhtecus


As we will see below, there are several fossil remains and strong evidence suggesting that the Hominidae, a group that embraces all of the great apes, and the Homininae, the group that includes all African great apes, the Australopithecus species, and the genus Homo, originated in the Balkans region of Europe, and Western Asia, in Anatolia, Turkey, and the Caucasus.


These Eurasian ancestors lived before the split between the branches that lead to gorillas, chmipancees, australopithecus, and homo (our lineage).


Spassov et al., (2012) reported a premolar belonging to a hominid that was found in a quarry in Azmaka, Bulgaria, Europe. It was dated at around 7 Ma. Though it is a pre-human hominid, it was not alone. The paper mentions other similar hominids living in Europe, Anatolia and the Caucasus around that time.


The Ouranopithecus macedoniensis from the north of Geece and the Ankarapithecus meteai from Turkey are roughly 8.7 to 9.9 Ma. The Anatolian Ouranopithecus turkae is 7.5 yo 8.7 Ma. The Dryopithecus from Udabno (Georgia) is also coeval with these hominids.


Fuss et al., (2017) -with members of the Spassov study- classed the Bulgarian specimen as a member of the Graecopithecus group, and compared the teet with the original specimen of that group, found in Pyrgos Vassilissis, near Athens, in Greece during the final days of World War II. This specimen is now known as Graecopithecus freybergi. They were given an age ranging from 7.175 Ma to 7.24 Ma. They found that they teeth are different from those of the Ouranopithecus and have features that "point to a possible phylogenetic affinity with hominin... and therefore, provides intriguing evidence of what could be the oldest known hominin."


Remarkably, these Miocene primates were living in the Balkan-Anatolian region, far from Africa, the purported homeland of hominins. And this is a surprising find!


In Africa there are two primates with a similar age, the Orrorin tugenensis, discovered in 2001 in Tugen, Kenya and dated to 5.8 to 6.0 Ma, which appears to have an upright posture, and the Sahelanthropus tchadensis roughly 6-7 Ma. Note that Macchiarelli et al. (2020) suggested based on the shape of the leg-bone of the Sahelanthropus, that it "belongs to an individual that was not habitually bipedal."

Despite the presence of ancient African primates that could potentially be hominins, Fuss et al. confidently assert that "More fossils are needed but at this point it seems likely that the Eastern Mediterranean needs to be considered as just as likely a place of hominine diversification and hominin origins as tropical Africa."


The Fossil footprints in Crete


The prints discovered in Trachilos, close to Kissamos, on the nortwestern tip of Crete, Greece, were reported by Gierlinski, G. D. et al. in 2017 (Possible hominin footprints from the Late Miocene (C. 5.7 Ma) of Crete?. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 128, 697–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Pgeola.2017.07.006), who noted that their shape suggested that "the trackmaker was a basal member of the clade Hominini." However, due to the distance separating the island of Crete from tropical Africa, the authors wonder if they belong to some "hitherto unknown late Miocene primate that convergently evolved human-like foot anatomy." Meaning that it was a primate that had prints similar to hominins, but, was not of our same lineage.


The tracks are clearly hominin, smaller than any known hominin tracks. Being 5.7 Ma, they are 2 million years older than the previously oldest hominin tracks.


A paper published in Nature by Uwe Kirscher et al., (2021) analyzed the age of the prints, and dated them with an age of approximately 6.05 Ma, which is 300,000 years older than the previous estimates.


Yet another paper published in 2017 by Böhme et al., is terminant regarding the hominin nature of the Graecopithecus:

"Graecopithecus predates by several hundred thousand years the next youngest candidate hominin Sahelanthropus, which occupied the southern Saharan tropics after its earliest Messinian desertification. Given the potential hominin affinity of Graecopithecus, our results suggest that the Pan-Homo split predated the Messinian and that the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor thrived in the Mediterranean region. The emerging Saharan and Arabian desert belt thereby possibly acted as a vicariant agent [this means the desert was a barrier between species]. Our conclusions support views that major Miocene hominid radiations occurred outside Africa and endorse the hypothesis that the hominin clade arose in the Eastern Mediterranean."


Yet the pro-African origin scholars don't like this at all! A 2017 paper published in South Africa goes overboard trying to refute the hominin nature of the Eurasian hominin: "... Even if Graecopithecus can be attributed to Hominini, the fact that it is older than Sahelanthropus does not make it the basal-most representative of this clade... the evolutionary root of humankind would definitely remain in Africa... This means that the phylogenetic relationship between Graecopithecus and Hominini is as yet not confirmed."


Finally, we should also note that this period was one of great changes in the Mediterranean basin. The closure of the Strait of Gibralter led to the evaporation of the Mediterranean, which impacted on the climate, around 5.5 Ma. The Sahara also became a desert. Then, the Atlantic Ocean breached Gibraltar during the Zanclean flood, that refilled the Mediterranean basin.


How did it reach Crete? (Walking)


Crete was splitting from the Balkans' mainland due to a fault that created the Aegean Sea. Many mammals like pigs, deer, a horse species, a bovid, hyaenids, proboscideans reached what is now Crete by land, before it split some 5 Ma. This implies that the individual who made the tracks in Trachilos walked along a peninsula linking Greece with Crete. However, there never was any land bridges at that time, linking Crete with Africa. We can ignore a possible African origin for this individual.


Recent Publications on this subject


More recent findings, Ayla Sevim-Erol et al., (2023) reports a new ape-genus, Anadoluvius, dated at 8.7 Ma, which was discovered in Anatolia, Turkey. The paper places the Balkanic-Anatolian speciments in "at least three hominine genera, Ouranopithecus, Graecopithecus, and Anadoluvius" it finds that they probably evolved from older European hominines. The authors don't support the idea that they evolved from African hominines that dispersed into Europe because there is no evidence of any ancestral lineages in Africa 10 to 13 Ma, and because their analysis does not support it.


Anadoluvius
Anadoluvius skull. Source

The effect on Human Evolution


Another recent paper by Mansfield and Vaneechoutte (2024) proposes a new hypothesis about the split between Pan (chimpancees), Gorillas, and Homo, that had their last common ancestor outside of Africa, in the Europe-Anatolian region. They argue that the dissecation of the Mediterranean forced the "separate branches of European hominids to migrate out of the Mediterranean region. We argue that the lineages leading to Gorilla and Pan independently migrated into Africa, while the lineage leading to Homo went in another direction. Thereafter, the Zanclean Megaflood (5.3 Ma) — hich caused the Mediterranean to refill very quickly— may have cut off the migration route between Eurasia and Africa at the Sinai Peninsula, isolating a small population (the putative Homo lineage) on the Arabian Peninsula / Red Sea coast during a period of hyperaridity. The other group (Pan lineage) crossed into Africa, where it subsequently diversified into various species of Australopithecus."


The authors also suggest that there could have been "multiple migrations of different hominid species from Europe to Africa between 10.0–6.0 Ma, giving rise to various orthograde, evidently bipedal genera in Africa such as Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus and Australo-pithecus." But those that migrated during the arid period of Mediterranean dissecation were blocked out of Africa by the vast Zanclean flood, that in two years filled up the Mediterranean. This paper suggests that "So great was the impact of the Zanclean flood, 5.33 Ma, that the waters of the Mediterranean might have mingled with those of the Red Sea, submerging the land bridge between the Arabian and African plates, thereby cutting off the migratory route into Africa and potentially flooding the Ethiopian Afar Danakil depression of the Middle Awash region..." Then chimps split from our ancestral lineage 5-6 Ma and entered Africa while the Homo lineage remained isolated in Westerm Asia!


"the putative Homo lineage remaining isolated from all other Hominini for a long period (possibly the entire Pliocene) in a relatively small region, and this would explain the absence of PtERV1 genetic elements in our genome, and many of the aberrant features unique to our genus. Then, approximately ~1.8–1.6 Ma, there is the first indisputable evidence of our genus Homo, radically different from small-brained, short-legged australopithecines or habilines in Africa. Fossils of H. erectus (s.l.) appear more or less synchronously in locations as far apart as eastern China and southern Africa. The Pan lineage, on the other hand, did not become isolated and thus was able to further expand and diverge within the African continent as various lineages of the more robust bipedal hominids, such as South African A. africanus, A. sediba, and Paranthropus robustus, all of which possess numerous characters that align with extant chimpanzees / bonobo."


The Homo erectus that originated in the Arabian Peninsula then moved into Africa, to Georgia, and East, to China, and Indonesia: "If the original members of our genus Homo had been cut off from the rest of the world in the Red Sea coastal zone during the Pliocene, the drop in sea-levels in the early Pleistocene, ~2.6 Ma, would have opened up coastal or fluvial migration routes in several directions all at once; places where evidence of early Homo appears: west into Africa (Nariokotome, Koobi Fora), north into Georgia (Dmanisi), east into Indonesia (Java) and China (Yuanmou)."


I will look into another paper that supports this idea in my next post.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Wednesday, February 18, 2026

Neanderthals in Africa?


Continuing with my series of posts on the diversity and higher heterozygosity of contemporary Africans, which may be due to many factors: post-OOA admixture within Africa with diverse archaic hominins leading to a higher Ne. A higher mutation rate due to this higher Ne, and to adapting to the environmental challenges of Africa. Higher mutation rate driven by higher heterozygosity. All of which lead to a higher diversity in contemporary Africans (note that we have no ancient DNA sequences from H. sapiens in Africa as we do for Neanderthals in Eurasia, and H. sapiens in Eurasia, Oceania, and America.


There is also the question of Neanderthal admixture in Africans. I discussed this in a 2019 post and in a 2020 post but more papers have appeared on the subject as we will see below.


The generalized notion is that human beings admixed with Neanderthals, who lived in Eurasia, during the Out Of Africa migration. Since there were no Neanderthals in Africa, those humans who remained behind in Africa never mingled with the Neanderthals, and therefore have no genetic input from them. But, back in 2018 a paper reported a Neanderthal genes in East Africa, they were carried there by Eurasian humans who had admixed with the Neanderthals in Eurasia


out of africa map
In and Out of Africa. Copyright © 2026 by Austin Whittall

The map above shows the homeland of the OOA migrants, in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia) and the red arrows mark the OOA migration across Eurasia and Oceania. In Europe and Western Asia they met the Neanderthals who lived there, mated, admixed, and some modern humans returned to Africa (blue arrows) carrying Neanderthal alleles with them.


The 2020 paper mentioned above suggests that "Back-Migration with Non-Africans and Pre-out-of-Africa Human-to-Neanderthal Gene Flow Contribute to Apparent Neanderthal Ancestry in Africans", two mechanisms, one, the backflow and second, an early gene flow from an early, failed OOA migration that introgressed human alleles in Neanderthals (100-250 ky ago), and which appear as shared between Neanderthals and humans when they are compared.


Below is an image from A. Ragsdale (2023), that shows these gene sharing events (early-OOA with Neanderthals, and Neanderthal-Later OOA admixture and backmigration of Eurasians to Africa).


Neanderthal admixure tree
Figure 1. A history of reciprocal introgression between humans and Neanderthals. (A) Population structure among the ancestors of modern humans extended deep in the past, though common ancestry of all present-day humans is more recent than the expansion of early Homo sapiens out of Africa that resulted in human-to-Neanderthal admixture. Arrows indicate major migration and admixture events.. Fig. 1A in Ragsdale (2023)

The Neanderthal admixture was present in samples obtained from LWK = Luhya in Webuye, Kenya, East Africa. GWD = Gambian in Western Division, Mandinka, in West Africa. MSL = A Mende population from Sierra Leone in West Africa. YRI = Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria, in West Africa. ESN = Esan in Nigeria, West Africa. This is a pan-African presence.


This paper found that "of the Neanderthal sequence identified in African samples, more than 94% was shared with non-Africans..." only a small part was uniquely African, as you can see in the following image, Fig. 2 B in that paper captioned: "Venn diagram showing the amount of overlap in identified Neanderthal sequence in non-African and African populations." Europeans have ~80% more unique Neanderthal alleles than Africans, yet they have their own unique alleles not shared with Eurasians, they seem to have been lost in Eurasia, or, did they come from introgressions with other archaics in Africa, carrying these alleles?


shared and unique Neanderthal - human alleles

Then they "also performed extensive simulations and found that the signal of Neanderthal ancestry in Africans was unlikely to be explained by false positives due to shared ancestry." They therefore attribute the signal to admixture. But where? In Africa or due to a backflow?


The paper states that they considered both options: "studied models where non-African individuals, who carry Neanderthal sequences inherited from hybridization, migrated back to Africa and models of human-to-Neanderthal gene flow due to an early pre-out-of-Africa (pre-OOA) dispersal of modern humans." Note that they don't consider the inside-of-Africa mixing but, instead, admixing in an Early out of Africa mixing (more on this below).


Regarding backflow they found that "These data are consistent with the hypothesis that back-migration contributes to the signal of Neanderthal ancestry in Africans. Furthermore, the data indicate that this back-migration came after the split of Europeans and East Asians, from a population related to the European lineage."


Early Out Of Africa


The paper then finds that there is "strong evidence that human sequence in the Neanderthal genome also contributes to the signal of the Neanderthal ancestry we detect in Africans." The first out of Africa event which supposidly took place betewwn 100 and 150, or even 250 ky ago introgressed human genes into Neanderthals, a gene flow from H. sapiens of this first wave into Neanderthals. Previous studies have noted the genetic contribution of a pre-out-of-Africa gene-flow event from humans into Neanderthals. So, when comparing Neanderthals with current modern humans, we find that we share some alleles (of course, they were originally human genes).


West Africa


Both the 2020 paper mentioned above, and anothe paper by Anders Bergström (2020) found ancient admixture of Neanderthal genes in West Africa. West Africa! which is on the opposite side of Africa from which the OOA event ocurred. How could there be Neanderthal genes so far from East Africa?

Bergström assumes it is a backflow from Eurasia, but also adds that they may be relict alleles from the period that predates the OOA event, and that preserved these genes in Africa, which were lost elsewhere:


"We found small amounts of Neanderthal ancestry in West African genomes, most likely reflecting Eurasian admixture. Despite their very low levels or absence of archaic ancestry, African populations share many Neanderthal and Denisovan variants that are absent from Eurasia, reflecting how a larger proportion of the ancestral human variation has been maintained in Africa....
Alleles private to Africa, however, include a higher proportion of ancestral alleles, and this proportion increases with allele frequency, reflecting old variants that have been lost outside of Africa. For the same reason, many high frequency private African variants are also found in available Neanderthal or Denisovan genomes.
"


If Africans carry variants of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes not found elsewhere it means that these introgressed into Africans, within Africa, maybe from isolated populations of these ancient humans found inside of Africa.


When it comes to splits within African populations, Bergström's paper assumed "a mutation rate of 1.25 × 10−8 per base pair per generation and a generation time of 29 years" and calculated the splits between populations but found that "all of these curves are clearly inconsistent with clean splits, suggesting a picture where genetic separations within Africa were gradual and shaped by ongoing gene flow over tens of thousands of years. For example, there is evidence of gene flow between the San and the Biaka until at least 50 kya, and between the Mbuti, the Biaka, and the Yoruba until the present day." This is in line with an "enrichment" of modern Africandiversity by agglutination of the past diversity preserved in isolated African populations, as mentioned in my recent posts.


Ancient structure influenced modern diversity: "For the deepest splits, there is some evidence of genetic separation dating back to before 300 or even 500 kya... The implication of this is that there lived populations already at this time that contributed more to some present-day human ancestries than to others... but also a small fraction of present-day ancestries retaining traces of structure that is older than this, potentially by hundreds of thousands of years." Here, I ask, are these ancient alleles result of recent post OOA introgression of ultra-archaic hominins in Africans? or the common ancestors of humans and Neanderthal-Denisovans?


The presence of Neanderthal alleles in Africans was quantified by Bergström as follows: "The West African Yoruba also display a Neanderthal admixture signal that is similar in shape but much less pronounced than that in non-Africans (Fig. 6D and fig. S9). Other African populations do not clearly display the same behavior. These results provide evidence for low amounts of Neanderthal ancestry in West Africa, consistent with previous results that were based on other approaches, and we estimate this at 0.18 ± 0.06% in the Yoruba using an f4-ratio (assuming that the Mbuti have none). The most likely source for this is West Eurasian admixture and, assuming a simple linear relationship to Neanderthal ancestry, our estimate implies 8.6 ± 3% Eurasian ancestry in the Yoruba."


Sub Saharian Africa (SSA)


The people living in Africa south of the Sahara also carry Neanderthal alleles, a study by Harris et al., 2024: " As a percentage of the genome, therefore, Neanderthal ancestry in the 180 SSA dataset ranges from 0% to ~1.5%, with the highest levels observed in the Amhara and Fulani."


They favor the sequence: early migration of anatomically Moderh Humans (AMH) out of Africa ~250 ky ago, admixing with Neanderthals in Eurasia, leaving a ~6% AMH genetic trace in Neanderthals. Then, the final OOA event with modern humans, who mated with Neanderthals (~40 to 55 kya), receiving these AMH haplotypes from the Neanderthal (NIRs). Then, " Third, at least two subsequent recent migrations of non-sub-Saharan African AMHs into sub-Saharan Africa brought introgressed Neanderthal haplotypes (NIRs) to sub-Saharan African AMH populations with whom they admixed."


Perhaps the best theory is the one that suggests that the Neanderthal signal was acquired inside Africa, as we will see below.


An introgression within Africa


Arun Durvasula and Sriram Sankararaman (2020) on the other hand suggest that the Neanderthal genes came from a direct "within Africa" admixing event:


"We provide complementary lines of evidence for archaic introgression into four West African populations. Our analyses of site frequency spectra indicate that these populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged before the split of Neanderthals and modern humans... Our results reveal the substantial contribution of archaic ancestry in shaping the gene pool of present-day West African populations."

They compared three different models in which part of the West African ancestry comes from, (A) people who split from their ancestors after modern humans and Neanderthals split; (B) people who derive from the ancestors of Neanderthals after they split from modern Humans, and (C) people who split from the ancestors of modern humans and Neanderthals before modern humans and Neanderthals split. They found that (C) was the best model:
"support for a contribution to the genetic ancestry of present-day West African populations from an archaic ghost population whose divergence from the ancestors of modern humans predates the split of Neanderthals and modern humans.
... We determined the posterior mean for the split time to be 625,000 years before the present (B.P.) [95% highest posterior density interval (HPD): 360,000 to 975,000], the admixture time to be 43,000 years B.P. (95% HPD: 6000 to 124,000), and the admixture fraction to be 0.11 (95% HPD: 0.045 to 0.19). Analyses of three other West African populations (ESN, GWD, and MSL) yielded concordant estimates for these parameters. Combining our results across the West African populations, we estimate that the archaic population split from the ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans 360 thousand years (ka) to 1.02 million years (Ma) B.P. and subsequently introgressed into the ancestors of present-day Africans 0 to 124 ka B.P. contributing 2 to 19% of their ancestry.
"


This means that an ancient, relict population that split from the branch leading to Modern Humans and Neanderthals between 360 and 975 ky ago, on avg. 625,000 years ago, mated with Homo sapiens people in Western Africa, and this event ocurred after the OOA event that peopled the rest of the world, this admixture inside of Africa took place roughly 43,000 years ago (0 to 124 ky).


Maybe later there was backflow from Eurasia, but this introgression in Western Africa with an ultra archaic human is the one tha injected Neanderthal-like genes into this population. It must have surely contributed to the diversity of these populations, adding more heterozygosity to them.


This idea is supported by Nina Hollfelder, Gwenna Breton, Per Sjödin, and Mattias Jakobsson, (2021):

"Another possibility is that the large Ne is shaped by multiple introgression events from divergent lineages, which are hard to distinguish without archaic reference sequences. Unfortunately, many studies of archaic or ghost introgression in Africa focus on a few populations and/or use only one method for inference, so that the effect of the identified archaic or ghost introgression is not yet comparable across all major branches of modern humans in a systematic way.
Interestingly, many studies identified a fairly recent time for the introgression from extinct lineages in Africa, with introgression events even after the split from non-African populations, hinting at survival of archaic human populations until relatively recently in time.
"


Where Ne is the effective population, the large Ne of the African population is considered as one of the factors that created its diversity vs. the rest of the World, with lower Ne's due to bottlenecks and lower diversity. Here, we see that multiple introgression from diverse populations that merge can also lead to the effect of a high Ne!


I personally support the idea of super-archaics mixing with Africans after the OOA event, adding diversity and heterozygosity to their genetic makeup, and I don't exclude a backflow from Eurasia with Neanderthal genes.


No Neanderthals or Denisovans, but an archaic introgression


Last but not least, Lorente Galdos et al., (2019)" found no signals of Neanderthal or Denisovan introgression in the sub-Saharan individuals... We identify the fingerprint of an archaic introgression event in the sub-Saharan populations included in the models (~ 4.0% in Khoisan, ~ 4.3% in Mbuti Pygmies, and ~ 5.8% in Mandenka) from an early divergent and currently extinct ghost modern human lineage.... Our results suggest interbreeding of AMHs with an archaic ghost population that diverged from the AMH lineage at a temporal scale similar to the one between the Neanderthals and Denisovans. "


The timeline given in this paper is the following: "the AMH lineage and the one from the archaic Eurasian populations diverged 603 kya (95% credible interval (CI) ranging from 495.85 to 796.86 kya). The ghost XAf archaic population and the AMH lineage split 528 kya (95% CI of 230.16 to 700.06 kya), whereas the Denisovan and Neanderthal lineages split 426 kya (95% CI from 332.77 to 538.37 kya). Archaic introgression estimates from XAf to African populations range from 3.8% (95% CI 1.7 to 4.8%) in Khoisan and 3.9% (95% CI 1.3 to 4.9%) in Mbuti to 5.8% (95% CI 0.7 to 0.97%) in West Africa. Our analyses also identified the archaic introgression from early AMHs into Neanderthal."


I wonder if the AMH introgression into Neanderthals (also mentioned further up) which is said to have taken place during the early OOA event 250-100 ky ago, isn't just the reflection of the common origin and relatedness between Neanderthals and these early AMHs. They split in Africa and had common genes. Seems a simple, straightforward explanation.


Regarding the ghost archaics XAf population, I have posted about them in the past (see this post, this post, this one, and this post among others), they are indeed a source of diversity, rare alleles, and heterosygosity for contemporary Africans.


Comments


As you can see, many research papers, authors, models, interpolations, algorithms, and softwares used and different interpretations from the same basic genetic samples!



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Monday, February 16, 2026

On the Diversity of Africans


In a recent post I wrote about the Neutral Theory of molecular genetics, and its shortcomings. Today's post will explore the African genetic diversity, a foundation on which the Out Of Africa (OOA) theory is based.


There are several questions that should be answered: Do modern Africans reflect the genetic makeup of ancient Africa 100,000 or 75,000 years ago? Is a modern Nigerian, Gambian, Angolan African representative of the ancient population from which the Out of Africa migrants split? Have other events taken place within Africa in other populations that were isolated from the sub-population that was the root or base from which modern H. sapiens migrated into Eurasia?


Admixture with archaic hominins after the OOA event (such as H. naledi), admixture between many separate and formerly isolated hunter gatherer sub-populations due to migrations like the Bantu migration could have led to a modern highly diverse African population, while the original OOA root was far less diverse.


The image below is a crude attempt to reflect the isolated populations within Africa at the time modern Humans appeared. Each circle is a population. They all contain allelles (colored red, blue, yellow, etc.) some shared, others unique to each population. The black arrows show the migration Out of Africa, with humans dispersing across Eurasia towards Siberia, Europe and Oceania, and America. They lose diversity on the way due to Genetic Drift.


The dashed red arrows converging on a circle shows the internal migrations within Africa by which these formerly isolated sub-populations of humans admixed and the final, contemporary population has an even higher diversity than the original root of the Out of Africa migration (set in the horn of Africa).


It does not show any back-flow of humans from Eurasia into Africa, or archaic introgression either in Africa or in Eurasia (Neanderthals, Denisovans).


out of Africa genetic drift
Genetic Drift out of Africa. Copyright © 2026 by Austin Whittall

Population structure in Africa


The humans in Africa were not a uniform population. A paper published in Nature suggested that there were "low levels of gene flow among archaic populations before the emergence of anatomically modern humans — that is, they imply the existence of ancestral population structure." It also hints at admixture with primitive, archaic, hominins in Africa: "There is also growing evidence that some highly divergent genetic lineages might have entered our genome through hybridization between an expanding anatomically modern human population and archaic forms of humans."


Another article published in Nature, questions the use of modern Africans to model the OOA event. While highlighting the high diversity within Africa, the paper also states that "we will need to establish whether selection has continued to operate effectively on complex traits, leading to unbiased estimates from these populations. If not, it may still be inappropriate to use a specific modern African population as a proxy for the ancestral population of modern humans."


Additional research (Source) looks into the effects of the structured population within ancient pre-OOA Africa: "Several studies have indicated that ancestral populations were geographically structured before modern humans migrated out of Africa. For example, it has been suggested that the deep coalescence times of mtDNA and X-chromosome lineages are consistent with a demographic scenario of ancient population structure in Africa. A recent analysis of cranial shape variability in anatomically modern human fossils (dating to 200–60 kya) from Africa and the Middle East also reported a high level of morphological divergence among these fossil hominids which was interpreted as evidence for ancestral population structure in Pleistocene Africa. Thus, arguably, a considerable amount of genetic and phenotypic diversity may have been present at an early stage of modern human evolution."


Indeed! And not all of this diversity was found in one population, each sub-population had their own alleles, later admixed into modern Africans (minus alleles lost due to genetic drift) and plus backflow from Eurasia with introgressed Neanderthal genes, and the mutations added by an additional 100 ky of evolution in Africa, subjected to natural selection and random mutations over that period of time.


This paper also mentions the backflow: "The reverse migration of non-Africans into Africa was also shown to contribute to the gene-pool of modern African populations"


The variations observed in skulls mentioned above was reported by a paper published in Nature. Different skull shapes mean that different sets of genes were working and they were not the same alleles in each sub-population.


"Late Middle Pleistocene (LMP, from 350 to 130 ka) African fossils [were highly variable]... Even when excluding the H. naledi material, African LMP fossils exhibit extremely variable morphologies. The Omo I22 and Herto specimens have a modern-like anatomy... and are generally considered the earliest undisputed remains of H. sapiens. All other LMP African fossils show a mosaic of derived and archaic characters. For instance, the Jebel Irhoud remains were originally described as showing strong similarities with Neandertals, while the study of the new Irhoud remains emphasises their affinities with H. sapiens, despite the absence of key modern humans apomorphies. The Guomde, Ngaloba, Eliye Springs and Florisbad specimens along with Omo II... have been mostly referred to as ‘archaic H. sapiens’, a category grouping isolated fossils with disparate morphologies. This situation challenges any attempt at identifying the evolutionary mechanisms that may explain the morphological pattern in the African LMP fossil record, as well as identifying the ancestral population, or populations, of modern humans"


The Admixture Within Africa


These different groups of humans must have later admixed into the base from which modern Africans come from. Possibly after the basal Homo sapiens left Africa in its OOA journey.


Yet another paper from Nature investigated contemporary African diversity. It looked at the genes and ancient migrations in different populations, including the Hunter gatherers (HG) and the supposedly most ancient group of humans, and the most diverse one, those living in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), to define the current genome of Africans. It found an important effect from Eurasian admixture and a strong influence of natural selection modelling modern genes:


"Eurasian ancestry has a substantial impact on differentiation among SSA populations...
We found evidence for historically complex and regionally distinct admixture with multiple HG and Eurasian populations across SSA. Specifically, ancient Eurasian admixture was observed in central West African populations (Yoruba; ∼7,500–10,500 years ago), old admixture among Ethiopian populations (∼2,400–3,200 years ago) consistent with previous reports, and more recent complex admixture in some East African populations (∼150–1,500 years ago). Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period.
We also find evidence for complex and regionally distinct HG admixture across SSA, with ancient gene flow (∼9,000 years ago) among Igbo and more recent admixture in East and South Africa (multiple events ranging from 100 years ago to 3,000 years ago), broadly consistent with historical movements reflecting the Bantu expansion. An exploration of the likeliest sources of admixture in our data suggested that HG admixture in Igbo was most closely represented by modern day Khoe-San populations rather than by rainforest HG populations.
Positive selection in SSA
We examined highly differentiated SNPs between European and African populations, as well as among African populations to gain insights into loci that may have undergone selection in response to local adaptive forces. To account for confounding due to Eurasian admixture, we also conducted analyses after masking Eurasian ancestry. On examining locus-specific Europe–Africa differentiation, enrichment of loci known to be under positive selection was observed among the most differentiated sites (P = 1.4 × 10−31). Furthermore, there was statistically significant enrichment for gene variants among these, indicating that this differentiation is unlikely to have arisen purely from random drift...
"


So modern African diversity is the result of recent admixture across the continent and the forces of natural selection. These people are not the same people that saw the OOA migration depart.


Archaic introgression in Africa


Regarding introgression of archaic human in Africa, I had posted back in 2019 about it (See post: Archaic Ghost population admixed with Modern Humans in Africa) which quotes a paper by Lorente-Galdos et al. that reported that: "We identify the fingerprint of an archaic introgression event in the sub-Saharan populations included in the models (~ 4.0% in Khoisan, ~ 4.3% in Mbuti Pygmies, and ~ 5.8% in Mandenka) from an early divergent and currently extinct ghost modern human lineage."


Another paper form 2020, published in Science found the same effect in Western Africa: "We provide complementary lines of evidence for archaic introgression into four West African populations. Our analyses of site frequency spectra indicate that these populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged before the split of Neanderthals and modern humans. Using a method that can identify segments of archaic ancestry without the need for reference archaic genomes, we built genome-wide maps of archaic ancestry in the Yoruba and the Mende populations. Analyses of these maps reveal segments of archaic ancestry at high frequency in these populations that represent potential targets of adaptive introgression. Our results reveal the substantial contribution of archaic ancestry in shaping the gene pool of present-day West African populations."


This introgression took place in West Africa after the OOA: "the admixture time ... 43,000 years B.P. (95% HPD: 6000 to 124,000), and the admixture fraction ... 0.11 (95% HPD: 0.045 to 0.19).", that is 11% mean (4.5 to 19%). And then subject to selection as it was an adaptive introgression.


This surely contributed to the diversity of the alleles in these people compared to those who left Africa in the OOA migration.


Other confounders


Finally, there is the question of back-migrations from Eurasia into Africa. These people who returned "Into Africa" or "Out of Asia" back flow carried with them genes from people who had left Africa, plus admixture with Neanderthals (and maybe, Denisovan, ultra-archaics, first wave humans who left before the final OOA event). This surely contributed to the genetic diversity of Africa.


Another element to consider is the mutation speed or faster evolutionin Africa which could have fueled diversity starting even before the final OOA event 60-100 ky ago. But that is the subject of a future post.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 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/