# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  Denisovians Interbreeding With Unknown Ancient Humans

## Aberdeen

Yet more complications re the story of ancient humans. Scientists haven't yet been able to discover a lot about the Denisovians, an ancient type of humans similar to Neanderthals who have left traces of themselves among some modern populations in Asia, particularly New Guinea. The few samples of ancient Denisovians that have been found so far are all from Siberia, I believe. And now a paper has been presented to the English Royal Society stating that scientists have found Denisovian remains that contain DNA from a previously completely unknown type of early human. Here's the article.

"Updated genome sequences from two extinct relatives of modern humans suggest that these ‘archaic’ groups bred with humans and with each other more extensively than was previously known. The ancient genomes, one from a Neanderthal and one from a member of an archaic human group called the Denisovans, were presented on 18 November at a meeting on ancient DNA at the Royal Society in London. The results suggest that interbreeding went on between the members of several ancient human-like groups in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago, including an as-yet-unknown human ancestor from Asia. “What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a _Lord of the Rings_-type world — that there were many hominid populations,” says Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London who was at the meeting but was not involved in the work. The first published Neanderthaland Denisovan genome sequences revolutionized the study of ancient human history, not least because they showed that these groups bred with anatomically modern humans, contributing to the genetic diversity of many people alive today."

And here's the link.

www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-sex-lives-1.14196

----------


## LeBrok

> The results suggest that* interbreeding went on between the members of several ancient human-like groups* in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago, including an as-yet-unknown human ancestor from Asia.


 In one of the Neanderthal threads I argued along these lines with one of skeptics few years back.

----------


## Aberdeen

Some people try to simplify human history and genetics. But we know that if it's about humans, and especially about human reproduction, the real story is going to be messy and complicated.

----------


## LeBrok

> Some people try to simplify human history and genetics. But we know that if it's about humans, and especially about human reproduction, the real story is going to be messy and complicated.


Many people act defensive on purity of race the other on aesthetics. How beautiful and pure people can engage in relationship with ugly and subhuman homo erectus?

----------


## Tomenable

> What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a *Lord of the Rings-type world* — that there were many hominid populations


 
I knew that such a great story must be based on facts. 8-) Well, "almost facts".




> aesthetics


This is really subjective and changes through time, space, and race, etc.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artific...al_deformation

I bet that various Homo Erectuses saw each other as attractive.

And BTW - all we know about HE's look is from face reconstructions, which aren't really that reliable. Just compare face reconstructions of Neanderthals from various years and authors. Some are ugly some are not. I suppose that perception of author of a particular reconstruction about the reconstructed specimen plays a major role. As long as Neanderthals were perceived as primitive beasts, reconstructions were also looking very ugly (for us). The only things which can be quite accurately reconstructed from skull are shapes. But not for example skin, nose, hair, eyes, etc. In quite recent history of humanity, many cultures deformed their skulls (see the link above) and other body parts in various ways, seeing that as attractive.

----------


## LeBrok

> I knew that such a great story must be based on facts. 8-) Well, "almost facts".
> 
> 
> 
> This is really subjective and changes through time, space, and race, etc.:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artific...al_deformation
> 
> I bet that various Homo Erectuses saw each other as attractive.
> ...


Once we learn how to read DNA regarding facial features we should be able to reconstruct with amazing precision.

----------


## Tomenable

BTW - do you agree that Dutch people and South African Bushmen look very differently ??? 

But, that was apparently not an obstacle for them to intermarry. 

Cape Coloureds are descendants of Dutchmen / Boers and Bushmen, Bantu and other groups:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Coloureds




> Cape Coloureds have an ancestry consisting of the following ethnic groups:[2]
> 
> Khoisan: (32-43%)
> Bantu-speaking Africans: (20-36%)
> Ethnic groups in Europe: (21-28%)
> Asian peoples: (9-11%)


 But some of their sub-groups are specifically descendants of only Dutchmen and Bushmen (Khoisan):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griqua_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baster

http://www.cyclopaedia.info/wiki/Rehoboth-Bastaards

The history of Dutch-Bushmen mixing started in 1652 when Van Riebeck's colonists landed at Table Bay, and met Khoisan herdsmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_van_Riebeeck

==================================

The total number of Cape Coloureds according to one source was around 500,000 in year 1909 and about 1,400,000 in 1959.

Whites are not a majority in any region of South Africa, but Whites + Coloureds combined are more numerous than Blacks in two regions:

Unmixed Black Africans by region in South Africa in period 1996-2011 (lowest / highest % at any given time during this period):






> Once we learn how to read DNA regarding facial features we should be able to reconstruct with amazing precision.


This is excellent news indeed.

----------

