Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

  1. #1
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,969
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Post Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

    This two posts were originally posted by Mynydd on Stirpes:
    http://forum.stirpes.net/showthread.php?t=6086

    I think its quite important for the multiregional-OOA discussion.

    Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

    Public Library of Science
    30 November 2005


    After miners unearthed a skull and bones in a Neander Valley cave in Germany in 1856—three years before the publication of On the Origin of Species—the remains were initially described as either those of a “brutish” race or of someone disfigured by disease. As Darwinian evolution caught on, so did the realization that these fossils were evidence of an earlier human species. Scientists have been debating Neanderthal's place in human evolution ever since.

    An ongoing question concerns the possibility that Neanderthals and early humans mated, since they likely crossed paths during thousands of years of European cohabitation. In a new study, Mathias Currat and Laurent Excoffier present a simulation model based on what we know about the population density and distribution of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons. Their results complement recent genetic and morphological evidence indicating that early human and Neanderthal interbreeding was unlikely.

    The notion that modern Europeans directly descended from Neanderthals has mostly yielded to two competing models: One postulates that modern humans arose in Africa about 130,000 years ago and completely replaced coexisting archaic forms with no interbreeding, while the other proposes a gradual transition with interbreeding.

    Though mounting genetic evidence (based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from fossils) suggests Neanderthals and early humans did not breed, the evidence has been inconclusive. It's possible, for example, that any Neanderthal gene “leakage” could have been lost through genetic drift if the mating populations were small. And because so few fossils are available to analyze, previous studies could rule out only Neanderthal contributions over 25%.

    Currat and Excoffier's model refines various parameters—such as geographic boundaries, local population variations, range expansion, and competition for resources—based on archeological and demographic data for both populations. Evidence suggests modern humans replaced Neanderthals over 12,500 years, for example, which constrains the speed at which modern humans could expand.

    The authors started with a scenario based on a set of “plausible” parameter values—their basic scenario—and then varied the local interbreeding rate and, for example, the population size and location of Cro-Magnons, to produce eight alternate scenarios describing how Cro-Magnon colonization of Europe might have proceeded. They estimated the likely proportion of Neanderthal gene contributions to the modern gene pool using “coalescent simulations,” which generate the genealogies and diversity of genes in local populations based on simulations of their population densities and migration histories. The simulations show that if Neanderthals bred with Cro-Magnons without constraints over thousands of years, Neanderthal contributions to the modern gene pool “would be immense.” Surprisingly, the simulations also show that even a very small mixing should lead to high levels of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans.


    Reconstruction of a Neanderthal woman

    What could account for this counterintuitive result? Given a low population density with small local breeding populations, any introduction of Neanderthal genes would decrease the frequency of Cro-Magnon genes of that population; if these Neanderthal integrations take place as the Cro-Magnon population is expanding, newly acquired Neanderthal genes would also be amplified.

    Since no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has been found in modern-day Europeans, the authors modeled the maximum number of interbreeding events that would support this observation. The estimated maximum number of events, it turns out, falls between 34 and 120—extremely low values, Currat and Excoffier conclude, “given the fact that the two populations must have coexisted for more than 12,000 years.”

    While the authors acknowledge their simulations suggest rather than reflect reality, their model does incorporate real historical data such as Cro-Magnon expansion over time and local population growth. At a value of only 0.1%, their new estimate of the rate of interbreeding is about 400 times lower than previous estimates and provides strong support that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon didn't interbreed and may even have been different species.


    [source]
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  2. #2
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,969
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Post Re: Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

    Modern Humans Did Not Admix with Neanderthals during Their Range Expansion into Europe


    Mathias Currat 1,2, Laurent Excoffier 1*

    1 Computational and Molecular Population Genetics Lab, Zoological Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 2 Genetics and Biometry Laboratory, Department of Anthropology and Ecology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    The process by which the Neanderthals were replaced by modern humans between 42,000 and 30,000 before present is still intriguing. Although no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineage is found to date among several thousands of Europeans and in seven early modern Europeans, interbreeding rates as high as 25% could not be excluded between the two subspecies. In this study, we introduce a realistic model of the range expansion of early modern humans into Europe, and of their competition and potential admixture with local Neanderthals. Under this scenario, which explicitly models the dynamics of Neanderthals' replacement, we estimate that maximum interbreeding rates between the two populations should have been smaller than 0.1%. We indeed show that the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in Europe is compatible with at most 120 admixture events between the two populations despite a likely cohabitation time of more than 12,000 y. This extremely low number strongly suggests an almost complete sterility between Neanderthal females and modern human males, implying that the two populations were probably distinct biological species.


    Academic Editor: David Penny, Massey University

    Received:
    May 12, 2004; Accepted: October 6, 2004; Published: November 30, 2004

    DOI:
    10.1371/journal.pbio.0020421

    Copyright:
    © 2004 Currat and Excoffier. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abbreviations: BP, before present; HN, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis; HS, Homo sapiens sapiens; mtDNA, mitochondrial DNA; RAO, Recent African Origin Model

    *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: laurent.excoffier@zoo.unibe.ch

    Citation:
    Currat M, Excoffier L (2004) Modern Humans Did Not Admix with Neanderthals during Their Range Expansion into Europe. PLoS Biol 2(12): e421


    Introduction

    The “Neanderthals” or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (HN) constitute a group of hominids, whose particular morphology developed in Europe during the last 350,000 y under the effect of selection and genetic drift, reaching its final form approximately 130,000 y ago (Klein 2003). This subgroup of hominids populated Europe and western Asia until the arrival of the first modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens (HS), approximately 45,000 y ago (Mellars 1992). This arrival coincided with the beginning of Neanderthal decline, a process that occurred in less than 15,000 y and that is still not fully understood (Stringer and Davies 2001). An important question which remains to be assessed is whether Neanderthals could hybridize with modern humans and if they left some traces in the current modern human gene pool. While this hypothesis is excluded under the Recent African Origin Model (RAO), which postulates a complete replacement of former members of the genus by H. sapiens, it is central to the tenets of the multiregional hypothesis (Eckhardt et al. 1993; Wolpoff et al. 2000), which assumes a gradual transition from H. erectus to modern humans on different continents. From a paleontological and archaeological point of view the debate is still open, even if the supporters of the RAO (Stringer and Davies 2001; Rak et al. 2002; Schmitz et al. 2002) are gaining momentum over those supporting European regional continuity (Duarte et al. 1999; but see also Tattersall and Schwartz 1999). Recent morphological studies support a clear distinction between Neanderthals and modern humans (Harvati 2003; Ramirez Rozzi and Bermudez De Castro 2004), and genetic evidence, such as the clear divergence and monophyly of the HN mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (Krings et al. 1997, 1999; Ovchinnikov et al. 2000), suggested a long separation of the HN and HS female lineages (Krings et al. 2000; Scholz et al. 2000; Schmitz et al. 2002; Caramelli et al. 2003), with a divergence time estimated to lie between 300,000 and 750,000 y ago (Krings et al. 1997, 1999). The complete absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in the current European gene pool, attested from the study of more than 4,000 recorded sequences (Richards et al. 1996; Handt et al. 1998) supported the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA leakage in the modern gene pool, but it was argued that even if some HN genes could have passed in the ancient Cro-Magnon gene pool, they could have been lost through genetic drift (Relethford 2001; Hagelberg 2003). Recently, several attempts were made at circumventing the drift problem by the direct sequencing of modern human fossils contemporary with the last Neanderthals. Cro-Magnon sequences were found very similar to those of current Europeans (Caramelli et al. 2003), even though contamination from modern DNA could not be completely excluded (Serre et al. 2004). All studies nevertheless agreed in showing the absence of Neanderthal sequence motifs among early modern human fossil DNA (Caramelli et al. 2003; Serre et al. 2004), but only Neanderthal contributions larger than 25% to the modern gene pool could be statistically excluded under a simple model (Figure 1A and 1B) of instantaneous mixing of Neanderthals and modern humans (Nordborg 1998; Serre et al. 2004). Thus, the problem of the genetic relationships between Neanderthals and modern humans remains fully open.

    Figure 1.
    Different Models of the Interactions between Neanderthals and Modern Humans

    (A) Model of instantaneous mixing of unsubdivided Neanderthal and modern human populations.
    (B) Same as (A), but with an exponential growth of the modern human population having started before the admixture with Neanderthals.
    (C) Model of a progressive range expansion of modern humans into Europe. This model is spatially explicit, and the modern human population occupies a different range than the Neanderthal population before the admixture. Under this model, admixture is progressive and occurs because modern humans move into the territory of Neanderthals, a territory that shrinks with the advance of modern humans.


    In order to further investigate this issue, we have developed a more realistic modeling of the admixture process between Neanderthals and early modern humans. In brief, the differences with previous approaches are the following (see Figure 1 and the Materials and Methods section for further details): (1) Europe is assumed to be subdivided into small territories potentially harboring two subpopulations (demes): an HN and an HS deme; (2) Europe is settled progressively by modern humans, resulting in a range expansion from the Near East. This range expansion implies also a demographic expansion of early modern Europeans, which stops when Europe is fully settled; (3) local population size is logistically regulated for both Neanderthals and modern humans; (4) we assume there is competition between modern humans and Neanderthals, resulting in the progressive replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans due to their higher carrying capacity caused by a better exploitation of local resources (Klein 2003); (5) Consequently, admixture between the two populations is also progressive and occurs in subdivisions occupied by both populations, in a narrow strip at the front of the spatially expanding modern human population (Figure 2); (6) coalescent simulations are used to estimate the likelihood of different rates of local admixture between modern humans and Neanderthals, given that Neanderthal mtDNA sequences are not observed in current Europeans.

    The additional realism of this model makes it also more complex, and the range expansion and admixture processes will depend on several parameters, like the carrying capacities of the local populations, their intrinsic growth rate, the amount of gene flow between adjacent demes, the local rate of admixture between populations, or the geographical origin of the range expansion. Since it is difficult to explore this complex parameter space, we used archeological and paleodemographic information to calibrate the values of these parameters. For instance, the estimated duration of the replacement process (about 12,500 y, Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000a) was used to adjust the speed of the expansion of modern humans and, thus, provided strong constraints on local growth and emigration rates. Based on available information, we thus defined a set of plausible parameter values considered as a basic scenario (scenario A). Local admixture rate, which is the parameter of interest here, was then varied, and its effect on the estimated contribution of Neanderthals to the current modern human gene pool was recorded. The sensitivity of admixture estimates to alternative parameterization of our model was studied in eight alternative scenarios (scenarios B to I), by varying each time the values of a few parameters.



    Results

    Expected Neanderthal Contribution to the Current European Gene Pool as a Function of Admixture Rates

    The description of the nine envisioned scenarios for the colonization of Europe by modern humans is reported in Table 1. For each of these scenarios, the admixture rate, which is the parameter of interest in this study, was allowed to vary and only marginally influenced the cohabitation period and the replacement time of HN by HS (Table 1). Note that the cohabitation period at any given place (shown as a narrow black band on Figure 2) is limited to 6–37 generations, depending on the scenario.

    The expected proportion of Neanderthal genes in the gene pool of modern humans was estimated by coalescent simulations and is reported in Table 1 for different rates of admixture between Neanderthals and modern humans. At odds with previous estimates (Nordborg 1998 ; Gutierrez et al. 2002; Serre et al. 2004), our simulations show that even for very few admixture events, the contribution of the Neanderthal lineages in the current gene pool should be very large (see also Figure S1). For instance, in scenario A, with a 4-fold advantage in exploitation of local resources by modern humans, a single fertile admixture event in one deme out of ten over the whole period of coexistence between HN and HS should lead to the observation of 38% of HN genes in the present mtDNA HS gene pool (scenario A in Table 1). This proportion would be lower but still amount to 15% if the advantage of modern humans was reduced to 1.6 times over Neanderthals with the same admixture rate (scenario F in Table 1). With higher but still relatively low levels of admixture, a majority of Neanderthal genes should be expected in the current European gene pool (Table 1). For instance, with as much as two admixture events per cell over the total coexistence period of Neanderthals and modern humans, more than 95% of the current HS gene pool should be tracing back to Neanderthals, for all scenarios with logistic demographic regulation described in Table 1 (scenarios A to H). As shown on Figure 3, the proportion of current lineages that can be traced to Neanderthals is, however, not uniformly distributed over Europe in scenario of moderate or low interbreeding. A gradient should be visible from the source of the range expansion (which shows the largest proportion of modern human genes) toward the margins of the expansion (the British Isles and the Iberian Peninsula), which should then be expected to harbor a larger proportion of Neanderthal genes than the rest of Europe (Figure 3). However, this gradient would be relatively weak, and the expected proportion of HN lineages at any position is primarily affected by the degree of admixture between the two populations.


    Figure 2.
    Range Expansion of Modern Humans into Europe from the Near East

    Simulations begin 1,600 generations ago, with the area of Europe already colonized by Neanderthals shown in light gray, and an origin of modern human expansion indicated by a black arrow (lane A). Lanes (B–F) show the progression of the wave of advance of modern humans (dark gray) into Europe at different times before present. The black band at the front of the expansion wave represents the restricted zone of cohabitation between modern humans and Neanderthals.


    The finding that even minute amounts of interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans should lead to a massive introgression of Neanderthals' mtDNAs into the Cro-Magnon gene pool is somehow counterintuitive and deserves further explanations. The successful introgression of Neanderthal mtDNAs is due to a massive dilution of the modern human mtDNA gene pool into that of the pre-existing population (Chikhi et al. 2002) and to a low probability of being lost by drift at the time of introgression (see below). The dilution process can be seen as follows: An HN gene entering the HS gene pool at an early stage of the colonization process will lower the frequency of HS genes in the HS deme; the migrants sent from this deme to colonize an adjacent new territory can themselves harbor HN genes, so that a further HS deme can be founded by a mixture of HS and HN genes; additional admixture events will further lower the proportion of HS genes in HS demes. The repetition of these admixture and migration steps will thus rapidly dilute HS genes. Under this process, the European HS population can be fully introgressed by HN genes under scenarios A to H, if two or more admixture events occurred in each deme (see Table 1, last two columns). For such large rates of admixture, the fraction of HS genes in demes adjacent to the source of HS expansion is already diluted by more than 28% with HN genes (results not shown). Therefore, in the absence of counteracting selective forces, the dilution process repeated over several demes would hinder the spread of HS genes away from the source of the colonization. The range expansion would thus be mainly carried out by individuals having HN genes, explaining why the HS European population would appear fully introgressed by HN genes. The success of introgressing HN genes is also due to their integration into the HS deme while it is in a period of demographic (logistic) growth (see Figure S2), so that these introgressing genes are unlikely to be lost by genetic drift, and will, rather, be amplified by the logistic growth process occurring in the HS deme. In order to assess the importance of the period of logistic growth relative to the dilution process, we have modeled a range expansion process where a newly founded deme reaches instantaneously its carrying capacity, and where a given proportion of genes is recruited from the local Neanderthal gene pool. The results of those simulations (reported in Table 1 as scenario I) show that without logistic growth much larger interbreeding rates would be necessary to have the same impact on current human diversity. Indeed, the occurrence of two admixture events per deme over the whole cohabitation period would only lead to 5% of the current gene pool being of Neanderthal ancestry, instead of 100% when logistic growth is implemented.


    Table 1.
    Expected Proportion of Neanderthal Lineages in the Present Modern Human Gene Pool under Different Demographic Scenarios


    Estimation of Admixture Rates between Neanderthals and Modern Humans

    The present results show that if Neanderthals could freely breed with modern humans, having progressively invaded their territory, their contribution to our gene pool would be immense. Since no Neanderthal mtDNA sequence has been observed so far among present Europeans, it is of interest to estimate the maximum admixture rate between Neanderthals and modern humans that would be compatible with an absence of Neanderthal genes, accounting for the current sampling effort and genetic drift over the last 30,000 y. This assessment was done by coalescent simulations. The likelihoods of different admixture rates are reported in Figure 4 for each scenario. Maximum-likelihood estimates are obviously obtained for a total absence of interbreeding between HS and HN, but here the interest lies in the upper limit of a 95% confidence interval. We see that the scenarios A to H can be divided into three groups. Scenarios A, C, G, and H lead to very similar upper bounds for the estimation of the maximum admixture rate (approximately 0.015 admixture events per deme; see Table 2). Similarity of results obtained for scenarios A and C show that the fact that the origin of the spread of modern humans was diffused over a large area or concentrated at a single point does not substantially influence our results. A shorter duration of the colonization of Europe by HS (approximately 8,000 y; scenario G) leads to an estimation very similar to that obtained under scenario A. Also the implementation of fully symmetric interbreeding between HN and HS (scenario H) leads to results almost identical to those obtained when we only allow breeding between HN females and HS males (scenario A). The place of origin for modern humans seems more important, as a putative origin in Iran (scenario B) or in North Africa (scenario D) leads to even lower maximum interbreeding rates (approximately 0.01 admixture events per deme) than if the source is located closer to Europe as in scenario A. Moreover, scenario D also shows that a much larger initial size of the HS population (14,000 breeding females instead of 40 in scenario A) does not reduce the final Neanderthal contribution to the HS gene pool. This is because we model local (at the deme level) and not global contacts between the two populations. Finally, scenarios E and F, corresponding to larger carrying capacities of Neanderthals, would be compatible with a larger amount of admixture between the two species (approximately 0.03 admixture events per deme), which is understandable given the longer cohabitation times under these scenarios (21–37 generations) than under scenarios A–D and G–H (6–12 generations). The estimates of the average number of admixture events per deme can be translated into a maximum number of interbreeding events having occurred over all Europe during the whole replacement process of Neanderthals by modern humans, as reported in Table 2. We find that, depending on the scenario, these maximum estimates range between 34 (scenario B) and 120 (scenario E) admixture events over the whole of Europe , which are extremely low values given the fact that the two populations have certainly coexisted for more than 12,000 y in that region.


    Figure 3.
    Expected Proportion of Neanderthal Lineages (in Black) among European Samples under Demographic Scenario A (Table 1) ) at Different Geographic Locations, for Different Interbreeding Rates

    (A) One admixture event on average per 50 demes over the whole period of cohabitation between Neanderthals and modern humans; (B) one admixture event per five demes; (C) one admixture event per two demes; (D) one admixture event per deme.


    Discussion

    Our simulations show that the mitochondrial evidence in favor of no, or very little, interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans is much stronger than previously realized (Wall 2000; Nordborg 2001). We indeed find that the current absence of Neanderthal mtDNA genes is compatible with a maximum admixture rate about 400 times smaller than that previously estimated (Nordborg 1998; Serre et al. 2004). This initial estimate (25%) was, however, based on a simple but unrealistic model of evolution, assuming no population subdivision, constant population size, and a single and instantaneous admixture event between Neanderthals and modern humans. Taking into account the progressive nature of the range expansion of modern humans into Europe, the maximum initial input of Neanderthal genes into the Paleolithic European population can thus be estimated to lie between only 0.02% (scenario B) and 0.09% (scenario E) (Table 2). Our simulations of alternative scenarios of HS range expansion into Europe suggest that our results are not very sensitive to local HS growth rates, level of gene flow between neighboring HS demes, or the geographical origin of HS range expansion. It is also worth emphasizing that the final HN contribution to the European gene pool does not really depend on the size and spread of the population at the source of the range expansion (compare scenario A to C and D in Table 1). This is logical since the colonization process starts from a restricted number of demes at the edge of the pre-existing range in our model of subdivided population (see Figure 1C). If this model is correct, it implies that the current European genes should have coalesced in a small number of individuals present in the demes at the source of the colonization of Europe, or, in other words, that there was a bottleneck having preceded the range expansion into Europe. Available data on European mtDNA diversity indeed support this view, since most European populations do present a signal of Paleolithic demographic expansion from a small population, which could be dated to about 40,000 y ago (Excoffier and Schneider 1999).


    Figure 4.
    Likelihood of Different Rates of Interbreeding under the Nine Scenarios Described in Table 1

    The horizontal bold dashed line corresponds to 14.7% of the maximum likelihood, defining the upper limit of a 95% confidence interval for the interbreeding rates (see, e.g., Kalbfleisch 1985).



    Table 2.
    Measure of Genetic Interaction between Neanderthals and Modern Humans


    Additional complexities of the simulation model could have been envisioned, like the possibility for long-range dispersal, some heterogeneity of the environment leading to different carrying capacities and preferential colonization routes, or uneven migration rates. However, these extra parameters would have been very difficult to calibrate due to the scarcity of paleodemographic data. Moreover, it is likely that they would not have lead to qualitatively different results. For instance, since long-range dispersal speeds up the colonization process (Nichols and Hewitt 1994), short range migration rates would need to be reduced, in order to preserve a realistic colonization time. But this reduction would have no effect on local cohabitation time, which is the important factor affecting admixture rates (Table 2). Another source of realism could be the implementation of a recent Neolithic expansion wave on top of a Paleolithic substrate. This additional expansion wave has not been implemented here, as it is clearly beyond the scope of the present study. However, our present results suggest that small amounts of admixture between the Paleolithic and the Neolithic populations would lead to a massive contribution of Paleolithic lineages among the current Europeans. This point is important as it implies that if Neanderthal lineages had been present among the Paleolithic populations, they would not have been erased by the spread of the Neolithic in Europe. If we were using previous estimations of the Neolithic contribution to the current European genetic pool of about 50% (Barbujani and Dupanloup 2002; Chikhi 2002), the effect of a Neolithic expansion would require our estimates of the initial input of HN into the modern pool to be roughly multiplied by two, but still be very small (0.07% for scenario A). Note also that the simulation of a pure acculturation process, which amounts to increasing the carrying capacity of populations after the Neolithic by a factor 250 has virtually no effect on the expected proportion of Neanderthal genes in current Europeans (see Figure S1). Another argument against a major influence of the Neolithic expansion stems from mtDNA studies, since the demographic expansion inferred from mtDNA diversity and dated to about 40,000 y ago (Excoffier and Schneider 1999) implies that most of the mtDNA lineages of current Europeans result from a Paleolithic range expansion (Ray et al. 2003). If the expansion of Neolithic settlers had fully erased Paleolithic mtDNA diversity, one would indeed not expect to see this Paleolithic expansion signal. It thus argues in favor of a minor contribution of Neolithic genes to the current European gene pool, as expected under our model of progressive range expansion with continuous mixing.

    Compared to previous models assuming an instantaneous mixing of HN and HS populations (Nordborg 1998; Serre et al. 2004) (see Figure 1A), we find that extremely small Neanderthal contributions should still be visible in the European gene pool. It implies that HN genes have a much larger probability of persisting when entering a progressively invading HS population than when entering a stationary population. This is because HN genes enter the HS population in demes that are still growing in size (see Figure S2), which prevents them from being lost by genetic drift and which amplifies their absolute number in the deme, making it likely they will persist and reach observable frequencies in the global population. This process is actually similar to that occurring in an unsubdivided growing population (e.g., Otto and Whitlock 1997). Actually, if HN genes were to directly enter an unsubdivided HS population that grew exponentially until today (see Figure 1B), the current absence of HN genes would also imply a very small amount of Neanderthal introgression into our gene pool (Nordborg 1998; Serre et al. 2004). However, this continuous and global exponential growth process appears difficult to justify (Serre et al. 2004) and does not really apply to the late Pleistocene human population (Weiss 1984; Biraben 2003).

    Under our model, the progressive range expansion (Figure 1C) and the local logistic growth contribute to reduce the probability of losing introgressed HN genes. Without logistic growth, much larger interbreeding rates would be necessary to have the same impact on current human diversity (see scenario I in Table 1 and in Figure 4). Under this scenario, the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in present Europeans is still compatible with a maximum of about 1,850 fertile breedings between Neanderthal females and Cro-Magnon males, corresponding to a maximum initial input of 1.2% Neanderthal genes into the European Cro-Magnon population (Table 2). This figure being 20 times larger than when assuming an initial logistic growth of newly founded populations, it shows that the local logistic growth and the progressive range expansion contribute equally to reducing the inferred admixture rate compared to the simple model assuming a single admixture event and an instantaneous settlement of Europe by modern humans (see Figure 1A) (Serre et al. 2004). However, because new territories are often colonized by a few migrants and not by whole populations, local logistic growth has been incorporated into most models of range expansion (e.g., Fisher 1937; Skellam 1951; Shigesada and Kawasaki 1997). It should thus be considered as a normal feature of range expansions.

    Another important result of this study is to show that an expanding population or species is likely to have its own genome invaded by that of the invaded population if interbreeding is possible and gradual, which could explain some documented cases of mtDNA introgression (e.g., Bernatchez et al. 1995; Shaw 2002). Our results indeed suggest that introgression should occur preferentially in species having gone through a range expansion, and that the introgressing genome would be that of the invaded population and not that of the invasive species. Of course this result should only apply to the part of the genome that is not under selection or that is not linked to the selective advantage of the invaders. If the mitochondrial genome of modern humans was involved in their higher fitness, the absence of observed mtDNA introgression would not necessarily be due to an absence of interbreeding, but would rather result from an active selection process against crosses between Neanderthal females and modern human males, and one would therefore expect to see potential leakage of Neanderthal genes in our nuclear genome. While some evidence for the differential fitness of some mtDNA human genomes in distinct climates has been recently found (Mishmar et al. 2003; Ruiz-Pesini et al. 2004), it is unlikely that such differences were involved in the selective advantage of modern humans over Neanderthals. It is indeed doubtful that modern humans coming from the Middle East would have had mitochondria better adapted to the colder environment of Europe than Neanderthals, who had spent tens of thousands of years in such a climate (Tattersall and Schwartz 1999; Klein 2003). It is therefore more likely that modern humans' higher technology and higher cognitive abilities (Klein 2003), resulting in better resource processing and environmental exploitation, have allowed them to out-compete Neanderthals, and that mtDNA was selectively neutral in that respect. It should however be kept in mind that our conclusions assume no sex bias in interbreeding rates. Studies of fossil Y chromosome or nuclear DNA would be needed to examine the basis of this assumption, but it seems difficult to imagine why interbreeding between Neanderthal men and modern human females resulting in the incorporation of Neanderthal genes would have been more frequent than the reverse situation.

    Even though our model of interaction and competition between Neanderthals and modern humans may not entirely correspond to the reality, it captures two important historical aspects that were neglected in previous studies. The first one is the documented progressive spread of modern humans in Europe (see Figures 1 and 2), and the second is the local and progressive demographic growth of Paleolithic populations, with density-dependent interactions with Neanderthals. The incorporation of these additional sources of realism cannot be handled by current analytical models, but it can be readily integrated into a coalescent simulation framework, showing that it will be possible in the future to predict patterns of molecular diversity among populations or species belonging to a particular ecological network. Given the long period of cohabitation of the two populations in Europe and ample opportunities to interbreed, the absence or extremely low number of admixture events between Neanderthals and modern humans is best explained by intersterility or reduced fitness of hybrid individuals, promoting these populations to the status of different biological species. No interbreeding between the two populations also strongly argues in favor of a complete replacement of previous members of the genus Homo by modern humans and against a multiregional evolution of H. sapiens (Eckhardt et al. 1993; Wolpoff et al. 2000). It thus gives more credit to the RAO hypothesis (Excoffier 2002; Stringer 2002), since some very divergent H. erectus mitochondrial sequences should have also been observed if interbreeding had occurred during the colonization of Eurasia by modern humans from Africa.

    Our conclusions about the genetic incompatibility between modern humans and Neanderthals would however be wrong if the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA genes in the current gene pool of modern Europeans was due to some processes that were not incorporated into our model. For instance, a range expansion of Neolithic populations without genetic contacts with Paleolithic could have erased both Paleolithic and remaining Neanderthal genes, but as discussed above, there are evidences for a substantial contribution of Paleolithic populations to the current gene pool (Barbujani and Dupanloup 2002; Chikhi et al. 2002; Dupanloup et al. 2004), invalidating this theory. Also an extremely rapid range expansion of a very large and unsubdivided modern population would also be compatible with an absence of Neanderthal genes despite considerable admixture, like in the scenario shown in Figure 1A (Nordborg 1998; Serre et al. 2004), but the long duration of the replacement process would be difficult to justify in that case. Finally, the occurrence of a cultural or ecological barrier, and not necessarily of a genetic barrier, could have prevented the realization of biologically possible hybridizations. Under this scenario, Neanderthals and early modern humans would have just avoided each other, which is contradicted by the observation of technological exchanges between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons (e.g., Hublin et al. 1996). Moreover, the fact that the two populations had a very similar economy (Klein 1999, p. 530), indicates they had occupied an overlapping ecological niche and had thus ample opportunities to meet. It therefore seems that our model of subdivided population and progressive range expansion, implying local contacts, competition, and potential hybridization is quite plausible. One of its merits is also to explain both the replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans through a better exploitation of local resources, but also the late colonization of Europe by modern humans, which would have been possible only after the emergence of refined Upper Paleolithic technologies giving a competitive edge over Neanderthal industries (Klein 1999, pp. 511–524).


    Materials and Methods

    Digital map of Europe. The simulated region corresponds to the geographical region encompassing Europe, the Near East and North Africa. It has been modeled as a collection of 7,500 square cells of 2,500 km2 each, arranged on a two-dimensional grid, with contours delimited by seas and oceans. Each cell harbors two demes, one potentially occupied by modern humans (HS) and one potentially occupied by Neanderthals (HN). Given the estimated range distribution of Neanderthals (Klein 2003), HN demes were allowed in only 3,500 cells, mainly located in the lower part of Europe and in the Near East (see Figure 2A). Three land bridges have been artificially added to allow the settlement of Great Britain and Sicily.


    Simulation of the colonization of Europe by modern humans. The simulation of the colonization process in Europe is an extension of that described in absence of competition in a homogeneous square world (Ray et al. 2003). At the beginning of the simulation, 1,600 generations ago (corresponding to 40,000 y ago when assuming a generation time of 25 y), the HN demes are all filled at their carrying capacity, KHN, and, in the basic scenario, the population HS is assumed to be restricted to a single deme in the Near East at a position corresponding approximately to the present border between Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Note that alternative locations and a more widespread distribution are also envisioned in other scenarios (see Table 1).This source for the spatial and demographic expansion of modern humans into Europe has been chosen arbitrarily, as its exact origin is still debated (Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000a; Kozlowski and Otte 2000). Since we model the evolution of mtDNA, we only simulate the spread of females, but we implicitly assume that there are the same number of males and females in each deme. The source deme for HS is assumed to be at its carrying capacity KHS of 40 females, corresponding to a density of about 0.06–0.1 individuals per km2 (including males and juveniles), in agreement with density estimates for Pleistocene hunter-gatherers (Steele et al. 1998; Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000b). HS individuals can then migrate freely to each of the four neighboring HS demes at rate m/4. When one or more HS individuals enter an empty deme, it results in a colonization event, which initiates a local logistic growth process, with intrinsic rate of growth rHS per generation, and with limiting carrying capacity KHS. Interactions between the HS and the HN demes of the same cell are described below in more detail, and its combination with migrations between HS demes results in a wave of advance progressing from the Near East toward Europe and North Africa.

    Demographic model incorporating competition and admixture. We describe here a demographic model of interaction between populations, incorporating competition and interbreeding between individuals of the HN and HS populations, as well as migration between neighboring demes from the same subdivided population. We distinguish here migrations events between HN and HS populations from migrations between neighboring HN or HS populations. We model the former ones as admixture events, whereas the latter ones correspond to true dispersal events. The life cycle of a population at a given generation is as follows: admixture, logistic regulation incorporating competition, followed by migration. This life cycle thus assumes that migration is at the adult stage. In line with previous work (Barbujani et al. 1995), the frequency of admixture events is assumed to be density-dependent. Within a given deme, each of the Ni individuals from the i-th population has a probability



    to reproduce successfully with one of the Nj members of the j-th population, and γij represents the probability that such a mating results in a fertile offspring. Alternatively, γij could represent the relative fitness of hybrid individuals or an index of disassortative mating. Following admixture, population densities are then first updated as



    Our model of density regulation incorporating competition is based on the Lotka–Volterra interspecific competition model, which is an extension of the logistic growth model (Volterra 1926; Lotka 1932). For each population, a new density Ni is calculated from the former density as



    where ri is the intrinsic growth rate of the i-th population, Ki is its carrying capacity, and αij is an asymmetric competition coefficient (Begon et al. 1996, pp. 274–278). An αij value of 1 implies that individuals of the j-th population have as much influence on those of population i as on their own conspecific, or that competition between populations is as strong as competition within a population. Lower values of αij indicate lower levels of competition between populations than within populations; a value of zero implies no competition between individuals from different populations. We have decided here not to fix αij values, but to make them density-dependent as



    reflecting the fact that the influence of the members of a population on the other grows with its density. An example of the demographic transition between HN and HS is shown in Figure S2, together with the amount of admixture between the two populations. In the migration phase, each population of each deme can send emigrants to the same population in neighboring demes at rate m. Ni m emigrants are thus sent outward each generation, and distributed equally among the four neighboring demes, as described previously (Ray et al. 2003). If a gene is sent to an occupied deme, the migration event results in gene flow; otherwise, it results in the colonization of a new deme. This latter possibility only exists for the population of modern humans, since we assume that Europe was already fully colonized by Neanderthals. Finally, the densities of the two populations are updated as a balance between logistic growth, migration, and admixture as



    where Ii is the number of immigrants received from neighboring demes.

    Parameter calibration. We have calibrated the parameters of our simulation model from available paleodemographic information and from the estimated colonization time of Europe by modern humans. Estimates of the total number of hunter-gatherers living before Neolithic times range between 5 and 10 million (Coale 1974; Hassan 1981; Weiss 1984; Landers 1992; Chikhi et al. 2002), of whom about 1 million individuals were living in Europe. Taking a carrying capacity KHS of 40 females would imply the presence of 220,000 effective mtDNA genes in the 5,500 demes occupied by modern humans in Europe and the Middle East. Since this number represents only females, the total number of individuals living over Europe was multiplied by four to include men and juveniles, leading to a total density of about 880,000 HS individuals. This value of KHS corresponds to a density of 0.064 individuals per square kilometer, which is close to the value (0.04) used by some previous simulation of modern humans (Rendine et al. 1986; Barbujani et al. 1995) and well within the range obtained from actual hunter-gatherer groups (0.01–0.35; Binford 2001) or that estimated for ancient hunter-gatherers (0.015–0.2; Steele et al. 1998; Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000b). The time required for the colonization of Europe by modern humans is the other information that was used to calibrate the growth rates, rHS, the rate of migration, mHS, and the Neanderthal carrying capacity (KHN), as these three parameters have an influence on the speed of the migration wave (Fisher 1937; Skellam 1951). Since modern humans arrived in Europe approximately 40,000 y ago and occupied the whole continent by 27,500 before present (BP) (Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000b), the colonization process lasted approximately 500 generations, assuming an average generation time of 25 to 30 y (Tremblay and Vezina 2000; Helgason et al. 2003 ).

    Scenarios of modern human range expansion in Europe. Among the many sets of parameter values leading to the appropriate colonization time and the complete disappearance of Neanderthals, we have retained the following scenarios. Scenario A: Origin of HS in a single deme of the Near East at the border between Saudi Arabia and Jordan, mHS = mHN = 0.25, rHN = 0.4, and KHN = 10, rHS = 0.4, KHS = 40. Note that a value of KHN of ten corresponds to a total density of about 140,000 Neanderthals over Europe (0.016 individuals per km2), which is of the same order of magnitude as the rare available estimates (250,000 Neanderthals, Biraben 2003). Under this scenario, we have only considered admixture events between HN females and HS males, such that γHS,HN = 0. Eight alternative scenarios have been considered by using extreme values of the parameters of the model (m, r, K, European colonization time, place, and size of initial HS population). Scenario B is identical to scenario A, except that the HS origin is located in Iran. Scenario C uses the same parameters as scenario A, but the HS source is more diffuse and corresponds to a subdivided population of 25 demes (1,000 breeding females) surrounding the source deme defined in scenario A. Scenario D is identical to A, except that the initial HS population is even much more numerous (14,000 breeding females located in 1,400 demes) and occupies all the south area of the HN occupation zone. Scenario E is identical to A, but rHS is here equal to 0.8, which is the maximum growth rate estimated for the Paleolithic human population (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Young and Bettinger 1995). Scenario F is identical to A, except that mHS is here much higher and equal to 0.5, implying that 50% of the women are recruited in adjacent demes. The carrying capacity of Neanderthals KHN had to be readjusted for scenarios E and F, which may appear as extreme, in order to maintain a colonization time of about 500 generations. It was indeed set to 25, giving a total density of HN of 350,000 individuals over Europe. Scenario G is identical to A, except that rHS is here equal to 0.6 and mHS is equal to 0.35, leading to a shorter colonization time of the European continent by HS. Under scenario G, the colonization time of Europe is approximately 8,000 y, which would correspond to the minimum colonization time estimated from direct fossil evidence, since the first European HS fossil is dated to about 36,000 y BP (Trinkaus et al. 2003), and the latest HN is dated around 28,000 y BP (Smith et al. 1999). Scenario H is identical to A, but admixture can occur between HN males and HS females as well, such that γHS,HN = γHN,HS. Finally, scenario I uses the same parameters as A, but a different demographic model. When a cell is colonized by HS, it is directly filled at KHS with an initial proportion γ of Neanderthals. Admixture thus occurs when demographic equilibrium is already reached, and not during the demographic growth as in the other models.

    While the γ values are the true parameters of our model, they may not be very telling per se, and we have therefore chosen to quantify levels of interbreeding between populations using another parameterization, which is the average number of admixture events per deme between modern humans and Neanderthals. By performing a large series of simulations, we could find the values of γ leading to a given average number of admixture events per deme (e.g., 1/500, 1/100, 1/10, 1, 2, etc.). For instance, a value of 1/10 means that one admixture event occurred on average in one deme out of ten during the whole cohabitation period between HN and HS.

    Coalescent simulations. For each scenario and for different interbreeding values, γij, the demography of the more than 14,000 demes is thus simulated for 1,600 generations. The density of all demes, the number of migrants exchanged between demes from the same population, and the number of admixture events resulting in gene movements between Neanderthals and modern humans are recorded in a database. This demographic database is then used to simulate the genealogy of samples of 40 genes drawn from 100 demes, representing a total of 4,000 modern human genes distributed over all Europe and corresponding approximately to the current sampling effort of European mtDNA sequence (Richards et al. 1996; Handt et al. 1998). The coalescent simulations proceed as described previously (Ray et al. 2003; Currat et al. 2004). The average proportion of sampled genes whose ancestors can be traced to some Neanderthal lineages was then computed over 10,000 simulations. The likelihood of each interbreeding coefficient, γij, is estimated for the different scenarios by the proportion of 10,000 simulations that lead to a Most Recent Common Ancestor of all 4,000 sampled mtDNA sequences being of modern human origin.


    Supporting Information

    Figure S1. Proportion of Neanderthal Lineages in the European Population as a Function of the Average Number of Admixture Events per Deme between HN and HS

    These values are given for the nine scenarios (A–I) listed in Table 1, and for a new scenario A+Neol. This latter scenario is similar to A, except that the carrying capacity of the modern humans is increased by a factor 250 at the time of the Neolithic transition (320 generations BP). The influence of this demographic increase on the simulated HN proportion is very weak, as shown on this figure.

    (357 KB TIF).

    Figure S2. Evolution of the densities of demes HN (in black) and HS (in gray) within a cell simulated under demographic scenario A for γij = 0.4. The cell is colonized by HS at time −1520 ( 0 = present). The thin black line with white circles represents the distribution of admixture events, whose numbers are reported on the right axis.


    (322 KB TIF).



    Acknowledgments

    Thanks to Nicolas Ray and Pierre Berthier for computing assistance. We are grateful to Monty Slatkin, Arnaud Estoup, and Grant Hamilton for their critical reading of the manuscript, and to four anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This work was supported by a Swiss NSF grant No 3100A0–100800 to LE.

    Conflicts of interest.
    The authors have declared that no conflicts of interest exist.

    Author contributions.
    MC and LE conceived and designed the experiments. MC performed the experiments. MC and LE analyzed the data. MC and LE wrote the paper.



    References
    1. Ammerman A, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1984) The Neolithic transition and the genetics of populations in Europe. Princeton (New Jersey): Princeton University Press. 176 p.
    2. Barbujani G, Dupanloup I, (2002) DNA variation in Europe: Estimating The demographic impact of Neolithic dispersals. In: Bellwood P, Renfrew C, editors Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. pp 421–431.
    3. Barbujani G, Sokal RR, Oden NL (1995) Indo-European origins: a computer-simulation test of five hypotheses. Am J Phys Anthropol 96(2): 109–132. Find this article online
    4. Begon M, Harper JL, Townsend CR (1996) Ecology. Oxford: Blackwell Science. 1068 p.
    5. Bernatchez L, Glémet H, Wilson CC, Danzmann RG (1995) Introgression and fixation of Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) mitochondrial genome in an allopatric population of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52: 179–185. Find this article online
    6. Binford LR (2001) Constructing frames of reference. An analytical method for archaeological theory building using hunter-gatherer and environmental data sets. Berkeley: University of California Press. 563 p.
    7. Biraben JN (2003) L'évolution du nombre des hommes. Popul Soc (Paris) 394: 1–4.
    8. Bocquet-Appel JP, Demars PY (2000a) Neanderthal contraction and modern human colonization of Europe. Antiquity 74: 544–552. Find this article online
    9. Bocquet-Appel JP, Demars PY (2000b) Population kinetics in the Upper Palaeolithic in western Europe. J Archaeol Sci 27: 551–570. Find this article online
    10. Caramelli D, Lalueza-Fox C, Vernesi C, Lari M, Casoli A, et al. (2003) Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 6593–6597. Find this article online
    11. Chikhi L, (2002) Admixture and the demic diffusion model in Europe. In: Bellwood P, Renfrew C, editors Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. pp 435–447.
    12. Chikhi L, Nichols RA, Barbujani G, Beaumont MA (2002) Y genetic data support the Neolithic demic diffusion model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 11008–11013. Find this article online
    13. Coale AJ (1974) The history of the human population. Sci Am 231: 40–51. Find this article online
    14. Currat M, Ray N, Excoffier L (2004) SPLATCHE: A program to simulate genetic diversity taking into account environmental heterogeneity. Mol Ecol Notes 4: 139–142. Find this article online
    15. Duarte C, Mauricio J, Pettitt PB, Souto P, Trinkaus E, et al. (1999) The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96: 7604–7609. Find this article online
    16. Dupanloup I, Bertorelle G, Chikhi L, Barbujani G (2004) Estimating the impact of prehistoric admixture on the genome of Europeans. Mol Biol Evol 21: 1361–1372. Find this article online
    17. Eckhardt RB, Wolpoff MH, Thorne AG (1993) Multiregional evolution. Science 262: 973–974. Find this article online
    18. Excoffier L (2002) Human demographic history: Refining the recent African origin model. Curr Opin Genet Dev 12: 675–682. Find this article online
    19. Excoffier L, Schneider S (1999) Why hunter-gatherer populations do not show sign of Pleistocene demographic expansions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96: 10597–10602. Find this article online
    20. Fisher RA (1937) The wave of advance of advantageous genes. Ann Eugen 7: 355–369.
    21. Gutierrez G, Sanchez D, Marin A (2002) A reanalysis of the ancient mitochondrial DNA sequences recovered from Neandertal bones. Mol Biol Evol 19: 1359–1366. Find this article online
    22. Hagelberg E (2003) Recombination or mutation rate heterogeneity? Implications for Mitochondrial Eve. Trends Genet 19: 84–90. Find this article online
    23. Handt O, Meyer S, von Haeseler A (1998) Compilation of human mtDNA control region sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 26: 126–129. Find this article online
    24. Harvati K (2003) The Neanderthal taxonomic position: Models of intra- and inter-specific craniofacial variation. J Hum Evol 44: 107–132. Find this article online
    25. Hassan FA, (1981) The peopling of the World. In: Hassan FA, editor Demographic archaeology. New York: Academic Press. pp 193–208.
    26. Helgason A, Hrafnkelsson B, Gulcher JR, Ward R, Stefansson K (2003) A populationwide coalescent analysis of Icelandic matrilineal and patrilineal genealogies: Evidence for a faster evolutionary rate of mtDNA lineages than Y chromosomes. Am J Hum Genet 72: 1370–1388. Find this article online
    27. Hublin JJ, Spoor F, Braun M, Zonneveld F, Condemi S (1996) A late Neanderthal associated with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. Nature 381: 224–226. Find this article online
    28. Kalbfleisch JG (1985) Probability and statistical inference. New York: Springer Verlag. 360 p.
    29. Klein RG (1999) The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 810 p.
    30. Klein RG (2003) Paleoanthropology. Whither the Neanderthals? Science 299: 1525–1527. Find this article online
    31. Kozlowski J, Otte M (2000) The formation of the Aurignacian. J Anthropol Res 56: 513–524. Find this article online
    32. Krings M, Stone A, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Stoneking M, et al. (1997) Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell 90: 19–30. Find this article online
    33. Krings M, Geisert H, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Paabo S (1999) DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the Neandertal type specimen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96: 5581–5585. Find this article online
    34. Krings M, Capelli C, Tschentscher F, Geisert H, Meyer S, et al. (2000) A view of Neandertal genetic diversity. Nat Genet 26: 144–146. Find this article online
    35. Landers J, (1992) Reconstructing ancient populations. In: Jones S, Martin R, Pilbeam D, editors The Cambridge encyclopedia of human evolution. London: Cambridge University Press. pp 402–405.
    36. Lotka AJ (1932) The growth of mixed populations: Two species competing for a common food supply. J Wash Acad Sci 22: 461–469. Find this article online
    37. Mellars PA (1992) Archaeology and the population-dispersal hypothesis of modern human origins in Europe. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 337: 225–234. Find this article online
    38. Mishmar D, Ruiz-Pesini E, Golik P, Macaulay V, Clark AG, et al. (2003) Natural selection shaped regional mtDNA variation in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 171–176. Find this article online
    39. Nichols RA, Hewitt GM (1994) The genetic consequences of long-distance dispersal during colonization. Heredity 72: 312–317. Find this article online
    40. Nordborg M (1998) On the probability of Neanderthal ancestry. Am J Hum Genet 63: 1237–1240. Find this article online
    41. Nordborg M, (2001) On detecting ancient admixture. In: Donnelly P, Foley RA, editors Genes, fossils and behaviour: An integrated approach to human evolution. Amsterdam: Ios Press. pp 123–136.
    42. Otto SP, Whitlock MC (1997) The probability of fixation in populations of changing size. Genetics 146: 723–733. Find this article online
    43. Ovchinnikov IV, Götherström A, Romanova GP, Kharitonov VM, Liden K, et al. (2000) Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature 404: 490–493. Find this article online
    44. Rak Y, Ginzburg A, Geffen E (2002) Does Homo neanderthalensis play a role in modern human ancestry? The mandibular evidence. Am J Phys Anthropol 119: 199–204. Find this article online
    45. Ramirez Rozzi FV, Bermudez De Castro J, M (2004) Surprisingly rapid growth in Neanderthals. Nature 428: 936–939. Find this article online
    46. Ray N, Currat M, Excoffier L (2003) Intra-deme molecular diversity in spatially expanding populations. Mol Biol Evol 20: 76–86. Find this article online
    47. Relethford JH (2001) Absence of regional affinities of Neandertal DNA with living humans does not reject multiregional evolution. Am J Phys Anthropol 115: 95–98. Find this article online
    48. Rendine S, Piazza A, Cavalli-Sforza L (1986) Simulation and separation by principal components of multiple demic expansions in Europe. Am Nat 128: 681–706. Find this article online
    49. Richards M, Corte-Real H, Forster P, Macaulay V, Wilkinson-Herbots H, et al. (1996) Paleolithic and neolithic lineages in the European mitochondrial gene pool. Am J Hum Genet 59: 185–203. Find this article online
    50. Ruiz-Pesini E, Mishmar D, Brandon M, Procaccio V, Wallace DC (2004) Effects of purifying and adaptive selection on regional variation in human mtDNA. Science 303: 223–226. Find this article online
    51. Schmitz RW, Serre D, Bonani G, Feine S, Hillgruber F, et al. (2002) The Neandertal type site revisited: Interdisciplinary investigations of skelet al.remains from the Neander Valley, Germany. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 13342–13347. Find this article online
    52. Scholz M, Bachmann L, Nicholson GJ, Bachmann J, Giddings I, et al. (2000) Genomic differentiation of Neanderthals and anatomically modern man allows a fossil-DNA-based classification of morphologically indistinguishable hominid bones. Am J Hum Genet 66: 1927–1932. Find this article online
    53. Serre D, Langaney A, Chech M, Teschler-Nicola M, Paunovic M, et al. (2004) No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans. PLoS Biol 2(3): E57. Find this article online
    54. Shaw KL (2002) Conflict between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA phylogenies of a recent species radiation: What mtDNA reveals and conceals about modes of speciation in Hawaiian crickets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 16122–16127. Find this article online
    55. Shigesada N, Kawasaki K (1997) Biological invasions: Theory and practice. May R, Harvey P, editors. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 205 p.
    56. Skellam JG (1951) Random dispersal in theoretical populations. Biometrika 38: 196–218. Find this article online
    57. Smith FH, Trinkaus E, Pettitt PB, Karavanic I, Paunovic M (1999) Direct radiocarbon dates for Vindija G(1) and Velika Pecina late Pleistocene hominid remains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96: 12281–12286. Find this article online
    58. Steele J, Adams JM, Sluckin T (1998) Modeling Paleoindian dispersals. World Archeol 30: 286–305. Find this article online
    59. Stringer C (2002) Modern human origins: Progress and prospects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 357: 563–579. Find this article online
    60. Stringer C, Davies W (2001) Archaeology. Those elusive Neanderthals. Nature 413: 791–792. Find this article online
    61. Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (1999) Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96: 7117–7119. Find this article online
    62. Tremblay M, Vezina H (2000) New estimates of intergenerational time intervals for the calculation of age and origins of mutations. Am J Hum Genet 66: 651–658. Find this article online
    63. Trinkaus E, Moldovan O, Milota S, Bilgar A, Sarcina L, et al. (2003) An early modern human from the Pestera cu Oase, Romania. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 11231–11236. Find this article online
    64. Volterra V, (1926) Variations and fluctuations of the numbers of individuals in animal species living together. In: Chapman RN, editor Animal ecology. New York: Mc Graw Hill. pp 409–448.
    65. Wall JD (2000) Detecting ancient admixture in humans using sequence polymorphism data. Genetics 154: 1271–1279. Find this article online
    66. Weiss KM (1984) On the number of members of the Genus Homo who have ever lived, and some evolutionary implications. Hum Biol 56: 637–649. Find this article online
    67. Wolpoff MH, Hawks J, Caspari R (2000) Multiregional, not multiple origins. Am J Phys Anthropol 112: 129–136. Find this article online
    68. Young DA, Bettinger RL (1995) Simulating the global human expansion in the Late Pleistocene. J Archaeol Sci 22: 89–92. Find this article online
    [source]
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 23rd, 2006 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    450
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

    What strikes me is the assumption that Neanderthal males and Cro-Magnon females were less likely, or no more likely, to breed than the opposite. This is absurd, considering the rest of the evidence. Neanderthals had more powerful bodies, larger brains, and they undeniably could speak. Their technology has not been proven to have been lesser, and they were likely more territorial. This all points to the dominance of Neanderthal males in Europe during the long period of so-called cohabitation. We might assume they were able to keep Cro-Magnon males away from their females, while at the same time enjoy the company of Cro-Magnon females.

    Some scientists. They are always looking for the great claim. These remind me of the mythologist followers of Dumézil. Their studies are more full of clutter and circular reasoning than actual evidence and proof.

  4. #4
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,969
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Post Re: Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

    Quote Originally Posted by Edwin
    What strikes me is the assumption that Neanderthal males and Cro-Magnon females were less likely, or no more likely, to breed than the opposite. This is absurd, considering the rest of the evidence. Neanderthals had more powerful bodies, larger brains, and they undeniably could speak. Their technology has not been proven to have been lesser, and they were likely more territorial. This all points to the dominance of Neanderthal males in Europe during the long period of so-called cohabitation. We might assume they were able to keep Cro-Magnon males away from their females, while at the same time enjoy the company of Cro-Magnon females.
    First of all its clear who was in the stronger position, namely sapiens. Usually, in every normal society, the dominant group is able to protect its women and doesnt allow wild sexual contacts most of the time - especially those which are successful on the long run. So considering the overall situation its more likely that sapiens took Neandertal-women than vice versa.

    Neandertals only advantage in a direct fight would be pure muscle strength, the weapons were worse, range was worse, most likely speed was not on his side and he was less intelligent and communicative - not speak about such hard to prove things like vulnerability to diseases, one sided tactics both while hunting and in battle (both seems to be quite likely if looking at the remains).

    The brain might have been larger, but size is only crucial if we are speaking about the same structure, since dolphins might have a brain bigger as humans, but as one said once, its still not that evolved. Isolated Neandertals might have developed certain special abilities, but if we again look at the remains, their brain size might helped them more to keep the heat than for being innovative


    Some scientists. They are always looking for the great claim. These remind me of the mythologist followers of Dumézil. Their studies are more full of clutter and circular reasoning than actual evidence and proof.
    Thats true in some aspects, but finally empirical studies we know go almost all in the same reasonable direction on that matter and that one is a step further to the truth.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 23rd, 2006 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    450
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

    How is it any more likely than the opposite?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    First of all its clear who was in the stronger position, namely sapiens. Usually, in every normal society, the dominant group is able to protect its women and doesnt allow wild sexual contacts most of the time - especially those which are successful on the long run. So considering the overall situation its more likely that sapiens took Neandertal-women than vice versa.
    They apparently had the same brain structure as Cro-Magnons. Less communicative? And Neanderthal weapons were often more finely crafted than those of Cro-Magnon. Good studies have shown this. You can say what you want about how much time it took to make them, but remember they were not living during WWII, or trying to sell them to every jealous thrall as do modern manufacturers.

    Neandertals only advantage in a direct fight would be pure muscle strength, the weapons were worse, range was worse, most likely speed was not on his side and he was less intelligent and communicative - not speak about such hard to prove things like vulnerability to diseases, one sided tactics both while hunting and in battle (both seems to be quite likely if looking at the remains).
    What evidence do you have that their brains were not as evolved? You are using circular reasoning. This is standard clutter for preemptive dissembling.

    The brain might have been larger, but size is only crucial if we are speaking about the same structure, since dolphins might have a brain bigger as humans, but as one said once, its still not that evolved. Isolated Neandertals might have developed certain special abilities, but if we again look at the remains, their brain size might helped them more to keep the heat than for being innovative
    Last edited by Edwin; Friday, November 11th, 2005 at 11:06 PM.

  6. #6
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 06:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,095
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

    A dominant, expanding group would be more likely to have excess females which, for whatever reason, were not wanted as mates. Some San liguistic groups have a historical memory of being "small yellow people" who, through intermarrage with Blacks, became very Bantu-like in looks and culture.

    What I am saying is that Neanderthals may have traded for sapiens women while still remaining apart. Slowly, they might become sapiens or bleed into the sapiens population slowly.

    This might not have happened as we imagine. Sapiens showed up in the Near East in Palestine about 100,000 years ago, before the Out of Africa migration. The explanation is that they all died out. But what if they, or some of their females, were absorbed by the Neanderthal population at that time? This is exactly the time that the Generalized vs. Specialized Neanderthal populations split apart. In Western Europe the more extreme form of Neanderthal was found while in the Near East a more generalized form was found which looked much more like sapiens.

    After Out of Africa, the physical similarities and characteristics we recognize in Europeans as being closer to Neanderthals could be the result of this Generalized, Near Eastern Neanderthal admixture rather than any mixing in Euorope and it would have happened at an earlier date. The Generalized Neanderthals, having remote sapiens ancestry from the female side, might still have sapiens mtDNA and so blend in almost unnoticed.

  7. #7
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,969
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Post Re: Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

    Speaking about the extincted Neandertals means to me to speak primarily about classic European Neandertals, things are less clear if looking at more progressive and intermediate variants especially in the Near East. But concerning the European Neandertal things are clear.

    @Edwin: There was research done on the inner braincase structure and there were many voices saying that Neandertal brains were not the same in structure. Tools and mental abilities of neanderthalensis were, at least if looking at the remains definitely less evolved. The hunting strategy more primitive, the groups smaller, communcations worse and no art without direct sapiens influence proven.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  8. #8
    Member Triglav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 12:24 PM
    Subrace
    Arya/Paleoeuropeidal (norda) :D
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Fairness
    Posts
    2,407
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa

    @Edwin: There was research done on the inner braincase structure and there were many voices saying that Neandertal brains were not the same in structure. Tools and mental abilities of neanderthalensis were, at least if looking at the remains definitely less evolved. The hunting strategy more primitive, the groups smaller, communcations worse and no art without direct sapiens influence proven.
    Do you happen to be in possession of these studies? I'm sure many of us would like to take a look at them.
    "slavic" languages are absolutely arteficial (Read "slawenlegende"). The "glagolica", invented by a bunch of monks, is nothing but an ancient esperanto, creating new words, definitions and alphabet out of regional slangs.

    The craddle of European Civilization comes from the North. All blond people originate from the north. So if you see a blond-blue eyed Slovene, Russian, Czech, Polak ect., you can be 100% sure that his ancient ancestors originated from "Germanics" (Germanic = Nordic).
    "slovenja" was the settelment of the Langobards = Germanics/Teutons. "Poland" of the Goths and East-Vandals ect. ect. What do "slavs" tell us about their origin?
    Some silly story that they originate from some swamps in the east and popped out of no where into history.

    So you see my dear "Gorostan" [=Triglav], you are in reality a "Germanic" indoctrinated with panslav propaganda and historic fantasy stories. ~Dr. Brandt, former TNP and Skadi member

  9. #9
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,969
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Post Re: Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

    Quote Originally Posted by Triglav
    Do you happen to be in possession of these studies? I'm sure many of us would like to take a look at them.
    It was an article about the theory that even early Homo sapiens had no fully modern brain structure and that the Neandertal one was even more primitive and fully modern brain evolved rather "recently". Dont find it ad hoc.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 23rd, 2006 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    450
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Cro-Magnons Conquered Europe, but Left Neanderthals Alone

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    After Out of Africa, the physical similarities and characteristics we recognize in Europeans as being closer to Neanderthals could be the result of this Generalized, Near Eastern Neanderthal admixture rather than any mixing in Euorope and it would have happened at an earlier date. The Generalized Neanderthals, having remote sapiens ancestry from the female side, might still have sapiens mtDNA and so blend in almost unnoticed.
    !!! This gives one much to think about. This is why I said I missed reading your posts. They are so developed and full of great possibilities. You and Glenlivet are my favourite minds at Skadi.

    I will have to reorganize now, and envision the Near East being farther from Western Europe.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Europe is Being Conquered
    By OnePercent in forum Germanic Europe & Outlying Islands
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: Thursday, September 1st, 2011, 03:29 AM
  2. Whats the Difference Between Cro-magnons and Cro-magnids?
    By steinunn in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Sunday, July 31st, 2011, 01:47 PM
  3. Russian Cro-Magnons
    By Marcus in forum Cromagnid
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: Thursday, August 19th, 2010, 06:51 AM
  4. Modern Cro Magnon Type in Western Europe
    By cosmocreator in forum Cromagnid
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, November 10th, 2006, 07:27 PM
  5. The Culture of the Cro-Magnons
    By Johannes de León in forum Cultural & Linguistic Anthropology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, July 1st, 2005, 09:57 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •