Part II: Speed
Human or Hobbit?
The arguments over an ancient skeleton just won’t die
Oct 14, 2014 |By Kate Wong
[Time 2]
Old debates die hard in the study of human origins. In October 2004 paleoanthropologists announced the discovery of a new human species that lived as recently as 17,000 years ago on the Indonesian island of Flores. Homo floresiensis, also known as the hobbit, was an overnight sensation. Just over a meter tall, with a brain a third the size of our own, the creature was in many ways as primitive as our 3.2-million-year-old relative, Lucy. Yet it was a contemporary of Homo sapiens and apparently made relatively advanced stone tools and hunted large animals — activities associated with brainier humans. Noting the conflicting observations, skeptics immediately countered that the bones belonged to a diseased H. sapiens individual, not a new species. And so began a battle over bones that continues to this day.
The latest attack comes from some of those same doubters. In a paper published in August in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Maciej Henneberg of the University of Adelaide in South Australia and his colleagues argue that the bones of the most complete individual from the site, known as LB1, exhibit features indicative of Down syndrome. They base their argument on the small circumference of LB1’s skull, among other traits.
Hobbit team members have been quick to reject the Down syndrome claim. William Jungers of Stony Brook University notes that there is no known case of Down syndrome (ancient or modern) in which an individual had a head circumference as small as LB1’s. Nor do people with Down syndrome share LB1’s other distinctive features, such as her projecting midface and thick braincase walls.
Still, even if the new work does not prove that LB1 had Down syndrome, the possibility remains that she suffered from some other pathology that produced her strange features. Biological anthropologist Thomas Schoenemann of Indiana University Bloomington, who studies brain evolution, notes that proponents of H. floresiensis have insisted that scientists treat LB1 as representative of a new species unless a specific developmental anomaly can be matched to it. But that position “is simply not reasonable, given how odd [LB1] is with respect to the rest of the [human] fossil record,” he says. “What we really need are more specimens and some trail of fossils that shows us how LB1 got to Flores” while retaining characteristics of australopithecines for more than a million years, Schoenemann observes. Ongoing excavation of the Flores site has yet to yield more small skulls.
[429 words]
Source: Science American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-or-hobbit/
With Help From Extinct Humans, Tibetans Adapted To High Altitude
July 02, 2014 |By Rae Ellen Bichell
[Time 3]
At an altitude of nearly 3 miles, the Tibetan plateau is an extreme place to live. It's cold, it's hard to grow food, and there's about 40 percent less oxygen in the air than there is at sea level.
Somehow, though, native Tibetans are adapted to it. Their bodies — and their blood in particular — work differently than those of people used to lower altitudes. The Tibetans' advantage might be thanks to an ancient inheritance.
When someone used to living at low altitude travels to the oxygen-deprived Tibetan plateau, his or her body responds by producing more red blood cells to help circulate oxygen through the body.
Sounds like a good thing, right? Not quite.
"You don't want your blood to become too thick," says Rasmus Nielsen, a geneticist at University of California, Berkeley. Too many red blood cells can lead to thick blood that is harder for the heart to pump. People who aren't adapted to high altitudes have an increased risk of stroke. When pregnant women move up to high altitudes, they tend to have difficulties with high blood pressure, suffer a higher rate of infant mortality and are more likely to give birth to small babies.
Native Tibetans don't have those problems. Their blood doesn't contain extra red blood cells, yet it still manages to keep them alive and well. It's a mystery how they manage to function so well at high altitude without the extra help, but it's clear that they are able to avoid the health pitfalls that other people can encounter at high altitude.
According to Nielsen and a bunch of geneticists writing in the journal Nature, the Tibetans appear to have benefited from a genetic gift from the Denisovans, an extinct human ancestor known primarily from a little girl's tooth and pinkie bone.
Tibetans have a gene, EPAS1, that's known to help regulate how the body responds to low oxygen levels. "It's also been called the 'super athlete gene,' because we know that certain humans that have a special version of this gene have a better performance with certain types of athletics," says Nielsen.
[350 words]
[Time 4]
At first, Nielsen and his colleagues weren't sure how Tibetans had gotten the gene. But now they have an idea. "We think we have very good evidence that it came from Denisovans," he says. The DNA patterns seen around that gene match those of the Denisovans, a sister group to the Neanderthals.
He says Tibetans were able to adapt because they got the genes from another human species that was already adapted to the environment. It's a lot more efficient than waiting around for evolution to do the job.
Here's how the (very speculative) story might have gone: Modern humans evolve in Africa about 100,000 years ago and then start spreading across the globe, encountering new environments, and also other archaic human species, like Neanderthals and Denisovans. They mingle and mate, trading genetic material. Some inherit the EPAS1 gene. Eventually, some move up to high altitudes. The ones with the EPAS1 gene thrive more at high altitude than those without it. Over generations and generations, the gene becomes more common in the population.
We probably have extinct human ancestors to thank (and curse) for a lot. Denisovans and Neanderthals might have contributed to modern human immune systems and skin pigmentation, but also to diseases like lupus and Crohn's.
"I think that it's very clear from the work of the last few years that ancient archaic humans interbred with modern humans as modern humans expanded out of Africa 50,000 years ago," says David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School.
As with many studies of ancient genetics, Reich cautions against jumping to conclusions. "What these authors show is that this genetic material is of archaic human origin, and that's important," says Reich. "But whether it's of Denisovan or of Neanderthal or of some other archaic source, that's not clear."
What is clear is that the genes of modern humans have elements of human species past.
"We exchanged genes with a lot of other lineages that existed 100,000 years ago or 50,000 years ago," says Nielsen. "We are in some sense mongrels made of DNA from many many different lineages of hominins."
In other words, we're mutts.
[355 words]
Source: NPR
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/07/02/326947693/thanks-to-extinct-humans-tibetans-adapted-to-high-altitude
What Did Ancient Egyptians Really Eat?
Alexander Hellemans, ISNS Contributor | May 08, 2014
[Time 5]
Did the ancient Egyptians eat like us? If you're a vegetarian, tucking in along the Nile thousands of years ago would have felt just like home.
In fact, eating lots of meat is a recent phenomenon. In ancient cultures vegetarianism was much more common, except in nomadic populations. Most sedentary populations ate fruit and vegetables.
Although previous sources found the ancient Egyptians to be pretty much vegetarians, until this new research it wasn't possible to find out the relative amounts of the different foods they ate. Was their daily bread really daily? Did they binge on eggplants and garlic? Why didn't someone spear a fish?
A French research team figured out that by looking at the carbon atoms in mummies that had lived in Egypt between 3500 B.C. and 600 A.D. you could find out what they ate.
All carbon atoms are taken in by plants from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the process of photosynthesis. By eating plants, and the animals that had eaten plants, the carbon ends up in our bodies.
The sixth-lightest element on the periodic table – carbon – exists in nature as two stable isotopes: carbon-12 and carbon-13. Isotopes of the same element behave the same in chemical reactions but have slightly different atomic masses, with the carbon-13 being slightly heavier than the carbon-12. Plants are categorized into two groups. The first group, C3, is most common in plants such as garlic, eggplants, pears, lentils and wheat. The second smaller group, C4, comprises foodstuffs like millet and sorghum.
The common C3 plants take in less of the heavier isotope carbon-13, while the C4 plants take in more. By measuring the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 you can distinguish between these two groups. If you eat a lot of C3 plants, the concentration of carbon-13 isotopes in your body will be lower than if your diet consisted mainly of C4 plants.
The mummies that the French researchers studied were the remains of 45 people that had been shipped to two museums in Lyon, France during the 19th century. "We had an approach that was a little different," explained Alexandra Touzeau, who led the research team at the University of Lyon. "We worked a lot with bones and teeth, while most researchers study hair, collagen and proteins. We also worked on many different periods, with not many individuals for each period, so we could cover a very long time span."
[402 words]
[Time 6]
The researchers reported their findings in the Journal of Archaeological Science. They measured carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratios (and also some other isotope ratios) in bone, enamel and hair in these remains, and compared them to similar measurements performed on pigs that had received controlled diets consisting of different proportions of C3 and C4 foodstuffs. As pigs have a similar metabolism to humans, their carbon isotope ratios could be compared to what was found in the mummies.
Hair absorbs a higher rate of animal proteins than bone or teeth, and the isotope ratios in hair of the mummies corresponded to that found in hair of modern European vegetarians, confirming that the ancient Egyptians were also mainly vegetarians. As is the case with many modern people, their diet was wheat- and barley-based. A main conclusion of the research was that C4 cereals, like millet and sorghum, were only a minor part of the diet, less than 10 percent.
But there were a few surprises.
"We found that the diet was constant over time; we had expected changes," said Touzeau. This showed that the ancient Egyptians adapted well to the environment while the Nile region became increasingly arid between 3500 B.C. and 600 A.D.
To Kate Spence, an archeologist and specialist in ancient Egypt at the U.K.'s University of Cambridge, this could be expected: "Although the area is very arid, they were cultivating crops along the river just by managing irrigation, which is very effective," she said. When the level of the Nile decreased, farmers just came closer to the river and kept on cultivating in the same way.
The real mystery is the fish. Most people would probably expect the ancient Egyptians living along the Nile to have eaten loads of fish. However, despite considerable cultural evidence, there seems to have been little fish in their diet.
"There is abundant evidence for fishing in Egyptian wall reliefs and models (both spear and net fishing), and fish shows up in offering lists. There is also a lot of archeological evidence for fish consumption from sites such as Gaza and Amama," said Spence, who added that some texts indicated that a few fish species were not consumed due to religious associations. "All this makes it a bit surprising that the isotopes should suggest that fish was not widely consumed."
[385 words]
Source: Live Science
http://www.livescience.com/45450-what-did-ancient-egyptians-really-eat.html