John Hawks' latest blog post, "Julurens: a new cousin for Denisovans and Neanderthals" with a subtitle, "A new study suggests that the Middle Pleistocene record in China includes more groups than have previously been recognized," suggests that the hominin landscape in the era of Denisovans and Neanderthals in what is now called China may have been more complex than previously realized. He explains that:
A new article from Xiujie Wu and Christopher Bae presents a new look at some fossils of the later Middle Pleistocene. They focus on fossil samples from Xujiayao in north China and Xuchang in central China. These fossils, which date to between 220,000 and 100,000 years ago, contrast with the so-called “Dragon Man” skull from Harbin and other similar remains. Wu and Bae suggest that the Xujiayao and Xuchang fossils may be something different and call them the Julurens—a name that means “big heads”.Who were the Julurens? Here I give a quick rundown of the key fossils. I also dive into the broader question of how variation in the fossil record may relate to the DNA evidence, especially the Denisovans.
Diagram showing recent estimates of population mixture among Pleistocene human groups. The deep divergence among “Denisovan” lineages follows the analysis of Jacobs and coworkers (2019).
Read the whole article.
7 comments:
so multiregional origin theory for Julurens
The multi-regional origin theory suggested that the regional differences between modern humans was mostly due to differences in evolutionary paths between regions. This does no such thing.
I proposed multiregional origin theory for Julurens, Denisovans, erectus etc
there is also African multiregional origin for modern humans
India/Bangladesh quake 2,500 y ago: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240617173557.htm
@DDeden Thanks for the tip.
Austronesian in Viet Nam mountains 1.5ka https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0304964
@DDeden Thanks for the link.
Post a Comment