man I have had these things where im like. if your over a certain age sex and gender where considered synonymous. I get that in modern times the view is changing but here if you have a scientific news article using the term gender for sex. I just think we went form consistancy to inconsistency with the terms.
How different are AMELX & AMELY and what specifically are they testing for? Is it possible a species mutation in the Y variant made it look more like the X variant in the tests? Can they do whole protein mass spec to verify the protein identity?
Okay, I found the paper, they did test by mass spec though it's complicated by degradation. Still, they say there are 23 diagnostic amino acid substitutions, and of the 18 residue polymorphisms the species only has two, so probably not a back mutation misinterpretation. I agree with their analysis.
Yeah, I don't know. That's the extent of my expertise. If the archaeology people say it's the woman-cave, they probably know best.
Very interesting article. And I agree with the authors conclusion: a collection of just female corpses is not random. So grave site it is. And the final question is something I hadn't considered yet: how do we treat a non-human cultures remains? Scientifically its important to analyse it, but I understand that at a certain point it becomes grave robbery.
why would species have anything whatsoever to do with this? Everyone deserves respect regardless, obviously.
IMO the ideal is to just leave things be if we're confident it won't be disturbed (this is both respectful and means we can use better methods to study it in the future), and if we're not confident then we extract things and preserve them in as respectful a manner as possible.
Don't disturb more than necessary, have people perform whatever rituals they feel are suitable, and if at all possible restore the site as close as possible to how it was (but making sure it won't degrade).
Becaude we cant ask descendants about their wishes for example.
but that applies to most human remains, there is no sensible descendant for people who died more than like.. 2000 years ago.
I just don't see how the species makes any difference, we're all equally people.
The other conclusion is a genetic modification that makes our test for “male” not work on them.
Which is also posited in the article.
I mean...
They're more likely to be hybrids instead of a real species. They have dental traces of both near sapian cousins and only found in waaaaaay more ancestral cousins.
With hybrids it's actually kind of common for males to abort before birth. Something about the mothers immune reaction to the y chromosome or something, I'm going off memory.
But it could also explain why that group of hybrids lived alone.
A hypothetical reason for why human/neanderthal hybrids tended to be born to human mothers, was neanderthals developed faster. So to a neanderthal mother, a hybrid appeared to have developmental delays mentally while also being a weakling and never lived to reach its intellectual peak.
Meanwhile a hybrid raised among humans would develop physically faster and always be stronger, but also develop mentally faster, even if not peaking as high.
It's possible that Naledi may have only been capable of reproducing females from one or both origin species. Or even been a neutral (possibly sterile) group between the two origin species where hybrids (always female) were abandoned to be raised but what may have been outcasts.
Like, we honestly can't even say they're a unique species and we've been off by a lot more before.
Scientifically its important to analyse it, but I understand that at a certain point it becomes grave robbery.
I feel like 10,000 years is a pretty safe line...
Is there any evidence that Neanderthals were less intelligent than humans at their peak? I was under the impression that recent research has basically completely nullified the idea that Neanderthals were less intelligent, and the current belief is that they're just as intelligent as humans. Is there newer research that I'm not aware of that contrasts this line of thinking?
Why they extinct?
Are they extinct? Many people have a fairly significant amount of neanderthal DNA.
If they wouldn't be extinct, we would have neanderthal DNA with a fairly significant amount of other DNA.
My understanding was that they went extinct because they needed more calories to stay alive (due to their strength) and also they stayed together in smaller groups of ~10-20 people, compared to humans' ~100 people groups.
When Neanderthals came into contact with humans, they were either absorbed into or outcompeted by human groups
It also seems they lacked the dexterity of humans. So they had to hunt with spears by stabbing at them instead of throwing them from a safer distance.
That's never stopped archaeologists before for human cultures either
Notice Board
This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
About
Archaeology or archeology[a] is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. The archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts, sites, and cultural landscapes.
Archaeology has various goals, which range from understanding culture history to reconstructing past lifeways to documenting and explaining changes in human societies through time.
The discipline involves surveying, excavation, and eventually analysis of data collected, to learn more about the past. In broad scope, archaeology relies on cross-disciplinary research. Read more...
Rules
Links
Archaeology 101:
Get Involved:
University and Field Work:
Jobs and Career:
Professional Organisations:
FOSS Tools:
Datasets:
Fun:
Other Resources:
Find us on Reddit
