Thank you for this interesting post! Yes, it would be very nice to get proteomic and/or DNA results from the tooth.
A technical question: Is it naive to assess the MD vs LL 2D plot as one would evaluate a PC1 vs PC2 statistically-generated graph?
It seems that this month has been one of numerous interesting publications. I hope you can spare the time from your own work to comment on some other publications (i.e. Sahul migration routes/timing from (primarily) mitogenomes, and the Dmanisi teeth analyses' new species declaration).
Regarding the MD v LL plot, indeed, the nonoverlap of some groups is potentially very informative about relationships, as they would be in a PCA. Fundamentally the interpretation is simple: The Gua Danang incisor is just bigger than most people today, including within the region of Southeast Asia and Australasia. Inclusion of more Indigenous Australian or African samples would probably find a few of similar measurements but not of the same labial convexity and marginal ridging. An omission of the paper is that it does not include many of the Sangiran upper central incisors. The Gua Danang incisor is near the center of their range of variation of size, but I cannot find good illustrations of many of them to compare morphology.
I'm following up on the mitochondrial DNA chronology as it relates to the timing of modern human dispersal. The Dmanisi story has some aspects that are more interesting than the dental measurements. My work does intersect to some degree with those issues and so maybe a publication will need to be in prep before I can comment much on them here.
Thank you for the (as usual) above&beyond response! I look forward to another year of your excellent posts, hopefully including your own work on the Dmanisi remains. Best wishes for a prolific 2026, Ted
Interesting! Early settlement of Sahul is one of the most mysterious topics in paleo anthropology, with data contradicting established models. I think the most frustrating contradiction are:
1. genetic data - Neanderthal admixture is similar to other Asians, Y-chromosomes are mostly K lineages, as well as C1b2, and these are associated with “northern” initial UP migrations (probably Altai, Siberia, Tianyuan, and south from that), no IJGH lineage which looks more “southern”. So this must be after 45 ky.
2. Yet there are too many signs of early human presence way before 45ky: Tam Pa Lin, Lida Ajer, maybe Callao, probably this new tooth. Plus archaeological sites in Australia like Madjedbebe. They can’t all be wrong. Plus on genetic side a big difference in coalescence time with Africans, compared to other Eurasians, even after filtering out Denisovan admixture.
The only reasonable way I see to reconcile 1 and 2 is to suggest that initially Sahul was settled by by early humans that were already in SEA by ~70 ky, (I would call them “middle Paleolithic “). Later wave of UP humans that came after 45 ky, likely from Siberia, and replaced uniparental lines of early settlers and brought Neanderthal admixture, but some genetic traces of early people remained (reflected in coalescence time anomaly).
Thank you for this interesting post! Yes, it would be very nice to get proteomic and/or DNA results from the tooth.
A technical question: Is it naive to assess the MD vs LL 2D plot as one would evaluate a PC1 vs PC2 statistically-generated graph?
It seems that this month has been one of numerous interesting publications. I hope you can spare the time from your own work to comment on some other publications (i.e. Sahul migration routes/timing from (primarily) mitogenomes, and the Dmanisi teeth analyses' new species declaration).
Thanks also for a great year of posts!
Thanks for the kind words!
Regarding the MD v LL plot, indeed, the nonoverlap of some groups is potentially very informative about relationships, as they would be in a PCA. Fundamentally the interpretation is simple: The Gua Danang incisor is just bigger than most people today, including within the region of Southeast Asia and Australasia. Inclusion of more Indigenous Australian or African samples would probably find a few of similar measurements but not of the same labial convexity and marginal ridging. An omission of the paper is that it does not include many of the Sangiran upper central incisors. The Gua Danang incisor is near the center of their range of variation of size, but I cannot find good illustrations of many of them to compare morphology.
I'm following up on the mitochondrial DNA chronology as it relates to the timing of modern human dispersal. The Dmanisi story has some aspects that are more interesting than the dental measurements. My work does intersect to some degree with those issues and so maybe a publication will need to be in prep before I can comment much on them here.
Thank you for the (as usual) above&beyond response! I look forward to another year of your excellent posts, hopefully including your own work on the Dmanisi remains. Best wishes for a prolific 2026, Ted
Interesting! Early settlement of Sahul is one of the most mysterious topics in paleo anthropology, with data contradicting established models. I think the most frustrating contradiction are:
1. genetic data - Neanderthal admixture is similar to other Asians, Y-chromosomes are mostly K lineages, as well as C1b2, and these are associated with “northern” initial UP migrations (probably Altai, Siberia, Tianyuan, and south from that), no IJGH lineage which looks more “southern”. So this must be after 45 ky.
2. Yet there are too many signs of early human presence way before 45ky: Tam Pa Lin, Lida Ajer, maybe Callao, probably this new tooth. Plus archaeological sites in Australia like Madjedbebe. They can’t all be wrong. Plus on genetic side a big difference in coalescence time with Africans, compared to other Eurasians, even after filtering out Denisovan admixture.
The only reasonable way I see to reconcile 1 and 2 is to suggest that initially Sahul was settled by by early humans that were already in SEA by ~70 ky, (I would call them “middle Paleolithic “). Later wave of UP humans that came after 45 ky, likely from Siberia, and replaced uniparental lines of early settlers and brought Neanderthal admixture, but some genetic traces of early people remained (reflected in coalescence time anomaly).