New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Neandertals Not among Our Ancestors, Study Suggests

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The story of where modern humans came from has never been cut-and-dried, but two theories occupy the forefront of the debate. According to the Out of Africa model, Homo sapiens arose as a new species approximately 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa and went on to replace archaic humans such as the Neandertals. The multiregional evolution model, in contrast, holds that archaic populations, the Neandertals among them, contributed to the modern human gene pool. New findings published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences lend support to the former model, suggesting that moderns replaced Neandertals without interbreeding.

David Caramelli of the University of Florence and his colleagues extracted and analyzed mitrochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the skeletons of two early modern Europeans (sometimes referred to as Cro-Magnons) collected from Paglicci Cave in southern Italy. The remains of the teenaged boy and young woman date to 23,000 and 25,000 years ago. The scientists compared the mtDNA from the two individuals to mtDNA from contemporary Europeans as well as to published mtDNA results from three Neandertal individuals between 29,000 and 42,000 years old. (The image above shows a cast of a skull of an early modern European on the left and one of a Neandertal specimen on the right.) They found that the Paglicci samples fit well within the genetic variation exhibited by today's Europeans, but differed significantly from the Neandertal specimens. "This discontinuity," the team writes, "is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that both Neandertals and early anatomically modern humans contributed to the current European gene pool."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe