Ötzi the Iceman and his neighbors had totally different ancestries, ancient DNA study finds
A new analysis of ancient DNA from 15 people who lived in the Italian Alps around the same time as Ötzi the Iceman shows that Ötzi's ancestry was decidedly different from his neighbors'.
"We analysed an additional 15 Copper Age individuals and they have the same genetic structure as the Iceman," Valentina Coia, a researcher at the Institute for Mummy Studies in Bolzano, Italy, told Live Science in an email. But when looking more closely at the DNA to understand lineages, "we were able to compare the results with those of the Iceman and found that it differs from the other Alpine samples in the area."
In a study published July 11 in the journal Nature Communications, Coia and colleagues analyzed the genomes of 47 people who lived in the Tyrolean Alps between the Mesolithic and the Middle Bronze Age, around 6400 to 1300 B.C., to learn more about their ancestry.
The most famous individual they examined was Ötzi, who lived 5,300 years ago in the Alps before he was murdered in mysterious circumstances. His mummified and frozen corpse was discovered by tourists in 1991. Because a previous study found that Ötzi had "unusually high Anatolian farmer ancestry," the researchers wanted to investigate whether the Iceman's neighbors — who lived in the Alps in the Copper Age, between 3368 and 3108 B.C. — had a similar ancestry or whether they were more closely related to hunter-gatherer groups from the Eurasian Steppe.
The researchers' analysis of the ancient genomes revealed that most prehistoric Alpine people had high proportions of Anatolian farmer ancestry (80% to 90%) and low proportions of hunter-gatherer ancestry. Most of these people also displayed a similar genomic structure and ancestry, they wrote in the study.
For example, the Y-chromosome data, which helps trace paternal lineage, revealed that nearly all males who were tested shared a similar ancestry that has been found in prehistoric Germany and France. Ötzi, by contrast, had a different paternal lineage that was more widespread, the researchers wrote.
Related: Ötzi the Iceman used surprisingly modern technique for his tattoos 5,300 years ago, study suggests
While the paternal lineages of the prehistoric Alpine men were broadly similar, their maternal lineages were diverse, suggesting that women may have been marrying into a close-knit group of men.
But Ötzi's maternal lineage has never been identified in other ancient or modern individuals, the researchers wrote, and it was not found in any of the other Alpine people analyzed in the study.
"As the maternal line has never yet been found, this might suggest its extinction," Coia said. But she cautioned that the data are somewhat difficult to interpret.
"Perhaps the Iceman, compared to other individuals of the same period, comes from a different group of farmers, but this can only be discovered if we have more data on Neolithic individuals from Anatolia and northern Italy," she said.
Because a previous study had revealed Ötzi had dark hair and dark eyes, the researchers also looked for these traits in six individuals whose genomes were complete enough to predict hair and eye color. "These [people] likely had brown eyes associated with dark brown to black hair colour (similarly to the Iceman)," they wrote. And their genomes also revealed that all of the prehistoric Alpine people were lactose intolerant, as was Ötzi.
RELATED STORIES
—Ötzi the Iceman's mummified corpse was found in an Alpine gully — but he didn't die there, new study finds
—Ötzi the Iceman may have scaled ice-free Alps
—7 famous mummies and secrets they've revealed about the ancient world
Prior to this study, only two genomes of Copper Age people from the eastern Italian Alps had been analyzed. The additional 15 new genomes from Ötzi's "neighbors" are improving the researchers' understanding of the lives of people who lived in this cold, high-altitude region.
"We have no information on the cultural group to which the Iceman may have belonged," the researchers wrote, so "our findings leave open some questions about the genetic origin and cultural affiliation of this enigmatic individual."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Spending too much time on screens could hurt your teen's heart health
Spending an excessive amount of time on smartphones and other electronic devices could put children and young adults' heart health in jeopardy, potentially leaving them susceptible to dangerous health conditions that raise the risk of heart disease. The connection is especially strong in those who get less sleep, Danish researchers said Wednesday, suggesting that screen time could be 'stealing' sleep time. Getting more sleep helps to lower the risk of the conditions they flagged, which include high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and insulin resistance. 'In childhood, sleep duration not only moderated this relationship but also partially explained it: about 12 percent of the association between screen time and cardiometabolic risk was mediated through shorter sleep duration,' Dr. David Horner, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen, said in a statement. 'These findings suggest that insufficient sleep may not only magnify the impact of screen time but could be a key pathway linking screen habits to early metabolic changes.' Both sleep duration and timing were major factors, according to Horner and his team. A shorter amount of time spent asleep and getting to sleep later was linked to a significantly higher risk associated with the same amount of screen time as others who slept for more hours and went to sleep earlier, the researchers said. To reach these conclusions, they analyzed data from more than 1,000 kids and teenagers in Denmark. They used data from 10-year-olds taken in 2010 and data from 18-year-olds recorded in 2000. The data includes how much time they spent watching TV or movies, gaming, or using phones, tablets and computers. The researchers noted that parents reported their children's screen time in questionnaires. To assess the impacts of their screen use, Horner and his team developed a scoring system that would reflect overall risk, taking into account their waist size, blood pressure, age, and other biological factors. An 'average' risk was set at zero, and one was a point above the average. Calculating this score for the included participants, they found that each extra hour of screen time worsened that risk for both age groups. 'This means a child with three extra hours of screen time a day would have roughly a quarter to half a standard-deviation higher risk than their peers,' Horner explained. Screen time added up to as many as six hours a day, he noted. The research also included an analysis done using machine learning, which identified a signature in the participants' blood that appeared to be associated with screen time. 'We were able to detect a set of blood-metabolite changes, a 'screen-time fingerprint,' validating the potential biological impact of the screen time behavior,' said Horner. 'Using the same metabolomics data, we also assessed whether screen time was linked to predicted cardiovascular risk in adulthood, finding a positive trend in childhood and a significant association in adolescence. This suggests that screen-related metabolic changes may carry early signals of long-term heart health risk.' In the U.S., this problem may be widespread, with cardiometabolic risk seen 'at younger and younger ages,' according to a 2023 scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Only 29 percent of American youth between the ages of two and 29 years old had good cardiometabolic health based on data collected between 2013 and 2018, the statement said. On average, U.S. children between the ages of eight and 18 spend 7.5 hours each day on screens, according to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. To address these possibly global effects, the researchers hope to examine whether limiting screen use in the hours before sleep could help to reduce cardiometabolic risk. Until then, experts advise transitioning away from screens in stages. 'If cutting back on screen time feels difficult, start by moving screentime earlier and focusing on getting into bed earlier and for longer,' Dr. Amanda Perak, an assistant professor of pediatrics and preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, said. Perak, the chair of the American Heart Association's Young Hearts Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Committee, was not involved in the research. The study was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
If Another Home For Humanity Is Out There, This Spaceship Could Get Us There
Here's what you'll learn when you read this story: Project Hyperion competition winners dreamed up Chrysalis, a starship and space habitat that could make it to the planet Proxima b in just 400 years (which is ridiculously fast). The spacecraft is designed to run on a fusion engine, create artificial gravity, and carry about a thousand people while flying at around a tenth of the speed of light. Though Chrysalis remains a concept (for now), it could end up launching something unprecedented in the future. Headed towards the Proxima Centauri system, the starship Chrysalis traverses a seemingly endless expanse of space as it soars toward its final destination—the potentially habitable planet Proxima b. There, over a thousand passengers who have been living in the airborne habitat (the descendants of a crew that launched from Earth four centuries ago) will build a new frontier for humanity. Chrysalis sounds as if it flew straight out of a scene in Isaac Asimov's Foundation. But despite its sci-fi features, this is an actual spacecraft concept that recently won the Project Hyperion design competition hosted by the Initiative for Interstellar Studies (i4is). The craft is the brainchild of an interdisciplinary team of Italian researchers—Giacomo Infelise, Veronica Magli, Guido Sbrogio, Nevenka Martinello, and Federica Chiara Serpe—who were challenged to come up with a floating habitat that would eventually touch down on the closest exoplanet to Earth, Proxima b. 'The presentation is rich and visually engaging, drawing comparisons to iconic works like Rama, and showcasing a clear passion for both design and storytelling,' the competition jury said of Chrysalis in a recent press release. 'Its overall spacecraft design seems to take inspiration from the gigantic world ship concepts of the 1980s.' Each team that embarked on this conceptual journey needed at least one architectural designer, one engineer, and one social scientist. Their mission was to figure out how to accommodate a thousand (give or take 500) people over the centuries it would take for the spacecraft to reach its destination. Like the fictional starships it was inspired by, Chrysalis would to produce artificial gravity through a rotation system, in order to try and counteract the detrimental effects of microgravity on the human body. Designing support systems for food, water, waste, and an atmosphere—as well as coming up with ways to provide livable conditions and meet basic needs—were also mandatory parts of the contest. Additionally, there would need to be methods of transferring knowledge from generation to generations in order to both keep culture alive and retain (and advance) technology. The spacecraft would also have to trek through space at a maximum velocity of a tenth of the speed of light, and make it to Proxima b in as close to 250 years as possible. The fastest spacecraft to date is NASA's Parker Solar Probe, which recently zoomed past the Sun at a blazing 692,000 kmph (430,000 mph). But even Parker would still be short of one trillion miles (1.6 trillion km) after 224 years of travel, and still have over 24 trillion miles to go. If Chrysalis ever becomes a reality, it should make it to Proxima b in 400 years, after a year-long acceleration period. It would take another year to decelerate once it reached the planet. Proxima b is 4.24 light-years away, and one light-year equates to about 9.5 trillion km (6 trillion miles). So, the journey from here to Proxima b would cover 39 trillion km (25 trillion miles) through the void. Doing that in 400 years is certainly nothing to sneeze at. Much like the chrysalis of a moth or butterfly blown to epic proportions, Chrysalis was imagined as a 58,000-meter-long (63,430 yards), 2.4 billion-metric-ton (2.65 US tons) cylindrical structure. Its narrower front end would mitigate the risk of impacts from micrometeoroids, space junk, and anything else that could cause a damaging collision. The minimized front end is also meant to reduce stress on the spacecraft as it accelerates and decelerates. Powered by the nuclear fusion of helium and deuterium isotopes, its propulsion system would be a Direct Fusion Drive (DFD)—an engine that is still very much in the conceptual phase. It is supposed to give the spacecraft a simultaneous burst of electrical power and thrust. There is a reason that some floating off-earth habitats in science fiction are shown rotating in space. The front end of Chrysalis—which is imagined to function as the habitat—would have multiple levels in flexible modular shells that fit into each other and constantly rotate on one axis to maintain artificial gravity. From outer to inner, levels would be specialized for food production, ecosystems, communal spaces, housing, gardens, facilities, a warehouse, and the axial core. The Cosmo Dome at the front end is intended to be a bubble of microgravity that provides an incredible view to passengers as they experience weightlessness for a while. So, where do we go from here? Humans have yet to reach Mars (much less Proxima b), and whether such a massive concept can ever translate to reality remains to be seen. However, landing on the Moon was seen as an impossibility only a hundred years ago—the limits of humanity are possibly boundless. You Might Also Like The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
2 Reasons We Feel Better When Others Are Worse Off — By A Psychologist
Most of us have a natural tendency to compare ourselves to others. This can be explained by social comparison theory, developed by psychologist Leon Festinger, which suggests that we determine our self-worth by comparing ourselves to others. When others experience setbacks, we may experience a range of emotions in response, from empathy to pity to even joy at their misfortune. While feeling happy about someone else's pain may sound strange, it's not as uncommon as you might think. This stems from our tendency for 'downward social comparison.' When we compare downward — i.e., to someone worse off — we often feel better about our own lives. It's a subtle, sometimes unconscious coping mechanism, especially in moments of self-doubt. The emotional experience of pleasure in response to another's misfortune is called Schadenfreude, a German word that combines Schaden, which means 'damage,' and Freude, which means 'joy.' Schadenfreude often occurs in competitive environments. For instance, you may feel happy when an employee who cozies up to your boss performs poorly and gets berated by them. This is because people have an inherent need to feel better about themselves and often acquire a better self-image by comparing themselves to others who may be less fortunate. Consequently, people who feel their self-worth is threatened are more likely to feel Schadenfreude. Here are two key reasons why you may be feeling happy about somebody else's suffering: 1. Schadenfreude May Boost Self-esteem In Competitive Scenarios Why do we feel a sense of guilty pleasure at someone's downfall? In a 2017 study published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, researchers sought to answer this question. They tested whether Schadenfreude met any of these four basic psychological needs: the need for self-esteem, control, belongingness and a meaningful existence. Researchers conducted four experiments, all of which pointed to similar outcomes: Schadenfreude does meet our basic need to reaffirm our social standing through comparisons, especially when we compare ourselves to a rival we're envious of. In the first study, participants were asked to imagine being in a job interview, which was also being attended by their primary university competitor. They were told that only one would get the position. In the competitive scenario, participants felt more schadenfreude and need satisfaction than in non-competitive circumstances. Researchers found that they felt more in charge, experienced higher self-esteem and felt a greater sense of belonging. In another situation, they were asked to recall a real-time scenario when their competitor failed. Once again, researchers found that more schadenfreude led to increased feelings of self-esteem, a greater sense of personal control and a stronger perception of meaning in life. Seeing someone else fail or struggle can shield us from feelings of inadequacy, at least for the time being. When life feels out of control, seeing others in similar or worse positions makes our own experiences feel less like personal failures and more like part of a shared human messiness. This is especially true in more competitive scenarios. We all want to believe we're doing 'okay' in life. If someone else is doing worse than us, it affirms that we're not falling behind. 2. Schadenfreude May Reaffirm Your Belief In A Just World Interestingly, another 2013 study published in the Australian Journal of Psychology found a link between schadenfreude and beliefs in a 'just' world. When people's belief in a just world was threatened, they felt more pleasure when someone else suffered a misfortune. For example, they might laugh more at a story where someone 'gets what they deserve.' This may be because they want to restore their belief that the world is fair. When someone holds such beliefs, they're more likely to think that good things happen to good people, while misfortune finds those who deserve it. If they can't help the victim, they might instead blame the victim or believe the person deserved it. This way, they get to justify the misfortune that befell them. However, this does not always indicate that the victim is deserving of punishment or that they are responsible for the outcome. Does Schadenfreude Make You A Bad Person? Schadenfreude doesn't automatically make you a terrible human being. The practice of downward comparison may feel cruel, but that is not always the intention. These reactions often happen without our conscious awareness, and you may have tried to push these thoughts away, knowing it wasn't right. This sense of awareness and moral grounding is what differentiates you from someone that deliberately wants to watch others fail. However, if you find yourself constantly hoping for someone else's downfall and actively trying to put them in compromising situations, that may be worrisome. Instead of trying to eliminate the instinct entirely, try to notice it but avoid giving it too much power. Otherwise, it may make you complacent and feel less motivated to improve because you think 'at least, I'm not that bad.' If you must compare, try to shift your mindset to lateral or upward comparisons that inspire change. Try to put in effort to grow. Look at people doing 'better' than you and learn from them. If seeing others do better than you makes you feel like you're 'not enough' or that you haven't 'achieved enough,' try comparing yourself to those only one or two steps ahead of you. That way, you can realistically map out your progress. You may also want to mark your progress against your past self. Self-comparison allows you to see how far you've come and where you want to go from here, but like any form of comparison, it's a double-edged sword that can make you spiral about your flaws. The healthiest approach is to learn to accept yourself right where you are, without any sense of comparison, viewing your journey in this life as strictly your own. When you begin to embrace the feeling of being and having 'enough,' you naturally stop engaging in self-destructive behaviors or trying to bring others down. Do you often take pleasure in others' misfortune to make yourself feel better? Take this science-backed test to find out: The Schadenfreude Scale
