...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » Hofmeyr Skull - South Africa

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Hofmeyr Skull - South Africa
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -
Wiki:
.

The Hofmeyr Skull is a specimen of a 37,000-year-old human skull found in 1952. It is one of the very few modern human skulls discovered in Africa south of Ethiopia and older than 20,000 years.

The skull was found in the 1950s on the surface of an erosion gully, a dry channel bed of the Vlekpoort River, near Hofmeyr, a small town in Eastern Cape, South Africa. No other bones or archaeological artefacts were found in the vicinity at the time of the skull's discovery. The skull is one of only a few African specimens of early modern humans dated over 30,000. Others are much more recent, dated to around 20,000 years ago.

In the 1990s, Alan Morris of the University of Cape Town noticed the skull in the Port Elizabeth Museum. He later showed it to Frederick E. Grine, an anthropologist and anatomist at State University of New York at Stony Brook. Grine then led a detailed study of the skull.

Examination

It was not possible to date the skull using traditional radiocarbon dating, as the carbon had leached out of the bone. Instead, a new method involving a combination of optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-series dating methods was used. The method was developed by Richard Bailey of Oxford University. The earth material from the skull "filling the endocranial cavity" (central portion of the endocranial cavity) was dated using a combination of optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-series dating methods, coupled through a radiation-field model. Based on the assumption that the earth in the skull is about the age of its inhumation and thus the same as the age of the skull, age was estimated to 36,200 ± 3,200 years old.

The dating also assumed that the skull "had neither been uncovered long before nor transported any substantial distance before its discovery". The material in the skull can not have been washed out or replaced by water flowing down the gully because "the force required to scour the inner-most sediments would certainly have resulted in substantial damage" of the skull, and the skull did not appear to the dating team to have been damaged that much.

The anterior part of the lower facial skeleton has been damaged. The angle of the mandible, the mastoid process of the right temporal, and much of the occipital are not present. The coronal suture is obliterated and the third molars are heavily worn, suggesting that the specimen reached adulthood. The skull's owner had been wounded over his left eye and the wound had partially healed before death. The most severe damage to the skull, however, was caused during its time in storage and "mishandling" after its 1950 discovery. A lost bone is documented on pictures from 1968 and 1998.

Analysis

The Hofmeyr fossil was compared with skulls from Sub-Saharan Africa, including those of the KhoeSan, who are geographically close to the site of the find. Using 3-dimensional measurement and mapping techniques, the study found that the Hofmeyr Skull is rather distinct from those of recent Sub-Saharan Africans, and that its closest affinities were with the people who lived in Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic period, at the same time as the Hofmeyr skull.

Alan Morris said that the skull's owner "would not look like modern Africans or like modern Europeans, or like modern Khoisan people, but he is definitely a modern human being".

The skull demonstrates that humans in Africa 36,000 years ago resembled those in Eurasia. This evidence supports the recent single-origin hypothesis, which suggests that anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa before 200,000 to 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa between 65,000 and 25,000 years ago, spreading to the rest of the world and replacing other Homo species already there.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote: Alan Morris said that the skull's owner "would not look like modern Africans or like modern Europeans, or like modern Khoisan people, but he is definitely a modern human being".

Great care should be used in interpreting information in this Wiki.
Note that the idiot Morris is saying that Hofmeyr would not look like Modern Africans (majority Negroid), or Europeans (majority Caucasoid), or Khoi-san (often Mongoloid).

There are no other choices for the human race!


See examples of the Human phenotypes here.

http://realhistoryww.com./world_history/ancient/Misc/Human_Race/The_black_human_race.htm

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PubMed study: Science. 2007 Jan 12;315(5809):226-9.

Late Pleistocene human skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and modern human origins.

Abstract

The lack of Late Pleistocene human fossils from sub-Saharan Africa has limited paleontological testing of competing models of recent human evolution. We have dated a skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, to 36.2 +/- 3.3 thousand years ago through a combination of optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-series dating methods. The skull is morphologically modern overall but displays some archaic features. Its strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians rather than recent, geographically proximate people. The Hofmeyr cranium is consistent with the hypothesis that UP Eurasians descended from a population that emigrated from sub-Saharan Africa in the Late Pleistocene.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17218524

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Didn't I call it? Ancient African "Negroids" s did not look like modern Africans. Australian "Negroids"?

Quote:
Alan Morris said that the skull's owner "would not look like modern Africans or like modern Europeans, or like modern Khoisan people, but he is definitely a modern human being".

The skull demonstrates that humans in Africa 36,000 years ago resembled those in Eurasia. This evidence supports the recent single-origin hypothesis, which suggests that anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa before 200,000 to 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa between 65,000 and 25,000 years ago, spreading to the rest of the world and replacing other Homo species already there.

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


The Hofmeyr fossil was compared with skulls from Sub-Saharan Africa, including those of the KhoeSan, who are geographically close to the site of the find. Using 3-dimensional measurement and mapping techniques, the study found that the Hofmeyr Skull is rather distinct from those of recent Sub-Saharan Africans, and that its closest affinities were with the people who lived in Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic period, at the same time as the Hofmeyr skull.



LOL. The first Europeans look just like Africans do today.
.
 -
.

Eurocentric resaerchers love to lie!

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -
The Hofmeyr skulls

.
 -

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Didn't I call it? Ancient African "Negroids" s did not look like modern Africans. Australian "Negroids"?

Quote:
Alan Morris said that the skull's owner "would not look like modern Africans or like modern Europeans, or like modern Khoisan people, but he is definitely a modern human being".

The skull demonstrates that humans in Africa 36,000 years ago resembled those in Eurasia. This evidence supports the recent single-origin hypothesis, which suggests that anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa before 200,000 to 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa between 65,000 and 25,000 years ago, spreading to the rest of the world and replacing other Homo species already there.

xyyman you are such a sucker:

This is just Albinos trying to say that ancient Africans looked like THEM!

They are latching onto THIS particular African because South Africa has a COOLER climate - therefore they feel that they could survive there!

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clyde we are in the age of genetics, external appearance is superficial
__________________________________________________


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
 -

Between 6% and 9% of the Oase individual's
genome is from Neanderthals - an unprecedented amount.

By comparison, present-day Europeans
have between 2% and 4%.

Oase was probably not responsible
for passing on Neanderthal ancestry
to present-day Europeans.
The analysis shows the man was
more closely related to modern East Asians
and Native Americans than to today's Europeans.



.

BBC

Modern humans and Neanderthals 'interbred in Europe'
22 June 2015

Modern humans and Neanderthals interbred in Europe, an analysis of 40,000-year-old DNA suggests.
The study suggests an early Homo sapiens settler in Europe harboured a Neanderthal ancestor just a few generations back in his family line.
Previous work has shown our ancestors had interbred with Neanderthals 55,000 years ago, possibly in the Middle East.
The new results reveal there was additional mixing once modern humans pushed north into Europe.
An international team of researchers has published its analysis of the ancient European genome in Nature journal.
The group successfully extracted and sequenced genetic material from a jawbone found in 2002 inside the cave system of Peștera cu Oase in south-west Romania.
The ancient man was found to be more closely related to Neanderthals than any other modern human (Homo sapiens) who has previously been analysed.
Between 6% and 9% of the Oase individual's genome is from Neanderthals - an unprecedented amount. By comparison, present-day Europeans have between 2% and 4%.
Smaller chunks
As DNA is passed on from generation to generation, segments are broken up and recombined, so that genetic material inherited from any one individual becomes interspersed with that of other ancestors.
The scientists found segments of Neanderthal DNA in the fossil that were large enough to indicate that the ancient man had a Neanderthal ancestor just four to six generations back.
"It's an incredibly unexpected thing," said Prof David Reich, a co-author of the paper from the Harvard Medical School.
"In the last few years, we've documented interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans, but we never thought we'd be so lucky to find someone so close to that event."
Co-author Prof Svante Paabo, from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, said: "It is such a lucky and unexpected thing to get DNA from a person who was so closely related to a Neanderthal."
Previous analyses of ancient and modern human genomes (the DNA contained in the nucleus of our cells that acts as the blueprint for building a person) have shown that modern humans probably interbred with Neanderthals shortly after they migrated out of their African homeland.
This is because present-day people with roots outside sub-Saharan Africa carry a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA. This suggest the mixing event must have occurred before people spread into Asia, Europe and Oceania, diversifying into regional populations.

Pioneering population
The new findings agree well with our knowledge of the archaeology. Radiocarbon dating of remains from sites across Europe suggests that modern humans and Neanderthals co-existed on the continent for some 5,000 years.
However, the 40,000-year-old individual from Oase was probably not responsible for passing on Neanderthal ancestry to present-day Europeans. The analysis shows the man was more closely related to modern East Asians and Native Americans than to today's Europeans.
"This sample, despite being in Romania, doesn't yet look like Europeans today," said Prof Reich.
"It is evidence of an initial modern human occupation of Europe that didn't give rise to the later population. There may have been a pioneering group of modern humans that got to Europe, but was later replaced by other groups."
To analyse the ancient DNA in the Romanian bones, researchers had to sift out an overwhelming amount of genetic material from other organisms. Most of that was from microbes that lived in the soil where the bone was found.
Of the fraction of a percent that was human DNA, most had been introduced by people who handled the bone after its discovery.
But co-author Qiaomei Fu, a postdoctoral researcher in Prof Reich's group at Harvard, solved that problem by restricting her analysis to DNA with a kind of damage that deteriorates the molecule over tens of thousands of years.
The study supports previous research by Prof Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St Louis and colleagues showing that the jawbone and teeth possessed a mixture of modern and Neanderthal features.

______________________________________
source article

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/full/nature14558.html

An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor

Qiaomei Fu, Mateja Hajdinjak, Oana Teodora Moldovan, Silviu Constantin, Swapan Mallick, Pontus Skoglund, Nick Patterson, Nadin Rohland, Iosif Lazaridis, Birgit Nickel, Bence Viola, Kay Prüfer, Matthias Meyer, Janet Kelso, David Reich & Svante Pääbo


Nature 524, 216–219 (13 August 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14558

Neanderthals are thought to have disappeared in Europe approximately 39,000–41,000 years ago but they have contributed 1–3% of the DNA of present-day people in Eurasia1. Here we analyse DNA from a 37,000–42,000-year-old2 modern human from Peştera cu Oase, Romania. Although the specimen contains small amounts of human DNA, we use an enrichment strategy to isolate sites that are informative about its relationship to Neanderthals and present-day humans. We find that on the order of 6–9% of the genome of the Oase individual is derived from Neanderthals, more than any other modern human sequenced to date. Three chromosomal segments of Neanderthal ancestry are over 50 centimorgans in size, indicating that this individual had a Neanderthal ancestor as recently as four to six generations back. However, the Oase individual does not share more alleles with later Europeans than with East Asians, suggesting that the Oase population did not contribute substantially to later humans in Europe.

______________________________


Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Damn Clyde - you beat me to it with the ancient Eurasian pictures!

Well Done!

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh,oh, lioness is here with the her extraneous nonsense posts, designed to derail the thread. Lets wait until she goes away.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
Oh,oh, lioness is here with the her extraneous nonsense posts, designed to derail the thread. Lets wait until she goes away.

I agree!

.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mike, I was trying to help out. I simply provided that background on what Clyde put up. You can't expect everybody to be on a picture book level.
Look at the website realhsitory.com they get to the deeper level with the genetics.

We should also look at Grimaldi man and the triple burial

 -


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
 -

Italy, Liguria Region, Balzi Rossi, Barma Grande Cave, under the village of Grimaldi.
detail. " triple burial "
24—25,000 BP

you can take it up from here
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe what they ar e saying is that this human was "negroid", yes, but more Australian type.

----------------------------------
Quotes:

Hofmeyr and the UP Eurasian specimens tend
to have comparatively high loadings on factor 2,
which is indicative of a trend toward relatively
longer crania
with relatively shorter orbits than those
in recent populations from these same geographic
areas. This perhaps attests to a common trend for
change in craniofacial shape over the past 36,000
years in both Eurasia and sub-Saharan Africa.
The results of the 3D geometric and linear


The placement of Hofmeyr with Eurasian UP
crania rather than with recent, geographically
proximate humans is important given the specimen's
geochronological age and the ability of
craniometric data to differentiate recent human
populations in accord with their geographic and
genetic relationships. Our findings are consistent
with the hypothesis that UP Eurasians descended
from a population that emigrated from sub-
Saharan Africa
in the Late Pleistocene. The
Hofmeyr cranium affords potential insights into
the morphology of such a population.

Although there are several variably complete
crania from North Africa that date to between
about 40 and 20 ka (fromDar es Soltan,Morocco;

and Nazlet Khater and Wadi Kubbaniya, Egypt),
the only sub-Saharan specimen in LSA context
that has been claimed to pre-date 20 ka is an infant
mandible from Origstad Shelter, South Africa,
and itmay be substantially younger (17). The lack
of Late Pleistocene human remains from sub-
Saharan Africa has resulted in an inability to test
competing models
of human evolution (18

Despite its glabellar prominence
and capacious maxillary sinuses, Hofmeyr exhibits
only incipient frontal sinus development, a
condition that is uncommon among European UP
crania (27).


The maximum
estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium,
as well as most measurements of the facial
skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations
(SD) of the means for modern African males,
whereas they lie within these limits for Late
Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa
(table S3). Narrow nasal bones are bounded by
very broad (~15.0 mm),
relatively flat frontal

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ good info. The cranium was intermediate.


Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and Modern Human Origins


quote:
The lack of Late Pleistocene human fossils from sub-Saharan Africa has limited paleontological testing of competing models of recent human evolution. We have dated a skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, to 36.2 ± 3.3 thousand years ago through a combination of optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-series dating methods. The skull is morphologically modern overall but displays some archaic features. Its strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians rather than recent, geographically proximate people. The Hofmeyr cranium is consistent with the hypothesis that UP Eurasians descended from a population that emigrated from sub-Saharan Africa in the Late Pleistocene.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5809/226
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PubMed Study:

J Hum Evol. 2010 Jul;59(1):1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.02.007. Epub 2010 May 23.
Reconstruction of the late Pleistocene human skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa.

Abstract

Human skeletal remains from sub-Saharan Africa are virtually non-existent for the period when genetic models indicate the first modern human emigration from this region. The skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, which has been dated to c. 36ka, is one of the only specimens known from this critical part of the late Pleistocene. The Hofmeyr skull was largely intact at the time of its discovery but has suffered post-recovery mishandling, with the resultant loss of most of the lower facial skeleton, the mandibular angle, the right mastoid process, and much of the occipital. Given the potential significance of this specimen, we have undertaken its restoration and reconstruction so as to provide a more complete picture of the cranial morphology of the late Pleistocene population from which it derived. On the basis of photographs, measurements, and morphological description recorded prior to its having been damaged, we reconstructed some of the missing bone in modeling clay on a high resolution plastic cast of the cranium. The original specimen was CT scanned, as was the cast with the reconstructed maxilla and mastoid; these scans were employed in the final computer reconstruction of the skull. Virtual reconstruction of the remainder of the cranium was accomplished using mirror-imaging and reference-based methods, employing 3D geometric morphometrics from a sample of recent human crania to compute coordinate-based estimates of the missing parts. This reconstruction provides a more complete picture of the Hofmeyr cranium and serves as a basis for more comprehensive morphometric comparisons.

The faggots didn't have the nerve to publish a picture of the reconstruction.
Bet ya it looks just like a Central Asian Albino!

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^ good info. The cranium was intermediate.


Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and Modern Human Origins


quote:
The lack of Late Pleistocene human fossils from sub-Saharan Africa has limited paleontological testing of competing models of recent human evolution. We have dated a skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, to 36.2 ± 3.3 thousand years ago through a combination of optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-series dating methods. The skull is morphologically modern overall but displays some archaic features. Its strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians rather than recent, geographically proximate people. The Hofmeyr cranium is consistent with the hypothesis that UP Eurasians descended from a population that emigrated from sub-Saharan Africa in the Late Pleistocene.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5809/226
.

Definition: "Archaic" Relating to, being, or characteristic of a much earlier, often more primitive period, especially one that develops into a classical stage of civilization: an archaic bronze statuette; Archaic Greece. No longer current or applicable; antiquated:

Russell Westbrook

 -


 -

prominent brow ridges are considered archaic:

Is Westbrook or Dirk Nowitzki intermediate?

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mike: The keywords are OVERALL and SOME. You mentioned prominent brow ridges are considered archaic, not me. I merely said intermediate.

The skull is morphologically modern overall but displays some archaic features.

quote:
"It is often claimed that “AMHs” date from up to 200 ka ago, yet no such specimens exist. The skulls from Omo Kibish offer some relatively modern features as well as substantially archaic ones; especially Omo 2 is very robust indeed (McDougall et al., 2005). Their dating, also, is not secure, and Omo 2 is a surface find. The much more complete and better dated Herto skull, BOU-VP- 16/1, is outside the range of all recent humans in several cranial measurements (White et al., 2003)—and is just as archaic as other specimens of the late Middle Pleistocene, in Africa or elsewhere. The lack of “anatomically modern” humans from sub-Saharan Africa prior to the supposed Exodus is glaring: the Border Cave specimens have no stratigraphic context; Dar es Soltan is undated; and the mandibles of Klasies River Mouth lack cranial and post-cranial remains. The Hofmeyr skull from South Africa, about 36 ka old, features 'intermediate' morphology (Grine et al., 2007, 2010)."
--Bednarik, 2013)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Middle and later Pleistocene hominins in Africa and Southwest Asia

quote:
The cranial vault is preserved more frequently than fragile facial bones, and the analysis reflects this bias. Endocranial volume (VOL), glabella-occipital length (GOL), basibregmatic height (BBH), maximum cranial breadth (XCB), least frontal breadth (LFB), maximum biparietal breadth (XPB), biasterionic breadth (ASB), biauricular breadth (AUB), frontal angle (FRA), occipital angle (OCA), lambda-inion chord (LIC), inion-opisthion chord (IOC), supraorbital torus thickness measured centrally (TOR), biorbital breadth (FMB), orbit height (OBH), and upper facial height (NPH) are used. External dimensions are from the original fossils (Bodo, Elandsfontein, Broken Hill, Ndutu, Omo, Florisbad, Laetoli, Skhūl, Qafzeh, Dar es Soltane, Border Cave), casts (Zuttiyeh), or the literature (Irhoud, Nazlet Khater, Herto, Aduma, Hofmeyr). Data for Singa and Ileret were provided by C. Stringer (personal communication) and E. Mbua (personal communication).
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16046.full
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Mike: The keywords are OVERALL and SOME. You mentioned prominent brow ridges are considered archaic, not me. I merely said intermediate.

The skull is morphologically modern overall but displays some archaic features.

quote:
"It is often claimed that “AMHs” date from up to 200 ka ago, yet no such specimens exist. The skulls from Omo Kibish offer some relatively modern features as well as substantially archaic ones; especially Omo 2 is very robust indeed (McDougall et al., 2005). Their dating, also, is not secure, and Omo 2 is a surface find. The much more complete and better dated Herto skull, BOU-VP- 16/1, is outside the range of all recent humans in several cranial measurements (White et al., 2003)—and is just as archaic as other specimens of the late Middle Pleistocene, in Africa or elsewhere. The lack of “anatomically modern” humans from sub-Saharan Africa prior to the supposed Exodus is glaring: the Border Cave specimens have no stratigraphic context; Dar es Soltan is undated; and the mandibles of Klasies River Mouth lack cranial and post-cranial remains. The Hofmeyr skull from South Africa, about 36 ka old, features 'intermediate' morphology (Grine et al., 2007, 2010)."
--Bednarik, 2013)
.
Nothing personal, just having fun with the Albinos silly try at nonsense scientific racism.

'intermediate' means (in-between), so what features are in-between WHAT???

This is not new, it is common with Albino science. Their interest is in creating a fake place in the Human race for themselves, and a fake history for themselves.

Therefore they will try to use their science to show that their Caucasian features are the most advanced human features, making all others archaic or 'intermediate'.

That is the reason why I often include this link to the Black Human Race page. It shows the three human phenotypes, and clearly shows where European Albinos fit in.


http://realhistoryww.com./world_history/ancient/Misc/Human_Race/The_black_human_race.htm

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
which modern people averages the most archaic features?
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
which modern people averages the most archaic features?

My best guess is Khoisan and Australian type.

Hence negroid/ Africoid.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
which modern people averages the most archaic features?

My best guess is Khoisan and Australian type.

Hence negroid/ Africoid.

.

Are you two having fun, or are you two really that stupid?

I mean like, WHAT IS AN ARCHAIC FEATURE?

Know what I mean?

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
WHAT IS AN ARCHAIC FEATURE?

Know what I mean?

If you don't know you betta ask somebody
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
WHAT IS AN ARCHAIC FEATURE?

Know what I mean?

If you don't know you betta ask somebody
.
He,he:

Okay, I'll ask YOU:

What is an archaic feature lioness?

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Damn you're stupid!

Next time, keep your mouth shut!

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Is ANY Albino willing to say what are archaic features?
Of course not, only Albinos who are protected from challenge, dare say such things.
I can't do anything about those in Albino academia, but here at ES, I can challenge their racist wannabe normal bullsh1t.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Of course we all know exactly what features the Dravidian Albino Europeans would like to call archaic features. It seems they just lack the balls to say it openly.

On a completely different subject:


Doxie - Is this guy White?

 -

The reason that I'm asking is because his schnozzola, is the same as this guys schnozzola.

 -

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Okay,okay, I admit I was just playing coy.
We all know that Albinos like to call features like "low nose bridge" and "Wide nose tip" archaic features. That's why I had fun with the pictures I posted above.


But logically speaking:
If features like "low nose bridge" and "Wide nose tip" are archaic features.....

Then the higher the nose bridge, and the NARROWER the Nose Tip, the more ADVANCED the Human MUST be!

 -

.
Hey Doxie, you got pictures of Dravidian Albino Europeans with such an advanced nose as the above?

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:


prominent brow ridges are considered archaic:


Mike said this but then he realized he played himself
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
which modern people averages the most archaic features?

My best guess is Khoisan and Australian type.

Hence negroid/ Africoid.

.

Are you two having fun, or are you two really that stupid?

I mean like, WHAT IS AN ARCHAIC FEATURE?

Know what I mean?

1. also Archaic Relating to, being, or characteristic of a much earlier, often more primitive period, especially...


a. Relating to or being an early or premodern evolutionary form of an organism or group of organisms: archaic vertebrates.
b. Relating to or being an early form of Homo sapiens or a closely related species, such as Neanderthal, that is anatomically distinct from modern humans.


Primary:

a. One that is first in time, order, or sequence.
b. One that is first or best in degree, quality, or importance.
c. One that is fundamental, basic, or elemental.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
which modern people averages the most archaic features?

My best guess is Khoisan and Australian type.

Hence negroid/ Africoid.

 -

.


 -


 -

Some Australians look African but many don't and physical anthropologists can distinguish this (not even referring to hair)

Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
which modern people averages the most archaic features?

My best guess is Khoisan and Australian type.

Hence negroid/ Africoid.

 -

.


 -


 -

Some Australians look African but many don't and physical anthropologists can distinguish this (not even referring to hair)

Nobody is talking about distinction. Except for you.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Two sad sacks.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Nobody is talking about distinction. Except for you. [/QB]

Again, physical anthropologist can determine differences in Africans and Australian skulls although there is some overlap depending on specimen
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Nobody is talking about distinction. Except for you.

Again, physical anthropologist can determine differences in Africans and Australian skulls although there is some overlap depending on specimen [/QB]
You need to read older material in order to understand this.


Pes ̧tera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology of early modern Europeans

The Oase 2 Cranium. As one of the oldest modern human crania known from Europe, Oase 2 presents an unusual mosaic of features relative to the relevant potentially ancestral samples of Middle Paleolithic east African and southwest Asian modern humans and Eurasian Neanderthals , and with reference to the more recent EUP and MUP European modern humans. It has a sufficient number of derived modern human traits to warrant that designation, but there is a suite of characteristics that distinguish it from one or more of those Late Pleistocene modern human samples.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/4/1165.full.pdf

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another word for archaic is primitive.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So which one is the most primitive in terms of nasal apertures? So-called "Old World monkeys" or so-called "New World monkeys"? Old World monkeys have narrower nostrils than New Word monkeys.

Add to that list: snub-nosed monkeys, gorillas, and proboscis monkeys. Which are the most "primitive" in terms of nasal apertures.

Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
So which one is the most primitive in terms of nasal apertures? So-called "Old World monkeys" or so-called "New World monkeys"? Old World monkeys have narrower nostrils than New Word monkeys.

Add to that list: snub-nosed monkeys, gorillas, and proboscis monkeys. Which are the most "primitive" in terms of nasal apertures.

excellent question
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And those mandrill monkeys with their LOL,LOL "caucasian noses". Mandrilla for Ms. Universe.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

--------------------
I'm just another point of view. What's yours? Unpublished work © 2004 - 2023 YYT al~Takruri
Authentic Africana over race-serving ethnocentricisms, Afro, Euro, or whatever.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
So which one is the most primitive in terms of nasal apertures? So-called "Old World monkeys" or so-called "New World monkeys"? Old World monkeys have narrower nostrils than New Word monkeys.

Add to that list: snub-nosed monkeys, gorillas, and proboscis monkeys. Which are the most "primitive" in terms of nasal apertures.

excellent question
Is this the first human? Extraordinary find in a South African cave suggests man may be up to 2.8million years old

 -

  • Named Homo naledi, the species has been assigned to the genus Homo
  • Scientists unearthed more than 1,500 bones belonging to 15 individuals
  • It is not yet clear how skeletons - ranging from babies to elderly individuals - ended up in a remote region of a large cave
  • Bodies may have been disposed of deliberately, or a catastrophic 'death trap' scenario in which the humans got stuck are possibilitie
  • The age of the skeletons are yet to be determined although scientists say they could be anything between 20,000 and two million years old


The fossilised remains of a previously unknown species of human has been discovered inside a cave in South Africa.

Named Homo naledi, the species has been assigned to the genus Homo, to which modern humans also belong.

Scientists unearthed more than 1,500 bones belonging to at least 15 individuals which are yet to be dated

They say they could be anything between 20,000 and two million years old.

 -


The discovery came about thanks to a tip-off from cavers two years ago, who had glimpsed what looked like human remains through a crack in a limestone wall.

The bones were located in the Rising Star cave system in South Africa's Gauteng province, part of the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site, in a remote chamber that can only be accessed via several steep climbs and fissures.

The chamber, situated down a narrow 40ft (12 metre) chute, measures around 30 feet (9 metres) long and just a few feet wide.

It is not yet clear how more than a dozen H. naledi skeletons - ranging from babies to elderly individuals - ended up in a remote region of a large cave.

The researchers have not ruled out the possibility of the bodies being disposed of in the cave deliberately, or a catastrophic 'death trap' scenario in which the humans entered the cave and all died of an unknown cause.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3228991/New-species-ancient-human-discovered-Fossilised-remains-15-bodies-unearthed-South-African-cave.html

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
bump

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dinkum
Banned
Member # 22875

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dinkum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is supposedly the first European  -

He has since been changed to this Asian guy:
 -

THE HOFMEYR SKULL WAS AN UPPER PALEOLITHIC EUROPEAN

He likely looked just like this Cro-Magnon man:

 -

Posts: 108 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dinkum
Banned
Member # 22875

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dinkum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From a REAL Scientific Research Institute:

He was a CRO-MAGNON not an Aborigine, Chinese or anything else:
https://www.mpg.de/research/hofmeyr-skull-supports-out-of-africa-theory

Posts: 108 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can you do something about the large oversize pic Cass?
Anyways what doe sit matter what he looked like? What is you point? Under the skin his DNA will show he is sub-saharan African wouldn't it? Hofmyer is what 35,000year old. There were no "Europeans" then? Not even La Brana. lol!

Late Stone age African is physically described as "Mediterranean". You were suppose to dig up the paper of a China-man in ancient Africa?

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the source YOU cited. As I said before...you are in the wrong section. Picture spamming do not work in this section.
Quoet
"The skull from Hofmeyr has changed that. The surprising similarity between a fossil skull from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction."

A European...go figure. lol!
 -

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] From the source YOU cited. As I said before...you are in the wrong section. Picture spamming do not work in this section.

It's not exactly picture spamming


 -

^ this is the familiar Peștera cu Oase reconstruction
below a newer one by Kennis & Kennis who also did the recent Cheddar man


http://www.kenniskennis.com/site/sculptures/Pestera%20cu%20Oase/


 -

Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3