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

» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Kinky/curly hair evolved at least 200,000 years ago? » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
Itoli
Member # 22743
 - posted
 -

"The oldest known human hair belonged to a 9,000-year-old mummy disinterred from an ancient Chilean cemetery.

Until now. A recent discovery pushes the record back some 200,000 years. (And the newly discovered strands received a rather less dignified burial.)

While excavating in Gladysvale Cave, near Johannesburg, South Africa, a team of researchers from the University of the Witwatersrand discovered an ancient brown-hyena latrine. Upon inspection, hyena coprolites — fossilized dung — appeared to contain uncannily hair-like structures.

Lucinda Backwell, a paleontologist in the group, took a sediment block containing several coprolites back to the lab for a closer look. She and a colleague carefully removed forty of the "hairs apparent" from one of the coprolites and subjected half to scanning-electron microscopy. Sure enough, fossilized hairs they were, and five showed remarkably preserved surface scales.

Comparing the scales to those of a variety of animals — an admittedly tricky undertaking — Backwell's team concluded that human hairs were the best match.

Dating of the cave's limestone layers showed that the dung had been deposited sometime between 257,000 and 195,000 years ago. During that period, both early Homo sapiens and a relation, H. heidelbergensis, roamed the South African landscape.

A couple of chilling explanations spring to mind as to how human hairs might have become lodged in hyena dung. Backwell thinks it most likely that a brown hyena scavenged an ancestral human's remains.

The finding was detailed in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

https://www.livescience.com/3577-oldest-human-hairs-hyena-dung-fossil.html
 
Itoli
Member # 22743
 - posted
This report is old but I'm surprsied no one caught this. Look at the cross sections of the hair. The first and third are characteristic of kinky hair and the others are characteristic of curly hair.

 -

Wouldn't this mean that human hair texture diversity was present in Africa prior to OOA?
 
Swenet
Member # 17303
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Itoli:
Dating of the cave's limestone layers showed that the dung had been deposited sometime between 257,000 and 195,000 years ago. During that period, both early Homo sapiens and a relation, H. heidelbergensis, roamed the South African landscape.

A couple of chilling explanations spring to mind as to how human hairs might have become lodged in hyena dung. Backwell thinks it most likely that a brown hyena scavenged an ancestral human's remains.

The finding was detailed in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

https://www.livescience.com/3577-oldest-human-hairs-hyena-dung-fossil.html [/QB]

I was going to say they're forgetting Homo naledi, but the article dates to 2009 (so it's no surprise).

Based on what I can tell with my own eyes, only 2/4 hairs are tightly coiled hairs.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GkQ08Dsvo30/SreaxX69K7I/AAAAAAAAAR4/JWe8PtwWci4/s1600/ellipse.png

EDIT:
I see you already beat me to it with that cross section comparison.
 
Itoli
Member # 22743
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Itoli:
Dating of the cave's limestone layers showed that the dung had been deposited sometime between 257,000 and 195,000 years ago. During that period, both early Homo sapiens and a relation, H. heidelbergensis, roamed the South African landscape.

A couple of chilling explanations spring to mind as to how human hairs might have become lodged in hyena dung. Backwell thinks it most likely that a brown hyena scavenged an ancestral human's remains.

The finding was detailed in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

https://www.livescience.com/3577-oldest-human-hairs-hyena-dung-fossil.html

I was going to say they're forgetting Homo naledi, but the article dates to 2009 (so it's no surprise).

Based on what I can tell with my own eyes, only 2/4 hairs are tightly coiled hairs.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GkQ08Dsvo30/SreaxX69K7I/AAAAAAAAAR4/JWe8PtwWci4/s1600/ellipse.png

EDIT:
I see you already beat me to it with that cross section comparison. [/QB]

I think the most likely contenders would be early humans seeing the date and the cave it was discovered in but What do you think the implications for modern humans would be if it's from Homo naledi?
 
Swenet
Member # 17303
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Itoli:
I think the most likely contenders would be early humans seeing the date and the cave it was discovered in but What do you think the implications for modern humans would be if it's from Homo naledi?

There were a lot of early offshoots (branches) of the human tree, that were roaming around in Africa and Eurasia. Except for possible mixture between branches, we belong to only one of those offshoots. (I would even say that we are the tree, and that they are all offshoots off 'our' tree, but that's a view I came to on my own [palaeontologists are largely Darwinists, so they would never say that]).

Anyway, the more human offshoot branches we're familiar with, the better we can link tools, bones, and even hairs to 'them' or specifically to 'us'. 'Modern human', as used in the literature, doesn't differentiate between all of them and us. For instance, tools of the same general type that were widespread in Africa during the time of Gladysvale hairs, have been found all the way in Pakistan and beyond. They are early offshoots, not us. So, if you're interested in whether those hairs belong to 'us' and not the naledis and others, knowing who was around is key. And this includes looking critically at various humans that have been called modern humans, that are not our ancestors.
 
Itoli
Member # 22743
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Itoli:
I think the most likely contenders would be early humans seeing the date and the cave it was discovered in but What do you think the implications for modern humans would be if it's from Homo naledi?

There were a lot of early offshoots (branches) of the human tree, that were roaming around in Africa and Eurasia. Except for possible mixture between branches, we belong to only one of those offshoots. (I would even say that we are the tree, and that they are all offshoots off 'our' tree, but that's a view I came to on my own [palaeontologists are largely Darwinists, so they would never say that]).

Anyway, the more human offshoot branches we're familiar with, the better we can link tools, bones, and even hairs to 'them' or specifically to 'us'. 'Modern human', as used in the literature, doesn't differentiate between all of them and us. For instance, tools of the same general type that were widespread in Africa during the time of Gladysvale hairs, have been found all the way in Pakistan and beyond. They are early offshoots, not us. So, if you're interested in whether those hairs belong to 'us' and not the naledis and others, knowing who was around is key. And this includes looking critically at various humans that have been called modern humans, that are not our ancestors.

I'm thinking moreso on the evolutionary side. Would it be a case of convergent evolution if that were the case? Or does it go back to a common ancestors? If it is convergent evolution, what would be the selective pressure? Does this represent straight hair evolving into kinky hair or kinky hair evolving into straight hair? There's a lot of interesting questions that need answering.
 
Swenet
Member # 17303
 - posted
I don't think we can answer those questions yet. There is no good data to work with in the fossil record. There are no archaic and AMH fossils that have preserved both the humans and their hair. Something like Otzi (who was preserved in ice along with some of his hair) would help. But there is too little data to work with.

Direct selection on various hair types is one way to explain modern day diversity in hair texture. But it's not the only way. For instance:

Pleiotropy
Spandrels
Genetic hitchhiking

See wikipedia's entries on these topics. (I tried to post the links, but my post got blocked).
 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
Yep. This is it. I was speaking from memory. It is 200,000 not 90000 years.

quote:
Originally posted by Itoli:
[Q] This report is old but I'm surprsied no one caught this. Look at the cross sections of the hair. The first and third are characteristic of kinky hair and the others are characteristic of curly hair.

 -

Wouldn't this mean that human hair texture diversity was present in Africa prior to OOA?
[/Q]


 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
So you were off by 110,000 years? no biggie
 
Elite Diasporan
Member # 22000
 - posted
Underrated thread.
 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
Ever the clown! :D My point, BEFORE AMH left Africa(40-60Kya) they had curly/straight hair.....


Which makes sense just as light skin. Both are an ancestral phenotype.

No "back migration" needed


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
So you were off by 110,000 years? no biggie


 
Tukuler
Member # 19944
 - posted
Curly goes with nappy don't it?
So do you mean wavy/straight?
Can you explain thx
 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
Original OOA?

 -
 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
I am leaning towards modern Stereotypical "negroid" is a new phenotype of adaptation ..like the hair. Just as the modern stereotypical "Caucasoid" is a new phenotype also.

QUOTE:
To those who don’t get the visuals. All humanity was black skinned from Africa to Northern Europe during the Paleolithic to the early Neolithic. North Africans and Europeans ….and the Levant were black. And shockingly the Neolithics originating close to Tanzania brought the mutation for light skin beginning mid-Neolithic into North Africa, Southern Europe, Arabia, Pakistan and North Europe. We still need to resolve the East Asians.

 -
 -
 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
I only go where the data takes me.....
 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
"Is hair texture determined by genetics?
Genetic factors appear to play a major role in determining hair texture—straight, wavy, or curly—and the thickness of individual strands of hair. Studies suggest that different genes influence hair texture and thickness in people of different ethnic backgrounds. For example, normal variations (polymorphisms) in two genes, EDAR and FGFR2, have been associated with differences in hair thickness in Asian populations. A polymorphism in another gene, TCHH, appears to be related to differences in hair texture in people of northern European ancestry. It is likely that many additional genes contribute to hair texture and thickness in various populations.

Several genetic syndromes are characterized by unusual hair texture. These syndromes are caused by mutations in genes that play roles in hair structure and stability, including genes associated with desmosomes (specialized cell structures that hold hair cells together), keratins (proteins that provide strength and resilience to hair strands), and chemical signaling pathways involving a molecule called lysophosphatidic acid (LPA), which promotes hair growth. Genetic syndromes that feature altered hair texture include:

Autosomal recessive hypotrichosis (caused by mutations in the DSG4, LIPH, or LPAR6 gene)

Keratoderma with woolly hair (caused by mutations in the JUP, DSP, DSC2, or KANK2 gene)

Monilethrix (caused by mutations in the DSG4, KRT81, KRT83, or KRT86 gene)

Uncombable hair syndrome (caused by mutations in the PADI3, TCHH, or TGM3 gene)

Researchers speculate that the genes associated with these disorders probably also contribute to normal variations in hair texture and thickness, although little is known about the roles these genes play in normal hair.

Factors other than genetics can also influence hair texture and thickness. Hormones, certain medications, and chemicals such as hair relaxers can alter the characteristics of a person’s hair. Hair texture and thickness can also change with age.

Scientific journal articles for further reading
Fujimoto A, Kimura R, Ohashi J, Omi K, Yuliwulandari R, Batubara L, Mustofa MS, Samakkarn U, Settheetham-Ishida W, Ishida T, Morishita Y, Furusawa T, Nakazawa M, Ohtsuka R, Tokunaga K. A scan for genetic determinants of human hair morphology: EDAR is associated with Asian hair thickness. Hum Mol Genet. 2008 Mar 15;17(6):835-43. Epub 2007 Dec 8. PubMed: 18065779.

Fujimoto A, Nishida N, Kimura R, Miyagawa T, Yuliwulandari R, Batubara L, Mustofa MS, Samakkarn U, Settheetham-Ishida W, Ishida T, Morishita Y, Tsunoda T, Tokunaga K, Ohashi J. FGFR2 is associated with hair thickness in Asian populations. J Hum Genet. 2009 Aug;54(8):461-5. doi: 10.1038/jhg.2009.61. Epub 2009 Jul 10. PubMed: 19590514.

Medland SE, Nyholt DR, Painter JN, McEvoy BP, McRae AF, Zhu G, Gordon SD, Ferreira MA, Wright MJ, Henders AK, Campbell MJ, Duffy DL, Hansell NK, Macgregor S, Slutske WS, Heath AC, Montgomery GW, Martin NG. Common variants in the trichohyalin gene are associated with straight hair in Europeans. Am J Hum Genet. 2009 Nov;85(5):750-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.009. Epub 2009 Nov 5. PubMed: 19896111; PubMed Central: PMC2775823.

Shimomura Y, Christiano AM. Biology and genetics of hair. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2010;11:109-32. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genom-021610-131501. Review. PubMed: 20590427."
 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
Africans carry all these genes just as with skin pigmentation genes where Africans carry the oldest haplotype for "white" skin. There are genes counteracting SLC24A5 "forcing" the darkest people on the planet like Nilo-Saharans to remain black. BTW- the blackest people on the planet are "Caucasoid" Nilo-Saharans. Go figure. That is why I do not succumb to "race".
 
sudaniya
Member # 15779
 - posted
Who in the world actually considers the blackest people (Nilotic Nilo-Saharans) "Caucasoid"?
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
source article


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030544031300160X


 -

4.2. Fossil hair identification

Some fossil hairs had well preserved cuticular surface and cross sectional morphology, which is rarely observed in ancient hair (e.g. specimen 1, Fig. 7a and b), and permitted visual comparison with modern hair samples. Scanning electron microscope analysis was used for all the hair samples and resulted in relatively clear micrographs. Visual comparison of hair can be subjective and is open to interpretation (Steck-Flynn, 2009). In a study conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 11% of hairs deemed to be matches upon visual inspection were found to be non-matches after DNA testing (Saferstein, 2004). As with most forensic evidence, the information obtained from hair is expressed in terms of probabilities of a match rather than an absolute match (Crocker, 1999).


3.2. Fossil hairs

Of the 48 fossil hairs extracted from the 12 coprolites, 33 were extremely degraded with ill-defined scale patterns, rendering hair identification impossible, whilst eight were identifiable to five species, and seven could not be identified. Some fossil hairs showed reasonably clear scale morphologies but could not be conclusively matched in the comparative collections. These hairs may represent taxa for which we do not have a modern comparative sample, or the hair of a mammal now extinct. Considering that few fossil hairs are preserved in the African fossil record to enable comparison with those from Gladysvale, we are obliged to use modern taxa as a proxy for fossil forms. A selection of scanning electron micrographs and descriptions of fossil hairs is presented in Figs. 7–9. In fossil hair specimen 1, the scale pattern is imbricate, i.e. the cuticular scales overlap. The scales lie transverse to the longitudinal direction of the hair and the scale margins are generally smooth to moderately rippled (Fig. 7b). In cross section, the hair is generally oval and shows no lumen (Fig. 7a). The medulla is amorphous, lacking a definite shape, a feature of human hair. This combination of characters closely resembles those observed on modern African and European hair samples, and fossil human hairs reported by Backwell et al. (2009) from a single coprolite from the same deposit. The scale morphology of fossil hair specimens 2 (Fig. 7c), 3 (Fig. 7d and 4 (Fig. 7e) is slightly obscured, but a closer examination shows an irregular waved mosaic pattern and smooth scale margins that are near to distant. This combination of features resembles those found in modern impala (Fig. 3a and b). Even though the cross section of fossil hair specimen 2 (Fig. 7c) could not be obtained because of the absence of naturally occurring breaks in the sample, the fossil hair specimen can be tentatively attributed to modern impala based on scale morphology. In cross section, fossil hair specimen 4 (Fig. 7f) is a triangle with blunted corners, a feature shared with modern impala (Fig. 3a). There are no clear small perforations in the fossil medulla, which is to be expected from a cast. Although ill-defined, the scale pattern of fossil hair specimen 4 (Fig. 7e) is irregular waved mosaic, and the scale margins are smooth, as in modern impala (Fig. 3b).

SPECIMEN 1
 -
Fig. 7. Fossil hair specimen 1 cross section (a), scale = 30 μm, and scale pattern (b), scale = 50 μm; specimen 2 scale pattern (c); specimen 3 scale pattern (d); specimen 4 scalepattern (e), scales = 100 μm, and cross section (f), scale = 50 μm.
 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] source article


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266
 
Thereal
Member # 22452
 - posted
If you aren't aware the initial meaning of caucasoid is a discription of a certain look regardless of pigmentation but whites modified the term to mean white.
 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
There are Africans and there are non-Africans. Nilo-Saharans are "black" Africans. Just as the AEians are indigenous Black Africans. non-Africans are a subset of Africans.....


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Who in the world actually considers the blackest people (Nilotic Nilo-Saharans) "Caucasoid"?


 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
continuing ..

 -

 -

As one can see Africans carry the genes for straight hair found in Europeans as Cheddar man.
 
Swenet
Member # 17303
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Xyyman:
As one can see Africans carry the genes for straight hair found in Europeans as Cheddar man.

Yes, Africans carry the gene for straight hair, just like Africans carry the genes for light skin and cold adaptation. No big deal. Having the same genes as Eurasians, or rather, them having the same genes as us, is part of being human. So where are you going with this "see, Africans have the same genes"? Of course we do.

And it was said that Cheddar Man's hair texture was predicted to be curly, not straight.

quote:
The genome of Cheddar Man, who lived 10,000 years ago, suggests that he had blue eyes, dark skin and dark curly hair
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Who in the world actually considers the blackest people (Nilotic Nilo-Saharans) "Caucasoid"?

quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:

Cacausoids were always in Africa. ...Europeans entered Africa relatively recently.


 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Xyyman:
As one can see Africans carry the genes for straight hair found in Europeans as Cheddar man.

Yes, Africans carry the gene for straight hair, just like Africans carry the genes for light skin and cold adaptation. No big deal. Having the same genes as Eurasians, or rather, them having the same genes as us, is part of being human. So where are you going with this "see, Africans have the same genes"? Of course we do.

And it was said that Cheddar Man's hair texture was predicted to be curly, not straight.

quote:
The genome of Cheddar Man, who lived 10,000 years ago, suggests that he had blue eyes, dark skin and dark curly hair
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals

quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Hair type is speculation for early man thus far by Scientist.

I am speculating that kinky hair is recent. Why? In the Old world including Asia. People of the same/similar lineage have both kinky/wavy hair and straightish hair. Not only in Africa. You need to look at things holistically and not through the eyes of a Eurocentrist ...or even dogmatic Afrocentrist.

Early man was definitely "black". You do understand that black is also a subjective term. Anyone who read enough will understand this stuff. Norton speculated on "how black" was early man. Kittles agreed with her in that landmark paper of 2009/10?

If you read ...and understood Nortons PhD thesis you will grasp that idea. The thesis is freely available on the web.

Read enough of Tishkoff and you will also understand that she also has reservation of the location and process of pigmentation of early man. (not I said the PIGMENTATION process not depigmentation).

That is why Guido Barbujani said we are ALL Africans and modern Europeans are a sub-set of Africans.


 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
I am not sure where I am going with this...But there are certain FACTS that has to be laid out then see what we come up with.

Eg a phenotype has MANY gene influences. Having the SLC24A5 alone do not mean you are white or will have white skin. Having the TCHHL1 mutation alone does not mean you will have straight hair. Many Africans carry it and do not have straight or wavy hair. But we can assume they have the POTENTIAL to have straight/wavy hair. Point? Science hasn't nailed down the true cause and effect of these genes. But if we go with "what is good for the goose is good for the ..." then we have to assume Africans can have wavy hair like Cheddar Man....right? After all we have proof of that from the OP paper in South Africa.

And here is more from the paper, OP that Lioness linked.

------------------------------
Quote:
" example, Brothwell and Grime (2003) showed that the hairs associated with the Neolithic ‘Iceman’ from the Alps were that of a red deer, and that the fur armband on the Iron Age
Lindow bog body was made from fox ("

" The scales lie transverse to the longitudinal direction of the hair and the scale margins are generally smooth to moderately rippled (Fig. 7b). In cross section, the hair is generally oval and
shows no lumen
(Fig. 7a). The medulla is amorphous, lacking a definite shape, a feature of human hair. This combination of characters closely resembles those observed on modern African and
European hair samples
, and fossil human hairs reported by"
------------------------------

So...Otzi Alps Iceman was NOT a red head like the Euroclowns believe and you see in the movies. In fact I was surprised when I learned that European hair was structurally very similar to African hair unlike East Asian hair. When I was newbie I read all the battle between Euronuts and Afrocentric about the hair of the ancient Egyptians. When I looked at the numbers I was shocked to realize the hair of Europeans and Africans are very similar. More proof Europeans are essentially depigmented Africans. Then I keep seeing many similarities between Nigerians and Finns. Yes, Nigerians and Scandanavians. Eg of all Europeans Finns carry the highest frequency of Nigerian "ANCESTRAL" SLC24A5 and TCHHL1. Nigerian Fulani carry mtDNA U related to Saami and Nigerian Dogs are ancestral to Scandanavian dogs. Lol! You can't make this stuff up.

Why is there such a close and DEEP relationship between YRI and Scandanvians.....under the skin? My money is on Iwo-Eleru
 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
BTW- I have come across many West Africans in the past. Like Nigerians and Ghanians and yes, "some" do have wavy hair. Not sure what their ethnicity is but some do naturally have wavy hair.
 
Swenet
Member # 17303
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Eg a phenotype has MANY gene influences. Having the SLC24A5 alone do not mean you are white or will have white skin. Having the TCHHL1 mutation alone does not mean you will have straight hair. Many Africans carry it and do not have straight or wavy hair.

Yes. this vid explains it:

https://youtu.be/kNPbjtej1Hk?t=46m12s

Continue to watch the vid from 46:12 to 53:10. You can watch more than that, but those 7 minutes explain it.

quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
And here is more from the paper, OP that Lioness linked.
quote:
" example, Brothwell and Grime (2003) showed that the hairs associated with the Neolithic ‘Iceman’ from the Alps were that of a red deer, and that the fur armband on the Iron Age


Didn't they find dark curly hair on/around Otzi? I know nothing about red hair. Only the curly hairs, IIRC.

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
No commentary of her own. Post doesn't count


 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
Delusional people...?

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
[q]
quote:
e

hairs associated with the Neolithic ‘Iceman’ from the Alps were that of a red deer, and that the fur armband on the Iron I know nothing about red hair. Only the curly hairs, IIRC.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,:
count

[/q]
 -
 
Swenet
Member # 17303
 - posted
Don't tell me you believe that reconstruction just because it googleable. Let's not forget.

EDIT:
Oh, I see you're not actually subscribing to that reconstruction.

I will try to track the curly hair quote down, see if I can find it.
 
xyyman
Member # 13597
 - posted
No! I don't believe anything that comes from the mouth of Europeans. I double check everything they say. There is always a lie in there someplace.

The point is what is being posted as Otzi. Although genetically and morphologically he is closer to North African.
 
Swenet
Member # 17303
 - posted
quote:
Although archaeologists knew how these people lived, they didn’t know what they looked like until Otzi was found. His bones told them that he was a short man, about five feet two inches tall. He had a bow that was six feet tall. To string and use a bow this large made it clear that although he was short, he was very strong. When Otzi was found, his hair had not been preserved, but hairs were found on his clothes. These hairs were curly and brown and had been evenly snipped. Based on this evidence, scientists knew he had curly brown hair and that he had just received a haircut before he died.
https://www.amazon.com/Mysteries-History-Ancient-Wendy-Conklin/dp/1420630490

What they've managed to reconstruct about Otzi's life is interesting. But it came at a heavy price. Many people involved in the excavation process and DNA extraction (i.e. people who physically touched his mummified remains) have died under mysterious circumstances. Otzi must have been a powerful shaman or something.
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] No! I don't believe anything that comes from the mouth of Europeans. I double check everything they say.

what sources do you use to check it?
 
the lioness,
Member # 17353
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Don't tell me you believe that reconstruction just because it googleable. Let's not forget.

EDIT:
Oh, I see you're not actually subscribing to that reconstruction.

I will try to track the curly hair quote down, see if I can find it.

 -


This is a 2011 reconstruction of Ötzi also called the Iceman found frozen in the Ötztal Alps mountain range on the Austrian–Italian border. He is estimated to have lived who between 3400 and 3100 BCE


1) Based on what was known in 2011 is there anything wrong with it?

2) Based on what was known in 2018 is there anything wrong with it?

please explain what
 
Swenet
Member # 17303
 - posted
The skin in his face is pink (Chalcolithic is likely too early for that type of skin pigmentation). I want to say the same thing about the skin on the rest of his body (too light), but I'm going to leave it at that since I don't have the skin pigmentation facts at hand. His lips are too thin (look at a closeup of his mummy). They gave him a generic European physiognomy (e.g. the reconstruction could pass as a German or redneck American), when a look more similar to Sardinians would have been more realistic. And his hair doesn't reflect the curly hairs found on his body.

EDIT
Nose on reconstruction too narrow?
 
Swenet
Member # 17303
 - posted
Anyway, let's not dwell on the reconstruction. I have a high tolerance for naturally/organically occurring offtopics in my own threads but this is not my thread.
 



Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3