Mysterious Fossil Discovery in Southern Africa
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 тра 2024
- The subject of paleo-anthropology is notorious for its contentious arguments, one of which has raged for years is the evolutionary genesis of modern humans. We frequently forget how huge Africa is. The distance from the 'Cradle of Humankind' in South Africa to the 'Cradle of Humanity' in Ethiopia is over 3000 miles, or almost 5000 kilometers. This is around the same distance as from Ethiopia to Spain or from Ethiopia to China. Only the southern part of Africa is in the southern hemisphere, whereas the vast northern part of Africa is in the northern hemisphere. Because this region differs from the northern section of Africa, the south is sometimes referred to as the African Subcontinent. This location is located about parallel to Australia, hence it is exceptionally far south.
What's more, Several studies from the Southern Hemisphere report that the Origin of Anatomically Modern Humans can be Traced to Southern Africa. The Kabwe Cranium, also known as the Broken Hill Skull or Rhodesian Man, is a story that spans thousands of hundreds of years in southern Africa's heartland. The Kabwe Cranium, estimated to be 300,000 years old, was an early human ancestor from the Middle Pleistocene period. This preserved skull from a previously unknown species sheds light on the lifestyles of our distant predecessors and the environment they lived in. The skull was discovered in what was then known as Rhodesia, and is now known as Zambia in southern Africa. A new procedure used on the skull allowed for the removal of some quarter-millimeter thick shards, allowing the skull to be directly dated, with the age range being 324,000 to 274,000 years ago.
SOURCES:
www.bradshawfoundation.com/or...
www.sci.news/genetics/origin-...
Rhodesia became Zimbabwe not Zambia.
Northern Rhodesia became Zambia, Southern Rhodesia became Zimbabwe.
Southern Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, Northern Rhodesia became Zambia
Rhodesians Never Die. MZRA!
That's a good thumbnail. Very attractive, compelling.
The Broken Hill skull (Kabwe 1) found 1921 near Kabwe in Western Zambia in the south of the East African Rift is a late _Homo heidelbergensis_ in the transition phase towards _Homo sapiens_ - a _proto sapiens,_ still slightly more primitive in its morphology compared to the younger Omo 2 skull from the Omo-Turkana Basin in the north of the Rift.
--
Note the robusticity and anchor points.. the sinus and nose bridge is also unusual. Remarkable specimen.
It's very primitive compared to Omo skulls. I don't like to use Homo heidelbergensis. It is a very Eurocentric species
@@HighlyCompelling
I agree that Kabwe skull may or may not be accurately assigned to H Heidelbergensis, it's equally impressive for it's archaic basal robusticity but there are some possibly significant differences and time table gaps; 50-100 million years difference in dating is large gap.
Heidelbergensis was recovered and described by a European person, it was located near Heidelberg, and Europeans pioneered and established the field of study we all enjoy and seek to improve upon.
Some individuals dislike the name Heidelbergensis because it's not just European, but it's 'German' sounding...
I don't approve of such disapproval or cancelation motives.
Similar debates exist regarding H bodoensis which is remarkably different from Kabwe or other fossil skulls.
It's very interesting. 🖖
@@HighlyCompellingHomo Erectus down to Homo Sapien Sapiens all traced to Africa not Europe.
Curiouser and curiouser…
The truth will win out eventually. In the meantime, I have my popcorn ready.
Thank you. This is highly compelling, enlightening, and ENTERTAINING content ❤
Great video!
Very interesting.
ChatGPT says Rhodesia became Zimbabwe AND Zambia.
What is the origin of the map "Africa at the Present Time?"
It does not correspond to any time in history, so I assume it's fictional?
Pre 1960 when European colonies existed.
Around 1930
Any other facts about the source of the map?
It’s from Deviant Art and posted on Pinterest. Representing an alternate history, not Africa in the early 20th century. Google “Map of Africa 1940” and you should be able to find it.
Wow what are these people thinking. That map in the thumb nail? How old is that
1920 when the skull was discovered
I've looked at that beautiful skull for years and still cannot envision a human-like nose in that nasal cavity.
Eyes would have been huge too
Zimbabwe
Actually it's both Zimbabwe and Zambia
And the key term to keep in mind is this 'its brain case is typically human .. its capacity still unknown'. Not quite measuring a man's humanity by his hat size, Sherlock Holmes style, as categorising humanity by the shape of a man's head. Humankind, humanity and man (including women, naturally) are more or less synonymous, minor distinctions without a major difference - rather than a difference in kind without any typical distinction = sapient man, for instance, is as much of humankind as primitive humanity.
Science is a wonder! Thank you for all these little treasures. ;o)
Rhodesia, I think you mean Zimbabwe .
Southern Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, Northern Rhodesia became Zambia.
how can a denisevan diverge from a homosapian 400k ago if there were no homosapians 400k ago????? or are we back to the into afrika theore ????
The African counterpart of the Neanderthal? Looks identical
I expect there would have been considerable diversity within the different branches of homo, especially during periods of rapid evolution or expansion of range. Maybe some populations of one species had heavy brow ridges and other populations of the same species didn’t. To this novice, there doesn’t seem to be enough datapoints to get a handle on the variability much less to join the dots and make a clear picture of the evolutionary relationships.
Based
I'm surprised to hear about a lake in Africa bigger than the one that was in the Sahara. That one was supposedly massive.
The vanished Lake Makgadikgadi in the today Kalahari desert, of which the famous Okavango delta was a part of.
Sahara is in Africa. Your comment doesn't make sense.
@@erichwentz2866 It makes sense. The Sahara had an enormous lake long ago. Look into it.
NEANDERTHAL were dark skinned
Polish people represent the apex of human evolution.
😂😂😂
The women or the men? Two different species I’m certain of it. 😂
Polish? I thought that's a profession!
@MrZriael Funny you mention that. I've always been perplexed at how the same nationality produces such lovely ladies while also producing such...well...homely men (like myself 😆).
If OOA is true explain the Iwo Eleru skulls dated to only 12 thousand yrs ago..... DNA has matched LIVING relatives to Iwo Eleru skulls to modern Cameroon in Sub Saharan Africa....... Please anyone have any ideas?? Or is it just to complex.....;)
I don't see how Iho Eleru refutes OOA.
There is significant morphological variation in modern human skulls and even for late survivng archaics, so predicting relatedness is subject to a high degree of error. The most accurate predictor of relatedness is genetics having repeatedly demonstrated the oldest living haplogroup is A00 which nests in Africa.
All present-day lineages connect in an unbroken line of descent beginning with the most ancient haplogroup (A00). In fact, all male Eurasian lineages are descended from a single African haplogroup resulting in far less genetic diversity for Eurasian populations.
Now a person could argue that A00 did not originate in Africa, but rather evolved in the Middle East and migrated into Africa establishing the modern human species. However, the oldest modern skulls such as Jebel Irhoud and Omo 1 predate any Eurasian sapiens so even fossil evidence points to modern humans evolving in Africa.
If you are interested in scientific literature on this topic an excellent paper is "A Rare Deep-Rooting D0 African Y-Chromosomal Haplogroup and Its Implications for the Expansion of Modern Humans Out of Africa" published by Haber et al 2019. If you search by the title a full version of the paper is available on the Oxford Academic link.
Since different populations of any species can change more rapidly than other populations within the same species, this may explain the late presence of this somewhat archaic-looking human. That’s to say the population the Iwo-Eleru individual was part of was more conservative than other contemporaneous populations.
Assuming that the Iwo-Eleru find is actually just a divergent modern human/maybe a subspecies of Homo sapiens, and not the result of interbreeding between two human species, considering its relatively young age, I think it might be a representative of this Basal West African population. Also, with this especially divergent lineage, I think an especially divergent Y-DNA haplogroup comes part of that package.
I think that this Basal West African population, or at least a genetically similar population, was the source of haplogroup A00. Also, I think this population may have been somewhat similar in looks and/or genetics to the people from Jebel Irhoud.
Also, with the Basal West African divergence age, which is quite early, and presuming it coincides somewhat with the presence of the Jebel Irhoud individuals, there may have been some issues with producing successful offspring. A recent study also seems to suggest that the perceived archaic human genetic presence in the Yoruba has decreased by way of negative selection pressure, thus suggesting some issues with the interbreeding, but maybe not to the same degree as with, say, Neanderthals due to a more recent divergence from other Homo sapiens, and thus a reasonably heightened genetic similarity with modern humans. Now, whereas Neanderthal haplogroups went extinct in modern humans, some of the ones of this Basal West African population survived, because, while being fairly genetically different, Basal West Africans were still somewhat similar enough to pass on at least some, or in this case, one haplogroup: A00.
@@jasonborn867 Both specimens are from N Africa not Sub Saharan Africa.. Interesting the Jebel skulls similarity with Iwo skulls, just the time differential.. Also the Jebel skulls are close to Gibraltar and Spain just as Omo 1 is close to Mid East.. Another interesting fact is the Canary Islands (also close to Jebel) native Guanches people who are related to the Berbers of N Africa seem to be the closest match for the Cro-Magnon man... As Cro-Magnon was the first fully modern human with prominent chin and no prognathism.. Seems to me the Guanches people before colonization were the typical phenotype human in North Africa before the Younger Dryas / last Ice Age and were most likely trapped on the Canary Islands after the ice sheets melted.. This theory of Sub Saharan people bursting out of Africa 70,000 yrs ago and replacing all before them, then mutating into all the different people we see today is not very convincing to me to say the least...
All evidence points to the contrary. The oldest fossils of Homo sapiens are found in Africa: the _Jebel Irhoud_ fossils, which are ~286,000 years old; the _Florisbad_ skull, which is ~259,000 years old; the _Omo_ fossils, which are ~233,000 years old; the _Singa_ cranium, which is ~135,000 years old, etc. Additionally, only Aboriginal Africans (or people who recently descend from them) carry the haplogroup that's as old as these fossils, namely A00, as well as haplogroups that are younger than A00 but still older than Non-African haplogroups (e.g. A1a, A1b, A1b1, L0, L1, etc). Oh, and finally, Aboriginal Africans have more genetic diversity than Non-Africans combined, which indicates that Non-African genetic diversity is a subset of Africans' genetic diversity.
There's no evidence whatsoever that Modern Humans evolved in Eurasia; that's a pipe dream.
Also, people move around. Some so-called sub-Saharan Africans descend from peoples who migrated from North Africa.
Humans were created in various locations around the world.
No actually they migrated and evolved.
@@erichwentz2866from were
Highly unlikely. This does not take into account current theories and discoveries. SOS.
Nonsense
Why? Do you think this chanel is bogus?
Rhodesia is now Zimbabwe not Zambia. At time index, 1:29 you referred to Rhodesia as Zambia.
Zimbabwe is the former South Rhodesia, whereas Zambia is the former North Rhodesia
I believe Rhodesia was a single colony in 1921 and then it was split in North and South in the 1950s before coming independent countries in the 1960s
@@HighlyCompellingZimbabwe won it's independence in 1980.