View Full Version : what did the first humans look like?

03-05-2019, 06:26 AM
i heard they had a phenotype very similar to the khoisan

03-05-2019, 03:24 PM
Nobody knows for sure. The fleshy parts of reconstructions are based on contemporary populations living in the area where human fossils are found. It isn't a solid science, but more of an art. Also, it depends on your definition of 'first humans', people have different definitions of when anatomically modern humans started.

03-05-2019, 03:29 PM
i heard they had a phenotype very similar to the khoisan

Not sure. Khoisans have a phenotype adapted to desertic and arid countries of South-West Africa. Maybe first humans (common ancestor of the nowadays ppulations), were more adapted to savanna. Khoisans are a basal branch which detached from the main trunk long time ago but the time since the first humans until now is the same for Khoisans as the other modern humans and Khoisans have got the approximate same number of mutations , except they are not generally the same. A sample of South Africa from 2000 years ago was tested very pure, but already a sample from 1200 years ago was mixed for a part with pastoral migrants coming from the Great Lakes and since that, new mixings with Bantu farmers coming from Congo and Angola. In fact, the mixings are different in origin and part, acccording to the khoisan tribes, some are pure enough , but none are pure without any bringing from other branches .

03-05-2019, 03:59 PM
There is a reconstruction of a man from the archaeological site of Jebel Irhoud, in Morocco, made by Adrie and Alfons Kennis. The remains are thought to be of a 315,000 year old Homo Sapiens idaltu, which are the oldest AMH found to date.
Reconstruction of such old remains shouldn't be thought as very accurate (at least I don't), but they are still better than nothing


You can find more reconstructions here http://www.kenniskennis.com/site/sculptures/Moesgaard%20Museum/

09-18-2019, 03:35 PM
It seems that these Irhoud people are halfway between Modern Humans (AMH) and Neanderthals, and made a contribution to the latter.


Of course we don't know what did the first AMH look like, and it's not possible to infer their physical appearance by looking at present-day populations IMHO. Basically, there's a lot of diversity in and outside Africa. For example, the Khoisan and West Africans look nothing alike. Also, present-day populations from East Africa, where AMHs presumably originated, are very diverse.

09-19-2019, 01:27 AM
They were probably quite diverse like people are today.

09-19-2019, 01:32 AM
They probably looked quite different to any population alive today and leaning somewhat in the direction of other great apes.

09-19-2019, 07:01 PM
It’s hard to say which ancestors are “human”. I’m not sure I discount Neanderthal, Denisovan, or even Heidelbergensis as “not human”. That is in part why a new-ish term “anatomically modern human” (AMH) has been in use.

Meet “Denise” the Denisovan.

09-21-2019, 12:00 PM
Technically speaking, all species that belong to the genus Homo are humans (and this includes modern humans, Neanderthals, erectus, Denisovans, habilis, antecessor, heidelbergensis, etc).