PDA

View Full Version : What do you think the first humans looked like?



Erik
08-10-2015, 12:28 AM
Hey everyone, I've been wondering, what did the first humans look like? Due to both populations being known to have more "archaic" DNA, I am wondering, could they have looked like the Khoisan bushmen of the Kalahari, or the aboriginal people of Australia? If so, more like which?

Khoisan people:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/San_tribesman.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f4/66/06/f466069d08cb5d5e30c148639d85aa5f.jpg
http://htl-wireless.com/San_People.jpg
http://www.namibie.arroukatchee.fr/photos/bushmen-san.jpg
http://41.media.tumblr.com/194a7d77e669a8e86c256cba4a6131c8/tumblr_n2i1g6e6vW1r0lt5ho1_1280.jpg
http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/6028973_f260.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2310/2126666944_aacb61eccc_m.jpg

Australian Aboriginal People:

http://dehsvl.nl/wp-content/uploads/australia-aborigines-460.jpg
http://www.crystalinks.com/aboriginals.jpg
http://www.thumperscorner.com/discus/messages/23046/16185.jpg
http://www.travelnt.com/~/media/images/consumer/darwin%20and%20surrounds/traditional_indigenous_dance_dar_sur_u_1170866_540 x304.ashx
http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/world/2012/06/09/australian_aboriginals_call_moneymanagement_policy _racist/australiaaboriginals.jpeg


In the 1990s, genomic studies of worlds peoples found that the Y chromosome of San men share certain patterns of polymorphisms that are distinct from those of all other populations. [10] Because the Y chromosome is highly conserved between generations, this type of DNA test is used to determine when different subgroups separated from one another, and hence their last common ancestry. The authors of these studies suggested that the San may have been one of the first populations to differentiate from the most recent common paternal ancestor of all extant humans, the so-called Y-chromosomal Adam by patrilineal descent, estimated to have lived 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.[11][12] The authors also note that their results should be interpreted as only finding that the Khoisan "preserve ancient lineages", and not that they "stopped evolving" or are an "ancient group", since subsequent changes in their population are in parallel and similar to those of all other human populations.[13]

Various Y-chromosome studies [14][15][16] since confirmed that the Khoisan carry some of the most divergent (oldest) Y-chromosome haplogroups. These haplogroups are specific sub-groups of haplogroups A and B, the two earliest branches on the human Y-chromosome tree.

Similar to findings from Y-Chromosome studies, mitochondrial DNA studies also showed evidence that the Khoe–San people carry high frequencies of the earliest haplogroup branches in the human mitochondrial DNA tree. The most divergent (oldest) mitochondrial haplogroup, L0d, have been identified at its highest frequencies in the southern African Khoe and San groups.[14][17][18][19] The distinctiveness of the Khoisan in both matrilineal and patrilineal groupings is a further indicator that they represent a population historically distinct from other Africans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan


Scholars had disagreed whether their closest kin outside Australia were certain South Asian groups or African groups. The latter would imply a migration pattern in which their ancestors passed through South Asia to Australia without intermingling genetically with other populations along the way.[15] A 2009 genetic study in India found similarities among Indian archaic populations and Aboriginal people, indicating a Southern migration route, with expanding populations from Southeast Asia migrating to Indonesia and Australia.

In a genetic study in 2011, researchers found evidence, in DNA samples taken from strands of Aboriginal people's hair, that the ancestors of the Aboriginal population split off from the ancestors of the European and Asian populations between 65,000 and 75,000 years ago—roughly 24,000 years before the European and Asian populations split off from each other. These Aboriginal ancestors migrated into South Asia and then into Australia, where they stayed, with the result that, outside of Africa, the Aboriginal peoples have occupied the same territory continuously longer than any other human populations. These findings suggest that modern Aboriginal peoples are the direct descendants of migrants who left Africa up to 75,000 years ago.[16] [17] This finding is supported by earlier archaeological finds of human remains near Lake Mungo that date to 45,000 years ago. The same genetic study of 2011 found evidence that Aboriginal peoples carry some of the genes associated with the Denisovan peoples of Asia; the study suggests that there is an increase in allele sharing between the Denisovans and the Aboriginal Australians genome compared to other Eurasians and Africans. Examining DNA from the finger, researchers from the Harvard Medical School in the US and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany concluded that the Denisovans - a primitive group of humans descended from Neanderthals - migrated from Siberia to tropical parts of Asia. The researchers concluded that Denisovans interbred with modern humans in South-East Asia 44,000 years ago, before Australia separated from Papua New Guinea. They contributed DNA to Aboriginal Australians along with present-day New Guineans and an indigenous tribe in the Philippines known as Mamanwa. This study makes Aboriginal Australians one of the oldest living populations in the world and possibly the oldest outside of Africa, confirming they may also have the oldest continuous culture on the planet.[18] The Papuans have more sharing alleles than Aboriginal peoples. The data suggest that modern and archaic humans interbred in Asia before the migration to Australia.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Australians

So, I'm leaning towards the idea that the first humans looked more similar to Khoisans, because they seem to be purely descended from the earliest human lineages, and although Australian aboriginals are very archaic as well, they are still mixed with Denisovans, Neanderthal, and ethnicities that evolved out of Africa.

Please share your opinion on this subject!

Krefter
08-10-2015, 03:45 AM
Hey everyone, I've been wondering, what did the first humans look like? Due to both populations being known to have more "archaic" DNA, I am wondering, could they have looked like the Khoisan bushmen of the Kalahari, or the aboriginal people of Australia? If so, more like which?

"Archaic ancestry" is ancestry from non-human, but related breeds. So, the first humans were not archaic. Archaic ancestry if anything makes people today look less like the first humans. San/Bushman don't have Archaic-Eurasian ancestry as far as I know.


So, I'm leaning towards the idea that the first humans looked more similar to Khoisans, because they seem to be purely descended from the earliest human lineages, and although Australian aboriginals are very archaic as well, they are still mixed with Denisovans, Neanderthal, and ethnicities that evolved out of Africa.

Please share your opinion on this subject!

San are genetically more isolated than other humans, but all humans descend from the same early human lineage. We all evolved parallel to each other. Because SouthEast Asian and Australians have Black Skin+Kinky hair like Africans, but are genetically Eurasian and closest to East Asians, I think it's likely the first humans had Black Skin+Kinky hair.

I don't expect any humans today to closely resemble the first humans in skeletal and other features. There are clear distinct East Asian-features, West Eurasian features(inclu. distinct European features, Middle Eastern features), the San have distinct features, pictures of Papuan I've seen look to have distinct facial features. Most humans probably evolved new features that are unlike what the first humans had.

tamilgangster
08-10-2015, 06:59 AM
The honest answer is that we dont know, chances are they looked like a distinct group that doesnt resemble any modern races

redifflal
08-10-2015, 01:30 PM
The honest answer is that we dont know, chances are they looked like a distinct group that doesnt resemble any modern races

I lean more towards they probably had the whole range of facial features that we see today, or a big hodgepodge of it within one family or even one individual.

parasar
08-10-2015, 04:12 PM
Regarding the San
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24988-humanitys-forgotten-return-to-africa-revealed-in-dna/

Not so isolated: Khoisan tribes have European DNA (Image: Ariadne Van Zandbergen/Alamy)
Call it humanity’s unexpected U-turn.

...
According to conventional thinking, the Khoisan tribes of southern Africa, have lived in near-isolation from the rest of humanity for thousands of years. In fact, the study shows that some of their DNA matches most closely people from modern-day southern Europe, including Spain and Italy.

Because Eurasian people also carry traces of Neanderthal DNA, the finding also shows – for the first time – that genetic material from our extinct cousin may be widespread in African populations.
...
signs of western Eurasian genes in 32 individuals belonging to a variety of Khoisan tribes. “I think we were shocked,” says Reich.

The unexpected snippets of DNA most resembled sequences from southern Europeans, including Sardinians, Italians and people from the Basque region ...

Back to Africa – but from where?

Reich and his colleagues found that DNA sequences in the Khoisan people most closely resemble some found in people who today live in southern Europe. That, however, does not mean the migration back to Africa started in Italy or Spain. More likely, the migration began in what is now the Middle East.

We know that southern Europeans can trace their ancestry to the Middle East. However, in the thousands of years since they – and the ancestors of the Khoisan – left the region, it has experienced several waves of immigration. These waves have had a significant effect on the genes of people living in the Middle East today, and means southern Europeans are much closer to the original inhabitants of the Levant than modern-day Middle Easterners.

Awale
08-10-2015, 07:42 PM
Some Khoisan people also basically have Cushitic ancestry:


http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/07/the-savanna-pastoral-neolithic-cushitic.html


But there are some isolated groups bereft of either Bantu, Cushitic or European admixture who are basically as Krefter described.

---

As for the general thread subject:


The honest answer is that we dont know

This... I'm willing to bet they had straight hair though if other great apes are any indication.

Arbogan
08-19-2015, 08:12 AM
Regarding the San
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24988-humanitys-forgotten-return-to-africa-revealed-in-dna/

What evidence is there that modern middle eastern populations are less native? So some EEF made their way to south africa (we know they were present in north africa) . Most likely ancestral to berbers. That means middle-easterners are less native? Warped logic.

From what remember the west eurasian signal in East africans resemble the SW pastoralists the most. Not EEFs. Some studies point to a back immigration by a west eurasian group. But they don't point to EEF's. But an unknown population.

tamilgangster
08-19-2015, 08:44 AM
What evidence is there that modern middle eastern populations are less native? So some EEF made their way to south africa (we know they were present in north africa) . Most likely ancestral to berbers. That means middle-easterners are less native? Warped logic.

From what remember the west eurasian signal in East africans resemble the SW pastoralists the most. Not EEFs. Some studies point to a back immigration by a west eurasian group. But they don't point to EEF's. But an unknown population.

Its funny how they call the ancestral population european. They only contain some ENF, but lack ANE or WHG. The SW asian pastoralists were a mixture of ENF and basal eurasian. Much of the so called "eurasian" admixture in africa is mostly Basal eurasian and not West eurasian. The back migration they are talking about is one that took place 3000 YBP, which was semetic. But there was an earlier back migration that took place 23KYA. Where most of the eurasian admixture in the horn came from this earlier migration.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/06/an-older-layer-of-eurasian-admixture-in.html

Kale
08-19-2015, 01:51 PM
Some relevant D-Stats

MbutiPygmy Yoruba Stuttgart Ust'-Ishim -0.0078 -3.196
MbutiPygmy Yoruba Sardinian Ust'-Ishim -0.0074 -3.954
MbutiPygmy Yoruba Motala12 Ust'-Ishim -0.0042 -1.776
MbutiPygmy Yoruba MA-1 Ust'-Ishim -0.0040 -1.609
MbutiPygmy Yoruba Loschbour Ust'-Ishim -0.0068 -2.720
MbutiPygmy Yoruba La_Brana-1 Ust'-Ishim -0.0062 -2.383
MbutiPygmy Yoruba Kostenki14 Ust'-Ishim -0.0025 -0.946
MbutiPygmy Yoruba Kalash Ust'-Ishim -0.0063 -3.181
MbutiPygmy Yoruba Dai Ust'-Ishim -0.0043 -2.161
MbutiPygmy Yoruba BedouinB Ust'-Ishim -0.0068 -3.696


MbutiPygmy Hadza Stuttgart Ust'-Ishim -0.0077 -2.056
MbutiPygmy Hadza Sardinian Ust'-Ishim -0.0103 -3.920
MbutiPygmy Hadza Motala12 Ust'-Ishim -0.0132 -3.748
MbutiPygmy Hadza MA-1 Ust'-Ishim -0.0026 -0.695
MbutiPygmy Hadza Loschbour Ust'-Ishim -0.0076 -2.165
MbutiPygmy Hadza La_Brana-1 Ust'-Ishim -0.0104 -2.907
MbutiPygmy Hadza Kostenki14 Ust'-Ishim -0.0035 -0.943
MbutiPygmy Hadza Kalash Ust'-Ishim -0.0072 -2.670
MbutiPygmy Hadza Dai Ust'-Ishim -0.0033 -1.228
MbutiPygmy Hadza BedouinB Ust'-Ishim -0.0078 -2.994

Chimp Somali EHG Loschbour 0.0063 1.319 341763
Chimp Somali EHG MA1 -0.0196 -3.424 247305
Chimp Somali MA1 Loschbour 0.0246 4.301 251027

Tsakhur
09-15-2015, 03:01 AM
Is it possible early humans look like chimpanzee but with some human like features like walking on two legs?

Magnetic
09-15-2015, 03:37 AM
http://clipart.toonarific.com/data/media/41/fred002.gif

Krefter
09-15-2015, 03:38 AM
Tomenable posted this at another forum. These are reconstructions(based on skulls) of a 160,000 year old site in Isreal. Papuans, Onge, Australians share Black skin/nappy hair with Africans despite being Eurasian. So, it would make sense the common ancestor of Eurasians/Africans had Black skin/nappy hair, but that was maybe 60,000-100,000 years ago not 160,000 years ago. There's no way to know what the skin/hair was like.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e9/6c/e5/e96ce50ddba1a128c821a2992cd830e1.jpghttp://s27.postimg.org/bmkil791v/388.jpg

Awale
09-15-2015, 04:22 AM
Its funny how they call the ancestral population european. They only contain some ENF, but lack ANE or WHG. The SW asian pastoralists were a mixture of ENF and basal eurasian. Much of the so called "eurasian" admixture in africa is mostly Basal eurasian and not West eurasian. The back migration they are talking about is one that took place 3000 YBP, which was semetic. But there was an earlier back migration that took place 23KYA. Where most of the eurasian admixture in the horn came from this earlier migration.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/06/an-older-layer-of-eurasian-admixture-in.html

Nah, son... That 23 kya estimate is completely nonsensical and I explained this almost a year ago: http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2014/12/ethio-somali-is-farce.html <- almost no one that read that study took it seriously. The study the estimate came from was only good for how it proved that dating systems like ALDER or ROLLOFF are unreliable and the data it shared but otherwise; the authors tend to make wild statements based on thinking a mixed component (ENF + EA (http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/02/the-east-african-cluster.html)) they dub "Ethio-Somali" was somehow a fully Eurasian / Non-African component, something this rather hilarious study (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep06055) that completely contradicts ancient DNA did as well. In that study they find the same component as "Ethio-Somali" (a mix of ENF and EA) and then claim it's some 60,000 year old West Eurasian isolate found in East Africa. The wildly old dates (23 kya and 60 kya) are just a result of these geneticists inconceivably not realizing they have a mixed component on their hands.

Most of the West Eurasian ancestry in the Horn of Africa is most likely a Neolithic to post-Neolithic phenomenon (may just a bit older in some cases; need aDNA to be sure). And what is this you keep saying about ENF and Basal Eurasian? They're not two separate components; ENF itself is what contains Basal Eurasian, mayne. And "pure" Basal Eurasian is not what Horners have but "ENF".

BalkanKiwi
09-16-2015, 10:33 AM
Tomenable posted this at another forum. These are reconstructions(based on skulls) of a 160,000 year old site in Isreal. Papuans, Onge, Australians share Black skin/nappy hair with Africans despite being Eurasian. So, it would make sense the common ancestor of Eurasians/Africans had Black skin/nappy hair, but that was maybe 60,000-100,000 years ago not 160,000 years ago. There's no way to know what the skin/hair was like.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e9/6c/e5/e96ce50ddba1a128c821a2992cd830e1.jpghttp://s27.postimg.org/bmkil791v/388.jpg

That's some impressive 3D reconstruction.

Ignis90
09-16-2015, 11:44 AM
Tomenable posted this at another forum. These are reconstructions(based on skulls) of a 160,000 year old site in Isreal. Papuans, Onge, Australians share Black skin/nappy hair with Africans despite being Eurasian. So, it would make sense the common ancestor of Eurasians/Africans had Black skin/nappy hair, but that was maybe 60,000-100,000 years ago not 160,000 years ago. There's no way to know what the skin/hair was like.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e9/6c/e5/e96ce50ddba1a128c821a2992cd830e1.jpghttp://s27.postimg.org/bmkil791v/388.jpg

Aboriginals do not have nappy hair if I am not wrong. Besides, people often point out the similiarities between SSAs and Autralasians in order to (among others) support their Southern Dispersal theory. But there is so far no conclusive evidence to support this and there is still debate on whether the initial OoA went through the Sinai or Bab El Mandeb (the former gaining more and more credibility).

Besides, based on genomics, we now know most modern humans (if not all of them) are the products of various mixes of divergent populations during the Holocene. This fact alone implies very different (divergent) phenotypes for the ancestral populations so there is no way modern Australasians could have looked exactly like the initial OoA population. Part of the similarities between tropical Africans and Australasians is definitely due to convergent evolution.

Awale
09-16-2015, 12:45 PM
Aboriginals do not have nappy hair if I am not wrong.

Quite correct... Most Aborigines I've seen are straight haired and some are even slightly blonde like some Melanesians.


Besides, based on genomics, we now know most modern humans (if not all of them) are the products of various mixes of divergent populations during the Holocene. This fact alone implies very different (divergent) phenotypes for the ancestral populations so there is no way modern Australasians could have looked exactly like the initial OoA population. Part of the similarities between tropical Africans and Australasians is definitely due to convergent evolution.

Not just this but if I'm not mistaken Ust-Ishim is essential basal to all Eurasians other than "Basal Eurasians" (http://oi57.tinypic.com/2j0dwdi.jpg) according to Haak et al. 2015 and that would include Eastern Non-African groups like the Onge & Australo-Melanesians. I find the odds that these groups somehow "preserved" what could have been an "Ancient African phenotype" whilst their "West Eurasian" relatives (EHG & WHG), and East Asians whom they seem extra-related to didn't; a rather unlikely thing to have happened.

Krefter
09-16-2015, 01:13 PM
Aboriginals do not have nappy hair if I am not wrong. Besides, people often point out the similiarities between SSAs and Autralasians in order to (among others) support their Southern Dispersal theory. But there is so far no conclusive evidence to support this and there is still debate on whether the initial OoA went through the Sinai or Bab El Mandeb (the former gaining more and more credibility).

The Southern Dispersal theory has been proven wrong as far as I know. And we also know all of the African-looking people who were said to be from an earlier migration have some-type of common ancestry with East Asians they don't with other Eurasians.

[QUOTE=Ignis90;109180]Besides, based on genomics, we now know most modern humans (if not all of them) are the products of various mixes of divergent populations during the Holocene. This fact alone implies very different (divergent) phenotypes for the ancestral populations so there is no way modern Australasians could have looked exactly like the initial OoA population. Part of the similarities between tropical Africans and Australasians is definitely due to convergent evolution.

Papuan and Onge look African, there's no debate over this. I guess an anthropologist might be able to find differences in skeletal form, but on the outside because of Black skin/nappy hair they look basically identical. Many West Africans(basing on African Americans) look more like Papuan than they do to other Africans. Of course many(maybe not all, many Native Americans for example haven't mixed with anyone for at least 13,000 years) Eurasians today are a mix of divergent Holocene populations who probably looked very differnt from each other.

I never said Papuan or Onge look exactly like the common ancestors of Eurasians. What I was saying is it is hard to believe Black skin/nappy hair evolved independently in Asia and Africa. And within Africa there are people who are very differnt from each in terms of ancestry, more differnt than any Eurasians are to each other, but have those traits. It's hard to believe that's a coincidence.

AtlasoftheHumanJourney
11-04-2015, 03:21 PM
I'd guess they looked closest to Andamanese Islanders. Seeing as they have been isolated from the rest of the world for a very long time and they look very similar to Sub Saharan Africans. Which supports that they were part of the first wave of migration out of Africa.

Australian Aboriginals have 11% of their DNA from Indian settlers that arrived just 4,000 years ago. That may be the origin of their straight hair. They also have some Denisovan DNA.
http://www.nature.com/news/genomes-link-aboriginal-australians-to-indians-1.12219

Khoisan people are also mixed with Eurasian DNA from just 2,000 years ago. It has been suggested that some of their ancestors actually migrated from the Middle East, this may explain their East Asian looking eye shape?? Or perhaps that is a stretch...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24988-humanitys-forgotten-return-to-africa-revealed-in-dna/

Krefter
11-04-2015, 06:56 PM
I'd guess they looked closest to Andamanese Islanders. Seeing as they have been isolated from the rest of the world for a very long time and they look very similar to Sub Saharan Africans. Which supports that they were part of the first wave of migration out of Africa.

Being isolated doesn't mean Andamanses resemble the first humans. Looking African doesn't support them being from the first wave of humans out of Africa. In the sense that Andmanses have been isolated from other Eurasians, other Eurasians have been isolated from Andamases. No one is more isolated than anyone else. Andmanses have probably lived in their islands only mixing with each other longer than others have in their own regions, however that will likely result in a very distinct Andmanses phenotype forming that is very differnt from the first humans. Isolated populations create drift and evolve quicker.

Andamanses are not from a first wave, they're apart of the same Eurasian family as all Eurasian. They share a lot of common ancestry with Papuans, Austrlians, and to a lesser extent East Asians. West Eurasians(Middle Easterns, Europeans) have the most divergent Eurasian ancestry called Basal Eurasian which is originally from West Asia. Andamanses and all other Eurasians appear to be 100% descended from a branch of Eurasians that Basal Eurasian separated from over 50,000 years ago. So, if anything Basal Eurasian represents the first wave and only West Eurasians have decent from it.

Krefter
11-04-2015, 07:01 PM
This statue is very interesting to me. I'm not going to find a source right now, but I remeber I found one a while ago. I trust it is legitimate. It's from the Dolni Vestonice Gravettian site that I think is around 28,000 years old. At the same site 3 mtDNA samples are U5*=2 and U8c=1. The people were definitely predecessors to "WHG".

It's a very detailed carving of a person's(probably female) face. You can see straight hair was already around.
http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/Images/countries/Czech%20pics/headbrugar3.jpg

The reason I say this person is female is because the vast majority of Gravettian human figurines are women and this figurine has no beard at a time when creating razors for shaving was difficult.

AtlasoftheHumanJourney
11-05-2015, 02:36 AM
Being isolated doesn't mean Andamanses resemble the first humans. Looking African doesn't support them being from the first wave of humans out of Africa.In the sense that Andmanses have been isolated from other Eurasians, other Eurasians have been isolated from Andamases. No one is more isolated than anyone else. Andmanses have probably lived in their islands only mixing with each other longer than others have in their own regions, however that will likely result in a very distinct Andmanses phenotype forming that is very differnt from the first humans. Isolated populations create drift and evolve quicker.

Yes they can evolve quicker, but this thread is about appearances and they have not evolved their appearances much at all have they? I mean if you show a picture of them, most people will immediately think they are African.


They share a lot of common ancestry with Papuans, Austrlians, and to a lesser extent East Asians.

But that is not saying much really. Native Americans also share a common ancestry with Africans but that does not mean they are closely related. It may be that East Asians evolved out of a common ancestor as Andamanese, I don't know. But that says nothing about how long ago they diverged or how long they have been on the Andaman Isles, and t has no bearing on what the first humans looked like either.


West Eurasians(Middle Easterns, Europeans) have the most divergent Eurasian ancestry called Basal Eurasian which is originally from West Asia. Andamanses and all other Eurasians appear to be 100% descended from a branch of Eurasians that Basal Eurasian separated from over 50,000 years ago. So, if anything Basal Eurasian represents the first wave and only West Eurasians have decent from it.

That is interesting, I'll have to research that. But I don't get why you think that shows Basal Eurasians are the first wave. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean.

AtlasoftheHumanJourney
11-05-2015, 02:43 AM
This statue is very interesting to me. I'm not going to find a source right now, but I remeber I found one a while ago. I trust it is legitimate. It's from the Dolni Vestonice Gravettian site that I think is around 28,000 years old. At the same site 3 mtDNA samples are U5*=2 and U8c=1. The people were definitely predecessors to "WHG".

It's a very detailed carving of a person's(probably female) face. You can see straight hair was already around.
http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/Images/countries/Czech%20pics/headbrugar3.jpg

The reason I say this person is female is because the vast majority of Gravettian human figurines are women and this figurine has no beard at a time when creating razors for shaving was difficult.

I have seen that image before, but I never saw it referenced in a legitimate scientific source so I assumed that it was a fake or simply a mislabeled piece of art from a much later period. Usually for an artifact that spectacular, it would be very easy to find a reputable source that explains it's provenance.

Some of the earliest skulls found in South America resemble Melanesians, and there is now even DNA evidence that shows some Native South Americans are related to Melanesians, which suggests that even the first wave of migrations to the Americas may have been by "negrito" looking peoples.

parasar
11-05-2015, 04:31 AM
...


That is interesting, I'll have to research that. But I don't get why you think that shows Basal Eurasians are the first wave. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean.

Basal Eurasians are no more basal in the sense of earlier than other Eurasians. Basal Eurasian is a phylogenetic term for a separate branch present only in western Eurasia.

Krefter
11-05-2015, 09:48 AM
Yes they can evolve quicker, but this thread is about appearances and they have not evolved their appearances much at all have they? I mean if you show a picture of them, most people will immediately think they are African.

I agree they look just like Africans. I don't think it is a coincidence and suspect all humans had black skin/nappy hair. But I think Andmanese have distinct facial features and besides the black skin/nappy hair don't look similar. I don't know I could be wrong. It is true though isolated populations should evolve quicker.


But that is not saying much really. Native Americans also share a common ancestry with Africans but that does not mean they are closely related. It may be that East Asians evolved out of a common ancestor as Andamanese, I don't know. But that says nothing about how long ago they diverged or how long they have been on the Andaman Isles, and t has no bearing on what the first humans looked like either.

That is interesting, I'll have to research that. But I don't get why you think that shows Basal Eurasians are the first wave. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean.

This is the current theory(could change in the future)...

1.Eurasian
2.Crown Eurasian: All living non-Africans except West Eurasians are 100%.
2.Basal Eurasian: West Eurasians have some decent from it.

Andmanese can't be from a first wave because their from the same stock other Eurasians are. Basal Eurasian is the most divergent Eurasian ancestry and is originally from West Asia. It would make more sense Basal Eurasian is from a first wave, but probably isn't.


I have seen that image before, but I never saw it referenced in a legitimate scientific source so I assumed that it was a fake or simply a mislabeled piece of art from a much later period. Usually for an artifact that spectacular, it would be very easy to find a reputable source that explains it's provenance.


I hope it is leit because it's such a realistic carving. I tend to think figurenes from a similar time period also depict straight hai(despite how imaginative they are). There are also

http://f.tqn.com/y/archaeology/1/W/Q/v/Venus_of_Brassempouy.jpghttp://rolfgross.dreamhosters.com/CavePainting/VenusStreet/VenusStreet_html_m521ff8a6.jpg

This is from Magdalenian Britain and seems to depict straight hair.
http://donsmaps.com/images13/ottershamansm.jpg

Plus these Magdalenian carvings from France clearly depict straight hair but the dating could be wrong.
http://s8int.com/images/portraits4.jpg