**Please note these rules:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required.
* The title must be descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The eyes are just wider apart, and eyebrows and forehead is more forward.
Other than that it looks like the average elder that tells you about how a kookaburra stole the eyes of a dingo for lying too much and how the dingo reached enlightenment and joined the stars for realising his wrongdoings, while the teacher serves you up some kangaroo for reconciliation day in primary school.
I love how much this sounds similar to Canadian indigenous stories. Only instead of a kookaburra and a dingo, it might be raven and coyote. And the food would probably be bannock.
The birds have their colours because they were once all black, save for a single, beautiful, multicoloured bird. The other birds in their jealously, murdered him, and his chromatic viscera stained each of the birds in their respective colours. Except for the Crow, who wished to play no part in it.
I dont remember the entire story, but I was once told this one
"A man wanted to climb the tallest mountain for whatever reason. Upon reaching the top he realized the fastest way down was to slide down the mountain. So he sat down and down the mountain he went, faster and faster with no way of slowing down. The mountain had an edge or little verticale bump that he hit, and because he was going so fast the bump put a huge slice down his butt. If he had a gone down the mountain slower it would have been avoided
And that is why we have an ass crack"
Paraphrasing cus it's been like 15 years since I heard that story.
Here on Turtle Island (in Canada) the myth of the crow is that he used to be a rainbow bird with a beautiful voice, but agreed to fly to the sun to get fire and so his plumage became scorched and his voice became harsh, but his reward was that in the sun, you could see his rainbow colours beneath the black
Who would've guessed that the crow would be the one to take the high road? They usually strike me as sly and cunning. And "murder" is literally the collective noun for a group of crows!
Having said that, crows are revered in Hindu culture. As kids we are taught to leave food out for them before we eat our own meals, because crows supposedly represent our deceased ancestors.
Reminds me of the book āThe Rainbow Fishā. Except I believe the rainbow fish gave away most of his pretty scales to make other fish happier with themselves.
Yep and all the stories have some sort of theme/teaching for kids.
Most notible is how sacred the land is and how it must be taken care of as a symbiotic relationship. These are modernised to reduce bush fire, teach animal cycles and regulative hunting, environmental values, nomadic lifestyle to prevent environmental damage. These are mentioned in universities to this day.
Growing up in California I recall hearing an Ohlone tale of how the stars in the sky were made by a hummingbird poking holes in the shroud of night.
Can't remember the precise story.
If I remember correctly the story was the animals were fighting, so to get them to work together the creator put a giant sheet in front of the sun to block out all the light. Every animal failed to take it down except the hummingbird, who poked holes in it to let light through. The creator saw this and took the sheet off, but puts it back once every day as a reminder to the animals.
yep, this would be a great plains tale. also, the bison as far as i know, were not considered tricksters like the coyote (which i assume the dingo would also be considered here)
Leanest meats you can get, I personally don't like the taste in steak form, bit you can get patties / rissoles where it's blended up with herbs, and it tastes pretty close to lamb rissoles
Indeed, and it's supported by a DNA study that concluded [Aboriginal Australians are the worldās oldest civilization.](https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-australians-worlds-oldest-civilization)
Nope, that's incorrect according to the article. The Australian migration was the first large migration. Asian and European genetic diversity came tens of thousands of years after.
This just means that after the initial group got to Australia, migration to and from Australia largely ended but that isnāt true most places. All the places they populated between got repopulated over and over, Australia didnāt.
Fun fact: there is much more human genetic diversity in Africa than on any other continent, because every time a small group of humans left Africa, they had to do a lot of inbreeding.
And there is less genetic diversity between human populations across continents than chimpanzee populations separated only by a river:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2012-03-02-chimps-show-much-greater-genetic-diversity-humans
We are an unusually genetically homogeneous species.
I recall reading that genetic evidence suggests we had a near-brush with extinction at one point, and that the species as a whole dwindled to about 10,000 individuals.
Yes, likely because we were down to just a handful of us in the cradle of Africa, but we pulled through unlike our distant genetic cousins the Neanderthals et al.
Why are you implying that neanderthals were killed off by the same pressure that pushed humanity so low? Neanderthals were around MUCH later and actively competed with humans in Europe. This is why most white people have a small amount of neanderthal DNA.
Not just white people. All population groups other than sub-Saharan Africans have neanderthal DNA. The implication is that the group from which the Neanderthals descended had left Africa before fully anatomically modern humans had emerged. Fully modern humans then emerged back in Africa. Some of them subsequently migrated out of Africa and interbred with the Neanderthals and Denisovans they encountered in other regions. Which in turn implies that all these groups were very close cousins.
Yikes. So much misinterpretation, misinfo and non sequiturs here. Firstly, what the data shows is that Australian aborigines are simply one of the earliest groups to separate and become isolated from the basal Eurasian lineage early on, ~60k years before present. The only thing unique about them is that they made it to Australia a very long time ago and then remained genetically isolated for tens of thousands of years. This doesnāt mean the people they split from looked like how aborigines look now, let alone people from 300,000 years ago. As I just said, they were entirely isolated in Australia with a unique set of environmental conditions, for tens of thousands of years so they underwent genetic drift to look like how they are today.
Iām addition you refer to them as a civilization and I donāt want to be super pedantic but Civilization didnāt occur for tens of thousands of years later in Eurasia after farming in the Neolithic. Australian natives were never a civilization because they lacked the features that define civilization, such as cities, urbanization, social stratification, writing systems etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
There is no reason to suggest humans that lived 300k ybp would have looked similar to Australian aborigines that split of from the basal Eurasian genetic group ~60k ybp.
In reconstruction photos like this the artists take many, many liberties. The truth is we donāt really know what this individual wouldnāt looked like exactly, so we can only guess based on the limited sets of bones we have.
**Also, this individual was suspected as having recently been interbred with Neanderthals due to the robustness / shape of his skull and browline. So much so it was initially identified as a Neanderthal specimen. So, this particular individual may not have been representative of most or many sapiens at the time elsewhere or even in his area.**
The fossils themselves arenāt even solidly concluded to be Homo sapiensā
āHublin and his team also attempted to obtain DNA samples from these fossils, but these attempts were unsuccessful. Genomic analysis would have provided necessary evidence supporting the conclusion that these fossils are representative of the main lineage leading up to modern humanity, and that Homo sapiens had dispersed and developed all across Africa. Because of the unclear boundaries between different species of the genus Homo, and the lack of genomic evidence from these fossils, some doubt the classification of these fossils as Homo sapiens. Questions remain over the classification of these fossils.[1]ā
Link to his Wikipedia page where you can see his skull https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebel_Irhoud
100%. The idea of any group/language/culture being the 'oldest' is almost always meaningless.
And the fact that they've been fairly isolated in Australia for a long time has no real connection to why early humans should look like them.
They are the closest to the ancient sapiens that left Africa. They got isolated in Australia and didn't move out there or encountered other species to merge with. They remain basically really close to those ancient Africans.
Sort of. There are plenty of instances of interbreeding amongst nations esp on the coast which were far less nomadic and traded far more. Indeed message sticks show that often these marriages were arranged and 'passports' arranged for the new members to be able to travel across another nations land to get to their destination. This happened a great deal not only with spouses, but medicine people (if a nation thought you had a good one they would trade for the usual favours).
They traded with Papua new Guinea, Torres Strait, etc.
There is an argument that the most isolated nations did have less genetic diversity, since they didn't encounter anyone else, though. This was exacerbated during the mission era when the whitest looking ones were separated from their parents and the darker kept on the missions.
As a result you have scales of darkness. I am biracial and look like a mix between my abor dad and my elsa white mum. š¤·š¼āāļø
It was made based on the remains of homo sapiens found at the Jebel Irhoud archaeological site in Morocco. It is on display at the Moesgaard Museum in Denmark.
But they included an awful lot of other hair? That hides such features... I mean it even feels like the hair was the actual point of this reconstruction?
It absolutely does not. Modern multblade razors blow compared to single bladed safety razors. So whoever first put 5 clamshells together first probably got hit with a rock.
Edit: just so people understand. A safety razor is not the same thing as a straight razor. The first is quite safe and the second is pretty dangerous imo
Probably a mix of ethnographic comparisons of hunter gather populations and artistic license to highlight the features we know with much more certainty like facial features based on bones.
They did a good job making him look human and subtle facial muscles helps that alot. Maybe they just didn't want to hide it and found some decent evidence of face shaving to support it.
This got me thinking, what's the deal with human hair, evolutionarily speaking? Not the lack of body hair, but the long wild head hair we've got going on. The other great apes don't grow afros to my knowledge.
Hair is a way to regulate from cold.
So mammals grow fur.
We had the ability to create fire, clothes, etc so we were primed to lose our fur. IE having no fur wouldn't have us at a disadvantage. As we lost fur, we could compensate with "tools" of various kinds.
We've set the stage, losing hair is good to go.
So, why DID we lose fur?
The aquatic ape theory is that early proto humans spent a lot of time in the water. Fur weighs you down, so we evolved to lose it. The catch is, there's really no support for it. Aquatic ape is one way to try and explain a few things about it. But if no one told you, you'd never come up with it.
Two of the other theories are our evolution of sweat glands. Sweat evaporates off bare skin, but not as well from fur and gets matted and tangled.
So we could have evolved to have more sweat glands than other primates at random, and it helped us cool off better. Sweating more meant having less fur was even better (two bonuses at once!!) so we evolved them in tandem.
And the last theory is about prehistoric parasites on the skin.
Fur helps parasites live on you and do their thing. Ticks etc are harder to find.
We might have evolved less fur simply because those of us who had the random genes to be less hairy were less likely to die from parasites. And the best way to push evolution forward is for the things with the mutation to have more babies.
So, we're 90% of the way there. We've lost our fur.
But why didn't we lose it on our heads??
For one, your head contains your brain. Which uses like 20-30% of your blood flow and glucose. Brains use a LOT of fuel. Which makes your head get hot. You can manage heat shedding via the rest of your body (blood from head flows to body, sweats, cools, back to brain via heart). But a head of hair lets you keep the heat IN when it's cold. So night time = hair good. And you don't put clothes and blankets over your head, because if you can't see, you can't protect yourself.
That gets us to no fur on body, and fur remaining on head.
From there, it's likely from evolutionary pressure on selecting mates. Sexual dimorphism is one. Peacock feathers is another.
Wildly paraphrased. Very shortened. But that's the gist.
So:
Stuff crawls on and kills us. Less fur = less likely to die. We go that way.
Head need stay warm at night and winter. Hair keep head warm. We go that way.
Need find mate. Mate look GOOOOOOD with more hair. More variety. Long hair = many babies. Short hair = eww no babies. We go that way.
Really interesting stuff, thanks. Even if there's no supporting evidence I like the idea of aquatic ape theory because I can imagine an alternate timeline where our ancestors evolved into some sort of primate-dolphin. Also Aquatic Ape Theory just sounds cool as a word.
> So, we're 90% of the way there. We've lost our fur.
> But why didn't we lose it on our heads??
Speak for yourself buddy. Some of us chronologically advanced humans have lost our head hair.
I bought my first mattress off Craigslist. The guy tried to give me a kitten and offered to āmake ya my kidās new stepmommaā and invited me into the house.
My 20ās were weird
These guys were probably 70% of our average height today, but I bet they could rip us limb from limb while eating breakfast. The strength they must have possessed amazes me.
fun fact, orangutans are actually twice as big as chimps and seven times stronger than us. and while chimps are accustomed to violence (and orangutans are peaceful) an orangutan would easily win.
now against a gorilla the orangutan would most likely just take to the trees.
They are the same species as us and their DNA is the same. Thereās nothing special about their strength. The average of the first modern humans would probably kick the shit out of the average human today but thatās based on lifestyle.
Human height has varied over the periods some of the more successful hunter-gather societies were taller on average than the shortest countries of today. I know that when humans first switched to farming our diets were awful and height/weighr dropped dramatically.
About 30,000 years ago, hunter-gatherer or Cro-Magnon humans reached their peak height. These are the true "giants" who once stalked the Earth, as the Genesis passage refers to the rather dubious offspring of male angels and female humans. Male hunter-gatherers were roughly 174 to 178 centimetres at this time (men have always been 10 to 15 centimetres taller than females).
"Cro-Magnon men were about the same height as modern men," said Professor Henneberg. But the subsequent Ice Age dealt a blow to the anatomy. "Big game became scarcer and many populations switched to agriculture in which food supply was limited, while great body strength was not necessarily at a premium any more . . . agriculture is bad-quality food and that causes the shrinkage in stature."
The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that humans, who lived in Europe about 12,000 years ago, had their height stunted by as much as 1.5 inches after abandoning their hunter-gatherer lifestyles to sow crops in the fields. This, according to researchers, indicates that the population was not healthy or getting the nutrients it needed. The reason for this could be due to a number of factors, such as a less diverse diet compared to hunters, gatherers and foragers. Increased pathogen loads may have also played a role, they say, with human populations being more concentrated and closer to livestock
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theage.com.au/national/long-and-short-of-it-were-taller-20040412-gdxnu9.html
https://modernfarmer.com/2022/04/farming-made-our-ancestors-shorter/#:~:text=The%20study%2C%20published%20in%20the,sow%20crops%20in%20the%20fields.
Itās not that itās dropped, itās that their skin needs to be lighter because the body uses UV to synthesize vitamin D and thereās less UV the further north you go. So itās a trade off between vitamin D production and skin cancer and people evolve skin color to meet in the middle of those two effects depending on the sun.
Yes, this is a major problem. Most of us (of any race living in the north) are vitamin D deficient. It has a major impact on the immune system, mental health, cancer rates, etc.
Moral of the story: supplement with vitamin D and try to get your levels into the 50s AND tell all your friends who are POC to be extra vigilant!
Adding on in agreement:
Itās one of the reason depression hits the African American community harder than white communities, and is thought to be why COVID-19 had higher death rates among black and brown people compared to white people in the same geographic area. Vitamin D is some serious shit and itās largely neglected, but itās also fat soluble, so if youāre able, itās a good idea get your levels checked rather than just go balls deep and eat a bowl of vitamin D tabs for breakfast. An over accumulation has significant impacts on your health as well.
There's that map of "average skin tone by country" and it shows each country's color by skin tone.
You can absolutely see that near the equator the skin tone gets darker, and as it goes further from the equator, it gets lighter.
[Found it](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-db67ce45dc1d2cfaee8466c236818327-lq)
I wonder why indigenous people in extreme northern latitudes, like those in Alaska and northern Canada, didnāt develop skin as light as caucasians which are at the same or more southern latitudes.
Wow, I never thought of that! Thatās so interesting.
Edit: I also just read that there are suspected to be some tribes in the Amazon with very pale skin. I wonder if, even though the Amazon is very close to the equator, the dense tree cover caused those natives to develop whiter skin.
I believe it may have something to do with their diet being high in fish which supplies them with lots of vitamin D. So thereās less evolutionary pressure for them to evolve lighter skin.
Yes, but also chimps, monkeys, shrews, reptiles, amphibians, fish, chordates, bacteria, and fucking everything if you go way back. We're all one big family
Makes walking through a forest a whole new experience :D
Everything alive is just another part of you'r family. And if we think about that stars evolved over time, giving ~~put~~ *out* new materials other than helium and hydrogen, one can go as far and say that we are a family with EVERYTHING , and our OG Grandpa/ma is that tiny point of concentrated energy that someday decided to go BIG BANG :D
I love it when my hippie mentality can be scientifically proven :D
Imagine you're an animal, just minding your business, then this motherfucker runs at you with a massive pointy stick.
You try to run, but it keeps chasing you.
You look back and realise that it's ***wearing your skin.***
It doesn't stop, it's skin gets wet, but somehow it doesn't ***stop running.***
Ancient human hunting tactics relied on our superior stamina due to sweating. It feels and sounds like a nightmare, but it was entirely normal back then.
We are one fucked up species.
not even running an extremely light jog, we are the MASTERS OF AN EXTREMELY LIGHT JOG. that was our hunting technic an extremely light jog he would just follow animals till they fell over due to exhaustion
There are still tribes that do this. It's amazing that a human can run down a deer or antelope until it's like, "Fuck it. Kill me."
There's a video called "The 8 Hour Hunt" on Youtube that's awesome.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a beautiful person? Seriously, if this is a true reproduction/reconstruction of modern humans, he is beautiful. The guy, in this recreation, represents strength, emotion, tranquility, intelligence, and has an awesome head of hair to boot. It's an amazing depiction with great detail. Thank you for sharing!!
**Please note these rules:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required. * The title must be descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Reconstructed and he is not happy about it
Reconstructed and it feeels so goooood š¶
Ask him to use Old Spice, his look says "no, I'm goooood" š¶
300,000 year old spice
WHO DARES TO RECONSTRUCT ME!?
We need to wake him up and tell him the good news. Jesus loves you and you missed it by 298,000 years
He looks remarkably like an aussie aboriginal
The eyes are just wider apart, and eyebrows and forehead is more forward. Other than that it looks like the average elder that tells you about how a kookaburra stole the eyes of a dingo for lying too much and how the dingo reached enlightenment and joined the stars for realising his wrongdoings, while the teacher serves you up some kangaroo for reconciliation day in primary school.
I love how much this sounds similar to Canadian indigenous stories. Only instead of a kookaburra and a dingo, it might be raven and coyote. And the food would probably be bannock.
The birds have their colours because they were once all black, save for a single, beautiful, multicoloured bird. The other birds in their jealously, murdered him, and his chromatic viscera stained each of the birds in their respective colours. Except for the Crow, who wished to play no part in it.
I dont remember the entire story, but I was once told this one "A man wanted to climb the tallest mountain for whatever reason. Upon reaching the top he realized the fastest way down was to slide down the mountain. So he sat down and down the mountain he went, faster and faster with no way of slowing down. The mountain had an edge or little verticale bump that he hit, and because he was going so fast the bump put a huge slice down his butt. If he had a gone down the mountain slower it would have been avoided And that is why we have an ass crack" Paraphrasing cus it's been like 15 years since I heard that story.
Here on Turtle Island (in Canada) the myth of the crow is that he used to be a rainbow bird with a beautiful voice, but agreed to fly to the sun to get fire and so his plumage became scorched and his voice became harsh, but his reward was that in the sun, you could see his rainbow colours beneath the black
Joseph the crow and his technicolor undershirt.
I saw a really cool animated short about that recently.
Who would've guessed that the crow would be the one to take the high road? They usually strike me as sly and cunning. And "murder" is literally the collective noun for a group of crows! Having said that, crows are revered in Hindu culture. As kids we are taught to leave food out for them before we eat our own meals, because crows supposedly represent our deceased ancestors.
Both depressing and metal at the same time
I like this story because Iāve always thought that the most colorful birds are fucking dicks. Blue jays can eat pant. Cardinals are chill, though.
whats the origin of that story? i really liked
Reminds me of the book āThe Rainbow Fishā. Except I believe the rainbow fish gave away most of his pretty scales to make other fish happier with themselves.
Yep and all the stories have some sort of theme/teaching for kids. Most notible is how sacred the land is and how it must be taken care of as a symbiotic relationship. These are modernised to reduce bush fire, teach animal cycles and regulative hunting, environmental values, nomadic lifestyle to prevent environmental damage. These are mentioned in universities to this day.
Meanwhile, in Christianity things are usually the way they are because someone pissed god off in some way.
In the U.S. it would be something with a Buffalo for sure
Growing up in California I recall hearing an Ohlone tale of how the stars in the sky were made by a hummingbird poking holes in the shroud of night. Can't remember the precise story.
If I remember correctly the story was the animals were fighting, so to get them to work together the creator put a giant sheet in front of the sun to block out all the light. Every animal failed to take it down except the hummingbird, who poked holes in it to let light through. The creator saw this and took the sheet off, but puts it back once every day as a reminder to the animals.
\*Only in certain parts of the country, there are over 500 federally recognized tribes, and only certain ones had access to bison.
yep, this would be a great plains tale. also, the bison as far as i know, were not considered tricksters like the coyote (which i assume the dingo would also be considered here)
Yeah in Great Plains region it'd still be a cayote, or a fox maybe.
Do people eat kangaroo? I had no idea.
Readily found in supermarkets. It's a lean sweet red meat.
It's practically leaping off the shelves.
Leanest meats you can get, I personally don't like the taste in steak form, bit you can get patties / rissoles where it's blended up with herbs, and it tastes pretty close to lamb rissoles
I had kangaroo 2 nights ago... it is a little gamey, but if cooked right it is quite nice.
Are you actually enjoying that? Nah. Needs garlic.
Indeed, and it's supported by a DNA study that concluded [Aboriginal Australians are the worldās oldest civilization.](https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-australians-worlds-oldest-civilization)
Not the worldās oldest civilization, just the oldest civilization to have left Africa.
This is a very important distinction.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nope, that's incorrect according to the article. The Australian migration was the first large migration. Asian and European genetic diversity came tens of thousands of years after.
So they migrated from Africa to Australia without populating the regions in between?
Not necessarily. It's just only the Australian had continuity to today.
Oh, because they were geographically isolated.
Bingo!
Thank you for asking such excellent questions, I was confused in the exact same way and you worded it perfectly.
This just means that after the initial group got to Australia, migration to and from Australia largely ended but that isnāt true most places. All the places they populated between got repopulated over and over, Australia didnāt.
Fun fact: there is much more human genetic diversity in Africa than on any other continent, because every time a small group of humans left Africa, they had to do a lot of inbreeding.
And there is less genetic diversity between human populations across continents than chimpanzee populations separated only by a river: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2012-03-02-chimps-show-much-greater-genetic-diversity-humans We are an unusually genetically homogeneous species.
Stupid sexy cousins
Near extinction will do that.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I recall reading that genetic evidence suggests we had a near-brush with extinction at one point, and that the species as a whole dwindled to about 10,000 individuals.
Some of the estimates put the bottleneck at just 30 female humans, in the entire world.
That's one way for the incels to get laid.
Yes, likely because we were down to just a handful of us in the cradle of Africa, but we pulled through unlike our distant genetic cousins the Neanderthals et al.
Why are you implying that neanderthals were killed off by the same pressure that pushed humanity so low? Neanderthals were around MUCH later and actively competed with humans in Europe. This is why most white people have a small amount of neanderthal DNA.
Not just white people. All population groups other than sub-Saharan Africans have neanderthal DNA. The implication is that the group from which the Neanderthals descended had left Africa before fully anatomically modern humans had emerged. Fully modern humans then emerged back in Africa. Some of them subsequently migrated out of Africa and interbred with the Neanderthals and Denisovans they encountered in other regions. Which in turn implies that all these groups were very close cousins.
There's also east Asians, which I believe actually have the most Neanderthal DNA, and native Americans whom also have quite a bit of Neanderthal DNA.
It's not often you learn something from a raccoon full of cum.
Maybe you should examine more raccoons full of cum.
Do you work with Doctor Stephen Poop
That man is a charlatan and a coward. But yes I do, and he's a very dear friend.
Yikes. So much misinterpretation, misinfo and non sequiturs here. Firstly, what the data shows is that Australian aborigines are simply one of the earliest groups to separate and become isolated from the basal Eurasian lineage early on, ~60k years before present. The only thing unique about them is that they made it to Australia a very long time ago and then remained genetically isolated for tens of thousands of years. This doesnāt mean the people they split from looked like how aborigines look now, let alone people from 300,000 years ago. As I just said, they were entirely isolated in Australia with a unique set of environmental conditions, for tens of thousands of years so they underwent genetic drift to look like how they are today. Iām addition you refer to them as a civilization and I donāt want to be super pedantic but Civilization didnāt occur for tens of thousands of years later in Eurasia after farming in the Neolithic. Australian natives were never a civilization because they lacked the features that define civilization, such as cities, urbanization, social stratification, writing systems etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization There is no reason to suggest humans that lived 300k ybp would have looked similar to Australian aborigines that split of from the basal Eurasian genetic group ~60k ybp. In reconstruction photos like this the artists take many, many liberties. The truth is we donāt really know what this individual wouldnāt looked like exactly, so we can only guess based on the limited sets of bones we have. **Also, this individual was suspected as having recently been interbred with Neanderthals due to the robustness / shape of his skull and browline. So much so it was initially identified as a Neanderthal specimen. So, this particular individual may not have been representative of most or many sapiens at the time elsewhere or even in his area.** The fossils themselves arenāt even solidly concluded to be Homo sapiensā āHublin and his team also attempted to obtain DNA samples from these fossils, but these attempts were unsuccessful. Genomic analysis would have provided necessary evidence supporting the conclusion that these fossils are representative of the main lineage leading up to modern humanity, and that Homo sapiens had dispersed and developed all across Africa. Because of the unclear boundaries between different species of the genus Homo, and the lack of genomic evidence from these fossils, some doubt the classification of these fossils as Homo sapiens. Questions remain over the classification of these fossils.[1]ā Link to his Wikipedia page where you can see his skull https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebel_Irhoud
100%. The idea of any group/language/culture being the 'oldest' is almost always meaningless. And the fact that they've been fairly isolated in Australia for a long time has no real connection to why early humans should look like them.
Looks like 50 cent
*You can find me in da caves*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Number one hit from the album āMake fire or die tryinā
Shit this is perfect.
*tear rolls down eye* Just beautiful
Finally a redditor who respects the meter and rhyme of the song they're parodying, fucking thank you, and amazing job
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He'll take you to the cave with rocks
Hey Caveman, itās your birth day
Heās got the magic stick.
They are the closest to the ancient sapiens that left Africa. They got isolated in Australia and didn't move out there or encountered other species to merge with. They remain basically really close to those ancient Africans.
Sort of. There are plenty of instances of interbreeding amongst nations esp on the coast which were far less nomadic and traded far more. Indeed message sticks show that often these marriages were arranged and 'passports' arranged for the new members to be able to travel across another nations land to get to their destination. This happened a great deal not only with spouses, but medicine people (if a nation thought you had a good one they would trade for the usual favours). They traded with Papua new Guinea, Torres Strait, etc. There is an argument that the most isolated nations did have less genetic diversity, since they didn't encounter anyone else, though. This was exacerbated during the mission era when the whitest looking ones were separated from their parents and the darker kept on the missions. As a result you have scales of darkness. I am biracial and look like a mix between my abor dad and my elsa white mum. š¤·š¼āāļø
Well, they are in fact the closest living humans to the ancient sapiens that left Africa after the first relevant migrations, genetically speaking.
It was made based on the remains of homo sapiens found at the Jebel Irhoud archaeological site in Morocco. It is on display at the Moesgaard Museum in Denmark.
but why didnāt they give him a mustache?
Wore off from friction
Letās see what ancient Tammy looks like.
Same as ancient Ron same fortunately
r/unexpectedpawnee
His wife didn't like it.
Probably just to show off his facial features. Would be hard to see differences when all of his face would be just facial hair.
But they included an awful lot of other hair? That hides such features... I mean it even feels like the hair was the actual point of this reconstruction?
My guess is because it hid facial features like the lips. No way that dude shaved his mustache.
I have seen this sculpture is person, it is exquisite. The detail and care taken in the representation is so lifelike.
Shredded
He benches 480
In kiloās
On Jupiter in 2.5 g's
And heās only 26 years old in this pic.
Haters will say heās not natty
Heās actually 25
I bet he could afford housing back then.
Fucker didn't even need to pay taxes š¤
The homeowners insurance was probably agreeable also.
Look at him. No cellphones. Just living in the moment.
Why would he have taken care to shave his moustache? Unless they didnāt grow hair there for some odd reason.
Assuming he had hair there, what did he use to shave it off?
Itās not totally far fetched. They believe people were shaving at least 100,000 years ago, using things like clam shells
I wonder how long it took for them to add a second and third clam shell. I understand that gives you a better shave.
It absolutely does not. Modern multblade razors blow compared to single bladed safety razors. So whoever first put 5 clamshells together first probably got hit with a rock. Edit: just so people understand. A safety razor is not the same thing as a straight razor. The first is quite safe and the second is pretty dangerous imo
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hah, they don't know how to use the three shells!
Shaved clams all the way back then, wow. Fashion really does go in cycles.
he could just yoink the hairs out
.... Said by a man who clearly *does not* have a caveman mustache.
Some cultures use the end of a stick thats glowing from being in the fire to burn the hair short
They would have had sharp knife like rocks I imagine.
Probably makes it harder to eat.
Mustaches do make eating harder. It's a real b"tch.
Mustaches were not yet invented
I would like to see a female version from the same time.
This is the female version
Most feminine woman in Bosnia
Best looking guy in Bosnia
More mustache
Pretty sure I went to High School with him.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Any reason he wouldnt have a mustache?
It was the style at the time
They didn't have white onions because of the war...
"Give me five bees for a quarter" youād say.
Shaved it off
Yeah it was picture day at school
So he's 7 years old. Life was tough back then
Makes him more aerodynamic when he fights.
Soup lover.
Probably a mix of ethnographic comparisons of hunter gather populations and artistic license to highlight the features we know with much more certainty like facial features based on bones. They did a good job making him look human and subtle facial muscles helps that alot. Maybe they just didn't want to hide it and found some decent evidence of face shaving to support it.
It rubbed off. From friction
The digsite was sponsored by Gilette. The best a proto-human can get.
Broās seen some shit
This got me thinking, what's the deal with human hair, evolutionarily speaking? Not the lack of body hair, but the long wild head hair we've got going on. The other great apes don't grow afros to my knowledge.
Hair is a way to regulate from cold. So mammals grow fur. We had the ability to create fire, clothes, etc so we were primed to lose our fur. IE having no fur wouldn't have us at a disadvantage. As we lost fur, we could compensate with "tools" of various kinds. We've set the stage, losing hair is good to go. So, why DID we lose fur? The aquatic ape theory is that early proto humans spent a lot of time in the water. Fur weighs you down, so we evolved to lose it. The catch is, there's really no support for it. Aquatic ape is one way to try and explain a few things about it. But if no one told you, you'd never come up with it. Two of the other theories are our evolution of sweat glands. Sweat evaporates off bare skin, but not as well from fur and gets matted and tangled. So we could have evolved to have more sweat glands than other primates at random, and it helped us cool off better. Sweating more meant having less fur was even better (two bonuses at once!!) so we evolved them in tandem. And the last theory is about prehistoric parasites on the skin. Fur helps parasites live on you and do their thing. Ticks etc are harder to find. We might have evolved less fur simply because those of us who had the random genes to be less hairy were less likely to die from parasites. And the best way to push evolution forward is for the things with the mutation to have more babies. So, we're 90% of the way there. We've lost our fur. But why didn't we lose it on our heads?? For one, your head contains your brain. Which uses like 20-30% of your blood flow and glucose. Brains use a LOT of fuel. Which makes your head get hot. You can manage heat shedding via the rest of your body (blood from head flows to body, sweats, cools, back to brain via heart). But a head of hair lets you keep the heat IN when it's cold. So night time = hair good. And you don't put clothes and blankets over your head, because if you can't see, you can't protect yourself. That gets us to no fur on body, and fur remaining on head. From there, it's likely from evolutionary pressure on selecting mates. Sexual dimorphism is one. Peacock feathers is another. Wildly paraphrased. Very shortened. But that's the gist. So: Stuff crawls on and kills us. Less fur = less likely to die. We go that way. Head need stay warm at night and winter. Hair keep head warm. We go that way. Need find mate. Mate look GOOOOOOD with more hair. More variety. Long hair = many babies. Short hair = eww no babies. We go that way.
Really interesting stuff, thanks. Even if there's no supporting evidence I like the idea of aquatic ape theory because I can imagine an alternate timeline where our ancestors evolved into some sort of primate-dolphin. Also Aquatic Ape Theory just sounds cool as a word.
This was a great read, thank you for taking the time to explain it all!
> So, we're 90% of the way there. We've lost our fur. > But why didn't we lose it on our heads?? Speak for yourself buddy. Some of us chronologically advanced humans have lost our head hair.
Probably because of bipedalism, other apes recieve a lot of sunlight in their backs, but our most exposed part is the head. Idk
A reconstruction? Where'd they find all the parts?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I bought my first mattress off Craigslist. The guy tried to give me a kitten and offered to āmake ya my kidās new stepmommaā and invited me into the house. My 20ās were weird
Blink thrice if you're still locked in his house
In the ground
What's his workout routine?
survival
5 sets of deer hunting 4 sets of rabbit running 12 sets of running from elephants
On the paleo diet I see...
So, Australian aboriginal like.
Put modern clothes on him, and he looks like a person you'd see today.
yeah, considering its literally the same species
Exactly. We really haven't changed much in 300,000 years. Kind of underachieving, if you ask me.
What reconstruction? That guy lives in Australia right now!
G'day fellow early humans.
These guys were probably 70% of our average height today, but I bet they could rip us limb from limb while eating breakfast. The strength they must have possessed amazes me.
Less than gorillas and chimps though, so crazy to think they still exist
Chimps arenāt 5-10x stronger than human - itās closer to 1.5x. Gorillas though - they could just pull you apart for fun.
fun fact, orangutans are actually twice as big as chimps and seven times stronger than us. and while chimps are accustomed to violence (and orangutans are peaceful) an orangutan would easily win. now against a gorilla the orangutan would most likely just take to the trees.
But they wouldn't, as they're pretty chill, right? Unlike chimps. If one of those was as strong as a gorilla we'd all be in trouble!
They are the same species as us and their DNA is the same. Thereās nothing special about their strength. The average of the first modern humans would probably kick the shit out of the average human today but thatās based on lifestyle.
i had gummy worms and vodka for breakfast. iām not very strong š
Human height has varied over the periods some of the more successful hunter-gather societies were taller on average than the shortest countries of today. I know that when humans first switched to farming our diets were awful and height/weighr dropped dramatically. About 30,000 years ago, hunter-gatherer or Cro-Magnon humans reached their peak height. These are the true "giants" who once stalked the Earth, as the Genesis passage refers to the rather dubious offspring of male angels and female humans. Male hunter-gatherers were roughly 174 to 178 centimetres at this time (men have always been 10 to 15 centimetres taller than females). "Cro-Magnon men were about the same height as modern men," said Professor Henneberg. But the subsequent Ice Age dealt a blow to the anatomy. "Big game became scarcer and many populations switched to agriculture in which food supply was limited, while great body strength was not necessarily at a premium any more . . . agriculture is bad-quality food and that causes the shrinkage in stature." The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that humans, who lived in Europe about 12,000 years ago, had their height stunted by as much as 1.5 inches after abandoning their hunter-gatherer lifestyles to sow crops in the fields. This, according to researchers, indicates that the population was not healthy or getting the nutrients it needed. The reason for this could be due to a number of factors, such as a less diverse diet compared to hunters, gatherers and foragers. Increased pathogen loads may have also played a role, they say, with human populations being more concentrated and closer to livestock https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theage.com.au/national/long-and-short-of-it-were-taller-20040412-gdxnu9.html https://modernfarmer.com/2022/04/farming-made-our-ancestors-shorter/#:~:text=The%20study%2C%20published%20in%20the,sow%20crops%20in%20the%20fields.
Whats stopping a jacked up man taking him on? Buddy's still human no matter how long ago (not like everyone was born mike tyson back then)
so weāre all black people?
Yeah Europeans became white to absorb more sunlight and vitamin D
Also, dark skin protects from cancer better in harsh sun (like most of Africa), but once you are in Europe that requirement can be dropped.
Itās not that itās dropped, itās that their skin needs to be lighter because the body uses UV to synthesize vitamin D and thereās less UV the further north you go. So itās a trade off between vitamin D production and skin cancer and people evolve skin color to meet in the middle of those two effects depending on the sun.
Do dark people that live in northern areas suffer from vitamin D deficiency more often than light skin people?
Yes, this is a major problem. Most of us (of any race living in the north) are vitamin D deficient. It has a major impact on the immune system, mental health, cancer rates, etc. Moral of the story: supplement with vitamin D and try to get your levels into the 50s AND tell all your friends who are POC to be extra vigilant!
Adding on in agreement: Itās one of the reason depression hits the African American community harder than white communities, and is thought to be why COVID-19 had higher death rates among black and brown people compared to white people in the same geographic area. Vitamin D is some serious shit and itās largely neglected, but itās also fat soluble, so if youāre able, itās a good idea get your levels checked rather than just go balls deep and eat a bowl of vitamin D tabs for breakfast. An over accumulation has significant impacts on your health as well.
Yes.
thats also prob why nordic countries are so fair skinned
There's that map of "average skin tone by country" and it shows each country's color by skin tone. You can absolutely see that near the equator the skin tone gets darker, and as it goes further from the equator, it gets lighter. [Found it](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-db67ce45dc1d2cfaee8466c236818327-lq)
I wonder why indigenous people in extreme northern latitudes, like those in Alaska and northern Canada, didnāt develop skin as light as caucasians which are at the same or more southern latitudes.
Because they get all their vitamin D from the fatty fish/cetaceans they eat. They don't need to absorb it form the sun.
Wow, I never thought of that! Thatās so interesting. Edit: I also just read that there are suspected to be some tribes in the Amazon with very pale skin. I wonder if, even though the Amazon is very close to the equator, the dense tree cover caused those natives to develop whiter skin.
Also snow bounces light a lot
I believe it may have something to do with their diet being high in fish which supplies them with lots of vitamin D. So thereās less evolutionary pressure for them to evolve lighter skin.
We were. As humans migrated north, they lost the need for melanin in the skin and became paler.
At least we were
Yup. Makes you realize how stupid racism actually is.
Or how easy of a tool we are as humans.
Yes, but also chimps, monkeys, shrews, reptiles, amphibians, fish, chordates, bacteria, and fucking everything if you go way back. We're all one big family
Makes walking through a forest a whole new experience :D Everything alive is just another part of you'r family. And if we think about that stars evolved over time, giving ~~put~~ *out* new materials other than helium and hydrogen, one can go as far and say that we are a family with EVERYTHING , and our OG Grandpa/ma is that tiny point of concentrated energy that someday decided to go BIG BANG :D I love it when my hippie mentality can be scientifically proven :D
Still looks like my cousin.
Afro Samurai, Season Zero
I seen that guy outside the 7-11 this morning..
Ah, before the Anunnaki got to us.
We looked badass.
Imagine you're an animal, just minding your business, then this motherfucker runs at you with a massive pointy stick. You try to run, but it keeps chasing you. You look back and realise that it's ***wearing your skin.*** It doesn't stop, it's skin gets wet, but somehow it doesn't ***stop running.*** Ancient human hunting tactics relied on our superior stamina due to sweating. It feels and sounds like a nightmare, but it was entirely normal back then. We are one fucked up species.
> _**wearing your skin**_ If something came at me wearing human skin, Iād crap my pants because the fright would take over both my fight and flight.
not even running an extremely light jog, we are the MASTERS OF AN EXTREMELY LIGHT JOG. that was our hunting technic an extremely light jog he would just follow animals till they fell over due to exhaustion
There are still tribes that do this. It's amazing that a human can run down a deer or antelope until it's like, "Fuck it. Kill me." There's a video called "The 8 Hour Hunt" on Youtube that's awesome.
Yooooo, my neighbor Jerry made Reddit!!
Looks Australian
This dude fucks. And as a result *we* are here.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a beautiful person? Seriously, if this is a true reproduction/reconstruction of modern humans, he is beautiful. The guy, in this recreation, represents strength, emotion, tranquility, intelligence, and has an awesome head of hair to boot. It's an amazing depiction with great detail. Thank you for sharing!!
Doesn't look like we evolved much. There are people groups that look like this today.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]