PDA

View Full Version : Neandertal Faces Were Not Long; Modern Human Faces Are Short



Glenlivet
Monday, June 28th, 2004, 10:31 AM
Neandertal faces have been described as being derived with respect to their overall length or degree of anterior projection. A comparison of cranial and mandibular indicators of lower facial projection across archaic and modern Homo indicates that Neandertal facial lengths on average are similar to those of preceding archaic Homo and principally contrast with those of recent humans. Neandertal facial length is not derived. The shortness of recent human facial skeletons is the evolutionarily derived condition.

Since the discovery of a large male Neandertal skull with an essentially intact facial skeleton at the Bouffia Boneval near La Chapelle-aux-Saints in 1908 (1), descriptions of the Neandertals and comparisons of their facial dimensions have frequently emphasized the large size of their facial skeletons (e.g., refs. 2–9), with them being described recently, for example, as having an “extraordinary forward projection of the face along the midline” (10).

Since the La Chapelle-aux-Saints discovery, the sample of sufficiently complete Neandertal crania and mandibles that provides data on facial length has increased significantly. Moreover, similar samples of their archaic Homo predecessors back to early Homo erectus and of their Late Pleistocene early modern human contemporaries and successors have markedly expanded.

From this material, it has been recognized since the 1970s (11–16) that it is principally the combination of a projecting midface and a more posteriorly positioned lateral facial skeleton, along with a series of secondary morphological consequences of that “midfacial prognathism,” that differentiates the Neandertal face from those of other Pleistocene and recent members of the genus Homo. However, as the quote above illustrates, it remains unclear whether it is variation in the forward projection of the midface or contrasts in the position of the lateral face and detailed aspects of their facial skeleton that explain the overall configuration of the Neandertal face.

Most of the earlier quantitative comparisons of Neandertal facial projection (e.g., refs. 12 and 13) principally compared Neandertal facial projection to that of recent (late Holocene) human populations, though papers concerning other aspects of their facial skeletons (e.g., refs. 14 and 16–19) have provided data suggesting that their overall facial lengths were similar to those of at least their Middle Pleistocene non-Neandertal predecessors.

However, because the assessment of whether the Neandertals have a phylogenetically derived degree of overall prognathism provides a baseline for assessing the polarities and paleobiology of various characteristics of their facial anatomies, it is appropriate to reassess, with the currently available samples, whether the Neandertals did indeed have long faces. Read more... (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC166196/)


Source: Neandertal faces were not long; modern human faces are short (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=166196)

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, June 29th, 2004, 08:20 PM
I used to believe that Homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals, but I have read into it recently and found all of it to be speculation. I believe many take "Neanderthal-like features" in humans (developed browridges, heavy mandibles, and zygomas) as evidence of Neanderthal mixture between early humans. Neanderthals and Humans were in a close enough position with one another for intermixture to occur, but I have found no evidence of fertile young between the two species. Although this doesn't mean infertile hybrids could not have existed. Perhaps the Humanoid result might have been superior if it had added rugged features of Neanderthals (thick bones, strong teeth, etc.) with the exceptional brain size of Homo sapiens.

Agrippa
Tuesday, June 29th, 2004, 08:44 PM
There is no proof for Neandertal admixture and primitive Homo sapiens developed just further, they had rugged features anyway, with or without admixture.

If its about brain size, the structure was the important thing, not just the size. I believe Homo sapiens had just a different "culture" and associated inherited behaviour patterns.
They act more rational and in bigger, better organized, and more social groups imo.

They needed less energy, but their body was not weaker in fights etc. if you think about what was necessary with the better weapons.
Neandertals were to specialized on body and early maturity.

Frans_Jozef
Tuesday, June 29th, 2004, 10:08 PM
According to one theory(Lieberman) all it takes to pull Neanderthal out of our ancestral lineage is the reduction and bending of the sphenoid bone.
The following result is that the forehead grows steep, the browridges efface the skull decreases and take a more globular, loftier form, facial projection diminishes...

Alas, some Neanderthals had an elevated basion-bregmatic height within the Nordid or West European range, La Ferrassie was in this aspect best qualified high-headed, but like the rest indexcranially low-vaulted.
Some Eastern Neanderthals had already achieved a more or globular skull shape, e.g. Shanidar 2 is virtually a more rugged and primitive brother to Qafzeh9, etc...:

http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/neanderthalensis.htm

A similar processus might have occured in the transition from mesolithic to neolithic, although on the level of the face slightly in reverse in some cases, and the very existence of the Mediterrenean race is a throwback of this evolution, which all the sudden swamped over Europe and erased any physical trace of the earlier mesolithics, but in a short period of time their cromagnoid characteristics emerged first timidly among the population of the Michelsbergculture, and few centuries later being determinant in North France, Belgium, Westfalen and Hessen(SOM, Gallery Graves culture,...).

Dr. Solar Wolff
Wednesday, June 30th, 2004, 08:00 AM
As Agrippa says, there is no genetic proof for hybridization. In fact, the proof we have is all negative. But, only a small portion of the Neanderthal genome has been decoded. Since European faces deviate from the remainder of sapiens in a Neandethal direction, I still hold out hope. Once the Neanderthal genome is decoded, we will know for certain.

Frans_Jozef
Wednesday, June 30th, 2004, 09:54 AM
As Agrippa says, there is no genetic proof for hybridization. In fact, the proof we have is all negative. But, only a small portion of the Neanderthal genome has been decoded. Since European faces deviate from the remainder of sapiens in a Neandethal direction, I still hold out hope. Once the Neanderthal genome is decoded, we will know for certain.


Would there be a sign of hybridisation if some progressive Krapina and Mt. Circeo had an ocean of time to gradual evolve and undergo mutations affecting the genetic code and induce enough morphological arrangement to cross over the sapiens treshold?

The remaining Neanderthals as relict fauna would be indeed moribund lineages, chipped off as it were from our ancestry, while plesiomorphic traits are an echo of their input.

Agrippa
Thursday, July 1st, 2004, 03:15 PM
Really great article from James Shreeve which is what I usually say.

If there were any (maybe infertile) hybrids, those existed after rape. I dont think that Neanderals behaved the same way and were for modern humans even as attractive as Australids, of course they were not.

And modern Western men, after a very long journey, from a modern groups without clans, really fix rules (at least on the journey) and no women of their own on board, may not be the best examples.

If Europid clans would have met Australid ones, and both had enough partners in their own kingroup, I really doubt that there would be too much intermixture.

And Neandertals are a even a total different story. Their whole look, their small groups, their early maturity and specialization is something which is in the generalist human pattern something exactly against the sapiens specialization imo.

Scoob
Thursday, July 1st, 2004, 04:33 PM
If Neanderthal males mated with Sapiens females, and some offspring were viable and fertile - but then most of them (especially males) were e.g. killed or exiled in a political event...

then you could end up with a Sapiens population that has some autosomal Neanderthal genes, but no Y lineage and no mtDNA lineage.

Agrippa
Thursday, July 1st, 2004, 05:21 PM
If Neanderthal males mated with Sapiens females, and some offspring were viable and fertile - but then most of them (especially males) were e.g. killed or exiled in a political event...

then you could end up with a Sapiens population that has some autosomal Neanderthal genes, but no Y lineage and no mtDNA lineage.

It is more likely that you find Neandertal genes in mDNA than everything else.

But I would tend to say if such things happened, those bastards wouldnt have been accepted by the group.
Even more important, they would have probably acted oddly for the group because of their different behaviour pattern, not just their physical appearance.

To rape single women or to have sex with them in some situations is one thing, to produce fertile hybrids or even to raise them in the own group is something totally different.

Scoob
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 06:06 AM
The studies I've seen of Neanderthal mtDNA didn't find any Neanderthal mtDNA types in modern humans.

I think hybrids - imagine a guy who is 1/4 Neanderthal with mostly Sapiens facial features and some Neanderthal ruggedness and early puberty - he'd have more time to mate, and also would have muscularity, which females might prefer for a sex partner.

I consider it like being 1/4 black. Many people who are 1/4 black with mostly Caucasian features and just a little bit darker skin (which many people consider aesthetically nicer than pasty white skin), plus nicer bodies than the average Caucasian, are considered quite sexy and acceptable by whites. Think of Vin Diesel or Holly Barry.

Agrippa
Thursday, July 8th, 2004, 02:39 PM
If speaking about a male partner, their might be some truth in it, but first their must be hybrids, and the pure classic Neandertal could be just ugly and "different" in appearance and behaviour for sapiesn.


Holly Barry

Halle Berry.

For mixed Europid-Negrids I would agree to some extend with your analysis, though the difference between Negrids and Europids is much smaller than to classic Neandertals.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, July 8th, 2004, 11:09 PM
I don't think Cro-Magnons and Neanterthals could have hybridised much. Not only were their physical appearance drastically different. Their brains and therefore their Intelligence level and Behavior pattern were vastly different.

If Neanderthals could be IQed I am sure all would fall well below even the African Negroid Average.

How "viable" would mentally difficent odd looking Homo Sapien/Neanderthal be?

The "Typical" Modern European Phenotype is the Antethisis of the Neanderthal Type.



Originally posted by Scoob
I consider it like being 1/4 black. Many people who are 1/4 black with mostly Caucasian features and just a little bit darker skin (which many people consider aesthetically nicer than pasty white skin), plus nicer bodies than the average Caucasian, are considered quite sexy and acceptable by whites. Think of Vin Diesel or Holly Barry.

Come on. 1/4 black is still Very Phenotypically "Negroid" and distinctly Non-White. Both are distincly non-white. The White Phenotype goes beyond "pasty white". Even so Pasty White is infinitely prefarable to Shit "Brown".

I have seen individuals who are 1/16 Negroid and it still has a Noticible effect on their Phenotype.

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, July 9th, 2004, 12:58 AM
I don't think Cro-Magnons and Neanterthals could have hybridised much. Not only were their physical appearance drastically different. Their brains and therefore their Intelligence level and Behavior pattern were vastly different.

Theres good evidence for hybridisation in West Asia and in Eastern Europe, but less in Western Europe. But to me, the Upper Paleolithic Saint-Cesaire neanderthal proves some admixture.

Brace found modern Europeans to be closer to Neanderthals than to UP Europeans, when he removed from his data the characters related to robusticity. But I find that the Cro-Magnon type is one of the least mixed (in my sample) of moderns.

However Chancellade, which is a later Western European, is less clearly modern. This fits with the idea that Neanderthals are a "ring species" which hybridised with moderns more often in the east than in the west, if the Chancellade type immigrated from further to the east.


The "Typical" Modern European Phenotype is the Antethisis of the Neanderthal Type.

I don't think anyone here is saying that our racial roots are neanderthal, we are mostly descended from an African sapiens migration. But I think that everywhere there was contact, as moderns emigrated from Africa, there was a contribution from the indigenous populations.