The Broken Hill skull (Kabwe 1) found 1921 near Kabwe in Western Zambia in the south of the East African Rift is a late _Homo heidelbergensis_ in the transition phase towards _Homo sapiens_ - a _proto sapiens,_ still slightly more primitive in its morphology compared to the younger Omo 2 skull from the Omo-Turkana Basin in the north of the Rift.

@togodamnus

24 күн бұрын

-- Note the robusticity and anchor points.. the sinus and nose bridge is also unusual. Remarkable specimen.

@HighlyCompelling

23 күн бұрын

It's very primitive compared to Omo skulls. I don't like to use Homo heidelbergensis. It is a very Eurocentric species

@togodamnus

23 күн бұрын

@@HighlyCompelling I agree that Kabwe skull may or may not be accurately assigned to H Heidelbergensis, it's equally impressive for it's archaic basal robusticity but there are some possibly significant differences and time table gaps; 50-100 million years difference in dating is large gap. Heidelbergensis was recovered and described by a European person, it was located near Heidelberg, and Europeans pioneered and established the field of study we all enjoy and seek to improve upon. Some individuals dislike the name Heidelbergensis because it's not just European, but it's 'German' sounding... I don't approve of such disapproval or cancelation motives. Similar debates exist regarding H bodoensis which is remarkably different from Kabwe or other fossil skulls. It's very interesting. 🖖

@erichwentz2866

23 күн бұрын

​@@HighlyCompellingHomo Erectus down to Homo Sapien Sapiens all traced to Africa not Europe.

Rhodesia became Zimbabwe not Zambia.

@stephenbrand5661

23 күн бұрын

Northern Rhodesia became Zambia, Southern Rhodesia became Zimbabwe.

@douglashall4573

23 күн бұрын

Southern Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, Northern Rhodesia became Zambia

@FloridaManMatty

23 күн бұрын

Rhodesians Never Die. MZRA!

That's a good thumbnail. Very attractive, compelling.

Curiouser and curiouser… The truth will win out eventually. In the meantime, I have my popcorn ready. Thank you. This is highly compelling, enlightening, and ENTERTAINING content ❤

Great video!

Very interesting.

I've looked at that beautiful skull for years and still cannot envision a human-like nose in that nasal cavity.

@HighlyCompelling

23 күн бұрын

Eyes would have been huge too

What is the origin of the map "Africa at the Present Time?" It does not correspond to any time in history, so I assume it's fictional?

@Wyo2Wis

23 күн бұрын

Pre 1960 when European colonies existed.

@HighlyCompelling

22 күн бұрын

Around 1930

@OntarioRimrunner

22 күн бұрын

Any other facts about the source of the map?

@dukeon

19 күн бұрын

It’s from Deviant Art and posted on Pinterest. Representing an alternate history, not Africa in the early 20th century. Google “Map of Africa 1940” and you should be able to find it.

Wow what are these people thinking. That map in the thumb nail? How old is that

@HighlyCompelling

22 күн бұрын

1920 when the skull was discovered

ChatGPT says Rhodesia became Zimbabwe AND Zambia.

Zimbabwe

@jackwhitbread4583

19 күн бұрын

Actually it's both Zimbabwe and Zambia

Rhodesia, I think you mean Zimbabwe .

@douglashall4573

23 күн бұрын

Southern Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, Northern Rhodesia became Zambia.

The African counterpart of the Neanderthal? Looks identical

@jerrycornelius5986

23 күн бұрын

I expect there would have been considerable diversity within the different branches of homo, especially during periods of rapid evolution or expansion of range. Maybe some populations of one species had heavy brow ridges and other populations of the same species didn’t. To this novice, there doesn’t seem to be enough datapoints to get a handle on the variability much less to join the dots and make a clear picture of the evolutionary relationships.

I'm surprised to hear about a lake in Africa bigger than the one that was in the Sahara. That one was supposedly massive.

@TheTamriel

24 күн бұрын

The vanished Lake Makgadikgadi in the today Kalahari desert, of which the famous Okavango delta was a part of.

@erichwentz2866

23 күн бұрын

Sahara is in Africa. Your comment doesn't make sense.

@comfortablynumb9342

23 күн бұрын

@@erichwentz2866 It makes sense. The Sahara had an enormous lake long ago. Look into it.

Based

I'm not a scientist, so excuse my ignorance, but im still homo curious. 😅 Why do scientists always assume it's a different species of human and not just a different race? If we took a modern day Swede, someone from sub suharan Africa and a person from a tribe in the Amazon rainforest and buried them today, in 10,000 years, would we say they were different species? It seems pretty clear we can identify someone's race today from their bones , why is the past different? People all over the world today have distinct cultures, physical characteristics and customs, yet we'd never classify any of them as a different species?

NEANDERTHAL were dark skinned

Polish people represent the apex of human evolution.

@tankmeister8131

23 күн бұрын

😂😂😂

@MrZriael

23 күн бұрын

The women or the men? Two different species I’m certain of it. 😂

@MichaelWinter-ss6lx

23 күн бұрын

Polish? I thought that's a profession!

@leojanuszewski1019

22 күн бұрын

@MrZriael Funny you mention that. I've always been perplexed at how the same nationality produces such lovely ladies while also producing such...well...homely men (like myself 😆).

@doop6769

4 күн бұрын

​@leojanuszewtbski1019 that seems true for most of Eastern Europeans.

If OOA is true explain the Iwo Eleru skulls dated to only 12 thousand yrs ago..... DNA has matched LIVING relatives to Iwo Eleru skulls to modern Cameroon in Sub Saharan Africa....... Please anyone have any ideas?? Or is it just to complex.....;)

@TonyMishima92

24 күн бұрын

I don't see how Iho Eleru refutes OOA.

@jasonborn867

24 күн бұрын

There is significant morphological variation in modern human skulls and even for late survivng archaics, so predicting relatedness is subject to a high degree of error. The most accurate predictor of relatedness is genetics having repeatedly demonstrated the oldest living haplogroup is A00 which nests in Africa. All present-day lineages connect in an unbroken line of descent beginning with the most ancient haplogroup (A00). In fact, all male Eurasian lineages are descended from a single African haplogroup resulting in far less genetic diversity for Eurasian populations. Now a person could argue that A00 did not originate in Africa, but rather evolved in the Middle East and migrated into Africa establishing the modern human species. However, the oldest modern skulls such as Jebel Irhoud and Omo 1 predate any Eurasian sapiens so even fossil evidence points to modern humans evolving in Africa. If you are interested in scientific literature on this topic an excellent paper is "A Rare Deep-Rooting D0 African Y-Chromosomal Haplogroup and Its Implications for the Expansion of Modern Humans Out of Africa" published by Haber et al 2019. If you search by the title a full version of the paper is available on the Oxford Academic link.

@AfricanMaverick

24 күн бұрын

Since different populations of any species can change more rapidly than other populations within the same species, this may explain the late presence of this somewhat archaic-looking human. That’s to say the population the Iwo-Eleru individual was part of was more conservative than other contemporaneous populations. Assuming that the Iwo-Eleru find is actually just a divergent modern human/maybe a subspecies of Homo sapiens, and not the result of interbreeding between two human species, considering its relatively young age, I think it might be a representative of this Basal West African population. Also, with this especially divergent lineage, I think an especially divergent Y-DNA haplogroup comes part of that package. I think that this Basal West African population, or at least a genetically similar population, was the source of haplogroup A00. Also, I think this population may have been somewhat similar in looks and/or genetics to the people from Jebel Irhoud. Also, with the Basal West African divergence age, which is quite early, and presuming it coincides somewhat with the presence of the Jebel Irhoud individuals, there may have been some issues with producing successful offspring. A recent study also seems to suggest that the perceived archaic human genetic presence in the Yoruba has decreased by way of negative selection pressure, thus suggesting some issues with the interbreeding, but maybe not to the same degree as with, say, Neanderthals due to a more recent divergence from other Homo sapiens, and thus a reasonably heightened genetic similarity with modern humans. Now, whereas Neanderthal haplogroups went extinct in modern humans, some of the ones of this Basal West African population survived, because, while being fairly genetically different, Basal West Africans were still somewhat similar enough to pass on at least some, or in this case, one haplogroup: A00.

@CETGale

23 күн бұрын

@@jasonborn867 Both specimens are from N Africa not Sub Saharan Africa.. Interesting the Jebel skulls similarity with Iwo skulls, just the time differential.. Also the Jebel skulls are close to Gibraltar and Spain just as Omo 1 is close to Mid East.. Another interesting fact is the Canary Islands (also close to Jebel) native Guanches people who are related to the Berbers of N Africa seem to be the closest match for the Cro-Magnon man... As Cro-Magnon was the first fully modern human with prominent chin and no prognathism.. Seems to me the Guanches people before colonization were the typical phenotype human in North Africa before the Younger Dryas / last Ice Age and were most likely trapped on the Canary Islands after the ice sheets melted.. This theory of Sub Saharan people bursting out of Africa 70,000 yrs ago and replacing all before them, then mutating into all the different people we see today is not very convincing to me to say the least...

@AnthropoTube

23 күн бұрын

All evidence points to the contrary. The oldest fossils of Homo sapiens are found in Africa: the _Jebel Irhoud_ fossils, which are ~286,000 years old; the _Florisbad_ skull, which is ~259,000 years old; the _Omo_ fossils, which are ~233,000 years old; the _Singa_ cranium, which is ~135,000 years old, etc. Additionally, only Aboriginal Africans (or people who recently descend from them) carry the haplogroup that's as old as these fossils, namely A00, as well as haplogroups that are younger than A00 but still older than Non-African haplogroups (e.g. A1a, A1b, A1b1, L0, L1, etc). Oh, and finally, Aboriginal Africans have more genetic diversity than Non-Africans combined, which indicates that Non-African genetic diversity is a subset of Africans' genetic diversity. There's no evidence whatsoever that Modern Humans evolved in Eurasia; that's a pipe dream. Also, people move around. Some so-called sub-Saharan Africans descend from peoples who migrated from North Africa.

And the key term to keep in mind is this 'its brain case is typically human .. its capacity still unknown'. Not quite measuring a man's humanity by his hat size, Sherlock Holmes style, as categorising humanity by the shape of a man's head. Humankind, humanity and man (including women, naturally) are more or less synonymous, minor distinctions without a major difference - rather than a difference in kind without any typical distinction = sapient man, for instance, is as much of humankind as primitive humanity. Science is a wonder! Thank you for all these little treasures. ;o)

Humans were created in various locations around the world.

@erichwentz2866

23 күн бұрын

No actually they migrated and evolved.

@Randomuuzv

22 күн бұрын

@@erichwentz2866from were

Highly unlikely. This does not take into account current theories and discoveries. SOS.

how can a denisevan diverge from a homosapian 400k ago if there were no homosapians 400k ago????? or are we back to the into afrika theore ????

Nonsense

@DonRubinjo

24 күн бұрын

Why? Do you think this chanel is bogus?

Rhodesia is now Zimbabwe not Zambia. At time index, 1:29 you referred to Rhodesia as Zambia.

@TheTamriel

24 күн бұрын

Zimbabwe is the former South Rhodesia, whereas Zambia is the former North Rhodesia

@HighlyCompelling

23 күн бұрын

I believe Rhodesia was a single colony in 1921 and then it was split in North and South in the 1950s before coming independent countries in the 1960s

@erichwentz2866

23 күн бұрын

​@@HighlyCompellingZimbabwe won it's independence in 1980.