proibitio
Iron
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2023
- Posts
- 96
- Reputation
- 115
FOREWORD
Hello, this is my first time posting something serious on here. I will be going into my personal thoughts on the status of the Jebel Irhoud skulls, which were found in an archaeological site located just north of what is known as Tlet Ighoud, which is approximately 30 miles south-east of the city of Safi in Morocco. Would appreciate if I got some good rep from this
.
INTRODUCTION
What is Jebel Irhoud? Background on the topic.
Jebel Irhoud, an archaeological site located in Morocco, has yielded significant discoveries regarding early human evolution. One of these discoveries being that of Jebel Irhoud-1 (Which is pictured above in the foreword.)
You might be asking, "Why is this nigga making a thread about this?" Well, the significance of Jebel Irhoud lies in its status as one of the oldest known sites associated with early Homo sapiens and the attempt to fill in the blanks of human evolution. The remains found at Jebel Irhoud provide an insight into the origins and evolution of our species, of which I am quite interested in.
Dating back approximately 300,000~ years (with JI-1 being dated approximately 286±32 kya,) the skulls discovered at Jebel Irhoud possess an odd amalgamation of features—imbued with a cranial capacity similar to modern Homo Sapiens yet adorned with archaic facial characteristics reminiscent of earlier hominin lineages, such as Homo E. (Homo Erectus, which might come up again in this thread). These skulls challenge previous notions of a linear progression from more primitive ancestors to modern humans. I personally believe that they suggest a more complex evolutionary process with regional variations and interbreeding between different hominin populations.
The debate surrounding Jebel Irhoud revolves around the classification of the specimens found there. Some argue that the fossils represent early members of our own species, Homo Sapiens, suggesting an African origin for modern humans. Others propose that they belong to a separate lineage, perhaps... a sister species or a population ancestral to Homo sapiens?
This deep dive underscores the importance of Jebel Irhoud in the study of human evolution. By examining the fossils and associated archaeological evidence in detail, I am hoping to gain a better understanding of the processes that shaped the emergence of our species and the complex interactions between different hominin populations in Africa and beyond, and sharing them with the people of looksmax.org.
Who Says What?
Who is This Nigga Arguing Against?
I acquired the idea to make a thread on this topic after reading a post by The Motherlander, which argues that two recent studies uphold doubts on the Sapien status of Jebel Irhoud, due primarily to it missing certain derived Facial features in it's skull (Screenshots 1-4. Sorry, Google translate can't detect Cs for some reason jfl.)
Some more key parts of The Motherlander's commentary, of which I have quite some issues with.
Getting Down and Dirty
My Opinions.
First and foremost, he misattributed some features, such as the teeth, as being "Neanderthal-like." Hublin (2017), which he seems to neglect, affirms its Aterian-like morphology. Further, he seems to hypothesize a Neanderthal/Kabwe-like hybridization. Yet the skull analysis does not suggest such a thing. In fact, the skull of Dali Man, a Chinese equivalent he references in his blogs repeatedly, was found to have an even more primitive brain case.
(The skull of Dali Man, an ancient skull from China.)
(Newsscientist.com, the site I got the Dali Man skull photo from, acknowledges the stark similarity between JI-1 and Dali Man.)
However, features like the canine fossa are likely missing in Dali. The skull of HLD6 is likely complicated by the same issues as Dali Man. Yet he used both as support, despite Xinzhi suggesting Dali was a hybrid. The first study he cited even affirms the overall "mixed" mosaic status of both Jebel Irhoud 1 & 2. Likewise, both being Neanderthal-like in their brain cases in contrast to Southern African archaics seems to suggest divergence.
Further placing the nail in the coffin, aside from the conclusion of the Harbin study itself, there is the position of derived LCA traits repeatedly found in Tighenif and continuity fitting Jebel Irhoud in contrast to Neanderthals towards Sapiens.
"What's the deal with that dome, then?" This question seems to have quite a simple explanation. For some reason, he accepts Omo Kibish despite it having the same issues as Omo-2, which are similarly elongated, and the matter of an Omo-1 reconstruction of a different morphology. Hublin addressed this, and even in a later paper penned in 2018, he argued that Sapien globuarity is fairly recent. Indeed, you can see this in Omo-2, Herto, and skulls like Eyasi or Aduma, which are in stark contrast to Neanderthals.
(Herto Man skulls.)
The missing facial features are likely just a matter of how basal it (JI-1) is. I believe that the canine fossa does not override the overall derived affinities, and therefore it is unlikely to be mixed with Neanderthals, as the "Mousterian" toolkit has long been overrun as a local African Levallois industry.
Further, Apidima 1 can be dropped from its Sapien classification. The pair of skulls, one of which is ascertained to be Neanderthal, are near contemporary, and the attribution of Sapiens to the latter is based on undiagnostic features. This was the conclusion of a later study that came after the first study, breaking the prior classification. Following up to the point of Sapiens continuity in North Africa, you can observe a distinct lack of it, such as in China following Dali or HLD in terms of derived affinities towards Sapiens. So rather, a local Erectus continuity with various admixtures is seen (Maba, Xuchang, etc.).
That's basically all I have today on the topic of Jebel Irhoud. Thanks for reading this if you did, let me know if you guys want some more quality content like this on here again
("The view south across the Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco, where the oldest human remains were discovered." - smh.com.au, photo from: Max Planck Institute)
Hello, this is my first time posting something serious on here. I will be going into my personal thoughts on the status of the Jebel Irhoud skulls, which were found in an archaeological site located just north of what is known as Tlet Ighoud, which is approximately 30 miles south-east of the city of Safi in Morocco. Would appreciate if I got some good rep from this
.INTRODUCTION
What is Jebel Irhoud? Background on the topic.
Jebel Irhoud, an archaeological site located in Morocco, has yielded significant discoveries regarding early human evolution. One of these discoveries being that of Jebel Irhoud-1 (Which is pictured above in the foreword.)
You might be asking, "Why is this nigga making a thread about this?" Well, the significance of Jebel Irhoud lies in its status as one of the oldest known sites associated with early Homo sapiens and the attempt to fill in the blanks of human evolution. The remains found at Jebel Irhoud provide an insight into the origins and evolution of our species, of which I am quite interested in.
Dating back approximately 300,000~ years (with JI-1 being dated approximately 286±32 kya,) the skulls discovered at Jebel Irhoud possess an odd amalgamation of features—imbued with a cranial capacity similar to modern Homo Sapiens yet adorned with archaic facial characteristics reminiscent of earlier hominin lineages, such as Homo E. (Homo Erectus, which might come up again in this thread). These skulls challenge previous notions of a linear progression from more primitive ancestors to modern humans. I personally believe that they suggest a more complex evolutionary process with regional variations and interbreeding between different hominin populations.
The debate surrounding Jebel Irhoud revolves around the classification of the specimens found there. Some argue that the fossils represent early members of our own species, Homo Sapiens, suggesting an African origin for modern humans. Others propose that they belong to a separate lineage, perhaps... a sister species or a population ancestral to Homo sapiens?
This deep dive underscores the importance of Jebel Irhoud in the study of human evolution. By examining the fossils and associated archaeological evidence in detail, I am hoping to gain a better understanding of the processes that shaped the emergence of our species and the complex interactions between different hominin populations in Africa and beyond, and sharing them with the people of looksmax.org.
Who Says What?
Who is This Nigga Arguing Against?
I acquired the idea to make a thread on this topic after reading a post by The Motherlander, which argues that two recent studies uphold doubts on the Sapien status of Jebel Irhoud, due primarily to it missing certain derived Facial features in it's skull (Screenshots 1-4. Sorry, Google translate can't detect Cs for some reason jfl.)
Some more key parts of The Motherlander's commentary, of which I have quite some issues with.
Getting Down and Dirty
My Opinions.
First and foremost, he misattributed some features, such as the teeth, as being "Neanderthal-like." Hublin (2017), which he seems to neglect, affirms its Aterian-like morphology. Further, he seems to hypothesize a Neanderthal/Kabwe-like hybridization. Yet the skull analysis does not suggest such a thing. In fact, the skull of Dali Man, a Chinese equivalent he references in his blogs repeatedly, was found to have an even more primitive brain case.
(The skull of Dali Man, an ancient skull from China.)
(Newsscientist.com, the site I got the Dali Man skull photo from, acknowledges the stark similarity between JI-1 and Dali Man.)
However, features like the canine fossa are likely missing in Dali. The skull of HLD6 is likely complicated by the same issues as Dali Man. Yet he used both as support, despite Xinzhi suggesting Dali was a hybrid. The first study he cited even affirms the overall "mixed" mosaic status of both Jebel Irhoud 1 & 2. Likewise, both being Neanderthal-like in their brain cases in contrast to Southern African archaics seems to suggest divergence.
Further placing the nail in the coffin, aside from the conclusion of the Harbin study itself, there is the position of derived LCA traits repeatedly found in Tighenif and continuity fitting Jebel Irhoud in contrast to Neanderthals towards Sapiens.
"What's the deal with that dome, then?" This question seems to have quite a simple explanation. For some reason, he accepts Omo Kibish despite it having the same issues as Omo-2, which are similarly elongated, and the matter of an Omo-1 reconstruction of a different morphology. Hublin addressed this, and even in a later paper penned in 2018, he argued that Sapien globuarity is fairly recent. Indeed, you can see this in Omo-2, Herto, and skulls like Eyasi or Aduma, which are in stark contrast to Neanderthals.
(Herto Man skulls.)
The missing facial features are likely just a matter of how basal it (JI-1) is. I believe that the canine fossa does not override the overall derived affinities, and therefore it is unlikely to be mixed with Neanderthals, as the "Mousterian" toolkit has long been overrun as a local African Levallois industry.
Further, Apidima 1 can be dropped from its Sapien classification. The pair of skulls, one of which is ascertained to be Neanderthal, are near contemporary, and the attribution of Sapiens to the latter is based on undiagnostic features. This was the conclusion of a later study that came after the first study, breaking the prior classification. Following up to the point of Sapiens continuity in North Africa, you can observe a distinct lack of it, such as in China following Dali or HLD in terms of derived affinities towards Sapiens. So rather, a local Erectus continuity with various admixtures is seen (Maba, Xuchang, etc.).
That's basically all I have today on the topic of Jebel Irhoud. Thanks for reading this if you did, let me know if you guys want some more quality content like this on here again
("The view south across the Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco, where the oldest human remains were discovered." - smh.com.au, photo from: Max Planck Institute)
Attachments
Last edited:
