Prehistoric Romanian (~40,000 years old) in GEDmatch

Quote:

---

Coon did not say that, and European Neanderthals exhibited monstrous alveolar prognaghism.

---

You're lying intentionally, or you are just not well informed:)

Coon, Origin of races, 1962 :)
https://s9.postimg.org/gteetiinj/prg.jpg

About LaChapelle. He is indeed proghnatous (I know you like it) but what Coon said about this proto-Negro:) Shanidar is fully neanderthaloid and is orthognatous.
https://s27.postimg.org/6po383of7/chap.jpg

Quote:

---

Mikhail Gerassimov is a fraud and all of his reconstructions are worthless, but that still doesn't look like a Papuan or Australoid.

---

You are nothing to real anthropoloogists and you are worthless:) And he looks like Veddoid.

Quote:

---

The other remains at Kostenki aren't as small.

---

Oh really?You probaly thought about this babyfaced Kostenki II. But browrigdes and nasal bones indicates he was adult. Interesting he isn't proghnatous as Kostenki XIV...

https://s10.postimg.org/dqkpljkyh/kostenki2.jpg


Kostenki XIV was an exception, yes. Buty he looks as he looks. Certainly not Caucasoid.

Attachment 64062

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...2&d=1486927801

Papuo-Amerindiano-Asiano-Veddo-Natufiano-WHGbrowno-ME-African

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Rethel of Retheley

Attachment 64062

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...2&d=1486927801

Papuo-Amerindiano-Asiano-Veddo-Natufiano-WHGbrowno-ME-African

---

Rethel, nie spodziewałem się autosomalnego rejszyzmu po tobie... :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by physical-anthro

You're lying intentionally, or you are just not well informed:)

Coon, Origin of races, 1962 :)
https://s9.postimg.org/gteetiinj/prg.jpg

About LaChapelle. He is indeed proghnatous (I know you like it) but what Coon said about this proto-Negro:) Shanidar is fully neanderthaloid and is orthognatous.
https://s27.postimg.org/6po383of7/chap.jpg


You are nothing to real anthropoloogists and you are worthless:) And he looks like Veddoid.

---

Well, Coon was wrong in this regard. Pretty much everything written on that page is wrong. He is not incapable of being wrong. Also, Shanidar 1 is not considered fully Neanderthaloid. He is, like other late West Asian Neanderthals, intermediate between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens. Shanidar 1 differs from the other Shanidar skulls in many regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by physical-anthro

Oh really?You probaly thought about this babyfaced Kostenki II. But browrigdes and nasal bones indicates he was adult. Interesting he isn't proghnatous as Kostenki XIV...

https://s10.postimg.org/dqkpljkyh/kostenki2.jpg


Kostenki XIV was an exception, yes. Buty he looks as he looks. Certainly not Caucasoid.

---

Kostenki was Caucasoid and genetically is European (Northern European):


http://sciencenordic.com/scandinavia...iest-europeans

Quote:

---

An international team of scientists have sequenced the genome of a 37,000-year-old male skeleton found in Kostenki in Russia.

The study, which was recently published in Science, sheds entirely new light on who we are as Europeans.

"From a genetic point of view he's an European," says Professor Eske Willerslev, Director of the Centre for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen, who was involved in the new study, and adds:

“Actually, he is closer to Danes, Swedes, Finns and Russians than to Frenchmen, Spaniards and Germans”.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Litvin

Rethel, nie spodziewałem się autosomalnego rejszyzmu po tobie... :p

---

Ja uźywam autosomalu tam gdzie to jest potrzebne.
Każde dane są ważne, ale w ramach rozsądku.
Autosomal jest wazny przy ocenie wyglądu a
także w dedukcjach historycznych migracji gdy
debile badając szczątki zapomniały rutynowo
zbadać Y, ale nie zapomniały zbadać dzisiątek
mt - ergo jedynym ratunkim jest wówczas aDNA.

Do tego służy autosomal.

Z pewnością nie służy do określania pochodzenia
per se ani do określania przynależności trybalnej,
tudzież tożsamości idywidua, a już na pewno nie
do dewaluacji genealogii i historycznych korzeni,
a do tego tu w większości jest używane, często
będąc zupełnie olewanem w aspekcie właściwym
tj pierwszym o którym pisałem powyżej.

Quote:

---

https://s27.postimg.org/6po383of7/chap.jpg

---

Coon makes yet another error in the 1960s. Skhul IV is as low headed, if not lower-headed, than La Chapelle. Their auricular head height is the same. These skulls are additionally not accurate to scale.

https://ia600503.us.archive.org/Book...ale=2&rotate=0

http://i.imgur.com/T0xgrZJ.jpg?1

The Shanidar 1 Neanderthal had a higher cranial vault than Skhul IV. It is also certain now, that they aren't contemporaneous. Skhul IV is roughly 90,000 years old. La Chapelle is 55,000 years old.


I think it is safe to say that by the 1960s Coon was perhaps in the early stages of Alzheimer's and had bit off a bit more than he could chew, with his multi-regional evolution theory. Later on he would promote the existence of Bigfoot.

Coon even noted in the 1930s that Skhul IV was low headed:

Quote:

---

In the skull, Skhul man is definitely intermediate between the Neanderthal and sapiens groups, but much closer to the latter, so that its inclusion in the living species cannot be denied. The skulls of the three males are extremely large. In length, they equal Galley Hill, but far exceed it in breadth; the vault height of two specimens, #5 and #9, measured from the ear holes, is equal to that of Galley Hill, but the third, #4, is as low as with true Neanderthals, while the extreme breadth of this specimen acts as a compensatioi, permitting a greater capacity than with the other two. In vault form, then, two are mainly sapiens, while one appears, from the measuremenis, to be largely Neanderthaloid

---

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-II05.htm


So yeah, everything Coon wrote from the 1960s can be disregarded as the Alzheimer's ramblings of a senile old man.

https://anthropology.net/2008/10/17/...e-prognathism/

Quote:

---

Some researchers, like Milford Wolpoff, have suggested that there’s a growth and development reason to why we don’t see narrow Neandertal noses. For example, the effects of large teeth and broad palates could have affected the reduction of the nasal aperture, and were most likely inherited traits from Pleistocene ancestors. In a new Journal of Human Evolution paper that Dienekes pointed out this week, researchers from the University of Iowa have investigated the relationships between nasal breadth, intercanine breadth, and facial prognathism. The paper is titled, “The paradox of a wide nasal aperture in cold-adapted Neandertals: a causal assessment.” They tested variants of the following hypothesis: Does the distance between the two upper canines correlated with nasal breadth in modern and archaic Homo?

]Their sample set of modern humans included 119 crania of Bantu people and 112 crania of Western Europeans. The sample of human ancestors included 11 from the early Upper Paleolithic, 9 from the late Upper Paleolithic all coming from Eurasia. They also included 15 samples from the late Stone Age in Africa, and 14 Pleistocene Homo. Like I mentioned earlier, they measured the distance between the two canines, known as the ICB. In anatomical terms that’s the distance between the lingual tubercles of the maxillary canines, or the pointy parts of your vampire teeth. The lower facial prognathism (BPL) is a measurement of basion to prosthion. Upper facial prognathism (BNL) is a measurement of basion to nasion. Of course some fossils didn’t have all the measurements so predictions were made by least squares regression.

The authors conclude that intercanine breadth cannot fully explain nasal breadth from their sample set, which goes against what anatomist Gustav Schwalbe said in the later 1800’s and what E.V. Glanville reconfirmed in the late ’60s. They also note that the development of the anterior palatine bone does not affect the growth trajectory of the breadth of the nose. While, they do suggest that nasal breadth is affected by the ICB, the lower facial prognathism impacts nasal breadth more than any other trait.

---