Comments on: Relict Skull Results: Khwit and Relative?

By: Dalton

Dalton — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 06:28:12 +0000

I have a question regarding the photo at the top of the article.

Who can confirm this is the photo of Khwit?

I have seen the abkazia skull photo before. I have also seen the photo at the top of the article before (though I can’t recall where). This is the first time I have seen this photo linked with Khwit.

By: dharkheart

dharkheart — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 02:31:00 +0000

I thought Zana’s grave had been lost. I can’t recall reading anything about her skull having been found let alone photographed.

At any rate, “Zana’s” skull seems tiny: using the hand in which it is held as a size reference, it appears no larger than a child’s skull.

By: jayman

jayman — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:20:14 +0000

RE brow ridges, what I have read, the distinguishing thing was shape. Some modern Homo sapiens do have fairly well developed brow ridges, but they always have a distinctive form, being divided into an inner and outer portion, with a sort of “flat spot” in between. In Neanderthals, the ridge formed a continuous arch over each eye, and in Homo erectus the ridge went right across the forehead like the peak of a cap. Interestingly, Khwit has a more pronounced ridge than Zana, but that may be due to his being male.

These skulls to me resemble fossils from the Mideast that have been assigned to an archaic type of Homo sapiens.

By: Tengu

Tengu — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:00:27 +0000

I’m not at all convinced.

Neanderthals have brow ridges, right? (and their skulls look pretty funny full stop)

Modern humans do not have, as a rule brow ridges (some do, inevitably males, but they are not very pronounced.)

These skulls look modern with a certain amount of variables…not surprising since they purportedly come from a very mixed area.

(perhaps ‘Zana’ was a thumb sucker?)

And how old are these skulls anyway?

By: jayman

jayman — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:11:57 +0000

It’s not strictly true Neanderthals didn’t have a chin… there was an edge or angle on the mandible. But Homo sapiens has a more pronounced and distinctively shaped chin.

A hypothetical sapiens-Neanderthal hybrid could well have a sapiens type chin… nobody knows.

By: UCTZoology

UCTZoology — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 02:25:36 +0000

“genetic relationship to the Neanderthal”

There is a clearly definable chin on the lower skull. The chin was one of ‘our’ latest evolutionary ‘gains’. Neanderthal lower jaw does not exhibit a chin. So i agree with the statement about morphologicl differences and doubt the genetic similiarities with neanderthals. I dont know what statistical trees they used to associate the molecular data with, but no neanderthal IMHO

By: Alton Higgins

Alton Higgins — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:58:16 +0000

As featured by NG in the television program, the DNA analysis was performed by Todd Disotell.

The proposed genetic relationship, as determined by the comparison of the bone material from the two skulls, was likened to that of a mother and a child.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:17:22 +0000

Then the question rises to the top, was any of the evidence tampered with-switched or something? Of course they could be related, but to what degree are they related? Mother to son, aunt to nephew? Or are they related similarly to us being related to the great apes? And how do they know that the female skull wasn’t just another case like the pic at top?

By: bill green

bill green — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:18:37 +0000

hey loren this is definetly a very interesting new article about skulls. very informative, anything is possible. these skulls do look authentic but more research needs to done to the skulls & the area where they were found very throughly. thanks bill