Early human fossils unearthed in Ukraine

30,000 years old and defleshed as part of a ritual? Some researches believe this find to be of great importance and some even say its the oldest evidence of modern humans in Europe.

Ancient remains uncovered in Ukraine represent some of the oldest evidence of modern people in Europe, experts have claimed.

Quite and interesting little read.. The article also features a link to the research info at PLoS One.

Enjoy and share your thoughts!

Peace

Source

Just finished reading about early Florida Natives and they had interesting funeral rituals. Some would clean and break up the bones for later burials. How cultures handle the dead is interesting. Other early Florida Natives used ponds for burials sometimes over a thousand years - by the same family grouping.

I found the image of the tooth in the linked article to be quite profound. The fact it is so many thousands of years old and looks so much like the little teeth I have saved from my son sort of punched me. Studying or reading about ancient cultures makes me a little less tied to and anxious about the state of the world today. It is a form of escape I guess, thanks for sharing this.

Human remains: taxonomic attribution, skeletal distribution and human modification A total of 162 human remains were discovered in layer 6-1 during the 2001 field season. They were spread over 6 m2 of the entire excavated area. These remains consist mostly of highly fragmented cranial parts (n = 117) and teeth (n = 29), whereas the postcranial skeleton (n = 16; MNI = 2, juvenile and adult) is barely represented (7 rib fragments, 1 vertebra and 8 hand phalanx fragments). At least 5 individuals were identified from the dental remains. They belong to 3 different developmental age groups: juvenile (n = 1), sub-adult (n = 2) and adult (n = 2). The human skeletal distribution shows a clear lack of anatomical parts (especially long bones from upper and lower limbs) which are usually preserved. This cannot be explained by differential preservation processes since other mammals are conversely represented by most, if not all, skeletal elements. The taxonomic attribution of the human remains was made possible thanks to the well-preserved cranial bones and teeth (from both 1994 and 2001). The dental remains exhibit traits that occur more frequently in Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) than in Neanderthals; namely, the symmetry observed in the occlusal outline, the lack of a well-developed metaconid and a transverse crest on the lower second premolar, the lack of a well-developed mid-trigonid crest and a large anterior fovea on the lower first and second molars, the lack of shovelling, labial convexity and well-developed lingual tubercles on the upper first and second incisors (Figure 11). The combination of these traits taxonomically distinguishes AMHs from Neanderthals [12], [55]. Furthermore, the occipital bones and especially the specimen BK3-55 (Figure 12) do not show an occipital “bun” and do not present a bilaterally transverse occipital torus nor a suprainiac fossa which are considered as typical Neanderthal features [56]–[58]. Therefore, based on this suite of morphological features, the human remains from Buran-Kaya III can be attributed to Anatomically Modern Humans.

www.plosone.org...:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020834

y'all should read the original study linked in the bbc article, very interesting.


follow the link provided in the bbc article on the op, since i cant seem to be able to link it directly here

Originally posted by AnotherYOU

Human remains: taxonomic attribution, skeletal distribution and human modification A total of 162 human remains were discovered in layer 6-1 during the 2001 field season. They were spread over 6 m2 of the entire excavated area. These remains consist mostly of highly fragmented cranial parts (n = 117) and teeth (n = 29), whereas the postcranial skeleton (n = 16; MNI = 2, juvenile and adult) is barely represented (7 rib fragments, 1 vertebra and 8 hand phalanx fragments). At least 5 individuals were identified from the dental remains. They belong to 3 different developmental age groups: juvenile (n = 1), sub-adult (n = 2) and adult (n = 2). The human skeletal distribution shows a clear lack of anatomical parts (especially long bones from upper and lower limbs) which are usually preserved. This cannot be explained by differential preservation processes since other mammals are conversely represented by most, if not all, skeletal elements. The taxonomic attribution of the human remains was made possible thanks to the well-preserved cranial bones and teeth (from both 1994 and 2001). The dental remains exhibit traits that occur more frequently in Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) than in Neanderthals; namely, the symmetry observed in the occlusal outline, the lack of a well-developed metaconid and a transverse crest on the lower second premolar, the lack of a well-developed mid-trigonid crest and a large anterior fovea on the lower first and second molars, the lack of shovelling, labial convexity and well-developed lingual tubercles on the upper first and second incisors (Figure 11). The combination of these traits taxonomically distinguishes AMHs from Neanderthals [12], [55]. Furthermore, the occipital bones and especially the specimen BK3-55 (Figure 12) do not show an occipital “bun” and do not present a bilaterally transverse occipital torus nor a suprainiac fossa which are considered as typical Neanderthal features [56]–[58]. Therefore, based on this suite of morphological features, the human remains from Buran-Kaya III can be attributed to Anatomically Modern Humans.

www.plosone.org...:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020834

y'all should read the original study linked in the bbc article, very interesting.

edit on 21/6/11 by AnotherYOU because: (no reason given)

follow the link provided in the bbc article on the op, since i cant seem to be able to link it directly here

edit on 21/6/11 by AnotherYOU because: (no reason given)

Yeah I found the PLoS One info to be very interesting indeed. I seriously need to learn more about fossils and bones as I find all of this just fascinating! Thanks for your thoughts mate!

yep, and you are welcome.

apparently the study has been "peer reviewed" even, none shall dare to call it pseudo science...

That was so cool - I read the long article, thanks for pointing it out. Amazing. So great they published this and it was relatively well written so that even as an armchair anthropologist I could stumble through it - many times we lose because they fail to publish what they find, or politics and dogma get in the way. This is interesting and refreshing. Cool find! I wonder if they can get DNA out of those teeth?

Great find S & F

I dunno...

I question her findings. She doubts Cannibalism took place yet the bones were fractured and found among various other animal bones. Then states that the marrow was still present which to her indicates they weren't cannibalized etc. Meanwhile the "Longest bones" were missing. Which are the best location for marrow coupled with the fact that the bones show cut and scrap marks which are classic indications of Cannibalism etc.

Remember this is supposedly from 32,000 BC which was during the ICE AGE one could imagine food being scarce. Wouldn't be the first time cannibalism took place or.. [Maybe it was]

One thing that intrigued researchers was the scarcity of human long bones (bones from the limbs) in the caves. The site yielded countless limb bones from antelope, foxes and hares. Cut marks on human bone (L.Crépin/CNRS) Remains at the site bear cut marks where stone tools were used to remove flesh

But the human remains consisted of vertebrae, teeth and skull bones no larger than 12cm. What is more, the positions of cut marks found on the human fragments were distinct from those found on the animal bones. And while the bone marrow had been removed from butchered animals, it had been left alone in the case of the human remains at the site, explained co-author Sandrine Prat from the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in Paris.

Reply to post by SLAYER69

i dont think it was cannibalism.
sure you could be right, but the scarcity argument falls considering plenty more animal remains were found on site.
and the study noted a diference in the human and animal remains handling.
im more inclined to think the site reveals more a ritualistic nature, sacrificial even.
but who's to say we havent
unearthed a 35k old medical lab or morgue.
teeth, hands, etc...
could be from amputations.
given the hunting lifestyle id say these type of injuries would be common.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by AnotherYOU


Agreed.. i dont think there is enough evidence to definatively state cannibalism however we cant rule it out completely... maybe they were partial to a little long pig every now and then. hehe.

joking aside tho...

fractures and lost limbs would have been common place as people would still have been relatively new to hunting and survival in those distant times would they not? and not so good at not making tragic errors?

I can't wait to see the findings after further investigation!