South African Hofmeyr skull perfectly in line with Klevius Out of Africa as "pygmies" and back as "mongoloids" hypothesis!

Left: European 35-40,5 ky Oase skull from southwestern Romania.



Right: South African 36 ky Hofmeyr skull.

Both skulls reveal archaic traits. However, non of them are associated with true Aurignacian, i.e. the Oase tools (if related) are not only "early" but also on the very limit of Aurignacian alltogether! Hence no one can today declare the Oase skull as belonging to a representative for the cultural evolution that typical Aurignacian inevitably signs. This was perhaps some of the "first archaic moderns" dispersed into Europe but has nothing to do with the real modern "mongoloids" coming from Siberia along the M173 genetic path. On the contrary their Neanderthal features (frontal flattening, large juxtamastoid eminence and exceptionally large upper molars with unusual size progression) seems to indicate less advanced capabilities which fact, together with its proposed resemblance with the Hofmeyr specimen, would fit well in the obvious lack of Aurignacian in sub-Saharan Africa at the time. It would also fit the chronological overlap with transitional forms.

To strech the conclusion that the Hofmeyr skull represents something even remotely resembling truly Aurignacian moderns is nothing but desperate. There seems to be a desperate (racist?) need for someone to rob the Khoisan people from their status as the first really modern humans in Africa!

Jií Svoboda and Katalin Simán:"The date of the appearance of the typical Aurignacian, the first culture clearly related to modern humans, is unclear, but it certainly developed after 36,000 B.P. and has several dates between 35,000 and 30,000 B.P."

Klevius conclusion: The Hofmeyr skull refutes the conventional out of Africa hypothesis!

BTW, YOU DO FIND THE BEST ANTHROPOLOGY ON BLOGS, SITES, FORUMS ETC.!

The reason is simply that real (skilled) social scientists do not fit in forms made for natural scientists. Why? Because social science can never be determined like natural science (which fact opens up for the social "scientific" writings of millions of charlatans and dilettantes) and, as a consequence, the only true social science is produced outside the institutions (incl. "scientific" magazines etc). Of course there are a few exceptions to this rule, but still! Also descriptive reports like the one referred to above are to be seen as representatives of the "natural science block".