Member of The Crypto Crew:

Please Also Visit our Sister Blog, Frontiers of Anthropology:

And the new group for trying out fictional projects (Includes Cryptofiction Projects):

And Kyle Germann's Blog

And Jay's Blog, Bizarre Zoology

Tuesday, 29 May 2012

Two possible late-surviving Neanderthals from China and Mongolia

Dr Jeffrey Meldrum recently published a paper advancing the idea that some of the presumed fossil types of humans other than modern man could have survived up until more modern times and could be connected to modern reports of Bigfoot and the like. His paper included two examples of what look to be Neanderthal types from Mongolia and China in the vicinity of 10000 to 20000 BC, at the end of the Ice Age and much later than the usually-accepted date for the last surviving Neanderthals (There are at least two such late-Neanderthal sites in Europe to my knowledge but Meldrum did not mention them) His description of the specimen illustrated below is as follows: 
A remarkably complete specimen of a pre-modern hominin, displaying archaic features of the skull and skeleton, was recovered from the site of Lishu, just outside Beijing, China, with a preliminary date of 12000 to 20000 years ago.(Lu, Personal communication) It is on display at the Peking University
I do also have a fairly good translation for the publication on the Mongolian example, potentially to be connected to the reports of the Almas in that region

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Uncovering remains of archaic sapiens in Mongolia

The famous paleoanthropologist Yves Coppens and colleagues discovered skeletal remains of Homo sapiens archaic in northern Mongolia. You appear to have similarities with Neanderthals , Chinese Homo erectus  and Archaic Homo sapiens.

These remains are unmatched in the region, having never had human fossil discovered in the area.

The remains were discovered in 2006 in northeastern Mongolia where a company was looking for gold in the cave of Salkhit. The workers found them 6 meters underground in a pit. Cranial remains are very fragmentary but well preserved: a full frontal bone and two parietal incomplete.

Could not be dated with certainty yet, but it was estimated at a Late Pleistocene date, that is between 12,6 thousand and 10 thousand years. The dating was based indirectly about rhinos associated with human remains.

Despite having many features Neanderthals , the remains were not associated with that species, but recently discovered Neanderthals in Siberia. But the authors do believe that there might be some relationship.

"The scientific community," say the authors in the study, "considers the Neanderthals as a European group rather than Asia, with relatively recent settlements in Asia. Although based on the dating of fossils, this assumption should be tempered and should take more account of the discoveries in Teshik Tash, Uzbekistan, and Okladnikov and Denisova, southeastern Siberia. "

And is that the show remains a mosaic of features. The features Neanderthals who are at residues "are located at the bottom of the frontal bone, in the nasal region and the orbital".

"Multidimensional Analysis clearly differentiate Salkhit skull fossils of [modern]Homo sapiens from the Far East, "the authors conclude. In contrast, comparisons show similarities with archaic groups composed of Neanderthals , Chinese Homo erectus  and archaic Homo sapiens  both the West and the Far East. Unfortunately, the incompleteness of the fossil does not allow a comparison more feaciente. For this reason, we attribute cautiously Salkhit the remains of an archaic Homo sapiens. "



Coppens Y, Tseveendorj D, Demeter F, Turbat T, Giscard P-H. 2008. Discovery of an archaic Homo sapiens skullcap in Northeast Mongolia. Compte Rendus Palévol (in press) doi:10.1016/j.crpv.2007.12.004

The term "Archaic Homo sapiens" can be used to include Neanderthals and the broader category of other fossils like them, including the "Rhodesian man" and "Heidelberg man." The authors of this study seem to consider Neanderthals entirely European and because of that they use the broader classification for these remains.


  1. Neither are Neanderthal skulls, the first looks like an unidentified human like hominid. The second looks like a typical paleolithic Homo Sapiens skull, albeit slightly archaic looking.

  2. I beg to differ, but then we are both probably defining the term "Neanderthal" differently. To me the first one is very definitely Neanderthaloid.

  3. And an anonymous opinion carries no weight here, as I have to keep telling people. You want your opinion to carry any weight, then you sign your name and you show your credentials. Otherwise you are basically wasting my time and yours.

  4. anonymous without credentials or formal education25 October 2012 at 14:50

    I may be wasting your time, with my opinion, but I think you sond like Lloyd Pye who said that Khwit and Dana skulls were neanderthaloid. Both were proven morphologically and gentically not to be. I don't think it will suprise you that I have no credentials at all. You and Lloyd Pye do, so people with credentials, can also come to the wrong conclusions. No one will know if you are right or not until DNA evidence proves otherwise.

  5. You are ignoring the facts that such things as fossil skulls are classified by such obvious things as theiir external shapes and in this instance the external shape is about right to e called Neanderthal. Of course DNA tests will always help and they are always welcome. In the case of Khwit and Zana's skulls, in the first place we do not know for exactly certain if the right skulls were used. In the second place, both Neanderthal-type morphology and genetics WERE detected but the features were not 100%. if we are talking hybrids there is no problem with the match not being 100%. My understanding is that the genetic tests were not even comparing the same sections of DNA for the comparison, and therefore no wonder there was some disparity. Furthermmore, you never heard me say beforehand that those two individual skulls WERE Khwit and Zana OR that those two individual skulls WRE Neanderthaloid. You are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing on the matter at such a point in time. My personal opinion is that whether on purpose or by design, the wrong skulls were used in testing. And that is a surmise based partly on the fact that the photos of the skulls do not match up in different news stories about the testing, either. However your basic statement that these skulls are not Neanderthaloid is not anexpert opinion and is not accompanied by any listing of physical traits as arguments to reinforce your assertion. You have made a flat statement without giving any lesser analysis to back up the statement which you have made. It is for that reason that I said your classification of the skulls in the photos was spurious.

  6. I did not not put words in your your mouth, if it sounded that way I apologise. I was comparing your opionions on the morphology of the skulls you mentioned in this article to Lioyd Pyes classification of Khwits skull as a Neanderthal. And about the the first skull you may turn out to be right about it being a Neanderthal, but I just have a diffent opinion. The first skull to me differs from most neanderthal in that thers not same zygomatic angling as Neanderthal skull Ive seen. The second partial skull the browridge looks to me modern but heavy. Anyways I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or be hostile, so thanks for the dialouge and i'll leave it at that. In any case it's a great article and I found it interesting

  7. And I am sorry if I misread you. Let us just say we had a misunderstanding. Both skulls do have the unquestioned Neanderthal-type brow ridge and that is what I was allowing for their classification.


This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.