anatomically modern human
In order to comprehend the extraordinary dynamism of human life, studies have to be carried out that depend upon qualitative observation and months of patients. In short, the study is known as anthropology, and it utilises a broad approach to offer insights into the human experience. It considers aspects of the past- to investigate how the groups lived- the make of the human body, bone, health and diet. Through the study, humans are seen to have developed from non-extinct primates. There is adequate fossils to indicate humans, homo sapiens, were preceded by other hominids like Australopithecus and Neanderthals. Homo sapiens are also known as modern humans, however, the only living subspecies is homo sapien sapien (humans). From these phrase, anatomically modern humans ia coined which means archaic humans who show phenotypic similarities with the homo sapiens. Therefore, the present paper will review a current news article that talks about anatomically modern humans who have existed in the past 75,000 years.
The article to be reviewed is published in Mail Online, a subsidiary entity of DMG media. The title of the article is “The scarred face of ancient man: Incredible reconstruction of a 28,000-year-old Homo sapien reveals he was covered in TUMOURS” the author attempts to convey two different messages. The discovery of an antomically modern human
in the Ezies cave, Dodorge Region in, France and the disease he was suffering from. The skeleton of the man, Cro-Magon 1, was found together with two others in 1868. Nonetheless, a conclusion of hos body reserach was provided by researchers in France, spearheaded by Philippe Charlier, an anthropologist. The study is significant as it shows the way of life of this group and their relation to modern humans.
The author establishes multiple claims. Foremost, he declares that the researchers found Cro-Magon to have had benign tumors with the root cause being a genetic condition termed as neurofibromatosis. He says that the skeleton of this group belongs to the species of homo sapien and is one of the first fossils to be classified into this category. Lastly, he claims that these ancient people had a tough life.
The researchers provide numerous evidences to back up their notion of tumors. In the forehead od Cro-Magon 1, the skull is eroded, which is a sign of neurofibroma. Also, the ear canal is damaged that is highly linked with growth of the tumor. On carrying a visual forensic reconstruction, his face is filled with tumours and nodules- clustered, especially at the eyes, nose and mouth. The man is categorised as an anatomically modern human because he was around five foot tall, had a straight forehead, promine t chin and short and wide face. The hard life is evident from the fused neck vertabreas that signify traumatic injury. Adfitionally, the skull of the female had a fracture.
According to reports, the investigations of archaeological fields is divided into three phases. The first phase (identification), governs and surveys the presence of an archaeological site. The second phase (evaluation), determines the cultural and historical important of the materilas in phase one. Whereas on the third phase, data recovery and official writting of reports. From the article, it is clear that they continued to govern and survey the area, due to that the subsequent year, three other skelons were found. The author clrealy highlights the significance of the finds. Historically, Cro-magnon was dated 28,000 years ago, whereas for tge others, it was between 10000 and 35,000. He makes the audience to understand the meaning of the lesion in the forehead and damage to the left year component. The culture of these ancient people is depicted as being highly intellectual, which is evident from the high capacity of the brain around 1600cc and the exemplary tools that they used like end scrappers and fine bone tools. Philipe’s team write a research report of their work and further state they will publish it to a medical joirnal, The Lancet. ” The author concisely delivers the evidences of the claims and reflects on the three phases for an archaeological investigation. Generally, these approaches enhance the understanding process.
A susbtantial part of the article is obtained from the research team of Charlier, who is quoted severally.