Talk:Cro-Magnon rock shelter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Statement

Can anyone give credibility to this statement: However, this is highly speculative since no Cro-Magnon remains have been found in Africa. It was recently added to the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The lineages of men

According to a recent research done by a group coordinated by the National Geographic Society, called " The Genographic Project" the Cro Magnon men have had the next history: Originated in central Africa identified by an ancient Y chromosome marker called M168, somewhere around 60,000 years ago. They formed the second great migration out of Africa, in direction of the Middle East and are defined as the mutation M89. Some of them remained in the Middle East, but others continued to Central Asia, perhaps following the great herds of buffalo, woolly mammuts, deers and other game. A group of M89s moved to Anatolia and the Balkans, trading grasslands for forests. Some 40,000 years ago appeared a unique man, in actual Iran or Southern Asia, with a genetic marker known as M9, marking a diverging new lineage.Among them was a unique man, with the marker known as haplogroup M9, origen of the asian clan. In this group, the man who had the marker M45, first appear about 45,000 to 40,000 years ago,and became the common ancestor of most europeans and Native Americans. Apparently they were moving north to the game-rich esteppes of Kasakhstan, Ubekistan and southern Siberia. They survived in this harsh enviroment, while the hunt was plentiful by erecting skin huts sewed water tight clothing. No other hominid is known to have survived this harsh envoiroment. Members of the haplogroup R are descendants of the first large scale european human settlers.The lineage is defined by the Y chromosome marker M173, which shows a westward journey of M45-carring asian steppe hunters. The descendant of M173 arrived in europe around around 35,000 years ago and inmediatly made a mark in the Continent elaborating elaborated paintings in some caves, like Lescaux and Chauvet, signing the arrival of humans with artistic skill, never recorded before. At the time ended the Neanderthals, conciding with the arrival of the Cro Magnons, who perhaps influenced it by being more resourseful and outcompeted their cousins. Today, this marker´s frequency is very concentrated in northern France, Ireland, the British Islands and Spain. Members of the haplogroup R1b, dofined by M343 are direct descendants of Europe´s first modern humans, known as the Cro-Magnon people. They elaborated woven clothing and constructed huts to withstand the frigid times of the upper paleolithic era. They used relatively advanced tools of stone, bone and ivory. Jewelry, carvings and intrincate, colorful cave paintings bear witness to the Cro-Magnons advanced culture during the last glacial age. Some 70% of the man in Southern England are R1b. In parts of Spain and Ireland, are more than 90%. According to the Genographic Project, there are4 many sub-lineages still to be determined, and hpoes to bring future clarity in a not so far future.

The above text is very well written and quite accurate. It would be excellent to include this level of discussion in the actual article.

Is it true that Cro-Magnon man was taller, on the average, than modern man?--207.225.65.89 15:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A note: Where do you have any evidence that F (M89) men moved as far as to the Balkans BEFORE the advance of the Cro-Magnons? (Your note could be interpreted this way.) We can assume that some human group from Asia Minor penetrated to Europe long before Cro-Magnons, but the only genetic remains of this group is today mtDNA U5-haplogroup in Europeans. The men of this group were probably "neutralized" by Cro-Magnons. Later, about 25 000 BC, a new Near Eastern wave bringing probaly the Gravettian culture penetrated to the Balkans and Central Europe (the "I/M170" people"). The haplotype later survived the last ice age in Dalmatia ("the Balkan refugium") and then spread across Europe. User:Centrum 99, 22 August 2006

I find your comment way more confusing than the first paragraph of this section. Why would we assume that someone appeared in Europe long before the Cro Magnons, given theorized rates of migration out of Africa? Cro Magnon is very, very early and uses the same toolkit as the humans who went first beyond the Bosporus and up into Romanian, Ukraine and the Crimea - from whence the same group went to Northern Russia/Siberia as indicated above. What evidence (at all) is there of any earlier homo sapiens migration into Europe? I've read the literature pretty closely (and from the 19th century onward) and cannot understand your point. What does "neutralize" mean to you? Cro-Magnons (being 35,000BP) and the earliest inhabitants of Siberia (being 40,000BP) are very close together - and have very similar physical cultures.Levalley (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Removed confuse comment at the first paragraph

It read: ...chromosomally descending from Y haplogroup F / mt haplogroup N populations of the Middle East.

While it's probably correct, F and N are such huge macro-haplogroups that it's like saying nothing. Presented that way it could create confusion in the reader, who doesn't need to be an expert in population genetics and know that R1b (Y-DNA) and H (MtDNA) are part of those super-haplogroups F and N.

I actually found this problem in my favorite anthropology forum, when a new member came asking about R1b and saying that Cro-Magnons were F based in this article z6.invisionfree.com/orient/index.php?showtopic=726&st=15&hl=. Normally F is read as F* (uncategorized F), and that is tyical of South Asia specially. Same for N (though, in this case N* is most typical of Australian Aborigines, with some also in the Eurasian steppes) [1].

If you want to open a (necesarily speculative) section on Cro-Magnon genetical ancestry, fine with me. But do it in a way that is easily understandable for the common layman. And there's no need to place it in the lead section anyhow. --Sugaar 09:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

mtDNA Haplogroup N* is common among populations of Japan and the Amur River region as well as among Australian aborigines.

Pronunciation

One editor has said the usual English pronunciation is incorrect, and in English there certainly is a connotation of roughness. Let someone give the origin of the term Cro-magnon within the article. I guess the term comes from a place in France, and the pronunciation of the g should be soft? My keyboard won't let me sign off. Help.

Asked an anthropologist. You're supposed to pronounce it man-yon, not mag-non. 64.198.112.210 20:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The pronunciation is given in the article now. — Gulliver ✉ 07:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard it because my audio doesn't work, but GN in French are like Spanish Ñ, Italian GN, Portugese NH and Serbo-Croat NJ. How do you pronounce gnu? The same with gnon. --85.84.232.213 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Meaning

I realize that "big-hole" sounds spurious, but that really is what the words "cro" (hole) "magnon" (big) mean in Old French. It refers to the hole in the rock where their skeletons were found. Maybe someone could find a more elegant way to present this info, but I believe it's relevant & should remain on the page.--Funhistory 16:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that would be cro, cognate with modern French creux (hollow); and magnon, cognate with Latin magnus (large). Makes sense. But do you have a reference for that? — Gulliver ✉ 21:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That you were able to decipher it would seem conclusive, but one reliable source is Michon Scott's Strange Science site (the specific page being [2]; the 1868 entry about halfway down). Sorry, I don't know anyone fluent in Old French who can positively confirm it.--Funhistory 16:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done some research and added it to the article. — Gulliver ✉ 07:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the etymology section entirely. My reasoning:

1. There seems to be too great uncertainties involved.
2. The main source of "great cavity" is in French (English references are needed.)
3. Most importantly, this discussion would belong in the article on the geographical entity, not the group of pre-historic people. The latter are simply named after the former---as is already stated in the article.

88.77.143.187 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's completely irrelevant to the subject. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism

This page seems to have a remarkably high rate of vandalism, could one of you vandals be so kind as to share your motivations? Racism against europeans maybe? I would also like to add that something should be added to the article to the effect that cro-magnons have direct descendants alive today, as the person who posted "The lineages of men" below shows. Every other source I've seen makes this point, and talks a bit about paleolithic vs. neolithic europeans, R1b and etc, this article really does stand out in an odd way to be missing this information. --209.105.204.48 01:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Grimaldi and Cro-magnon

The Cro-Magnon Man is an Upper Paleolithic man living in Europe from -20 000 BC. Cro-Magnon is already a white-man, a pure European.

The Grimaldi Negroids (-40 000 Bc - -20 000 BC): is a prehistoric race of men whose remains were first found in cave (Grimaldi, Italy, near Menton, France). They are found in lower layers than Cro-Magnon men, whom they therefore preceded. "The Negroids of Grimaldi," writes Verneau, "are tall and their skull is extremely high." Grimaldi skeletons have been found in Western and Central Europe. But they probably originated in Africa.

We can conclude that, Crimaldi a negroid coming from africa mutated to Cro-Magnon around -20 000 BC.

References:

- R. Verneau, Les Grottes de Grimaldi, Vol. 1, pt. 1, "Anthropologie," Monaco, 1906.1912, 2 Vols)

- The African Origin of Civilization, Cheikh Anta Diop.

- Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin [3] --84.130.28.24 06:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not modern science for the most part. Modernly all those "types" are thought to be branches of modern Europeans and roughly are collectively known as "Cro-Magnon" men and women. The very usage of the term "Cro-Magnon" is confuse and difuse and basically it stands for "Upper Paleolithic European", of which the original Cro-Magno man is just one among many fossil samples. --Sugaar 09:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But there are morphological differences between the Grimaldi-type and the Cro-magnon type. The modern-men in europe 40 000 to 20 000 BC isn't morphologically different from his african-counterpart, so why call him cro-magnon or modern European, as the african modern men is older: 195 000 years --84.131.143.153 10:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Because there are morphological differences between the materials at Omo at 195,000BP and those in Europe at 35,000.Levalley (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Unfortunately, some of the above statements are concluding that because Grimaldi was earlier than CM in Italy it was earlier everywhere. The sources cited are from the very early 20th century and do not contain actual dates for the Grimaldi fossils. Just because a group was living there when CM got to Italy doesn't mean that CM wasn't in Europe first. Italy was inhabited relatively late - so I'd like to know the Italic textactual dates for the Grimaldi material. If CM came into Italy at 10,000BP (as I've read in many places, and in articles with very good dating), then Grimaldi could have come in at 15,000BP and still be beneath CM...but hardly "first" in Europe. If anyone has newer citations, that would be good. Levalley (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

You need to decide what this article is about. As several has stated, The term "Cro-Magnon" has been used rather loosely, and the article need to be have a focus. Should this article be about the original Cro-Magnon find, the associated culture and similar finds in Europe, European modern humans in general or all anatomically modern humans? I would say the most common interpretation is the ethnic/cultural group associated finds, and would suggest this as focus for the article. The Grimaldi people should be mentioned, but they are very obviously not the same ethnic group, and should perhaps have their own article.--Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The quoted material is mostly from the early 20th century, from the dawn of paleo-anthropology. A pinch of salt is due with that, particularly since little is available that is current. Besides, Mr. Grimaldi has his own article, as do other early human topics. Kortoso (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How about I move Grimaldi to the rest of the "assemblage" topics? Kortoso (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

DONE. Kortoso (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, have been absent for a few months. Grimaldi-man is certainly not Cro-Magnon as discussed in this article. The find should not be lumped in with the remaining assemblage, and I have moved the section back where it was. The only way to lump it in with Cro-Magnin is to use that term in the least restrictive way, i.e. as a synonym for general early modern humans, which is not the scope of this article. If in doubt, I suggest reading the Grimaldi article through. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not worth the candle. Kortoso (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Cro-Magnon Man was an Upper Paleolithic European originating from the Middle East 45 000 years ago with the Aurignacian Culture of the Middle East. Grimaldi Man is considered a Cro-Magnon European: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimaldi_Man#/media/File:Monaco.Mus%C3%A9e_d%27Anthropologie002.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian#/media/File:Aurignacian_culture_map-en.svg

Modern Negroids are only 8000 years old. Caucasians are 45 000 years old and originated with the Cro-Magnon Man, the first modern man in Europe, North Africa, Middle East, Central and North Asia. Cro-Magnon skulls have been found in all the above areas and even in South Africa: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Asselar-man https://www.mpg.de/research/hofmeyr-skull-supports-out-of-africa-theory

The first modern man in Egypt, Nazlet Khater Man was an Upper Paleolithic European (Cro-Magnon) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19144388 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timesummer0 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Cro-Magnon Man is the direct ancestor of modern Europeans

Various Haplogroups have been found in Cro-Magnon remains found in Europe. For example, the Oase Skull had its DNA analysed. The Oase Skull is dated to 37 000 years and carried Y-DNA F and MTDNA N. Another ancient skull found in Romania, showed that this ancient European carried MTDNA U6. MTDNA N and U originated in the Middle East.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/full/nature14558.html https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/molbev/msl209

The first modern man coming out of Africa met the Neanderthal in the Middle East and interbred with them. This Neanderthal hybrid then went throughout Eurasia and that is why Eurasians carry Neanderthal DNA. This Neanderthal hybrid also interbred with the Denisovan and another mystery archaic human in southern Asia.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2098566-mystery-ancient-human-ancestor-found-in-australasian-family-tree/

Early Eurasians carried much more Neanderthal DNA than modern Eurasians. The 37 000 year old Oase Skull carried 9 - 11% Neanderthal DNA. Lapedo Child found in Portugal and dated 24 000 years, resembled a Neanderthal hybrid.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/controversial-lapedo-child-neanderthal-human-hybrid-00903

Earlier Europeans had darker skin than modern Europeans and resembled the 7000 year old LaBrana Man: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/01/how-farming-reshaped-our-genomes White skin in Europeans originated somewhere in Central Asia and was taken into Central and Southern Europe about 8000 years ago by the Neolithic Middle Eastern Farmers. White skin also developed seperately in Northern Europe.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timesummer0 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Brain Capacity and robust physiology

The entry mentions that Cro-Magnons had a larger brain capacity and a more robust physiology than modern europeans. Is this really true?

Where is the evidence for this?

I too would like to know!

see [4] the brain of the fossil Cro-Magnon 1 is about 1600 cc which is quite a bit larger than modern humans, though I think if you average out all the cro-magnon fossils the difference is not quite that large. Nowimnthing 22:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be cited, I have added a citation tag on it, if we cannot cite it, we must remove the claim. Dionyseus 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are bunches of citations, including some extensive studies in sequence from France and Britain, but I don't have them in front of me.Levalley (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

What is meant by "robust physiology"? This is an excessively colloquial and imprecise word here. Physiology is a science dealing with processes in the living organisms. How can it be robust? The appriopriate term should be "physique", not physiology.

Ben Jamin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.38.142 (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cro Magnon skull supports theory that human brains have begun to shrink March 13, 2010 Adam Sage, Paris. Komitsuki (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cro-Magnon and Neandethal?

The current article says that Cro-Magnons date back about 40000 years, and also that they "coexisted with Neanderthals for some 60,000 years in the Levant". Unless my math skills are horribly wrong, this would seem to assert that Neanderthals will still exist 20000 years from now, which is an odd assertion considering they're generally thought to have gone extinct long ago. Which number is in the wrong? -- Milo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.171.2.42 (talk • contribs) .

The article actually says that "although morphologically modern humans seem to have coexisted with Neanderthals for some 60,000 years in the Levant[3]"

Morphologically modern humans is distinct from Cro-magnon humans and I think the point the paragraph is trying to make is that theories about Cro-magnons causing the extinction of Neaderthals could be undercut by the fact that Neaderthals coexisted with other early humans in other places for much longer and did not become extinct. Nowimnthing 16:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As it put it by the eurindian etymological perspective: As it put it by the euskarian etymological perspective:

• Cro is presumably a contracted form of koro, meaning "circle" or "void".
• Magnon is presumably maina and on, meaning care or cry and place, so is maina on.

Cro-Magnon could mean Koro-Mainon, "sacred place for lament".

I took the preceding text out of this article as the intros don't sound like anything I've read in any linguistic article, and the crying and lamenting comment sounds biased (or, at the least, awkwardly emtional), and is unsourced. What language do koro and maina come from, for example.... Google brought back a couple penis panic pages, including Wikipedia's own, where it's said koro means "head of the turtle" in Malay. Meanwhile, koro is a Japanese incense burner, typically globular. So maybe koro might mean "circle" in a root Asian langauge. Meanwhile, maina is all over the place (also a typoed form "mania").

Is this OR? It was the first and, so far, only contribution from User:85.86.20.77. Would this anonymous IP like to cite a source? Xaxafrad 23:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a nonsense, or at least highly speculative original research. You did very well removing it. --Sugaar 09:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Source for HG F Assertion

What is thes source for the haplogroup F connection Cro-Magnon man? Do the pre-F lineages then belong to a pre-modern, more primitive subspecies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Haplogroup F and N

There is no evidence or source saying that cro magnons descend from y chromsome F and MtDna N. Also anthropological traits such as cro magnon phenotype correlate indirectly with haplotypes, a haplotype is not responsible for phenotype (haplotypes are bits of waste genetic data that have no function but merely stay in populations).

I will be deleting the statement about haplotypes if nobody provides a source for this information. --Globe01 11:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The mtDNA N is correct (see: [5]) but I don't think there's anything regarding Y-DNA that is known. I'm deleting that part and I suggest that the DNA issue be moved to some subsection of the article, as it's not so important as to be in the introductory paragraph. --Sugaar 01:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you made it a separate section. TimidGuy 11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Garbled sentences and dubious sources

I did not want to jump inand start editing htis article without discussing the problems. There is a sentence which says "But another possibility is that the Cro-magnons that have interbred with the Neanderthals are no longer under us." What the hell is "no longer under us" supposed to mean? That they have been dug up? That they are somehow superios to us? Two sentences later it says "There may although still be pockets of those people present, most prominent candidate are the Basques. " What kind of English is "there may although still be?" Also in the secition on redheadedness being inherited from Neanderthals, the sources arguing for it do not appear to be reliable or to satisfy WP:ATT. The "Dhamurian society" and newspaper features do not really belong in a scientific topic where there are peer reviewed journals. Edison 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that, i agree with everything you said. And we still need sources for the statements on cro magnons man y chromsome and mtdna lineages.

--Globe01 15:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cro-Magnon life

Section Confusing

The following sentences in this section seem contradictory. Although per the discussion above I see how they are not, the writing is sloppy at best.

Cro-Magnons lived from about 40,000 to 10,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic period of the Pleistocene epoch.

The Cro-Magnons must have come into contact with the Neanderthals, and are often credited with causing the latter's extinction, although morphologically modern humans seem to have coexisted with Neanderthals for some 60,000 years in the Levant --Kevin Murray 22:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

First Calendar

Just wanted to bring your attention to an additional reference to the Cro Magnon people made in Fundamendal Astronomy, ISBN 978-3-540-34143-7, 5th Edition, Springer, where it is stated in the introductory chapter that The Cro Magnon people made bone engravings 30,000 years ago, which may depict phases of the Moon. These calendars are the oldest astronomical documents, 25,000 years older than writing. Compare this to reference [4]. --Parelax 21:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Page Blanked???

who deleted everything? --Cc481613 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

may be a cyber-Neanderthal--201.222.137.130 (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)--201.222.137.130 (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

Cro magnon man did not come from south asia

the latest work from the genographic project and dna retreaved from cro magnons tells us that human beings came to europe via east africa, the middle east and including/not including central asia.

Why does someone keep reverting the text to saying cro magnons had a south asian origin?

they didnt. South asians can trace australoid origin fron ancient african australoids (the ancestral race of negroids, caucasoids and mongoloids and closest to homo erectus).

the genographic project clearly shows all european, middle eastern and north african caucasoid mtdna ancestry originating via mtdna L3 which first appeared in northern africa via an ancient eastern/central african origin. And all y-chromosome lineages descend from the east african m168 whose ancestors travelled up the red sea into the middle east and on itno europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.165.71 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The primary source of this information is Stephen Oppenheimer and Toomas Kivisild; Kivisild has published numerous papers on the South Asian origin of Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups. -- Gerkinstock 04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• it´s is a politically correctness.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.173 (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Name

Could someone add an explanation of how The Cro Magnon Man is related to modern Homo sapiens sapiens? In the Homo (genus) page, it is described as "Homo sapiens sapiens palestinus". Does this make it a sub-sub-species?

I can't see that on the Homo (genus) page. Cro Magnon (for which we have only a handful of skeletons) is HSS like us. The article needs fixing, 'Cro Magnon' is not a scientific term for anything but a specific set of skeletons and shouldn't be used the way it is. --Doug Weller (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

ANSWER According to current perspectives...Cro Magnon is NOT a subspecies of Home Sapiens but rather is now considered in every way a modern human in both cognitive an linguistic capabilities (see Brian Fagans "Cro Magnon: How the Ice Age gave birth to the first Modern Humans"). In other words they are us. According to Prof. Brian Fagan the term "European Early Modern Humans" EEMH is no longer used but rather Anatomically Modern Human (AMH) is preferred. The term Cro Magnon" is not used in scientific terms but is used as the generic for the general population for its ease of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kev62 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Cro-magnon's vs modern human

QUESTIONS: Are we still Cro-magnon's? I assume that we are still evolving? What will we look like next? When will we be catagorized as as a new species? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.56.12 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have the same question and i want to add :how quick is the evolution?, how much is 10'000 or 20'000 years (rough 1000 generation) for the human evolution?. Or may be, is the cromagnon some sort of 1.0 and the homo sapiens-sapiens a 1.01? --201.222.137.130 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)--201.222.137.130 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Finns??????

Someone has added the following sentence: "Of modern nationalities, Finns are closest to Cro-Magnons in terms of anthropological measurements". I doubt it. Lets look at the reference for that bold statement: an article by one Finnish researcher in "Mankind Quarterly". I invite the curious to take a look at what Wikipedia has to say about this publication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly It's an eye-opener.

This is completely unfounded and runs counter to Cavalli-Sforza.Levalley (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

A few things to say about the Cro-Magnons. The number of Cro-Magnon remains known to science that are older than 25,000 years is not even in double figures - so we really don't have much idea about their variation anyway. The Complete World of Human Evolution (by two world authorities on human evolution) says the small number of Cro-Magnon remains that exist suggest they were tall with linear physiques and limb proportions typical of "tropical populations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrison00 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be stated that The Man From Earth is a motion picture

{{editsemiprotected}} The See Also section mentions the movie The Man From Earth, but doesn't mention that it is a motion picture. I think it needs to be edited to read as follows:

The Man From Earth, A 2007 motion picture in which a self-described Cro-Magnon reveals himself to his closest friends

Done! Thank you for the addition! --DA Skunk - (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

why is it called cro-magnon? why not something else? want to find out why? visit your local libary to find out why. (kro-majgnom)=cro-magnon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.2.50 (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha! I agree! This article doesn't even answer that basic question! Still - as an anthropologist, it's true it takes quite a few words and an orderly introduction to the subject to answer it - so yes, go find a book! I'll do what I can to improve this article over the next year.--Levalley (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Mangled statement in the text

This statement "The oldest definitely dated specimen of is from 34,000–36,000 years ago[1]." is obviously mangled. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Should say something like "is dated to approximately 35,000BP." Or, of course, someone could go look up its recent dating - I'm sure there's a set of fairly specific dates. This is within the realm of carbon dating, but I'm guessing many other forms of dating have been used for that specimen by now. The specimen has a name (I've got the citation somewhere and a cast of the thing also - but it's not the same guy who was found near the Cro Magnon hotel, IIRC, so there would need to be quite a bit of editing to get that refocused and meaningful). I agree that the wording, as is, is comical.--Levalley (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Plans for Editing this Article

It would be easier to make this article work if the Talk page actually had a place to corral discussion about general edits. I have citations for most of the missing citations and plan to add them when I get a chance. These will be minor edits. There is a little controversy in some of the places where it says "citations needed," and of course, there is linguistic and new molecular data to contend with. Cro-Magnon is an outdated term, and there should be clear redirects to the various early phases of European prehistory (such as the Gravettian, etc.) for those who are sincerely interested in knowing more about European prehistory.--Levalley (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

That would be good (you aren't going to put in stuff about CM in Italy in 10000 BCE, are you)?

Unprotect now

{{Editprotected}} Vandalism months ago, shouldn't prevent tweaks today:

" 07:02, 5 November 2008 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (Protected Cro-Magnon: Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)))"

That's one fix I won't be back to make. // 24.62.190.234 (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As User:Dougweller protected the article, I'll leave it to him to decide whether the protection can be lifted now. For your information, next time you can place your request at WP:RFPP. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I did it while you were writing the above. We'll see how it goes. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Robust physiology

The article claims that C-M man had a more "robust physiology" than modern humans. What is meant by this? How would we know that they had it? hgilbert (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

ref

Steenhuyse, ʺContinuity and Change in Technological and Economic Strategies During the Middle and Upper Paleolithic in the Brive Basin Region of Southwestern Franceʺ :: ...if variations in lithic raw material distribution in the different technological and typological categories could be observed, these differences did not reflect a clear tendency towards the increasing use of non‐local raw materials starting with the Upper Paleolithic. In fact, alternate hypotheses focused on the relationship between raw material distance and stone tool use intensity were better able to account for differences in raw material frequencies. 76.16.183.158 (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Riel‐Salvatore and Pyne, ʺHominin Niche Construction and the Middle‐Upper Paleolithic Transition in Italyʺ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Pearson et al., ʺMultivariate Analysis of the Postcranium of Markina Gora (Kostenki XIV), A 30,000 Year Old Skeleton from Russiaʺ :: The Markina Gora skeleton was excavated 1954. Debets (1955, Sovetskaia Etnografiia 1:43‐53) described it as ʺnegroidʺ based on its marked alveolar prognathism and high brachial and crural indices. The skeleton has received little subsequent attention, but recent AMS dates of 30,000 BP for its stratum make it one of the earliest modern humans in Europe.... The Mahalanobis distances from the discriminant analysis place Markina Gora closer to Gravettian males and to Skhul IV than to any other sample. Mesolithic, Gravettian, Epigravettian, and Zulu males have the smallest D^2 distances to Markina Gora. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Teschler‐Nicola et al., ʺThe Gravettian Infant Burials from Krems‐Wachtberg, Austriaʺ 76.16.183.158 (talk) burials of infants, dated to 27,000 years, were discovered at the Gravettian open air site of Krems‐Wachtberg...were abundantly covered with red ochre and decorated with ornaments, implying clearly that these are deliberate burials Earliest Child grave? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

More Finns

The passage, "Of modern nationalities, Finns are closest to Cro-Magnons in terms of anthropological measurements" would be laughable if it wasn't based in a history institutionalized racism. It cites an article that does not reflect any kind of consensus or even practice good scholarship. Leaving the phrase in is a slap in the face of Wikipedia's credibility. 71.227.153.9 (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I have restored you edit. But next time you edit Wikipedia briefly explain your edit using the summary box below the edit window. In a case like this one (i.e. involving removal of referenced content) consider first commenting here on the talk page before blanking parts of the article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Are cro magnon's just related to European people?

If so, then what is the name of those related to Africans? I have been searching for hours. If cro magnon is supposed to refer to all races, then why does it say its European? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.134.195 (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cro-Magnon has be used as a general term for all early modern people in the 60's and 70's, but this article is about Cro-Magnon in the more restrictive sence. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

neanderthal genes

I changed the statement about the neanderthal mixing. It said that the studies indicate that european, asian, and native american peoples contain 1 to 4 % neanderthal genetic material but this is not what the study states! The populations found to have neanderthal genes were FRENCH, CHINESE, and PAPUAN. Native americans were not studied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.192.176 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, mixing up two studies, thanks for ironing that out! Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. I find this entire section unsupportable. New Scientist is not a peer reviewed journal and there absolutely no consensus among professionals that there is ANY neanderthal interbreeding indicated in modern humans. Reporting ANY, let alone 1 -4% as if it is fact is completely irresponsible ( and undoubtedly Trinkhaus's fault). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.72.253 (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article about the Neanderthal I find this: "Current (as of 2010) genetic evidence suggests interbreeding took place with Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) between roughly 80,000 to 50,000 years ago in the Middle East, resulting in non-ethnic sub-Saharan Africans (e.g. Caucasians and Asians) having between 1% and 4% Neanderthal DNA, while ethnic sub-Saharan Africans have little or no Neanderthal DNA.[4][5]" Nothing in this article and nothing about the findings of Pääbo and his group. I think these are important facts in spite of discussions about these facts. --13Peewit (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Blanketed sections

A user, 99.90.197.244 (now banned) has blanketed large sections of this article. Unfortunately, the blanketing went undiscovered for some time, due to being masked by a bot edit. After this, several smaller edits have been done, making reversion difficult. Manual edit is very time consuming, since there are a lot of heavily formated references. I am afraid I do not know how to revert this without doing it the old copy/past way. Can someone help me out here?

Edit: It has now been fixed, thanks!

The reason offered by 99.90.197.244 for blanketing was that not all of the finds mentioned are specifically labelled as Cro-Magnon in the sources (EEMH being the preferred current term). This opens up for a question of what this article is supposed to be about. When I started expanding it, I took a broad approach, using it for all groups that one would expect to belong to the Aurignacian culture in Europe. 99.90.197.244 seem to have wanted to restrict it to the original find. As the article was, it really was about the early modern human immigration into Europe. Is this a relevant angle? Should this subject be treated under another heading, for instance Early European modern humans, rather than the vernacular but more well known Cro-Magnon? I would appreciate some input on this. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

White Skin?

The article suggested that Cro-Magnon had "tan/light" skin based on the fact that the European and Asian haplogroups separated shortly after the exodus from Africa, and hence (the assumption) that white skin evolved before the two line separated some 50,000 years ago. Neither of the two references provided supported this though, as they both suggest that white skin has evolved separately in both lineages. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that at least one of the genes involved in light skin in the European line has only become widespread recently (SLC24a5 dated to around 6000 years ago) which would mean that Cro-Magnon was more likely dark-skinned than light-skinned. I have changed the article to reflect this and provided a reference to the 6000yo claim.

I also note that the claim that Cro-Magnon is the ancestor of the Basque people in this article is not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia's Basque entry. That entry states that the Basque people are very genetically similar to the rest of Europe, meaning that singling out the Basques as descendants is probably not warranted... I also note that the reference provided is dated 1994 and the association between Cro-Magnons and Basques doesn't seem to be supported in current research. Unless there is evidence I'm not aware of (highly possible) I would suggest removing the reference to Basque descendency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobus2 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cro-Magnons would not have been dark skinned. They may have been medium brown to tan, but the dark skin now found in tropical people is not likely to have been found in Cro-Magnons. The darkest they conceivably could have been is as dark as the darkest non-mixed Mongol or Caucasian people. That would leave them medium skinned, not dark skinned. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, can you provide evidence to support the "would"s, "could"s and "not likely"s - I'm doing a paper on this topic and if you have references I don't know about that support your points of view I'd love to know about them.

Secondly, the darkest Mongoloids would be the Melanesians (then the Polynesians and Native Americans) and the darkest Caucasians would be the Indians (then the Northern Africans and Middle Easteners).

Finally, evolution of lighter skin in humans has been a gradual development over time, so the current-day skin colour of Mongoloid and Caucasians would represent the *lightest* conceivable skin colour of the 25,000+ year old Cro-Magnon, not the darkest.

The darkest Indians (the "Black Indians" of South-east India) are a mixture if Indo-European and the earlier Indian Ocean people, and the various North Africans too has a mixed origin (ref: Genographic project). Thus they can not be counted as "darkest caucasians". The Melanesians and quite likely Polynesians are mixed in with Papuans (ref: Spriggs (1997): The Island Melanesians. Blackwell. ISBN 0631167277, and Kayser & al. (2000): The Melanesian Origin of Polynesian Y chromosomes. Current Biology 10 (20): pp 1237–1246). The whole Oceanian groups really falls outside the strict Caucasian-Mongol group (ref. Genographic project). Thus we are left with sand-coloured Middle Eastern or slightly darker Northern Indians on the Caucasian side, and South Asians on the other. Combined, you get a skin colour of "medium brown to tan".

It is also worth noting that the very black people normally associated with "Africans" are not necessarily the most common historically (ref: Diamond (2005): Guns, Germs and Steel, Vintage, ISBN 0-099-30278-0). Thus the notion that any people coming out of Africa are necessarily "black" isn't correct either (e.g. the Bushmen, who are sand-coloured rather than dark-skinned). This may be a semantic question though. I notice Americans use the term "black" for anyone with even remotely African features, regardless of skin tone, while Halle Barry, Morgan Freeman and Beyonce would hardly been considered "black" where I come from. I guess this difference in language can make for some funny results.

As for the pigmentation of the Cro-Magnons, the connection with rickets and cold latitudes is well known (ref: Bodmer & Cavalli-Sforza (1976): Genetics, evolution and man, WH Freeman). The gene for red hair/light complexion (MC1R) is far older than the Mongol-Caucasian split, and would have been available for selection in Europe. (Harding & al. (2000): Evidence for Variable Selective Pressures at MC1R, Am. J. Hum. Genet. no 66: pp 1351–1361) Today this gene appears to be slowly replaced by the general light skin colour of Northern Europe, but is still fond in the highest concentrations in the North-Western margins of the continent. Could the high concentration of MC1R in North Western Europe be vestiges of the Cro-Magnong genotype? The latter is well into speculation and original research and can't be put in Wikipedia though. Here's an interesting blog with lots of links on human paleo-pigmentation: Studies on the MC1R site for skin and hair colour.

Good luck on your paper! Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Petter! And thanks for the link on various MC1R research - it was very interesting and I will probably use it in my work, particularly the first article referred to. I obviously draw different conclusions from it than you do though (I won't go into details here unless you want me to).

I agree with your point on the use of "black" and note that, to me, the original article implied that Cro-Magnon would have been "white" by today's American standards. The current wording of "medium brown or tan" is more accurate than the original "light/tan" and more descriptive than my original edit of "dark-skinned".

I take your point on admixture from Papua darkening skin tone, but point out that expansion from Europe in relatively recent times has lightened skin tone (eg Romans occupying parts of North Africa, Egypt and the Middle East for hundreds of years), so the skin tone of adjoining areas is probably lighter now than it would have been in Cro-Magnon times. I will also point at that Native Americans came from the Asian lineage about 30,000 years ago, and has there was been minimal admixture with either darker or lighter skinned populations (particularly in South America) they may well best represent the skin tone of the Asian lineage at the time of Cro-Magnon. In both cases this implies that Cro-Magnon had darker skin than what would be assumed from current European and Asian populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobus2 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good point on the term "white" being culturally tied up as well! Might I be so bold as to suggest using von Luschan scale rather than modern racial terms? As for the tone of the Cro-Magnons: If we take into account that the very light skin of Europeans (particularly centered around the Baltic) has only evolved in the last 6000 years, one should not rule out that the forefathers of the Cro-Magnons could have evolved fairly rapidly once they left Africa, coming into new environments and eating new food. A quick look at Cro-Magnon skulls show they as a group cluster with Europeans rather than with Mongols or Sub-Saharan Africans. As a rule of thumb, evolution of colour runs faster than evolution of bones.Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What we really need here are sources. With respect, a discussion of this without sources we can use in the article (which must mention Cro-Magnon) is using this as a forum about the subject, whereas all discussion should be focussed on improving the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, got carried away. Unfortunately, until some more research is done (as opposed to discussing opinions), the current text reflecting phylogenetic bracketing is probably as good as we can make it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... In regards to the 2nd half of my original post, I have found a study confirming Paleolithic European (ie Cro-Magnon) ancestry for 1% of the Basque population - enough to say there is a link but not enough to assume physical likeness. Perhaps the Basque connection belongs somewhere instead of the Physical Attributes section? Tobus2 (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's always the square orbitae of the Basques. Perhaps that is the only thing though... Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

p1

The original "Old man of Crô-Magnon", Musée de l'Homme, Paris

Tool from Cro-Magnon - Louis Lartet Collection

The European Early Modern Humans (EEMH) are named in popular literature or sometime for historical convenience as Cro-Magnon (/kroʊˈmænjən/ or US: /kroʊˈmæɡnən/; French [kʁomaɲɔ̃]). EMMH are outgroup out-group of ( Homo sapiens sapiens) inhabiting the European Upper Paleolithic specimens grouped by anatomical traits. The earliest known remains of European Early Modern Humans is Oase1 skull radiometrically dated to 35,000 years before present.

Cro-Magnons were robustly built and powerful. The body was generally heavy and solid with a strong musculature. The forehead was straight, with slight browridges and a tall forehead. Cro-Magnons were the first humans in Europe to have a prominent chin. The brain capacity was about 1,600 cc (100 cubic inches), larger than the average for modern humans.

Language is a bit technical, but the basic idea is sound. It will allow the article to remain largely as it is. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be an acceptable change. What the anon read it to be was not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway the revert was done. Go ahead and ignite the stupid edit war. Or Arthur Rubin, do you have any reason? Speak it. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There is very little similarity between your edit and Petter Bøckman's edit. And neither 40,500 nor 45,000 appears in the referenced article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet another revert. Similarity to what? You question the date? Quote what date you see and we contradict the quotes. OK? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Similarity between your edit and the suggestion above.
2. I see no actual date in the article; neither 40,500 nor 45,000.
3. And you've now violated WP:3RR. I think you had already been warned, so you will be blocked if you don't revert yourself.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• 1 "Similarity" < the question of dis|+|similarity is highly complex, most striking deference is the date. Let test first to find out on very following line. \|/
• 2 "I see no actual date in the article; neither 40,500 nor 45,000." < Do you Arthur Rubin, do you want to argue the number '45,000' ring-ding you better? (Arthur Rubin put 4 bids on 45,000 number) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• 3

I think it is probably legitimate to give the calibrated radiocarbon date - just like it is legit to take a year expressed as 14 Edward IV and give it as 1474 (giving the original data, the uncalibrated date, in parentheses). The average reader is not going to pick up on the distinction between calibrated and uncalibrated, and 5000 (or is it 10,000) years is a significant difference. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Read that and all I think is why the page isn't named European Early Modern Humans. "Cro-Magnon is the name used for European Early Modern Humans (EEMH) in popular literature and sometime for historical convenience. Cro-Magnons are . . . ." would be a better way to do it if the page name is to remain the same. Otherwise, if there really is a consensus that EEMH should be used to describe this grouping in most cases, the page should be renamed and Cro-Magnon simply turned into a redirect. Agricolae (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see the term Cro-Magnon as title, as it is very much the better known and more popular term. It is a bit like the article on the Medieval period is called Middle Ages and not "Europe, 500-1500 AD", or the article on Red wolf is called just that rather than "Canis lupus x C. latrans", despite both the article names being popular and open to subjective interpretation. As a layman (I' a zoologist, not an palaeoanthropologist, so I guess I count as layman) I fully expect there to be an article on Cro-Magnon, just like I expect there to be one on Neanderthals. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the same logic then allows us to use the term Cro-Magnon in the Cro-Magnon article as the primary name of this grouping, rather than starting the article by dismissing the article's name name as an imprecise and outdated alternative name for EEMH, and then using EEMH. If the distinction is important enough that we can't call it Cro-Magnon in the article, it really shouldn't be the title of an article about EEMH. In that case, we would need a Cro-Magnon stub that describes it as an outdated term for EEMH as well as the precise term for the specific Cro-M finds, and then have a full page on EEMH. I am not at all convinced that is the way to go, rather than simply embracing the common usage, but if we embrace it, we need to embrace it fully. Agricolae (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion for a text would be along the lines of:

The Cro-Magnon (/kroʊˈmænjən/ or US: /kroʊˈmæɡnən/; French [kʁomaɲɔ̃]) were the first anatomically modern humans in Europe. The name refer to the site of the original finds in France, but has since become the popular term for a host of related European finds, though it technically only refer to the original finds.(we need a ref for this) The Cro-Magnon people settled the Paleolithic Europe, hunting large game and sharing their world with Neanderthals. The Cro-Magnons are grouped by anatomical traits. The earliest known remains of European Early Modern Humans is Oase 1 skull, dated to 35,000 uncallibrated radicarbon years before present.

Or something like that. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me, with a little tweaking, but with regard to ". . . though it technically only refers to the original finds", I am not even sure this is the case, as opposed to just a quirky fringe opinion, so unless/until we have a specific citation at least claiming that this is the case, I would just leave it out. Agricolae (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hence the "we need a ref for this". Perhaps 99.90.197.87 can help us out her, he/she seems awfully sure about that point. This ref might do for the popular use of the term if you deem it necessary. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In a discussion on another page, 99.*.*.* was awfully sure that 'arose' is not a scientific word and should be avoided at all costs, and at the same time was using 'arise'. Elsewhere 99.*.*.* was insisting that recent humans are not anatomically modern, when the very term was coined to describe all of those humans that look like us. Let's face it, 99.*.*.* has not shown themselves to have the clearest grasp on word usage, such that we would be compelled to take their word for it or incorporate text implying that their position is true but simply lacking a reference. As to the common usage, it is perhaps unnecessary, but a ref never hurts. Agricolae (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I just checked Encylopedia Britannica, and it agrees with "our" usage. I suppose that is another possible ref for the popular use. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I found a better one! This is what the Oxford Companion to Archaeology has to say:

(Quote) Cro-magnons are, in informal usage, a group among the late Ice Age peoples of Europe. The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10000 b.p. ...

The term 'Cro-Magnon' has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture. The name is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English, since authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans. They thus avoid a certain ambiguity in the label 'Cro-Magnon', which is sometimes used to refer to all early moderns in Europe (as opposed to the preceding Neanderthals), and sometimes to refer to a specific human group that can be distinguished from other Upper Paleolithic humans in the region. Nevertheless, the term 'Cro-Magnon' is still very commonly used in popular texts because it makes an obvious distinction with the Neanderthals, and also refers directly to people rather than to the complicated succession of archaeological phases that make up the Upper Paleolithic. This evident practical value has prevented archaeologists and human paleontologists - especially in continental Europe - from dispensing entirely with the idea of Cro-Magnons.(/quote)

The source is. I suppose this is as straight from the horses mouth as we will get it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Chronological Point Of Reference

I can understand why one would avoid using the BC/AD convention as a chronological reference based on religious/secular grounds but this generates the issue of what should replace it. The method used here, "Years Before Present" might be considered sensical as everyone who reads the article (probably) knows what years it is but what if this article or any other article is read by a historian centuries from now and its timestamp or other chronological references are not available or accessible? On the other hand, using a high-impact point of reference - which has a much higher probability of being recognisable in the future - significantly improves information longevity.

An historian reading this article in (let's say) 200 years, reading 35,000 years before present will still be in the right ballpark. As even 35,000 is kind off a rounded off figure, a few centuries won't change the meaning. If someone is going to read this in several millennia rather than centuries later, we might hit a snag, but I trust Wikipedias never-sleeping tech team will have found a solution by then. Besides, the language is going to hint to any reader than this is ancient stuff (try read 200 year old English). What I am far less pleased about here is the combination of direct carbon years and absolute years in the article, which really makes for uneven reading. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

lumped stuf

Deleted some stuff clearly lumped together at wiki-will. Why ? Because {not in citation} . More sanitation needed.99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be straightforward to (eventually) provide 'cro*' strings as quotes.99.90.197.87 (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be in the citations. Please indicate a specific quote which is not in the corresponding citation. (Furthermore, you might consult a basic English grammar before trying to explain complicated concepts in English.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"indicate a specific quote which is not in the corresponding citation" < this is on verge of entertainment. How quote can be proved while the claim is 'the quote do not exist'. !<--If you think the quote exist you have to provide it. Read the lines above if you spot "{not in the citation}" think a bit what it usually mean. Can someone explain to Arthur Rubin what mean {not in citation}? (or link it) In simple English Arthur Rubin look the removed sources, find there cro* and if (and only if) 'Cro?Magnon' is there then insert it back. Otherwise you can use refs from some stupid websites.--> 99.90.197.87 (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The term Cro-Magnon does not need to be in the cited work. As the article clearly states in the lede, Cro-Magnon has become a more or less vernacular term. Modern articles often use "European Early Modern Humans", not Cro-Magnon. The two terms have slightly different meaning though, so if anyone feels like making an European Early Modern Humans article, please go ahead. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

1 "As the article clearly states" < circular reference.

2 Anyway this is also not in citation from the lumped here sources. In science "Cro Magnon" is specific specimen and lumping it here with EMH is a name space abuse. Also abuse of the credibility of authors who are plagiaristally misquoted in a way contrary to scientific understanding. This is abuse of truth is best visible in date. Cro magnon is ~10 Ky more recent as stated in the false lede. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If your claim to be a scientist were to be taken seriously, your statement "Cro Magnon" is specific specimen" would be an outright lie; otherwise, it might be a mere misstatement. There is no kernel of truth contained in that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It was an outright lie. Put some quotes to cover your empty lips service. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin just resorted to vulgar ethnic slur in his argumentation to enforce plagiarism in this website. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no practical sense to participate in this project. The management have designated robust dogs and biting them is like cracking long passwd (no chance: human versus machine). Only hope is to organize and move the edition process outside of this structure. If you know about any like initiative let me know.99.90.197.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

It is a bit difficult to make out what your objection to the article is. Do you want the article to be about just the find from Abri de Cro-Magnon, the Cro-Magnon 1? Exactly what is it that is plagiarism? Also, accusing people of racist slur is not a very constructive way to go about this. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"accusing people of racist slur is not a very constructive"< 'racist' is your invention. The ethnic (enjoyably dosed) slur he put is in the edit summary. Go and see it yourself. Semantically word 'accusing' carry some degree of uncertainty and do not merit when P=1, as anyone who look there will see.

I see no slur there at all. Ethnic or otherwise. We have a question of WP:COMPETENCE here I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"I see no slur" < you are either blind or you too enjoyably use the same ethnic slur(last week=5x). See slur and ethnic and think then eventually report what you get. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm, actually I am blind, but that is neither here nor there. The edit summary which you claim above has some ethnic slur reads as follows "(Reverted 1 edit by 99.90.197.87 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Arthur Rubin." And man, PLEASE tone down the WP:NPA personal attacks, such behaviour is unacceptable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The V-word can't be anything but wounding to any 5th-century East Germanic tribesmen who may be participating in the Wikipedia project. One Sack of Rome and that's all anybody remembers. It's not like they were the only ones, so why not gaulism, visigothism, ostrogothism, arabism, normanism, or the-mutinous-troops-of-Charles-the-Fifthism? And aren't the Vandals' lives hard enough, being dead and all, without the constant denigration? Agricolae (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No you not blinded. You just did not think enough (or you just say that). As you see the other laughing baddies resonate, rolling down stairs, with your ethnic slur. Parroting the slavery they admire on the empire. Dishonest to the time reality with no remorse whatsoever. Lying to the point of self contradiction, in one short sentence. With short memory and jawing dog history. But you are the one psycho gay and you should have some psycho analysis or psycho reflection. If so professor, just say sorry and swear you will never more do it. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No I really am blind, and I am not gay, but my sexual orientation is neither here nor there, please stop the personal attack, this is getting really silly. I will not say sorry, as I have done nothing wrong.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As you do not perceive semantic twist to ethnic slur in your usage, why suddenly you see see insulting reason (reason to swear on private sex parts) in another semantically twisted word? If by any way you feel insulted, sorry, but the damage of you, just one person is not comparable to the harm to whole ethnic group of hundreds of millions. Last week you did it five times, do it again, pity the blind and expect condolences. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This should be obvious plagiarism is dishonesty in citation. If one excerpt dated by Trinkaus specimen as allegedly [Cro-magnon-like] and this is not supported by source (in fact he wrote about mosaic o traits archaic, derived and modern), then this citation literally and contextually can not be rated as honest (dishonest). Not honest citation is plagiarism. No more to add.

That is not what plagiarism is. Plagiarism is not simply dishonesty in citation. On the page to which you link (but apparently didn't bother to read), it is stated to be "defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work"." Plagiarism is claiming other people's intellectual property as one's own. What you are describing may be dishonest, fraudulent or sloppy, but it is not plagiarism. Agricolae (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

what your objection to the article is < If you asking about 99.90.197.87 intention to fix the article; look at the edits. It is clear (in the intention) the plagiarized sources have to be removed. Eventually the text not remotely fitting Cro-Magnon may be moved to new article. Look how treacherously double mis-linked was term EEMH the term used by Trinkaus. The highly academic (copied from other articles) text do not pseudo scientific lump titled "cro-magnon".

Is clear a lot of websites follow the fallacy coping in turn the WP content or some historic sources may not recognize Cro-magnon as quite recent specimen (about 10 thousand year more recent, 30%). The article enforce the view inventing bogus Cro-Magnon-like and punting it back in the erroneous date, thus disabling perception of scientific progress about real date of the Cro magnon . This in turn lay in difficulty to persuade more robust logically editors (about Cro-magnon-like) to stick to scientific content and to encourage them to separate fiction from science. The 'erroneous' dating of paleo specimens including the Cro-magnon was called by Bednaric ~biggest paleo scam since Piltdown Man. The article is somehow instrumental in propagation of this scam, and it looks it will be for some more time, at least. (the Bednaric source was put in Neanderthal you can search it there (pdf bounce on net if missing)) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if I understand you, 99.90.197.87. Your claim is that the Cro-Magnon (and here I suppose you refer to the Cro-Magnon 1 find) was in fact a quite recent people (10.000 years or so), and that the older spacimen therfore can't be attributed to Cro-Magnon? Have I understood you correctly? If so, I would like to see some sources, please. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No. More recent mean more recent. Do you need explanation what mean more recent? Try yourself: Given a=2000, b=2005 and assuming the numbers are related to recent dates. Try :>

• which one is more recent?
• what is approximately the difference of time ?

99.90.197.87 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• in contextr of the article the Cro magnon date is 27ka, but the lede point to Oase1 which is dated to ~35ka. The diff 8ka is if rounded about 10 ka more recent and not "(10.000 years or so)" old.

• As for the question?/supposition "you refer to the Cro-Magnon 1 find)" < the answer is also not . More exactly NOT ONLY. Why not? There are other Cro Magnon specimens. For example :

• Cro Magnon 1 M 67.6 30
• Cro Magnon 2 F 59.2 30
• Cro Magnon 3 M 65.3 30

The other lumped here European Early Modern Humans (EEMH) are not Cro Magnon frequently not even Cro-Magnon-like. Each one have specific name in scientific literature. Hoverer some older authors and many websites do the same lumping so the question may be reformulated. Should it be scientific article or not scientific. Seeing primary sources of respected authors here the obvious impression is the aspiration is scientific. Sources misquoting do not support this scientific article. If you want this article to be about the so called in popular culture Cro Magnon As it is now then the misquoted primary highly scientific sources must to be removed. There was a lot of words but nobody proved the accusation of dishonest citation is false. Falsification should be an easy task, if the thesis is not true, just copy the Cro* sentence and point to a source. Perhaps the easiest to fix this art will be change the name or at least as minimum add as first "EEMH" and eventually explain why called also imprecisely due to historic reason (which zi like it or not) Cro Magnon.. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there consensus

Is there consensus for this edit? [6]. I reverted once, which 99 then reverted, I just want to be sure. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. Revert yourself and don't do anymore such senseless destruction.99.90.197.87 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL . . . . . . Again. Agricolae (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks to have been reasonably stable for months, so it would seem to represent some degree of consensus. Following an initial B and R, a change of this significance should involve substantial (coherent) justification and a clear consensus before reimplimentation. Agricolae (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For abandoned article the same will be true.

Were it an abandoned article, such a change would not have been rapidly reverted, as this was (i.e. the 'R' I refer to above). Agricolae (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The basic question I suppose 99.90.197.87 is raising is what to put under the heading of Cro-Magnon. This question (along with a similar deletion of material by a user without user name) was raised about about a year ago (see Talk:Cro-Magnon#Blanketed sections) but was never really discussed. It is a relevant question, and one that we really ought to discuss. The therm "Cro-Magnon" have seen drastically changing definitions during the 2nd half of the 20th century, with the result that the vernacular meaning no longer match the strictest scientific meaning, and the term is now largely abandoned scientifically. Thus, we have a rather wide range of options for what to include.

99.90.197.87's insistence on using it only for the original Cro-Magnon finds is certainly one way. The inclusive 70's and 80's all inclusive use of Cro-Magnon for all anatomically modern humans would be another (though the article Anatomically modern humans covers that aspect). There are other possibilities too. When considering what to include, I used an older popular textbook (Time-Life "The Emergence of Man" series from 1973) for a definition I felt coincided with popular use of the term. Thus, the article as it stands now is about the people of the Aurignacian culture in Europe and their ancestors. This also reflects the article scope as it was before I started editing last year.

I personally feel the article coverage makes sense that way, but I think we should give it a bit of mind. An article can always be improved. Perhaps making the distinction between Cro-Magnon sensu stricto (99.90.197.87's defintion) and the popular understanding of the term more explicite would help. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

re: "would be another (though the article Anatomically modern humans covers that aspect)" < Unfortunately the AMH do not cover the aspect, AMH is mostly about the so called African Mmodern Humans. In redundent practice (if the art AMH will be large enough) the EEMH may be a subset of AMH. To put now all the info from this Cro-magnon-like art to AMH will overkill the last AMH article. The AMH has own (falling or rather falsifying) place in history, lets it live own life. The AMH is also a to broad name, il-defined, largely abandoned in science or at least multi-meaning.

Additionally the AMH article is badly written. The exemplary cheap trick in AMH article is preset-day Caucasoid scull put in way-back context of 200k year ago to illustrate as context suggest African modernity.[7] Another aspect is practical: lengthy logical fallacies, or unnecessary edit wars , due to unpleasant robusticity of hanging there over editors protecting content of supposedly gracile AMH. -->

The rest of Bøckman thesis basically is justified. It is fact the meaning of Cro Magnon has been changed form 19 century or even more form middle 20 century.. The legacy aspect may be summarized in =in popular culture= section. There is a need to find compromise between what was in history (the quite long and sometime unscientific history) and the current scientific usage and understanding. Perhaps new article dedicated to history otf the term will be a good solution ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

All of Europe?

By 20,000 BC years ago, all the whole of Europe was settled.

Isn't this quite misleading? After all, this was shortly before the Last Glacial Maximum. Much of Europe was buried under glaciers, and much of the rest was either too cold or too dry, or both, for humans to live in. Also, the sentence possibly implies a sedentary lifestyle in the manner of Neolithic-style subsistence, but even those parts of Europe which were suitable for human habitation could not support a dense population and were only extremely sparsely populated, with tiny nomadic or at least semi-nomadic bands that roamed the landscape or stayed in scattered small regions with a constant supply of food, for example a valley with a source of food in the form of herds passing through. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

True, most readers will get a false impresion from that wording. What you've written could be the basis for a rewrite. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What about all acessible land in Europe was settled? Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Settled is a problem also. Something about nomadic and semi-nomadic bands reaching all inhabitable parts, but shouldn't we find a source first? Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops – I misquoted the article from memory. I've checked the source on which the maps are supposedly based – it doesn't seem to say anything about 20,000 years ago. Instead, it mentions estimates of 5–10 million hunter-gatherers living on the planet before the Neolithic, of whom about 1 million are supposed to have lived in Europe, strongly discouraging the phrasing in the article. Perhaps the offending sentence should simply be removed? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence, see if you like it better now. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is now unambiguous. Thank you. I would still be interested to know where the information originates from, though. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Temporal range

What led me originally to this talk page: Is there a lower bound for the use of the term Cro-Magnon? It would strike me as unusual to call modern Europeans Cro-Magnon or Cro-Magnons, although I've never read anything about a convention delimiting Cro-Magnon from modern Europeans (say, Pleistocene vs. Holocene), and interestingly, Dnieper–Donets culture#Overview does employ the term in a Holocene context (more precisely, James Mallory seems to have done so). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Archaeology (1996) sets the lower bond at 10°000 years (i.e end of the ice age). Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine, this confirms my impression that the term is only used for the Pleistocene population of Europe. Perhaps Mallory's intent was to differentiate between the descendants of populations who had lived in Europe already in the Pleistocene on the one hand, and the first agriculturalists in Europe on the other hand, who are thought to have immigrated from Anatolia and whose Pleistocene ancestors may thus not fall under the "Cro-Magnon" label. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we might just as well talk about Cro-Magnin culture as well as their physical characteristics. The time-span indicated by the Oxford Companion would encompass the Aurignacian through to the Magdalenian cultures, roughly corresponding to the big-game hunting cultures (after the Magdalenian most European cultures seem to have relied on reindeer or smaller species). Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It always makes me uneasy to see the label applies to all these cultures. I don't want our article to propogate this label even more. The 'lead' to the article in the Oxford Companion is much better than ours, and I think some of the etymology material belongs there. It certainly needs to be made clear, preferably in the first paragraph, that it doesn't denote a "species or sub-species nor an archaeological phase or culture." Maybe we should even use that quote, attributing it to the Companion. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is the best source we have, I agree we should make a rewrite. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A 2nd edition comes out in September, edited by Neil Asher Silberman. Only £280.25 according to Amazon. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've been asked to restore the recent edits based on Carleton Coon and Henry Fairfield Osborn. First, this made some major changes, eg from "robustly built and powerful" to "slender body build" with no explanation. Also, I can see no reason to use such old sources - surely there are more modern ones? I notice that we are using the Britannica as a source, again that should be replaced unless the author of the Britannica article is a known expert on the subject. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am the individual who made these corrections. The Cro-Magnon people were not "robustly built and powerful," their limbs were as slender as those of contemporary gracile human populations and we know this because we have imprints of their limbs and digits "spray-painted" on the walls of caves across southwestern Europe. The source I cited for this reality was a statement of facts by Carleton Coon made in 1981. I did not cite Henry Osborn as a source, I merely cited factual information attributed to a different anthropologist that was in a book that was authored by Henry Osborn. It is from the 1920s, plenty modern, irregardless of the fact that facts do not change with age. Kapture-N-Kill Commando (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at some modern comments:

"men clearing ground for a railway uncovered deposits with a number of human burials, with associated artifacts (Henry-Gambier 2004). The skeletons of these individuals were more rugged than today, but were virtually modern. They became the model for "anatomically modern" Homo sapiens. Their brain size is within the modern range of 1,000 to 2,000 cc, with an average of 1,350 cc. The vault is high and parallel sided (Klein 1999:498). They show a flat, vertical forehead, without a supraorbital torus. Instead, they exhibit superciliary and supraorbital arches and variably bulging lateral arches (Klein 1999:498-499; Gambier 1989:197). The face is tucked in underneath the braincase; there is a canine fossa in the maxilla, and the mandible has a mental eminence or chin (Klein 1999:499). Postcranial bones tend to be less robust than seen in earlier humans; researchers such as Klein (1999:500) suggest this implies more reliance on technology than physical strength. Modern humans tend to have long limbs relative to trunk length (Klein 1999:501). Fossil Cro-Magnons from France were reviewed by Gambier (1989). When compared to living humans, they are more robust and have longer cranial vaults." The Evolution Of Modern Humans In Africa: A Comprehensive Guide By Pamela R. Willoughby[8].

"Although strongly built and large headed, the specimens contrast markedly with the Neanderthals in their morphology and body proportions. The name Cro-Magnon has been generalized to refer to long-limbed, robust, but anatomically modern skeletons from other early Upper Paleolithic contexts in Europe." Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition By Eric Delson, Ian Tattersall, John A. Van Couvering[9].

I've also realised that where Coon writes "The limb bones of these people were rather slender, like those of Mount Carmel people, and their hands and feet were normal for slenderly built Europeans. We know this from negative silhouettes made by spraying pigment out of bone tubes over hands held against a cave wall, and from footprints found on cave floors" he doesn't seem to be talking about the Cro Magnon skeletons but about other evidence from the same time. This is what the quote above from the encyclopedia is doing when the author says " "The name Cro-Magnon has been generalized to refer to long-limbed, robust, but anatomically modern skeletons from other early Upper Paleolithic contexts in Europe." Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And on the Osborn issue, yes, a 1920 source saying "Their archaic features (such as supraoribtal torii and mid-facial prognathism) have been cited as an example of hybridization between Neanderthals and early modern humans." is obsolete and even misleading, more so as the citation was inadequate and in particular gave no clue as to when it was written, which might lead our readers to think it was recent. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources you have cited are incorrect.

Your source incorrectly states that Cro-Magnons had cranial capacities within the range of 2000cm3. This is patently false, no Cro-Magnon individual has a cranial capacity exceeding 1700cm3. The largest cranial vault ever unearthed belonged to a Neanderthal, Amud 1, and it was smaller than 1800cm3. So, your sources are unreliable as they contain elementary errors.

Carleton Coon was indeed referring to Upper Paleolithic Cro-Magnon people when he said that they were slenderly built. It was, after all, the Cro-Magnons who left behind those silhouettes and foot prints.

Here is Coon's quote in full:

"The were modern Caucasoids. During their span of 20,000 years, their bodies changed physically very little if at all, for their adjustments to their environment left nothing to be desired. The famous "Old Man of Cro Magnon" was not a giant, as often depicted, but only 5 feet, 6 inches(168.4 cm) tall. The mean stature for twelve adult male skeletons was 5 feet, 8 inches 173 cm). The tallest 5 feet, 11 1/2 inches(182cm), and the shortest was 5 feet, 3 inches(160cm). The five female skeletons recorded had a mean stature of 5 feet, 1 inch(155.5 cm) and a range from 5 feet, 1/2 inch(154 cm) to 5 feet, 2 inches(157.5 cm). This sex difference in stature varies closely with that in head size, as we shall presently see.

The limb bones of these people were rather slender, like those of Mount Carmel people, and their hands and feet were normal for slenderly built Europeans. We know this from negative silhouettes made by spraying pigment out of bone tubes over hands held against a cave wall, and from footprints found on cave floors."

Please stop referring to your sources as "modern." My sources are from 1981 and the 1920s, and facts do not change with age, although apparently as time goes by people do get things wrong, as is the case in the erroneous "sources" you have cited.

You are now obligated to revert the page to my original edits and concede error.

I remain, Kapture-N-Kill Commando (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we hare have a "more than - less than" type of situation. Yes, Cro-Magnon were long and slender compared to their contemporaries, the Neanderthals. They did however live the life of big game hunters, and was more robustly built than most agricultural modern people. We know that body size is not equally distributed in modern populations, so how Cro-Magnon would measure up against e.g. me (a typical heavily built Scandinavian) is anyones guess, but putting them against a "human average", they certainly were big and robustly built. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we won't be hearing from KNKC for 48 hours as he's been blocked for edit-warring. So far as I know the negative handprints were made by what Coon refers to as "Upper Paleolithic Europeans" - I don't know of evidence connecting them to Cro Magnon speciments. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

In some parts, like the lede the article states CM is a misnomer and simply refers to particualr members of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens who happened to live in europe. In other parts for example the next paragraph CM anatomy is described in terms that would indicate another subspecies which the next sentence contradicts again. There are many more. Cro-magnon life etc.. All these should be removed as they contradict the concept definition namely CM was a name given to a mistaken concept. This article is about that mistaken concept it should not be perpetuating it:

"The so-called Grimaldi Man may have been a contemporary group of modern humans, distinct from the Cro-Magnons"(reference from 1906!)... followed by a recent refutation.

All these "X is true. X was recently found to be false" should be replaced with: "X was thought to be true until it was found to be false." Until these problems are fixed please do not remove the Contradiction Tag

Alertboatbanking (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right that a consistent tone should be set throughout the article, but an informal name is not the same as a misnomer, and insufficient physiological differences for formal scientific distinction does not make it 'false' to use this particular name to refer to Early-modern European humans. Temporal designations are themselves perfectly legitimate, just not taxonomic. Likewise, insufficient differences to be taxonomically distinct is not the same as no differences at all. The biggest contradiction here appears to be between what the article currently is portraying as the situation, and what you think it should be (that the whole concept of Cro-Magnon is all nonsense) so let's solve that first and then we can clean up the inconsistencies. Agricolae (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent because the term Cro-Magnon is inconsistently used in the literature. The term has changed with through history, so a bit of inconsistency is to be expected. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Translation issue

The French "abri" is mistranslated as "rock shelter". "Abri" should be translated as "shelter". The shelter in this instance may have been in rock (a cave), but many (most) "abris" are neither caves nor made of rock. I prefer to leave the edit to one of the main contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.199.69 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

While I've confirmed "abri" in French literally means just "shelter", dictionary.com (Random House) lists a secondary archaeological meaning: "Archaeology. a rock shelter formed by the overhang of a cliff and often containing prehistoric occupation deposits. "[10]. Also, Abri on WP is a redirect to Rock shelter and that article starts with "A rock shelter (also known as a rockhouse, crepuscular cave, or abri) is a shallow cave-like opening at the base of a bluff or cliff.". I think the current translation in the page is warranted in this context. Tobus2 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Culture

Tried to clean up this section.

• Cro-Magnons "...were less carnivorous than Neanderthals[citation needed] and also ate plant materials." No evidence offered for this; if I come across it, one way or another, I will share it.

check the teeth and you'll know the truth. molars=plant eaters. 24.29.193.138 (talk)

• The Dzudzuana find does not support woven garments, only sewn leather. Kortoso (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Definition

If this article is to serve as a definition for "Cro-Magnon" instead of the more current "Early Modern Human" it's got to define the difference between CM and EMH more distinctly. As it is, we have these:

"However, recent research suggests that the physical dimensions of so-called "Cro-Magnon" are not sufficiently different from modern humans to warrant a separate designation."

"They differ from modern-day humans in having a more robust physique and a slightly larger cranial capacity."

I assert that the people that we have been calling "Cro-Magnon" are Early Modern Humans and are not any more special than that. I suggest renaming this article to use a term that modern anthropologists use today. Kortoso (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The definition of Cro-Magnions that this article is based on (after much back and forth) is from the Oxford Companion to Archaeology (Fagan, B.M. (2006): The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), so there should be no problem with there being an article on Cro-Magnons.

There are two problems with renaming: 1) the article as it is is specifically about Europe (a general Early modern humans article would have to cover much more ground), and 2) Wikipedia policy require us to put articles under the most used and best known term for a phenomenon, and "Cro-Magnon" is by far better known than "European early modern humans". As an non-archaeologist, I fully expect there to be an article on Cro-Magnon. So apparently does others, in that this article is rated a vital article and a high-importance article in three projects. I don't believe removing the article really is an option. What we should do is making a full article out of the paltry chapter on early modern humans from the Anatomically modern humans article. I'll happily help out.

The problem you point to is that the term Cro-Magnon has seen vary variable definitions over the years, which is what the intro reflects. If we can find a way to find consensus on tidying up the lede like you suggest, it would to my mind be a great improvement. Perhaps we should have a chapter on the history of definition in stead, putting all the EEMH and EMH-stuff there? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I have expanded the "Early modern humans" section a bit and found some sources, perhaps it can work as a starting point for making a separate article out of it? Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

Cro-magnons are, in informal usage, a group among the late Ice Age peoples of Europe. The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10000 b.p. ... The term 'Cro-Magnon' has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture. The name is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English, since authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans. They thus avoid a certain ambiguity in the label 'Cro-Magnon', which is sometimes used to refer to all early moderns in Europe (as opposed to the preceding Neanderthals), and sometimes to refer to a specific human group that can be distinguished from other Upper Paleolithic humans in the region. Nevertheless, the term 'Cro-Magnon' is still very commonly used in popular texts because it makes an obvious distinction with the Neanderthals, and also refers directly to people rather than to the complicated succession of archaeological phases that make up the Upper Paleolithic. This evident practical value has prevented archaeologists and human paleontologists - especially in continental Europe - from dispensing entirely with the idea of Cro-Magnons.

Is there an anthropologist in the house? Kortoso (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well:

Cro-magnons are, in informal usage, a group among the late Ice Age peoples of Europe. The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10000 b.p. ... The term 'Cro-Magnon' has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture. The name is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English, since authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans. They thus avoid a certain ambiguity in the label 'Cro-Magnon', which is sometimes used to refer to all early moderns in Europe (as opposed to the preceding Neanderthals), and sometimes to refer to a specific human group that can be distinguished from other Upper Paleolithic humans in the region. Nevertheless, the term 'Cro-Magnon' is still very commonly used in popular texts because it makes an obvious distinction with the Neanderthals, and also refers directly to people rather than to the complicated succession of archaeological phases that make up the Upper Paleolithic. This evident practical value has prevented archaeologists and human paleontologists - especially in continental Europe - from dispensing entirely with the idea of Cro-Magnons.

That is just in archaeology, in common English Cro-Magnon is virtually the only term, just like bats are called bats rather than Chiroptera. Google gives a million and a half hits for Cro-Magnon, and googling "European early modern humans" gives this article as the top hit... Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If you trust google that much, this is what came up first for me:

Cro-Magnon is the informal word once used by scientists to refer to the people who were living alongside Neanderthals at the end of the last ice age (ca. 35,000-10,000 years ago). They were given the name 'Cro-Magnon' because in 1868, parts of five skeletons were discovered in the rockshelter of that name, located in the famous Dordogne Valley of France.

Recent research over the past 20 years or so, however, has led scholars to believe that the physical dimensions of so-called 'Cro-Magnon' are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation. Scientists today use 'Anatomically Modern Human' (AMH) or 'Early Modern Human' (EMH) to designate the Upper Paleolithic human beings who looked a lot like us, but did not have the complete suite of modern human behaviors.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm Kortoso (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Cro-Magnons and modern Europeans

A sentence has been added stating the Cro-Magnons were the ancestors of modern Europeans. This is not quite accurate. The European population is an amalgam of several immigration waves, the most substantial is likely the associated with agriculture, and post-dates Cro-Magnons by tens of thousands of years. There are numerous speculations about who among the people of Europa carry the most Cro-Magnon genes, with speculations ranging from Basques (blood type and square orbitae), Finns (general cranial morphology) and Scandinavians and Irish (continent-fringe-type of argument). Whatever the true answer, the Cro-Magnon was a distinct ethnic group in their time, and is among the ancestors of the modern European population. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that they were not the ancestors of all modern Europeans. However, there are certain ethnic groups that do in fact descend from Cro-Magnons, the Basque people being amongst them. I'll reword the lead regarding that issue to be precise, and hopefully others will agree with my wording. Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Distinct Hominid

With an average height difference of about 10 centimeters i think its quite safe to say that they were a distinct type of hominid--Kovkikz (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Not without it being stated in a number of recent academic sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There was an in dept review which ran from 1999 until 2008 which completely dispelled any notion that there was not enough difference to designate this hominid as separate

http://books.google.com.kh/books?id=-Y9co3op8s0C&pg=PT174&lpg=PT174&dq=Formicola+and+Giannecchini%27s+data&source=bl&ots=d8FxMGxV3i&sig=0lQSTcK3WgvzFvvafP66ov4qY5Q&hl=fi&sa=X&ei=wLrjUqfJC6apsQSRnoDoDA&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Formicola%20and%20Giannecchini's%20data&f=false

--Kovkikz (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to mention Cro Magnon once[11] and in any case we'd need sources that explicitly classify Cro Magnon as a separate hominid. And state its classification. This 2012 book calls CM Homo sapiens sapiensDougweller (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The study shows that Paleolithic hominids that populated the region of what is now Europe and far west Asia were physically distinct from modern man, using terms like AMH or EEMH or any other designation does not dispel the fact that this is a separate and all round more powerful hominid.--Kovkikz (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction?

I noticed that the article has a "contradiction" template from June 2013, however, I do not see any specific tags in the article, and I don't see any recent discussions regarding what exactly appears to be contradictory. Is it alright to remove the template or is there still an ongoing discussion? And if so, what is the issue? Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 09:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Singling out the Basque in the lead

This seems pretty dubious and perhaps depending on a narrow and not widely accepted definition of CM, I'm not sure. Why are they not among the ancestors of all Europeans? Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Basque are definitely amongst the known descendants of Cro-Magnon. Regarding other Europeans, I don't believe we know yet/can determine it. I'm not too familiar with Indo-Europeans and where they originated, or with whom they interbred with in prehistoric times. As for the British Isles and Irish, it seems rather agreed upon that they too are of Cro-Magnon descent based on what I've read, so I thought adding them would seem fair. The Spain-France-Italy-British Isles region is where I found to be most prevalent. Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 07:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

National Geographic says all Europeans[12] but I'm not happy about NG as a source. This looks really useful. I noticed in looking for sources I ran to several by C (for Clyde) Winters. Ignore them, he's a fringe writer with no credentials in this field. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Using other Wikis as sources & claiming our articles are accurate

Editors are using [13] as a source. We don't use Wikis as a source - among other things, I could change that at any time by going to [14]. WP:RS is clear about this, see also WP:SPS. We also don't claim that our articles are accurate - that's basically no different from using them as a source. Please don't reinstate these and please read WP:RSN and WP:VERIFY before adding any new sources. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I added verified sources that meet wiki policy, i hope this ends the recent edits/undo's feud--Kovkikz (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources redux & conflation of Cro-Magnon with the pre-Neolithic population

I appreciate the enthusiasm of these new editors, but Wikipedia has as steep learning curve and we have all made mistakes when we started that we know now were obvious mistakes. And most editors are probably guilty of stopping when they find sources that say what they are looking for and don't look further.

First - sources need to meet our criteria at WP:RS. The statement " The Cro-Magnon are amongst the ancestors of certain current European ethnic groups, such as the Irish and Basque." had four sources. One of them is [15]. A quote from that page:"There is a document about Project Aquarius that deals with the history of the Aliens and their interaction with Homo sapiens for the last twenty-five thousand years. This interaction culminated with the Basque culture and the Assyrians. But Project Aquarius was closed. Their planet has turned into a desert following a war they had with another race. They have been devastated, they are in evolutionary decline, their digestive system is atrophied. They come here in search of new genetic material." And "Now we know through DNA testing that the NON-indo-european Basques of the Pyrenees, the Berbers of Morrocco, and the Mayans of the Yucatan are almost a perfect match in DNA testing. What if these Blue people, or even the Melungeons of eastern Kentucky (who by the way, migrated from the Carolinas in their own lore) could be the lost piece of this Atlantean Colonial system." This sort of thing is why we need to make sure that for scientific articles we use academic sources. That link has been removed since I mentioned it to one of the new editors, thanks.

Secondly, sources need to discuss the subject of the article. The second sourcep[16] meets our criteria - the problem is that this article is about Cro-Magnon and it doesn't mention them. It actually says "the Basque—a presumed remnant of the pre-Neolithic European population (33); both populations show similarly high frequencies of the M173 haplotype." And that is sourced to [17] which doesn't mention Cro-Magnon either. It's also used as a source for the statement "Current populations with a high degree of Haplogroup R1b are known to possess traces of Cro Magnon DNA. R1b runs highest among the indigenous Irish and reaches 99% along the western seaboard." As I've said, that source doesn't mention Cro-Magnon (or R1B), so why is it being used as a source?

Another source used is [18]. What makes this a reliable source by our criteria?

Then there is Chemeurope.com [19] This one is quite obviously not acceptable - we don't use our own articles as sources and if you actually read the page this is obviously copied from somewhere else. In fact, an identical article at[20] is at least honest about it, stating that "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA)". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia."

Finally there is [21] - that's someone's blog and also fails WP:RS.

Finding good sources shouldn't be hard - just make sure that are from peer reviewed journals or from academic books.

Sources need to be cited properly. Books need the full detail, a Google link is icing on the cake but not sufficient in itself. Authors, title, publisher, when published, and vitally, page numbers. This book[22] is used for Cro-Magnon's height - can User:Kovkikz please give a page number and a quote? With all due respect, Kovkikz, finding good sources takes time and is hard work, and although you are trying hard, you've got less than 40 edits here. I'm an Master Editor II (or Auspicious Looshpah) but if edits alone counted I'd be a Grandmaster Editor First-Class (or Lord High Togneme Laureate) but that takes 14 years. Still, in 2 months I'll be a Master Editor III (or Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate) so I've got that to look forward to! Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ill keep all that in mind, thanks, but i still think some sections need expanding,namely Genetics i will discuss this with you further when i have the time to write up a preview--Kovkikz (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the issues raised regarding these sources. We shouldn't use the blog. The Gonzalez source is better, but we do need to be cautious about giving it weight -- and with over interpreting it. Note that it says, "However, the fact that we can trace some Basque lineages back to the Paleolithic does not support the generalized supposition that the present day Basque population is the best representative of Paleolithic Europeans." TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Chemeurope is not a RS and was used to back material not even in this unreliable source. The Stanford page is a private page by someone with no qualifications in genetics, so fails as an RS doubly. The only reliable source is The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity which doesn't mention Irish, Cro-Magnon, or R1b yet it was used to back statements that did - why? And its mention of the Basque is basically " The haplotype defined by M173, at highest frequency in Western Europe (particularly in Basque and British populations)," and "Bodmer (32) suggested that the Celtic populations of Britain trace their origins to an early settlement of the British Isles by Paleolithic Europeans, rather than by a later migration associated with the spread of the Celtic culture from central Europe in the first millennium B.C. (27). The results given here support this view, with the British sample grouping closely with the Basque—a presumed remnant of the pre-Neolithic European population (33); both populations show similarly high frequencies of the M173 haplotype." - great in an article on the Basques, but not on Cro-Magnon - if the authors thought the term Cro-Magnon was appropriate I'm sure they would have used it. Right now I've left the statements with fact tags, but they need sources that meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Basques

The article also makes assumptions about the Basques which are not universally accepted. Take a look at [23] - not just no mention of Cro-Magnon but also "Although it cannot be stated with absolute certainty that the origin of the Basques is recent and that its gene pool is modeled solely by interplay between the isolation resulting from the linguistic barrier to panmictic matings and the effect of genetic drift, our analyses do support this hypothesis as the most plausible, bearing in mind the manifest contradiction of the Alu data presented herein and the hypotheses linking the origin of Basques with the North of Africa or the Caucasus region." Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That's always an issue with mainstream science. They're too worried about offending certain peoples, confirming something that changes mainstream view, changing the way a timeline is set, etc. Euskaldunak are direct descendants of Cro-Magnon. I don't know about all Europeans (e.g., Celtics, Germanics, Slavics, Romanics, Hellenics, etc.) because the so-called Indo-European history and origin is rather blurry and uncertain. And it's quite ridiculous to claim that Basques originated or are linked to Caucasians or North Africans. That sounds like old thinking and poor quality anthropology from the late 1800's and early 1900's. Either way, I still believe that Basque and Irish should be mentioned in the lead or at least somewhere in the article. Original European ^(talk) 23:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever issues you think mainstream science has, this article needs to (as do all our articles) present the mainstream view prominently. Other views can be mentioned and are mentioned, but you need to read WP:WEIGHT. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright. But a small sentence in the lead doesn't represent only one point of view, as it is the only mention in the entire article. If we must go by the "mainstream" view, regardless of truth/proof (which I believe is a terrible aspect of Wikipedia), then I understand. I'm just asking that it at least be mentioned somewhere in this article. Original European ^(talk) 09:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be inclined not to include Basque material in the lead. And it's odd to include it in the section on Physical attributes. It should probably be confined to the genetics section. I didn't see Ireland mentioned in the scholarly sources I looked at. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, being in the genetics section is probably the best solution. As for Irish, I'm not the one who included that content. Original European ^(talk) 12:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry case concerning an editor here

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afro-Eurasian. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Genetics section dispute

The article proposes fallacious (or at least scientifically unattested) connection between Cro-Magnons and y-DNA haplogroup R1b in the "Genetics" section. It does so without citing any relevant and/or straightforward references. Problems start with the second line, dealing with y-DNA:

"Current populations with a high degree of Haplogroup R1b are known to possess traces of EEMH DNA."

There are no references for this claim. Does it mean that other haplogroups in Eurasia do not possess traces of EEMH DNA or they posses less of it? Or someone just decided to mention R1b for reasons unknown?

Here's an explanation why this particular haplogroup was mentioned. It's based on modern data, but grounded on XIX century theories:

"R1b runs highest among the indigenous Basque.[54][55] Several works on genetics, their blood types and cranial morphology indicate that the Basque people are direct descendants of the original Cro-Magnon population.[56]"

There is no conclusive scientific proof that Basques descend directly from Cro-Magnons. Such a proclamation is absurd in scientific terms. Even if they do, that does not mean that R1b is Cro-Magnon. Just as any other ethnicity, Basques are a mix of different y-DNA haplogroups. You cannot declare R1b the "original" Basque and Cro-Magnon marker just because it's the most frequent one in modern Basque population. Things don't work that way with haplogroups. One should know better if trying to write about human genealogy. Finally, there's a much bigger problem with the proposed connection of R1b and Cro-Magnons that renders the idea ridiculous. According to the simulation given on the same page (Currat & Excoffier, 2004), modern humans entered Europe around 35.000-45.000 YBP. At that time haplogroup R1b did not even exist. It appeared much, much later - less than 18.500 YBP and most probably in Asia, not in Europe. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29 In the end, until a valid research institution tests some Cro-Magnon specimens for R1b the idea will remain a very dubious speculation. So, please delete the misleading, factually incorrect and biased information from the page.

--Pelasgo (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

My last edit on the main artice has been the subject of dispute for some months now

Can an adimistrator verify this edit please

Current populations with a high degree of Haplogroup R1b are known to possess traces of Cro Magnon DNA. R1b runs highest among the indigenous Irish and reaches 99% along the western seaboard.--Kovkikz (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. The sources don't mention Cro-magnon. But seriously, we (administrators) don't 'verify' edits. This is what we call original research. You've taken sources that don't mention the subject and are using them as though they do. What you need to do now is ask at WP:RSN if you can use those sources for that statement. Or preferably find sources that do discuss Cro-Magnon, but that might be hard as it is pretty much an obsolete term. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with DougWeller. This is a violation of policy. Another place to take the dispute is WP:NORN. TimidGuy (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I should not have needed to make the EEMH fix as this is mentioned in the lead as a designation, please stop what you are doing, the section needs further expansion and rather than helping you are becoming a nuisance--Kovkikz (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Should this article suggest an identity between Cro-Magnon and EEMH or say that CM is a subset of EEMH?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: No consensus.

There were three editors supporting "subset" and one supporting "identity". This might suggest a win for "subset", but there is an underlying problem about sourcing which prevents that. I've looked through the article sourcing and previous discussions, and no source appears ever to have been presented to support either contention. The source currently used in the article to support identity between Cro-Magnon and EEMH says: "...authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans (AMH)". This does not support the contention of identity if AMH and EEMH are not the same thing. And, since it is clear that not all AMH are Europeans, they are probably not, I think. It also does not support the contention because the formulation does not indicate identity. Compare the statement: "Technically, I am Welsh, but I prefer to talk more generally in terms of 'British'."

One "subset" vote presented sources using the term Cro-Magnon in a way that suggests it may be a subset. But it needs to be understood that "Cro-Magnon" is also the name of the archaeological site where Cro-Magnon was first discovered (as mentioned in the article), and that the finds made there were numbered Cro-Magnon 1, Cro-Magnon 2 etc. So the references found to Cro-Magnon in these sources refer in one instance to a place and in one instance to a particular specimen. They are not useful for trying to work out a taxonomy. The very fact that it seems difficult to find references to Cro-Magnon in modern literature suggests to me that the contention that it may have no meaning distinct from EEMH may be correct.

A second "subset" vote was made on the basis that the identity contention is not reflected in sourcing. Even if this is true, it does not make a valid vote, because neither is the subset contention. A third vote appears to me to be offering guesswork - not invalid, but I can't give it much weight.

Based on looking at previous discussions, it seems to me that the lone voice in favour of "identity" is at least partly correct. "EEMH" seems to be just a modern, academic way of saying "Cro-Magnon". However, since no sourcing proves this (so far), I can only close as "no consensus".

Should this article suggest that EEMH (European early modern humans) is the accepted term for Cro-Magnon or that Cro-Magnon is a subset of EEMH.

Survey

Please indicate your preference and reason below, and add any replies or subsequent material to the threaded discussion.

Subset

• Subset Looking simply at the sources we use in the 'other section', the first, Revised direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Paleolithic Neandertals[24] only mentions Cro-Magnon where it says ". Beginning in the 1990s, several early modern humans have been directly dated to >28,000 B.P. (3–9). In addition, a suite of purportedly pre-28,000 B.P. modern human remains has been assigned to either later phases of the Upper Paleolithic [Cro-Magnon (France), La Rochette (France), and Konĕprusy (Czech Republic) (10–12)] or the Holocene [Engis (Belgium), Hahnöfersand (Germany), St. Prokop (Czech Republic), Velika Pećina (Croatia), and Vogelherd (Germany) (13–18)]." Early Upper Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and Implications for the Dispersal of Modern Humans[25] does not mention Cro-Magnon. The Trinkaus paper European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals[26] is used in several places. It mentions Cro-Magnon twice in the "The Morphological Mosaic of Gravettian Modern Humans" section:"Occipital buns are less common than among the EEMHs. However, prominent ones are present in 18.9% (n 37) of the individuals, including Brno 2, Cro-Magnon 3, Dolnı´ Ve˘stonice 11, Pavlov 1, and Prˇedmostı´ 1, 2, and 7", and "In addition, the Cro-Magnon postcrania, despite uncertainties in associating the mixed femora and tibiae, can only have had Neandertal-like or intermediat crurial indices." Another Trinkaus paper[27] not used in the article mentions it only in a list of early modern humans on p. 210. This is important because if it is correct that EEMH and Cro-Magnon are identical, we can use any references to EEMH as relevant to this article and the discussion above is moot. However, if they are not identical, then sources for this article must mention Cro-Magnon, not just early modern humans. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Subset It appears that there is no instance in the sources in which Cro-Magnon is used as a synonym for early European modern humans. TimidGuy (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Subset Perhaps in early times, examples from the Cro-Magnon culture represented the bulk of Early Modern Human finds, but this sample base has expanded since. Kortoso (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Identity

Threaded discussion

Question Presumably there's preliminary discussion about this in the Talk page above - which section? I'd like to read views from both sides. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There's been quite a bit. See Talk:Cro-Magnon#Scientific Name Talk:Cro-Magnon#lumped stuf Talk:Cro-Magnon#Contradiction Talk:Cro-Magnon#p1 Talk:Cro-Magnon# Talk:Cro-Magnon#Contradiction?

Note that if decided to ignore the sources that don't equate CM with early modern humans and went with the Oxford quote at p1 above, that identifies Cro-Magnon with Anatomically modern humans and makes this a content fork. The solution to that, which I would be very happy with, is to have this article concentrate only on a subset of skeletons. It's interesting to see that for instance Red Lady of Paviland doesn't mention Cro-Magnon. Nor does Peștera cu Oase although it does have an image labelled as a Cro-Magnon skull. I don't know how that skull is determined to be Cro-Magnon. According to the file it comes from an 1884 book called ""Die ersten Menschen und die prähistorischen Zeiten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ureinwohner Amerikas" "The first man and the prehistoric times with special reference to Native Americans" which is by Eduard Seler[28] Jean-François-Albert du Pouget and someone named Schlosser. Apologies for the diversion. I don't think we can have both - if this is a subset, ok, we trim it one way, if it's just another name for something for which we already have an article, not a redirect but a rewrite. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This issue has its origins in studies which try to maintain that Magnons are indistinguishable from modern humans, the terms EEMH and AMH are used more by critics of the original findings such as Trenton Holliday and others but original and other current studies show substantial differences from the findings of critics, either way the terms Magnon, Cro Magnon, EEMH , AMH and the likes will always be synonymous with each other, this is a cut and dry issue, you do not need to have separate articles for each designation other than disambiguation clarifications.--Kovkikz (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So this article should be a redirect? Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The original and other designations should all hold equal ground when using sources, no redirect is needed--Kovkikz (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend the term Agile instead of Robust and some of the chart data seems to be incorrect dealing in the timescale of migration patterns onto the Brittish Isles, these are things that should be addressed--Kovkikz (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Why "agile" instead of "robust"? AFAIK, "robust" has specific meanings in paleoanthropology (relative dimensionality of remains, specifically), but agile implies that we know how they moved. Do you mean "gracile" instead? Kortoso (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed move of article content to European early modern humans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently "European early modern humans" is a redirect to this article. But that term is actually the preferred term, as Cro-Magnon has been deprecated as a generic term for this group. Per discussion with User:Dougweller on my Talk page, we propose removing the redirect and moving most of the content of this article to "European early modern humans." Material that would remain here would relate to the usage of Cro-Magnon as a term and the particular discoveries of Louis Lartet in the Cro-Magnon cave. This change would not only better represent the literature, but would help to resolve some of the disagreements among editors, such as in the above threads. TimidGuy (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, at the top of this article we could point to European early modern humans as the main article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support As per my comments above. This should not be the main article for EEMH. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Kortoso (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I light of the above discussions having happened other places than here, I have taken the liberty of copying the relevant posts here:

We have European early modern humans as a redirect to Cro-Magnon. So yes, turn that into a general article about EEMH as that is, I think we all agree, the preferred term. Cro-Magnon can discuss the usage but also perhaps more detail on the specific discoveries by Louis Lartet. That would save a lot of confusion and argument I think. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. I'll propose on the Talk page. Will you have time to work on it? TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Too bad I didn't see this discussion until now. I oppose moving this article to EEMH. Cro-Magnon is by far the better known term of the two. This is an encyclopaedia, and I fully expect to find an article on Cro_magnons in any encyclopaedia, while only pleasantly surprised by finding one on EEMH. Besides, EEMH is actually a slightly different sample from Cro-Magnons. Cro-Magnons represents a culture, EEMH just a geographic subset. There are non-Cro-Magnon EEMH (the Grimaldi people), and there are Cro-Magnons finds all the way into Siberia, outside Europe. Both terms are restricted temporarily, the Cro-Magnon range is fairly well defined (as it is based on tool culture), the EEMH less so, as there's no set criteria for when "early" ends.

For the largest parts the two overlap of course. If they are to share article space, Cro-Magnon should be name (but EEMH mentioned in the lede, as now). The alternative is to make a separate article on EEMH, with some basic statements of what groups we refer to, and let Cro-Magnon be an article covering the Cro-Magnon culture. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit: I've made a quick-and-dirty European early modern humans, mainly text lifted from other, related articles. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a zoologist, not a palaeoanthropologist, but I've had this discussion up and down over other terms though, like Reptiles vs. Sauropsida, two terms which more or less covers the same ground. I ended up making a page for Sauropsida (like the quick and dirty one I made for EEMH) rather than renaming the reptile article. The reason is simply that we are in a situation where there's a movement in science from one term with one concept to another based on a different concept.

When we have two terms, the Wikipedia standards is to use the better known term (sorry for wiki-lawyering), and both reptiles and Cro-Magnons are by far the better known terms than the alternatives. A simple google search returns 860 000 results for Cro-Magnon, and 380 for the exact phrase European early modern human(s) and 300 for Early European modern humans. If it is a question over which term to use, there's really no question Cro-Magnon takes presidence over over EEMH. Since however, the two differ ever so slightly in composition, we have a perfect excuse for making two, perhaps more narrowly focused, articles. As long as both are honest about how the word is used and are cross-linked, I believe this to be the optimal solution. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still hoping you can show me a source, ideally from the past 10 years. We should probably be having this discussion on the Cro-Magnon talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To the degree Google Scolar is anything to go by, there are quite a few hits fro Cro-Magnon from the last 10 years: Cro-Magnon 2004-2014. A number of the 8 110 articles from this search refer to the original Cro-Magnon finds, though most uses the term in a general sense to refer to the people these finds group with, in the way suggested by Fagan's The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Thus, concluding that the term is not used in science would be wrong. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As a passing casual observer, perhaps a compromise could be to move the information from this page to the European early modern humans page, and set up a redirect on this page to there. That would mean that any search for Cro-Magnon would redirect them to the EEMH page. It is also unclear why this article is listed under WikiProjects:Palaeontology and WikiProjects:Evolutionary Biology when the topic is about us. Regards, William Harris • talk • 03:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Scope

There has been a number of debates on what should go in this article and what should not (see sections Grimaldi and Cro-Magnon, Lumped stuff, p1 and Definition and the merger discussion above.

Having erected the article European early modern humans, I have copied the assemblage section over there, and organized the finds into broader groups with the help of a friend of mine who is an expert on this stuff. His argument (which I think is valid), is that the Cro-Magnons as defined by The Oxford Companion to Archaeology is related to cultures, but that the skeletal finds associated with these cultures also show some distinct traits (the square orbitae for example). The earliest European finds show some non-modern traits and non of the finds are associated with tools. This make it hard to justify them as Cro-Magnons (though they almost certainly their ancestors). A number of finds are very similar both in culture and physical traits to the original Cro-Magnon finds, and these can easily be grouped as Cro-Magnons. Some are less obvious (many are very fragmentary), but some of the later finds are obviously not Cro-Magnons. Take a look over at European early modern humans#Assemblage to see how it looks.

I suggest we tighten up this article based on the Oxford Companion definition. The current assemblage section is very dominating and should be trimmed. The non-Cro-Magnon finds should be summarized, and some of the Cro-Magnons finds could be trimmed (or the texts moved to their respective articles or new stubs being erected for those that don't have articles). In stead, the culture section should be expanded with stuff from the relevant articles Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean and possibly Magdalenian.

Thoughts? Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My issue is whether most academic sources discussing thoses cultures call them Cro-Magnon. I realise that some prominent academics do use the term, but are they in the minority or is that typical? Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Most authors refer to these cultures as Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean and Magdalenian. The reason is that most authors are concerned with single finds or stratigraphy. Cro-Magnons are neither. From what I can see, those authors that do look at the people and/or the ethnic composition of palaeolithic Europe often use Cro-Magnon (caveat: I'm not an archaeologist, I may not have the full overview of the field).

As for how common the term is, I have answered that with some searches in google schoolar above. I believe that question is only relevant for a discussion of whether we should have an article on Cro-Magnons at all. Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Physical attributes

Under this section it states:

The very light skin tone found in modern Northern Europeans is a relatively recent phenomenon,[36] and may have only appeared in the European line as recently as 6 to 12 thousand years ago[37] indicating Cro-Magnons had light brown to tanned skin.[38] Sequencing of finds of the late post-ice-age hunter-gatherer populations in Europe indicate the Cro-Magnons likely had blue eyes and dark hair, and an "olive" complexion.[39][40]

The article linked under footnote [36] says no such thing. It states, for example:

Taken together (with the results of previous admixture mapping studies), these results point to the importance of several genes in shaping the pigmentation phenotype and a complex evolutionary history involving strong selection. Polymorphisms in 2 genes, ASIP and OCA2, may play a shared role in shaping light and dark pigmentation across the globe, whereas SLC24A5, MATP, and TYR have a predominant role in the evolution of light skin in Europeans but not in East Asians. These findings support a case for the recent convergent evolution of a lighter pigmentation phenotype in Europeans and East Asians.

That has to do with evolutionary convergence between two separate groups, not the number of years ago in which a certain trait arose.

Under footnotes [37], [39], and [40], the strong implication is that the evidence only suggests a conclusion:

Gibbons A (April 2007). "American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting. European skin turned pale only recently, gene suggests". Science 316 (5823): 364. doi:10.1126/science.316.5823.364a. PMID 17446367. link goes nowhere

Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans

Ancient European genomes reveal jumbled ancestry

Mysterious peoples from the north and Middle Easterners joined prehistoric locals.

The results have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Footnote [38] goes nowhere.

I will alter the article accordingly. Dynasteria (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't. Science only ever "suggests" stuff - there are multiple research papers that point to light skin being a recent phenomenon, especially in Europe (most recently the Reich lab's latest paper), and nothing but a preconceived "White Europe" mentality suggesting otherwise.

• Ref #36 is the source for saying that East Asian and European depigmentation evolved separately - this means lighter skin appears *after* they diverged, ie tens of thousands of years *after* leaving Africa, not immediately upon setting foot in Eurasia as was originally thought.
• The Gibbons link you say "goes nowhere" actually goes to the PubMed entry for it, and under "Link Out - Other resources" you'll find a link the (paywalled) full paper, however there's an (illegal?) copy freely available here you can read while you save your pennies.
• The results of the Lazaridis "Three ancestral populations" paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature in September 2014 (link here).
• I have fixed the broken link for ref #38.

Tobus (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I found this article by researcher Keith Cheng who did the work your linked article discusses:

"Studies of a skin color gene across global populations reveal shared origins"

January 2, 2014

HERSHEY, Pa. -- All instances of a gene mutation that contributes to light skin color in Europeans came from the same chromosome of one person who most likely lived at least 10,000 years ago, according to Penn State College of Medicine researchers.

While the genetics of skin color is largely unclear, past research using zebrafish by the College of Medicine’s Keith Cheng identified a key gene that contributes to lighter skin color in Europeans and differs from West Africans. In 2005, Cheng reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin color difference between Europeans and West Africans.

“The mutation in SLC24A5 changes just one building block in the protein, and contributes about a third of the visually striking differences in skin tone between peoples of African and European ancestry,” said Cheng, Distinguished Professor of Pathology. Lighter skin color may have provided an advantage due to for the better creation of vitamin D in the lesser sunlight characteristic of northern latitudes.

[emphasis added]

http://news.psu.edu/story/299166/2014/01/02/research/studies-skin-color-gene-across-global-populations-reveal-shared

He's also on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htdXhYcTM_o

Also, the Wikipedia SLC24A5 article says this:

"It has been estimated that the threonine allele became predominant among Europeans 11,000 to 19,000 years ago."

I appreciate your response and I will put some time into studying this more.Dynasteria (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, are serious about using this article as a source? And he cites "research" from 1967? How advanced was genetics in 1967?

The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone

Essays on the Color Line and the One-Drop Rule

by Frank W Sweet

December 15, 2002

Frank W. Sweet is the author of Legal History of the Color Line (ISBN 9780939479238), an analysis of the nearly 300 appealed cases that determined Americans’ “racial” identity over the centuries. It is the most thorough study of the legal history of this topic yet published. He was accepted to Ph.D. candidacy in history with a minor in molecular anthropology at the University of Florida in 2003 and has completed all but his dissertation defense. He earned an M.A. in History from American Military University in 2001. He is also the author of several state park historical booklets and published historical essays. He was a member of the editorial board of the magazine Interracial Voice, and is a regular lecturer and panelist at historical and genealogical conferences.

Are those credentials sufficient for Wikipedia when he is not a geneticist? Dynasteria (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Cro-magnon are attested from 25-35kya, so even estimates for SLC24A5 as early as 20kya are still too late. Moreover DNA from hunter-gatherers in Germany and Spain (the most likely descendants of Cro-Magnon, assuming any exist) dated ~7,000 years ago don't have the allele, while populations outside of Europe do - it may have originated more than 10,000 years ago but it didn't arrive in Europe until after that. Samples from Bronze Age Europe show it wasn't yet widespread just 5,000 years ago (see Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y).

"About a third" of the difference beteen Europeans and Africans puts us somewhere around modern South Asian skin tone (based on skin reflectance samples from Jablosnki 2000). This is just from the SLC24A5 allele, the SLC45A2 allele (similar name to SLC24A5, but it's different!) is also known to have an effect as is TYR. Given our current knowledge of the genetics we'd expect a darker skin tone than your average Indian (Indian Indian, not American Indian).

The WP SCL24A5 article is out of date - I know, I helped write that part of it 2 years ago and it hasn't been changed since. At that time there was was skepticism of the Anne Gibbons date, and a paper by Sandra Beleza (this one) gave wider estimates which we gave prominence to. It was also assumed that all the mutations originated in Europe which meant the origin date and the arrival in Europe were the same. Since then research on ancient European DNA such as the Lazaridis and Reich papers have shown this is not the case and it wasn't until the Neolithic that European samples show any of the depigmentation alleles.

I have no preference for keeping the Frank Sweet reference, it's only plus is that's it's a secondary source giving an overview of the current (as of 2002!) scientific consensus which WP:RS prefers. I suspect there's a much better and more recent secondary source that could be used instead.

Tobus (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless the relevant statement in the article over-emphasizes a latest date: "The very light skin tone found in modern Northern Europeans is a relatively recent phenomenon,[36] and may have only appeared in the European line as recently as 6 to 12 thousand years ago [...]" Is this borne out in the linked articles? I believe the following article interprets the facts as showing a time span of 11,000 to 19,000 years ago. Admittedly not long enough ago to cover Cro Magnon's reign, but still somewhat different from 6-12K years ago:

Molecular Phylogeography of a Human Autosomal Skin Color Locus Under Natural Selection

Victor A. Canfield*,1, Arthur Berg†‡, Steven Peckins§,**, Steven M. Wentzel§,**, Khai Chung Ang§,**, Stephen Oppenheimer†† and Keith C. Cheng

[Concluding section]

Can we date the A111T mutation?

[...] The preceding analysis is consistent with a wide range of possible dates for the origin of A111T, including the period before the initial colonization of Europe by anatomically modern humans >40 thousand years ago (kya) (Mellars 2006). An estimate for the date of origin of A111T based on microsatellites (Beleza et al. 2012) places the origin at 19 kya (95% confidence interval 6−38 kya), for a dominant model, or 11 kya (95% confidence interval 1−56 kya), for a more plausible additive model.

My question is, would it not be more consistent with the data to state the range of years rather than stressing the most recent possible date? Dynasteria (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That quote is based solely on which populations have which haplotypes, it's not an actual estimate of the MCRA. If you keep reading that paragraph they then used a molecular clock and "obtained an estimate of 7.8 kya for the most recent common ancestor of the C11 + D4 haplotype combination". Again, this was before we had solid evidence of 7,000yo Europeans with dark skin so they are skeptical of this "low" estimate and adjust for low sample size to give a final figure of 12.4kya (with a 95% confidence range of 7.6−19.2 kya). Remember that this is an estimation of when the mutation originated, *NOT* the date it entered Europe (from the paper: "we hold the view that an origin of C11 in the Middle East, broadly defined, is most likely"), which was some time later.

In response to your question, the page already states a range of dates (6-12kya) and is not just stressing the most recent possible date. This range is consistent with this paper, as well as the earlier Beleza and Gibbons references (11 and 6kya respectively). I don't think it needs to be changed upwards, especially since the recent work of Lazaridis and Reich strongly suggest an appearance in Europe at the lower bound of this range.

Tobus (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Noting that I removed Sweet, I agree he fails WP:RS, at least when he wrote that paper. Doug Weller (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Carbon dating of Cro-Magnon 1

An editor has put the age if the new find to 700 years, using a reference describing carbon dating of an associated bone. However, the article also claim the bone was not part of the actual skeleton, and throws doubt on the Medieval age. The current edit claim Cro-Magnon 1 is Medieval, but this is not what the paper itself says. The new finds are interesting anyway, so I ask the editor to rewrite rather than reverting directly. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The article say : The exception was the Cro-Magnon 1 sample, which belonged to the derived hg T2b1, an unexpected hg given its putative age of 30,000 years [16]. Since the radiocarbon date for this specimen was obtained from an associated shell [16], we dated the sample itself using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). Surprisingly, the sample had a much younger age of about 700 years, suggesting a medieval origin. Consequently, this bone fragment has now been removed from the Cro-Magnon collection at the Musée de l’Homme in Pari

They are saying that the new dating is medieval and that the bone was removed, and do not mention the bone not being part of the skeleton. So, maybe Im out of my area here. But I understood that the Cro 1 is medieval. Would you please explain the real meaning of this sentence ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You dont need to explain anymore, I found out for my self here 1. I think you can understand why I was confused. I reverted my edits.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick edit! The find is interesting anyway, I guess we eventually will see a more through investigation of Cro-Magnon 1 as a result. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The name of the topic

If the "European early modern humans (EEMH)" is the preferred term then why is the name of this topic "Cro-Magnon"? I think most people will not take it seriously that "European early modern humans (EEMH)" is the preferred term since "Cro-Magnon" is used for the name of this topic.

If "European early modern humans" is a proper name then should it not be capitalized as in "European Early Modern Humans"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tomato (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Genetics, and a Bushman origin/identity of the Cro-Magnon

Recently a Cro Magnon haplogroup was found to be I-M438 (male) and N (female).

mtdna N: "Haplogroup N is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup. An enormous clade spanning many continents, macro-haplogroup N, like its sibling haplogroup M, is a descendant of haplogroup L3."

Y-dna Ia2: "Haplogroup I2a may be the haplogroup pertaining to the first anatomically modern humans to inhabit Europe, Cro-Magnon. A recent 2015 study has found Y DNA haplogroup I2a in a 13,000 year old, purportedly Cro-Magnon fossil from Bichon Switzerland, belonging to the Azilian culture.[5] The subclades of I-P37.2 - I-M423 and I-M26 were found on remains dated to 10,000 and 8,000 ybp respectively.[6]"

Well haplogroup L is the archetypical African haplogroup. L3 generated M1 (N) at a very early date, about 50,000 year ago.

Genetics

A 2003 sequencing on the mitochondrial DNA of two Cro-Magnons (23,000-year-old Paglicci 52 and 24,720-year-old Paglicci 12) identified the mtDNA as Haplogroup N.[32]

A 2015 study sequenced the genome of a 13,000 year old Cro-Magnon from Switzerland. He belonged to Y DNA Haplogroup I2a and mtDNA haplogroup U5b1h.[60]

Now the first light skin genes did not enter Europe until 7,000 years ago.

BBC: "Dr Carles Lalueza-Fox, from the Institute of Evolutionary Biology (CSIC - UPF) in Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved with the research, told BBC News: "If you look at all the reconstructions of Mesolithic people on the internet, they are always depicted as fair skinned. And the farmers are sometimes depicted as dark-skinned newcomers to Europe. This shows the opposite."

Steatopygia

Paleolithic figurines and cave paintings from Europe depicting women, some as old as 30,000 years, clearly display stetopygia.

Those Cro-Magnon were more similar racially to the current Bushmen and Pygmies than any current European type."

In other words, the European CroMagnon looked like the modern day Bushmen. Also, it is remarkable that they have relatively modern haplogroups - for an allegedly prehistoric human. MrSativa (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)