Was Nariokotome boy a sasquatch?

[vilnoori]

There is one existing skeleton of a Homo erectus subspecies, Homo ergaster, called Nariokotome boy. It was found in East Africa by Richard Leakey's team. The skeleton is considered to be of a 12 year old boy--aged using standards applied to current humans.

Here is a reconstruction of what he might have looked like. Do you think he is the same as a sasquatch? Remember that the flesh details are somewhat arbitrary, he might have had a more humanlike nose, been more hairy, and had different wrinkles on his face, than what is pictured. Nevertheless, I see a great similarity to pictures people have drawn of the face of a young sasquatch!

Keep in mind that as these creatures mature, their features will coursen and their musculature, particularly around the head, neck and shoulders, will thicken and grow much larger. Consider the difference between the human musculature of a 12 year old boy and a grown man, for example.

Nariokotome boy reconstruction:

brianaala.tripod.com/Narboy.html


Sasquatch pictures, particularly the face,

www.patbarker-art.com/BFIllustrationproject.html

[sebastian]

Hard to say. The most popular suggestion is Gigantopithecus (two species), which only based on size and size alone. Other than having thousands of teeth and four mandibles, we have no other conculsive fossil evidence of Gigantopithecus.
To me, the mid-tarsal break that foud in some footprints is far more important than arbitrary morphological reconstruction. There is a specimen OH-8 from Olduvai Gorge (a nearly complete foot of Australopithecines) showing evidence of MTB. Since genes of locomotor mutate far less than other parts of the body, I will suggest that the sasquatch's bipedalism spilted off much earlier. I am now thinking that they are more likely to be the robust form(s) of Australopithecus.
cheers,
seb

[vilnoori]

Well I did consider them, but there is no evidence that they ever got out of Africa. They seem to not have been as mobile as H. erectus. A. toumei does seem very Sasquatch-like in looks but on the whole the Australopithecine group were much smaller and less intelligent than you might think, if you look at their brain capacity and tool use, combined with the size of their bones.

Consider the possibility that the midtarsal break is a modification related to gigantism, since as bipedal creatures get bigger they get more flat footed as well (think of an elephant's foot compared to a tapir's) in order to support the extra weight. Even larger H. sapiens get more flat footed than smaller ones.

Here is another great site about reconstructions on old bones:

www.daynes.com/fr/accueil/accueil.php