Some cryptozoologists have cited this page -Some Fossils- for interesting clues to possible homo ancestors in North America. A drawing of one skull found on the site is labeled as "A Kow Swamp skull" (seen at the top of the page). The site relays information an article in the journal Science (yes, THAT magazine) back in 1906 about skull discoveries in Nebraska ["Discovery of an early type of man in Nebraska" Barbour, E.H., and Ward, H.B.; Science, 24:628, 1906]. After emphasizing sever key passages, the page author give this commentary: "Comments : the two obviously different populations were burried in the same structure, most probably by the same people (presumably the higher, "modern" one) at, roughly, the same period. The "lower people" could be slaves or any kind of associates of the "higher people"." The original source the page cites by Barbour, E.H., and Ward, H.B. I found though my online scholarly access of UWT. Sadly, that bars me from making the content accessible to the public but my point was merely to verify the cited source, which I did and the text is "word for word" with the magazine article. Another relating article I did find through public means is NEBRASKA "LOESS MAN" by B. Shimek (Geological Society of America). It give a more updated and detail account of the skull finds than the Science article and photos of the skull(s) in question to boot!
Now, originally, at this point I got confused with the "Nebraska Man" mentioned above and after LSurf (MABRC Organizational Field Researcher, Project Marker Team Member) pointed out to me the (now) obvious error is my original conclusion, I furthered my investigation. (Praise be to Google Book!) This is when I made the distinction between the 1917 "Nebraska Man" (pig's teeth hoax) and the 1906 "Nebraska Loess Man" skulls. Another article I could only access via my UWT account was ON THE TRACK of PRIMITIVE MAN AND HIS ANCESTOR; Prehistoric Skulls Found in Nebraska Prove Antiquity of Race in America Berlin Academy of Science Sends Expedition to Java to Search for Missing Link [New York Times December 23, 1906, Sunday]. More article citing the 1906 article can be found here: Google Book Search. The following are my finding relating to the 1906 skulls:
"I have concluded that the Nebraska "Loess Man" was indeed a real find and the only thing truly hampering an age range was the lack of stratification feature of the loess mounts (loess by its very definition and nature is un-stratified). To find more information, just type into a Google search "loess man" (include the quotations while searching for the best results). However, in addition to the age of the burial being questioned, which if further hampered by the possibility of a reburial many many decades or more later, there was a growing notion that the bones were very much human:
The bones of the "loess" man discovered two years ago in the mounds of Nebraska offer "no insurmountable obstacle" to the assumption that all are comparatively recent. Most of these American skeletons resemble closely the bones of the modern Indian. The higher primates (gorillas and chimpanzees) which are considered to have differentiated from the ancestors of man are, or at least have not been found among us, but have existed only in Asia Africa and Europe. Here should be a source of pride to the native American, that his primitive ancestry was indigenously human and not at all Simian.
"The Earliest Man", Medical Times. January-December 1909
This is further supported by another article in 1915:
In cooperation with the University of Nebraska, Poynter studied the remains of over one hundred skulls taken from graves on the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River near Omaha. Poynter’s interests lie in studying the entire group of a "lower ordered" ancient type of man. Specifically, Poynter calls this group the Nebraska Loess Man...
...Poynter suggests, there is no need to consider these as separate races or to assign them to any great civilization of the past. He does suggest, however, that the entire cranium collects are from different tribes. Using ‘craniometric’ standards Poynter draws the conclusion that these groups have a close relationship with other peoples of America.
Poynter, C. W. M. A Study of Nebraska Crania. American Anthropologist 1915 Vol. 17:509-524. @ publicanthropology.org
ROBERT WASYLYK York University (Naomi Adelson)
You can read the full texts (via the links) to get a fuller picture of how these conclusions were made. From what I have read, it seems the conclusions of the "loess man" was modern human. Taking a look at the photos of the skill(s) in the "Preliminary Report on the Primitive Man of Nebraska" report, I can see how both conclusions could have been reached. I find these two (quoted) articles above as persuasive. Thus, I would reasonably conclude that the Nebraska "Loess Man" finds are indeed that of modern humans."
The bones of the "loess" man discovered two years ago in the mounds of Nebraska offer "no insurmountable obstacle" to the assumption that all are comparatively recent. Most of these American skeletons resemble closely the bones of the modern Indian. The higher primates (gorillas and chimpanzees) which are considered to have differentiated from the ancestors of man are, or at least have not been found among us, but have existed only in Asia Africa and Europe. Here should be a source of pride to the native American, that his primitive ancestry was indigenously human and not at all Simian.
"The Earliest Man", Medical Times. January-December 1909
This is further supported by another article in 1915:
In cooperation with the University of Nebraska, Poynter studied the remains of over one hundred skulls taken from graves on the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River near Omaha. Poynter’s interests lie in studying the entire group of a "lower ordered" ancient type of man. Specifically, Poynter calls this group the Nebraska Loess Man...
...Poynter suggests, there is no need to consider these as separate races or to assign them to any great civilization of the past. He does suggest, however, that the entire cranium collects are from different tribes. Using ‘craniometric’ standards Poynter draws the conclusion that these groups have a close relationship with other peoples of America.
Poynter, C. W. M. A Study of Nebraska Crania. American Anthropologist 1915 Vol. 17:509-524. @ publicanthropology.org
ROBERT WASYLYK York University (Naomi Adelson)
You can read the full texts (via the links) to get a fuller picture of how these conclusions were made. From what I have read, it seems the conclusions of the "loess man" was modern human. Taking a look at the photos of the skill(s) in the "Preliminary Report on the Primitive Man of Nebraska" report, I can see how both conclusions could have been reached. I find these two (quoted) articles above as persuasive. Thus, I would reasonably conclude that the Nebraska "Loess Man" finds are indeed that of modern humans."
LSurf still thought there was room for doubt, citing a drawn overlay of the skull with a human skull photo. In response, I posted this:
"True; that's why I said "Thus, I would reasonably conclude that the Nebraska "Loess Man" finds are indeed that of modern humans." Even the 1909 article uses the phrase "no insurmountable obstacle". This said, I take more stock in the photos provided of the skulls in the follow-up article than the drawings at the website, which I have not found a source for. It would have been much easier to argue the case if the photos had the complete skull face rather than just the cranial dome. Still, the photos do not show anything too abnormal. However, the 1915 article seems to account for this abnormal skull dimensions when taken into context with other North American skulls,
"In cooperation with the University of Nebraska, Poynter studied the remains of over one hundred skulls taken from graves on the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River near Omaha. Poynter’s interests lie in studying the entire group of a "lower ordered" ancient type of man. Specifically, Poynter calls this group the Nebraska Loess Man. Careful analysis of the skulls allows Poynter to draw conclusions about these ancient human beings. However, blatant disregard for the cultural and social significance of the descendants of these borrowed bones is not an issue. [...] The first group is the Wallace Mound Group; Poynter notes the artificial deformation in the form of occipital flattening. This deformation is similar in most of the skulls in the study. Of the twenty-six skulls studied, all of them had accentuated "brachycephaly" relating to the length of the head. [...] Forty-two members of the [second] group were measured and compared. Poynter notes that the ‘sutures’ are complex, but not as intricate as in whites. Further analysis of this group shows they have an inter-nasal articulation that is arched as in the Roman-type nose, summarizing that this group of crania is distinctly Indian in character. [...] The third group is the Fort Lisa group. The most characteristic feature of the group is their long narrow shape, indicating that this group might have had premature synotosis (the formation of the skull bones). Poynter also notes that this group resembles the Australian aborigines. [...] This [fourth] group was badly preserved and was difficult to remove. Poynter notes that this group of skulls exhibited crania that was characterized by an inferior frontal development and, therefore, "may be considered as belonging to a low order racially". All the groups studied showed similar features. Therefore, Poynter suggests, there is no need to consider these as separate races or to assign them to any great civilization of the past. He does suggest, however, that the entire cranium collects are from different tribes. Using ‘craniometric’ standards Poynter draws the conclusion that these groups have a close relationship with other peoples of America."
Frankly, while I still admit room for "doubt", it seems more 'grasping for straws' trying to keep this example open to the Bigfoot angle."
"In cooperation with the University of Nebraska, Poynter studied the remains of over one hundred skulls taken from graves on the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River near Omaha. Poynter’s interests lie in studying the entire group of a "lower ordered" ancient type of man. Specifically, Poynter calls this group the Nebraska Loess Man. Careful analysis of the skulls allows Poynter to draw conclusions about these ancient human beings. However, blatant disregard for the cultural and social significance of the descendants of these borrowed bones is not an issue. [...] The first group is the Wallace Mound Group; Poynter notes the artificial deformation in the form of occipital flattening. This deformation is similar in most of the skulls in the study. Of the twenty-six skulls studied, all of them had accentuated "brachycephaly" relating to the length of the head. [...] Forty-two members of the [second] group were measured and compared. Poynter notes that the ‘sutures’ are complex, but not as intricate as in whites. Further analysis of this group shows they have an inter-nasal articulation that is arched as in the Roman-type nose, summarizing that this group of crania is distinctly Indian in character. [...] The third group is the Fort Lisa group. The most characteristic feature of the group is their long narrow shape, indicating that this group might have had premature synotosis (the formation of the skull bones). Poynter also notes that this group resembles the Australian aborigines. [...] This [fourth] group was badly preserved and was difficult to remove. Poynter notes that this group of skulls exhibited crania that was characterized by an inferior frontal development and, therefore, "may be considered as belonging to a low order racially". All the groups studied showed similar features. Therefore, Poynter suggests, there is no need to consider these as separate races or to assign them to any great civilization of the past. He does suggest, however, that the entire cranium collects are from different tribes. Using ‘craniometric’ standards Poynter draws the conclusion that these groups have a close relationship with other peoples of America."
Frankly, while I still admit room for "doubt", it seems more 'grasping for straws' trying to keep this example open to the Bigfoot angle."
LSurf did not respond.
There was another post that confused the two Nebraska finds and I quickly pounced on with the same (more concise) argument: nebraskaman skull depiction [MABRC forums down due to hacking issues. Will post links once forums are properly restored.]. Again, the discussion stopped there once I was able to link to the list forum thread. So that is one of my contribution to skepticism, science, the MABRC, and cryptozoology. Any feedback would be appreciated.
