Talk:Chancelade man

Current interpretation

There has been a lot of hand-waving implying that the interpretation of the Chancelade fossil as ancestral to "Eskimos" (North Eurasians?) is obsolete (for some reason going off on a tangent about the concept of race, which is completely misplaced here). But no recent source has been cited establishing that the morphological difference is considered spurious in modern literature. Is the morphological difference now considered just individual variation, or is the Chancelade skull still in the running as a separate genetic lineage present in the Magdalenian? --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The only fair thing to say is that we don't really know what Chancalade man was relative to the Cro-Magnons. Just a stocky guy? Different tribe? An evolved adaption to the cold? Your guess is as good as mine. The last section is an attempt at describing the shifting focus and how it has influenced the interpretation of this find. It probaly can be improved, but I think it is relevant to the article, since Chancalade man often pup up in various discussion of racial identity. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)