Gautam Majumdar (
Tue, 27 Aug 1996 19:32:50 +0100

In article <4vtsf7$>, Howard Wiseman
<> writes
>I think this is being too dismissive. I don't know what the recent
>research referred to is, but the fossil remains in Australia do show an
>extreme variation in skull shape and thickness, from very modern-looking
>to very archaic. Furthermore, the archaic specimens have marked
>similarities in form with the skulls of Homo erectus from Indonesia -
>e.g. Solo, Sangiran. So I think there is evidence for a mixture of local
>populations (with a regional pedigree of hundreds of thousands of years)
>with more modern newcomers (from Afirca?). I don't think that anybody can
>be sure on the basis solely of cranial and skeletal anatomy that two
>ancient "species" could not interbreed. So I think there is no reason to
>reject the suggestion out of hand.

If the modern newcomers (H.s.s) had met an existing population
(H.s.a, derived from H.erectus locally) in Australia, that would mean
H.erectus (or H.s.a) was capable of sea-voyage or at least of
crossing wide and deep water channels. Is there any evidence of
their technological competence to do so ? Is there any evidence of
the presence of H.erectus in Australia ?

Gautam Majumdar