Re: 30,000 year old Homo erectus

Phillip Bigelow (
Sun, 15 Dec 1996 19:13:34 -0800

Ralph L Holloway wrote:

> I would be really
> skeptical tabout the associations being claimed between bovids and the
> older Solo crania and getting accurate dates for the latter. I suspect
> some grandstanding here, and I don't see why previous dating, i.e., about
> 100,00-130,000 needs to be abandoned at this point.

It occurs to me that the emphasis is placed on the wrong data:
Rather than trying to figure out whether the hominids in question
are of H. erectus, wouldn't it be more prudent at this early stage
to establish an unambiguous chronologic age for the horizon?
Usually in cases such as the hominid finds in Africa, more
*critical* early discussion centers around the geology, taphonomy,
and chron-age of the horizon. The "sexy" discussions (which
are widely reported in the media) usually center only
on the bones, themselves.

If they only have faunal associations to go on, I would be somewhat
skeptical that they really have a 30,000 year age pegged-down.
I would be more impressed with radiometric dates or
thermo-luminescence dates. What technique produced the older
100,000 - 130,000 date for this horizon?