Re: Archaic H. sapiens???

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: H. Brent Howatt: "Re: you bickerers about pyramids, your Bible theories disgusts God"
• Previous message: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: Archaic H. sapiens???"
• Maybe in reply to: Al Curtis: "Archaic H. sapiens???"
• Next in thread: Ralph L Holloway: "Re: Archaic H. sapiens???"

debra mckay wrote:

> Maybe someone can confirm or deny this, but I heard from a visiting
> prof (Yaroch--I forget her first name) that Lieberman's reconstruction
> was also based upon the La Chapelle skull, which apparently was not itself
> reconstructed correctly, especially in the area of the basicranium. I
> think the problem is that the basicranium is not as flat as the original
> reconstruction suggested.

I have only one title by Lieberman handy at the moment: _The Biology and
Evolution of Language_ (1984). On page 304 is a chart displaying the
palates and basicrania of several specimens. Those pertaining to
Neanderthal are Gibraltar-1 and La Chapelle-aux-Saints. The Gibralter-1
specimen shows even less flexure than La Chapelle.

Regards,

Michael McBroom
CSUF Linguistics

• Next message: H. Brent Howatt: "Re: you bickerers about pyramids, your Bible theories disgusts God"
• Previous message: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: Archaic H. sapiens???"
• Maybe in reply to: Al Curtis: "Archaic H. sapiens???"
• Next in thread: Ralph L Holloway: "Re: Archaic H. sapiens???"