Re: Modern Neanderthals?

D K Murray (
Thu, 24 Oct 1996 18:18:30 +0100

In message <> (Dan Barnes) writes:

> In article <>,
> says...

> >Regarding robust characteristics, from the scant authoritative
> >material I have seen or heard on the recent "Boxgrove Man" finds in
> >the south of England, there seems little doubt that they were H.s.s.
> >from circa 100,000 yrs bp. However, they were tall (6'+) and very,
> >very robust indeed.
> >
> I'm not too sure what you are refering to here. Boxgrove Man is c.
500 ka old
> and either H.e or (if you believe Rightmire, 1996) possibly early
H.h. (H.e. or its
> European equivalent gets my bet). An article on the site is at:

> Roberts, M., Stringer, C.B. & Parfitt, S. (1994) A hominid tibia from Middle
> Pleistocene sediments at Boxgrove, UK. Nature. 369. 311-3.

> Dan

Maybe I'm talking about different finds: I could have got the
Boxgrove bit wrong, though I still think they were referred to as
from there. The ones I'm on about were reported recently (ie this
year) in the media, including a TV programme which I missed some of,
but also in a number of newspaper articles. I have not seen anything
more learned than this. I'm pretty sure whatever finds I've picked up
sketchy details on were much more recent than 1994 at the latest (see
date of Nature article above), though of course there are risks in
relying on media reports, so I won't pretend to be authoritative.They
wern't being presented as as old as 0.5 million years, and they were
being claimed as (relatively) modern humans. Of course, maybe they
are the same ones you refer to, recently discovered by the media and
being talked bollocks about therein. I would be delighted to receive
clarification from anyone who might know.

Was "your" Boxgrove man 6'+ and extremely robust? And H.h. is surely
a typographical? Early H.s.? This would allow for the possibility
that we are talking about the same finds, but have different sources
of information.(In this case, I'm sure mine are worse).