Re: Modern Neanderthals?

Dan Barnes (
Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:25:09 GMT

In article <>,
>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.
>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).
It sounds like the same site although the age is different. Yes he was 6'+ and
extremely robust. Where the finds in your report a tibia and a piece of jaw (I
think) because if so then it is the same site. The date would mean it could be a
very early (but not the earliest) Homo heidelbergensis (see Rightmire, 1996 for
the earlier African ones) or Homo erectus. The earliest British site for AMHs is
Paviland (I think) dating to around 25-30 ka (again I haven't got all the details to
hand so I'm not sure how exact I am).