Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations

Dan Barnes (dbarnes@liv.ac.uk)
Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:54:26 GMT

In article <58s45k$con@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu says...
>
>geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) wrote:
>
>>The polynesian settlements are *very*
>>recent, and open-ocean technology is viewed with scepticism anywhere
>>beyond 40,000 b.p. or so. Java, on the other hand, had residant
>>hominids a million years ago
>
>True, but the fossile record dries up after that and I'm not even sure
>that there were non-HS hominids in this subequatorial region when the
>75K - 50KY migrants came across. There is the belief that somewhere
>along the way there was a 60 mile stretch of water that had to be
>crossed, and the best evidence suggests that it was first crossed 50
>to 45 KYA. The latest dating for Peking man puts him at 400 KY old and
>there is little evidence from that period to the present suggesting HE
>presence (And I agree it seems odd that there shouldn't be). So unlike
>what has been discovered in europe, which can be summerized as
>evidence for interspecies cultural exchange (with a lack of any
>genetic exchange) in southeast asia there is simply no evidence for
>temporal territorial overlap. In addition there is no reason, based on
>genetic studies, to suggest that these ancient southeast asians are
>not out of africa.
>
Of course the new dates for H.e. (27 to 53 ka) in Java throws a different light on
this. There may have been a degree of temporal overlap. I have also heard
suggestions, although I have no ref for them, that H.e. had colonised at least one
island (c. 700 ka) that would have needed boats - even at low sea levels.
However, you are right in concluding a lack of evidence for genetic continuity.