|
|
Re: 30,000 year old Homo erectus
Barry Mennen (barrym2@ix.netcom.com(Barry)
16 Dec 1996 03:20:54 GMT
In <Pine.SUN.3.95L.961215171505.15011B-100000@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>
Ralph L Holloway <rlh2@columbia.edu> writes:
>
>On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Susan S. Chin wrote:
>
>> Wooops, sorry. I pressed the "post" button too soon, so my previous
>> message should not have posted in the form it appears. Wanted to
comment
>> on what Tom said above. My understanding of these new recent dates
>> for some 12 Java Homo erectus specimens (found at TWO sites, not 12
as I
>> had previously stated) is that they support the Out of Africa
Hypothesis
>> more so than the Multi-Regionalists, at least in this part of
Southeast
>> Asia. And that this linear model of Homo erectus ---> Homo sapiens
will
>> need re-assessment. Obviously no one knew or ever suspected Homo
erectus
>> was or could still have been around as recent as 30,000yrs ago. Of
course,
>> those advocating the Multi-Regionalist Hypothesis such as Wolpoff
are
>> quoted as saying these new finds are really Homo sapiens, not
erectus.
>> Okay.... defining your fossil taxa to fit your theories. Gee, what a
novel
>> concept.
>
> Having worked on these specimens when they were in Frankfurt with Von
>Koenigswald, I find it amazing that they can be so readily classified
as
>Homo erectus. As I recall, both Santa Luca and myself were far from
>certain what the taxonomic affinities of the Solo specimens were. My
study
>of their endocasts left me with the impression of continuities with
>earlier Homo erectus populations, but I couldn't simply say that they
were
>anything more than primitive Homo sapiens retaining certain Homo
erectus
>cranial characteristics. I also have visited some of the Solo sites
when I
>had the pleasure of working with Teuku Jabob, and 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's very
difficult to
>remember the exact sites of each of the Solo fragments.
>R Holloway
>
>
Thus, if what Prof Holloway says is true (about the designation H.
erectus) than the finding supports the multiregional hypothesis and
Wolpoff's comment.
Barry M.
|