Re: Archaic H. sapiens???

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Dale Woloshin: "State of the world c. 12,000 years ago"
• Previous message: Dane: "Re: Human Language."
• Maybe in reply to: Al Curtis: "Archaic H. sapiens???"
• Next in thread: J E Hawcroft: "Re: Archaic H. sapiens???"

In article <32c955ab.15656973@news.alterdial.uu.net>, alc@azotus.com (Al
Curtis) says:
>
>I asked this question in a recent post but got no responses. Just what
>distinguishes archaic H. sapiens from H. erectus (besides brain size)
>and were they actually slightly more evolved H. erecti? Who decided
>that they were in fact sapiens? The term "archaic" H. sapiens seems
>rather vague to me. Thanks in advance

Archaic Homo sapiens differed from Homo erectus besides by having greater
brains, also by his/her face for example. It was not so flat as the
modern Homo sapiens has. But maybe the difference that is most important
is the more primitive technique he used in hunting and probably also in
his everyday life.

Sapiens is given as name to this species because we at the moment at
least think he was nearer to sapiens than to erectus. Some have dropped
the archaic and modern away from Homo sapiens and call the former simply
Homo sapiens and the latter Homo sapiens sapiens. Selfishness?

The term archaic is vague, because Homo in Africa developed from erectus
to "archaic" to "modern" via many phases and it is difficult to draw any
clear line between.

• Next message: Dale Woloshin: "State of the world c. 12,000 years ago"
• Previous message: Dane: "Re: Human Language."
• Maybe in reply to: Al Curtis: "Archaic H. sapiens???"
• Next in thread: J E Hawcroft: "Re: Archaic H. sapiens???"