Re: Homo erectus

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: BARD: "Re: I Actually Saw a Live Pith..."
• Previous message: JAWetting: "Re: WWW-based Anthro Quiz"

>>I have sometimes read that the Ngangdong fossils are relatively recent,
>>100-200,000 years old, and they are usually assigned to Homo erectus
>>(which doesn't square well with the usual claim that erectus disappeared
>>300-500,000 years ago; I would like to resolve this contradiction).

Can someone comment on the "recent" English find (Boxley?) dating back
about 500,000 years? Are these H. erectus? Archaic moderns? How do
they fit in?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

_/_/_/ PROFESSIONAL LITERARY SERVICES _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/ From proofreading & basic editing to full composition. Why let
_/_/ little mistakes tarnish your business's image? For details, e-mail:
_/_/_/_/ treasure.mountain@mail.sstar.com (Subject: Literary Services) _/_/_/

• Next message: BARD: "Re: I Actually Saw a Live Pith..."
• Previous message: JAWetting: "Re: WWW-based Anthro Quiz"