Posted on 05/19/2004 1:44:47 PM PDT by blam
Interesting.
I think she looks like young Robert Blake (who incidentally was "Little Beaver" in the Red Ryder serial westerns).
Anyone else think that this female GI looks a lot like Peterson [the guy in California that's accused of murdering his wife, Laci and her nearly full-term fetus]?
What would they have been mining 350,000 years ago?
Rare, undesigned, pinkish stone rocks?
Blam old buddy, I hate to disillusion people... I mean, a neanderthal is one thing, but that thing is basically an ape.
Thanks! :-)
I really doubt that these bones relate to heidelbergensis. If they could be established as belonging to heidelbergensis, a species not yet proven to exist but merely theorized primarily from one bone find, that would be the larger story not what the individuals died from.
Sorry, no mention of alluvial deposits within this article.
I really doubt that these bones relate to heidelbergensis. If they could be established as belonging to heidelbergensis, a species not yet proven to exist but merely theorized primarily from one bone find, that would be the larger story not what the individuals died from.
Actually, you're wrong:
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo heidelbergensis is the species name now given to a range of specimens from about 800,000 years ago to the appearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens (the species to which we belong). The species name was originally proposed for the fossil mandible discovered at Mauer, a town near Heidelberg, Germany. It is a nearly complete early human mandible that is very robustly built, but lacks a chin. Additional finds of early humans with morphological attributes of both modern humans and Homo erectus have shown that the transition from early and middle Pleistocene forms and the morphology of modern humankind was not a neat transition that could be easily explained.
For many years, scientists placed any problematic specimens displaying mixtures of "erectus-like" and "modern" traits into a confusing category: "Archaic" Homo sapiens (basically meaning any Homo sapiens that didn't look quite modern). Recently, it has been proposed to separate these individuals into a distinct species. For this purpose, the Mauer mandible, and the species name Homo heidelbergensis has seniority.
Umm... no.
For many years, scientists placed any problematic specimens displaying mixtures of "erectus-like" and "modern" traits into a confusing category: "Archaic" Homo sapiens (basically meaning any Homo sapiens that didn't look quite modern). Recently, it has been proposed to separate these individuals into a distinct species. For this purpose, the Mauer mandible, and the species name Homo heidelbergensis has seniority
According to your citation Homo heidelbergensis is basically a catchall name for those finds which don't fit into the earlier or later "models".
I am certainly open to being corrected (I don't claim to be an anthropologist) but that citation doesn't seem to do it.
This might help:
Diagnostic Features
Due to the fact that there have been so many different specimens attributed to the erectus offshoots, it is difficult to create a list of features that differentiate heidelbergensis from erectus or H. neanderthalensis. In general, heidelbergensis specimens show a continuation of evolutionary trends that occurred in the Lower Pleistocene into the Middle Pleistocene. Along with changes in robustcity of cranial and dental features, there is a marked increase in brain size from erectus to heidelbergensis. Some of the features of Middle Pleistocene Homo that shows these trends include:
An increase in brain size (early Homo approximately 900 cc, heidelbergensis specimens approximately 1200cc).
A shift from the widest part of the brain case from the cranial base to the parietal regions.
The rear of the cranial vault becomes more vertical.
A gradual reduction in cranial robusticity.
A decline in postcranial robusticity also.
A tendency for a shift from shorter more robust stature to taller more leaner bodies.
The increase in brain size may have also come with an increase in brain complexity, although this is difficult to determine from endocasts, and may have to remain supposition only. However, the increase in absolute size, and the change to larger frontal and parietal lobes indicate that there may have been a reorganization of the functional anatomy of the hominid brain. The increase in size itself indicates changes in behavior that lead to the ability to more easily acquire nutritional resources. This is due to the high nutrition requirements of brain tissue, especially during development. There is increasingly more convincing evidence in the use and control of fire, and in the hunting of animals for food. This time period is important for many reasons, and may be the time period when more modern behavior began to develop.
Hmmmm ... good question ...
Gold?
Coal?
Thanks for that.
Any time. I actually enjoy doing the research. I've been slammed a time or two when I haven't. Once bitten, twice shy...
Thanks for the info on Alley Oop!
One thing though - here's something about the author of your cites use of 'robusticity' that irks me - makes me flinch, actually.
'Robustness' would be better...much better.
Nope, all fault of proto-Serbs...did you not see refrences? Bet they all Muslim "victems" too. Time to build some mosques there for rememberance...oooh and revenge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.