Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chinese Roots: Skull May Complicate Human-Origins Debate
Science News ^ | 12-21/28-2002 | Bruce Bower

Posted on 01/02/2003 11:03:24 AM PST by blam

Chinese Roots: Skull may complicate human-origins debate

Bruce Bower

In 1958, farm workers digging in a cave in southern China's Liujiang County discovered several human bones including a skull. Relying on its resemblance to securely dated human fossils in Japan, scientists assigned this Homo sapiens skull an age of 20,000 to 30,000 years.

ASIAN CONNECTION.

If southern China's Liujiang skull is really more than 100,000 years old, this modern Homo sapiens fossil will shake up theories of human evolution. W. Wang

However, the Liujiang finds may be much older than that, according to a report in the December Journal of Human Evolution.

The fossils probably came from sediment dating to 111,000 to 139,000 years ago, says a team led by geologist Guanjun Shen of Nanjing (China) Normal University. He and his coworkers add that it's still possible that the Liujiang discoveries came either from a cave deposit dating from around 68,000 years ago or from one dating to more than 153,000 years ago.

If any of these estimates pans out, "the Liujiang [specimen] is revealed as one of the earliest modern humans in East Asia," the team concludes. The presence of modern humans in this part of the world 100,000 years ago or more would roughly coincide with their earliest fossil dates in Africa and the Middle East.

Evidence of such ancient roots for H. sapiens in China creates problems for the influential out-of-Africa theory of human evolution, Shen's group says. That theory holds that modern humanity originated in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago and then spread elsewhere, replacing other Homo species. If the Liujiang dates were confirmed, out-of-Africa adherents would need to find older African H. sapiens fossils than they now have or show that modern humans migrated extremely quickly from Africa to eastern Asia.

The new dates also suggest that other, more-primitive-looking Chinese Homo fossils that date to 150,000 to 100,000 years ago represent a lineage that coexisted with modern humans, Shen proposes.

Scientific accounts from 1959 and 1965 of the Liujiang discoveries guided the new determination of the fossils' likely burial site. Shen's team mapped various soil deposits in the cave and calculated the age of crystallized limestone samples by using the rate of uranium decay.

Uranium analyses at other sites support an ancient origin of modern humans in southern China, Shen says. H. sapiens teeth found at two other caves in this region come from sediment that his group dates to at least 94,000 years ago.

Anthropologists with divergent views about human evolution say that the new age estimate for the Liujiang skull remains preliminary. It's still uncertain how the skull got in the cave and where it was originally buried, remarks Christopher B. Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London. Stringer, an out-of-Africa proponent, says that Shen's team members need to date either the skull itself or the calcite clinging to its surface to make their case.

Milford H. Wolpoff of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor agrees. "I'd love for the Liujiang skull to be as old as Shen proposes, but we'll never know for sure without directly dating the specimen," Wolpoff holds. In his view, modern humanity evolved simultaneously in Africa, Asia, and Europe over the past 2 million years.

Shen says he hopes to work out an agreement with Chinese officials in charge of the Liujiang skull to date the specimen directly.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: archaeology; china; chinese; complicate; crevolist; debate; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; guangxi; history; liujiangskull; roots; skull
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
Wolpoff is my guy, he believes as I do..
1 posted on 01/02/2003 11:03:24 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; JudyB1938; #3Fan; Sabertooth
Ping
2 posted on 01/02/2003 11:04:36 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
ping
3 posted on 01/02/2003 11:10:40 AM PST by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Looks like Carelton Coon may have been right after all.
4 posted on 01/02/2003 11:23:32 AM PST by afz400
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Well, the Africa firsters will ignore this skull and try to have it banned like the Native Americans in Oregon and Washington with some skulls/bones of non Native Americans found in those two states centuries before the land bridge was to have happened.

These biased non science based histericals, (definitely not historical) will not allow reality to change their isms.
5 posted on 01/02/2003 11:31:52 AM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afz400
"Looks like Carelton Coon may have been right after all."

Yup.

Essay 4

6 posted on 01/02/2003 11:31:58 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blam
Have you read "Forbidden Archeology?" http://www.mcremo.com/fa.htm
The authors state that the origins of man has become politicized, and that any evidence, no matter how weak, is accepted if it bolsters the political theory, and any evidence, no matter how strong, is discredited it it violates the theory.

The book then proceeeds to document every claim, and wishes we will keep these extraneous claims in mind as the next outlying piece of evidence is discovered.
7 posted on 01/02/2003 11:37:34 AM PST by NJ Mountain Goat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Yup, Mungo Man is giving them heartburn also.
8 posted on 01/02/2003 11:39:03 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blam
The Out of Africa theory is going the way of Piltown Man...
9 posted on 01/02/2003 11:43:52 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
Ping!

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be included, or dropped, let me know via freepmail.]

10 posted on 01/02/2003 11:44:18 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam
Thanks for posting this interesting article.

I thought genetic mapping and analysis showed us with a common African 'Eve', mother to us all?

Isn't that science more compelling than arguable dating of disturbed strata?

I'm just asking? ;^)
11 posted on 01/02/2003 11:51:27 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
PC science...out of Africa---evoloons parrot all this liberal nonscience!
12 posted on 01/02/2003 11:51:52 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
tm...

The evolutionists are going to lose in America and they may end up having to find some other place to peddle their wares. Perhaps Haiti...


1877 posted on 01/01/2003 7:14 AM PST by titanmike


fC...

yeah...papa b rabbit--doc rye---henry---retroll!


13 posted on 01/02/2003 11:53:42 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: blam
I seemed to have droped off your ping list, would you please re-add me to the list.
14 posted on 01/02/2003 11:54:26 AM PST by FreetheSouth!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Interesting link!
15 posted on 01/02/2003 11:54:26 AM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping! I'll be very interested in the results of dating the actual specimen.
16 posted on 01/02/2003 12:06:17 PM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam
Your mungo man link in post #8 is great!
17 posted on 01/02/2003 12:07:58 PM PST by MonroeDNA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Isn't that science more compelling than arguable dating of disturbed strata?

For the present, you are quite correct. However, if age-dating these finds reveals that the specimens were emplaced contemporaneously with surrounding sediments, then we will have to re-think our current theories.

18 posted on 01/02/2003 12:11:27 PM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
There are some who will continue to believe in the Out of Africa theory, no matter what - just like they still believe Cleopatra was black. So silly.
19 posted on 01/02/2003 12:14:44 PM PST by JudyB1938
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: blam
How does this square with Peking Man, allegedly 250,000 years old?

http://www.unesco.org/ext/field/beijing/whc/pkm-site.htm

20 posted on 01/02/2003 12:17:26 PM PST by PoisedWoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson