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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: pabianice
I hope so, this whole thing is based on. "I found it there it must have originated there", BS. The DNA evidence is conjectural and is based on flawed, in my opinion, evidence.

I am not a big banger, like Blam, but I do believe that if you take a close look at the evidence central Asia is the place.

21 posted on 01/02/2003 12:21:12 PM PST by Little Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: blam
Now just vyou waaaaiiiit a minute, bud; Wolpoff is MY guy.

;-)Thanks for the ping.

22 posted on 01/02/2003 12:26:48 PM PST by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Hi, Grampa Dave! Happy New Year. Your post reminds me of the old saying, "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up!" xxxM
23 posted on 01/02/2003 12:33:33 PM PST by Marysecretary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blam
YEC read later
24 posted on 01/02/2003 12:37:19 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Somewhat related thread from a couple of weeks ago: Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations
25 posted on 01/02/2003 12:45:27 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: blam
I agree with Wolpoff also. That does not, however, obviate the movement of groups of peoples throughout Asia, Africa and Europe during the same time period, resulting in genetic intermixture.

Before the development of organized states, mass movements of people from one area to another, albeit slow in time sequence, was probably more common than after emergent states marked off territories defended by military forces.
26 posted on 01/02/2003 12:46:22 PM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
The more complicated the better.
27 posted on 01/02/2003 12:56:59 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary
It seems most of my adult life, I have run into people who should have your poster posted all over their offices, homes and cars.

Happy New Year!
28 posted on 01/02/2003 12:58:11 PM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping, PatrickHenry

My colleagues in anthropology will find this interesting.

It's neat to look at a new discovery like this and know that it is at dead center of the questions currently at hand. This skull sure does look modern.

It is made even more curious by the fact that the time frame lies in an area (range) not well covered (accurately) by radioactive dating process. (Too old for real accuracy with carbon).
29 posted on 01/02/2003 1:02:20 PM PST by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam
It's useless to take sides until the evidence is in, but mitochondrial DNA points toward the out-of-Africa idea.
30 posted on 01/02/2003 1:03:15 PM PST by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Since the "Out-of-Africa theory (OOA) postulates a migration between 100K-200K ya, why would it negate such a theory to find remains in EasT Asia that are 150K yo?

At some point, human ancestory can be traced to Africa. Australiopithecus and Homo Habilis for sure. I think various Homo Erectus evolving into the various races of Homo Sapiens is a compeling theory, I even believe it is more likely than not, but this discovery hardly disputes OOA. If any single group of humans wandered persuing game, than it is very likely that within only a few thousand years they may have well migrated 10,000 miles. Certainly at this time there were huge migration of fauna--horses and camels to the old world, bison and elephants to the new. Has anybody postulated how long it took for horses to appear in say, Spain, or Asia Minor, as opposed to Tibet or China?

31 posted on 01/02/2003 1:05:32 PM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
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.

But humans are obviously capable of migrating extremely quickly. It's entirely possible for a nomadic group of humans to travel from Africa to eastern Siberia and back again by way of Scandanavia in far less than a single human lifetime; all that's needed is the desire to do it. To me, it seems highly unlikely for some long-distance travel not to have happened.

Of course, this neither supports nor refutes the "Out-of-Africa" hypothesis. What it means is that some of the most important migrations may well have happened too quickly to have left any trace. "Out-of-Africa" and "evolved everywhere" may be indistinguishable. It might as easily have been "Out-of-India".

32 posted on 01/02/2003 1:41:22 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Peking Man was Homo erectus.

I'd be very skeptical about any date in the region of 100,000 years that wasn't accompanied by first rate archaeological and dating techniques. Carbon dating is essentially impossible at that age, and uranium dating imprecise. Indeed, the idea that Europeans, Asians and Africans may have diverged far earlier is intriguing, and would drive the 'race is mythical' people bonkers; since we consider H. erectus a different species from H. sapiens, then consistency would demand the (at least) three distinct descents from H. erectus be three distinct species. I can't think of anything more politically incorrect, offhand. :-)

However, the preponderance of the evidence does still seem to support 'Africa first'. If you push the divergence date back to 1/4 million years, you have to assume we all evolved from Homo erectus almost in perfect parallel; typical Mongoloids, Caucasoids and Negroids are far more similar to each other than to H. erectus or even H. neanderthalensis.

33 posted on 01/02/2003 2:21:31 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
The key question, though, is where and when the evolutionary bottleneck occured. Any model of geographically separated but commingling populations has to be consistent with the genetic data, which has been interpreted in terms of a very small number of humans, and a single maternal ancestor, at some time in the period 50,000 - 100,000 B.C..
34 posted on 01/02/2003 2:25:55 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FreetheSouth!
"I seemed to have droped off your ping list, would you please re-add me to the list."

I don't have a 'ping' list, I just ping whoever I happen to remember, lol.

35 posted on 01/02/2003 2:37:37 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
"Has anybody postulated how long it took for horses to appear in say, Spain, or Asia Minor, as opposed to Tibet or China?"

I believe Victor Mair covers that in his book The Tarim Mummies.

36 posted on 01/02/2003 2:50:18 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"The key question, though, is where and when the evolutionary bottleneck occured. Any model of geographically separated but commingling populations has to be consistent with the genetic data, which has been interpreted in terms of a very small number of humans, and a single maternal ancestor, at some time in the period 50,000 - 100,000 B.C.."

Toba fills that requirement. Many believe only 2,000-5,000 humans worldwide survived this catastrophe.

37 posted on 01/02/2003 2:57:46 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JudyB1938
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.

Well, there were many Nubian queens of Egypt, such as Nefertari, as the Nubians invaded Egypt and ruled for many years. However, Cleopatra was of Greek blood.

38 posted on 01/02/2003 3:06:10 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: blam
I agree Toba's a plausible candidate. If the bottleneck was 75,000 years ago, that sets the date of racial divergence no earlier than that date. Furthermore, if it really was the catastrophe a lot of people believe it was, survival in China would have been far more difficult than in Africa.
39 posted on 01/02/2003 3:22:49 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The key question, though, is where and when the evolutionary bottleneck occured. Any model of geographically separated but commingling populations has to be consistent with the genetic data, which has been interpreted in terms of a very small number of humans, and a single maternal ancestor, at some time in the period 50,000 - 100,000 B.C..

But a single common ancestor (e.g., a "mitochondrial Eve") doesn't necessarily imply a genetic bottleneck. It's possible that a (mutant) woman was born with significantly superior mitochondria, which slowly over time supplanted the other mitochondria throughout a large and sustained population with an otherwise diverse gene pool, without the need for a mass die-off, or for one population pushing out another. (This could similarly work for any given chromosome.)

40 posted on 01/02/2003 3:43:22 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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