:’) Generally, the older the era, the fewer the people; clearly there must be either something a little wrong with that statement, *or* there was a long, long, long period of stasis, *or* there have been a number of waves of population growth terminated by some natural event; reaching a theoretical first mating pair wouldn’t take that many generations. :’)
Anyway, with fewer people, there are fewer remains to find because fewer were made in the first place — give or take having the ancestors’ former habitat covered by the oceans now because they lived on what is now the continental shelf.
Sea gives up Neanderthal fossil [ dredged up from the North Sea ]
BBC | Monday, June 15, 2009 | Paul Rincon
Posted on 06/15/2009 8:19:35 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2272129/posts
Well, there's that for sure. Another issue is that the glaciers grind and "scrub" the British Isles every 100,000 years or so. I wonder how many traces of our civilization will be left in Britain after the next one?
Like you, my antennae go up when anyone suggest a "long period of stasis." The one constant in human history and earth history seems to be change.