Replies

Do you see where your gap-game (previous discussion) has a problem here? While this new find falls older than the ground you have staked as an inexplicable gap, the skulls are too modern to be H. erectus. Thus, your gap is just a hole in the record, no longer a hole that obscures a major transition.

Vade,

Its been too long. Glad that the war is over and we can get back to our crevo wars! I will be able to savour them more after next Sunday- got a big job due.

I must admit, if the find holds it is a strong point for your position. My guess is that the dating method used was luminescent dating. That can only give MAXIMUM ages. I would need to see some more data on that, as I am sure you can understand.

I would also like to see the pics, I mean large enough to tell something, of the actual finds. Evidence from a partial skull shattered into 200 pieces is too susceptable to wishful reconstruction. Still, I am worried. IF this all pans out you are only missing an incontrevertable find or two from the 65-95K gap for checkmate.