A largely complete, roughly 300,000-year-old skull from southeastern China appears to be the latest evidence challenging the dominant model of human evolution. The Hualongdong skull’s unique combination of features make the fossil a tantalizing clue to East Asia’s diverse hominin history.
Researchers excavating a collapsed cave site unearthed the skull, formally known as Hualongdong 6 (HLD 6), along with additional partial fossils of archaic humans and animals, plus assorted stone tools, over the last decade or so. Using the ages of surrounding mineral deposits and other material in the cave, the team determined the skull and other remains were about 300,000 years old.My regular commenter JohnB pointed me to this story. I will leave you to read it: Hualongdong Skull Is Latest Challenge To Dominant Human Evolution Model.
I think that there are several key points to note.
The first is that the simple out of Africa for the emergence of modern humans is, as John had argued, becoming increasingly uncertain. There may well have been multiple regional streams.This brings me into arguments that I lack the knowledge on which to comment.
The second point is that the Aborigines on their travels to Australia may well have travelled through a populated landscape. We do not know by whom or how many, but it was populated as measured by Denisovan genetic traces in Aborigines and Papuans.
All this raises the question of the who were the first settlers on Sahul, the name given to the ancient continent. We know, or seem to know, that early hominids arrived in the Philippines before Aboriginal settlement of Sahul. This was a longish sea journey suggesting that early hominids could travel by sea to new areas. So did they reach Sahul?
Because of the loss of skeletal remains and limitations on analysis in Australia, we may never get results here. But as more Asian results emerge, we may get a better precursor picture.
None of this detracts from the saga of the Aboriginal occupation of Sahul. It just indicates the need for care in the conclusions we draw, the arguments we mount based on those conclusions.
2 comments:
One big difference I have noted Jim between UK v Oz is that in UK for any development to take place a prior archeological survey has to take place. I suspect that in Oz a host of potential knowledge has simply been destroyed without any knowledge or evaluation. Even from a European perspective we have that to come in Bellingen as a major redevelopment of one of the oldest settled sites in the town is about to take place that will incorporates the excavation of an underground car park. Who knows what might be lost for all time, our DA’s appear to be based on the false premise that nothing has gone before and even a Heritage listing seems to offer little protection when push comes to shove, this link headed Destined for wrecking ball may be behind a paywall.
https://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/news/destined-for-wrecking-ball/3708416/#/0
The link was, I fear. I am not absolutely sure of current rules, but heritage studies are usually required. With the decline in public digs the majority of archaeological studies over the last few decades have been rescue digs. I agree with your general point, though.
Post a Comment