Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Dmanisi Hominids Georgia
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Thursday, 16th June 2011
Hominids sporadically frequented the Dmanisi region in the southern Caucasus Mountains of Georgia from shortly after 1.85 Ma until ca 1.77 Ma.There is a growing volume of circumstantial evidence,that the ancestors of these people left Africa before Homo erectus was fully evolved.Since their lithic tool technology was rudimentary [pre Oldawan?],their migration was not spurred by advances in technology.
-
Message 2
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 18th June 2011
henvell,
On the French forum "Passion-histoire" (Passion-history) I am following a debate in the section prehistory in the recent thread: "Yves Coppens' Article". I will try to cross-fertilate your message with that thread tomorrow. "Tiel" is an erudite from Switzerland, who tries to make a survey and is critical of a Bernard Lugan, who he addresses in a " rectification" about the critics on the Out of Africa theory and he mentions also in this mail the Homo Georgicus. It can be a redeployement of the earlier Homo from Eurasia to Africa again and then a mixing of that Homo descended from that redeployement with the Eurasian Homo again all based on genetics if I have understood it well. And the author asks also: and what if we next year discover in Africa an Homo older than the Georgicus one?
It is a pity that we can't put URLs in French on this messageboard, but if you understand French: put in Google: origine de l'homme: reponse Ă Bernard Lugan (origin of man: response to Bernard Lugan). Normally it will be the first hit on the first window. If you understand French and even without you can make something from the graphics...
BTW: China, do they want to have their separate origin of their Homo Sapiens? As the Europeans ones their Homo Georgicus? And for once that the Afro-Centrists seems to be right with the "out of Africa"...
I said it already years ago on these boards to lol beeble: even the Neanderthal question seems to divide "earnest scientists" in two camps. Let us stick to science and nothing else but science...and if the multiple origin is really scientifically proven...then honest people (as we are...) have to admit...the same with the out of Africa verifications...
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 3
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 20th June 2011
This is rather a nice little resume of the Out of Africa debate from Chris Stringer as well as a puff for his new book.
This article from Physorg reviews the Dmanisi findings and has a link to the original PNAS paper.
-
Message 4
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 20th June 2011
Ferval,
thank you very much for these two URLs. In fact as I just read it, it summarizes the discussion I read on the French messageboard I mentioned.
Coincidentally I read yesterday nearly the whole evening about the discussion on the French messageboard and did some related research (not easy for an apprentice like I am. I call lol beeble in to enlighten us). I looked also to some one and an half session of Coppens on a cruiseship on the Mediterranean organized by the French montly "Scienses et Avenir" (sciences and future). But to my pity it was not about the debate "multiregional" versus "out of Africa", but more the latest stand of the evolution knowledge explained for dummies. I will put the three parts of you tube on the French thread about the subject I mentioned
As I read professor Chris Stringer in your first http, it seems to coincide with what the Swiss author "Tiel" says in his critique to Lugan.
As I see it and as I understand it, some readers mix the recent out of Africa with the older out of Africa mentioned in the discussion on the Dmanisi findings.
You don't need to understand French if you look to the graphics in the "Tiel" message I mentioned in my previous message. Tiel seems to understand English too, as he gives the URL's of several articles in English too...
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 5
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 20th June 2011
Addendum to previous message.
Ferval,
and I forgot. As I understand it there was some critique from a British professor in your second URL that it are only tools and no rests of Homo erectus that were found at Dmanisi. So some Homo habilis from Africa?
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 6
Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011
Marie Antoinette de Lumley stated that the fossils of the six individuals,that have been recovered had more in common with Homo habilis and especially Homo rudolfes [sp?] than Homo erectus.Suspect that the jury is still out on their identity,
but they do not have the definitive features of any one of the above three. -
Message 7
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011
Re: Message 5 and 6.
Henvell and Ferval,
when I said from the second URL from Ferval about the "Physorg reviews" that there were not hominids found I meant as described in the article: in the lower levels where the tools were found...
as you see from the extract from the URL:
"Not so sure of Ferring and Lordkipanidze's theory is Richard Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
"The new evidence at Dmanisi consists of stone tools, not fossil bones. So we don't really know who the toolmaker was in the time range of 1.85 to 1.77 million" years ago, he said. "(We) cannot know this for sure until fossils come from this older level.""
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 8
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
Ferval,
thank you very much for these two URLs. In fact as I just read it, it summarizes the discussion I read on the French messageboard I mentioned.
Coincidentally I read yesterday nearly the whole evening about the discussion on the French messageboard and did some related research (not easy for an apprentice like I am. I call lol beeble in to enlighten us). I looked also to some one and an half session of Coppens on a cruiseship on the Mediterranean organized by the French montly "Scienses et Avenir" (sciences and future). But to my pity it was not about the debate "multiregional" versus "out of Africa", but more the latest stand of the evolution knowledge explained for dummies. I will put the three parts of you tube on the French thread about the subject I mentioned
As I read professor Chris Stringer in your first http, it seems to coincide with what the Swiss author "Tiel" says in his critique to Lugan.
As I see it and as I understand it, some readers mix the recent out of Africa with the older out of Africa mentioned in the discussion on the Dmanisi findings.
You don't need to understand French if you look to the graphics in the "Tiel" message I mentioned in my previous message. Tiel seems to understand English too, as he gives the URL's of several articles in English too...
Kind regards and with esteem,
±Ę˛ąłÜ±ô.Ěý Ferval and Henvell,
I found this today on my ±«Óătv news startpage:
It is, as I understand it, a little bit a survey as the survey of Coppens on the mediterranean cruise ship that I mentioned in my former message. An explanation for dummies, but nevertheless interesting as survey.
It is perhaps better situated in the "Neanderthaler" thread here on the same messageboard...
But in the French thread I mentioned in my former messages, the "Coppens" thread, they are already further and comment in depth something in the debate of the multiregionalism versus the Out of Africa theory of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens....
And there seems to be a more logical third theory of Homo Sapiens Sapiens mixing (mating?) with Homo Erectus in Eurasia...for a small part...but on a small contingent of Homo Sapiens some mating with a small ammount of individuals of ±«Óătv Erectus can have nevertheless have a seeable genetic fingerprint?
There are some graphics and articles in English in the French thread that even for non understanding French contributors can give an impression from what is going on in the discussion...
Kind regards and with esteem for both,
Paul. -
Message 9
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
I saw that the programme mentioned is on ±«Óătv1 tonight. I expect I will watch it but I do hope I won't be throwing cushions at the screen. Anything with 'dramatic reconstructions' fills me with foreboding. I should be grateful that the main channel shows this sort of thing at prime time but let's hope it hasn't lost its content in a welter of CGI.
Quite off topic, there was a delightful programme on ±«Óătv4 earlier this week called 'Treasures of Heaven' about relics and reliquaries that proved the the ±«Óătv can still produce quality programmes which are accessible but not populist in the worst sense. -
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
Addendum to previous message.
searching for the thread about the Neanderthals by clicking on my name, I went as far back as the start of the new boards in 2005 and didn't find the thread. Perhaps lol beeble or Gil (Urlungal) will find it back? I found in the meantime this:
A thread from Haesten, which seems to cover what I am pointing at. I see now that lol beeble contributed a lot and perhaps he says ("by himself" Dutch expression not sure if that exists in English. In fact it are a lot more words to express the same as in English) now why have I everytime to repeat what I explained in depth in that thread? Sorry, to have forgotten it, getting old...But perhaps with my new research I will better understand now the old thread...
I haven't read the thread yet as I have to contribute (in a hurry) to a thread on the geopolitical site of the French forum Passion Histoire about "globalisation" (in French is it "mondialisation"). Will use my message from the Scottish oil thread among others.
Kind regards and with esteem for the contributors of this thread as well for lol beeble, Gil and Haesten of the other threads,
Paul. -
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
Addendum to previous Ăąessage.
And I forgot Twinprobe, with his logical and well edited messages, as some others...
Kind regards, Paul. -
Message 12
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
Didn't know where to place this new discussion? In Haesten's "Out of Africa hypothesis"?
or overhere? Or a new thread?
a bit pompous? solemnly?....patriotic...?:
Kind regards and with esteem for all the contributors, who developped the other related threads.
Paul. -
Message 13
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 25th September 2011
Paul,
You might be interested in this piece as well.
However there's also this suggesting that there may have been interbreeding with an extinct hominid in Africa as recently as 35000 BP.
psst, don't tell Luther! -
Message 14
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 26th September 2011
Ferval,
thank you very much for the links.
In the first URL:
"There are prominent researchers in the field, including Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the Lucy fossil, who say that Berger is exaggerating the significance of his discovery. The struggle for recognition and funding sometimes leads to grandstanding, which is not a new phenomenon in science, as for example in the recent media frenzy over the early primate fossil “Ida.”"
I followed some years ago the discussion of the out of africa or the multiregional controverse and in some international symposium at Tongeren (Belgium) scientists were divided in two "camps". Seemingly the controverse still exists if not worsened. Contributed to a long thread on the French forum Passion Histoire about a conference of Yves Coppens.
At the end I have no overall survey anymore in my mind with all those new founds and studies. I nearly start to mix it all. Each found has to be placed in the evolution tree to see where he can belong...for dummies as me...
I even suspect my estemed lol beeble, even "he", cannot always see the wood for the trees anymore...
About the second URL I read something along the same thoughts in the discussion of Yves Coppens I mentioned in the first paragraph. Have to verify if it says the same as in this URL...
There are many times such "bold" statements on a tiny fact without verifying the broader context and if it is possible in this context....I seem to observe...
Kind regards ans with esteem,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
±«Óătv iD
±«Óătv navigation
±«Óătv links
±«Óătv © 2014 The ±«Óătv is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.