Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:15 am**

Digit wrote:I'll never keep up with this naming game, soon as you get used to a name it's changed!
HS didn't evolve into anything RS, the second Sapien bit is used to show a close relationship.
Neandertal man was originally just HN, but in the 60s, I think it was, there was a clearing of a lot of confusion, as almost every tooth that came out of the ground was given its own classification.
Originally Erectus was Pithecanthropus Erectus, Peking Man was changed from Sinanthropus Pekinensis to Homo Erectus, Erectus was then split into Erectus and Ergaster, Hablis was fitted in somewhere!
The outcome was that Neandertal man was then reclassified as Homo Sapien. To distinguish him from us, we were reclassified as HSS and Neandertal became HSN.
Phew.

Thanks.
Does that mean that HS evolved directly from HE? And that HSS and HSN were a subsequent split evolution of HS?

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:48 am**

That depends on who you ask RS. The concensus is yes to all that, but for the future?
The problem faced by taxonomists is the shortage of material, the later HEs were near 6ft tall, long limbed and with a brain case of around 1000cc. As to whether they were early HSS or late HE will probably only be finally determined by DNA or some technique not yet developed.
The comments about dressing HSN in a business suit etc has also been applied to HE.
The Chinese have been accused of having a political agenda in their belief that modern Asiatics are a straight development of HE with a later over layof HSS, but that doesn't mean they are wrong of course.
The future is one of great interest I feel.

Archaeologica.org

What's the difference between a handaxe and a Folsom point?