Archaeologica.org

just for you guys
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/man
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homo
see the difference

Doing a little more research, I found the current term being used for the African brand of Erectus we've been discussing, to differentiate them from the Asian and European brands: Homo ergaster.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, Mar. I think the issue here is whether Hss, HNs and H.erectus successfully bred, thus making them the same species. The definitions you provided don't take this into account. If Hss=HNs=H erectus, then, by the first definition your provided, all three would qualify as man.

It is currently in contention whether H. ergaster or the later, Asian H. erectus was the direct ancestor of modern humans

Its use of advanced (rather than simple) tools was unique to this species; H. ergaster tool use belongs to the Acheulean industry. H. ergaster first began using these tools 1.6 million years ago

At the time, Ales Hrdlicka, curator of the Smithsonian's Division of Physical Anthropology, dominated the field of anthropology. In the nineteenth century, many unsupported claims had been advanced "proving" the Indians had been in the New World for tens and even hundreds of thousands of years. But by Hrdlicka's time, a powerful reaction against such claims had developed. Hrdlicka became the leader of the skeptics, undertaking a crusade to debunk what he considered bad science. His view, based on skull morphology, was that Indians had arrived in the New World no earlier than 1,000 B.C. When any unfortunate archeologist made an assertion to the contrary, Hrdlicka reacted so vigorously that he sometimes ruined the career of his target. By 1925, the atmosphere was such that most archeologists were too intimidated to make a report. The subject of early humans in America was effectively taboo. in the process, Hrdlicka made some bitter enemies. One of them was Figgins, who had undergone a scathing attack from Hrdlicka over a site Figgins had excavated in Texas. (Figgins later wrote in a letter that he was "suffering" to prove Hrdlicka wrong.)

When any unfortunate archeologist made an assertion to the contrary, Hrdlicka reacted so vigorously that he sometimes ruined the career of his target. By 1925, the atmosphere was such that most archeologists were too intimidated to make a report.

McJunkin's bone pit was one of the most important archeological discoveries made in America, and it caused a permanent shift in the prevailing paradigm. All of a sudden, archeologists had another 7,000 years of human history to account for. The find also made the search for early Americans respectable again, and it provided a time span that was sufficient to explain the bewildering diversity of languages and customs of Native American tribes.

Once such a shift occurs, a flood of new discoveries and a reevaluation of older ones often follow. In the two decades after the Folsom find, dozens of Paleo-Indian sites came to light, and papers came pouring out of museums and universities across the country.

Ssshh, Bruce....there are people around who don't believe in the Club

By 1925, the atmosphere was such that most archeologists were too intimidated to make a report.

What you have to do is refer people to a long out of print book from the 19th or early 20th century, preferably by some bloke no one has heard of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster
personally I'd go with Ergaster purely on the fact that all the mtdna trails for homo sapiens sapiens lead back to Africa around 100,000 years ago
now whether that means that homo sapiens archaic evolved from Homo erectus (asian) and then later we evolved from Homo Ergaster or that we evolved from Homo sapiens archaic which had migrated back to africa is going to be almost impossible to prove either way because there simply isn't enough empirical data (nor will there ever be) to prove it

Humans first moved out of Africa about 70,000 years ago, but 30,000 years later some of them moved back.

That's according to a new study based on DNA evidence from ancient human remains found in Africa. The study shows that a small group of early humans returned to Africa after migrating to the Middle East.

In addition, the research suggests that the humans' return occurred around the same time that another group of humans left the Middle East and moved into Europe.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... frica.html

Recent studies into the complicated stratigraphy of the Java Homo erectus sites have revealed some surprising information. Researchers have dated the deposits thought to contain the fossils of H. erectus near the Solo River in Java to only 50,000 years ago. This would mean that at least one population of Homo erectus in Java was a contemporary of modern humans (Homo sapiens)

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html

Charlie and Cogs should find this very interesting
Quote:
Its use of advanced (rather than simple) tools was unique to this species; H. ergaster tool use belongs to the Acheulean industry. H. ergaster first began using these tools 1.6 million years ago

By 1.9 million years ago, another lineage of the genus Homo emerged in Africa. This species was Homo ergaster. Traditionally, scientists have referred to this species as Homo erectus and linked this species name with a proliferation of populations across Africa, Europe, and Asia. Yet, since the first discoveries of Homo erectus, it had been noted that there were differences between the early populations of "Homo erectus" in Africa, and the later populations of Europe, Africa and Asia. Many researchers now separate the two into distinct species Homo ergaster for early African "Homo erectus", and Homo erectus for later populations mainly in Asia. Since modern humans share the same differences as H. ergaster with the Asian H. erectus, scientist consider H. ergaster as the probable ancestor of later Homo populations.

According to many scientists, the early African population represented a more "generalized" form of archaic human, one that could have given rise to the modern human species, whereas Asian H. erectus may have been too specialized in its appearance. If so, the latter is its own interesting and long-lived branch in our family tree. But other scientists disagree; they think that the variation between the two reflects a single evolving lineage.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigi ... ulcus.html

H. ergaster may be distinguished from H. erectus by its thinner skull bones and lack of an obvious sulcus. Derived features include reduced sexual dimorphism, a smaller more orthognathic face, a smaller dental arcade, and a larger (700 and 850cc) cranial capacity. It is estimated that H. ergaster stood at 1.9m (6ft3) tall with relatively less sexual dimorphism in comparison to earlier hominins

In neuroanatomy, a sulcus (pl. sulci) is a depression or fissure in the surface of the brain. It surrounds the gyri, creating the characteristic appearance of the brain in humans and other large mammals.

straight-jawed; having the profile of the face vertical or nearly so; having a gnathic index below 98.

the condition in which the males and females in a species are morphologically different, as with many birds.

sounds like us doesnt it

Charlie,
This article reminded me of you

Quote:
At the time, Ales Hrdlicka, curator of the Smithsonian's Division of Physical Anthropology, dominated the field of anthropology. In the nineteenth century, many unsupported claims had been advanced "proving" the Indians had been in the New World for tens and even hundreds of thousands of years. But by Hrdlicka's time, a powerful reaction against such claims had developed. Hrdlicka became the leader of the skeptics, undertaking a crusade to debunk what he considered bad science. His view, based on skull morphology, was that Indians had arrived in the New World no earlier than 1,000 B.C. When any unfortunate archeologist made an assertion to the contrary, Hrdlicka reacted so vigorously that he sometimes ruined the career of his target. By 1925, the atmosphere was such that most archeologists were too intimidated to make a report. The subject of early humans in America was effectively taboo. in the process, Hrdlicka made some bitter enemies. One of them was Figgins, who had undergone a scathing attack from Hrdlicka over a site Figgins had excavated in Texas. (Figgins later wrote in a letter that he was "suffering" to prove Hrdlicka wrong.)


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... 18723/pg_1