Talk:Yuanmou Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Age of fossils

This Page suggests that the Yuanmou Man is probably more like 500,000-600,000 years old rather than the 1,700,000 as claimed in the Wikipedia article. It bases this on an interpretation of the site where the fossils were found as well as putting it in context with current knowledge of the movement of human ancestors into Asia.

I'm not particularly well-versed in this area so I thought I'd leave this note for a Wikipedian who's more knowledgeable in this area than I.

Well, let us see if China can find any Australopithecine fossils.

That page, doesn't provide factual helpfull geological or paleological information. It just mentions strata are inverted. (not how much or what for) its also anoying to see no comparison with other local fossils, its suggestive the tooth are from the same individual but, it proofs either side of the discussion. That your page doesnt mention what specific nature of deposits would prohibit such an assemblage 1.7 mill years ago, isn't helpfull.

Therefore its a matter of giving credit.Well i am willing to give credit to chinese research. So what is the motivations for (western) science to counter the find... Firstly its rather obscure, (very old and relatively isolated) it's only 2 teeth from 1 individual, and it wouldnt by far be the first time we find divergence of shape of teeths in and between differently classifed hominid species. Or the opposite, convergence and opportunist traits.

Writing this i tend to the latter, assuming some more flexibility in the dental component then is usually assumed. Furthermore since i have no better accounts of the finding place it's indeed worth noting it was found on a hilltop. Even superficial study of the erosion pattern would probablty tell all. So I assume it's just what the chinese did.

[edit] 1.7 million??

Chang Kwang-chih writes on p.39-40 of his latest (1986) edition of 'The Archaeology of Ancient China' (ISBN 0-300-03782-1):

Details of the teeth led to their identification as Homo erectus, but the dominant fauna of the Yuan-mou stratum from which the teeth came has led to a Lower Pleistocene identification. The early dating was dramatically strengthened by palaeonagnetic studies placing the fossiliferous stratum to 1.6 or 1.7 million years ago. Reexamination of the palaeomagnetic evidence, however, has modified the dating of the Yuan-mou find to 0.50-0.60 million years ago, and, thus, to within Middle Pleistocene.

For this last statement he gives as sources (using Wade-Giles):

• Liu Tung-sheng and Ting Meng-lin, 'Discussion on the age of Yuanmou Man'in: Acta Anthropologica Sinica (Jen-lei-hsüeh Hsüeh-pao) vol. 2 (1983), 40-47.
• Geoffrey G. Pope, 'Evidence on the Age of the Asian Hominidae' in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences vol. 80 (1983), 4988-92.

Abstract (from [1]:

A number of separate lines of evidence indicate that all of the known Asian hominids are less than 1 million years old. A review of paleontologic, radiometric, and paleomagnetic data strongly supports this conclusion. This more recent age estimate provides important implications about the taxonomy and paleocultural adaptations of the early Asian hominids. All of the early Asian hominids can be accommodated in the taxon Homo erectus. This hominid species is associated in Asia with non-Acheulian cultural contexts, which may indicate substantial dependence on a sophisticated nonlithic technology.

[2] brings an update of this age-discussion:

A complicated site stratigraphy has contributed to the debate over the age of the hominid remains at Yuanmou [...]. The precise location of the teeth in the deposit and their relationship to the dated horizons and faunal remains is also unclear. Reworking of the deposit may be an issue as they are of fluvial and deluvial origin. According to Qian et al. (1991) palaeomagnetic dates from near where the teeth were recovered average 1.7 myr. However, Liu and Ding (1984) noted that the faunal sequence at the site was inverted, with more extinct species in the upper levels than deeper in the deposit. They suggest that a date of 600,000 to 500,000, Bruhnes rather than Matuyama Epoch, was most appropriate. The younger date is more consistent with the current state of knowledge on the dispersion and evolution of hominids in Asia.

• Qian F, Li Q, Wu P, Yuan S, Xing R, Chen H, and Zhang H (1991) Lower Pleistocene, Yuanmou Formation: Quarternary Geology and Paleoanthropology of Yuanmou, Yunnan, China. Beijing: Science Press, pp. 17-50 (see for an English translation)
• Liu T, and Ding M (1984) A tentative chronological correlation of early fossil horizons in China with loess-deep sea records in 'Acta Anthropologica Sinica' 3:93-101

Conclusion: I think a summary of these opposing views should be in the article Guss2 15:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Article reflects now issue of age.Ekem 13:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)