Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Were Australoids first considered Homo Erectus?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Digitalseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 19th, 2006 @ 04:26 AM
    Subrace
    Atlantid/Cromagnid/Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Religion
    freethinker
    Posts
    432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Were Australoids first considered Homo Erectus?

    is it true that they were first considered to be H. Erectus, or in a evolutionary state somewhere between H. Erectus and H.Sapien?

  2. #2
    New Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 25th, 2007 @ 03:11 AM
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Gender
    Posts
    7
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Homo Erectus?

    That is a speculation I have heard elsewhere, I believe with their brow ridges being cited as one of the reasons (Java man) along with their overall more primitive look.

  3. #3
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    vingul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 16th, 2017 @ 11:43 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Subrace
    Cro-Magnid+slight Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Posts
    483
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Homo Erectus?

    I think this idea has been largely refuted, and most paleoanthropologists now interpret the primitive Australid morphology as a near-retention of most of the features which characterized the generalized sapiens population of the Pleistocene, meaning that Australids are essentially similar (only somewhat gracilized) to the ancestors of all living races of Man (this also goes for true Veddids, who are very similar to Australids), but still far from the erectus or similar ancestor.

    This interpretation relies on subscription to the Out of Africa theory though.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    vingul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 16th, 2017 @ 11:43 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Subrace
    Cro-Magnid+slight Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Posts
    483
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Homo Erectus?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    Then why did only Australian Aboriginies have these features if we all came Out of Africa at the same time?
    (Africans never left Africa. Also, the rest of us presumably left in several waves.)

    "Generalized Pleistocene sapiens" obviously applies to the ancestors of all living humans. It is merely a question of evolutionary retention of features that were present among all Pleistocene human populations, not a special or alien development in Australids. Australids are less plesiomorphic than the average sapiens of 100,000-150,000 years ago, so there is no reason to believe that they are not fully sapiens. In the case of Australids, the degree of primitiveness is fully sapiens, of the Pleistocene tradition.

    Now, we have another candidate for giving Aboriginies their unique set of cranial characteristics, Flores man. And nobody can deny that the Hobbits were living AFTER Out of Africa took place.
    Floresiensis is probably derived from an Asian erectus stock, and does not resemble any Australid. Terminal-Pleistocene Australid crania (not far removed in time from floresiensis, ca. 18 kbp) are very similar to modern Australid crania, only slightly larger (!), and slightly more robust.

    The speculation that floresiensis might have some relation to the Barrineans or other Pygmoids is similarly vague and unsupported. Island dwarfing is a common phenomenon.

  6. #6
    Member
    SubGnostic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Online
    Monday, August 25th, 2008 @ 07:35 PM
    Location
    Kymenlaakso
    Gender
    Family
    Platonic love
    Religion
    Transhumanism
    Posts
    353
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Homo Erectus?

    If there ever will be groundbreaking, firm evidence to debunk the "out of Africa" -theory, it will probably be discredited by the public as some neo-nazi scheme.

    Against:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...gianskull.html
    For:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...tprimates.html

  7. #7
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    vingul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 16th, 2017 @ 11:43 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Subrace
    Cro-Magnid+slight Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Posts
    483
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Homo Erectus?

    Quote Originally Posted by SubGnostic
    If there ever will be groundbreaking, firm evidence to debunk the "out of Africa" -theory, it will probably be discredited by the public as some neo-nazi scheme.
    If it is really groundbreaking and firm, I doubt it will be discredited.

  8. #8

    Re: Homo Erectus?

    Quote Originally Posted by vingul
    (Africans never left Africa. Also, the rest of us presumably left in several waves.)

    "Generalized Pleistocene sapiens" obviously applies to the ancestors of all living humans. It is merely a question of evolutionary retention of features that were present among all Pleistocene human populations, not a special or alien development in Australids. Australids are less plesiomorphic than the average sapiens of 100,000-150,000 years ago, so there is no reason to believe that they are not fully sapiens. In the case of Australids, the degree of primitiveness is fully sapiens, of the Pleistocene tradition.



    Floresiensis is probably derived from an Asian erectus stock, and does not resemble any Australid. Terminal-Pleistocene Australid crania (not far removed in time from floresiensis, ca. 18 kbp) are very similar to modern Australid crania, only slightly larger (!), and slightly more robust.

    The speculation that floresiensis might have some relation to the Barrineans or other Pygmoids is similarly vague and unsupported. Island dwarfing is a common phenomenon.
    The Out of Africa sapiens didn't look anything like Australian Aboriginies, except maybe for skin color. The only thing that possibly could resemble the Aboriginies are the Southern African erectus material and line, Broken Hill, Cape Flats, Sahldana. They were later than necessary to be ancestral for Aboriginies.

    Homo floresiensis has the same basic shape as erectus which also resembles some Aboriginal skulls, especially the early ones. Homo erectus came in various sizes. Pigmies are not a seperate species. There is no reason H. erectus could not have had pigmies. If H. erectus could interbreed with sapiens, then so might H. erectus pigmies. The similarities between erectus and Aboriginies are also the similarities between floresiensis and Aboriginies.

  9. #9
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    vingul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 16th, 2017 @ 11:43 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Subrace
    Cro-Magnid+slight Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Posts
    483
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Homo Erectus?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    The Out of Africa sapiens didn't look anything like Australian Aboriginies, except maybe for skin color.
    Skulls of generalized appearance from the Pleistocene are described as "Australoid", with good reason (when they lack the specialized regional features of e.g. Mongolids). They tend to be characterized by long and narrow, curvoccipital skulls, short and narrow faces, greater supraorbital development, including inflated glabella, more pronounced superciliary ridges and a depressed nasion over a short nose, and relatively low and rectangular orbits. Lo and behold, an Australid.

    The only thing that possibly could resemble the Aboriginies are the Southern African erectus material and line, Broken Hill, Cape Flats, Sahldana. They were later than necessary to be ancestral for Aboriginies.
    Right ... Broken Hill, 300 kya, extreme post-orbital constriction, unlike anything in seen in Australids. "Later than necessary"? Sure, and earlier. They were, indeed, later and earlier than necessary to be ancestral to Australo-Melanesids, Negrids, Europids, Mongolids ... As long as this skeletal material does not exclude other interpretations, they are not evidence for your model.

    Homo floresiensis has the same basic shape as erectus which also resembles some Aboriginal skulls, especially the early ones.
    There is no similarity to the earliest known Australid crania. As stated earlier, the earliest known Australian aboriginal crania are almost contemporaneous with the Homo floresiensis find, and they are almost identical to modern Australid crania, but for matters of size and slight gracilization (Brown, P., "Recent Human Evolution in East Asia and Australasia" (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, Series B, 337: pp. 235-242.)).

    Homo erectus came in various sizes.
    That is true, and I did not argue to the contrary.

    Pigmies are not a seperate species.
    That is true, and I did not argue to the contrary.

    There is no reason H. erectus could not have had pigmies.
    That is true, and I did not argue to the contrary.

    If H. erectus could interbreed with sapiens, then so might H. erectus pigmies.
    Sheer possibility has nothing to do with evidence. If H. erectus could mate with H. sapiens, then H. erectus might have mated with proto-Europids, proto-Negrids, and proto-Mongolids. Should we therefore assume that they did, and that this admixture was rubbed out of the various phenotypes through rigorous selection, which is what ROAs assume anyway when we suggest that all H. sapientes are descended from a population of H. erectus?

    The similarities between erectus and Aboriginies are also the similarities between floresiensis and Aboriginies.
    Yes, both are very different from Australids. What are the specifics that lie at the back of your argumentation? What similarities, specifically?

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    nätdeutsch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 5th, 2008 @ 05:03 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Family
    Loner
    Occupation
    stargazer
    Politics
    Capitalism seems to work....
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    1,412
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Homo Erectus?

    'i think that australiads are not homo sapians, for the fact that they often do not have crania exceeding 1000cc in volume, which is normally seen as a benchmark size'

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Homo Erectus Travelled the High Seas
    By Todesritter in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 08:18 AM
  2. Homo erectus / Javaman
    By cosmocreator in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 6th, 2004, 08:44 AM
  3. Homo Erectus: Extinct or still with us?
    By Von Braun in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Monday, April 14th, 2003, 10:56 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •