Hi, Sunday, April 17, 2005, 9:12:17 PM, Graywolf wrote:
> Well, one of the problems with library books is you do not have > them to hand to check your references. More inline... Luckily, I do have the book to hand. [...] > I don't know about Lucy (may be mixed up there) but he definately > said remains of H.R. were found in South Asia dating to 2.5 mya. > Does not seem to be any major disputes about that. [...] > Argentina. Mentioned in the book. No one but the discoverer seems > to belive it. Personally, I see no problem with man originating in > SA migrating to Asia and dying out in America. No real evidence that > it did happen that way. But I believe that is the theory of the > evolution of the horse, so it does not seem impossible. I've found the reference in the book. Rudgeley is talking about the ideas of one Florentino Ameghino, who died in 1911. He dated some of the stone artefacts he found to between 3 and 5mya. I suspect his dating techniques were a little less accurate than those used today. He mentions him as part of a discussion about more modern claims for Erectus artefacts in Siberia, which the discoverer dated controversially to between 1.5 and 2mya. Various people also suggest that there may have been movement between Siberia and America at various times long before the conventionally accepted dates. However, these claims are very, very controversial and don't seem to be supported by any very strong evidence. But, who knows what could be found tomorrow? Who would have predicted Homo Floresiensis? -- Cheers, Bob
