Fossilised skull may end row over origin of 1.3bn Chinese

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

Fossilised skull may end row over origin of 1.3bn Chinese

· Archaeologists hail biggest find since Peking Man
· Discovery came as team were about to leave site

Jonathan Watts in Beijing
Thursday January 24, 2008
The Guardian

Chinese archaeologists are hailing their biggest discovery
in almost 80 years after unearthing a skull that could
provide a clue to the origins of a fifth of the world's
population. The fossilised skull, named Xuchang Man after
the city where it was found, is thought to date back 80,000
to 100,000 years, to a period that has long been a mystery
to scientists.

It contains a rare fossilised membrane that archaeologists
hope will reveal important details about the nervous system
of the ancients and settle a contentious academic debate
about whether most of China's 1.3 billion people are mainly
indigenous, descended from African migrants or intermixed.

The almost complete skull, which comprises 16 fragments,
was found in the central province of Henan last month.
It has protruding eyebrows and a small forehead.

Government officials said the importance of the find was
second only to that of Peking Man in 1929, when
archaeologists discovered five almost complete skulls and
other bones believed to date back 250,000 to 500,000 years.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2245680,00.html

[hatrack]

1. Must have been one SERIOUSLY busy guy . . . .

:toast:

[TheDoorbellRang]

2. There's an argument about whether the Chinese are indigenous

or descended from African migrants? I thought that was completely settled by DNA studies.

[semillama]

5. well, nationalism does play a part in that argument

but it will be interesting to see what turns up after the skull is analyzed. I don't think they have it identified to the species level yet.

And of course, DNA studies can really only identify which populations left descendants. It's entirely possible that a group of humans left Africa much earlier than DNA evidence suggests, and for some reason were completely wiped out before the next wave of migrants.

[Orsino]

8. And this story is full of holes.

It doesn't even claim that the find is H. sapiens, for instance, nor does it begin to explain how all the genetic evidence pointing back to Africa is wrong. The "protruding eyebrows" and "small forehead" are not specifically compared to sapiens or erectus. What is this find supposed to have to do with the presumed African origin of all living humans?

The story smells of the usual nationalistic claims of a separate Chinese evolutionary branch of humanity.

[shain from kane]

3. Yellow fever. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Pardon me?

[xchrom]

4. fascinating -- love this stuff.

[supernova]

7. This is so so cool

I love learning about early humans, so anything from this period is a bonus.


:D