Subject: Re: Pacific / SE Asian Archeology
From: Dan Barnes
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:36:35 GMT
Bob Keeter wrote:
>
> A couple of associated questions:
>
> 1. When did Homo Sapiens replace Homo Erectus in Southeast
> Asia?
If by H.s you mean AMHs and H.e. you mean archaic H.s which is critical
for this topic:
The remains of AMHs are very thinly spread in SE Asia. Liujiang has been
dated to 67 ka but that date has been criticised for its lack of
stratigraphic context (by Chem Teimei who did the dating work). The next
oldest Chinese AMH is at Zhoukoudian Upper Cave and is no later than 20
ka. The archaic H.s. at Ngandong is believed to date to 100 ka but may be
as recent as 50 ka. And it would seem likely that AMHs were in Oz by at
least 50 ka and possibly 67 ka. An AMH has been found at Niah (?) and
dated to about 40 ka. So it is this time range (e.g. after c. 50 ka that
seems to be the critical period. New finds would shed vast amounts of
light on this.
> 2. Is there any evidence of major oceanic migrations between
> the H. Sapiens' exit from Africa (if you believe that) and
> their arrival in SE Asia?
> I have heard claims for pre-AMH sailing (although I am having trouble
tracking the refs down) these include erectus (c. 700 ka) to an island
off Indonesia and Mousterian on Sardinia and one of the Greek islands
(I've been told the ref is: G. KAVVADIAS 1984. Palaiolithiki Kephalonia:
O Politismos tou Phiskardhou. Athens.)
There are AMH remains on Crete which have been dated to c. 50 ka and the
ref is:
Facchini, A. & Giusberti, G. (1990) Homo sapiens sapiens remains from the
Island of Crete. In Bräuer, G. & Smith, F.H. (eds) Continuity or
Replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. Balkema, Rotterdam.
They are all islands that, supposedly, cannot be reached even at very low
sea levels. I would appreciate comments on the above.
Dan.
Subject: A Demand for the Kennewick Man's Remains
From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 20:07:18 GMT
On October 15, 1996 I sent the attached demand for the remains of the
"Kennewick Man" to Lt. Col. Donald R. Curtis Jr., Commander of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, WA. His office responded with a
form letter designed for those who demanded the remains under the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Such NAGPRA demands
were, according to the public notice published in the Tri-City Herald, to be
sent to Lee Turner, Executive Assistant to the Commander.
I did not send my demand to Lee Turner because I am not demanding the
remains under NAGPRA. My position is that the Commander, himself, acted
inappropriately when he invoked the provisions of NAGPRA in this case.
Therefore, as he was the person responsible for this error, and the one
with the authority to correct it, he (or his office) should respond to my
demand.
He did not, nor did anyone in his office.
My argument against the invocation of NAGPRA is based on the obvious fact
that with remains of such antiquity it is all but impossible to establish
NAGPRA's invoking requirements of "lineal descent" and/or "cultural
affinity". I stand by this argument and await a genuine response from
the Commander, his office and/or his superiors.
The text of my letter of demand follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Col. Donald R. Curtis Jr.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
201 N. 3rd. Avenue
Walla Walla, Washington 99362-1876
Commander,
I hereby demand the remains of the "Kennewick Man" based on my belief
that I am more closely related to him than any other claimant to come
forward. The ancient tradition and common law practice of providing
human remains to the next-of-kin is, in fact, the spirit behind the
enactment of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,
25 U.S.C. 3005(a). That I am the closest living relative to claim the
remains is demonstrable using standard legal and scientific procedures
that measure degree-of-relatedness.
According to its discoverer, James C. Chatters, a forensics
anthropologist, the DNA information available from this man's remains may
be sufficient to provide the required accuracy for the
degree-of-relatedness measure under these unusual circumstances. If so,
it is only fair to those who desire custody of his remains to determine
which of them are best thought of as his next-of-kin. The lineal descent
and cultural affinity of this man are all but impossible to determine,
but the his degree of relatedness to living kin is not.
I will, of course, submit to the standard, legally recognized procedures
to measure my degree-of-relatedness involving polymerase chain reaction
and restriction enzyme technologies to prove that my
degree-of-relatedness to this man is greater than that of any other
potential claimant who submits to a similar test of their claim.
My primary desire is that those who are most closely related to this man
receive his remains to dispose of them as they wish. My ancestry is
almost entirely pre-Revolutionary War pioneers with some possible Native
American ancestry. My belief that I am a closer relative to him than any
other claimant motivates me to make this claim myself. If I am incorrect
in that belief, I will be happy to see those most closely related to him
take custody of his remains to dispose of as their traditions require.
Sincerely,
James Allen Bowery
--
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
Change the tools and you change the rules.
Subject: Re: MacRae & Myers: THE CHOICE IS YOUR'S!
From: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 18:08:38 GMT
In sci.anthropology edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>
>For Andrew MacRae and Paul Myers:
>
Do either of these people read any of the newsgroups you posted this
to?
[snip]
>At this point in time, you have had numerous opportunities to see the
>skull-like object embedded in the boulder which I insist is, beyond
>all doubt, The World's Most Important Fossil, a human skull dating
>back to the coal formations.
You mean the one that looks like Pumba?
>
>Do you still adamantly insist that the object embedded in the boulder
>is nothing more than a concretion, a rock?
>
>Do you still vehemently deny that it bears no resemblance -- none
>whatsoever -- to a human skull?
>
Looks like Pumba to me.
>To make it easy on yourself, I have written two answers (listed
>below).
>
>All you need do is pick one, then post it on talk.origins. Nothing
>could be easier!
>
Then why did you post this on sci.anthropology, sci.archaeology,
alt.archaeology, and sci,anthropology.paleo?
[snipped]
BTW, it is not likely that your Pumba rock will make either Andrew or
Paul reconsider your other non-evidence.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Though it would take me a long time to understand the principle,
it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
Mark Helprin