# Talk:Yuanmou Man

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.

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)

What is meant by "ancestral human" in the opening paragraph? If it means "ancestor of humans" then we shouldn't state it so directly in light of recent research. Quoting from the Peking Man article:
Some Chinese paleoanthropologists have asserted in the past that the modern Chinese (and possibly other ethnic groups) are descendants of Peking Man. However, modern genetic research does not support this hypothesis. A recent study undertaken by Chinese geneticist Jin Li showed that the genetic diversity of modern Chinese people is well within the whole world population. This shows that there could not have been any inter-breeding between modern human immigrants to East Asia and Homo erectus, such as Peking Man, and affirms that the Chinese are descended from Africa, like all other modern humans, in accordance with the Recent single-origin hypothesis.[8][9][10] However, some paleontologists still see continuity in skeletal remains.[11]
I'll slap a dubious tag on for now. Readin (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Point well made; intro is changed. Ekem (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yuanmou Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Therapyisgood (talk · contribs) 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments

upper first incisors (V1519) not sure what this string of numbers mean, can you explain?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Do you have coordinates of where the incisors were found? A map of some kind would be beneficial to identify where they were found.
Should I put a map emphasizing Yuanmou County?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you find a map? Not a hangup if not. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
shaft in a layer just overlying Member 4 I'm not sure I follow. How can a layer overly anything else?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
dated the incisors to the Gilsa geomagnetic polarity event roughly 1.7 million years ago can you explain what the Gilsa geomagnetic polarity event was for those who don't know (like me)? or maybe just explain what a polarity event is.
paleomagnetic dating is finding which layers of the rock correspond to which chron (like in this image) similar to epochs. At the boundary of each chron, the magnetic polarity reverses. Sometimes there are short-lived reversals within each chron called a polarity subchron or polarity event. Still debated if the term "subchron" should completely replace "polarity event"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I meant in the article. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I know but how much explanation do you want? Like how do you want me to word it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Try a footnote. Being not familiar with the topic I'm not sure how to word it. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
"...to the Gilsa geomagnetic polarity event (when the Earth's magnetic polarity reversed for a short interval) roughly..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
placed the area during the Olduvai subchron can you link subchron anywhere?
Still unresolved. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
there's no link   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Matuyama–Brunhes geomagnetic boundary can you link/explain "geomagnetic boundary"?
Still unresolved. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Later that year, the boundary was re-dated by whom?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
They who?
the people discussed in literally the preceding sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
can you link Old World?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
developed attachment not sure what this means
muscle attaches to the bone. We don't have muscle so we can't tell how strong it was, but we have bone, and the imprints the muscle left on the bone indicate strong attachment   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain in the article? Therapyisgood (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
At the probably midpoint of the shaft should "the" be here? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Therapyisgood: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The tibia was described in 1991, and was determined to belong to a young female H. e. yuanmouensis.[4][2] switch refs. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Files' copyrights checks out. Article is well-written with no OR. All references are reliable. I could not access any of the sources to verify text, but I could access this, using which I could verify the following statements: "The incisors are overall robust." checks out. "The labial (lip) side is mostly flat with the exception of some grooves and depressions" checks out. The article is stable, illustrated, and neutral. The only thing I could suggest is: Brown (2001) linked above on page 138 suggests "While  these teeth are similar to those described for Zhoukoudian Homo erectus (Weidenreich 1937), this is not enough to indicate that they must be Homo erectus teeth. For instance, an incisor tooth of similar size and morphology is present in the Xujiayo 'archaic' Homosapiens maxilla (Jia et al 1979) dated to approximately 100 ka (Yuan et al 1986), as well as Krapina Neanderthals (Wolpoff 1979)." Does anyone else mention this, and should it be included in the article? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
no one else mentions this. Should I add the size comparison?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll AGF on copyright violations. Images have appropriate captions. Images are definitely relevant. Article avoids or explains technical jargon as explained above. Passing. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)