Talk:Archaic humans

message: This article jumps between ka and "X00,000 years" for units of measure of time. It is confusing. A single article should stick with a consistent unit of measure throughout, pick one...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.185.213 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree wholehartedly with this one. I would add that over consistency, references to time lengths in the first three sentences that are more understandable to the layperson would be greatly beneficial - e.g. in the format "around 300 ka (approximately xxx000 years ago)" as has been used elsewhere. Equal Inequity (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. We are all volunteers. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Units of measure

message: "Archaic" is not really used in evolutionary biology. It implies that they were less intelligent. The fact is that they were adapted to their time. "Ancestral" should be used instead of "archaic." (Asifwhale (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Change name of article

message: I don't believe that this article should be merged with the Neandertals article. Although homo sapiens neandertalensis is qualified as a form of archaic homo sapiens, not all archaic homo sapiens fall under the category of Neandertals. For example, there is the possibility that homo heidelbrgensis is a form of archaic homo sapiens, as it is sure that another form of archaic h.s., homo sapiens idaltu, should not be qualified as a neandertal. In addition, there is the possibility that other species of archaic h.s. have yet to be discovered, therefore the category should be kept in close relation to, but not subsumed by, Neandertals.
Blue Mage Az 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neaderthalensis is not a qualified for of Homo sapiens. DNA shows that we do not share any DNA with them (but they do with us). 131.91.92.184 (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Neandertal

message: The title should refer to "Archaic Homo sapiens" as "Archaic Homo" in this way it can be more inclusive. I'm a graduate student in anthropology and I am not aware of anyone using "Archaic Homo sapiens" in the literature. The name change would make it so that antecessor, rhodesiensis, heidelbergensis and neaderthalensis can be given an overview here.  [Special:Contributions/131.91.92.184|131.91.92.184]] (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a random example of the use of "archaic Homo sapiens" in a scientific paper. There's some 11k Ghits so it's not an entirely obscure term. Orcoteuthis (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Title has been changed to 'Archaic human' to avoid confusion (and to avoid endorsing a mostly outdated taxonomy). Kaldari (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I'm just curious where the author got the information that the Valltorta painting dates to 13,000 years ago.  That area of the world happens to be my academic specialty, and I don't think I've seen anyone argue for that kind of antiquity since the Abbé Breuil first studied the paintings in the early 1900s.  I would like to know what the reference is so that I can look it up! 
In any case, a better example of palaeolithic cave art would be someplace like Lascaux, Chauvet Cave or Altamira.  I changed the image reference for this page accordingly.
Mander (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the date for the Valltorta painting come from? 

message: The image :Image:Cromagf.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Cromagf.jpg

message: I disagree with the use of the Lascaux painting image... mainly because this article concerns ARCHAIC Homo sapiens. The mural art of Lascaux belongs to the magdalenian culture, 17 000 years old maximum, and that's definitily modern ! not only in terms of technology and art (similar level of the Inuit culture) but also in anatomical terms. I think we should talk about archaic Homo sapiens in the case of fossils older than 100 000 years old, or at least may be for those ones who still lived during Neandertal times (50 000 BP / 30 000 BP), because of this controversial possibility of mixing genomes... but Lascaux paintings were definitily painted by modern looking humans, not archaic. 343KKT Kintaro (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture 

message: First off, this is not the oldest modern human to be found. That honor goes to Omo at 195 kya. Secondly, I agree with those who find the very term "archaic Homo sapiens" troublesome. What is it? I think I agree with idea of over 100 kya. That is about the date of the first H. sapien African migration, Qafez. (frankly, the other idea of concurrent evolution worldwide from a slew of different species seems far fetched). Also, the date of modern humans evolving 400 kya is much older than I've ever heard, even from the multi-regional model. I believe this is a biology article, not an anthropology article and should use the terms of that field. This whole article needs reworking. -- humanevolutiongeek  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholeheartedly agree. The article needs reworking or deleting altogether. It's a long time since my Physical Anthropology days, but I find it hard to believe that a prefix of 'Archaic' for a species is accepted scientific terminology. And that first paragraph doesn't really mean anything - they're generally like this, but generally tending to be a bit like this? Badly needs an expert opinion. Mcewan (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Homo sapiens idaltu'' 

message: From the part on physical appearance: "The general consensus among scholars is that dark skin evolved as early hominids lost body hair, occurring some 1.2 million years ago, well before the emergence of Homo sapiens. This signifies that, contrary to popular belief, the earliest hominids were in fact not light-skinned[8]." Huh? If dark skin is only 1.2 million years old, the earliest hominids, who lived well earlier, presumably were light-skinned. Orcoteuthis (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I was under the impression that there was a variety within Homo sapiens called Homo sapiens archeus, which, unlike the separate species within the Genus Homo that are mentioned in this Article, is undisputedly part of H. sapiens. It was included in an early version of the Related Articles Template of the Article on the Genus Homo. That is all I can say for sure. Accounting for that variety, the Species H. sapiens would have diverged from Homo rhodesiensis in 600,000 BC, not much later in 200,000 BC as is popular belief. So, I assume that whoever wrote that Article and linked to through that Template had a reliable source, so should it not still be there, and, more relevantly, mentioned in this Article? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Homo sapiens archeus'' (Ancient wise human)? 

message: "Anatomically modern humans appear from about 400,000 years ago[3]" 
It's contested, and actually the original paper itself is not affirming it at all (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101231/full/news.2010.700.html): 
"According to the paper, the teeth cannot be conclusively identified as belonging to a particular species of human, whether Homo sapiens — the first modern humans — Neanderthals, or other humans. But the press release and some of the articles that drew on it state that the teeth are evidence that Homo sapiens lived in the Levant as early as 400,000 years ago."
A famous scientist says it's actually neanderthaloid : 
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/01/atapuerca-director-tel-aviv-teeth-are.html  
.
comment added by wadu 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree.  That 400,000 threw me way oof and took me on a wild goose-chase  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solinoberlin (talk • contribs) 00:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 400,000 yrs old homo sapiens Tel Aviv discovery is not solid. 

message: Dunbar's argument that a species must have had used language to have cohesion and not disintegrate sounds disingenuous. Clearly there are myriads of species that do not have a language and live in large groups: arctic penguins for example. --JBrown23 (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dunbar's argument 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Archaic humans's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "NG":
From Hominidae: 
From Red Deer Cave people: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Archaic humans]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Archaic humans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626092650/http://www.bbsonline.org:80/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.dunbar.html to http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.dunbar.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Archaic humans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090816123716/http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/People/Faculty/Pietrusewsky/anth310/labs/Lab05.pdf to http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/People/Faculty/Pietrusewsky/anth310/labs/Lab05.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709125530/http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/sapiens.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/sapiens.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* Homo erectus new.JPG
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* Homo habilis-2.JPG
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* Homo erectus new.JPG (discussion)
* Homo habilis-2.JPG (discussion)
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: The first paragraph says:
 
Where do those dates come from, and what do they represent? Are they the emergence of the species, or their estimated temporal range? The first sentence would suggest emergence, but either way, the numbers are inconsistent. For example, the Neanderthal article gives a temporal range for the species from 250-40 ka; that for Homo rhodesiensis says 800-120 ka; Homo heidelbergensis says 700-200 ka. At the very least, all of those numbers need citations. Renerpho (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating in first paragraph