Talk:Solo Man/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Solo Man. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Earlier comments

I was just browsing the 'pedia and I came across the following articles, Homo erectus soloensis and Homo erectus meganthropus. I know a bit about the Homo genus and hadn't heard of these guys before. Can anyone with more expertise than myself help determine if these articles reflect consensus views on the subject or are, rather, fringe science? Thanks. --Dante Alighieri 18:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think this might be catagorized as fringe science (i might be wrong). I did a google search for homo erectus soloensis site:.gov which yielded no results. I did a normal google search for the same homo, and one of the top results was an article from a Christ-Focused Creation Ministry. ON the other hand, there was a reference to it in www.thefreedictionary.com, but that might be a bogus source, and i haven't time to check. Sennheiser! 23:47, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article at archeology.org [1] mentions soloensis in passing, and it seems the name is derived from the Solo River in Java. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Interesting. I think this might actually be valid. Further investigation led me to this university article which included a photogrpah of a Homo Soloensis skull. I also found another university article with an even better explanation. very exciting stuff. Sennheiser! 00:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By the time I got here (MUCH later), one of those university links was dead. I just added the second one to the article. Querl 06:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Found in Australia?

The article currently makes the claim that specimens of H.e. soloensis have been recovered from Australia, but I very much doubt whether that is the case. AFAIK the only specimens which go under that name (aka "Ngandong") are those which were retrieved in the 30s from the Solo River Indonesia itself, plus a couple more fragments from the same area which were uncovered in the 80s. Indeed, the taxonomy of soloensis is still subject to debate (ie, whether late erectus or early sapiens), it seems - see for eg here.

The article may possibly be confusing claims which have been made that there are apparent similarities with the Ngandong/Solo crania to paleoanthropological finds in Australia (such as the Talgai or Willandra Lakes specimens), but this is as far as it goes, and I am not aware of any positive identification or correlation. All hominid finds thus far in Australia have been classified as subsp. sapiens, or at least no claims of non-sapiens finds have been confirmed- that, at least is my understanding. Would anyone have or know of any references to erectus finds in Australia- or indeed, a reference that H.e. soloensis has been identified anywhere outside of Indonesia?--cjllw | TALK 06:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

Some people on the Internet are claiming that the fossils at Ngandong are H. sapiens or bear traits classifiable as H. sapiens (those coming from the multiregional origins movement, rather than the out of africa movement). How do we know that the classification of Homo erectus soloensis (in Java) and Homo neanderthalensis (in Europe) are not POV? — Rickyrab | Talk 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

POV, in what sense? Do you mean, following the H. erectus classification is (unjustifiably) favouring the RSOH at the expense of multiregionalists? I would think that regardless of any online debates, the article should follow the taxonomy appearing in modern published sources, if some of those argue the taxonomy is incorrect then that too cld be noted. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Solo Man. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)