this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
10 points (91.7% liked)
Anthropology
622 readers
5 users here now
Welcome to c/Anthropology @ Mander.xyz!
Notice Board
This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
- 2023-06-14: We are looking for mods. Send a dm to @fossilesque@mander.xyz if interested!
About
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
Resources
Similar Communities
Sister Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !microbiology@mander.xyz
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
Plants & Gardening
Physical Sciences
Humanities and Social Sciences
- !archaeology@mander.xyz
- !cooking@mander.xyz
- !folklore@mander.xyz
- !history@mander.xyz
- !old_maps@mander.xyz
Memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Still a controversial issue, a lot of scientists refute this group. And the argument by the authors to name it "bodoensis" instead of "rhodensis" because of the colonial name "Rhodesia" is generally considered unscientific.
The article mentions that this is an amalgam of other groups including the one you mentioned,
"The name Homo bodoensis comes from a new analysis of already existing fossils found in Africa and Eurasia. Before the study, these fossils were attributed to multiple different species—that is, Homo heidelbergensis or Homo rhodesiensis, both of which were ambiguously defined in the first place."
I don't know enough about this particular group in Winnipeg to speak about them, what makes them particularly controversial? Is it just reclassifying the above without really getting a consensus on the matter? Or is there believed to be issues with the methodology?
If I understand it correctly, people in this field are generally not in accord regarding the fossils of this era. There are multiple schools of thought regarding what kind of species/sub-species should be considered to exist or whether to classify certain fossils as simply archaic Neanderthals and sapiens. In such a highly debated field it will be hard to convince many scholars of this new theory.
And the reclassifying without getting consensus is something that people do all the time and some scholars clearly are annoyed by it.