Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23da6fc9cd80abb

Jump to content

Talk:Apidima Cave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Created the talk-page

[edit]

Created the talk-page for the "Apidima Cave" article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

ice-sheet

[edit]

a map showing the ebb and flow of the ice sheets and timeframes to the location of the cave(s) would be interesting 50.111.5.59 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is Apidima 1 a true homo sapiens?

[edit]

"A mixture of modern human and primitive features" means: not a pure h. sapiens, or a mix of anatomically more developed features with less developed features, but all within the h. sapiens range? I'm not a specialist, but based on plain logic, this looks like a distinction that has to be made. Maybe it's the result of a mix between an older h. sapiens population with incoming Neanderthals, or with another hominin species. That would still offer proof of the early apparition of h. sapiens on the Greek islands, but then Apidima 1 itself is not a pure h. sapiens. Or, it is a mix of anatomically modern h. sapiens of different stages of evolutionary "refinement", for lack of a better term, if such a thing exists - does it? That lack of knowledge on my behalf is the base of this whole question - and then Apidima 1 is indeed a "clean" h. sapiens. To specialists the distinction is probably commonplace, but here on Wikipedia we need to make it in a more explicit way (that's also why news aren't the best source, because most journalists don't manage, or bother, to make such distinctions.) Who can answer the question? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just want to recommend this article as a resource to anyone wanting to read a concise overview of the debate in one place.
https://www.science.org/content/article/skull-fragment-greek-cave-suggests-modern-humans-were-europe-more-200000-years-ago The x-phylas (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education assignment: Evolution of the Genus Homo

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2022 and 3 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MRawlings73 (article contribs).

Siding with one party in an active archaeological debate is still original research even if you're citing a paper

[edit]

Richard Keatinge, please in the future consider using the talk page prior to making large changes to an article like this, the topic of which is still under much debate in its actual field. In particular, you have removed content regarding the position of one sizable group (Harvati's) based on your own personal judgement, and replaced it with what you determined to be the better answer (the late erectus/pre-archaic divergence position), citing a single paper for this. That is not how consensus works.

A lot of what you wrote, the language stuff mainly, is uncontroversial and a clear improvement. I'd ask that you return the content from the section you removed, and I think its fair if you want to rewrite some to fit with what you added to the erectus section, illustrating that this is actually not a settled question. Mausfield (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I hope that this edit answers your concerns. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply