Talk:Grimaldi man

France or Italy?

the caves in which the grimaldi man was found are in Italy not in france! i tried to change it but the system won't let me... please somebody change it asap!

The sources I find say France, Grotte des Enfants, etc. You seem to have changed it but I've reverted you. What sources say Grimaldi man was found in Italy? Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Menton sits right by the Franco-Italian border, with the Balzi Rossi (the "Red cliff") to the East. I don't know if the town and cliffs have at times been on Italian hands. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

SPAIN! See article "Cave of La Pasiega." HJJHolm (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A quick look in Google maps (google: "grotta dei fanciulli") shows the caves in Italy, at some 200 meters from the border. Riyadi (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Genetics? Current status?

Are the bones lost? Being analyzed? Forgotten in some dusty corner. Not clear. Kortoso (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Le Musée d'anthropologie préhistorique in Monaco. Merci.

Number of skeletons

Six Skeletons from the Grimaldi Caves at the Grotte des Enfants Site. Kortoso (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The other skeletons were found higher in the stratigraphy, and appear to be Cro-Magnons. Do you have any better references for the others? Petter Bøckman (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grimaldi 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205224742/https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html to https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html

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) 13:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grimaldi 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927140456/http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=55 to http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=55
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622130544/http://anthropology.osu.edu/DAA/back%20issues/DA_10_03.pdf to http://anthropology.osu.edu/DAA/back%20issues/DA_10_03.pdf

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) 08:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"chauvinism" cruft

This is completely idiotic, and I do not think the references cited are sufficient to establish WP:DUE (the condition to report on ostensibly silly stuff because it became somehow notable).

It is eminently reasonable to take an a priori position of "anteriority" of whatever location the oldest known fossils are from. At a time where the oldest known fossils were from France, it was exactly as reasonable to assume their "anteriority" as it later became reasonable to assume the "anteriority" of the Omo remains during the time for which they were the oldest known fossils. The situation is completely symmetric. It is deliberately misleading, to say the least, to suggest that this has anything to do with trying to "prove the superiority and anteriority of the white race" any more than it was an attempt at proving the "superiority and anteriority of the Ethiopian race" when people thought the Awash valley was the "cradle of humanity": it's just where the oldest known fossils were from. Now we have the Jebel Irhoud fossils, so the perfectly reasonable position of stating "this is the oldest known site for modern humans" now suddenly becomes "Moroccan chauvinism" rather than "Ethiopian chauvinism"? This is evidently an insane way of looking at the field and only people blinded by ideology, without any genuine interest in palaeoanthropology, would take such an approach.

This is not to doubt that some individuals, both French and Ethiopian, would have made this about childish chauvinism of "anteriority", but this would have been entirely outside the relevant scientific debate. The (presumed) existence of chauvinism cannot be taken as a pretext to depict an entire scientific field as somehow morally suspect. If there is a specific author or specific reference which qualifies as "chauvinistic", by all means cite it. Then, it will have to be deliberated whether it is WP:DUE to discuss it under the Grimaldi Man / Omo remains topics, or if it might be more relevant to the ideological French nationalism or Afrocentrism topics.

--dab (𒁳) 06:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)