Talk:Atapuerca Mountains

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

World Heritage Sites (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles

Mountains Mid‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

In the future, it would be necessary to create different articles for Atapuerca (town), Atapuerca Mountains and Archaeological Site of Atapuerca, is not? --La Fuente (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ref[edit]

Martinez et al., ʺTwo Middle Pleistocene Human Hyoid Bones from the Sima de los Huesos Site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain)ʺ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"New" species[edit]

A better expression would be "newly discovered species". I fixed one occurrence, leaving the remainder as an exercise. Kortoso (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "BP" Mean?[edit]

"A child with craniosynostosis was found dated to 530,000 BP and provides evidence for food sharing in early humans.[2]" What does this mean? "British Petroleum"? "Before Plato"?Jonny Quick (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before present. :)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And of course there's a Wikipedia article. Before_Present — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Gulutzan (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denisovan DNA[edit]

A recent article in Nature magazine reports of Denisovan DNA in a 400,000-yr.-old femur found at Sima de los Huesos. This important find is mentioned in the Wikipedia Denisovans article, where the Nature article is referenced and discussed in the NYT of 2013.12.05 ("Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins").Kdammers (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Denisovan, per se, but closer to Denisovan than to Neandertal. This line split from the Denisovan line much earlier than the Neandertal line split from the anatomically modern human line. There is a nice chart showing the relationship at Dienekes' Anthropolgy Blog (December 4, 2013) (which I am not linking because I'm not sure of the source for that chart). It is also notable that this is by far the oldest hominin mtDNA sequenced to date. As this is mtDNA, it tells us nothing about any subsequent breeding between lines, which apparently did occur between the Denisovan, Neandertal and AMH lines. -- Donald Albury 14:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Sima de los Huesos section should be updated with something on this. It's the oldest human DNA that has been analyzed. Iselilja (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if someone who has access to Nature could update based on the article, rather than relying exclusively on news reports (which filter the results in various ways). -- Donald Albury 17:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article here makes statements such as "they were neanderthals", not "early neanderthals", like SCIAM puts it, and "not Denisovans", which at least the SCIAM article doesn't mention, and in fact, emphasize there's a "puzzling link". They necessarily shared a common ancestor at some point, and it was certainly more "recently" for early neanderthals than for late neanderthals, at least excluding interbreeding events.

THE LARGEST ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE FOR HUMAN FOSSILS IN THE WORLD Atapuerca is by far, the largest archeological site for human fossils in the World. Usually what is found in other arecheological sites is an skull, a mandible, half of an skeleton or a couple....but finding hundreds of complete skeletons from the last million of years is something incredible. Over 5,500 human bones until now, some from 1,2 million B.C. to 800,000 B.C. and thousands of skeletons from the next 700,000 years. --81.38.47.114 (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

clean up[edit]

Hi! I allowed myself a little clean up today. Please feel free to correct me, supplement, revert errors, etc.All the best Wikirictor 09:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'number' confusion[edit]

the article states...The earliest specimen yet unearthed and reliably dated confirm an age between 1.2 Million and 600,000 years. does anybody know if this should this be 'specimens' to agree with 'confirm' or 'confirms' to agree with 'specimen'? Potholehotline (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not trust the statement at all. There are two references at the end of the paragraph, and the first says that human fossils date back almost a million years, while the second cites a paper which dates antecessor fossils to 780,000 years ago. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found a reference at [1]. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atapuerca Mountains. 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/20050728081214/http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/atapuerca/ to http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/atapuerca/

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Homo antecessor female.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Homo antecessor female.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]