One question - if there is evidence of an earlier migration out of Africa, and it is "challenging" the geneticist-theory (I am assuming they are referring to Spencer Wells and population bottleneck), wouldn't there also be evidence of a "great dying" from Mt. Toba? Rather, could this actually be evidence of Denisovan migration? I would imagine that if they matched weather patterns and water sources it would explain the path better. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-11/plos-o112811.php Trail of 'stone breadcrumbs' reveals the identity of 1 of the first human groups to leave Africa. A series of new archaeological discoveries in the Sultanate of Oman, nestled in the southeastern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, reveals the timing and identity of one of the first modern human groups to migrate out of Africa, according to a research article published in the open-access journal PLoS ONE. An international team of archaeologists and geologists working in the Dhofar Mountains of southern Oman, led by Dr. Jeffrey Rose of the University of Birmingham, report finding over 100 new sites classified as "Nubian Middle Stone Age (MSA)." Distinctive Nubian MSA stone tools are well known throughout the Nile Valley; however, this is the first time such sites have ever been found outside of Africa. According to the authors, the evidence from Oman provides a "trail of stone breadcrumbs" left by early humans migrating across the Red Sea on their journey out of Africa. "After a decade of searching in southern Arabia for some clue that might help us understand early human expansion, at long last we've found the smoking gun of their exit from Africa," says Rose. "What makes this so exciting," he adds, "is that the answer is a scenario almost never considered." These new findings challenge long-held assumptions about the timing and route of early human expansion out of Africa. Using a technique called Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) to date one of the sites in Oman, researchers have determined that Nubian MSA toolmakers had entered Arabia by 106,000 years ago, if not earlier. This date is considerably older than geneticists have put forth for the modern human exodus from Africa, who estimate the dispersal of our species occurred between 70,000 and 40,000 years ago. Even more surprising, all of the Nubian MSA sites were found far inland, contrary to the currently accepted theory that envisions early human groups moving along the coast of southern Arabia. "Here we have an example of the disconnect between theoretical models versus real evidence on the ground," says co-author Professor Emeritus Anthony Marks of Southern Methodist University. "The coastal expansion hypothesis looks reasonable on paper, but there is simply no archaeological evidence to back it up. Genetics predict an expansion out of Africa after 70,000 thousand years ago, yet we've seen three separate discoveries published this year with evidence for humans in Arabia thousands, if not tens of thousands of years prior to this date." The presence of Nubian MSA sites in Oman corresponds to a wet period in Arabia's climatic history, when copious rains fell across the peninsula and transformed its barren deserts to sprawling grasslands. "For a while," remarks Rose, "South Arabia became a verdant paradise rich in resources – large game, plentiful freshwater, and high-quality flint with which to make stone tools." Far from innovative fishermen, it seems that early humans spreading from Africa into Arabia were opportunistic hunters traveling along river networks like highways. Whether or not these pioneers were able to survive in Arabia during the hyperarid conditions of the Last Ice Age is another matter – a mystery that will require archaeologists to continue combing the deserts of southern Arabia, hot on the trail of stone breadcrumbs.
It's not unreasonable to expect humans to have migrated out of Africa before the major migration that established the ancestral colonies of the current non-African populations. After all, we are a curious species like all primates. Ice age droughts occur in regular cycles, so before the one 60KYA that brought our ancestors out, earlier adventurers might very well have tried to find a place with a more abundant food supply. The planet has considerable evidence of people being "in places where they should not be." Kennewick Man is the most recent, and one of the most controversial because of the cultural conflict he raises--a clearly European human who died on the Pacific coast of North America at least 4500 years before the first Viking expeditions to its Atlantic Coast. The Indians who live there now insist that he is one of their ancestors and therefore according to the treaty we have no right to confiscate his skeleton and take it to a lab for analysis. However, the analysis proved that he is in fact not their ancestor! Both North and South America have isolated archeological sites where humans obviously arrived from somewhere and made camp long before the wave of migration across Beringia began. But the point is that these people did not establish successful colonies that survived to greet and intermarry with the later immigrants. Life was hard in the Paleolithic Era and it's not remarkable for a small tribe to survive for a couple of generations and then die out. It's quite reasonable to assume that the same phenomenon occurred much earlier, before our species was established outside of Africa. People came, survived for a few generations, disappeared, and left some artifacts for puzzled archeologists to argue about. The only DNA that Cavalli-Sforza found outside of Africa is from two waves of migration of the San people ("Bushmen") 60KYA and 50KYA. And his is the definitive DNA analysis of our species. Linguists like to speculate that the technology that made the difference was language. Language greatly improves our ability to plan, collaborate and pass knowledge between tribes and down to future generations. These skills would have been critical for the establishment of a colony in unfamiliar territory. Perhaps language was invented 60KYA, and that's why those San explorers were able to travel all the way to Australia and establish a successful colony there.
Some of the people from Ethiopia moved along eastern part of the Nile river north , were later was established the Natufian people who ended in Lavant . From Ethiopia the migration into Oman flawed the coast of Persian golf were later in Iraq the Sumerian culture was established .
Yes, I read it. I posted in that thread. I have some familiarity with this topic, although only as a layman.
Here is the questions, again: If there is evidence of an earlier migration out of Africa, wouldn't there also be evidence of a "great dying" from Mt. Toba? Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has postulated that human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one's mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one's father) show coalescence at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago, respectively. In other words, all living humans' female line ancestry can be traced back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago. Via the male line, all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at around 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.[3] This is consistent with the Toba catastrophe theory that suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals[4] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[5] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[4] Could this actually be evidence of Denisovan migration?
The problem with the Mount Toba hypothesis is that there appears to be no evidence of a population bottleneck in other species at the same time, which would surely have happened. Not even species that are especially sensitive to slight climate changes. All humans lived in Africa at that time so it's just as possible (if not more so) that they were wiped out by a more local phenomenon, even one that only affected our species. Something as simple as a really nasty microorganism could have done it. Perhaps Y-Chromosome Adam happened to have the immunity so his bloodline is the only one that survived.
Correction Neanderthal man was not in Africa at that time, he was freezing his but in Europa during the ice age and wondered to Laban and ended up in Spain. Don't call Neanderthal sub human you are carry his genes at least 7 %
You're responding to someone else's post, not mine. I've never disparaged the Neanderthals and I'm reasonably familiar with their migrations. Homo neanderthalensis did not evolve in Africa and apparently never lived there. He invented stone tools, and a genuine Paleolithic culture can be unremarkably attributed to him. He was well adapted to the cold weather of Ice Age Europe and would not have longed for warmer weather. In fact one plausible hypothesis explaining his marginalization and replacement by H. sapiens as the dominant species on that continent was, precisely, that the weather warmed up. This took away his advantage over the younger species, which was adapted to the warmer climate of Africa. Since I am of 75% European ancestry I do carry some Neanderthal DNA. The sub-Saharan Africans do not, and neither do the Native Australians.
Good so we read the same material . Add to your database the death see draid up 120 000 years ago . see post death sea went dry
