Skip to comments.Did Early Humans Go North or South?
Posted on 05/14/2005 7:58:39 AM PDT by Lessismore
By analyzing the DNA of living humans from different locations, geneticists are able to assemble a detailed reconstruction of prehistoric human colonization of the world. This research endeavor was championed by the late Allan Wilson [HN1] and his colleagues (1, 2), who led the way with their studies of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) [HN2]. Their work led to the proposal of a recent African origin for modern humans, some 5000 generations ago. Anthropologists and geneticists have since joined forces to create a broad framework of possible prehistoric human migration routes [HN3] and time scales (3-6). The two latest additions to this framework are described by Thangaraj et al. [HN4] (7) on page 996 and Macaulay et al. [HN5] (8) on page 1034 of this issue.
Our current understanding is that modern humans arose ~150,000 years ago, possibly in East Africa, where human genetic diversity is particularly high. Subsequent early colonization within Africa is supported by old genetic mtDNA and Y chromosome branches (often called "haplogroups" [HN6]) in the Bushmen or Khoisan [HN7] of the Kalahari Desert, and in certain pygmy tribes [HN8] in the central African rainforest. Early humans even ventured out of Africa briefly, as indicated by the 90,000-year-old Skhul and Qafzeh fossils [HN9] found in Israel. The next event clearly visible in the mitochondrial evolutionary tree is an expansion signature of so-called L2 and L3 mtDNA types in Africa about 85,000 years ago, which now represent more than two-thirds of female lineages throughout most of Africa. The reason for this remarkable expansion is unclear, but it led directly to the only successful migration out of Africa, and is genetically dated by mtDNA to have occurred some time between 55,000 and 85,000 years ago. Studies of the paternally inherited Y chromosome [HN10] yield time estimates for the African exodus that are in broad agreement with those derived from mtDNA.
It is at this point in the narrative that the studies by Thangaraj et al. (7) and Macaulay et al. (8) come into the picture. Which route did the first Eurasians take out of Africa? Most obvious, perhaps, is the route along the Nile and across the Sinai Peninsula leading into the rest of the world (see the figure). But if that were so, why was adjacent Europe settled thousands of years later than distant Australia? In Europe, Neanderthals were replaced by modern humans only about 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, whereas southern Australia was definitely inhabited 46,000 years ago and northern Australia and Southeast Asia necessarily even earlier (9, 10). [HN11] Or did our ancestors instead depart from East Africa, crossing the Red Sea and then following the coast of the Indian Ocean (11)? A purely coastal "express train" would conveniently explain the early dates for human presence in Australia, but would require that humans were capable of crossing the mouth of the Red Sea some 60,000 years ago. Why, then, was this feat not repeated by any later African emigrants, particularly when the Red Sea level dropped to a minimum about 20,000 years ago?
Ideally, these questions would be answered by investigating ancient fossils and DNA from the Arabian Peninsula. But because this option is currently not available, Thangaraj et al. and Macaulay et al. have centered their investigation on the other side of the Indian Ocean, in the Andaman Islands and Malaysian Peninsula. Both groups used genetic studies of relict populations known to differ substantially from their Asian neighbors to estimate the arrival time of the first humans in these locations. Thangaraj and colleagues sampled the Andamanese [HN12], who were decimated in the 19th century by diseases imported by the British and then suffered displacement by modern Indian immigration (12). Macaulay and co-workers sampled the native tribal people of Malaysia, called the Orang Asli [HN13] ("original people").
Fortunately, the two teams arrived at compatible conclusions. In the Andaman Islands, Thangaraj et al. identified the M31 and M32 mtDNA types among indigenous Andamanese. These two mtDNA types branched directly from M mtDNA, which arose as a founder 65,000 years ago. This time estimate for the arrival of M founder mtDNA is matched by that of Macaulay and co-workers. These investigators found mtDNA types M21 and M22 in their Malaysian data set. These M types are geographically specific branches of M that branched off from other Asian mtDNA lineages around 60,000 years ago. Thus, the first Eurasians appear to have reached the coast of the Indian Ocean soon after leaving Africa, regardless of whether they took the northern or the southern route. Interestingly, the adjacent Nicobar Islands do not harbor any old mtDNA branches specific to the islands. Instead, their mtDNA has a close and hence recent genetic relationship (on the order of 15,000 years or less) with the mtDNA of other Southeast Asian populations. This is not unexpected given the more Asian appearance of the Nicobar islanders.
Macaulay and colleagues go two steps further and estimate the prehistoric migration speed of early humans along the coast of the Indian Ocean; they also estimate the likely population size of the emigrant population. Comparing genetic dates of founder types between India and Australia, and assuming a 12,000-km journey along the Indian Ocean coastline, they suggest a migration speed for the first Eurasians of 0.7 to 4 km per year. This value is of the same order of magnitude as genetically dated inland journeys of migrant populations during the last Ice Age, 60,000 to 10,000 years ago (6) [HN14].
One intriguing question is the number of women who originally emigrated out of Africa. Only one is required, theoretically. Such a single female founder would have had to carry the African L3 mtDNA type, and her descendants would have carried those mtDNA types (M, N, and R) that populate Eurasia today. Macaulay et al. use population modeling to obtain a rough upper estimate of the number of women who left Africa 60,000 years ago. From their model, they calculate this number to be about 600. Using published conversion factors, we can translate this estimate into a number between 500 and 2000 actual women. The authors' preferred estimate is several hundred female founders. All such estimations are influenced by the choice of parameters and by statistical uncertainty; hence, it is understood that the true number could have been considerably larger or smaller. Improved estimates will involve computer simulations based on informed scenarios using additional genetic loci.
Time is short if researchers wish to secure data on dwindling indigenous populations such as the Andamanese and the Orang Asli. The studies by Macaulay et al. and Thangaraj et al., which are devoted to the peoples inhabiting the "southern route" along the Indian Ocean, are therefore very welcome. We hope that the new findings will inspire archaeological exploration between the Arabian Peninsula and Southeast Asia in search of the remains of the first Eurasians 50,000 to 100,000 years ago.
R. L. Cann, M. Stoneking, A. C. Wilson, Nature 325, 31 (1987) [Medline].
L. Vigilant, M. Stoneking, H. Harpending, K. Hawkes, A.
C. Wilson, Science 253, 1503 (1991) [Medline] [JSTOR].
P. Endicott et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 178 (2003) [Medline] [Abstract/full text].
R. Cordaux, M. Stoneking, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 1586 (2003) [Medline] [Full text].
P. A. Underhill, Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 68, 487 (2003) [Medline].
P. Forster, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 359, 255 (2004) [Medline].
K. Thangaraj et al., Science 308, 996 (2005).
V. Macaulay et al., Science 308, 1034 (2005).
G. Barker, Asian Perspect. 44, 90 (2005) [Issue abstracts].
J. M. Bowler et al., Nature 421, 837 (2003) [Medline] [Nature].
S. Oppenheimer, Out of Eden (Constable, London, 2003) [publisher's information].
S. Venkateswar, Sci. Am. 280, 82 (May 1999) [Abstract].
The authors are at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3ER, UK. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
why do I get the feeling this could turn into a Civil War thread?
maybe they just stayed where they were, in those early years... its not like there were blue and red areas yet
I agree. The ones that went north went north and the ones that went south went south...now was that so complicated?:)
Argh! I'm getting tired of mtDNA being misrepresented like this. The whole "mitochondrial Eve" thing is one of the biggest scientific hoaxes the public has fallen for in a long time. The people believe this scientists without question, while all the while, professionals and publications of merit (NEJoM, for example) are refuting the basis for their entire argument.
The current demographics of Florida pretty much answers the question.
They went THAT way.
I think the Crevos will find it before the reenactors do.
What's the hoax with the mitochondrial Eve thing? Serious question
Thanks for the reply Eeper, much appreciated!
Yes, but what I want to know is how did coconuts get to King Arthur's Britain?
Pinging the usual suspects...
In Michigan they went north every weekend and during hunting season. When they retired, they went south.
Thanks for the ping, but after experience with similar threads, it seems that my list is mostly uninterested in this topic. I'm pinging a few, but not the whole list.
Did Early Humans Go North or South?
Sure it is, but this article is more about anthropology, after modern humans have arrived.
Thanks. Please do.
As I remember, you're a multiregional guy like myself (and Coon and Wolpoff). I STILL have a problem with the speed of change. That is, is it conceivable that we are able to get mongoloid-type people from African-type people in a mere 30K years? It doesn't make intuitive sense...
And, what about the shovel incisors in the Peking Homo erectus (shovel incisors being present in modern Asians)? More evidence will convince me, but I must admit I am still a bit skeptical...my only agenda is a desire to learn the real truth.
Click the link in blam's post (#23) above. Excellent.
Yup, I'm a Wolpoff guy.
Oppenheimer, in his excellent books, Out Of Eden and Eden In The East, have me 'reeling'.
Also, he said that the oldest (undisputed) Mongoloid skeleton ever found is only 10k years old. (The disputed skeleton is 23k years old from the Lake Baikul(sp) area)
"I agree. The ones that went north went north and the ones that went south went south...now was that so complicated?:)"
You don't understand. If they simply said that, they could lose the grant. If they lose the grant, they might lose the university--hmm.
Yeah, what's so complicated about the ones that went north went northand the ones that went south went south?
Early humans went south. The rest of the primates moved north and are termed Yankee's.....
(I should know I'm currently living among them).
you can pick them out easily - they're the ones who know how to use apostrophes.
Haven't scientists yet discovered early simian records of directions for mankind just in case apes evolved??
(Geez, Freeper ApesforEvolution [RIP] would have loved this)
I'll be the first to admit I find punctuation a complete mystery ( followed closely by spelling ;-)
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
[multiregionalist secret handshake]
"the late Allan Wilson" made his infamous "village idiot" remark in a harangue in which he also claimed that language was A) unique to the OOA variety of human and B) made possible by mtDNA. That particular claim never really caught on; alas, the GIGO mtDNA studies have.
I will read it and spend some enjoyable time learning more about the origins of early humans
"That is, is it conceivable that we are able to get mongoloid-type people from African-type people in a mere 30K years? It doesn't make intuitive sense..."
That really is the question, and this latest research, if valid, makes the problem even harder because instead of multiple migrations of different racial prototypes from Africa, this implies one group only, which then split multiple times.
The cool thing though is this is being resolved so quickly now that we should have the whole story within the next five years.
I'll try for changing to a botanical thread.
I participated in a similar study for the plant commonly known as Spanish Moss. The botanist was attempting to use the same tecnique to locate the point of origin (center of growth) for the plant and collected samples of genetic material all along its range.
My part was to find and collect specimens of Spanish Moss from the northernmost outpost of the range. I located the point in First Landing State Park located on the southern edge of the Chesapeke Bay as it enters the Atlantic. This is also known as Cape Henry.
Strangely believe it, but the Bromeliad known as Spanish Moss is one of the most successful plants in the Western Hemisphere. It definitely has the largest range. Its range extends continuously from Virginia to Southern Argentina and some off shore islands in between
Wow. A subject I am interested in, too. I live about halfway between Montgomery and Auburn, Alabama. I work in Montgomery. There is Spanish moss in Montgomery, but not 25 miles North of Montgomery where I live. As I drive to work I am constantly looking for new outbreaks of Spanish moss. It sees to end at the Tallapossa river, but only where it flows West/East. At the other side of its big bend, where the flow is North/South, no Spanish moss.
Not a biologist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. It does seem fast in evolutionary terms. Also, I'm not clear on exactly what the evolutionary pressures were on those blacks who left Africa long ago and went to Europe. Why did their skin lose pigmentation so quickly? Presumably, they wore clothing so skin color wasn't critical to successful hunting (like it would be for an animal).
One other thing, there's pretty good history covering 5000 years now. That's a significant fraction of the 30K years mentioned. How much have humans evolved in that time??? Does it compare in any way to rate of change long ago? I don't think so.
The bottom line is that general audience publications oveersimplify all science reporting. "Eve" is a metaphor.
The science behind this could be wrong, but it is not a hoax.
The theory is that in order for less and less sunlight available as people moved north to make vitamin D, their skin lost melanin. In the early part of the last century (before vitamin D fortification of milk) an outbreak of rickets (D deficiency disease) occurred in Chicago among African American infants because they did not get enough sun.
As far as modern human evolution goes, the key is the isolation of a population. With all the genetic mixing nowadays, it would be hard for much genetic change over time to only affect certain populations.
I thought this bit was interesting: We hope that the new findings will inspire archaeological exploration between the Arabian Peninsula and Southeast Asia in search of the remains of the first Eurasians 50,000 to 100,000 years ago.
I know there's a lot of digs on the Sub-Continent, but what about the Arabian Peninsula?
But the children of the ones that went North died out, while the children of the ones that went South continue to reproduce, to this day.
That's the point of the story. You, I, and everybody else on Earth, are the descendents of the ones who went South. At least, this is what DNA is telling us.
We don't know what color the original Africans were. They may have had lighter skin and straighter hair than present day Africans, and got darker while everybody else got lighter.
Good point. The 'stay-at-home' Africans may have gone through their own series of changes that were different than those that affected the 'out-of-Africans.' The sub-Saharan Africans are the most 'different' from all the other people outside that region.
I googled on this topic and found the following article: The Biology of Skin Color. What's interesting is that there are at least two real feedback mechanisms (ie. ones that affect survival) due to ultraviolet sunlight: vitamin B and D. Nowadays, women when they're anticipating pregnancy, are advised to take B in prenatal vitamins to help reduce neural tube defects. Vitamin D is the rickets.
The article says that the earliest humans in Africa (pre-modern humans) were lighter skinned but as they lost body hair became darker skinned to reduce exposure to strong ultraviolet sunlight. Why? Because UV light decreases the amount of B in a woman's body, leading to more neural tube defects in children. IOW, there was evolutionary pressure in favor of darker skin and inhibiting lighter skin. This pressure goes away in Europe.
The UV connection with Vitamin D has the evolutionary pressure favoring lighter skin in Europe because D is needed for strong bone growth. Dark skin blocks UV from the Sun, leading to weaker bones in lower-light climates like Europe.
This all sounds perfectly plausible. I don't have the biological credentials to judge whether its accurate or not. Still, are these two pressures strong enough to produce such significant changes in only 30K years???
Yes, that's what the article I found assumes. The earliest humans (pre-modern man), were lighter skinned but had much more hair. As the amount of hair decreased, the skin darkened to reduce overall UV exposure. The mechanism was intense UV sunlight destroying vitamin B (folic acid) in lighter skinned, pregnant women's bodies, thus causing neural tube defects in babies.
Note: apparently there are documented cases of white women using tanning salons while pregnant and having NTD babies possibly due to the reduced B. The bad thing is that B is most important in the early stages of a PG, before it becomes obvious. Yikes!
As I understand the studies, a very large majority of European and North African (semetic?) people share a common marker. That marker is not found in others, so a break away by people of common heritage is implied.
Further, it is possible (?) to crudely date the arrival of that marker in places that form a pathway out of Africa, into the middle east & south china, and then into europe. Other studies have identified migration of he same marker into south America at a date well before the advent of "Native Americans" because...
The native americans appear to have used a different and later route which can also be mapped using similar tracking methods to map a different mtDNA marker.
I don't see much of a hoax in that and the possibility that both male and female ancestors might contribute to mtDNA is a red herring - if a marker exists and can be passed on, it seems a valid clue.
It is, after all, merely informed guess work.