Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Humans Migrated Out Of Africa, Then Some Went Back, Study Says
National Geographic Society ^ | 12-14-2006 | Stefan Lovgren

Posted on 12/29/2006 3:48:38 PM PST by blam

Humans Migrated Out of Africa, Then Some Went Back, Study Says

Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News

December 14, 2006

Humans first moved out of Africa about 70,000 years ago, but 30,000 years later some of them moved back.

That's according to a new study based on DNA evidence from ancient human remains found in Africa.

The study shows that a small group of early humans returned to Africa after migrating to the Middle East.

In addition, the research suggests that the humans' return occurred around the same time that another group of humans left the Middle East and moved into Europe.

"We were rather surprised by the age of the migration back to Africa," said Antonio Torroni, a geneticist at the University of Pavia in Italy.

"We did not really expect that it was 40,000 to 45,000 years old."

"But the age and the fact that the migration had originated in the Levant [a geographical term referring to a large part of the Middle East] led us to link the migration to Africa to that occurring at the same time toward Europe from the same region," added Torroni, who led the research team.

The findings are reported in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

Single Dispersal

The new study builds on the theory, laid out in two separate studies published in Science last year, that humans migrated from Africa in a single dispersal about 70,000 years ago.

That theory suggests that modern humans left East Africa by crossing the Red Sea, then journeyed south, following a coastal route along the Arabian Peninsula and on to India, Malaysia, and Australia (see a map of human migration). Other models have suggested that humans left Africa in multiple waves of migration via northern and southern routes.

The single "out of Africa" dispersal is believed to have given rise to all modern non-African populations.

However, scientists have been puzzled by two genetic populations found only in northern and eastern Africa, whose ancestors appear to have been Asian.

In the new study, scientists sequenced the mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to daughter, from 81 individuals in both of these genetic groups.

They found that the two populations must have arisen in southwestern Asia and returned to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago.

The groups did not, however, follow the same southern coastal route back that was used in the single dispersal out of Africa.

Instead, the study suggests, they arrived from the Middle East, the same area from which another genetic group—one typical among Europeans—was at the same time moving toward Europe.

"It's a finding that … supports the view that the first [Late Stone Age] cultures in North Africa and Europe had a common homeland in the Levant," Torroni said.

Vincent Macaulay, the lead author on one of the two single-dispersion studies published in Science last year, agrees with the findings.

"These results make perfect sense and wrap up some loose ends," said Macaulay, a genetic statistician at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.

Changing Climate

The authors of the new study believe that before reaching the Levant, migrating humans may have paused at the Persian Gulf for some time because of a hostile climate.

Environmental evidence suggests that migrating north from southwestern Asia would have been impossible earlier than 50,000 years ago because of a vast desert that extended from northern Africa to central Asia.

"When weather conditions improved, the desert was fragmented and reduced in size," said Anna Olivieri, a geneticist in Torroni's lab and a co-author of the study.

"The human groups living in the coastal regions of southwestern Asia were able to move inland."

"Some of them colonized first the Levant and from there all surrounding regions including Europe and North Africa," she said.

"Consider also that the Sahara desert in North Africa was reducing its size. Thus, that region became interesting from a human colonization perspective."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: africa; antoniotorroni; arabia; dna; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; humans; migration; multiregionalism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 12/29/2006 3:48:41 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
GGG Ping.


2 posted on 12/29/2006 3:50:26 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Nice article. They are learning more about these migrations every week.
3 posted on 12/29/2006 3:51:45 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
The study shows that a small group of early humans returned to Africa after migrating to the Middle East. In addition, the research suggests that the humans' return occurred around the same time that another group of humans left the Middle East and moved into Europe.

Neither group was thrilled with the Middle East, it appears.

4 posted on 12/29/2006 3:56:08 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Early Humans May Have Crossed Sea to Leave Africa

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
May 13, 2005

Where did we come from, and how did we get here? Most scientists agree on the most basic answers to these questions, suggesting modern humans first evolved in Africa, probably around 150,000 years ago, and later colonized the globe.

But precisely when this migration started and the route it followed has been hotly debated. One theory holds that a wave of migration from Africa began about 50,000 years ago, with modern humans moving north through North Africa into the Middle East, then moving east and west into Asia and Europe.

Another model suggests that modern humans left Africa in multiple waves of migration that started perhaps as early as 80,000 years ago, with ancient settlers dispersing globally via northern and southern routes.

Two separate studies published in the current edition of the research journal Science support a third theory: that a single rapid dispersal occurred somewhere between 60,000 to 75,000 years ago.

The studies suggest that modern humans left East Africa by crossing the Red Sea, then journeyed south, following a coastal route along the Arabian Peninsula to India, Malaysia, and Australia.

One of the two new studies was led by Kumarasamy Thangaraj, a geneticist at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, India. Thangaraj and his colleagues investigated populations on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands near the coast of Thailand.

The study focused on mitochondrial DNA, genetic material that is passed maternally and found in every human cell. All humans can be traced via this specialized DNA to a single ancestral female who lived about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago, many scientists say.

Thangaraj and colleagues used this genetic material as signposts to trace the deep ancestry of six isolated indigenous tribal populations on the islands. The tribes included the Nicobarese, Onge, Andamanese, and Great Andamanese.

Earlier studies had shown that the Nicobarese are of Southeast Asian origin and probably reached the islands relatively recently, between 15,000 and 18,000 years ago.

In the past scientists believed that three of the tribal populations—the Andamanese, the Onge and Great Andamanese—on the islands were "closer to the Asians than Africans," Thangaraj said.

"But when we sequenced [their] complete mitochondrial genome[s], we found unique variations, which have not been found anywhere in the world, so far," he said.

The findings led Thangaraj and his colleagues to suggest that the tribes descend from "the very early migrants out of Africa."

"Based on the mutations, we estimated that they must have migrated about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, taking the southern sea route," he said.

Following the Coastline

Vincent Macaulay, a genetic statistician at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, led a separate genetic study. The results, which were also based on ecological and archaeological evidence, led Macaulay and his colleagues to conclude that modern humans left Africa via a southern migration route.

The researchers say evidence suggests modern humans could not have taken a northern route prior to 50,000 years ago, as one competing theory suggests. That's because the whole of North Africa, Arabia, and the Middle East into Central Asia was desert up until that time. The scientists also cite evidence of human settlement in Australia dating back to 63,000 years ago.

For modern humans to leave Africa via a southern route, as Macaulay and his colleagues argue, modern humans would have had to master ocean travel.

Macaulay said that crossing the Red Sea, which separates North Africa from the Arabian Peninsula, would not have been impossible. It was only a few kilometers across and modern humans "would have been able to see across to the other side. So [it was] perhaps not quite swimmable, but certainly floatable on a raft."

But how could modern humans have reached Australia, hundreds of nautical miles from the nearest landmass? On this question, Macaulay is more vague.

"The crossing at the other end, to Australia, is much more mysterious. That was a substantial sea crossing," he said. "But there's evidence for gene flow between Africa and Arabia post-60,000 years [ago], as well. So there were other sea crossings going on."

"Modern humans reached India by 66,000 years ago, Malaysia by 64,000 years ago—and they reached Australia by about 63,000 years ago," Macauley said. "It's a rather rapid expansion. In 3,000 years they went something like 12,000 kilometers (7,500 miles)."

"If you do the math, it's about 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) a year, which is pretty speedy, maybe suggesting they were using boats to make longer excursions along the coast."

Four kilometers a year is comparable to estimates of the dispersal that settled the Americas, as humans moved from Asia across the ancient Bering land bridge into North American and, from there, into South America.

European Settlement

Macaulay's study postulates that Europe was populated as the result of an offshoot of migrants who traveled the southern route somewhere east of Africa. They moved up into Europe, beginning around 50,000 years ago as the climate improved.

The earliest known archaeological evidence for modern humans in Europe is on the order of 45,000 years old.

Macaulay's team suggests that the first groups of modern humans who left Africa to settle other continents likely numbered in the hundreds.

Their size relative to their impact on human history is astonishing, said Peter Forster, a geneticist at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the University of Cambridge in England. Forster wrote a Science commentary on the two new studies.

"At these early periods between 60,000 and 30,000 years ago, human population densities were low," he said. "We're talking on a scale of only a few hundred individuals that must have made it out of Africa 60,000 years ago.

"And these small founder groups, from which billions of people are descended, had the tremendous genetic impact that we see in the diversity today," Forster said.

5 posted on 12/29/2006 4:01:25 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam
This coincides nicely with your theory of advanced civilizations coming out of Ice Age Indonesia..

Migrations from those areas may have been occurring even before the melting of the glacial ice and the raising of the sea levels.
Some level of trade and travel may have existed..
The end of the Ice Age may have simply completed population shifts that had already begun...

6 posted on 12/29/2006 4:01:33 PM PST by Drammach (Freedom... Not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
In the new study, scientists sequenced the mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to daughter, from 81 individuals in both of these genetic groups.

There seems to be some dispute as to the validity of this method. Here's a link. It's long, but it lays out some dissenting opinions.
Link.
7 posted on 12/29/2006 4:05:12 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
But how could modern humans have reached Australia, hundreds of nautical miles from the nearest landmass? On this question, Macaulay is more vague.
"The crossing at the other end, to Australia, is much more mysterious. That was a substantial sea crossing," he said. "But there's evidence for gene flow between Africa and Arabia post-60,000 years [ago], as well. So there were other sea crossings going on."

Was there a substantial sea crossing??
What about ice ??

Nine or Ten Years of frozen ice over the Australian straits probably wouldn't even show up in a geological record..
But it would be ample time for humans to simply walk to Australia..

Ice age sea levels combined with periodically frozen southern oceans would provide the means and opportunity to migrate to Australia..
Likewise, ice fishers accidentally marooned on ice floes could have found themselves brought to the continent by ocean currents..

8 posted on 12/29/2006 4:13:06 PM PST by Drammach (Freedom... Not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
Atlas Of The Human Journey
9 posted on 12/29/2006 4:13:27 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
This is currently my favorite, it is based on the DNA studies of Professor Stephen Oppenheimer...he shows the effect of the Toba volcano 75,000 years ago too.

Journey Of Mankind

10 posted on 12/29/2006 4:20:25 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
Here's another good article: Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA
11 posted on 12/29/2006 4:26:04 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blam

YEC INTREP


12 posted on 12/29/2006 4:27:20 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
I recall that link from last year or thereabouts..

The Toba eruption could very well have driven humans south in to Australia.. ( 6 year "nuclear" winter, subsequent 1000 year ice age provides adequate ice-overs in the southern hemisphere for desperate humans to attempt escaping disaster )

It may be found that the first migrations were even earlier than presently thought..

13 posted on 12/29/2006 4:44:00 PM PST by Drammach (Freedom... Not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Good link.. (bookmarked for future reference)


14 posted on 12/29/2006 4:46:15 PM PST by Drammach (Freedom... Not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blam

The Out of Eden senarios are looking even more likely.


15 posted on 12/29/2006 5:01:41 PM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
Sundaland
16 posted on 12/29/2006 5:02:02 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
The problems with these studies were so bad that Henry Gee, a member of the editorial staff for the journal, Nature, harshly described the studies as "garbage." After considering the number of sequences involved (136 mtDNA sequences), Gee calculated that the total number of potentially correct parsimonious trees is somewhere in excess of one billion.25

Geneticist Alan Templeton (Washington University) suggests that low-level mixing among early human populations may have scrambled the DNA sequences sufficiently so that the question of the origin of modern humans and a date for "Eve" can never be settled by mtDNA.22

In a letter to Science, Mark Stoneking (one of the original researchers) acknowledged that the theory of an "African Eve" has been invalidated.23

Another interesting aspect of the "molecular clock" theory is the way in which the mutation rate itself was determined.

Contrary to what many might think, the mutation rate was not initially determined by any sort of direct analysis, but by supposed phylogenic evolutionary relationships between humans and chimps

In other words, the mutation rate was calculated based on the assumption that the theory in question was already true. This is a rather circular assumption and as such all results that are based on this assumption will be consistent with this assumption - like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Since the rate was calculated based on previous assumptions of evolutionary time, then the results will automatically "confirm" the previous assumptions.


If one truly wishes independent confirmation of a theory, then one cannot calibrate the confirmation test by the theory, or any part of the theory, that is being tested. And yet, this is exactly what was done by scientists such as Sarich, one of the pioneers of the molecular-clock idea.


Sarich began by calculating the mutation rates of various species "...whose divergence could be reliably dated from fossils." He then applied that calibration to the chimpanzee-human split, dating that split at from five to seven million years ago.

Using Sarich's mutation calibrations, Wilson and Cann applied them to their mtDNA studies, comparing "...the ratio of mitochondrial DNA divergence among humans to that between humans and chimpanzees."24 By this method, they calculated that the common ancestor of all modern humans, the "African Eve", lived about 200,000 years ago.

Obviously then, these dates, calculated from the mtDNA analysis, must match the presupposed evolutionary time scale since the calculation is based on this presupposition.

The circularity of this method is inconsistent with good scientific method and is worthless as far as independent predictive value is concerned.

The "mitochondrial clock" theory was and is basically a theory within a theory in that it has no independent predictive power outside of the theory of evolution.


It is surprising then that scientists did not catch this inherent flaw earlier. Interestingly enough though, this flaw in reasoning was not detected for many years and perhaps would have remained undetected for much longer if a more direct mutation-rate analysis had not been done

17 posted on 12/29/2006 5:08:09 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blam

more contrived feelgood therapy for the afrocentrists


18 posted on 12/29/2006 5:09:07 PM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
"Was there a substantial sea crossing??"

Yes, but much shorter than today.

"What about ice ??

No ice. The equator runs right through Indonesia and just north of New Guinea (Sundaland). An ideal place for humans to thrive during the Ice Age.

The equator runs through South America too and I suspect we have some big ancient suprises waiting down there.

19 posted on 12/29/2006 5:10:07 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
From your link.

Conclusions

The studies of Neandertal mtDNA do not show that Neandertals did not or could not interbreed with modern humans. However, the lack of diversity in Neandertal mtDNA sequences, combined with the large differences between Neandertal and modern human mtDNA, strongly suggest that Neandertals and modern humans developed separately, and did not form part of a single large interbreeding population. The Neandertal mtDNA studies will strengthen the arguments of those scientists who claim that Neandertals should be considered a separate species which did not significantly contribute to the modern gene pool.

I'm presently reading a book titled, Before The Dawn, by Nicholas Wade and he says that the migration of Modern Humans out of Africa was blocked for thousands of years by the Neanderthals in Europe and the Middle East.

20 posted on 12/29/2006 5:17:59 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
That's about what I got out of it. Clearly suspect methodology to predetermine the mutation rate from supposition rather than observation. I found the part where examples of males transferring mitochondrial DNA to be the nail in the coffin of this theory though.
21 posted on 12/29/2006 5:20:11 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: blam

This raises 3 fundamental questions for me that I pose to any anti-creationism person:
1. If humans arose from more primitive animals, why just in one spot near the equator? Why didn't the monkeys we came from migrate first?

2. I'm pretty sure C14 dating is not accurate for samples over 40,000 years old (its actually never been proven accurate for samples over 2000 years old) so this is based on archeological evidence for the 80,000 years ago mark? How do you know that the flood did not skew these results...

3. DNA is DNA wherever it is in the cell, it is extremely susceptible to damage and mitochondrial DNA is especially conserved through species and even more within the human race. If you are using this to track migration, its more likely that you're seeing different results from mutation than place of origin...

Just my humble opinion


22 posted on 12/29/2006 5:20:54 PM PST by skippermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
"The Toba eruption could very well have driven humans south in to Australia.. ( 6 year "nuclear" winter, subsequent 1000 year ice age provides adequate ice-overs in the southern hemisphere for desperate humans to attempt escaping disaster ) "

Some human activity/artifacts have been found in Indonesia that date to shortly after Toba exploded. No-one knows if they survived the 'winter' caused by Toba...they apparently did survive the explosion for some time afterward.

23 posted on 12/29/2006 5:21:10 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
"more contrived feelgood therapy for the afrocentrists"

All humans come from lines designated L1, L2, and L3. Everyone outside Africa are descended from L3 and are more related to themselves than anyone in Africa. The L1 and L2 lines are still in Africa but, the L3 line has gone extinct in Africa.

24 posted on 12/29/2006 5:26:00 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: blam
I'm presently reading a book titled, Before The Dawn, by Nicholas Wade and he says that the migration of Modern Humans out of Africa was blocked for thousands of years by the Neanderthals in Europe and the Middle East.

I'm working on the same book. Only up to about chapter 3 at the moment.

I think I learned of it on one of your threads.

By the way, the Oppenheimer migration map has been superseded by new information in two instances that I know of. Haplogroups A and one haplotype of D seem to stem from one or more early coastal migrations running from Alaska down the California coast, most likely using watercraft. Haplogroup B, and the other haplotype of D, apparently traveled through the interior of the continent before reaching the west coast.

Things are changing very quickly in mtDNA studies! This information is new, from late 2006.

25 posted on 12/29/2006 5:30:48 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: skippermd
"1. If humans arose from more primitive animals, why just in one spot near the equator? Why didn't the monkeys we came from migrate first? "

Some early ones did migrate before Modern Humans.

Strangers In A New Land

Image: JOHN GURCHE PORTRAIT OF A PIONEER With a brain half the size of a modern one and a brow reminiscent of Homo habilis, this hominid is one of the most primitive members of our genus on record. Paleoartist John Gurche reconstructed this 1.75-million-year-old explorer from a nearly complete teenage H. erectus skull and associated mandible found in Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia. The background figures derive from two partial crania recovered at the site.

26 posted on 12/29/2006 5:33:41 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: blam

yeah yeah yeah........all of which means that the human species started in just one place on the earth. (and to justify THAT, they point to leakey who just "happened" on a skull that was waiting on a rock out in the weather for sll those centuries, LOL)

Instead of making up stories, "scientists" should be building omni's, so people could see for themselves.

"Scientists" are the most serious grifters in this world, as regards the past and future. They love to build on questionable, postulated, and false premise.....


27 posted on 12/29/2006 5:36:07 PM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: skippermd
This raises 3 fundamental questions for me that I pose to any anti-creationism person:

1. If humans arose from more primitive animals, why just in one spot near the equator? Why didn't the monkeys we came from migrate first?

2. I'm pretty sure C14 dating is not accurate for samples over 40,000 years old (its actually never been proven accurate for samples over 2000 years old) so this is based on archeological evidence for the 80,000 years ago mark? How do you know that the flood did not skew these results...

3. DNA is DNA wherever it is in the cell, it is extremely susceptible to damage and mitochondrial DNA is especially conserved through species and even more within the human race. If you are using this to track migration, its more likely that you're seeing different results from mutation than place of origin...

I'll take a whack, though I am a scientist not an "anti-creationism person":

1. Monkeys didn't migrate because that would mean leaving the forests, to which they had adapted tens of millions of years ago. Humans are descended from apes who were squeezed out of the African forests when climate change reduced the size of the forests something like 5 or 6 million years ago. Over time they adapted to savanna conditions, developed bipedal locomotion, and thus were able to spread out where monkeys and apes were not.

2. Carbon 14 dating goes back some 50,000 years. It has been shown to be accurate through tree ring dating and calibration in various parts of the world. In the US it has been calibrated against tree rings from standing deal bristlecone pines past 12,000 years ago. In the old world it has been extended even older using tree rings and glacial varves. Thus, it has been shown to be accurate past 2,000 years. As for the "global flood" -- there is no scientific evidence for any such flood. That is a religious belief. (If you have any specific questions on Carbon 14 dating let me know, as I do a lot of it.)

3. There are areas in mitochondrial DNA (which is made up of 16,568 base pairs) in which slight changes are significantly more common. These are called the hypervariable regions. Most mtDNA studies on humans use what are now called HVR-1 and HVR-2. Specific mutations are passed on to all female descendants, and allow populations to be tracked through time. As an example, one individual from southern Alaska, dated to 10,300 years ago, was found to have a particular haplotype of haplogroup D; that haplotype has been found in living individuals from British Columbia to the tip of South America. I have another case of basal haplogroup A dating from 5,300 years ago being found in living individuals in California.

Hope this helps.

28 posted on 12/29/2006 5:46:39 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: blam

"I got my reins down in A-a-africa."


29 posted on 12/29/2006 5:47:30 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"By the way, the Oppenheimer migration map has been superseded by new information in two instances that I know of."

I love it. Its and indication of the pace of discovery.

"I'm working on the same book. Only up to about chapter 3 at the moment."

I'm in the middle of chapter nine. It's a better book than I originally expected.

My next books to read are:

1. OriginsOf The British, Oppenheimer

2. The Maya(seventh edition), Michael Coe.

30 posted on 12/29/2006 5:47:41 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: blam

Thanks! No one has ever cited that before for me


31 posted on 12/29/2006 6:01:01 PM PST by skippermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: blam
Changing Climate

The authors of the new study believe that before reaching the Levant, migrating humans may have paused at the Persian Gulf for some time because of a hostile climate.

I didn't realize they had cars that early, the inconsiderate bastards!

32 posted on 12/29/2006 6:06:28 PM PST by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
3. There are areas in mitochondrial DNA (which is made up of 16,568 base pairs) in which slight changes are significantly more common. These are called the hypervariable regions. Most mtDNA studies on humans use what are now called HVR-1 and HVR-2. Specific mutations are passed on to all female descendants, and allow populations to be tracked through time.

Do you disagree with the link in post #7? Especially the part about paternal transference of mitochondrial DNA. It seem to debunk the entire theory if it is not an exclusively female phenomenon.
33 posted on 12/29/2006 6:09:25 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: blam
RE: Sundaland as Atlantis...

I would go along with a tradition / mythology of Sundaland as "Mu", but not Atlantis..

Atlantis, if indeed it did exist literally, was almost definitely Santorini..
But as a culture, I believe the Atlanteans were more likely Santorini, Crete, Cyprus, Malta, etc... A seafaring, Island dwelling society built on trade..
The Pillars of Hercules referred to are the ancient ones in the Mediterranean, not the gateway to the Atlantic..
The people mentioned by the Egyptians were the "sea people", which were eventually dispersed throughout the Mediterranean and along the coast of Spain.. ( later referred to as Philistines, possibly Phoenicians, later, Canaanites )

Mu, on the other hand, was more ancient, and far larger.. I would be more inclined to believe that Sundaland / Mu are the same..
There may have been some confusion of legends, blending aspects of the two civilizations, or possibly legend through descent.. ( Atlantean civilization descended from survivors of Sundaland / Mu culture(s) ...
This might account for the erroneous timeline in which Plato claims Atlantis was 10,000 years old... ( in his time)
This may have been a reference to where the Atlanteans came from.. An ancient, 10,000 year old civilization that once thrived in Ice Age Indonesia/Sundaland...
Having migrated to the Mediterranean some 7,000 years ago, their advanced culture would have been able to establish itself with virtually no resistance on the islands, and eventually rule the Mediterranean basin for a couple thousand years before any seriously civilized culture could advance enough to threaten them..
If they had remained peaceful traders they might have been able to survive, but "good living" turned them to practice of slavery.. ( or local influences, who knows ?? )
They would have eventually been overwhelmed by sheer numbers anyway, but natural disaster quickened their demise...

Anyways, that's my 2 cents worth..

34 posted on 12/29/2006 6:19:15 PM PST by Drammach (Freedom... Not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
Do you disagree with the link in post #7? Especially the part about paternal transference of mitochondrial DNA. It seem to debunk the entire theory if it is not an exclusively female phenomenon.

I'm not an expert in the field, but from what I have seen the evidence suggests that this type of transference could be quite rare.

The examples I cited 1) from southern Alaska (On Your Knees Cave) of an individual dated to 10,300 years ago being associated with numerous living individuals of the same haplotype, and 2) from California spanning 5,300 years, suggest that the standard model of mitochondrial descent is dominant. While there may be some cases of paternal transference, the examples I cited where the mtDNA is identical for many thousand years suggests that no such paternal transference occurred in those instances.

This may be in instance where they are still working out some of the fine points, but the overall pattern of mtDNA descent is well established?

But, things are changing quickly so we'll see.

35 posted on 12/29/2006 6:20:29 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
"I would go along with a tradition / mythology of Sundaland as "Mu", but not Atlantis.. "

Where Was Atlantis? Sundaland Fits The Bill, Surely

36 posted on 12/29/2006 6:25:22 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: blam; FairOpinion; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 24Karet; 3AngelaD; 49th; ...
Thanks Blam.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

37 posted on 12/29/2006 6:38:25 PM PST by SunkenCiv (It takes a village to mind its own business. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I wasn't aware that the field was mature enough to be established as fact. Even a rare paternal transference however would dispute the foundation of mitochondrial DNA dating. It is the prime assumption that it does not happen. I'm not disputing the general assumptions that prehistoric man migrated en masse. I just don't trust the methodology behind mitochondrial DNA analysis pertaining to the subject.
38 posted on 12/29/2006 6:46:00 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
I wasn't aware that the field was mature enough to be established as fact. Even a rare paternal transference however would dispute the foundation of mitochondrial DNA dating. It is the prime assumption that it does not happen. I'm not disputing the general assumptions that prehistoric man migrated en masse. I just don't trust the methodology behind mitochondrial DNA analysis pertaining to the subject.

Some things in the field can be considered facts, others are hypotheses or theory (the best explanations based on the available facts).

It is a fact that the individual in On Your Knees Cave had the same haplotype as individuals spread along the west coasts of North and South America, all the way to Tierra del Fuego.

It is a fact that this individual was about 10,300 years old, while the others were living individuals. I don't at this point know of any ancient samples in between these ages (repatriation laws make obtaining ancient DNA samples very difficult in California), but the field is young and growing rapidly. It is an hypothesis that the living individuals are descended from the ancient individual or his lineage. But it looks like a pretty safe bet.

If there was a small amount of paternal transference, what would that mean?

We are dealing with very small "founding" populations spreading around the world.

Because of this, paternal transference would usually mean the passing on of another sequence from the same population (the father's rather than the mother's). If the populations are relatively homogeneous this would not result in any significant changes.

However, if there were extreme differences between the males and the females in a population this could result in a significant difference in the descendants if paternal transference errors also occurred. Instances where men from one group raided an unrelated group to steal women and the resulting offspring were subject to paternal transference errors would be an example.

These examples suggest that the likelihood of paternal transference being a significant factor is limited.

I think it is safer to look at the preponderance of the evidence before you consider the long-odds evidence. It doesn't always work out that way, but if you're a betting man/woman that's usually the way to bet.

39 posted on 12/29/2006 7:16:48 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I don't see enough of a volume of information over time to substantiate the theory. I also don't see the initial assumptions to base the mutation timeline on to be valid at all. If I were a betting man I'd sit this one out and wait for more info.


40 posted on 12/29/2006 7:24:00 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: blam

"All humans come from lines designated L1, L2, and L3. Everyone outside Africa are descended from L3 and are more related to themselves than anyone in Africa. The L1 and L2 lines are still in Africa but, the L3 line has gone extinct in Africa."
I could have sworn that L3 Haplogroup is ONLY found in Africa???

African mtDNA haplogroups

L1 (L1a, L1b, L1c) - Populations carrying L1 are the descendants of the KhoiSan speaking peoples

L2 - This haplogroup is east African and it is related with the Bantu expansion

L2a, the most common clade (62% of the total L2), is the only one widespread all over Africa. Not surprisingly, it is also the one more associated with the Bantu and their expansion

L2b and L2c are more concentrated in western Africa (particularly Senegal) and are virtually absent in eastern Africans, in Biakaand Mbuti Pygmies, and is rare in southern Africans. It is common in some Senegalese populations.

L2d is the rarest, but it also appears mainly restricted to western Africa (particularly Western Sahara and Mauritania/Senegal).

L3 (L3b, L3d, L3e)- This haplogroup is east African and it is related with the Bantu expansion

L3* (also known as N/M/L3) - It is particularly important to make it quite clear that this group is specific to sub-Saharan Africa, since it is present in a great deal of the European populations including the Finns [Passarino et al. (2002) even found L2 lineages in a Norwegian sample, so the presence of African markers introduced in Nordic populations during the Neolithic shouldn't be a surprise]. This African haplogroup, mostly introduced in Europe during the Neolithic (as explained in Gonzalez et al. 2003) is distinguished from the Eurasian haplogroups M and N at the nucleotide positions 10400 and 10873, respectively (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).


41 posted on 12/29/2006 7:33:34 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Looks like I may have misunderstood what I read. I always get into trouble with the DNA stuff.

Mitochondrial Eve: The Mother of Us All

Ancestral Line: “Mitochondrial Eve”

Our story begins in Africa sometime between 150,000 and 170,000 years ago, with a woman whom anthropologists have nicknamed “Mitochondrial Eve.”

She was awarded this mythic epithet in 1987 when population geneticists discovered that all people alive on the planet today can trace their maternal lineage back to her.

But Mitochondrial Eve was not the first female human. Homo sapiens evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago, and the first hominids?characterized by their unique bipedal stature?appeared nearly two million years before that. Yet despite humans having been around for almost 30,000 years, Eve is exceptional because hers is the only lineage from that distant time to survive to the present day.

Which begs the question, “So why Eve?”

Simply put, Eve was a survivor. A maternal line can become extinct for a number of reasons. A woman may not have children, or she may bear only sons (who do not pass her mtDNA to the next generation). She may fall victim to a catastrophic event such as a volcanic eruption, flood, or famine, all of which have plagued humans since the dawn of our species.

None of these extinction events happened to Eve’s line. It may have been simple luck, or it may have been something much more. It was around this same time that modern humans’ intellectual capacity underwent what author Jared Diamond coined the Great Leap Forward.
Many anthropologists believe that the emergence of language gave us a huge advantage over other early human species. Improved tools and weapons, the ability to plan ahead and cooperate with one another, and an increased capacity to exploit resources in ways we hadn’t been able to earlier, all allowed modern humans to rapidly migrate to new territories, exploit new resources, and outcompete and replace other hominids, such as the Neandertals.

It is difficult to pinpoint the chain of events that led to Eve’s unique success, but we can say with certainty that all of us trace our maternal lineage back to this one woman.

The L Haplogroups: The Deepest Branches

Ancestral line: “Eve” > L1/L0

Mitochondrial Eve represents the root of the human family tree. Her descendents, moving around within Africa, eventually split into two distinct groups, characterized by a different set of mutations their members carry.

These groups are referred to as L0 and L1, and these individuals have the most divergent genetic sequences of anybody alive today, meaning they represent the deepest branches of the mitochondrial tree. Importantly, current genetic data indicates that indigenous people belonging to these groups are found exclusively in Africa. This means that, because all humans have a common female ancestor, “Eve,” and because the genetic data shows that Africans are the oldest groups on the planet, we know our species originated there.

Haplogroups L1 and L0 likely originated in East Africa and then spread throughout the rest of the continent. Today, these lineages are found at highest frequencies in Africa’s indigenous populations, the hunter-gatherer groups who have maintained their ancestors’ culture, language, and customs for thousands of years.

At some point, after these two groups had coexisted in Africa for a few thousand years, something important happened. The mitochondrial sequence of a woman in one of these groups, L1, mutated. A letter in her DNA changed, and because many of her descendants have survived to the present, this change has become a window into the past. The descendants of this woman, characterized by this signpost mutation, went on to form their own group, called L2. Because the ancestor of L2 was herself a member of L1, we can say something about the emergence of these important groups: Eve begat L1, and L1 begat L2. Now we’re starting to move down your ancestral line.

Haplogroup L2: West Africa

Ancestral line: “Eve” > L1/L0 > L2

L2 individuals are found in sub-Saharan Africa, and like their L1 predecessors, they also live in Central Africa and as far south as South Africa. But whereas L1/L0 individuals remained predominantly in eastern and southern Africa, your ancestors broke off into a different direction, which you can follow on the map above.

L2 individuals are most predominant in West Africa, where they constitute the majority of female lineages. And because L2 individuals are found at high frequencies and widely distributed along western Africa, they represent one of the predominant lineages in African-Americans. Unfortunately, it is difficult to pinpoint where a specific L2 lineage might have arisen. For an African-American who is L2?the likely result of West Africans being brought to America during the slave trade?it is difficult to say with certainty exactly where in Africa that lineage arose.

Fortunately, collaborative sampling with indigenous groups is currently underway to help learn more about these types of questions and to possibly bridge the gap that was created during those transatlantic voyages hundreds of years ago.

Haplogroup L3: Out of Africa

Ancestral line: “Eve” > L1/L0 > L2 > L3

Your next signpost ancestor is the woman whose birth around 80,000 years ago began haplogroup L3. It is a similar story: an individual in L2 underwent a mutation to her mitochondrial DNA, which was passed onto her children. The children were successful, and their descendants ultimately broke away from the L2 clan, eventually separating into a new group called L3. You can see above that this has revealed another step in your ancestral line.

While L3 individuals are found all over Africa, including the southern reaches of sub-Sahara, L3 is important for its movements north. You can follow this movement of the map above, seeing first the expansions of L1/L0, then L2, and followed by the northward migration of L3.

Your L3 ancestors were significant because they are the first modern humans to have left Africa, representing the deepest branches of the tree found outside of that continent.

Why would humans have first ventured out of the familiar African hunting grounds and into unexplored lands? It is likely that a fluctuation in climate may have provided the impetus for your ancestors’ exodus out of Africa.

The African Ice Age was characterized by drought rather than by cold. Around 50,000 years ago the ice sheets of northern Europe began to melt, introducing a period of warmer temperatures and moister climate in Africa. Parts of the inhospitable Sahara briefly became habitable. As the drought-ridden desert changed to savanna, the animals your ancestors hunted expanded their range and began moving through the newly emerging green corridor of grasslands. Your nomadic ancestors followed the good weather and plentiful game northward across this Saharan Gateway, although the exact route they followed remains to be determined.

Today, L3 individuals are found at high frequencies in populations across North Africa. From there, members of this group went in a few different directions. Some lineages within L3 testify to a distinct expansion event in the mid-Holocene that headed south, and are predominant in many Bantu groups found all over Africa. One group of individuals headed west and is primarily restricted to Atlantic western Africa, including the islands of Cabo Verde.

Other L3 individuals, your ancestors, kept moving northward, eventually leaving the African continent completely. These people currently make up around ten percent of the Middle Eastern population, and gave rise to two important haplogroups that went on to populate the rest of the world.

Haplogroup N: The Incubation Period

Ancestral line: “Eve” > L1/L0 > L2 > L3 > N

Your next signpost ancestor is the woman whose descendants formed haplogroup N. Haplogroup N comprises one of two groups that were created by the descendants of L3.

The first of these groups, M, was the result of the first great wave of migration of modern humans to leave Africa. These people likely left the continent across the Horn of Africa near Ethiopia, and their descendants followed a coastal route eastward, eventually making it all the way to Australia and Polynesia.

The second great wave, also of L3 individuals, moved north rather than east and left the African continent across the Sinai Peninsula, in present-day Egypt. Also faced with the harsh desert conditions of the Sahara, these people likely followed the Nile basin, which would have proved a reliable water and food supply in spite of the surrounding desert and its frequent sandstorms.

Descendants of these migrants eventually formed haplogroup N. Early members of this group lived in the eastern Mediterranean region and western Asia, where they likely coexisted for a time with other hominids such as Neandertals. Excavations in Israel’s Kebara Cave (Mount Carmel) have unearthed Neandertal skeletons as recent as 60,000 years old, indicating that there was both geographic and temporal overlap of these two hominids.

The ancient members of haplogroup N spawned many sublineages, which went on to populate much of the rest of the globe. They are found throughout Asia, Europe, India, and the Americas.

Haplogroup R: Spreading Out

Ancestral line: “Eve” > L1/L0 > L2 > L3 > N > R

After several thousand years in the Near East, individuals belonging to a new group called haplogroup R began to move out and explore the surrounding areas. Some moved south, migrating back into northern Africa. Others went west across Anatolia (present-day Turkey) and north across the Caucasus Mountains of Georgia and southern Russia. Still others headed east into the Middle East, and on to Central Asia. All of these individuals had one thing in common: they shared a female ancestor from the N clan, a recent descendant of the migration out of Africa.

The story of haplogroup R is complicated, however, because these individuals can be found almost everywhere, and because their origin is quite ancient. In fact, the ancestor of haplogroup R lived relatively soon after humans moved out of Africa during the second wave, and her descendants undertook many of the same migrations as her own group, N.

Because the two groups lived side by side for thousands of years, it is likely that the migrations radiating out from the Near East comprised individuals from both of these groups. They simply moved together, bringing their N and R lineages to the same places around the same times. The tapestry of genetic lines became quickly entangled, and geneticists are currently working to unravel the different stories of haplogroups N and R, since they are found in many of the same far-reaching places.

Haplogroup K: Your Branch on the Tree

Ancestral line: “Eve” > L1/L0 > L2 > L3 > N > R > K

We finally arrive at your own clan, a group of individuals who descend from a woman in the R branch of the tree. Because of the great genetic diversity found in haplogroup K, it is likely that she lived around 50,000 years ago.

Interestingly, her descendants gave rise to several different subgroups, some of which exhibit very specific geographic homelands. The very old age of these subgroups has led to a wide distribution; today they harbor specific European, northern African, and Indian components, and are found in Arabia, the northern Caucasus Mountains, and throughout the Near East.

While some members of your haplogroup headed north into Scandinavia, or south into North Africa, most members of your haplogroup K stem from a group of individuals who moved northward out of the Near East. These women crossed the rugged Caucasus Mountains in southern Russia, and moved on to the steppes of the Black Sea.

Interestingly, your haplogroup is also very significant because its members constitute three of the four major Ashkenazi Jewish founder lineages.

The term “Ashkenazi” refers to Jews of mainly central and eastern European ancestry. Most historical records indicate that the founding of Ashkenazi Jewry took place in the Rhine Basin where it subsequently underwent vast population expansions. In more recent times, the Ashkenazi population was estimated at approximately 25,000 individuals around 1300 A.D., whereas that number had increased to about 8,500,000 individuals by the turn of the twentieth century.

Around half of all Ashkenazi Jews trace their mitochondrial lineage back to one of four women, and your haplogroup K represents a lineage that gave rise to three of them. While this lineage is found at a smaller frequency in non-Ashkenazi Jews, the three K lineages that helped found the Ashkenazi population are seldom found in other populations. While virtually absent in Europeans, they appear at frequencies of three percent or higher in groups from the Levant, Arabia, and Egypt. This indicates a strong genetic role in the Ashkenazi founder event, which likely occurred in the Near East.

Today, K has given rise to three of the four most common haplogroups in Ashkenazi Jews and is currently shared by over 3,000,000 people.


42 posted on 12/29/2006 8:16:28 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: blam

"Looks like I may have misunderstood what I read. I always get into trouble with the DNA stuff."

Yeah, tell me about it! No problem.
I find it fascinating but my understanding is at the kindergarten level! Luckily for me, I've got a good friend who is a Professor of Genetics!


43 posted on 12/30/2006 8:53:57 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: blam

Was it supposed that migration could only occur in one direction vis-a-vis Africa? Was Suez a one-way valve?


44 posted on 05/08/2007 4:51:28 AM PDT by ThanhPhero (di hanh huong den La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Just updating the GGG info.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


45 posted on 02/02/2008 11:43:52 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__________________Profile updated Wednesday, January 16, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
Problem is a concept called "the neololithic toolkit" or "the paleolithic toolkit" ~ which refers to the technology available to stoneage, or newstoneage people in different locations or at different times.

When it comes to Australia and Tasmania, it's easy to show that the Tasmanians had a depleted "kit" and would have had a hard time withstanding a good winter. Alternatively, since they'd traveled the farthest, they had the "original kit" and it was not satisfactory for cold weather life.

10 years of serious Winter at the Equator might have made it possible for someone to walk on the ice all the way to Australia, but he'd frozen to death on the way due to the fact he didn't have good clothing or boots.

46 posted on 02/21/2008 4:50:09 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Drammach

Oh, yeah, that “winter” at the Equator would have left some evidence that it’d happened. For one, the Equator would have nothing but winter-hardy plants!


47 posted on 02/21/2008 4:51:04 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Problem is a concept called "the neololithic toolkit" or "the paleolithic toolkit" ~ which refers to the technology available to stoneage, or newstoneage people in different locations or at different times.

The definition is probably an inaccurate one at best.
It might make sense if "modern" man was the first of our species, but we know that is simply not the case.

We have evidence of "homo erectus" and, more significantly, neanderthal man.
Neanderthal goes back at least 250,000 years, and in the case of the migration mentioned in the article, we are only talking about 60K to 75K years.

Neanderthal knew how to fahion weapons, had flint technology, understood how to use fibers to tie and plait reeds, grass, rock (flint) and wood, etc..
They also knew how to fashion animal skins into clothing, specifically, cold weather clothing.
I'm reasonably sure that knowledge was passed down as to what animals provided the best outer wear, having water-repellent qualities, or heat insulating capability.

Homo sapiens was intellectually capable of learning such knowledge from their contact with neanderthal, and adapting it, even expanding upon it.
There is evidence that neanderthal, in turn, learned the idea of personal decoration and symbolism from Homo Sapiens.

You are, however, more than likely correct about the ice travel scenario via Indonesia to Australia, with the exception that the Toba eruption, coinciding with Ice Age conditions may have produced extreme cold snaps for a few years, maybe even a decade or more.
Such a climatic event occurring at the equatorial region would be extremely rare and even improbable, but not impossible. ( just my opinion )

That leaves us with sea travel, which would probably be the more likely scenario.
Migration along the coastal regions would have amply provided opportunity to learn the best ways to navigate the oceans.
Even without sails, fairly long distance travel can be achieved by rowing, if the crew is large enough, the dugout big enough, outriggers are used to stabilize the boat.
As for sails, a quick internet search didn't provide any archeological evidence for "weaving" past approximately 15,000 years ago, but something as simple as a reed mat, or even handmade fishing nets could have been the basis for rudimentary sails.
Simply hanging fishing nets up to dry would have been enough to show how they can catch the wind, and a simple process of net to woven fabric would have been pretty obvious once a "tighter" net was made.

Reed mats would be used as both ground cover and draped over supports for shade.
Any gust of wind would have demonstrated the facility for such mats catching and holding the wind, and if being used for shade on a sea-going vessel, be it raft or dugout, a practical demonstration of use as a sail would have occurred almost immediately.

Problem solved, please notify the archeological community. ;oD

48 posted on 02/23/2008 12:11:57 AM PST by Drammach (Freedom - It's not just a job, It's an Adventure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
The Neanderthals lived far to the North and West of Australia. Word is they never got there.

Early 19th century adventurers and explorers give us our information about the "tool kit" available to the nekkid natives in Tasmania.

They were very primitive, as were the nekkid natives in the far South of South America.

Neanderthals were pretty cold adapted ~ hence their size and geometry. Likely those bad boys could go out in a below zero raging gale and treat it like just a breezy day.

49 posted on 02/23/2008 7:50:41 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: blam
I'm presently reading a book titled, Before The Dawn, by Nicholas Wade and he says that the migration of Modern Humans out of Africa was blocked for thousands of years by the Neanderthals in Europe and the Middle East.

Interesting, I'll have to pick up a copy of that book.

50 posted on 02/23/2008 8:02:45 AM PST by Inyo-Mono (If you don't want people to get your goat, don't tell them where it's tied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson