tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post2027552338684609216..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: The Nubian Complex in southern Arabia, 106 thousand years agoDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28343003921679112352011-12-13T23:03:26.322+02:002011-12-13T23:03:26.322+02:00"Archaeologically there is absolutely no evid..."Archaeologically there is absolutely no evidence that the Upper Paleolithic originated in Africa". <br /><br />Yet another problem that didn't really exist for the rapid great southern coastal OoA migration. The Upper Paleolithic developed long after any possible OoA. And after humans had reached Australia.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16524137515770997302011-12-12T00:47:28.048+02:002011-12-12T00:47:28.048+02:00Archaeologically there is absolutely no evidence t...Archaeologically there is absolutely no evidence that the Upper Paleolithic originated in Africa.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33103563922941130852011-12-12T00:25:38.628+02:002011-12-12T00:25:38.628+02:00"the present paper explicitly rejects this co..."the present paper explicitly rejects this coastal migration scenario" <br /><br />Unfortunately it is really difficult to convince people that such a simple explanation is completely wrong. The 'coastal migration scenario' has never actually stacked up. It was originally invented to explain how the first 'modern' humans, who were rigidly presumed to be associated with the sudden development of the Upper Paleolithic, could have reached Australia so rapidly after its development. In other words the idea was concocted to explain something that did not even exist.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32431316008217462432011-12-11T23:28:27.962+02:002011-12-11T23:28:27.962+02:00Noone has claimed that modern people didn't le...<i>Noone has claimed that modern people didn't leave Africa before 80,000 BCE. The claim is that noone outside of Africa survived the Toba eruption between 75,000 and 60,000 years ago.</i><br /><br />There is no evidence for such an extinction event. <br /><br /><i>However I understand that the earlier wave of migration also quickly headed for southeast Asia along the coast, and I'd have to see the evidence that the Near East was teaming with modern people.</i><br /><br />No, the present paper explicitly rejects this coastal migration scenario:<br /><br />" "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.""Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65368917236590603052011-12-11T23:18:28.393+02:002011-12-11T23:18:28.393+02:00Noone has claimed that modern people didn't le...Noone has claimed that modern people didn't leave Africa before 80,000 BCE. The claim is that noone outside of Africa survived the Toba eruption between 75,000 and 60,000 years ago.<br /><br />However I understand that the earlier wave of migration also quickly headed for southeast Asia along the coast, and I'd have to see the evidence that the Near East was teaming with modern people.<br /><br />Doravillandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10743842451775208884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-87560316651556936492011-12-08T02:18:53.787+02:002011-12-08T02:18:53.787+02:00Absent dateable human remains, lithic finds are un...Absent dateable human remains, lithic finds are unreliable as exclusive evidence of AMH presence . <br /> Individual stoneknappers must have varied in personal talent, and a damn good flint hand axe looks the same no matter what date it came from. One is impressed by the large array of well-tooled hand axes in the Boxgrove site (ca 400KYBP, Homo Erectus, UK). They would not have disgraced Neanderthals or even Cro-Magnons, for the purposes they matched. The images of the Nubia lithic finds do not exclusively indicate an AMH fabricant.dderinosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00241585109111424054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56186383423500980302011-12-05T15:39:28.549+02:002011-12-05T15:39:28.549+02:00Fantastic discussion.
Observation - In science t...Fantastic discussion. <br />Observation - In science today we are looking at smaller and smaller pieces of anthropolic evidence in genetics and, at the same time, old fashioned chuncks of broken rock in another "...etics" and trying to connect the dots. I have a strong feeling that somewhere in the sand and strata at various digs around the world we are not looking close enough at the numerous other pieces of evidence (which we don't even recognize as such today). As with analyzing and reading Ice Cores, each site should have many other residue indicators to enhace what we know and dispell what we can now only imagine. I have a feeling that one of the areas that seperates modern humans from all others who went before us is the size and scope of our imaginations. Hopefully, our imaginations can produce some new things to help us see the past more clearly.Pascvakshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08311382875179534062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88469589662816758942011-12-05T03:40:56.707+02:002011-12-05T03:40:56.707+02:00"But it didn't. It's also present in ..."But it didn't. It's also present in the Andaman islands, for example". <br /><br />But its arrival in the Andamans almost certainly long post dates the OoA. On the other hand it was quite likely in Burma for a very long time but we don't have much information about that country. I'm sure someone would have done some work on the Karen regugees in Thailand though. <br /><br />"And, (IMO) no one migrated through Central Asia after ~ 110,000 ya until ~55,000 - 45,000 ya" <br /><br />Quite possibly so, but people of some sort survived from the Altai to the Upper Amur over much of that period: <br /><br />http://www.originsnet.org/SYNOPSIS%20PALEO%20CENTR%20ASIA%20SIBERIA.pdf<br /><br />And the climate around 120,000 years ago was actually much warmer than at present.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46319428108433774862011-12-04T18:40:08.590+02:002011-12-04T18:40:08.590+02:00It survived only in isolated pockets such as shelt...<i>It survived only in isolated pockets such as sheltered valleys in Tibet/West China.</i><br /><br />But it didn't. It's also present in the Andaman islands, for example. <br /><br />And, (IMO) no one migrated through Central Asia after ~ 110,000 ya until ~55,000 - 45,000 ya, when climate and mental capacity and cultural achievements enabled it.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40026631894539765452011-12-04T06:53:28.269+02:002011-12-04T06:53:28.269+02:00"I have often wondered if the presence of ost..."I have often wondered if the presence of ostrich eggshells in India after 45K could be traced to the later migration of DE/ M". <br /><br />Ostriches were present in India at some stage. I don't know when thay became extinct there, though. This link claims they became extinct in Asia at the end of the Ice Age: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Ostrich<br /><br />"One question though, I thought DE had been found among the Onge?" <br /><br />Evidently not. It has been found especially in Nigeria but at very low levels in Tibet. <br /><br />"the lack of D in the huge transition region is more easily explained if it was very early but not very successful and got overrun by several later migrations East and local population explosions (rather than migrating very late, many 1,000 miles, without leaving a trace)" <br /><br />If (which I maintain is entirely possible) D migrated through Central Asia its subsequent absence there is easily explained by the development of the Ice Age. It survived only in isolated pockets such as sheltered valleys in Tibet/West China.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53268354450228838392011-12-03T14:10:36.820+02:002011-12-03T14:10:36.820+02:00Andrew,
I agree with much of what you said; I h...<i>Andrew, </i><br /><br />I agree with much of what you said; I have argued the same over years - except that there is an about equal or higher possibility that D arrived in East Asia <i>before</i> C. I know, for many this sounds counter-intuitive. <br /><br />However, (i) the lack of D in the huge transition region is more easily explained if it was very early but not very successful and got overrun by several later migrations East and local population explosions (rather than migrating very late, many 1,000 miles, without leaving a trace). D, being one of the earliest branches, (ii) is a poor candidate for anything past 100,000-70,000 years. In fact, it is one of the best candidates for a very early migration concomitant with the Green Sahara - even before the Arabian finds discussed here.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46999695533318121822011-12-03T06:27:17.450+02:002011-12-03T06:27:17.450+02:00Dateable AMH remains would be the only acceptable ...Dateable AMH remains would be the only acceptable proof for this surprising but otherwise feasible speculation. <br /><br />The "lithic finds" on which it is based could equally be explained by the work of late pre-AMH migrants, part of a clearly long intermittent stream of African hominin emigration, only some of which necessarily contributed to the known sequence of extra-African populations.dderinosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00241585109111424054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27045852199225732462011-12-03T06:04:22.238+02:002011-12-03T06:04:22.238+02:00"if the genetic dates from the measures used ..."if the genetic dates from the measures used to derive them are calibrated to be longer by a factor of about 1.5 which is well within the wiggle room afforded by population models that go into those dates with species we don't understand the demography of from any direct evidence" <br /><br />My thought exactly. <br /><br />"One of the virtues of an OoA date of 100kya +/- is that it leaves sufficient time for more than one Paleolithic wave of population to move into SE Asia which is what the most parsimonious population model consistent with the Neanderthal and Denisovian automsomal admixture data suggests". <br /><br />I agree. <br /><br />"and one way to interpret the odd geographic distribution is that they settled in places that were left over as unpopulated or thinly population after a first wave that didn't have very good oceanic boating capabilities until ca. 50kya" <br /><br />Quite likely in the case of D and E, and even fairly likely to a lesser extent for K. As I've suggested elsewhere D's presence in the Andamans is not evidence of an early arrival there. <br /><br />"there may have been a first wave of into SE Asia AMH migration by land ca. 70kya-100kya associated with Y-DNA hg C and mtDNA hg M" <br /><br />To me it seems more likely that it was mtDNA N that accompanied Y-DNA C. Several basal N haplogroups are present in Australia, but fewer in New Guinea apart from R-derived ones. <br /><br />"which in turn would be followed by a Y-DNA hg O population expansion (possibly originating in SE asia) significantly later in the Asian Upper Paleolithic". <br /><br />I think the distribution of O suggests more an expansion nearer to the Neolithic from further north: the Yangtze/Yellow River basins.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39573558132506124532011-12-02T21:05:27.962+02:002011-12-02T21:05:27.962+02:00Andrew, I concur with your view of DE/ M coming a...Andrew, I concur with your view of DE/ M coming after CT/ N. The distribution of DE/ M fits nicely with a sea-going route. It is very easy to sale from Oman to India (goven the way the moonsoon operates). <br /><br />I have often wondered if the presence of ostrich eggshells in India after 45K could be traced to the later migration of DE/ M.<br /><br />One question though, I thought DE had been found among the Onge?BillyBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12565067520548880868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46674661420852412962011-12-02T19:43:32.301+02:002011-12-02T19:43:32.301+02:00One possibility is that the tools were left by the...One possibility is that the tools were left by the precursers of mtDNA L6. I can see L2-6 migrating up the nile, with L2 becoming isolated to the north in MIS 4, L6 being isolated in eastern Arabia, and L3-4 being isolated in East Aftrica. <br /><br />Around 70K, L3 and L4 split, with L3 commencing a coastal migration after 70K. I'm not saying this is definitely what happened, but it fits the genetic and archeological evidence and explains L6 most satisfactorily.BillyBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12565067520548880868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26146541439333121292011-12-02T19:19:06.052+02:002011-12-02T19:19:06.052+02:00"from the viewpoint of y-DNA, assuming that C..."from the viewpoint of y-DNA, assuming that CT and DE participated in ooA, it is the very first branches (D and C) that made it far East."<br /><br />One of the virtues of an OoA date of 100kya +/- is that it leaves sufficient time for more than one Paleolithic wave of population to move into SE Asia which is what the most parsimonious population model consistent with the Neanderthal and Denisovian automsomal admixture data suggests.<br /><br />Given the presence of Denisovian admixture in some populations that have Y-DNA CT, the absence of Denisovian admixture in Y-DNA D populations, and the presence of Denisovian admixture at the highest rates in populations that lack Y-DNA D (e.g. Australia and Melanesia and Phillipino Negritos), it is a fair inference that Y-DNA D arrived after 50kya-45kya, when Australia and Papua New Guinea were settled, but before 35kya (when the earliest evidence of proto-Jomon populations in Japan, which are Y-DNA D rich, appear. So, realistically, 40 kya +/- 5 ky.<br /><br />The inferential data is pretty good that all of the high Y-DNA D populations (Paleo-Tibetans, Jomon, Andamanese) had no other Y-DNA hgs or quite low frequencies of them, and that the women in these populations were all or nearly all mtDNA M.<br /><br />The split between CT and DE is very old and is traceable to Africa. The only three places where DE individuals (less than a dozen all told) have been found are Nigeria, Ghana and Tibet.<br /><br />Thus, CT seems associated with the first and primary OoA event (probably 100kya +/-), while DE seems likely to have been associated with much smaller second and final OoA event (possibly with a male only founding group that admixed with Eurasian women they encounted at the end of their voyage) ca. 60ky later, and one way to interpret the odd geographic distribution is that they settled in places that were left over as unpopulated or thinly population after a first wave that didn't have very good oceanic boating capabilities until ca. 50kya (technologies that the Y-DNA population may themselves have adopted and thereby facilitated their expansion).<br /><br />It also seems quite plausible, given the difficulties involved in separating out mtDNA N hgs (found in all of Eurasia) from mtDNA M hgs (with the exception of one or two Holocene backmigrations only in Asia) once they had admixed, the evidence of the apparently two distinct population waves into SE Asia pre-Australia/New Guinea migration in autosomal data, and the absence of evidence of deep sea fishing or crossings to oceanic islands prior to 50kya, that there may have been a first wave of into SE Asia AMH migration by land ca. 70kya-100kya associated with Y-DNA hg C and mtDNA hg M (a recent find put AMH in Vietnam 70kya) perhaps filling a post-Toba void there, a second wave ca. 50kya-60kya that added mtDNA hg N and some new Y-DNA hgs to the mix (as well as boating technology) that quickly admixed the SE population and South Asian population, and then a Y-DNA D/mtDNA M population (that got its matrilineal component from a not yet admixed with mtDNA hg N populatioon at the time for ethnogenesis) ca. 40kya, which in turn would be followed by a Y-DNA hg O population expansion (possibly originating in SE asia) significantly later in the Asian Upper Paleolithic.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67630583795939442432011-12-02T15:47:33.220+02:002011-12-02T15:47:33.220+02:00Regardless of what archaeologists have found (or m...<i>Regardless of what archaeologists have found (or missed), <b>the genetic timeline is not likely to change</b></i><br /><br />Actually, it's one of the things most likely to change <b>a lot</b> - because it has very wide error bars, is not very well locked in with physical data at all, and has repeatedly been shown to be off by a factor of two or three almost every when ancient DNA has beenrecovered and dated.<br /><br />Currently, it is fair to assume that genetic transitions are far older by the above-mentioned factors than those "guesstimated" by very poorly established genetic timings and population number histories.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82602367461073384312011-12-02T12:23:23.554+02:002011-12-02T12:23:23.554+02:00I am a non-specialist, but very curious amateur re...<i>I am a non-specialist, but very curious amateur reader on history and archaelogy. IMO conclusions based on the results of hard science (including molecular biology) will always trump any conclusions based solely on the subjective observations of specialists in other disciplines. </i><br /><br />There is nothing "hard science" about the place of origin of L3 in Africa, or the replacement of all pre-70ka H. sapiens around the world (including not only those in the Near East but also in Africa, that were widely dispersed all over North and East African) by a post-70ka African exodus.<br /><br />The dating of the Nubian Complex in Dhofar _is_ hard science. The fact that hominins from the Levant >100ka show links to Upper Paleolithic Europeans _is_ hard science.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-270595712042286422011-12-02T10:12:17.809+02:002011-12-02T10:12:17.809+02:00The genetic dates for the emergence of Neanderthal...The genetic dates for the emergence of Neanderthals (400 kya), the divergence of Denisovian DNA (1000 kya), and the Out of Africa event (70 kya) are each much more consistent with the respective archaeology of the Neanderthals (ca. 600kya), of Homo Erectus (assuming that Denisovians are Homo Erectus descendants) (separated from other Homo Erectus by around 1.6 mya), and of the Out of Africa event (ca. 105 kya), if the genetic dates from the measures used to derive them are calibrated to be longer by a factor of about 1.5 which is well within the wiggle room afforded by population models that go into those dates with species we don't understand the demography of from any direct evidence (as John Hawks noted in a recent post).Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35466757606041886702011-12-02T04:14:04.941+02:002011-12-02T04:14:04.941+02:00"the coastal migration theory is dead". ..."the coastal migration theory is dead". <br /><br />Agree completely. <br /><br />"The coastal expansion hypothesis looks reasonable on paper, but there is simply no archaeological evidence to back it up". <br /><br />I have always been sceptical of the great southern coastal migration theory for that reason. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />That's an even bigger problem for the theory. <br /><br />"There was only one out of Africa event. And that was about 2.1 million years ago". <br /><br />It think the evidence is reasonably supportive of a series of migrations into and out of Africa and into and out of various other parts of the world since that date. <br /><br />"I agree that the coastal migration theory is too simplistic. I would not call it dead, though, because it seems it was the fastest route, but obviously the out of Africa migrants followed all routes". <br /><br />To my mind most of us are making two unjustified assumptions. The first is that the migration from Africa to Australia was rapid. The second is that 'Modern Human' equates with 'Upper Paleolithic'. <br /><br />As this post shows, more and more evidence is being unearthed that suggests modern humans had expanded beyond Africa by at least 100,000 years ago. They reached Australia halfway between then and now: 50,000 years ago. <br /><br />To me it is obvious that the Upper Paleolithic's spread is later than that of modern humans, unless you opt to exclude Australian Aborigines from modern humanity. <br /><br />Once we cease to accept the above two assumptions we immediately see that human expansion around the world has been the product of a series of relatively local population explosions, rather than being an all-conquering expansion of a single population of somehow superior beings. And once we accept it took Australians 50,000 years to reach that continent we have an almost unlimited selection of scenarios for the route.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25334294046593475452011-12-02T00:51:10.889+02:002011-12-02T00:51:10.889+02:00I agree with Beastmanager's comment about the ...I agree with Beastmanager's comment about the mtDNA L3 replacing all and any other modern humans outside of Africa, starting about 80KYA.<br /><br />I am a non-specialist, but very curious amateur reader on history and archaelogy. IMO conclusions based on the results of hard science (including molecular biology) will always trump any conclusions based solely on the subjective observations of specialists in other disciplines. <br />The more we use hard scientific results, the less we rely on the unconscious cultural biases of otherwise earnest specialists.<br /><br />Dienekes, you recently stated that: "Those who still adhere to Out-of-Africa at 70 thousand years must now provide the archaeological evidence for such an exodus and population replacement." Why so? Regardless of what archaeologists have found (or missed), the genetic timeline is not likely to change, unless so other genetic discoveries are made. It is up to specialists in other disciplines to find the evidence they have missed.formerjerseyboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12359486237718341127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46808829033530143922011-12-01T22:40:56.116+02:002011-12-01T22:40:56.116+02:00u forget the aterian homo sapien Ifri N'ammar ...u forget the aterian homo sapien Ifri N'ammar 250kya-175kya in Morocco, and homo Erectus acheulean specimens in northwest africa from 1million years BC to 350kya. known as homo heidelbegenis or Atlanthrope Mauretanicus<br /><br />TOO FAR for claiming any kinda of expansions from The Nubian-Near east regions around 100kya to 200kya into north africa.Azertyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01455062388153757590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62166694221863195182011-12-01T20:30:08.037+02:002011-12-01T20:30:08.037+02:00" Either geneticists are in error when the..." Either geneticists are in error when they date the L3/modern human expansion to 70 thousand years ago, or<br /> They are in error when they place its origin to Africa."<br /><br />Likely both. The whole model of a subset of African lineages leaving Africa is speculative. We don't know if in fact a daughter population should always end up having lower diversity than the parental population. Your recent Bahamas example shows this not to be the case. If segments of a daughter population go through periods of isolation, intermixture and population growth, while the parent population stays stable, grows slowly and stays segregated, then diversity will be higher on the daughter end. The fact that there're no archaeological signatures of an out of Africa expansion at 70K, 60K, 50K, 40K, etc., while there're modern humans everywhere else in the world by at least 40,000 years suggests that there was no expansion out of Africa. Plain and simple. The fact that there's some hominid activity between Africa and Arabia at 100K doesn't prove that these were our ancestors. There are no remains, no ancient DNA. The whole region is notoriously low in linguistic diversity as measured by the number of independent stocks and isolates, which is the only available means of identifying a likely center of dispersal for modern human behavior.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34615104708831765252011-12-01T19:16:48.848+02:002011-12-01T19:16:48.848+02:00Thank you for supporting these ideas.
It occurs to...Thank you for supporting these ideas.<br />It occurs to me that a key assumption in OoA discussion is the (in)ability of AMH to cross open water. Watching babies in the bath playing with rubber duckies, kids in a swimming pool with floats we quickly see that play with floating objects is a usual part of childhood curiosity.<br />Take a MSA culture where kids are tasked to gather firewood from water and you get the origins of mastery of stability propulsion and direction of wood in water.<br />The question is then if these mastered behaviors could be used for some directed thinking in problem solving. <br />A measure of such cognitive flexibility could be gained from the ability of those in Nubian culture to correct mistakes in stone knapping "on the fly" to gain a usable tool.aeoliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09528717028785728695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82813375251617547212011-12-01T17:37:01.175+02:002011-12-01T17:37:01.175+02:00Yes, I agree that the coastal migration theory is ...Yes, I agree that the coastal migration theory is too simplistic. I would not call it dead, though, because it seems it was the fastest route, but obviously the out of Africa migrants followed all routes.Beastmanagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609302172726820503noreply@blogger.com