A very early out of Africa may have taken place if the paper by Anne Dambricourt Malassé et al., Anthropic activities in the fossiliferous Quranwala Zone, 2.6 Ma, Siwaliks of Northwest India, historical context of the discovery and scientific investigations (Comptes Rendus Palevol, doi.org/bb7c) is correct.
Though it is behind a paywall, the abstract clearly states that: "This paper presents the historical context and the rigorous scientific process, which has led to the acknowledgment that some bones, dating back to the Latest Pliocene, present intentional and precise cut marks made by sharp edges in quartzite and an intelligence, which knew the anatomy of the bovid carcasses. Our pluridisciplinary works support anthropic activities 2.6 Ma ago in the sub-Himalayan floodplain and the probability of finding hominin fossils in the Quranwala Zone. ".
Now 2.6 million years ago is long before any Homo erectus moved out of Africa (their oldest Asian remains have been dated at 1.8 Ma). Or perhaps they did migrate but much earlier. Or were their predecessors, the Homo habilis the first to leave Africa. Perhaps the H. habilis evolved into H. erectus in Asia and these back migrated into Africa...
The point is that this site in Siwalik hills is about 300 kilometres north of New Delhi, India, well in the heart of Southern Asia, and it is a clear indication that human origins are much more complicated than we once believed.
Also, it gives us about 1 million additional years for those archaic people, to reach America...
Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2016 by Austin Whittall ©
Your blog is very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI have always doubted about the theory of "out of Africa" around 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is hard to believe that humans have changed so much in physical appearance and spread all over the world (including the Arctic)in such a short time from a very warm place. A tribe with the old and the young and pregnant women ventured into a new world full dangerous predators could not have just kept marching to Astralia so fast. After scientists proved that humans and Neanderthals interbred, the drastic change of skin tone and quick adaptation to the cold climate seem possible, because Neanderthals had been living in the cold zone forever and humans could have simply copied their culture. But quick marching all over the world is still unrealistic. Do you know any languages which have little relationship with other languages? Maybe some human languages are Neanderthals' too since humans still carry 20% of their genes and some Neanderthal tribes might have gradually changed into human tribes and children would have spoken in the mother tongue.
Recently I read an article on Yahoo which reset "out of Africa" to about 100,000 years ago. I remembered a TV program about H. Erectus found in Indonesia and dated to 1.8 Mya who was almost six feet and similar to the average height of modern man and had brain volume within modern range. With interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals, I commented why "out of Asia" was never considered. South Asia is tropical and it is completely possible that H. Erectus there evolved into humans. My comment made someone very upset and accused me racism and I was quite shocked at such an irrational reaction. After I researched a little bit, "out of Africa" was initially based on Darwin's belief that humans must have evolved where the great apes resided. Even then, some people had doubt and searched in Asia and found the Java man. Mainstream anthropologists have been mocking different possibilities forever, quite shocking, even though there are living apes in Indonesia too. It is laughable to me that humans must have evolved in the continent with living apes, especially it is well known now that a lot of creatures have become extinct. Anyway, there was a skull found in Pecking (northern China) almost 100 years ago and dated 500,000 to 750,000 ya with brain size over 1,200 cc (average of modern man). The skull looks similar to that of Neanderthals to me). It is funny that "Out of Africa" contributes every fossil found in Africa as a human precursor and anything similar found outside Africa as a branch which got out of Africa. What is so special about Africa and why human precursors could have only got out of Africa and it could not have entered Africa? Hilarious!!! Mainstream seem to believe that the only exit is northeast Africa. I checked Saharan desert history and it seemed to have west exit (Saharan pump)too about 2-3 mya because of wet climate and a few animals are believed to have entered Africa from Europe (horse later zebra, goat type and others). Yep, even if H. Erectus outside Africa were "out of Africa", it is reasonable to believe that they were active in this 2.6 mya site.
ReplyDeleteFrom some of your blogs, "Out of America" seems plausible too. Why not? South America and part of North America are warm and fertile too. I wonder why humans are almost hairless but chimpanzees are very hairy even though it is beneficial to lose hair in hot climate. Only hairless mammals are marine, but humans are not built for water (long limbs). What is your thought about it?
ReplyDeleteEven if "out of Africa" is true, I believe that it was earlier. So called Eurasia bottleneck (DNA diversity disputed too) was the outcome of last glacial (started about 120,000 yrs ago) which wiped out most of population in Eurasia and pushed some population toward the south and some to Australia. The migration to America should be easy with low sea level. What is the diversity of native South Americans compared to Eurasia? It is comical that humans must have reached Australia about 45,000 years ago if the earliest human fossil found there is about 45,000 yrs old, and the timeline must be squeezed to fit "out of Africa" 50,000 to 60,000 ago. I am also quite surprised that the time was set in stone because there were Neanderthals right outside northeast Africa. Gee, they could have been forced there by other population because of wild swings of the climate then.
>and it is a clear indication that human origins are much more complicated than we once believed.
ReplyDeleteNot really- there are still 2.8 MYA fossils from the Afar Depression. A bit of an early head start, admittedly, but we have no morphological or genetic evidence to suggest these Erectii ever made an permanent mark on the world. Since we don't see any further evidence of Homonid activity for 1.2 million years it's safe to say this population was a dead end.