Oldest Modern Human Outside of Africa Found

HughMcB · #1 by **HughMcB** » Oct 26, 2010 4:18 pm

National Geographic News wrote:Oldest Modern Human Outside of Africa Found
Chinese fossil challenges traditional early-human time line, study says.
Rachel Kaufman
for National Geographic News
Published October 25, 2010

A fossil human jawbone discovered in southern China is upsetting conventional notions of when our ancestors migrated out of Africa.

The mandible, unearthed by paleontologists in China's Zhiren Cave in 2007, sports a distinctly modern feature: a prominent chin. But the bone is undeniably 60,000 years older than the next oldest Homo sapiens remains in China, scientists say.

In fact, at about a hundred thousand years old, the Chinese fossil is "the oldest modern human outside of Africa," said study co-author Erik Trinkaus, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

(Also see "Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found.")

Popular theory states that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa about 60,000 years ago, at which point modern humans quickly replaced early human species such as Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis across the world.

Finding such an ancient example of a modern human in China would drastically alter the time line of human migration. The find may also mean that modern humans in China were mingling—and possibly even interbreeding—with other human species for 50,000 or 60,000 years.

(Related: "Neanderthals, Humans Interbred—First Solid DNA Evidence.")

What's more, the find seems to suggest that anatomically modern humans had arrived in China long before the species began acting human.

...continues...

Several views of a human jawbone and molars found in a Chinese cave.
Diagram courtesy Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences

pinkharrier · #2 by **pinkharrier** » Nov 01, 2010 6:30 am

It would be interesting to know rough population numbers at the time of death.(-100,000). And if Neanderthals were part of the gene-pool.

Perhaps the importance of Neanderthals has been understated. Particularly their intelligence which has suffered from a baffoon image. It would be interesting to know their IQ perhaps by making comparisons with the degree of complexity in their engineering and long term planning.

And it opens up that question of race and IQ in a odd chronological way. If not race, then what?

Tyrannical · #3 by **Tyrannical** » Nov 04, 2010 9:22 am

I wonder if there is any viable DNA inside the teeth?

Peter Brown · #4 by **Peter Brown** » Nov 13, 2010 8:38 pm

Popular theory states that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa about 60,000 years ago, at which point modern humans quickly replaced early human species such as Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis across the world.

I understand 60,000 years ago was too late as the geographical conditions formed a barrier to migration. The correct date was about 100,000 years for the wave that populated the rest of the world, but there was at least one earlier wave that didn’t survive as they got caught going north when the climate changed to desert.

pinkharrier · #5 by **pinkharrier** » Nov 15, 2010 11:32 am

So where and when did Neandertals come from?

rainbow · #6 by **rainbow** » Nov 15, 2010 11:40 am

Peter Brown wrote:
Popular theory states that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa about 60,000 years ago, at which point modern humans quickly replaced early human species such as Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis across the world.

I understand 60,000 years ago was too late as the geographical conditions formed a barrier to migration. The correct date was about 100,000 years for the wave that populated the rest of the world, but there was at least one earlier wave that didn’t survive as they got caught going north when the climate changed to desert.

What barrier to migration?
Do you have a source to confirm this?

Peter Brown · #7 by **Peter Brown** » Nov 15, 2010 12:34 pm

rainbow wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:
Popular theory states that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa about 60,000 years ago, at which point modern humans quickly replaced early human species such as Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis across the world.

I understand 60,000 years ago was too late as the geographical conditions formed a barrier to migration. The correct date was about 100,000 years for the wave that populated the rest of the world, but there was at least one earlier wave that didn’t survive as they got caught going north when the climate changed to desert.

What barrier to migration?
Do you have a source to confirm this?

Indeed I do, it was part of the documentary The Incredible Human Journey documentary. I believe you’ll find the series on you tube.

Egypt to Israel was fertile and allowed walking migration; it didn’t last long and turned to dry arid desert. This explains how human remains were found in Israel dating to a first failed wave out of Africa.

The wave that we came from exited via Ethiopia to Yemen, following water holes now under the ocean in Yemen. The Red Sea passage they crossed was difficult to pass back then, however they did it, but the water barrier grew wider preventing further migration.

rainbow · #8 by **rainbow** » Nov 15, 2010 1:00 pm

Peter Brown wrote: I believe you’ll find the series on you tube.

Well then obviously there can be no doubt.
:smug:

Peter Brown · #9 by **Peter Brown** » Nov 15, 2010 4:07 pm

rainbow wrote:
Peter Brown wrote: I believe you’ll find the series on you tube.

Well then obviously there can be no doubt.

It was a BBC production and no doubt shouldn't be on youtube, you could always buy the DVD.

Israel site
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1234739/Skhul
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology ... qafzeh.htm

HughMcB · **#10** by **HughMcB** » Nov 15, 2010 4:56 pm

Peter Brown wrote:Indeed I do, it was part of the documentary The Incredible Human Journey documentary. I believe you’ll find the series on you tube.

As much as I like this program it did make quite a large number of assumptions and did minimal genetic testing to actually back any of the claims up. To support a claim such as this, extensive genetic mapping would need to be done. I don't think it's been done sufficiently thus far.

Peter Brown · **#11** by **Peter Brown** » Nov 15, 2010 6:04 pm

I think that problem you refer too was because it was too cutting edge bearing in mind it had to be written, scripted and filmed. If you watched the Walking with Cavemen series of just a few years before there was even less new discoveries to put in the documentary side of the series.

If I were to retract anything it would be on grounds that all these discoveries are taking a few years to hit the mainstream public media, has still to be collaborated between the other sciences to fit the jigsaw, and there is more researchers looking into this than ever before so new finds are just coming to the surface.

In that light I would say 60k might have been the lowest age out of Africa, and there is no indication of it happening again afterwards. But as we know some migration occurred earlier at 100k, but failed. So we have a 40k time period where humans were attempting to get out of Africa and who can say if a limited few made it, or made the first crossing of the Red Sea pre 60k, the main party halting until 60k but a very few travelling before then?

On the whole I guess we are lucky to get a time margin even that wide, or at all.

ps
Oh I should add the Chinese used to favour the idea of not coming Out of Africa. Having a 60k bone might err towards that belief if Out of Africa happened at 60k. If however Out of Africa occurred before 60k then its remains a valid theory that mankind is related.

rainbow · **#12** by **rainbow** » Nov 16, 2010 6:47 am

Peter Brown wrote: If however Out of Africa occurred before 60k then its remains a valid theory that mankind is related.

I didn't know there was an alternate theory to the one that 'mankind is related'.
Please expound.

Peter Brown · **#13** by **Peter Brown** » Nov 16, 2010 7:26 am

You can read about it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregio ... ern_humans

rainbow · **#14** by **rainbow** » Nov 16, 2010 7:39 am

Peter Brown wrote:You can read about it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregio ... ern_humans

I'm afraid that even that largely discredited theory also assumes a common ancestor.
...so even were it true in face of all the counter evidence, we'd still be all related.

Peter Brown · **#15** by **Peter Brown** » Nov 16, 2010 8:29 am

It isn’t something I believe in either as the complete explanation, but I know the basis of the theory of Multiregional human evolution is older than the Wiki article suggests.

rainbow · **#16** by **rainbow** » Nov 16, 2010 8:37 am

Multi-Regionalism is the pseudo-science behind Racist Theories.

Peter Brown · **#17** by **Peter Brown** » Nov 16, 2010 11:07 am

Well I wouldn’t go that far. It might have been used by racists but then just because they latch onto something it shouldn’t invalidate the idea if it is reasonable.

I keep an open mind on this theory partly on the grounds than immigrating humans might have bred with the locals.

rainbow · **#18** by **rainbow** » Nov 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Problem.
Where did the 'locals' come from?
The Book of Genesis faces the same problem.

Peter Brown · **#19** by **Peter Brown** » Nov 16, 2010 4:16 pm

The locals were the other species of homo that migrated thousands of years before hand and had enough time to evolve themselves to the environment. Some say they did mate others say they didn’t and being honest about humans, if some mate with sheep then I don’t think they be bothered by humping a different looking humanoid.

Geneses is a story, it didn’t even get the order of what was made first correctly, earth then stars it says. So I think we can safely discount that tall tale of sky daddies with talking snakes with legs and just focus on the possible.

rainbow · **#20** by **rainbow** » Nov 16, 2010 4:33 pm

These 'locals' would still have come from a common ancestor.