So.. haplogroup U predates OOA or have OOA dates been bumped back further by theorists since the vid? Are there other haplogroups subject to such controversies between coalescence times, and OOA migration? And if so ... how do we know certain haplogroups' presence in Africa aren't indigenous to Northeast Africa, rather than inflow from foreigners?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
he states Haplogroup U is 60,000 years old but humans only left Africa 50,000 years ago. The estimates of humans leaving Africa is 50,000 to 100,000 years ago and U is believed to be 55,000 years old.
posted
"60,000 years old but humans only left Africa 50,000 years ago. "
These are of course estimates. 10 KYa is roughly considerable. These are reasonable error margins.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness is trying to confound the relevant OOA migration with irrelevant OOA migrations. That's the only way she can avoid the implications of Ust Ishim being a decent proxy ancestor of all living Eurasians.
Ust Ishim is only 45ky old, not >100ky old. If the main ancestors of living Eurasians left Africa >100ky ago, Ust Ishim would not be a good proxy ancestor of all living Eurasians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lioness is trying to confound the relevant OOA migration with irrelevant OOA migrations. That's the only way she can avoid the implications of Ust Ishim being a decent proxy ancestor of all living Eurasians.
Ust Ishim is only 45ky old, not >100ky old. If the main ancestors of living Eurasians left Africa >100ky ago, Ust Ishim would not be a good proxy ancestor of all living Eurasians.
Stop creating a false conversation. I have not been talking about Ust Ishim is Siberian while haplogroup U is considered to be of Near Eastern origin. Archaeological excavations in the Qafzeh Cave in the mountain found human remains, whose estimated age is 100,000 years old. That is twice the amount of time stated by Keita
Keita suggest haplogroup U which is also found Africa ( at highest frequencies in Algerain Mozabites and a Canary Island region) can't be Eurasian because it is 60,000 years old an OOA is 40-50,000 years ago.
Do you agree with this^?
________________________________________
Ancient DNA from a Romanian specimen dated to 35,000 years ago (Peștera Muierilor) has been found to be of the basal U6 haplogroup. The location of this sample suggests a Eurasian origin for the haplogroup, with its dating placing the origin of U6 between 42,000 and 52,000 years ago.
2016; 6: 25501. Published online 2016 May 19. doi: 10.1038/srep25501 PMCID: PMC4872530
The mitogenome of a 35,000-year-old Homo sapiens from Europe supports a Palaeolithic back-migration to Africa
M. Hervella,1 E. M. Svensson,2 A. Alberdi,3 T. Günther,2 N. Izagirre,1 A. R. Munters,2 S. Alonso,1 M. Ioana,4,5 F. Ridiche,6 A. Soficaru,7 M. Jakobsson,2,8 M. G. Netea,5 and C. de-la-Ruaa,1 Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ► Go to: Abstract After the dispersal of modern humans (Homo sapiens) Out of Africa, hominins with a similar morphology to that of present-day humans initiated the gradual demographic expansion into Eurasia. The mitogenome (33-fold coverage) of the Peştera Muierii 1 individual (PM1) from Romania (35 ky cal BP) we present in this article corresponds fully to Homo sapiens, whilst exhibiting a mosaic of morphological features related to both modern humans and Neandertals. We have identified the PM1 mitogenome as a basal haplogroup U6*, not previously found in any ancient or present-day humans. The derived U6 haplotypes are predominantly found in present-day North-Western African populations. Concomitantly, those found in Europe have been attributed to recent gene-flow from North Africa. The presence of the basal haplogroup U6* in South East Europe (Romania) at 35 ky BP confirms a Eurasian origin of the U6 mitochondrial lineage. Consequently, we propose that the PM1 lineage is an offshoot to South East Europe that can be traced to the Early Upper Paleolithic back migration from Western Asia to North Africa, during which the U6 lineage diversified, until the emergence of the present-day U6 African lineages.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Stop creating a false conversation. I have not been talking about Ust Ishim is Siberian while haplogroup U is considered to be of Near Eastern origin.
I brought up Ust Ishim and his proxy ancestor status for all living Eurasians several times. The reason why he was brought up is because he narrows down where Lazaridis et al's "non African" stage lived:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lioness, considering how far removed the proxy of the ancestor of all living Eurasians (Ust Ishim) is from the "non-African" label, and considering the lack of Neanderthal in Basal Eurasian, where would "non-African" have lived, in your view?
>100ky Skhul/Qafzeh-like OOA migrations have little to do with the primary ancestors of living Eurasians and the OOA fossils sequenced so far (e.g. Ust-Ishim, Kostenki, etc).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As usual you complicate things. There is a 2009 Keita lecture on the table. Either his point is that U can't be Eurasian is valid point or it is not.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing is you have no reason/explanation for these alleged "dispersals". I've read every single of Stringer's papers on OOA [since he used to debate Wolpoff in the 1980s/1990s/early 2000s], never was a reason provided why people 100,000 or 50,000 years ago woke up one day and decided to take life-threatening migration(s) of thousands of miles.
"Even if we are to assume that man did originate in Africa, what was the motivation for him to leave his homeland and migrate across inaccessible forests, deathly deserts and wide oceans and seas to lands and islands thousands of miles away? From the early stage of hominid evolution to, say, 50,000 years ago, when the hunter-gathers settled down to an agrarian life, the population was small, food abundant, and wars had not graduated to more than a bar room brawl, there was no reason or necessity for our ancestors to risk venturing from Africa to as far away as inaccessible Australia and all the places in-between." - A critique of the African-origin theory by Akhil Bakshi
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
You said OOA should be pushed back to >100ky ago. I disagreed and said those OOA migrations are irrelevant.
I have debated you on YDNA CT, Lazaridis "non African" stage, and Basal Eurasian before and so I know you have an interest in pushing back OOA as far back as possible. I said this was impossible because living Eurasians coalesce to a population as recent as maybe 50ky ago (i.e. Ust Ishim's immediate ancestors). You said you didn't remember and I reminded you.
Nothing complicated about it Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
You said OOA should be pushed back to >100ky ago. I disagreed and said those OOA migrations are irrelevant.
I have debated you on YDNA CT, Lazaridis "non African" stage, and Basal Eurasian before and so I know you have an interest in pushing back OOA as far back as possible. I said this was impossible because living Eurasians coalesce to a population as recent as maybe 50ky ago (i.e. Ust Ishim's immediate ancestors). You said you didn't remember and I reminded you.
Nothing complicated about it
OK, so how old is haplogroup U ?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um.. if the human revolution or behavioral modernity only happened 50k years ago, how does that reconcile with pushing back OOA migration past this point? This has been a possible problem with pushing OOA far, and possibly one of the reasons many researchers don't do so. To do so might implying Eurasians weren't entirely equipped cognitively with the modern human brain when they left. This doesn't seem to be a popular position. Wiki has tried to offer some explanations for this: specifically it seems the authors it quotes deny a recent human revolution.
quote:
1. Francesco D'Errico.[4] Multispecies transition across Africa and Eurasia. Symbolic capacities already in place with Homo heidelbergensis 300,000 – 400,000 years ago. Sporadic behavioural expressions of symbolism among ancestors of both Neanderthals and ourselves.
2. Sally McBrearty and Alison Brooks.[5] African ancestors of modern humans undergo gradual, sporadic build-up of modern cognition and behaviour spanning 300,000 years. Symbolism presents no special theoretical difficulties, emerging as part of the package of modern, flexible, creative behaviours within Africa.
3. Christopher Henshilwood and Ian Watts.[6][7] The human revolution occurred as part of modern human speciation in Africa. Evidence for symbolism in the form of cosmetics and personal ornamentation is the archaeological signature of this transition. Symbolism was not an optional extra – life following the transition became fundamentally organized through symbols.
4. Richard Klein.[8][9] Recent interpretations of the African Middle Stone Age record are not conclusive; the original "human revolution" theory remains correct. Middle Stone Age humans evolving in Africa may appear anatomically modern, but did not become cognitively modern until the Later Stone Age/Upper Palaeolithic. Symbolic culture emerged some 50,000 years ago, caused by a genetic mutation that re-wired the brain.
You said OOA should be pushed back to >100ky ago. I disagreed and said those OOA migrations are irrelevant.
I have debated you on YDNA CT, Lazaridis "non African" stage, and Basal Eurasian before and so I know you have an interest in pushing back OOA as far back as possible. I said this was impossible because living Eurasians coalesce to a population as recent as maybe 50ky ago (i.e. Ust Ishim's immediate ancestors). You said you didn't remember and I reminded you.
Nothing complicated about it
OK, so how old is haplogroup U ?
Search for papers with mtDNA dates that were based on or informed by aDNA samples that have secure dates. For instance:
^Fu et al's mtDNA dates are all informed by ancient DNA, so it's better than most other papers that are just extrapolating from modern mtDNAs samples. And you should search for more than one paper with dates based on ancient DNA, so you can get a general idea based on multiple papers.
I know you'll just say that I'm complicating stuff, but so be it. There is no one line answer to that question.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haplogroup U is younger than Out-of-Africa. You don't need absolute dates, only relative ones for this.
Mitochondrial haplogroups M and N have dozens of primary branches, all basically Eurasian. All their sister branches under L3 and all more distant relatives are basically African. This period of rapid population growth ending with lineages all over Eurasia (and Sahul) can only reasonably be interpreted as the spread of modern humans across the world outside of Africa (at some point after the movement Out-of-Africa). Same logic applies to Y haplogroups.
U is a branch of R, which itself has dozens of branches and is one branch of N. So U post-dates Out-of-Africa. In principle it could be some stay-at-home branch but there is no actual reason to think so.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Um.. if the human revolution or behavioral modernity only happened 50k years ago, how does that reconcile with pushing back OOA migration past this point? This has been a possible problem with pushing OOA far, and possibly one of the reasons many researchers don't do so. To do so might implying Eurasians weren't entirely equipped cognitively with the modern human brain when they left. This doesn't seem to be a popular position. Wiki has tried to offer some explanations for this: specifically it seems the authors it quotes deny a recent human revolution.
quote:
1. Francesco D'Errico.[4] Multispecies transition across Africa and Eurasia. Symbolic capacities already in place with Homo heidelbergensis 300,000 – 400,000 years ago. Sporadic behavioural expressions of symbolism among ancestors of both Neanderthals and ourselves.
2. Sally McBrearty and Alison Brooks.[5] African ancestors of modern humans undergo gradual, sporadic build-up of modern cognition and behaviour spanning 300,000 years. Symbolism presents no special theoretical difficulties, emerging as part of the package of modern, flexible, creative behaviours within Africa.
3. Christopher Henshilwood and Ian Watts.[6][7] The human revolution occurred as part of modern human speciation in Africa. Evidence for symbolism in the form of cosmetics and personal ornamentation is the archaeological signature of this transition. Symbolism was not an optional extra – life following the transition became fundamentally organized through symbols.
4. Richard Klein.[8][9] Recent interpretations of the African Middle Stone Age record are not conclusive; the original "human revolution" theory remains correct. Middle Stone Age humans evolving in Africa may appear anatomically modern, but did not become cognitively modern until the Later Stone Age/Upper Palaeolithic. Symbolic culture emerged some 50,000 years ago, caused by a genetic mutation that re-wired the brain.
You have a good point. The AMHs lioness is talking about weren't part of our branch of the human family. They're on another branch that never made it. Our branch of the human family (which includes Eurasians) was nowhere near North Africa at that time to be involved with the Qafzeh/Shkul people. That is why that early OOA migration and certain others (e.g. the Nubian Complex people in Arabia >100ky ago) are irrelevant to your thread.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
^Fu et al's mtDNA dates are all informed by ancient DNA, so it's better most other papers that are just extrapolating from modern mtDNAs samples. And you should search for more than one paper with dates based on ancient DNA, so you can get a general idea based on multiple papers.
I know you'll just say that I'm complicating stuff, but so be it. There is no one line answer to that question.
Is haplogroup U older than the OOA dispersal concurrent to living Near Eastern Eurasians?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if the haplogroup was older than the OOA migration we're talking about, if mtDNA U variations all left with OOA people, what's the use of calling it African? It would be African in the sense that it originated there, but if it's exclusively part and parcel of what would later become Eurasians, you might as well call it Eurasian or 'what would later become Eurasian'.
The question you SHOULD be asking is whether mtDNA U left behind indigenous descendants in Africa.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: Haplogroup U is younger than Out-of-Africa. You don't need absolute dates, only relative ones for this.
Mitochondrial haplogroups M and N have dozens of primary branches, all basically Eurasian. All their sister branches under L3 and all more distant relatives are basically African. This period of rapid population growth ending with lineages all over Eurasia (and Sahul) can only reasonably be interpreted as the spread of modern humans across the world outside of Africa (at some point after the movement Out-of-Africa). Same logic applies to Y haplogroups.
U is a branch of R, which itself has dozens of branches and is one branch of N. So U post-dates Out-of-Africa. In principle it could be some stay-at-home branch but there is no actual reason to think so.
You're engaging in a circular argument. You never established that Africanity stops at L3; you just said it and expect people to go along with it. Without establishing this first, how can you establish that U, R, N, etc. originated in Eurasia?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say that N (or even R) originated in Eurasia. I said that U is younger than Out-of-Africa.
The massive expansion of lineages associated with M and N could have taken place wholly within Africa (where? why? what is the archaeological signature?) and then wholesale moved out to Eurasia; but I don't consider that a reasonable interpretation.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. So you were talking purely about when it originated without talking place of origin. Understood.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The question you SHOULD be asking is whether mtDNA U left behind indigenous descendants in Africa.
And since we don't yet have any early skeletal remains from Africa that resemble the actual mtDNA N people, we don't know if any potential U carriers were left behind in Africa. So far there are no early skeletal remains in Africa that look like what you'd expect a U carrier to look like:
So.. haplogroup U predates OOA or have OOA dates been bumped back further by theorists since the vid? Are there other haplogroups subject to such controversies between coalescence times, and OOA migration? And if so ... how do we know certain haplogroups' presence in Africa aren't indigenous to Northeast Africa, rather than inflow from foreigners?
"Torroni in Italy someone I've had personal communications with, he believes it's 60,00 years old. Now if people only left Africa 40 to 50,000 years ago and this haplogroup is 60,00 year old, it would have had to arisen before people left Africa"
The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations Torroni, Coudray et al 2008
U6 is a North African clade, that similar to M1, is of south- west Asian ancestry and most likely entered Africa ∼40,000– 45,000 years ago (Olivieri et al. 2006). U6 is distributed from the Near East to Northwest Africa where it is found at its highest frequencies (Maca-Meyer et al. 2003; Olivieri et al. 2006). It was also observed at a sparse distribution in popu- lations from the southwestern part of the Iberian Peninsula (Plaza et al. 2003). In our dataset, U6 as a whole is only ob- served in the Moroccan samples, where it is represented by its most significant subgroup, U6a (five mtDNAs in Asni, one in Bouhria, and three in Figuig). In Asni, one U6d mtDNA was also observed.
The genetic proximity observed between the Berbers and southern Europeans reveals that these groups shared a com- mon ancestor. Two hypotheses are discussed: one would date these common origins in the Upper Paleolithic with the ex- pansion of anatomically modern humans, from the Near East to both shores of the Mediterranean Sea; the other supports the Near Eastern origin, but would rather date it from the Neolithic, around 10,000 years ago (Ammerman & Cavalli- Sforza 1973; Barbujani et al. 1994; Myles et al. 2005; Rando et al. 1998). Common polymorphisms (i.e. those defining H and V lineages) between Berbers and south Europeans also could have been introduced or supported by genetic flows through the Straits of Gibraltar. For example, genetic ex- changes could have taken place during prehistory, while Eu- ropean populations retreated from ice sheets and expanded from refuge, around 15,000 years ago (as evidenced by the H and U5b mitochondrial lineages). Alternatively, these ex- changes could have occurred during history, with the invasion and the occupation during nearly seven centuries (from the 8th to the 15th century) of the Iberian Peninsula by Almora- vide then Almohade Muslim Berber troops. The differentiation observed between North Africans and sub-Saharan populations shows, first, that settlement of these areas was achieved by different migration waves and, then, that a genetic diversity was already observable in Africa since very old times. However, the Berber genetic heritage con- sists of a relatively high frequency of L lineages from various parts of Africa (i.e. L0a, L3i, L4, and L5 clades are from East Africa, L1b, L2b, and L3b are from West Africa, and L3e originated in the Sudan). It poses a question about the Sa- hara desert role in population movements and exchanges. It should be specified that the Sahara was not always a desert, because it also underwent enormous variation between wet and dry, offering green spaces favorable for human occupation and animal domestication (Aumassip et al. 1994; Said & Faure 1990). Thus, this is plausible that exchanges between African prehistoric populations took place; exchanges during which markers typical of sub-Saharan groups would have been in- troduced into the Berber gene pool. Contacts between North Africa and great sub-Saharan empires (such as those of Ghana,
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Even if the haplogroup was older than the OOA migration we're talking about, if mtDNA U variations all left with OOA people, what's the use of calling it African? It would be African in the sense that it originated there, but if it's exclusively part and parcel of what would later become Eurasians, you might as well call it Eurasian or 'what would later become Eurasian'.
The question you SHOULD be asking is whether mtDNA U left behind indigenous descendants in Africa.
wikipedia:
Haplogroup U6 is common (around 10% of the people)[69] in Northwest Africa (with a maximum of 29% in an Algerian Mozabites[77]) and the Canary Islands (18% on average with a peak frequency of 50.1% in La Gomera). It is also found in the Iberian peninsula, where it has the highest diversity (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found in this region and not in Africa),[78] Northeast Africa and occasionally in other locations. U6 is also found at low frequencies in the Chad Basin, including the rare Canarian branch. This suggests that the ancient U6 clade bearers may have inhabited or passed through the Chad Basin on their way westward toward the Canary Islands.[79]
Ancient DNA from a Romanian specimen dated to 35,000 years ago (Peștera Muierilor) has been found to be of the basal U6 haplogroup. The location of this sample suggests a Eurasian origin for the haplogroup, with its dating placing the origin of U6 between 42,000 and 52,000 years ago.[80] U6 is thought to have entered North Africa from the Near East around 30,000 years ago. It has been found among Iberomaurusian specimens dating from the Epipaleolithic at the Taforalt prehistoric site.[81] In spite of the highest diversity of Iberian U6, Maca-Meyer argues for a Near East origin of this clade based on the highest diversity of subclade U6a in that region,[78] where it would have arrived from West Asia, with the Iberian incidence primarily representing migration from the Maghreb and not persistence of a European root population.
According to Hernández et al. 2015 "the estimated entrance of the North African U6 lineages into Iberia at 10 ky correlates well with other L African clades, indicating that U6 and some L lineages moved together from Africa to Iberia in the Early Holocene."
__________________________
^^ this is saying the oldest 35kya remains bearing U6 were found in Peștera Muierilor, Romania and it is believed to have a Near East Eurasian origin, 42-52 kya but it says that 10kya U6 from Iberia could have come from N. Africans into Iberia, these NAs bearing this Eurasian haplogroup This possible back and forth migration is sometimes theorized as occurring through the Gibraltar straits
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ was Keita talking about haplogroup U mean that he had to mean all subclades of U (like U6) or just basal??? Can Torroni's opinion on the origin of a subclade and basal be different? Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^ this is saying the oldest 35kya remains bearing U6 were found in Peștera Muierilor, Romania and it is believed to have a Near East Eurasian origin, 42-52 kya but it says that 10kya U6 from Iberia could have come from N. Africans into Iberia, these NAs bearing this Eurasian haplogroup This possible back and forth migration is sometimes theorized as occurring through the Gibraltar straits
Yes, but did you notice they have published no nuclear aDNA. Why not? Most aDNA papers nowadays publish the full genome or large parts of it. And, visually, the skeletal remains in question look more like Aterians/MSA North Africans than 'Cro Magnon' Europeans.
posted
Show me what an "AMH" is [that's why I always highlight that term] when living Australian aborigines and some Sub-Saharan African populations fall outside 'anatomically modern' in terms of morphology:
"In fact, we believe it is probably impossible to arrive at a definition of anatomically modern humans that simultaneously includes the variation of all living people and excludes all members of archaic groups (Wolpoff, 1986; Brown, 1990; Kidder et al., 1992)." (Wolpoff, 1996 "The Modernity Mess")
"Australians [aborigines], with their average cranial capacity of 1264 cc (males 1347 cc, females 1181 cc, i.e. well within the range of Homo erectus), possess molars and other indices of robusticity matching those of Europeans several hundred millennia ago, yet they are “AMHs”." (Bednarik, 2013) Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The mitogenome of a 35,000-year-old Homo sapiens from Europe supports a Palaeolithic back-migration to Africa
But how is that possible when no industry supports that theory?
The Pre-Aurignacian and Mousterian originated in Africa.
quote:
Recently, the Libyan MSA has been divided into two phases (Garcea, 2010): an early Middle Stone Age, defined by open air sites in the Central Sahara and some sites in caves on the Mediterranean coast, such as the Haua Fteah (where it was identified as MSA with a Levallois technology, and Pre-Aurignacian with Levallois, discoid and blade technology); and a recent MSA phase that corresponds to the Aterian (Garcea, 2010: 37). This classification requires further testing.
In Libya, two Aterian and one MSA occurrences have been dated to the ‘Late Aterian Phase’: Jebel Gharbi (85e43 ka), and the Fazzan caves of Uan Tabu and Uan Afuda; the former has Aterian levels dated to 61 ` 10 ka, while at Uan Afuda an MSA level is dated to 90e 70 ka (Martini et al., 1998; di Lernia, 1999; Garcea, 2001). Else- where, a broad late Middle/Upper Pleistocene date of 150e40 ka has been proposed for the Aterian occupation of the Adrar Bous in Niger (Williams, 2008), and 70e40 ka in Egypt (Hawkins, 2001). Therefore, the current consensus view would suggest that the Aterian is a North African lithic tradition that follows a generalized local MSA tradition at the beginning of the last interglacial (MIS5d/ c), although as mentioned above, sites such as Ifri n’Ammar may be indicative of an earlier Aterian presence. The few dated stratigraphic sequences further point to important discontinuities between these two phases of MSA and MSA/Aterian occupation.
These apparent discontinuities in chronology and technology between the MSA and the Aterian in North Africa raise the question of the nature of the relationship between the two industries. The traditional interpretation has been that the Aterian represents a local facies of the North African Mousterian, sometimes described as an ‘evolved Mousterian’ (Tixier, 1959; Balout, 1965), or as an ‘Epi- Mousterian’ (Bordes, 1961). From a technological perspective, the characterization of the generalized North African MP/MSA is not simple. Techno-typological definitions of the non-Aterian MP/MSA industries in the Maghreb are unclear: Aumassip (2001) suggests a relative rarity of retouched tools and a relatively high frequency of sidescrapers, while for others abundant and diversified side- scrapers mainly produced on Levallois blanks are what characterize non-Aterian MP/MSA assemblages in the area (Wengler, 2010: 68). However, non-Aterian regional variation in the MSA is high. Aumassip (2004) identifies a number of traditions within a scheme of Mousterian variation very similar to European Mousterian facies e (a) Mousterian of Acheulean tradition, rich in small bifaces and Levallois debitage, frequent in Morocco and the Maghrebian Sahara; (b) Denticulate Mousterian in Egypt and the Maghreb, rich in denticulates and notches; (c) Typical Mousterian across North Africa; (d) Ferrassie-type Mousterian in the Maghreb, rich in scrapers and points and without bifaces; (e) Nubian Mousterian in Egypt and Sudan, characterized by the Levallois production of Nubian points, as well as (f) the Khormusan, a distinct facies of the Sudanese record (Marks, 1968; Goder-Goldeger, 2013). However, Aumassip’s classification of the non-Aterian MP/MSA of North Africa has been criticized on the grounds that it uses a European rather than African framework, and specifically excludes a number of sites from this North African ‘Mousterian’ variation e those described by Clark and others as ‘Middle Stone Age’ in Niger and Mali, and a set of very localized industries, such as those from M’zab and Dede in Algeria. To these, one could add the Pre-Aurignacian of Cyrenaica (McBurney, 1967). This highlights the point made earlier, that to understand the Aterian and its relationship to the MSA requires a broader comparative approach to technology, and that comparative framework must be Africa.
Aterian origins have usually been thought to lie in the Maghreb (Debènath et al., 1986; Pasty, 1997), although this view has been strongly criticized (Kleindienst, 1998: 8). Alternative origins have been suggested in sub-Saharan Africa, pointing to affinities with industries with foliates, such as the Lupemban and Sangoan (Caton- Thompson, 1946; Clark, 1982, 2008; Kleindienst, 1998; Wengler, 2010; Garcea, 2012). Sub-Saharan links are pertinent, since all human fossil remains found in association with the Aterian are those of H. sapiens, thus representing one of the main regional early human populations of Africa prior to the colonization of Eurasia.
—Robert A. Foleya, José Manuel Maíllo-Fernándezb, Marta Mirazón Lahra
Volume 300, 25 June 2013, Pages 153–170
The Middle Palaeolithic in the Desert
The Middle Stone Age of the Central Sahara: Biogeographical opportunities and technological strategies in later human evolution
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The mitogenome of a 35,000-year-old Homo sapiens from Europe supports a Palaeolithic back-migration to Africa
Besides that.
quote:Introduction
After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [Homo sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"
[...]
The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Show me what an "AMH" is [that's why I always highlight that term] when living Australian aborigines and some Sub-Saharan African populations fall outside 'anatomically modern' in terms of morphology:
"In fact, we believe it is probably impossible to arrive at a definition of anatomically modern humans that simultaneously includes the variation of all living people and excludes all members of archaic groups (Wolpoff, 1986; Brown, 1990; Kidder et al., 1992)." (Wolpoff, 1996 "The Modernity Mess")
"Australians [aborigines], with their average cranial capacity of 1264 cc (males 1347 cc, females 1181 cc, i.e. well within the range of Homo erectus), possess molars and other indices of robusticity matching those of Europeans several hundred millennia ago, yet they are “AMHs”." (Bednarik, 2013)
Indeed, "some". Meaning others do.
160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans
When Homo sapiens turned up in prehistoric Europe, they ran into the Neanderthals. The two types of human were similar enough – intellectually and culturally - to interbreed. But as more Homo sapiens moved into Europe and the population increased, there was an explosion of art and symbolic thought which overwhelmed the Neanderthals.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The funny thing is you have no reason/explanation for these alleged "dispersals". I've read every single of Stringer's papers on OOA [since he used to debate Wolpoff in the 1980s/1990s/early 2000s], never was a reason provided why people 100,000 or 50,000 years ago woke up one day and decided to take life-threatening migration(s) of thousands of miles.
"Even if we are to assume that man did originate in Africa, what was the motivation for him to leave his homeland and migrate across inaccessible forests, deathly deserts and wide oceans and seas to lands and islands thousands of miles away? From the early stage of hominid evolution to, say, 50,000 years ago, when the hunter-gathers settled down to an agrarian life, the population was small, food abundant, and wars had not graduated to more than a bar room brawl, there was no reason or necessity for our ancestors to risk venturing from Africa to as far away as inaccessible Australia and all the places in-between." - A critique of the African-origin theory by Akhil Bakshi
There is clear evidence of lithic technological variability in Middle Paleolithic (MP) assemblages along the Nile valley and in adjacent desert areas. One of the identified variants is the Khormusan, the type-site of which, Site 1017, is located north of the Nile's Second Cataract. The industry has two distinctive characteristics that set it apart from other MP industries within its vicinity. One is the use of a wide variety of raw materials; the second is an apparent correlation between raw material and technology used, suggesting a cultural aspect to raw material management. Stratigraphically, site 1017 is situated within the Dibeira-Jer formation which represents an aggradation stage of the Nile and contains sediments originating from the Ethiopian Highlands. While it has previously been suggested that the site dates to sometime before 42.5 ka, the Dibeira-Jer formation can plausibly be correlated with Nile alluvial sediments in northern Sudan recently dated to 83 ± 24 ka (MIS 5a).
This stage coincides with the 81 ka age of sapropel S3, indicating higher Nile flow and stronger monsoon rainfall at these times.
Other sites which reflect similar raw material variability and technological traditions are the BNS and KHS sites in the Omo Kibish Formation (Ethiopia) dated to ∼100 ka and ∼190 ka respectively. Based on a lithic comparative study conducted, it is suggested that site 1017 can be seen as representing behavioral patterns which are indicative of East African Middle Stone Age (MSA) technology, adding support to the hypothesis that the Nile Valley was an important dispersal route used by modern humans prior to the long cooling and dry trend beginning with the onset of MIS 4. Techo-typological comparison of the assemblages from the Khormusan sites with other Middle Paleolithic sites from Nubia and East Africa is used to assess the possibility of tracing the dispersal of technological traits across the landscape and through time.
—Mae Goder-Goldberger
The Khormusan: Evidence for an MSA East African industry in Nubia
Quaternary International 25 June 2013, Vol.300:182–194, doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.11.031 The Middle Palaeolithic in the Desert
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Indeed, "some". Meaning others do not.
Which SSA groups aren't anatomically modern, supposedly? Are you sure about that?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Indeed, "some". Meaning others do not.
Which SSA groups aren't anatomically modern, supposedly? Are you sure about that?
I made a typo. I meant to say: "Meaning others do", in response to Cas his argument. It has been corrected.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: ^^^ was Keita talking about haplogroup U mean that he had to mean all subclades of U (like U6) or just basal??? Can Torroni's opinion on the origin of a subclade and basal be different?
The history of the North African mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U6 gene flow into the African, Eurasian and American continents 2014
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Different lists exist for defining "anatomically modern". Day & Stringer's (1982) original list had only 7 cranial traits. This list has now expanded to double that amount, if not more and lists may not 100% agree on specific "AMH" traits.
Wolpoff (1986) tested Day & Stringer's (1982) 7 traits and showed some recent/living populations don't pass as "anatomically modern" because they have a very low frequency of them. I don't know the exact populations that failed Wolpoff's test, but its likely to be those recent/living populations with robust crania - and what immediately comes to mind is Australian aborigines and certain SSA populations. Even if we dispute what exact populations fail, the point is its "impossible to arrive at a definition of anatomically modern humans that simultaneously includes the variation of all living people and excludes all members of archaic groups" (Wolpoff, [1986], 1996).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
So recent/living Australian aborigines are not "AMH" (lol) and note Wolpoff's study also failed "AMH" status for other populations (double lol) since Pearson seems to indicate it was not only aborigines who failed the test.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: ^^^ was Keita talking about haplogroup U mean that he had to mean all subclades of U (like U6) or just basal??? Can Torroni's opinion on the origin of a subclade and basal be different?
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Different lists exist for defining "anatomically modern". Day & Stringer's (1982) original list had only 7 cranial traits. This list has now expanded to double that amount, if not more and lists may not 100% agree on specific "AMH" traits.
Wolpoff (1986) tested Day & Stringer's (1982) 7 traits and showed some recent/living populations don't pass as "anatomically modern" because they have a very low frequency of them. I don't know the exact populations that failed Wolpoff's test, but its likely to be those recent/living populations with robust crania - and what immediately comes to mind is Australian aborigines and certain SSA populations. Even if we dispute what exact populations fail, the point is its "impossible to arrive at a definition of anatomically modern humans that simultaneously includes the variation of all living people and excludes all members of archaic groups" (Wolpoff, [1986], 1996).
An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree
So recent/living Australian aborigines are not "AMH" (lol) and note Wolpoff's study also failed "AMH" status for other populations (double lol) since Pearson seems to indicate it was not only aborigines who failed the test.
To what (which) modern population is this proximity tested?
Btw,
quote: There is strong fossil and genetic evidence that modern humans arose in Africa ∼200,000 years ago, with a subset departing the continent much later (∼40,000–80,000 years ago) to populate the rest of the world.1 Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) suggests that these migrants exited Africa by the “southern route,” across the Red Sea to Arabia, moving relatively rapidly along the coast to reach Southeast Asia and Australia.2 Indeed, despite its distance from Africa, Australia has some of the earliest reliable evidence of human habitation outside Africa, dating to at least ∼46,000 and probably ∼60,000 years ago.3–5 Archeological evidence suggests that New Guinea and Melanesia, the islands immediately north and northeast of Australia, collectively termed Near Oceania, were also settled by ∼40,000 years ago.6 During this late Pleistocene period, sea levels were lower and the first humans entered the region when present day Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea were part of a single landmass known as the Sahul. However, details of dispersal routes and timing of the settlement remain debated. The common origin hypothesis proposes a single major migration from Eurasia to the Sahul followed by divergence into separate geographic populations. The independent origin model, by contrast, posits a multiwave early settlement of the Sahul with largely independent migrations to present-day New Guinea and mainland Australia. There is also debate around whether the first settlers were followed by later waves of migrants.
—Brian P. McEvoy, et al.
Whole-Genome Genetic Diversity in a Sample of Australians with Deep Aboriginal Ancestry
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic