Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Before they left Africa, early modern humans were 'culturally diverse'

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
The researchers from the University of Oxford, Kings College London and the University of Bordeaux took over 300,000 measurements of stone tools from 17 archaeological sites across North Africa, including the Sahara.

Link to story



Lead researcher Dr Eleanor Scerri, visiting scholar at the University of Oxford, said: 'This is the first time that scientists have identified that early modern humans at the cusp of dispersal out of Africa were grouped in separate, isolated and local populations. Stone tools are the only form of preserved material culture for most of human history. In Africa, owing to the hot climate, ancient DNA has not yet been found. These stone tools reveal how early populations of modern humans dispersed across the Sahara just before they left North Africa Read more at: phys.org...


The comparative study looked at stone tools dating between 130,000 and 75,000 years ago and they discovered there are marked differences in the way stone tools were made, reflecting a diversity of cultural traditions. The study identified at least four distinct populations, each relatively isolated from each other with their own different cultural characteristics.




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Hans ,
That is awesome and it fits with recent work showing that hsn had cultures.
In modern excavations of hsn sites in Eurasia and Europe, it has been shown that there is a cultural cline.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
It was a much smaller world back then, it's easy to see where populations could remain isolated from one another even on the same continent in what we would consider fairly close proximity by modern standards. A desert or mountain range would have been an insurmountable barrier back then, keeping those on opposite sides apart, just as a connecting river would have enable shared cultural traits among two populations.

Cool find, s+f



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune
Most excellent indeed. I'd be interested to see how further studies of the same type in the Arabian peninsula and the Levant to see how, when and in which order these people moved into Eurasia. I'd also be really interested in seeing how these tools match up with the EMH who cohabitated with HNS in the Levant to get a better timeline on cultural diffusion as the tools used by HNS at the time of contact with the newly arrived EMH were better made and more complex and they ended up teaching their African émigrés the tricks of their trade as some of the population of EMH stayed in the Levant and others continued north.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I had a great great grandmother named Tuna. Maybe she was from Tunisia or was stalked by Starkist. I am a Finn, so I suppose being part of Tuna is normal.

Talk about off topic.


I'm still not totally convinced that we all originated in Africa. They could have settled there from somewhere else long ago. But if I am forced to believe this, I can pretend I believe in it. I pretended I believed coffee and eggs were bad for us. But I didn't stop eating or drinking them.

"Nods head and walks away agreeing with African origin".



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Interesting topic under the light of Ferguson



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Lil Drummerboy

Not quite sure how civil unrest in moder day USA plays into cultural development of early modern humans or archaic Homo sapiens if you prefer..



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I have always said that the tools tell the story. The first out of Africa group was by far the most advance.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
They could have settled there from somewhere else long ago.


Where else would we have started? The Americas are the newest group so everything else has a flow from Africa, unless you have information otherwise.

If we go back 1 million plus years then we are not talking humans anymore if you are suggesting that there were ancients before then.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Hi Hans, I remember you posting a thread about human ancestors using stone tools ~500kya. The link's dead in the thread so here's another link.


Now it appears that more than 500,000 years ago, human ancestors living in the Baringo Basin of Kenya collected lava stone cobbles from a riverbed and hammered them in just the right way to produce stone blades. Paleoanthropologists Cara Roure Johnson and Sally McBrearty of the University of Connecticut, Storrs, recently discovered the blades at five sites in the region, including two that date to between 509,000 and 543,000 years ago. "This is the oldest known occurrence of blades," Johnson reported Wednesday here at the annual meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society.


I know that there have been stone tools found in caves in Israel, Kenya and South Africa that pre-date the '130,000 and 75,000' in the physorg article. It seems like numerous centuries and geographical dispersion would generate cultural differences that possibly meant our ancestors were immersed in culture prior to our arrival. As such, the early moderns would have had cultural signifiers from across the cardinal points of Africa.

I guess my question would be this. Has there been a similarly extensive study into the differences between lithics that predate early modern humans?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky

I guess my question would be this. Has there been a similarly extensive study into the differences between lithics that predate early modern humans?



Not to my knowledge but based on the metadata model they used above they probably will try earlier dates, the only problem I see is a lack of material going that far.

I await to be amazed.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: rickymouse
They could have settled there from somewhere else long ago.


Where else would we have started? The Americas are the newest group so everything else has a flow from Africa, unless you have information otherwise.

If we go back 1 million plus years then we are not talking humans anymore if you are suggesting that there were ancients before then.


You can believe the consensus of the time if you want, I would rather believe that they actually do not know because they haven't found adequate evidence yet. We share genetic traits with lucy, meaning we are related but this relationship could be from a previous ancestor of hers that came from anywhere. I am most likely not a direct descendent of Lucys. Neither are most of the people in this world. Actually, the chance of Lucy being a direct inline ancestor of any of us are probably zilch. We probably share common ancestors with Lucy though, they could have come from anywhere originally. We have common genetics with most of the hominins.

It doesn't really matter where we came from originally anyway, except in the minds of those who believe it.
edit on 19-8-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

I don't believe in OOA, at all. Soon enough chances are it will be the latest science woopsy and they will have to admit the picture of human origin, evolution and migration is something other than presumptions made from a few fossils and snippets of DNA.

Each significant find is a step towards the truth.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

...and your belief or idea is?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Since when do we have to choose something else to believe in just because we do not believe in a present theory. Isn't it good enough to say that it really doesn't matter where man came from?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Exactly.

Too many are emotionally attached to that theory and there are theories that that is the very purpose of it.

It is about science truth and fact, not Disney schmaltz.

People don't need a counter theory to disbelieve OOA theory.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

My beliefs and ideas are bountiful and plenty!.

My theory on OOA specifically, is that there isn't enough fossil record for that assumption and new finds, such as those in Spain and Israel are constantly throwing spanners in the works of OOA theory.

The truth is that OOA is just a THEORY. People should stop defending it as fact, it isn't a matter of dignity or feel good science, it is about the truth, and the truth is that there are other theories and OOA is unproven. Just another MSM machine load of political nonsense.

Many anthropologists and academics also do not believe in OOA theory.

Here are some examples:

consciouslifenews.com...
www.iflscience.com...
www.scirp.org...
www.ancient-origins.net...
www.livinganthropologically.com...



In introductory classes to biological anthropology, both instructors and the authors of numerous textbooks have been tempted to present the origin of modern humans as two equally plausible, mutually exclusive evolutionary scenarios: the Out of Africa hypothesis and the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis.

These models can be expressed succinctly on a single PowerPoint slide, have historically been both suggested and supported by influential scholars in the field, and can be massively simplified for undergraduate consumption and, hopefully, comprehension.

The good news is this: we can stop doing this now. The bad news is that a more current representation of the consensus that most researchers have reached is likely to be more complex and convoluted.

In addition, it can likely only be represented by models of human evolution destined to befuddle introductory students everywhere, complete with multiple slides, wandering migration arrows, question marks, and unapologetic blank spaces. (One Year in Biological Anthropology: Species, Integration, and Boundaries in 2010, 214)

The 2010-2012 studies could have been a boon to anthropology if we had defended the multiregional model, but they now put some standard anthropological accounts in an awkward position. Embracing the replacement hypothesis and Mitochondrial Eve–without further developing the multiregional model–leaves anthropology needing to reconfigure a response.

In retrospect, embracing the replacement hypothesis and Mitochondrial Eve was very problematic for anthropology. Although these problems should have been more obvious earlier, they are painfully clear in 2012:



Kathleen Fuller, PhD • 2 years ago
This is a good overview. I am among the small group of anthropologists who never succumbed to the lure of mtEve. It made no sense, and I am glad that further genetic analysis has supported the inclusion of so-called archaics into modern human diversity.

I lost respect for Gould when he came out in support of mtEve; mtEve was clearly a 'creation' event, not an example of speciation, and, therefore, not scientific.

I was shocked when so many anthropologists jumped on board the mtEve, recent out-of-Africa bandwagon.

Fortunately, my current and former students will not have to re-learn that Neanderthals were part of modern human heritage since that is what I've always taught.


edit on 19-8-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Hanslune

Since when do we have to choose something else to believe in just because we do not believe in a present theory. Isn't it good enough to say that it really doesn't matter where man came from?



Well one could throw up ones hands and say nothing matters but the search for answers and the truth is something Man has been doing for tens of thousands of years, why stop now or limit the search?

I was curious!



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Lil Drummerboy

Not quite sure how civil unrest in moder day USA plays into cultural development of early modern humans or archaic Homo sapiens if you prefer..

Early man was kill or be killed, thumping his chest to communicate, steal what was not his, throw rocks act defiant..Kinda seems to fits side by side.. Many still havent evolved from that time period



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lil Drummerboy

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Lil Drummerboy

Not quite sure how civil unrest in moder day USA plays into cultural development of early modern humans or archaic Homo sapiens if you prefer..

Early man was kill or be killed, thumping his chest to communicate, steal what was not his, throw rocks act defiant..Kinda seems to fits side by side.. Many still havent evolved from that time period


We are still the creatures who evolved as diligent hunters an gatherers, we see the skills needed for that survival still reflect in our current society.

A desire to accumulate resources - now not so much food but money
Aggressiveness and willingness to kill - useful traits in the wild not so much in a 'civilized society'.
Clever, very clever and it helped our frail bodies survive - seen in our technological skills
Seek that which will help us survive, fats and sweets - still doing it!






top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join