The story of the evolution of modern humans can be a bit confusing, species-wise, with many early hominins co-existing without an obvious linear succession. But, geographically, all the action has appeared to take place in Africa, at least until the appearance of Homo erectus, which left Africa and spread globally, only to be replaced by later species of African origin: us. Over the past year or so, however, our history has become a bit more complicated, with evidence that our ancestors interbred with earlier human relatives that had already dispersed throughout Asia. Now, earlier events are also looking a bit more confused, as archeological finds in the nation of Georgia are being promoted as evidence that Homo erectus didn't even get its start in Africa.

But the most radical interpretation has been that, if the Dmanisi skeletons look like the earliest form of Homo erectus, that's simply because they are. In this scenario, the species originated in Asia, and evolved its larger form there before going mobile, eventually returning to the Africa that its more distant ancestors left.

According to the authors, a more central site of origin like the Caucasus also makes sense given that finds are turning up in Asia as early as 1.7 million years ago. The problem is that there's absolutely no evidence that any species, either Homo or Australopithecus, was anywhere outside of Africa before Dmanisi. And there's clearly not going to be anything older at the site, given that the oldest finds are already just above solid rock.

The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000-350,000 years ago

The Steinheim skull is a fossilized skull of an archaic Homo sapiens or Homo heidelbergensis found in 1933 near Steinheim an der Murr (20 km north of Stuttgart, Germany). Skull of H. steinheimensis It is an estimated 250,000 to 350,000 years old.

Homo erectus (H erectus) lived from about 1.8 Ma to about 70,000 years ago (which would indicate that they were probably wiped out by the Toba catastrophe; however, Homo erectus soloensis and Homo floresiensis survived it). Often the early phase, from 1.8 to 1.25 Ma, is considered to be a separate species, Homo ergaster, or it is seen as a subspecies of Homo erectus, Homo erectus ergaster.

According to the authors, a more central site of origin like the Caucasus also makes sense given that finds are turning up in Asia as early as 1.7 million years ago

That 'structure' isn't a structure. It's a geologic formation. Please, don't listen to Hancock. He's...well...I'll resist the temptation to insult him using his so easily insultable name. He's just not a good researcher nor is he actually all that well versed in any of the human-centered fields of study (anthropology, archeology, psychology, ethnography, etc). He repeatedly demonstrates his lack of understanding.

So interesting these Homo-Erectus seemed to have lived in parts of Asia and/or Indonesia For 1.7 million years?

Then does this mean many of the cities and or civilizations that could have possibly have been erected be underwater due to the large amount of land in Indonesia that is currently underwater that wasn't underwater during the Ice Ages.

Actually i wouldn't be so quick to dis-credit Graham Hancock i think he has some good ideas although some of them are on the fringe; i don't agree with everything he has to say; but its interesting non-the-less.

Provide links when trying to Assert Confirmations Of purported Structures in Japan; because saying that its a geologic formation doesn't prove it is; thats just an outright assertion. More Research is needed. Nothing you asserted is proven yet just speculated as such.

Even Articles from the Nato Geo Such as this are still blatant assertions as a good scientists always says.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by TheUniverse

---

Possibility? Sure...but there's no evidence to demonstrate that it's man made. It's possible that Mt Everest is man made, just highly improbable. There's nothing within the supposed structures that points directly to them being man made.

...no, they lived 1.7 million years ago. We know there were there at one point in a continuous settlement...but I didn't find any reference to how long that settlement lasted (probably because they don't know).

If you really, really, really want to stretch it...sure. But how did they build these cities without agriculture? How did they sustain their populations by hunting to the point where they could have an advanced civilization? Why is there no evidence beyond what we expect from homo erectus from previous finds?

...saying that a rock formation is natural is the null position. The vast majority of rock formations in the sea are natural, so it is hardly an extraordinary claim to say that it's nothing more than a rock formation. I'm not making a counter-claim that it couldn't be artificial, I'm merely making the claim that the lengthy period of study (somewhere more than 5 years for sure because I was addressing the issue when I first joined ATS) has yet to provide a single shred of evidence pointing towards it being man made.

Actually, looking at the article you provided it's nearly two decades of research.

That 'structure' isn't a structure. It's a geologic formation. Please, don't listen to Hancock.

According to the authors, a more central site of origin like the Caucasus also makes sense given that finds are turning up in Asia as early as 1.7 million years ago

Still waiting for those links To prove 100%

1. Homo erectus is not regarded an ancestor of modern humans. We come from a different branch of the hominid family.
   
   
2. Homo erectus migration from Africa is thought to have begun about two million years ago. We, on the other hand, came out of Africa about a million years ago.
   
   
3. If in fact erectus evolved in Asia and migrated back to Africa, this has no implications for modern humans.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

On the matter of the settlements i never said any settlement and/or civilizations ,structures persisted for 1.7 million years; I wonder where are you getting these assertions from.?

So interesting these Homo-Erectus seemed to have lived in parts of Asia and/or Indonesia For 1.7 million years?