Ancient tools found in India undermine the “out of Africa” hypothesis

Link to the paper

arstechnica.com...

Scientists have unveiled an extraordinary new analysis of thousands of stone tools found at a site called Attirampakkam in India, northwest of Chennai in Tamil Nadu. Thanks to new dating techniques, a team led by archaeologist Shanti Pappu determined that most of the tools are between 385,000 and 172,000 years old. What makes these dates noteworthy is that they upend the idea that tool-making was transformed in India after an influx of modern Homo sapiens came from Africa starting about 130,000 years ago.

According to these findings, hominins in India were making tools that looked an awful lot like what people were making in Africa almost 250,000 years before they encountered modern humans. This is yet another piece of evidence that the "out of Africa" process was a lot messier and more complex than previously thought.

The hominins who made tools at Attirampakkam made a wide variety of items, some of which closely resembled the Middle Paleolithic style that emerged in Africa around 300,000 years ago.

A traditional "out of Africa" hypothesis holds that early humans in India were essentially stuck in the biface age, making their elementary axes until modern Homo sapiens swarmed the subcontinent about 130,000 years ago and brought the wonders of Middle Paleolithic tools to everyone. Except Pappu and her team found a mix of bifaces and Middle Paleolithic tools at Attirampakkam. Somehow, African and Indian hominins were developing the same toolmaking skills at roughly the same time.

This changes our understanding of human development and ancient migration patterns. There is no doubt that a massive number of modern humans poured out of Africa about 100,000 years ago. But they weren't necessarily as important to global cultural development as we might think.

Regardless of who these early humans were, it's certain that they were already engaged in modern human toolmaking before Homo sapiens arrived from Africa. What's fascinating about the Attirampakkam site is that the evidence suggests that the people there may have started migrating en masse at the same time Africans did

This is pretty cool. Just a little bit more evidence that the origins and history of humans is still a mystery and far more diverse and interesting than the narrative learned in school.

a reply to: dug88

Not really. Just seems to say the idea that only modern humans created advanced tools is wrong. Similar thing happened with neanderthals.

Denisovans

But was there any art / musical instruments? Homo sapiens make that stuff by nature. African art goes back about 77,000 years (well the oldest I managed to find a documentary show and discuss).

a reply to: dug88

Considering they most likely have found a Homo Sapient jaw bone in Israel from 177 -200kya it's certainly possible.


It's also possible we are very off in the time lines. The jawbone would significantly change the migration.

a reply to: dug88


an out-of-Africa migration would not explain the artifacts found in India (east coast side facing Bay of Bengal)


unless of course the 'modern men' out-of-Africa were traveling via ocean going boats/ships (which is absurd)


the better explanation is that both populations either were both enlightened in tool making at the same time or that each population (India & Africa) descended into their own version of a 'dark Age' as the two once higher-societies continued Its' degeneration from a 'lost' period of civilization they both once had



the 'master race' = Atlantis were the ocean travelers... & gave both the African clans & the clans in India the same level of a more advanced tool making technology at the same time




BTW, don't try BING search engine for the area in India, use Google Search to find the location...
www.google.com...@13.2337085,61.9543623,4z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x3a529b7195bbbde7:0xab2593662a64947 c!8m2!3d13.2322438!4d79.8800832

a reply to: St Udio

See my above post,


There is very clear evidence that while AMH did not make make it into the sub-continent until fairly late,~60kya?, Why is that?, considering that AMH had already been in China for 40K years or in Laos for 30k or even North America at 60K.
Its because archaics(denisovans) had a strong presence there and it wasnt until their population was suppressed by the aftermath of the toba eruption that AMH were able to gain a foothold.

"Out of Africa" is only a theory many years ago, with our current find9ngs, technologies and understandings based on then .

Of course as technology develops and we have more availability and resources to dig and work on new sites... new discoveries shall be made.

a reply to: St Udio

"Atlantis" was probably only Minoa / Thera.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: St Udio
a reply to: dug88
the better explanation is that both populations either were both enlightened in tool making at the same time or that each population (India & Africa) descended into their own version of a 'dark Age' as the two once higher-societies continued Its' degeneration from a 'lost' period of civilization they both once had

 

This I believe was close to the conclusion the archaeologists came to.

I would be more sceptical in wanting to know what this "new dating technique" was. Stone tools cannot be carbon dated and as far as I know the ONLY way is in the context of the find. You could form a timeline with the emerging sophistication of the
tools, but apart from that?????.
The out of Africa theory is a very, very loose theory with the only evidence is the finding of really, early hominid remains in Southern Africa, supposedly not found anywhere else therefore man had to originate from there. With no supporting finds to show the migration from this area except finds that jump thousands of miles, the Middle East.
I would not like to calculate the odds of two sets of early hominids coming up with the same stone tool development at the same time.
A bit of tongue in cheek, the Indians are very touchy about their past history so my question to them is "was this before or after the Mahabharata"?

a reply to: dug88

My opinion?

The so-called out of Africa hypothesis, is just like the old hokey cokey or put another way, in - out - in - out and perhaps even shake it all about.

Humans probably went TO Africa, then out, then back and out again depending on living conditions, droughts, earthquakes, eruptions, tsunamis, warfare and even cometary or asteroid impacts throughout the many millennia of prehistory.

It's not a simple case of we were in Africa then we left.

This is pretty interesting.

Grimerica Talks Human Origins & Into AfricaTheory with Bruce Fenton: youtu.be...

Interview Starts 34:05 Bruce Fenton, author of The Forgotten Exodus - the Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution joins us for another long uninterrupted chat. He talks about his new book, an accumulation of the latest scientific research into our origins as the human race.

Bruce F. Fenton has a book about the into Africa theory. He was on The Den Of Lore podcast talking about it if you're interested.

Edit beyondmyths beat me too it. I'm going to look at that podcast too!

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: St Udio

"Atlantis" was probably only Minoa / Thera.

I disagree. That theory has always seemed like a cop-out by mainstream historians, anthropologists etc.

Plato himself said his source was Solon who obtained the Atlantean story from Egypt, and explained the time frame was 9000 years prior to Plato's time ( 427-427 B.C. ) The Minoan eruption happened circa 1600 B.C.

The Greeks were also familiar with the Minoans and retained memories of their civilization, as evidenced from the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur, not to mention the Bronze Age civilizations recalled in Homeric works.

I highly doubt he was speaking metaphorically or ficticiously when he said it was beyond the Pillars of Hercules.

As our knowledge of fossils, tools and other artifacts grows so does our understanding of ancient history.

Academic hypothesizes seem to advance slower than glaciers move.

If only we could live another 100 years we may see some changes in the thinking of the origins of people, their migrations and their cultures

It is confusing for sure but we came out of OZ.



This guy is entertaining.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

The Greeks were also familiar with the Minoans

Uh, no. When the Mycenaens re-settled Thera, 60ish years after the eruption, they had no idea that Akrotiri was buried under the 60' of ash beneath their feet.
Then the Greeks went illiterate for 400 or so years and the Minoans became the stuff of myth lost to time, as they could not read Linear A or Linear B.

retained memories of their civilization, as evidenced from the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur

.
Dont forget that Agean greeks(Minoans) had a presence in Egypt for almost 1600 years before Plato ever wrote a word. By 1800 BCE they had built their own port at what became Avaris, that could berth 400 ships. There were greek temples to the greek gods for hundreds of years, in egypt, before Plato. A Greek (King of Sparta) even sat on the throne of Egypt, as Regent, while Pharo campaigned against a rebellion, some 200 years before Plato. Taking the 9000 years literally is a huge mistake, being that the story is allegorical in nature.

a reply to: Elementalist

Ironic, the further we get from reality the better we understand it.

We know man didn't originate in Germany or he would have taken better notes.