Modern Humans Emerged Far Earlier Than Previously Thought, Fossils from China Suggest ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2010) An international team of researchers, including a physical anthropology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, has discovered well-dated human fossils in southern China that markedly change anthropologists perceptions of the emergence of modern humans in the eastern Old World. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also: Plants & Animals New Species Nature Biology Fossils & Ruins Early Humans Cultures Anthropology Reference Multiregional hypothesis Recent single-origin hypothesis Homo erectus Homo floresiensis The research, based at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, was published Oct. 25 in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The discovery of early modern human fossil remains in the Zhirendong (Zhiren Cave) in south China that are at least 100,000 years old provides the earliest evidence for the emergence of modern humans in eastern Asia, at least 60,000 years older than the previously known modern humans in the region. "These fossils are helping to redefine our perceptions of modern human emergence in eastern Eurasia, and across the Old World more generally," says Eric Trinkaus, PhD, the Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor in Arts & Sciences and professor of physical anthropology. The Zhirendong fossils have a mixture of modern and archaic features that contrasts with earlier modern humans in east Africa and southwest Asia, indicating some degree of human population continuity in Asia with the emergence of modern humans. The Zhirendong humans indicate that the spread of modern human biology long preceded the cultural and technological innovations of the Upper Paleolithic and that early modern humans co-existed for many tens of millennia with late archaic humans further north and west across Eurasia. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101025172924.htm One of the assumptions held as 'facts' among the anthropological circles throughout the 1995-2005 decade was that the modern humans could not have emerged beyond the geographic limits of Africa more than 50,000 years ago. Today this figure has been revised as 'at least 50,000 years' despite irrefutable evidence this occurred at least 100,000 years ago. The 'Southern Route' dispersal of modern humans suggests movement of a group of hunter-gatherers from the Horn of Africa, across the mouth of the Red Sea into Arabia and southern Asia at least 50 thousand years ago. Subsequently, the modern human populations expanded rapidly along the coastlines of southern Asia, southeastern Asia and Indonesia to arrive in Australia at least 45 thousand years ago. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090721214628.htm How did the experts arrive at the 50,000 year figure? Well, the earliest skeletal or tool culture evidence of human habitation in SE Europe dated to 45,000 years ago. In Asia and Siberia (until recently), about 35,000-40,000 years ago. The speculation was that the Sinai and the Levant were extremely dry 100,000- 50,000 years ago, and no humans could have survived there, even though one could have rafted along the Mediterranean (as the first inhabitants of Australia had done at least 50,000 years ago) or subsisted off a fishing economy. Then suddenly about 50,000 years ago a land bridge opened up between the Horn of Africa and the Arabian penninsula (at the time much greener and ripe for habitation than today) which released the trapped modern humans. The only problem with this scenario were various modern human skeletons which turned up in Israel since the late 80s dating to 90,000 years. Also reported in the same issue of Nature is the collateral discovery of a 90,000-year-old modern human skeleton in the Israeli cave of Es Skhul by a British-Canadian-Israeli team. It appears to clear up a problem that had been vexing anthropologists since the report last year of a similar find in the Israeli cave of Qafzeh. That discovery had seemed to bolster the case of scientists who believe that modern humans originated in Africa and passed through the Middle East to colonize the rest of the world. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/27/us/neanderthal-man-may-have-talked.html?pagewanted=2 So why was this 50,000 year figure held as some sort of taboo for so long against all the evidence, rare but irrefutable initially, overwhelming later? The mainstream view was also that modern humans could not have evolved earlier than 60,000 years ago, despite the fact some moderns dating back to 90,000 years have been found for quite a while. Around 2005 some moderns have been found in Africa dating to about 200,000 years, so the 60,000 year claim had to be dropped.
How does a timetable revision count as a "contradiction"? There's been a lot of discussion about the out-of-africa theory and timetable since well before 2005.
Well, these tables should have been revised a long time ago because some anatomically modern humans were previously found outside of Africa dating to 90,000 years ago. But instead, a 60,000 year upper limit was slammed on the whole debate. You could say for example that moderns first migrated out later than 60,000 years ago, and in fact many university accredited and employed archaeologists and anthropologists claimed moderns did not reach Europe until about 15,000 years ago because of some vague genetic studies showing some genetic relatedness at some gene loci shared by all modern Europeans (and because they pointed out that moderns did not start migrating beyond Africa until only 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000 years ago, so how could you have expected them to reach that far north in just 5,000 or 10,000 years, especially since they would have met resistance from Neanderthals). This despite an excellent record after 45,000 years ago consisting of skeletal remains, tools (Cro-Magnon Aurignacian tools were found as early as 45,000 years ago in SE Europe), cave paintings etc. But claiming earlier dates than 60,000 was a no no. That's how political correctness often obscures and over-rides evidence and common sense.
Finding old remains in the middle east is not nearly as extraordinary as finding them in China. Previously, the other examples were all in-line with the out of africa theory. This finding probably suggests an earlier migration than previously predicted. Nonsense. Even ten years ago there were discussions about this very matter. The only "upper limit" that was "slammed down" was to point out the lack of evidence supporting an earlier migration. This find shows that earlier migration was possible and perhaps even likely. You seem to be implying that the establishment was denying the possibility, but even college classes in the time period you describe were being taught in a way that expressed the possibility that the timeline might be wrong.
The mainstream debate was nearly always one sided with estimates ranging at 60,000 years or much less in the years 1995-2005, a dark age in anthropology concerning migrations of moderns.
Due to a lack of evidence for an older migration. This started to change in the last decade or so, and that's why the argument became less "one sided". It has always been about the evidence.
http://www.jpost.com/Sci-Tech/Article.aspx?id=201076 Homo sapiens lived in Eretz Yisrael 400,000 years ago By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH 26/12/2010 Teeth found near Rosh Haayin older than anything uncovered in Africa. Eight human teeth dating back as far as 400,000 years ago and found at the prehistoric Qesem Cave near Rosh Haayin discovered recently by Tel Aviv University researchers are the worlds earliest evidence of modern man (Homo sapiens). Until now, remains of humans from only 200,000 years ago have been found in Africa, and the accepted approach has been that modern man originated on that continent. Long before the land was called Israel and the residents Jews, Homo sapiens lived here twice as long ago as was previously believed, the researchers wrote in the latest (December) edition of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. The cave was uncovered in 2000 by Prof. Avi Gopher and Dr. Ran Barkai of TAUs Institute of Archeology. Later, Prof. Israel Hershkowitz of the Department of Anatomy and Anthropology at TAUs Sackler School of Medicine and an international team of scientists performed a morphological analysis on the teeth found in the cave. The examination included CT scans and X-rays indicating the size and shape of the teeth are very similar to those of modern man. The teeth found in the cave are also very similar to evidence of modern man dated to around 100,000 years ago that had previously been discovered in the Skhul Cave on Mount Carmel and the Qafzeh Cave in the Lower Galilee near Nazareth. The Qesem Cave is dated between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, and archeologists working there believe that the findings indicate significant changes in the behavior of ancient man. This period of time was crucial in the history of mankind from cultural and biological perspectives, and the fact that teeth of modern man were discovered indicates that these changes are apparently related to evolutionary changes taking place at that time, they maintained. Gopher and Barkai noted that the findings that characterize the culture of those who dwelled in the Qesem Cave the systematic production of flint blades, the habitual use of fire, evidence of hunting, cutting and sharing of animal meat, mining raw materials to produce flint tools from subsurface sources and much more reinforce the hypothesis that this was, in fact, innovative and pioneering behavior that corresponds with the appearance of modern man. The specimens, date back to the Middle Pleistocene era, include permanent and deciduous teeth. They were thus placed chronologically earlier than the bulk of fossil hominin specimens previously known from southwest Asia. Although none of the Qesem teeth resemble those of pre-Homo sapiens Neanderthals, a few traits may suggest some affinities with members of the Neanderthal evolutionary lineage, but the balance of the evidence suggests a closer similarity with the Skhul-Qafzeh dental material, said Gopher and Barkai. According to the researchers, the discoveries made in the Qesem Cave may change the perception that has been widely accepted to date in which modern man originated on the continent of Africa. In recent years, archeological evidence and human skeletons have been discovered in Spain and China that are liable to undermine this perception, but the findings now uncovered at Qesem are significant and invaluable, and their early age is undoubtedly an extraordinary archeological discovery, said Gopher and Barkai. continued.......
Ok, let me splain in precise terms what appened. In the mid-90's gene sequencing became widely applicable, as a spin-off from the human genome project and such. This was a promising brand new science bound to open up new horizons. But in the controversial field of anthropology the way it was eventually applied would be - dangerous. And even - reckless. If you had a few beers you could even draw parallels with the WW2 era Eugenics, although it wasn't quite there. An inspiration for it came from the Vince Sarich team's study of blood serum in primates 40 years before. Remember, back in the old days no fossil evidence existed to estimate when humans diverged from great apes. So the only tool available was comparative anatomy, and it was widely believed this split occurred 15 million years ago. Then in the mid 60's molecular science came of age, and Vince S. team used this emerging technology to compare the strength of reactions in blood serums to a certain chemical inducent, and by such came up with a figure of 5 my. His claim was widely dismissed, but then Johanson discovered A afarensis and dated it. 3.5 my for Afarensis seemed to support the 5 my estimate for the split. So that's exactly how the genetic sequencing was to revolutionize the anthropology field. Initially it was received with enthusiasm in expectation it would fill in all the blanks in the fossil record concerning human evolution. But then the one worlders ****ed everything up in their typical fashion, by deciding to take the whole thing one step further i.e. start a revolution. In the progressive spirit, they would dismiss all the conservative estimates provided by the fossil record. It would be a contest between a new science vs an old science such as the carbon dating. So they provided grants to conduct all these gene-sequencing studies under a direction of enthusiastic PC half-morons, who would make the most bizzarre and far-fetched claims concerning the chronology of modern's migrations, based on any vague gene sequence patterns they would discover. So now, no one could say with certainty when human populations arrived where, because it was all a matter of opinion which set of data you would prefer to use - the accurately dated fossils and tool remains, or the supposedly equally accurate gene sequence dates derived from estimates of how quickly alleles and gene clusters should change over time. So which one was a bad science? Moreover, if politicians wish to start cutting funding for science projects like telescopes and such, then perhaps they should look initially at some of the gene sequencing anthropology people and their current projects.
Some of this is covered in Bill Bryson's "A short history of nearly everything". http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_s...everything&sprefix=bill+bryson,stripbooks,241
