Another Nail in the Coffin for "Out of Africa" Theory

[Rev.Cambeul]

Arabian Artifacts May Rewrite 'Out of Africa' Theory

By Charles Choi | LiveScience.com – Wed, Nov 30, 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/arabian-artifacts-may-rewrite-africa-theory-225406521.html

Newfound stone artifacts suggest humankind left Africa traveling through the Arabian Peninsula instead of hugging its coasts, as long thought, researchers say.

Modern humans first arose about 200,000 years ago in Africa. When and how our lineage then dispersed has long proven controversial, but geneticists have suggested this exodus started between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago. The currently accepted theory is that the exodus from Africa traced Arabia's shores, rather than passing through its now-arid interior.

However, stone artifacts at least 100,000 years old from the Arabian Desert, revealed in January 2011, hinted that modern humans might have begun our march across the globe earlier than once suspected.

Now, more-than-100 newly discovered sites in the Sultanate of Oman apparently confirm that modern humans left Africa through Arabia long before genetic evidence suggests. Oddly, these sites are located far inland, away from the coasts.

"After a decade of searching in southern Arabia for some clue that might help us understand early human expansion, at long last we've found the smoking gun of their exit from Africa," said lead researcher Jeffrey Rose, a paleolithic archaeologist at the University of Birmingham in England. "What makes this so exciting is that the answer is a scenario almost never considered."

Arabian artifacts

The international team of archaeologists and geologists made their discovery in the Dhofar Mountains of southern Oman, nestled in the southeastern corner of the Arabian Peninsula.

"The coastal expansion hypothesis looks reasonable on paper, but there is simply no archaeological evidence to back it up," said researcher Anthony Marks of Southern Methodist University, referring to the fact that an exodus by the coast, where one has access to resources such as seafood, might make more sense than tramping across the desert..

On the last day of the research team's 2010 field season, the scientists went to the final place on their list, a site on a hot, windy, dry plateau near a river channel that was strewn with stone artifacts. Such artifacts are common in Arabia, but until now the ones seen were usually relatively young in age. Upon closer examination, Rose recalled asking, "Oh my God, these are Nubians — what the heck are these doing here?"

The 100-to-200 artifacts they found there were of a style dubbed Nubian Middle Stone Age, well-known throughout the Nile Valley, where they date back about 74,000-to-128,000 years. Scientists think ancient craftsmen would have shaped the artifacts by striking flakes off flint, leading to distinctive triangular pieces. This is the first time such artifacts have been found outside of Africa.

Subsequent field work turned up dozens of sites with similar artifacts. Using a technique known as optically stimulated luminescence dating, which measures the minute amount of light long-buried objects can emit, to see how long they have been interred, the researchers estimate the artifacts are about 106,000 years old, exactly what one might expect from Nubian Middle Stone Age artifacts and far earlier than conventional dates for the exodus from Africa.

"It's all just incredibly exciting," Rose said.

Arabian spring?

Finding so much evidence of life in what is now a relatively barren desert supports the importance of field work, according to the researchers.

"Here we have an example of the disconnect between theoretical models versus real evidence on the ground," Marks said.

However, when these artifacts were made, instead of being desolate, Arabia was very wet, with copious rain falling across the peninsula, transforming its barren deserts to fertile, sprawling grasslands with lots of animals to hunt, the researchers explained.

"For a while, South Arabia became a verdant paradise rich in resources — large game, plentiful fresh water, and high-quality flint with which to make stone tools," Rose said.

Instead of hugging the coast, early modern humans might therefore have spread from Africa into Arabia along river networks that would've acted like today's highways, researchers suggested. There would have been plenty of large game present, such as gazelles, antelopes and ibexes, which would have been appealing to early modern humans used to hunting on the savannas of Africa.

"The genetic signature that we've seen so far of an exodus 70,000 years ago might not be out of Africa, but out of Arabia," Rose told LiveScience. [Out of Eurasia theory as expressed by other non-PC researchers in the field of anthropology ~ Cailen.]

So far the researchers have not discovered the remains of humans or any other animals at the site. Could these tools have been made by now-extinct human lineages such as Neanderthals that left Africa before modern humans did? Not likely, Rose said, as all the Nubian Middle Stone Age tools seen in Africa are associated with our ancestors.

It remains a mystery as to how early modern humans from Africa crossed the Red Sea, since they did not appear to enter the Arabian Peninsula from the north, through the Sinai Peninsula, Rose explained. "Back then, there was no land bridge in the south of Arabia, but the sea level might not have been that low," he said. Archaeologists will have to continue combing the deserts of southern Arabia for more of what the researchers called a "trail of stone breadcrumbs."

The scientists detailed their findings online Nov. 30 in the journal PLoS ONE.

[Albert]

Its all great work that the archaeologists are doing unfortunately our Race is also in a race against time. The White Race is being replaced at a frightening rate. All this knowledge, reserch and evidence stands to become ashes very soon.

Humans are being down bred so fast that even vast numbers of the White Race are reverting back to the idiot mentality that the earth is 6000 years old. Even Mongolians don't believe that, the vast majority accepting the reality of evolution..

Personally i don't have a problem with the out of Africa  idea. The scientific evidence of haplotypes spreading outwards from Africa is supported by the evidence. So we know there has been a gene flow out of Africa. Unfortunately the multi-racists use this to justify their multi-racism. The fact is Blacks( as in negroids) didn't even exist 170,000 years ago when there was a supposed common ancestor. ( face it we've been diverging from that common ancestor for at least 300,000 years now) The people that left Africa 100,000 years ago would have looked strange..possibly like Arabs..but they wouldn't have been Negroids.

The racial variation in the world today comes from that stock exiting Africa picking up genes from elsewhere on the way out. The Whites absorbed Neanderthal DNA to about 4% or more in Europe. The Mongolians absorbing something else. The Aborigines, Polynesians and Tamils absorbing the Neanderthal era species of the Denisovans, giving them the primitive over-hanging eyebrows, fat lips and beards look.

[Rev.Cambeul]

Norfolk footprints: Just who were Homo antecessor and how did they arrive in Britain?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/norfolk-footprints-just-who-were-homo-antecessor-and-how-did-they-arrive-in-britain-9115354.html

The discovery on an eroded English beach of a set of human footprints dating to about 900,000 years ago is one of those encounters that send a shiver down the spine – rather like Robinson Crusoe's first sight of footprints after years spent alone on his desert island.

Who were these people who lived on these isles so long ago? Experts are in little doubt they were human, being fully bipedal, and have suggested they probably belonged to a species called Homo antecessor ["Pioneer man"] who was known to have inhabited a set of caves at Atapuerca in northern Spain at about the same time.

At least half a dozen individuals made these prints as they walked south through the estuarine mud of an earlier version of the River Thames, which at that time ran into the sea much further north than it does today. It was one of several times over the past million years when Britain was connected by a land bridge to continental Europe.

It is likely that these people were foraging for shellfish, edible tubers or seaweed in a prehistoric landscape inhabited by deer, mammoth, rhino, horse, giant elk, hyena and possibly a sabre-toothed cat to keep everyone on their toes.

From the estimated size of these naked mud-prints it seems that these early humans may have been a small family group of children and adults, ranging in height from between 3ft and 5.5ft – the largest foot in the set would have comfortably fitted a modern size 8 shoe.

This part of the heavily-eroded coast of Norfolk and Suffolk, at Happisburgh (pronounced "HAZEburra") and Pakefield, has become a rich source prehistoric remains. The earliest find, discovered in 2000, was of a flint hand-axe, which is now one of about 80 stone tools from the area dated to between one million and 900,000 years old.

These archaeological artefacts are the oldest evidence of humans north of the Alps. The footprints themselves are the oldest outside Africa – only the 3.5 million-year-old footprints at Laetoli in Tanzania and the 1.5 million-year-old prints at Ileret and Koobi Fora in Kenya are older.

Without bones or skulls it is near impossible to say with any certainty that these early Norfolk residents belonged to H. antecessor, but it's a reasonable best guess. This species of early man was about the same height as ourselves and seemed to have died out about 600,000 years ago, having been replaced by another species called H. heidelbergensis, whose fossilised remains have been unearthed at Boxgrove in West Sussex.

The first human species to emerge from Africa, Homo erectus, began colonising the rest of the world about 1.75 million years ago. It is not known exactly how H. erectus is related to H. antecessor, but there must be some close family connection – at least indirectly.

Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, believes that H. antecessor may have been the first of perhaps nine separate colonisations of Britain over the past million years.

The descendants of the ninth colonisation live on in today's Britain.

Note: There is evidence to say that H. antecessor is the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and Sapiens-Sapiens.

[Grimm]

Man, you folks find this stuff quick. Do you have RSS fetchers with news keywords or something?

[Rev.Cambeul]

Yes.

[Rev.Cambeul]

The Competing Theories of Human Evolution

Multiregional Theory --> Out of Africa Theory --> Mostly Out of Africa Theory --> Multiregional Theory

To put it simply, anthropologists are always reassessing their various theories in line with existing evidence. It is they that came up with and subsequently dispensed with Out of Africa Theory. On the other hand, it's the Politically Correct crowd however, that control what they believe to be acceptable thought amongst the general population. They seized on Out of Africa Theory as a method of denying racial differences between the current co-existing human specie/species. Any who question the doctrines prevalent in the PC comfort zone - i.e. Out of Africa Theory - is immediately denounced as "racist" and booted into the fog and the night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP-Wjd1qSY