Jump to content

Early Human spreading on earth


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Probably "reacting" via the reputation system, to upvote those responding. Those are limited to a certain amount per day.

grte.jpg.a057d570a3eb330624e60cd4214abe23.jpg

 

I  want to  for  example  like  or  up  vote  other peoples   posts   it  says  i  cant....

3 hours ago, Genady said:

Where does it say so? I don't know of such a limit.

As the answers above indicate, it took a very long time and many different ways. Here is one scheme:

Scientists use genetics and climate reconstructions to track the global ...

Interesting    in that  scheme  the  first major  branching  point was  were i  live........

 

By  the  way did  the Maori's in NZ originated  from Aus.    or  from the Polynesian  people who them selves  originated  from S.America ?

Also  another  question   @ the last  ice  age  @  the  maximum  i mean  the time  the maximum amount of  seas were  frozen  and the  sea levels  were  @ minimum

Was the  Persian Gulf   &  the  Gulf of  Eden  (  @  its  narrowest  point  between Yemen  and Djibouti ) Dry ?   and  animals and  humans  could  pass by  them   ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Saber said:

Polynesian  people who them selves  originated  from S.America

AFAIK, this hypothesis has been refuted long time ago. Current understanding is that they came from SE Asia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saber said:

Also  another  question   @ the last  ice  age  @  the  maximum  i mean  the time  the maximum amount of  seas were  frozen  and the  sea levels  were  @ minimum

Was the  Persian Gulf   &  the  Gulf of  Eden  (  @  its  narrowest  point  between Yemen  and Djibouti ) Dry ?   and  animals and  humans  could  pass by  them   ?

Several times up until the last glacial maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab-el-Mandeb had a land bridge crossing.

Similarly, the continental shelf under the Strait of Hormuz was exposed at the same time (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/657397?seq=4) though there would still be at least one river crossing to make (Tigris and Euphrates have to exit somewhere!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which all goes to show that we have several 'best guesses' about the spread but are finding substaintial new evidence all the time and these guesses are in a state of constant revision.

It is important to acknowledge when we don't know enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Genady said:

AFAIK, this hypothesis has been refuted long time ago. Current understanding is that they came from SE Asia.

Both   maoris  &  polynesians ?    Or  only  the  polyneisans ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't know about Maoris.

 

5 hours ago, Saber said:

Both   maoris  &  polynesians ?    Or  only  the  polyneisans ?

This doesn't prove anything, but does rule some hypotheses out.

I don't think the South American hypothesis is disproven.

 

Note the maps refer to 'before the european expansion'.

peoples.thumb.jpg.9a8f048d10099914268a4b8bab818e3c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember the details, and I don't have any preference regarding the hypothesis, but I seem to remember that the people in SE Asia now came there after the previous people living there spread to Polynesia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't remember the details, and I don't have any preference regarding the hypothesis, but I seem to remember that the people in SE Asia now came there after the previous people living there spread to Polynesia.

Well as I understand the Aboriginals in Australia they are some of the most (or perhaps longest) undisturbed humans on the planet.

Yet the maps show they are quite different from the Polynesians, Maoris and South American indigenous peoples.

Yet Australia (the nearest parts) is thousands of miles closer to SE asia than New Zealand or most of the pacific islands.

So why did they not get to Australia first  or even at all ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologise for mistake when I said,

On 1/23/2023 at 5:06 PM, joigus said:

The dynamics of population change are, I think, as varied as can be. Some migrations take place in one generation --example: eastward migrations through the steppe--, others take many generations to advance significantly.

It should've been "westward migrations throught the steppe." That's apparently the prevailing direction of migrations through the steppe. And it is no accident. Sometimes geography introduces an element of predictability to migrations, if not complete predictability. There's very intesting material by Oxford archaeologist Barry Cunliffe pointing out how the landscape there kind of invites you to go westward. I seem to suffer from some kind of mild --I hope-- directional dyslexia.

I promise to get up to speed as to present discussion too ASAP. The latest arguments about Australia and Polynesia I find fascinating. Apparently there is a paleoanthropological mystery/gap in our knowledge as to populations of South Asia during the Middle Paleolithic[?]. There's also the quite puzzling presence of Denisovan genes in people from Melanesia and parts of South-East Asia[?]. Sorry for imprecision.

The take-home lesson is --I think-- we still do not completely understand what happened in South Asia for too long a time to be sure about any kind of big picture of what happened there.

There are far more uncertainties about this than there are answers or any kind of big picture.

@studiot was indeed right when he said this is a huge subject.

Edited by joigus
minor correction+addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Genady said:

Maybe because Australia had people already. As I remember, the Polynesians and Australians were trading in Australia's NE.

Are you suggesting that the peoples in Australia did not come from 'the African Cradle' ?

As a matter of interest you map appears to show that man never reached India ?

 

13 hours ago, joigus said:

I apologise for mistake when I said,

Only half a mistake really.

The nomads of the steppes pushed both east and west, and into south northern India at one time or another.

It's just that the older cultures in India and China were stronger and better at resisting that the weaker cultures in Europe.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Are you suggesting that the peoples in Australia did not come from 'the African Cradle' ?

No, of course not. I suggest that people came to Australia in an earlier migration event.

 

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

As a matter of interest you map appears to show that man never reached India ?

I don't know any more details about that map. I used it to demonstrate to the OPer that the spread was long and not continuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, studiot said:

The nomads of the steppes pushed both east and west, and into south northern India at one time or another.

Yes, that's true. My comments were really meant about the prevailing direction. But, as you said, this is a huge subject, with many exceptions and several levels of "turbulence" around the average tendencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember that the dna of Denisovens is today represented most of all in Papua New Guinea and the Phillipines. Also in Australian Aboriginals, and the Denisovans were originally centred in central Asia. 

The Australian Dingo is also thought to have evolved from Asian dogs, so that supports the picture of a general spread from Central Asia eastwards and south. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I seem to remember that the dna of Denisovens is today represented most of all in Papua New Guinea and the Phillipines. Also in Australian Aboriginals, and the Denisovans were originally centred in central Asia. 

The Australian Dingo is also thought to have evolved from Asian dogs, so that supports the picture of a general spread from Central Asia eastwards and south. 

That's quite correct from what I remember too from the mid-'10s. But we must stay tuned, because "Denisovan studies" is a very active field lately. I've recently read that experts are finding traces of Denisovan traits in native Americans. The study is based on protein analysis, rather than DNA. It has to do with the structure of the lips.

https://www.sci.news/genetics/native-americans-lip-shape-gene-denisovans-09330.html

I've also learnt that a third group of humans approximately contemporaneous of Neandertals and Denisovans is being guessed at based on statistical analysis. I'm trying to get more info on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the paper with the find that Denisovan ancestry reveals two distinct pulses of Denisovan genes:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29551270/

And here's a paper based on applying Bayesian methods with a bundle of plausible models as contrasting hypotheses, and finding that there seems to be support for a "third" --meaning distinct, but genetically equidistant between Neanderthals and Denisovans-- group of humans:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08089-7

I learnt about these papers in this wonderful podcast by Stefan Milosavljevich:

I always think twice before recommending a YT channel. This one is prime quality. Número uno...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.