Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
jmccr8

Near East role in human migration in question

63 posts in this topic

Well, they had to pass through the Levant on the way Asia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, if we have a look at the map:

Mid_East_Linguistic_lg.png

Where Egypt is, is Africa, where Turkey is, is the Levant... now, how did they get to the Levant from Africa without going through the ME (there where Israel is) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember this correctly, there was an OOA migration theory that proposed a crossing of the Red Sea (or a proposed land bridge) at the southern end into modern-day Yemen. Then across the Arabian Peninsula (coastally), around the Persian Gulf and into central Asia. This was followed later by a westwards back-migration into the Levant/Near East and further into Europe/back into North Africa.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a certain point, the Mediterranean was nearly dry. Homo erectus could have walked from North Africa (the "Maghreb") to Europe and back again and probably did.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a certain point, the Mediterranean was nearly dry.

Not in the last 5.5 - 6 million years. Well before H. erectus was on the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the last 5.5 - 6 million years. Well before H. erectus was on the scene.

which naturally leads to more speculation, the Island in Greece I have a farm on is about 80 miles from the next terra firme... yet there was a paleolithic settlement here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which naturally leads to more speculation, the Island in Greece I have a farm on is about 80 miles from the next terra firme... yet there was a paleolithic settlement here...

True, but the speculation pertinent to the site you mention is what hominin species was involved and also about the debate regarding when hominins (and which) began dispersing via water-borne means.

It's not really relevant to the OP issue.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but the speculation pertinent to the site you mention is what hominin species was involved and also about the debate regarding when hominins (and which) began dispersing via water-borne means.

It's not really relevant to the OP issue.

That is another speculation as just an encampment and some discarded stone tools were found, no skeletons or any other indication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is another speculation as just an encampment and some discarded stone tools were found, no skeletons or any other indication.

I'm curious as to why you thought my first point was speculative?

Are you suggesting a non-hominin species crafted those tools and set up the encampment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to why you thought my first point was speculative?

Are you suggesting a non-hominin species crafted those tools and set up the encampment?

No, my question is the migration route used, if it was land there is not much choice but the known routes... but why are early humans appearing on a island without an obvious connection to land? Or could the explanation be that they circumvented the NE by using rafts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, my question is the migration route used, if it was land there is not much choice but the known routes... but why are early humans appearing on a island without an obvious connection to land? Or could the explanation be that they circumvented the NE by using rafts?

That would be why I posted about an alternate OOA theory in post #4 - concerning crossing the Red Sea at the southern end (although, as I mentioned, that theory also incorporated the possibility of a land bridge.)

I just didn't see (and still don't, tbh) any connection to a site in the Mediterranean.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concepts of human "modernity" are completely arbitrary. So the idea "anatomical modern humans" originated in Africa is not supported by science. I don't know why articles like this continue to be written.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concepts of human "modernity" are completely arbitrary. So the idea "anatomical modern humans" originated in Africa is not supported by science. I don't know why articles like this continue to be written.

Could you explain that or is that just a preconception of some preacher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I got back in town a little earlier today and will add these links that were on the same page as the link in the op,they may help expand on the original link.

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-dating-beads-timeline-early-humans.html#inlRlv

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientists-migration-continents.html#inlRlv

I think that they are proposing that there were possibly several routes that may have been taken and that the Near East was just one that was used at some time.

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like someone is confusing anatomical modernity with behavioral modernity, each of which are separate issues.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain that or is that just a preconception of some preacher?

What needs to be explained? Human "modernity" is an arbitrary concept. It cannot be objectively defined and is not science. This is why some palaeo-anthropologists have called for scientific literature to stop using the term "modern" or "modernity" in regard to human evolution, especially "anatomically modern".

It is time, as P. V. Tobias recently said, to stop talking about ‘‘anatomically modern humans’’ for the same reasons that we don’t talk about ‘‘anatomically modern elephants’’. And, we propose, it is time to stop publishing papers about the evolution of ‘‘anatomically modern humans’’ unless they include a definition of them.

http://www-personal....rs/mod-mess.pdf

Edited by OliverDSmith
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like someone is confusing anatomical modernity with behavioral modernity, each of which are separate issues.

cormac

They're as arbitrary as each other. What is "anatomically modern" or "behaviorally modern"? There is no objective definition or criteria. Of course without these the Out of Africa theory crumbles. As C. Loring Brace wrote: "The continued enthusiasm for finding an identifiable sub-Saharan African cradle for the origin of all ‘modern’ human form, then owes more to the Judaeo-Christian faith in the traditions of a Garden of Eden than it does to anything that can be called science."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concepts of human "modernity" are completely arbitrary. So the idea "anatomical modern humans" originated in Africa is not supported by science. I don't know why articles like this continue to be written.

The reason why articles like this is written, is because that is what the evidence shows !

When and where do you think "anatomical modern humans" came from ?

As to how people crossed the water in pre-historic times, you have to remember that during the iceage, the water level was much lower than it is today. The Gulf of Eden was very narrow, and the Strait of Hormuz was basically the river delta of the Tigris/Eufrates river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why articles like this is written, is because that is what the evidence shows !

When and where do you think "anatomical modern humans" came from ?

What are "anatomical modern humans"? I'm simply saying they don't exist. If you think otherwise, provide an objective definition of "modernity" in regards to human evolution.

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are "anatomical modern humans"? I'm simply saying they don't exist. If you think otherwise, provide an objective definition of "modernity" in regards to human evolution.

Ah, so you are a ghost? Thank you for explaining that.

All classifications are arbitrary, and generally done to put an order into something that otherwise would not make much sense, and that includes humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are "anatomical modern humans"? I'm simply saying they don't exist. If you think otherwise, provide an objective definition of "modernity" in regards to human evolution.

What is your theory of human evolution ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so you are a ghost? Thank you for explaining that.

?

All classifications are arbitrary, and generally done to put an order into something that otherwise would not make much sense, and that includes humans.

Interesting. So someone can randomly select any criteria they want for "anatomically modern humans"? So let's say I select only people with blue eyes as defining "anatomically modern". According to you, this is acceptable since all classifications are arbitrary. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

Interesting. So someone can randomly select any criteria they want for "anatomically modern humans"? So let's say I select only people with blue eyes as defining "anatomically modern". According to you, this is acceptable since all classifications are arbitrary. :blink:

yes, they can, just as they can, arbitrarily just because they have thumbs, classify some animals as primates (which includes humans). There is nothing absolute or god given in such classifications.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.