"First People"

[Pego]

Re: "First People"

[quote=Halfmiler2]

Not Swedes, Danes! The Swedes went east, to Gardar rike, Novgorod. Danes and Norwegians sailed the oceans.

I was going to make that point but wasn't entirely sure of my facts. IIRC Danes settled England and Norwegians Scotland, Ireland and the West coast of England.

The Celtics are believed to have come from (Gaul) France to England in antiquity. When the Anglo-Saxons invaded and over-ran England after the fall of the Roman Empire and the death of Arthur, the Celts that were not killed or assimilated went to Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.[/quote:xua07d8h]

Are you suggesting, Arthur was a historical figure?

[Marlow]

Re: "First People"

Are you suggesting, Arthur was a historical figure?

He is (highly probably) based on a specific fifth century Briton war-chief who tried to fend off the (Anglo-) Saxons.

[Daisy]

Re: "First People"

Bottom line: We all came "Out of Africa". Only the details are fuzzy.

Not as fuzzy as you might think. Here is the latest data from the human diversity project. In this diagram they are tracking mutations (variation) in the Y chromosome. Note there are two distinct migrations in to North America. Only one of those got as far as South America.

[lonewolf]

Re: "First People"

Thanks, Daisy. A very informative display of what I only knew from accumulated bits and pieces of human history that the ABCs all started in East Africa.
Do you know of a similar illustration of the relationship between 60,000 year old humans and the much older "humanoid" fossil evidence also found in East Africa?
Somehow, without any scientific knowledge or evidence on the matter, I find it difficult to imagine the worldwide diversity in races could have evolved in only 60,000 years.

[Daisy]

Re: "First People"

Do you know of a similar illustration of the relationship between 60,000 year old humans and the much older "humanoid" fossil evidence also found in East Africa?

As far as I know there is no genetic evidence of older migrations in the non African human population. Obviously there were the Neanderthals but the current data suggests they went extinct and that their genetic signal is not present in modern humans. As to diagrams of gene movement within Africa that predate 60K ya, I have not seen anything. It's possible that such genetic trails are too mixed up.

I find it difficult to imagine the worldwide diversity in races could have evolved in only 60,000 years.

Maybe the diversity is less than we perceive?

[Marlow]

Re: "First People"

Maybe the diversity is less than we perceive?

Exactly what I was thinking. I have no difficulty believing that all our 'differences' developed very recently (in geologic time).

[Pego]

Re: "First People"

Do you know of a similar illustration of the relationship between 60,000 year old humans and the much older "humanoid" fossil evidence also found in East Africa?

As far as I know there is no genetic evidence of older migrations in the non African human population. Obviously there were the Neanderthals but the current data suggests they went extinct and that their genetic signal is not present in modern humans. As to diagrams of gene movement within Africa that predate 60K ya, I have not seen anything. It's possible that such genetic trails are too mixed up.

I find it difficult to imagine the worldwide diversity in races could have evolved in only 60,000 years.

Maybe the diversity is less than we perceive?

That moves the initial migration close to 100,000 years forward. Aren't there signs of settlements of H.Sapiens in Europe older than 60,000 years? I am truly confused.

[Daisy]

Re: "First People"

Aren't there signs of settlements of H.Sapiens in Europe older than 60,000 years? I am truly confused.

I don't think so. Which ones are you thinking about?

[lonewolf]

Re: "First People"

[That moves the initial migration close to 100,000 years forward. Aren't there signs of settlements of H.Sapiens in Europe older than 60,000 years? I am truly confused.

That is nagging at my imperfect memory bank also. :?

[Daisy]

Re: "First People"

[That moves the initial migration close to 100,000 years forward. Aren't there signs of settlements of H.Sapiens in Europe older than 60,000 years? I am truly confused.

That is nagging at my imperfect memory bank also. :?

Could have been a false start? Into middle east and then a retreat. Also that map is only tracing the Y chromosome. So maybe all the initial males lost breeding privileges later? There is a mitochondrial (maternal lineage) genetic migration map too, I'll root that one out and see what that one shows.

[Pego]

Re: "First People"

Aren't there signs of settlements of H.Sapiens in Europe older than 60,000 years? I am truly confused.

I don't think so. Which ones are you thinking about?

Sorry, Middle East, not Europe. Cro-Magnon caves are younger than 60,000. What about this find?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebel_Qafzeh_remains

[Marlow]

Re: "First People"

I tend to give credence to this wiki entry (tho there ARE competing theories):

According to both genetic and fossil evidence, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa by 60,000 years ago and over time replacing earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.

[lonewolf]

Re: "First People"

As I suggested, the details are fuzzy. Seems early homo sapiens were not as meticulous about their travel logs as are long haul truckers.

[IanS_Liv]

Re: "First People"

Hmmmm, I know scientists say that Homo Sapiens didn't breed with Erectus and Neanderthalis, and the DNA evidence appears to bear them out, but I'm pretty sure Sapiens got jiggy with the locals when they first moved in! I have it in my head that being cousins, any intercourse would be like horses and donkeys, producing mules.

[rasb]

Re: "First People"

Hmmmm, I know scientists say that Homo Sapiens didn't breed with Erectus and Neanderthalis, and the DNA evidence appears to bear them out, but I'm pretty sure Sapiens got jiggy with the locals when they first moved in! I have it in my head that being cousins, any intercourse would be like horses and donkeys, producing mules.

Fascinating topic - thanks all. A minor correction, Ian. That would only be intercourse where the participants were not practicing safe sex... :wink: