[HN Gopher] Migration out of Africa may have been driven by firs...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Migration out of Africa may have been driven by first glaciation of
       Pleistocene
        
       Author : wglb
       Score  : 59 points
       Date   : 2024-03-18 13:59 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (phys.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
        
       | alcover wrote:
       | I wonder which routes were opened by this. Gibraltar ? Tunisia ->
       | Sicilly -> Italy ?
       | 
       | In any case the Levant was always an out.
        
         | mikhailfranco wrote:
         | You might like this YT video about the refilling of the Med...
         | 
         |  _The MEGAFLOOD that brutally filled the Mediterranean in
         | months_
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RSPgIcnRN0
         | 
         | The Med was created by long-term tectonic forces, which closed
         | the sea at Gibraltar, about 7 million years ago. The whole
         | thing dried out, leaving salt deposits on the lowest dusty
         | plains (like Great Salt Lake, Dead Sea, Aral Sea today). Enough
         | dust, dirt and seasonal river inflow, covered the salt in
         | sedimentary layers.....
         | 
         | About 6 million years ago, Gibraltar was breached by rising sea
         | levels, and flooded the Balearic (W. Med) basin, up to the line
         | Italy-Sicily-Tunisia.
         | 
         | Very shortly afterwards (months < 2 years) the water breached
         | the high ground immediately south of Sicily, creating the
         | subsea Noto Canyon, and filling the eastern Med.
         | 
         | P.S. Interesting final comment - the Black Sea was probably
         | _not_ filled by a similar dramatic flood through the Bosphorus.
         | Alluvial structures and fans in the Black Sea floor, show that
         | it silted up from the north, and almost certainly overflowed
         | the Bosphorus from the north, which is why the Bosphorus is
         | relatively narrow - not the whole Med carving wide straits, but
         | a freshwater trickle out from the silted Black Sea.
         | 
         | P.P.S. Also note this contradicts some imagined historical
         | basis for the Gilgamesh and Biblical floods being in the Black
         | Sea (in the direction of what is now called Mt. Ararat). Those
         | tales are much more likely to refer to Mesopotamian floods of
         | the Tigris or Euphrates, perhaps triggered by breaching of
         | earthquake-induced rockslides that temporarily blocked one of
         | the rivers. We can now date and locate a specific episode like
         | this in ancient China 4,000 years ago:
         | 
         | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/china-yel...
        
           | blueflow wrote:
           | Avoid using clickbaity YT videos as source, they are
           | entertainment and not reliable.
        
             | mikhailfranco wrote:
             | I did say _like_ not _believe._
             | 
             | Specific errors?
             | 
             | Counter references?
        
               | blueflow wrote:
               | > Counter references?
               | 
               | Bold. You presented no citable references, either.
        
               | mikhailfranco wrote:
               | I summarized some factual statements - any of them wrong?
        
               | blueflow wrote:
               | Why is the burden on me? Are any of them right?
        
               | mikhailfranco wrote:
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood
        
               | blueflow wrote:
               | Thats better. If you want go get even better, scroll down
               | to the "References" section and follow from there to the
               | primary sources. Wikipedia alone is okay-ish but is often
               | faulty because it accepts journalistic pieces (including
               | some YT videos) as source.
        
             | FrustratedMonky wrote:
             | That's kind of like saying the internet is not reliable.
             | Don't post links. Ok. So now what?
             | 
             | Only studies, only peer-reviewed studies?
             | 
             | Only peer-reviewed studies published by qualified sources?
             | 
             | Only videos based on peer-reviewed studies published by
             | approved sources, that have passed a committees on the non-
             | biased use of artistic representations of special effects
             | in entertainingly but scientifically accurate facts?
             | 
             | This whole, nothing is real, there is no truth, is really
             | out of control.
        
               | blueflow wrote:
               | No its not. You are making a bad strawman.
               | 
               | YT content creators are financially incentivized to
               | exaggerate things to generate user engagement. This is a
               | conflict of interests.
               | 
               | A good source would be something that has its own sources
               | cited or directly comes with evidence.
        
               | mikhailfranco wrote:
               | That might be an appropriate threshold for Wikipedia, but
               | not for HN.
        
               | FrustratedMonky wrote:
               | "financially incentivized" -> Welcome to the world.
               | 
               | You can search HN and find plenty of arguments that
               | scientific reporting by all major journals are biased and
               | no longer factual and are just clickbait.
               | 
               | Researchers have 'clickbait' studies because they are
               | "financially incentivized" to get funding.
               | 
               | You are drawing the line at YouTube, others draw the line
               | at CNN, others draw the line at freaking 'Nature'.
               | 
               | Now AI is generating scientific papers, I think we should
               | be worried about how we determine 'factual' sources
               | across the board.
        
               | blueflow wrote:
               | That argumentation does not work out - arguing that
               | "proper science" is not much better does not make that YT
               | video any more reliable.
        
               | FrustratedMonky wrote:
               | Not 'science', our reporting of science.
               | 
               | We no longer have trusted sources for 'facts'.
               | 
               | Lots of science is reported on YT and it is fine. You
               | can't take a study in 'Nature' and say it is fine, but
               | then if that study is reported in a video on YT, now it
               | is in question. The video on the flood above was fine,
               | there was nothing incorrect in it, why is it 'wrong' by
               | being on YT?
               | 
               | Maybe a % of garbage rating? But who does the judging?
        
           | alcover wrote:
           | Thank you. I fail to grasp your P.S. in relation to the
           | Levant passage ?
        
       | qwertyuiop_ wrote:
       | Are there popular competing theories like
       | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21589761_The_Multir... ?
        
         | CSMastermind wrote:
         | This paper seems to be referencing the migration of Homo
         | Erectus which occurred earlier and is generally agreed upon
         | (though the specifics are still widely debated, thus the
         | paper).
         | 
         | Multiregional Evolution posits that modern Humans evolved
         | directly from these distributed pockets of Homo Erectus, while
         | the competing Out of Africa theory suggests that anatomically
         | modern humans evolved once in Africa and then spread to the
         | rest of the world, outcompeting the prior hominoid species as
         | they went.
         | 
         | My understanding is that the MRE hypothesis was largely
         | discarded in favor of Out of Africa based on genetic data in
         | the early 00s. Studies show that all humans share mitochondrial
         | DNA (mtDNA), Y-chromosome DNA, and autosomal DNA ancestors
         | which is not what you'd expect if humans evolved separately
         | multiple times.
         | 
         | The big compromise of the model which has emerged in recent
         | years is Out of Africa with Admixture. Basically saying that
         | Homo Sapiens didn't just outcompete other local hominoid
         | branches but interbred with them to a meaningful extent. This
         | was originally not well supported but there's a growing body of
         | work to support it and I believe the academic community is
         | coming around. You see this most strongly with Neanderthals in
         | Europe, for instance.
        
           | AlotOfReading wrote:
           | There's no compromise model. Admixture with archaic hominins
           | is widely accepted these days, but it's simply a small
           | asterisk on top of OOA for essentially everyone outside China
           | (where MRE remains popular).
        
       | CSMastermind wrote:
       | My understanding is that there were multiple waves of migration
       | out of Africa, the first being around 2 million years ago.
       | 
       | The first waves were not of anatomically modern humans but Homo
       | erectus and its contemporaries up into modern Georgia, then East
       | into China, then eventually into Indonesia.
       | 
       | Then around 1 million years later, there was another migration of
       | Homo erectus out into Southeast Asia along the coast through
       | India and eventually into Vietnam and Malaysia.
       | 
       | This second migration seems to be what the paper is referencing
       | and definitely the one that, at least 10 years ago, the
       | anthropology community had the least confidence in. My
       | understanding, again dated by a decade now, is that it was
       | uncertain if hominoids entered Europe at that point or not.
       | 
       | Neanderthals left Africa 500,000 years later into Europe while
       | Denisovans left at the same time into Asia ending up concentrated
       | in Serbia.
       | 
       | Modern Humans don't show up until another 400,000 years after
       | that (around 100,000 years ago) and don't leave Africa until
       | 70,000 years ago. They also left Africa in multiple waves with 5
       | main ones spreading out across the globe.
        
         | KoftaBob wrote:
         | > They also left Africa in multiple waves with 5 main ones
         | spreading out across the globe.
         | 
         | Where can I learn more about these 5 waves?
        
           | defrost wrote:
           | The number of waves and the granulation of waves isn't set in
           | stone as such; there's a pretty decent broad view from afar
           | regarding early human, and a great deal of finer detail still
           | up for debate.
           | 
           | Reading through
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations
           | 
           | top to bottom will give a good enough first overview and an
           | idea of where uncertainly lies and references to chase for
           | further debate.
           | 
           | Eg: Currently there's some hot debate on whether parts of the
           | "coastal migration" to Australasia took place over inland
           | routes within South East Asia - that's a matter of old coast
           | lines at the time, inland cave shelters with datable bones,
           | and a sparse game of chronological joind the estimated dots
           | in space and time - it gets technical.
        
           | mihaic wrote:
           | Who We Are and How We Got Here by David Reich is I think a
           | great book if you're interested in human migrations.
        
           | prawn wrote:
           | I always liked this map that helped convey the possible
           | pathways that spread humans from the main wave: https://en.wi
           | kipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_prehistoric_...
        
             | Cacti wrote:
             | Such a wonderful projection.
        
             | mikhailfranco wrote:
             | One useful page that references the image:
             | 
             | https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ancient_History/Human_Evoluti
             | o...
        
           | verisimi wrote:
           | > Where can I learn more about these 5 waves?
           | 
           | You simply go back 2 million years and verify it yourself.
           | 
           | Alternatively, read it on wikipedia.
        
         | smnc wrote:
         | > while Denisovans left at the same time into Asia ending up
         | concentrated in Serbia.
         | 
         | You probably meant to write Siberia.
        
           | CSMastermind wrote:
           | I did! Thank you.
        
         | lkrubner wrote:
         | "Neanderthals left Africa 500,000 years later into Europe while
         | Denisovans left at the same time"
         | 
         | For most of the past 25 years there was a theory that
         | Neanderthals and Denisovans were descended from Homo
         | Heidelbergensis, in which case Neanderthals and Denisovans
         | probably evolved in Europe or the Middle East. The oldest known
         | Homo Heidelbergensis is maybe 1 millions years old and most of
         | the early Homo Heidelbergensis were found in Europe, so it is
         | assumed that Homo Heidelbergensis evolved in Europe.
         | 
         | Recently, many have argued that Neanderthals and Denisovans
         | were not descended from Homo Heidelbergensis, but instead from
         | some other species of humans that has not yet been discovered.
         | But it remains likely that Neanderthals and Denisovans evolved
         | outside of Africa.
        
       | dghughes wrote:
       | I can understand why ancient people would migrate west or east
       | since the sun movement; rise or set would draw them there. What
       | would spur people to move north or south other than hunting
       | animals? If animals I'd expect north for a bit then south again
       | (or vice versa below the equator).
        
       | mikhailfranco wrote:
       | I think my favorite strange factoid of human migration, is that
       | Madagascar was (majority) settled from Borneo, not from Africa.
       | 
       | https://theconversation.com/how-the-banjar-people-of-borneo-...
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Madagascar
       | 
       | includes the nice map:
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Madagascar#/media/F...
        
         | BSOhealth wrote:
         | Another interesting way to headline this is, Madagascar was the
         | last place on earth to be settled, despite being right next to
         | the first
        
           | dagoodnews wrote:
           | > Madagascar was the last place on earth to be settled
           | 
           | I believe that honor belongs to antarctica.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Antarctica
        
           | mikhailfranco wrote:
           | Apart from Antarctica - New Zealand seems to be the last
           | large landmass to be settled in 1200 AD (see map linked
           | above).
           | 
           | But even in NZ, there are some inconclusive claims of
           | previous civilization. The gov has banned access and
           | excavations to verify or refute the claims. One example:
           | 
           | https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-
           | oceania/kaima...
        
             | lupusreal wrote:
             | Kind of looks natural to me, and if there were a
             | civilization that made one wall like this I'd expect a lot
             | more walls like it. That said, it seems worth
             | investigating. Why would the New Zealand government want it
             | covered up?
        
       | willmadden wrote:
       | The honest interpretation of DNA evidence is that Cro-Magnon man
       | mixed with the Neanderthals and Denisovans and then likely
       | migrated into Africa, not out of it.
        
       | lebean wrote:
       | And today it's driven by bad policy. Heyoo!
        
       | misja111 wrote:
       | If temperatures dropped during the onset of the Pleistocene. Then
       | why would humans have migrated away from Africa to Europe? It
       | seems to me that in Europe it would be even more cold.
        
       | photochemsyn wrote:
       | If human populations expanded at a slow rate of 20 miles per 100
       | years, then from 1.1 million to 0.9 million years ago (200,000
       | years) they would have travelled 40,000 miles.
       | 
       | This is indeed migration, but not as we think of it today. Such
       | migrations could have been blocked by oceans or high mountains,
       | and were essentially like animal migrations.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-19 23:02 UTC)