Out of Africa & archaeology

By Razib Khan | August 13, 2006 5:10 pm

Dienekes points me to a new paper in Science which purports to add an archaeological layer of data to the “Out of Africa” paradigm which initially burst onto to the scene in the 1980s due to the molecular clock & mtDNA (though Chris Stringer and others long argued for a form of “Out of Africa” based purely on fossil morphology). The Independent has a good summary of the major points. The short of it is that this paper seems to suggest
a) One major Out of Africa event via the “Southern Route” (i.e., along the coast of southern Eurasia out of East Africa)
b) Subsequent radiations from India for all Eurasian lineages
c) Loss of complexity of toolkit in Australia
A few points. First, the general model is outlined in verbose detail in The Real Eve by Stephen Oppenheimer (not surprising, the genetics that the author of this paper appeals to comes out of the same labs that Oppenheimer used as his sources). The subtitle of Oppenheimer’s book should have been, “Africa is the mother of us, but India is the mother of all non-Africans.” Also, I find the argument for the loss of tool complexity in Australia due to isolation and cultural bottlenecks persuasive, Joe Heinrich at Emory has made the same argument about Tasmania in relation to Australia. Finally, genetics is neither necessary nor sufficient to “prove” the validity of a theory of human origins, so it is good to throw the limelight on other disciplinary methodologies which can help us triangulate the truth when it comes to questions in the historical sciences.


But what about the paper itself? There is a weak point which I think needs to be focused on: the author attempts to connect artefacts found in India 35 K BP and in East Africa 50 K BP, to show that there was a powerful and singular cultural continuity across the Southern Route. But 15,000 years is a long time. One issue in fossil science is that the dates given for a range of the existence of a species or of a culture are always narrower than reality because the nature of sample bias implies that the earliest and latest points in a range of existence will be “cut off” as a species or culture is either incipient and or near vanishing. In other words, 15,000 years is an overtestimate, nevertheless, is it plausible that the gap can be crossed? And is it plausible that human artefactual technologies could persist for tens of thousands of years? Some perspective: 15,000 years before the present would take us back to the last Ice Age, past Rome, past Sumer, past the Neolithic. But what about the Olduwan and Achuelean tool traditions, they persisted for hundreds of thousands, even millions of years across the span of the World Island (Eurasia + Africa).
Ah, but here is the likely answer I believe to the persistence of the Olduwan and Acheulean technologies: they weren’t cultural traditions as we would understand them, rather, they were instinctive emergent behavioral properties of our proto-human ancestors’ minds. Just as the Bowerbird builds because it must, that is its nature, so our “erectine” forbears were naturally “handy” with stone. There are even arguments that tool making was not utilitarian in a standard sense, but about male “display” and illustration of fitness. I won’t address those issues, my point is just that modern technological traditions are relatively fluid, and change rather quickly. Though Sumerian or Roman toolkits tended to be very static compared to more recent epochs, nonetheless, they were prone to more change and natural development than “cultural” traditions which lasted for tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years.
What does this have to do with the paper in question? If the exact same cultural tradition persisted for tens of thousands of years (a range given in the paper would be 75 K BP to 35 K BP) that is strong evidence to me that the perpetuators of that cultural tradition were not yet “human” in a the way we understand human, for humanity is protean, changeable, fickle and restless with creativity. On the other hand, it could be the relationship between the East African artefacts and the Indian ones is coincidence which happens to span tens of thousands of years, just as ancient eastern North American cultural traditions seem to bear some resemblance to the Solutrean tradition in Europe which predates it by 10,000 years. Myself, I lean toward the former, that is, that “modern” cognition, which allows for the explosive and unpredictable tacking of cultural traditions is a more recent innovation than we might have thought.
Addendum: Some might wonder about this paper’s significance in light of my recent posts about admixture with non-African humans. This paper does not disconfirm that in the least because my overall argument is that total genome content is overwhelmingly “recent African,” and that only at select loci which confer fitness advantanges would archaic introgression occur. We are all Africans ancestrally, but in some very significant ways some of us are not African, and might carry alleles within us that might be alien to humanity as we understand it as a recent African speciation even.
Graphic: Here is the map from the paper:
mapofdispersal.gif

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Evolution
  • Rietzsche Boknekht

    my overall argument is that total genome content is overwhelmingly “recent African,” and that only at select loci which confer fitness advantanges would archaic introgression occur.
    I’m not clear on *archaic introgression*. Does this lend support to a multiregional hypothesis/regional continuity? That the exodus at 100kya saw an intermixture between anatomically modern humans & less modern, or archaic humans?
    We are all Africans ancestrally, but in some very significant ways some of us are not African, and might carry alleles within us that might be alien to humanity as we understand it as a recent African speciation even.
    Interesting, but I wish I knew more about *drift* & *archaic introgression*. I’ll look through the recent posts to see if it was discussed, in a way I could maybe comprehend.

  • http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp razib

    I’m not clear on *archaic introgression*. Does this lend support to a multiregional hypothesis/regional continuity?
    well…i would say that it is compatible with MR insofar as you might seem some deep time regional continuity of form. but, overall, no, it is mostly out-of-africa with a dollop of other stuff.

  • Ibra

    “Y-chromosome Haplogroup F is a large “macro-haplogroup” that includes much of the world’s population. Nearly all of that population is in further derived sub-haplogroups defined by downstream single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Only in India have significant numbers of people been reported to be in the root of Haplogroup F, that is, in Haplogroup F, but not having any downstream SNP mutations (Kivisild et al. 2003) defining the present Y phylogenetic tree. The haplogroup for such individuals would properly be called Haplogroup F*.”
    http://www.jogg.info/12/Pitfalls.htm
    F* has a frequency of 5-15% in the general Indian population. H haplogroup is a direct legacy of F* with an estimated age of 30,000 ybp. F* is the granddaddy haplogroup of 90% of Eurasian haplogroups and is certainly much older. F* easily beat out C and D in frequency and distribution and manifest itself mostly as K in the East, and IJ in the west. This along with numerous, diverse and ancient mtDNA types indicators South Asia was one of the first places colonized outside Africa. The migration routes based on archeology and geography have also been theorized along the coasts and via the center.
    “The southern dispersal hypothesis and the South Asian archaeological record: Examination of dispersal routes through GIS analysis”
    Any way can someone kindly upload the new paper into the Yahoo group? Thanks in advance. It’s always great to see the genetics and anthropology and archaeology taken together, rather than one or the other.

  • http://www.nusapiens.blogspot.com NuSapiens

    At some time, people developed language. Apes don’t have it, and presumably proto-hominids did not have it. Maybe it was during that materially stagnant Old Stone Age that a new *mental* toolkit was developed. Or maybe they just build their stuff with wood.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at http://www.razib.com

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »