Early Migration

[Beagle]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... frica.html

Humans first moved out of Africa about 70,000 years ago, but 30,000 years later some of them moved back.

That's according to a new study based on DNA evidence from ancient human remains found in Africa.

Not surprising that these early timelines are getting blurry. HS was also in the Levant earlier than this but vanished 95,000 ya.

[Minimalist]

The earliest known real estate fluctuation or just a case of home-sickness?

[Beagle]

fluctuation

I think that's the right word Min. It's always been my opinion that there has been a lot of population moving over many millennia. HS went north to the levant and HN went south to the levant. I think they mingled many times before the great mystery of 40Kya.

Tracking those genetics is bound to be very confusing.

[Minimalist]

Apparently since they don't even seem to know what they are tracking.

[Digit]

Too often experts, in their attempts to explain things to us morons, are far too simplistic. 'Man came out of Africa 70000 years ago'. They make it sound like we hired a removal company.
An article I read examined the movements of hunter/gatherer groups and where they were not restricted they spread out from their place of origin at about 15 miles/generation.
The Rift Valley almost guarantees a northward movement, and the 15 miles/generation is about the time necessary for a wooded area, at least, to recover after being felled for cooking in a reasonable walking distance from water.
Logically therefore, the people would have moved north then been able to return southwards again after a few years, whereas the experts infer that the northward movement left the south denuded of people.
Starting with one group of individuals the would have gone which ever way seemed suitable at that time. I doubt they tossed a coin for it!
Living on the coast, for example, could have resulted in permanent settlement because of the rapid renewal of food resourses, but once suitable materials for cooking were exhausted they would, presumably have moved on.

[Barracuda]

I think people tend to assume a purpose to the migrations of ancient people when there was none. Its not like they set out with "Europe or Bust" signs.

They just explored around the next bend and found better hunting/gathering/fuel/water/shelter and moved on a few miles. Over thousands of years they would cover great distances this way.

I guess its difficult for modern man to accept such a lack of a greater "purpose", but then its also hard to accept the only "purpose" was to survive.

I think its difficult for modern man to get inside the head of ancient peoples, but its necessary to understand them

[Digit]

Beautifully summed up if may say so.

[Beagle]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... human.html

Another model suggests that modern humans left Africa in multiple waves of migration that started perhaps as early as 80,000 years ago, with ancient settlers dispersing globally via northern and southern routes.

Two separate studies published in the current edition of the research journal Science support a third theory: that a single rapid dispersal occurred somewhere between 60,000 to 75,000 years ago.

This article from 2005 dovetails in to the original post.

[Digit]

If, as has been suggested, that changes in climate were the mechanism that drove the African exodus, then the period of some 20000 years would appear to be sufficient for repeated climatic events to produce repeat exits. If not, then why did man leave Africa, and if Man's ancestors also left Africa even earlier what drove them?
At present there are probably more people on the move then at any time in history, and apart from warfare, which would seem to be damned unlikely for early Man, the main reason is the belief that the grass is greener in the next valley.
The cave paintings in Europe seem to be heavily biased towards animals as subject matter, and the arrows shown in them implies food. Hunter gatherers HAVE to move and who wants to go back to where they were last week when the whole world awaits you?
Once Man started hunting, as opposed to simply gathering, he must have been commited to constant movement.
All the scenarios we read about concern Man moving North and out of Africa, but I suggest he moved in every direction because he simply could not remain where he was.

[Beagle]

the grass is greener in the next valley.

The animals always seem to think so. Grazing animals were Man's favorite game, from Erectus to modern times. And those animals have populated every continent. Ergo, so do we.

[Digit]

I live on a crowded little island, though my exact locale is one of the least populated, and people here have so little knowledge of the natural world. Look how long it took for the early settlers to find a route off the eastern seaboard of the US. Faced with mountain ranges most people would go round or double back, finding a pass isn't obvious, and so often the ones who dictate the dogma drive through city streets to a desk, when a few days of trying what they promulgate would show up the defects.

[Beagle]

Your "little island" has done pretty well for itself Digit. The US, Canada, Australia, and others were originally colonized by you Brits. I'm of Scots Irish descent mostly, but around four generations ago on my mothers' side there were Taylors from somewhere in Britain.

If someday people are talking about an island in the N. Atlantic that spread its' people around the world, archaeologists may laugh at them.

[Digit]

Are you aware Beag that 'Scots' originated in Ireland?

[Minimalist]

who wants to go back to where they were last week when the whole world awaits you?

We think that way but did they?

[Beagle]

Are you aware Beag that 'Scots' originated in Ireland?

Yep, I am, and I'm glad you brought it up. My genealogy runs mostly on both sides of Northern Ireland and the southern Highlands of Scotland. We have family of the same name on both sides. The Gaelic dialects have differed considerably over time though.