Archaeologica.org

Modern humans arose only once, in Africa, about 200,000 years ago. They then spread across Eurasia some time after 60,000 years ago, replacing whatever indigenous populations they met with no interbreeding. This is the ‘Out of Africa’ model, as it’s commonly known. In the 1990s, the hypothesis found widespread acceptance by palaeoanthropologists, especially when the first analyses of Neanderthal DNA seemed to indicate that Neanderthals and modern humans did not interbreed. But this popular idea is in need of revision, particularly given the number of important findings across Asia over the past few decades.

Cognito wrote:

You've got it, KB. If it was sterile we wouldn't know it happened and we would not see neanderthal genes showing up in hss dna outisde of Africa but not inside of it.

Absolutely true. Neanderthal as well as Denisovan genes are included in the H sapiens genome. Most likely H erectus also, but we don't have any material to test yet and it probably would look very similar to our genetics anyway.

I still think this whole "species" argument is overblown.

Min, I agree with you that we are a latter day H erectus model. The Multiregional Hypothesis states that there was always enough gene flow between isolated groups to keep us in the same species.

Apparently there was more than just gene flow. Ideas seemed to flow both ways too. In my opinion, if it was as indicated by the DNA evidence that it was usually the females who left their home groups to intermarry with other groups, then the 'first farmers' were most probably females bringing their seeds, farm tools & knowledge with them to their new home. Of course that was many millennia later than the time period we're discussing. But still...

Minimalist wrote:You're saying that even that long ago women were treated as trade goods?

You may be right but I always had a higher opinion of early man, Circ!

When have men ever missed a chance to dominate and/or limit females? Being given the status of trade goods infers some type of perceived value... Which I doubt existed. You really ought to try looking at it from the 'other' side Min, even though it may be a little uncomfortable... The noble savage? Yeah, right.

Cognito wrote:

When have men ever missed a chance to dominate and/or limit females? Being given the status of trade goods infers some type of perceived value... Which I doubt existed. You really ought to try looking at it from the 'other' side Min, even though it may be a little uncomfortable... The noble savage? Yeah, right.

I would posit that young women of childbearing age generally had value for continuation of the tribe as well as young children. They were the ones who, for the most part, survived the raids. Owning slaves is a symbol of status and they can be traded for others commodities, as needed.

Noble savage? When no rules apply, nobility goes out the window.

Minimalist wrote:And, had they gotten lost, they would have stopped to ask for directions!

Absolutely!!! Or at least have used a map!