Archaeologica.org

shit a brick over this one.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... n-man.html

The findings of Professor Avi Gopher and Dr Ran Barkai of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University, published last week in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, suggest that modern man did not originate in Africa as previously believed, but in the Middle East.

Seriously..... emerge in the center and spread in all directions.

That is an interesting idea. I think we need a little more to go on. The dating sounds a little circumstantial

The findings of Professor Avi Gopher and Dr Ran Barkai of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University, published last week in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, suggest that modern man did not originate in Africa as previously believed, but in the Middle East.

But originate from what? Because there has to have been something before.
Or are Professor Avi Gopher and Dr Ran Barkai of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University just paving the way and massaging the minds for a reintroduction of divine creation myths to reinforce zionist claims on Palestinian lands?

HE wasn't all that far away in Dmanisi, you know.

Minimalist wrote:HE wasn't all that far away in Dmanisi, you know.

Indeed. That HE was dated at 1,87 MYA. It's ancestor HE arose in Africa around 2,3/2,2 MYA. So if Dmanisi Man was that Middle East hominid's grandfather, then its great-grandfather was African!

So speculating and introducing Dmanisi Man into the gentlemen from Tel Aviv's implied scenario doesn't strengthen the case for a not OOA origin imo, but quite the contrary...

OOA does not go back 2 million years.

Remember, they think the Toba bottleneck c 75,000 defined "modern" humans.


Anyway, here's the abstract from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 6/abstract

Minimalist wrote:OOA does not go back 2 million years.

Depends on whose and what definition is applied.

Remember, they think the Toba bottleneck c 75,000 defined "modern" humans.

Hard to reconcile with 196 KYA early HS, if you ask me. Plain impossible of course. Thus BS.

Anyway, here's the abstract from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 6/abstract

Cheers.

You're preaching to the choir, mon ami. I checked Hawks' blog to see if he had a comment on this but he's apparently on vacation for the holidays. Maybe when he gets back?

The report does state, 'Modern man' RS, in that it may yet prove to be as correct, or otherwise, an any other suggestions.

Roy.

Digit wrote:The report does state, 'Modern man' RS, in that it may yet prove to be as correct, or otherwise, an any other suggestions.

Let go of that bottle now, Dig!

Hic!

Should read, as any other suggestion.

Roy.