Palanth Forum
May 24, 2012, 02:12:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1
  Print  
Author Topic: Media blitz on a proposed early Palaeo-African one.  (Read 1232 times)
Jacques Cinq-Mars
Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156



« on: May 13, 2005, 12:25:40 PM »

All,

The so-called “science media” is (are) abuzz with the news that the first important moment or phase in the dispersal of humanity -- which in this case excludes the Neanderthals -- began somewhere around the Horn of Africa, about 65,000 years ago. Then, it took a northern path and bypassing or avoiding Europe and veering to the east, one that followed the southernmost edge of Asia, until the process completed itself  with the initial colonization of Australia, 50,000 years ago.

By my count (likely to grow), this morning, there were already five “science” reports on this particular topic. Here is one:

Quote
DNA Study Yields Clues on First Migration of Early Humans

By NICHOLAS WADE

The New York Times -- May 13, 2005


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/science/13migrate.html


By studying the DNA of an ancient people in Malaysia, a team of geneticists says it has illuminated many aspects of how modern humans migrated from Africa.

The geneticists say there was only one migration of modern humans out of Africa; that it took a southern route to India, Southeast Asia and Australia; and that it consisted of a single band of hunter-gatherers, probably just a few hundred people strong.

Because these events occurred in the last Ice Age, when Europe was at first too cold for human habitation, the researchers say, it was populated only later, not directly from Africa but as an offshoot of the southern migration. The people of this offshoot would presumably have trekked back through the lands that are now India and Iran to reach the Near East and Europe.

The findings depend on analysis of mitochondrial DNA, a type of genetic material inherited solely through the female line. They are reported today in Science by a team of geneticists led by Dr. Vincent Macaulay of the University of Glasgow.

Everyone in the world can be placed on a single family tree, in terms of their mitochondrial DNA, because everyone has inherited that piece of DNA from a single woman, the mitochondrial Eve, who lived some 200,000 years ago.

There were, of course, many other women in that ancient population. But over the generations, one mitochondrial DNA replaced all the others through the process known as genetic drift.

With the help of mutations that have built up on the one surviving copy, geneticists can arrange people in lineages and estimate the time of origin of each lineage.

With this approach, Dr. Macaulay's team calculates that the emigration from Africa occurred 65,000 years ago, pushed along the coasts of India and Southeast Asia and reached Australia by 50,000 years ago, the date of the earliest known archaeological site there.

The Malaysian people whom the geneticists studied are the Orang Asli. The term means "original men" in Malay.

They are probably descended from this first migration, because they have several ancient mitochondrial DNA lineages that are found nowhere else.

These lineages are 42,000 to 63,000 years old, the geneticists say. Subgroups of the Orang Asli, like the Semang, have probably been able to remain intact because they adapted to the harsh existence of living in forests, said Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer, the member of the geneticists' team who collected blood samples in Malaysia.

Some archaeologists theorize that Europe was colonized by a second migration that traveled north out of Africa. This fits with the earliest known modern human sites, dating from 45,000 years ago in the Levant and 40,000 years ago in Europe.

Dr. Macaulay's team says there could have been just one migration, not two, because the mitochondrial lineages of everyone outside Africa converge at the same time to the same common ancestors. Therefore, people from the southern migration, probably in India, must have struck inland to reach the Levant and, later, Europe, the geneticists say.

Dr. Macaulay said it was not clear why just one group succeeded in leaving Africa. One possibility is that because the migration occurred by continuous population expansion, leaving people in place at each site, the first emigrants may have blocked others from leaving. Another is that the terrain was so difficult for hunter-gatherers, who carry all their belongings with them, that only one group succeeded in the exodus.

Although there is general but not complete agreement that modern humans emigrated from Africa in recent times, there is still a difference between geneticists and archaeologists about its a timing. Archaeologists tend to view the genetic data as providing invaluable information about the interrelationship between groups, but they place less confidence in the dates derived from genetic family trees.

There is no evidence of modern humans outside Africa earlier than 50,000 years ago, said Dr. Richard Klein, an archaeologist at Stanford. Also, if something happened 65,000 years ago to allow people to leave Africa, as Dr. Macaulay's team suggests, there should surely be some record of that in the archaeological record in Africa, Dr. Klein said. Yet signs of modern human behavior do not appear in Africa until 50,000 years ago, the transition between the Middle and Later Stone Ages, he said.

"If they want to push such an idea, find me a 65,000-year-old site with evidence of human occupation outside of Africa," Dr. Klein said.

Geneticists counter that many of the coastline sites occupied by the first emigrants would now lie under water, because the sea level has risen more than 200 feet since the last Ice Age. Dr. Klein expressed reservations about that argument, noting that people would not wait for the slowly rising sea levels to overwhelm them but would build new sites farther inland.

Dr. Macaulay said genetic dates had improved in recent years, now that it is affordable to decode the whole ring of mitochondrial DNA, and not just a small segment.

But he said he agreed "that archaeological dates are much firmer than the genetic ones" and that it was possible his 65,000-year date for the African exodus was too old.

Dr. Macaulay's team has been able to estimate the size of the population in Africa from which the founders descended. The calculation indicates a maximum of 550 women. The true size may have been considerably less. This points to a single group of hunter-gatherers, perhaps a couple of hundred strong, as the ancestors of all humans outside of Africa, Dr. Macaulay said.

For access to the other four reports, click HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE

The “theme” on which all these “variations” are based was just published in today’s issue of Science:

Quote
Macaulay, Vincent, Catherine Hill, Alessandro Achilli, Chiara Rengo, Douglas Clarke,  William Meehan, James Blackburn, Ornella Semino, Rosaria Scozzari, Fulvio Cruciani, Adi Taha, Norazila Kassim Shaari,  Joseph Maripa Raja, Patimah Ismail, Zafarina Zainuddin, William Goodwin, David Bulbeck, Hans-Jürgen Bandelt, Stephen Oppenheimer, Antonio Torroni, and Martin Richards. 2005. Single, Rapid Coastal Settlement of Asia Revealed by Analysis of Complete Mitochondrial Genomes. Science 308: 1034-1036. [Incl. Supporting online material]

Click HERE  for the full text.

Jacques Cinq-Mars
Logged
Jacques Cinq-Mars
Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156



« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2005, 02:23:34 PM »

All,

This can be read as an addendum to my previous posting.

Coincidentally (?), the current issue of Science also carries a short note (in “Brevia”) dealing with the (molecular) identity of the Andaman islanders:

Quote
Thangaraj, Kumarasamy, Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Toomas Kivisild, Alla G. Reddy, Vijay Kumar Singh, Avinash A. Rasalkar, and Lalji Singh. 2005. Reconstructing the Origin of Andaman Islanders. Science 308: 996.[Include. Supporting Online Material]

Click HERE for the full package.

The same issue also presents -- in a section entitled EVOLUTION: Enhanced -- a summary, as it were, of what is implied by both the Thangaraj et al. note and the Macauley et al. paper:

Quote
Forster and Matsumura,: Did Early Humans Go North or South?, Science 2005 308: 965-966.

This one can be read HERE.

All in all, an elegantly orchestrated, thesis-specific presentation on the part of Science.

Jacques Cinq-Mars
Logged
Dale Hoogeveen
Palanth Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 86



« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2005, 06:34:44 PM »

Hi Jacques,

It is important that all of us from outside Africa share one great (x2500 to 3000 times) grandmother.  We, therefore,  have one common, relatively recent ancestral thread. 

Unfortunately that doesn't say anything about the rest of the grandmothers, any of the fathers or their mothers or any of the sources of any chromosomal ancestry.

A little perspective is needed here.  There is a huge amount of effort being put into analysing a single one of many such threads, none of which need to be identical in either path or timeline to any other.

Dale   

All,

The so-called “science media” is (are) abuzz with the news that the first important moment or phase in the dispersal of humanity -- which in this case excludes the Neanderthals -- began somewhere around the Horn of Africa, about 65,000 years ago. Then, it took a northern path and bypassing or avoiding Europe and veering to the east, one that followed the southernmost edge of Asia, until the process completed itself  with the initial colonization of Australia, 50,000 years ago.

By my count (likely to grow), this morning, there were already five “science” reports on this particular topic. Here is one:



For access to the other four reports, click HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE

The “theme” on which all these “variations” are based was just published in today’s issue of Science:



Click HERE  for the full text.

Jacques Cinq-Mars
Logged

Peace
Dale Hoogeveen
Jacques Cinq-Mars
Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156



« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2005, 02:19:23 PM »

All,

As expected, the most recent Science palaeoanthropological triohas been picked up by other media. The most interesting of these is the National Geographic one which is certainly more than just a slightly altered “repeat” of what has already been released or -- as is unfortunately too frequent -- another one of those meaningless and irritating “dumbed down” echoes.

Quote
Early Humans May Have Crossed Sea to Leave Africa

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News -- May 13, 2005


Where did we come from, and how did we get here? Most scientists agree on the most basic answers to these questions, suggesting modern humans first evolved in Africa, probably around 150,000 years ago, and later colonized the globe.

But precisely when this migration started and the route it followed has been hotly debated. One theory holds that a wave of migration from Africa began about 50,000 years ago, with modern humans moving north through North Africa into the Middle East, then moving east and west into Asia and Europe.

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.

The studies suggest that modern humans left East Africa by crossing the Red Sea, then journeyed south, following a coastal route along the Arabian Peninsula to India, Malaysia, and Australia.

One of the two new studies was led by Kumarasamy Thangaraj, a geneticist at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, India. Thangaraj and his colleagues investigated populations on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands near the coast of Thailand.

The study focused on mitochondrial DNA, genetic material that is passed maternally and found in every human cell. All humans can be traced via this specialized DNA to a single ancestral female who lived about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago, many scientists say.

Thangaraj and colleagues used this genetic material as signposts to trace the deep ancestry of six isolated indigenous tribal populations on the islands. The tribes included the Nicobarese, Onge, Andamanese, and Great Andamanese.

Earlier studies had shown that the Nicobarese are of Southeast Asian origin and probably reached the islands relatively recently, between 15,000 and 18,000 years ago.

In the past scientists believed that three of the tribal populations—the Andamanese, the Onge and Great Andamanese—on the islands were "closer to the Asians than Africans," Thangaraj said.

"But when we sequenced [their] complete mitochondrial genome, we found unique variations, which have not been found anywhere in the world, so far," he said.

The findings led Thangaraj and his colleagues to suggest that the tribes descend from "the very early migrants out of Africa."

"Based on the mutations, we estimated that they must have migrated about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, taking the southern sea route," he said.

Following the Coastline …

Click HERE for the full report.

Jacques Cinq-Mars


Logged
Robert Henvell
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2005, 12:11:26 AM »


  The information contained in the article and the supplement do not seem to provide definative evidence that the first migrants to
SE Asia and Australia followed the southern coastal route.They could just as easily have come from Skhul cave.
Logged
Pages: 1
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!