Think again.
I’m not sure why there had to be a single migration eastward. If the route “made sense” at all, wouldn’t different migrations at different times be expected?
But I did click that thread and found this:
Do we know exactly what fascinated the Homo georgicus? I’ll guess it was that old mystery, the puzzling nature of Femino georgicus.
Of course, there could have been more than one, but the first one gets the most interest. More specifically, the first one that didn’t die out. I understand that there was an early migration to the Israel/Jordan area, but it was a dead end, in that the areas around that were, at the time, too arid for further migration. And then that area dried up, so it apparently died out.
It’s bad enough you assume motivations for absolutely no discernible reason. Resorting to ad hominem attacks is bad enough, but to a passing zombie of general interest? Choose better targets.
Migration is simple - follow the food. If there’s a herd over the next hill, and the proto-humans in the area don’t seem to be able to hunt as well as us, or fight well enough to keep us out of their hunting grounds - well, free food. What other reason does anyone need to move if they are already nomadic? And until human evolved agriculture or animal husbandry, they did move from place to place following the herds. And if they were good at reproduction (being modern man, after all) then the extra mouths eventually needed to find more food. After all, we are the result of thousands of generations of those who excelled at reproduction.
Remember by the time humans were spreading out from the middle east, along the coast to China and Australia (about 70,000 years ago?) they had probably already excelled at making relatively good coastal watercraft. That was certainly an easy way to go a distance versus struggling through dense brush; then they could put ashore at convenient spots with fresh water, solid land for camping, etc. The link (one still works) shows humans expanding along the south Asia coastline to Chine with a minor interruption for an eruption. It’s only after that they move inland. I assume fishing villages were an intermediate development between nomadic hunting and animal husbandry; you could camp at the same spot for an extended time and the sea kept replenishing your favourite spots with more fish… because they too migrated in to take the fish food left behind by yesterday’s catch.
Reminder that there is opinion in that URL, and this is patently false.
Most of the “Racial” traits that people think as of as “European” are very recent.
A recent actually pre-print cite.
There was a mass migration 60,000 years ago that contributed the bulk of the genetic make-up of present-day non-Africans, but the claim that it was a one time event or that there was strict isolation is quite thoroughly debunked.
Current populations world round are almost exclusively the end product of several migrations, intermixing and replacement events.
If that opinion piece was close to being realistic the Afro-Asiatic language would have never reached Africa around 6,000 BCE and we would have no Semitic languages in the Middle East.
While there are ways to categorize people, it rarely follows “racial” traits or follows modern political boundaries and anyone that holds on to the concept of human “races” is either ill-informed or ignoring contrary evidence.
People living in Europe 6000 years ago would not resemble the superficial categories we try to fit them in today, and the major changes in genetic makeup were primarily due to migrations by different groups and not some claimed evolution model that matches the idea of race.
To go back to the OP.
Humans were historically Hunter gatherers and lived in nomadic groups, and as recently as 10,000 years ago the arid regions like Saudi Arabia and the middle east were lush grasslands with freshwater lakes.
While there are lots of questions to answer the tools were similar for around 100,000 years. The migration was most likely due to variations of climate and a nomadic people moving to follow food sources.
While fairly boring it is most likely just due to nomadic hunter gatherers following the food.
Leo, the ‘waggling finger’ was the literal skeletal one in the article that you cited, whose entire point was that previous certainties were being over-turned by new evidence.
Sorry if you read it as an ad hominid attack. That was not the intention at all, and I’d have thought the rest of my post built on what you offered.
The words “pretty much” in the phrase “pretty much everyone” was inserted to leave some room for Reich, Murray and their ilk. There is actually a Pit thread in the Pitfor the subject.
heh.
That opinion piece suggests Reich is not at all of Murray’s “ilk.” Am I missing something?
He had to clarify a week later.
Race has a very real denotative meaning, which has very real implications. It is an extremely poor proxy for “populations” and the term will always reference it’s original and flawed intentional meaning.
Any effort to apply it through some tortured redefinition is tone deaf to those realities.
I have no objection to hominids migrating into Eurasia, but they bring the property values down.
Regards,
Urg-guk, circa 80,000 BC
This post, and my apology to Banksiaman, is governed by the following, if only it could represent its truest and deepest sense:
:smack:
-
You responded with wit and an (now obvious) allusion to the very topic at hand, a stylistic filip always appreciated in GQ, at least by me. I myself get dinged by respondents for the same, who in my mind can’t even follow the topic to see such references–it requires more than a 1-second scan, or even really read the damn sentence, which in your case makes it even clearer what you are talking about.
-
I read it fast because, as I 1-second-scanned the posts before deciding this was the best thread to zombie for interested parties (which I am not, particularly :)), but where it might be appreciated, what I did notice was the hijack and slightly rancorous tone, and in the 0.5 seconds of seeing which continents would be heard from (i.e., was it at least a “good post”)–it seemed that one of argumentative types had jumped on me–which of course is fine, but I had nothing in that post whatsoever of my take.
-
Again, my apologies for being a dullard.
Cool, now let’s gang up with Stylistic Filip and hassle some newbs.
It originally did mean a grouping of people, including populations, but that got hijacked by 19th century pseudoscientific classification. (Which is, as an aside, why I’m okay with people calling discrimination based on any ethnic origins “racism” since not being racism doesn’t make it better and they were races before the race theorists got a hold of the term.)