anon split[edit]

Post-Out-of-Africa migrations are not covered in the Recent African origin of modern humans. This article is rather linked as a section ((main)) article from there, at Recent_African_Origin#Subsequent_expansion. Perhaps this was a misunderstanding as to the scope of this article? The apposition "early human migrations" is understood to parse as "early (human migrations)", not "(early human) migrations". Viz., this article is supposed to discuss human migrations that are "early" in human history (pre-Neolithic), not (just) the migrations of "early humans" (pre H. sapiens). dab (𒁳) 09:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

seems there might be reorganization needed between these pages:

Neanderthal migration?[edit]

In the section Europe: "When the first anatomically modern humans entered Europe, Neanderthals were already settled there". They got there by magic? Is this article about the migrations of AMHs or related Homo species as well? Kortoso (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ambiguous title[edit]

Is it about the migrations of early human OR human migrations that happened early? I believe we need to clarify this in the opening section. sentausa (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Imprecise terms edited[edit]

I want to explain two edits I made and encourage others to look for similar problems I may have overlooked. In both cases, imprecise our outdated terminology was used. First, the description of arrival of Homo sapiens in Europe was listed as the arrival of "Cro-Magnons." That term derived from a 19th century fossil find in France is no longer used by anthropologists to describe a group of hominids, because they have been identified as early humans, essentially indistinguishable from homo sapiens. Unlike other groups, such as the Neanderthals, the Cro-Magnons have turned out to be our ancestors. They are humans. So the terms "Early Modern Human" or "Anatomically Modern Human" are sometimes used. But for the sake of this discussion, where the spread of homo sapiens is being discussed, I used that term. This also avoids any confusion for those who are looking for the spread of humans into Europe and are not aware that Cro-Magnons are an early human. Second, the term "Early humans" was used for a section that described the spread of homo erectus and other early hominid populations. The identification of Homo erectus as "human" is controversial at best, even when it's conceded that this species appears to be immediately ancestral to homo sapiens. But given the modern usage of "early humans" to mean Paleolithic Homo sapiens, it seems better to avoid applying this label to non-Homo sapien species. I also felt that the usage may have stemmed from an early author's support of dispersal models other than the mainstream out-of-Africa, such as multi-regional evolution of homo sapiens from homo erectus. That almost seems to be the implication of this section if one does not clearly distinguish that Homo erectus of Asia is not believed to be at all ancestral to the Homo sapiens who later populated the area. This potential lack of NPOV in favor of a fringe viewpoint is an additional reason for making a change. So I have replaced the heading with "Early Hominids." There are also problems with this, since the section does not deal with the earliest hominid species, but it was the most accurate succinct phrasing I could think of. Improvements by other editors are welcome. Ftjrwrites (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus on convention?[edit]

Scattered all around in this article are different measuring units /convention for stating "how long ago in the past". There's mya. BP, millenias, years. Why don't we use just one, namely "years ago" as I think that's the simplest, most straightforward one. Add "million" before it where appropriate, but keep "thousands" to "000". Aurora sword (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neanderthal Interbreeding[edit]

Just noting that the most recent thought seems to be that there may indeed have been interbreeding between Neanderthal and modern humans. "Current (as of 2010) genetic evidence suggests interbreeding took place with Homo sapiens between roughly 80,000 to 50,000 years ago in the Middle East, resulting in non-African ethnic humans having between 1% and 4% more Neanderthal DNA than ethnic Africans.[4][5]" from the wikipedia article on Neanderthals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal Perhaps the article should be edited to incorporate that information. 

Hypercallipygian (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

80,000 years ago in India[edit]

Please add this recent research, thank you: [1] Esn (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australia[edit]

This wording was added in the section on South Asia and Australia:

NOTE: This statement does not take into account that there are “pygmies” (Negritos) currently in Australia at Yarraba Mission Station, near Cairns in North Queensland. The original wave of settlement of Australia was by these “pygmies” who are about 1.5 m tall, with nearly black skin and very curly hair. The next wave of settlement was by the Murrayians who are a little taller, and whose skin is not quite as black and whose hair is not quite as curly. The descendants of this wave of settlement were the Tasmanian Aborigines who became extinct with the death of Truganini. Then the third wave of settlement was by the Carpentarians. These are taller again with much lighter skin colouring and wavy, not curly, hair. These are the current Australian Aborigines. This information can be found in the article at http://www.sydneyline.com/Pygmies%20Extinction.htm

This source is not good, it seems to be a political website not an academic source about human evolution. Fences&Windows 22:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support removal - as per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations.Moxy (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Quadrant (magazine) is a very dubious source, and a contribution by the editor in chief smells of SPS anyways. Also see [2]. If this has any serious support, there should be scholarly sources available. I'll take it out for now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant comment moved from my talk page.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC) G'day Stephen, You have rubbished my adition to this page, for no good reason. The atricle from which I quote is already shown as a reference (Reference #12). All I have done is precis this information, provide support for that information by quoting the existence of hard evidence (pygmies, Tasmanian Aborigines and current Aborigines) that there are three totally different types of settlers into Australia (or Sahul) as it was then). The article refers to a valid paper presented by Tindale and Birkett. As I already hold tertiary qualification, though no in this area, I feel that I am capable of assessing evidence and deciding whether it is valid or not. I look forward to hearing more from you. Arthur Harris (Rferau) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rferau (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your "Note" references not a paper by Tindale and Birket, but the Quadrant article by Windschuttle and Gillin. They do indeed reference several papers by Tindale and Birdsell, but these are between 40 and 70 years out of date. Others seem to share my opinion on the "Note". I see no reason to include this material for now - if anything, it could go into a "historical views" section, and then with much better sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day (again)Stephan, Sorry about the misspelling of you name, last time. The article by Tindale & Birdsell is most certainly NOT out of date. I live in Australia and I know that there are currently pygmies living in North Queensland, specifically at the Yarraba Mission Station. Also as I have grown up, I have seen many photos of Tasmanian Aborigines, and in particular Truganini, and they have quite different physical characteristics to mainland Aborigines. I have read articles on the genetic testing and I believe that it has not been scientific on its approach. There has not been a specific mention of testing the pygmies and then comparing those results with testing of the mainstream Aborigines. It is not easily possible to test the DNA of the Tasmanian Aborigines. But all of the evidence that I can see fully supports the Trihybrid theory. And someone is trying VERY hard to suppress this information for whatever reason. I think that what I am doing needs to be done to highlight that there is another point of view available which is equally valid. Arthur Harris [(User:Rferau|Arthur Harris)]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rferau (talk • contribs) 06:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but your own opinion is not really relevant. See WP:OR. The Windshuttle article you keep inserting is not a RS. It's not published by a reliable publisher, and it's full of obvious cherry-picking and double standard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day Stephan, I am MOST disappointed by your response. Your whole attitude in certainly NOT scientific. You reject something because of where it is published rather than what it contains. As I have pointed out the evidence is clearly still physically existing and still being wtitten about (see McAllister, P., Pygmonia), so what I sya can easily be verified, even without going to the location at Yarraba. On the subject of publications being reliable or otherwise, I have many acquaintances who will not contemplate anything quoted as coming from Wikipedia, as they claim that there is so much totally incorrect information in it that it is NOT at al reliable. So we have the pot calling the kettle black. I prefer to check the information in as many sources as I can without any regard to which publication they originate from. When I find a consensus of opinion, and that opinion matches the evidence that is quoted, then I will accept it, regardless of where it is published. So, with the information that I have attempted to introduce in this case. Would you rather that I quotes the following, in support of my contention:-

Tindale, N.B. 1940 Results of the Harvard-Adelaide Universities Anthropological Expedition 1938-39 : Distribution of Australian Aboriginal Tribes: A Field Survey. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 64(1):140-231.

Tindale, N.B. 1974 Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. Australian National University Press : Canberra

Tindale, N. B. and J.B. Birdsell. 1941 Results of the Harvard-Adelaide Universities Anthropologic Expedition 1938-39: Tasmanoid Tribes in North Queensland. Records of the South Australian Museum 7 :1-9.

These present the same information as the Windshuttle article.

Personal opinions are always the basis of presented information. But they have to be supported by evidence. Even your statements are simply a personal opinion of my statements, and my source. So let us be a little scientific, and consistent, about this. I have not chosen to present information purely on the basis that it happens to agree with what I am trying to prove, as so often is the case in research work that I see and read. Regards, Arthur Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.175.219 (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe there is a need for a better updated understanding of the topic at hand. Pls See The archaeology of ancient Australia - By Peter Hiscock - December 11, 2007 ISBN 0415338115.Moxy (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arthur, it is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, that articles have to be based on existing research published in reliable sources. We can very much discuss if the "trihybrid" theory is significant enough to be included in this high-level overview article, but no matter what the result is, we cannot have an impromptu note that sells what is at best a controversial and out of date theory and source it to Windshuttle, who is not competent and know for letting his policy guide his publication more than proper research. The three source you took from Windshuttle are somewhat better, but a) they are widely out of date and b) as far as I can tell from the titles, they are mostly descriptive of the then-current state, not about ancient migrations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day Stephan, I am pleased to see that you are open to rational discussion. Those references are from a totally different article, not Windshuttle. And they are discussing not only the existence of pygmies in Australia, but the fact that for them to get there there must have been at least 3 migrations and settlements into Australia.

In an earlier comment, I pushed the point of genetics "proving" that there were three different groups in Australia and hence three migrations. I have done more reading on that subject and it will prove nothing. The following comment portrays a scientific view on this matter.

By taking blood samples from many people in different geographic regions the relatedness within geographically distinct groups can also be assessed.[96] This analysis also gives clues as to the origin of those groups. As new polymorphisms appear only slowly in a population through natural mutation, it is possible to identify mutations which have been inherited from a single common ancestor. Tracing these inherited features gives some idea of the movements of a population.[97] Another technique is to measure the diversity of polymorphisms in isolated populations and from this data it is possible to estimate the number of founders and gain some idea as to their point of origin.[98] Using these sources of information, a tree of human relatedness with approximate times between geographically isolating events can be made.[99] The movements of human populations can be traced through time and space. As the African population has the greatest polymorphism diversity, Africa is most likely to be the birthplace of humanity; everywhere else displays a more limited repertoire of polymorphisms.[100] What we call ‘Caucasian’ is really a sub-set of African polymorphisms. Presumably Caucasians are a population of Africans who walked north and lost much of their skin pigment so as better to synthesise vitamin D in the less sunny high latitudes. The Australian Aboriginal population also has a great genetic diversity, second only to Africa, which suggests a migration from Africa to Australia along the tropics before any admixture was possible with the current inhabitants of the tropic regions.[101] Nevertheless it is likely that the Aboriginal population is probably composed of many waves of migration into Australia, bringing in different subsets of the original African diversity.[102] The significant genetic diversity in the Aboriginal populations means that it is unlikely that there are a number of polymorphisms uniquely common to all Aboriginal people which could be identified as a set of “Aboriginal genes”. "Aboriginality Under The Microscope: The Biological Descent Test In Australian Law" LORETTA DE PLEVITZ[*] AND LARRY CROFT[**] QUT Law & Justice Journal

The above is a selective quote from the named article. De Plevitz holds an LLB and Croft holds a BSc. So they are professional people presenting a scientific view. The extract needs to be read in the context of the whole article, which needs to be read within the context of the broader subject.

However, I contend that the identification of the three types of Australian Aborigine is akin to the situation in the plant world. There are Camellias and there are Azaleas, for example. However within these species there are several sub-species of each. So with the Aboriginal people. Within the “race” of Aborigines, there exist the pygmies (Barrineans) the Murrayians and the Carpentarians. I believe that now there are many who claim to be descendants of the Tasmanian Aborigines. On the basis of the article above, how do they “prove” their connection to and descent from the original Tasmanian group. Also how do any "prove" their descendancy from each of hte three migrant groups?

No one has attempted to designate either Lake Mungo or Kow Swamp as any one of these groups. The dating would certainly place them as among the pygmies, as the Murrayians arrived 8-10,000 years after the pygmies. And what of the fossils from Rotnest Island which are claimed to be dated to 72,000 years ago? Where do they fit in the scheme of migrations?

Within the so called white population there are Europeans, Asians, Indians, Africans, etc, ad nauseum. Do we deny the different migrations that brought them to Australia?

For three different groups of Aborigines to exist within Australia, there have to have been three migrations. They didn't appear out of this air, they had to arrive sopmehow and back then, migration was the only way fo them to enter Australia. Today people come by boat and by plane and they are still considered to me immigants.

Sorry to be so long winded, but it appears that it is necessary to present my point and give you the necessary information to approve what I want to have placed in the public arena. Arthur Harris Arthur Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rferau (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day Stephan, I see where you are coming from. While I have not read Hiscock's book, I HAVE read his statements and I cannot argue that the fossil record apparently does not support the trihybrid theory. But how does one account for the photographic evidence? There are clearly 3 totally different types of Aborigine, shown in the photos. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to spend quite a long time with an optomotrist. Do YOU have any explanation? The only one that I can come up with is that archaeologists are simply not looking for/finding what must be there, as far as the pygmies are concerned. A little thought suggests that there may not be fossil difference between the Tasmanian and mainland Aborigines, but the physical features are most definitely different. Please let me have your thoughts on this conundrum. Arthur Harris

Americas dispute[edit]

From the article, "The date of migration to North America is disputed; it may have taken place around 30 thousand years ago, or considerably later, around 14 thousand years ago." The "30 thousand years ago" and the "14 thousand years ago" are links to articles on eras (like the paleolithic era), but not to the dispute. So the claim about a dispute is unfounded at this point, in the article. There clearly is a lot to discuss here, Canada has artifacts from ~27000 from the Yukon in national museums. It would be nice if this dispute was at least given a passing reference — or rather I mean a citation. 72.83.26.71 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oregon cave[edit]

"Nonetheless, on October 3, 2014, the Oregon cave, where the oldest DNA evidence of human habitation in North America was found, was added to the National Register of Historic Places."

Do those commas belong there?

Doggerland missing from the maps[edit]

All the maps of Europe are missing Doggerland, which disappeared somewhere between 10000 and 6000 bc -- see the wikipedia article on the subject for more information.

Homo sapiens migrations[edit]

Hello all, I have transferred all of the verbiage that resided under the lead-in to this article that relates to Homo sapiens migrations and placed it under that topic. (This article is about Early human migrations and not just about Homo sapiens migrations.) I also transferred the map. I believe that the map now requires updating from what we now know from https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/ and other sources. Perhaps someone with some expertise in this area might do that, if appropriate, please. Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nature: homo sapiens in China 80K-120K years ago[edit]

New report: Humans reached China 80K-120k, older than previously believed. 47 human teeth dated to 80,000-120,000 years ago, were found in a limestone cave system in Daoxian, China.

http://www.nature.com/news/teeth-from-china-reveal-early-human-trek-out-of-africa-1.18566

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature15696.html

--CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

210,000-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe or Asia[edit]

https://www.latimes.com/science/oldest-modern-human-skull-in-eurasia-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.33.5.35 (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Censorship of the word "race"[edit]

"Ethnographic map of the world's major population groups"
Why can't they be called "races"? What are these vague "population groups"? Because they are clearly defined along the racial boundaries, even in cases where the populations (a population is a group with >50% marriages inside) are clear separate - see the "Amerindians" of Chukotka.--Adûnâi (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peopling Of Northern Eurasia[edit]

The article reads:

"North Eurasian populations migrated to the Americas about 20,000 years ago. Northern Eurasia was peopled after 12,000 years ago, in the beginning Holocene."

Does this not contradict itself with respect to chronology?

Manofgotham (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Dragon Man' - Mention that it is significant, but implications not yet known[edit]

The very recent discovery of a new species of archaic human that appears more closely related to Homo Sapiens than Neanderthals or Denisovans. The skull is far older than any homo species to be found outside Africa by an enormous amount of time - having been found in China. While the implications of this are not yet known - academia has to digest it, more bones and possibly artifacts need to be found and examined. However, that will take time and this is likely to be one of the most significant discoveries regarding our evolution and expansion across the globe as a group of intermixing species. Given that, can someone who can address it succinctly while being clear that at the moment any implications are currently just speculative. However, we can safely say that the implications will necessarily be very significant even if we don't know them yet. I am not sure how to word this and where to put it - haven't done editing on here in a couple years.RememberToForget (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many scenarios where the find could turn out to be completely insignificant: the dating could be wrong, the taxonomic assignation could be wrong, it could be a fake. It's very common for new finds in palaeoanthropology to be radically reinterpreted in the years after their publication, which is even more reason to stick to secondary sources in this topic area. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

section: Early northern Africa dispersal[edit]

"Populations of Homo sapiens migrated to the Levant and to Europe between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago"

evidence of homo sapients that migrated to the Levant, but afaik there is no evidence of homo sapiens to Europe in this time frame. Earliest homo sapiens in Europe may be around 45 000 years ago. [1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4943878/

section: Dispersal throughout Eurasia[edit]

"Towards the West, Upper Paleolithic populations associated with mitochondrial haplogroup R and its derivatives, spread throughout Asia and Europe, with a back-migration of M1 to North Africa and the Horn of Africa several millennia ago."

the way the sentence is structured, makes it seem as if M1 is a descendant haplogroup to mt haplogroup R. Which it is not. Also back-migration of M1 may not be a foregone conclusion. Haplogroup M (mtDNA)

section: Indo-Pacific[edit]

"The first seaborne human migrations were by the Austronesian peoples"

Wouldn't the Aboriginal Australians be tens of thousands of years earlier? [1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.illumina.com/documents/icommunity/article_2012_04_Aboriginal_Genome.pdf


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thomasjrico5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 million year old fires discovered in China?[edit]

Yet migration was thousands of years ago? --72.128.38.220 (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that is right. there are not just those fires pits and clay shards from 1.4-1.1 million years ago (or this article http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130815/srep02403/full/srep02403.html highlighting sites near beijing from 1.7m yA), but also dozens, probably a few hundred archeological sites in china that completely predate human migration. They are earlier hominids. 72.83.26.71 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

intro[edit]

It is not clear from the opening paragraph whether the article refers to human as in homo sapiens or the homo genus. Shawnc (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how is it unclear, seeing that the lead explicitly mentions both H. erectus and H. sapiens? dab (𒁳) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There are some rather serious errors in the intro right now that I'm not in a position to fix. I'm confident that anatomically modern humans (aka H. sapiens) only emerged within the past 250kya, rendering the H. sapiens time of divergence at 2mya completely erroneous. I recall it being much closer to 40kya into europe, for example, and maybe 80 into the Middle East. T 14:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taurvil (talk • contribs)

Hi. The author is not actually referring to modern humans having undertaken the first migration some 2 MYBP. He/she is referring to Homo erectus. But, perhaps, it would be better to replace the expression "archaic humans" with something like "hominins". I understand the need to avoid technical terms to make things accessible to non-specialists but ... in the interest of clarity, perhaps ...

Rather, later on in "Homo sapiens migrations" I got a little worried: what is "refugaria"??? Did you mean "refugia"? Contra-gian (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early arctic expansion[edit]

As far as I know, the Arctic was much earlier colonized than 1000 CE, just not by the Inuits. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 14:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

F.ex. Saqqaq culture and Independence I culture. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 14:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and I removed the claim that the Arctic was colonized only in 1000. 80.221.33.98 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South Asia and Australia[edit]

Why does a crossing of the 90km-wide Wallace's Line channel indicate "that settlers had knowledge of seafaring skills"? Might they not have simply drifted on some kind of raft, perhaps a fallen tree? Need there have been more than one settler? Could Australia have been populated by one pregnant woman?Redactor33 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not possible, there are several mitochondrial DNA lineages in Australia, indicating more than one woman made the journey. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the Wallace Line is a ecological boundary, not an actual sea boundary. The actual distance from the wallace line to australia is several hundred kilometers. It was not a simple 90km stretch to cross (nor, to my knowledge, is there any study showing the speciifc boundaries, it is not unreasonable to avoid assuming that the 90km stretch was even the widest stretch in the chain).

Second question, from the source in the article: "From the Near East, these populations spread east to South Asia by 50,000 years ago, and on to Australia by 40,000 years ago,[3]" These numbers are very outdated. Like half a century outdated. Its been standard theory since before I was born that India has large human settlements in archaeological sites from before the Toba event 74000 yA. Also there are finds on tiny islands just off the west coast of Australia that dated back to 54000 yA. I think the article should reflect theory from a generation ago, rather than from a century ago. 72.83.26.71 (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rob Australian in SRV 27 years (robbygay) suggests the dating is at least 3 zeros understating the migrations refer Wikipedia Pangea when India one end of the Australian Plate first out of the water drifted over Lemuria plate between Africa Madagascan, Asia Himalaya creation and West Australia so migration was sinking Lemuria to Australia, Madagascar/Africa, Indonesia and Asia as far as china and likely then to Alaska etc. Almost all land bridging. See Wikipedia:- Pangaea or Pangea (/pænˈdʒiːə/[1]) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras.[2][3] It assembled from earlier continental units approximately 300 million years ago, and it began to break apart about 175 million years ago.[4] In contrast to the present Earth and its distribution of continental mass, much of Pangaea was in the southern hemisphere and surrounded by a super ocean, Panthalassa. Pangaea was the last super-continent to have existed and the first to be reconstructed by geologists. 101.99.8.146 (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language as a factor in early migration[edit]

Homo erectus had language, and this led to their migration out of Africa? I'm going to have to insist on good sourcing for that, as some evidence is against the idea, e.g. [3] Fences&Windows 04:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A number of linguists are of the opinion that the first long-distance human migrations within and from Africa took place when the development of language reached the stage where journeys could be planned. This made the geographical distribution of humans very different from that of plants and animals, which was largely dictated by favourable or hostile environmental conditions. There obviously can be no certainty about that, which is why I used the word "probably" - also see Origin of language Androstachys (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Give sources for this. Who are these linguists? Who says H. erectus had language and connects this to migrations? Are they representative of the field? We can't just insert supposed facts without verifying them. Fences&Windows 02:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no sources cited for any of the "supposed facts" in the lead paragraph. Should I remove them until the editors concerned provide references? Androstachys (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Androstachys: Please examine the FULL entry for Modern human behavior. The last section on that page cites the new, reasonably solid and reliable evidence from the findings of Dr. Curtis Marean that supports the continuity hypothesis; that humans had long been utilizing modern-day linguistic acuity before the period of migration from Africa. You might want to check the dates of your linguists' comments. Best. Afiya27 (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Afiya27: We're talking Lower Paleolithic, some 2 million years ago, about Homo ergaster/erectus and not about relatively recent migrations - see Homo_ergaster#Language regards Androstachys (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leads summarise facts from the rest of the article, so are often not sourced (see WP:LEAD). But if unsourced material is reasonably challenged it needs sourcing. So please provide sources: WP:V is policy. Fences&Windows 03:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add a source! If you know it's true, it shouldn't be hard for you to find one. Stop just insisting it's true when I'm directly challenging the statement: the onus is on you to verify it, see WP:BURDEN. Fences&Windows 04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Homo_ergaster#Language Androstachys (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anything specifically connecting language to the migration? Otherwise this is improper synthesis. Fences&Windows 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.onthewing.org/user/Sci_Journey%20of%20Man.pdf "Other possible triggers for the burst of migration 45,000 years ago include an increase in population, which spurred competition and innovation; a change in diet, with consumption of more meat and fish; the acquisition of language; and climate change." It is almost axiomatic that language, whether gestural or oral, would have to reach a certain level of development to allow the elaborate preparation and planning necessary for an extended journey. The figure of 45,000 years as a tentative guess for language is hopelessly cautious in the light of known much older dates for the migration of early man out of Africa. Androstachys (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Axiomatic" ain't how we do things on Wikipedia. What might seem 'obvious' to you still needs sourcing. Your source doesn't even connect H. erectus migration to language, you're making a leap unsupported by the source, which is WP:SYNTH. Please read the Wikipedia policies WP:V and WP:OR again. Besides, I already found a book from 2001 that linked language in H. erectus to migration, it's cited in the lead. Fences&Windows 00:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Axiomatic" is a great deal stronger than the "possible", "probable", "suggested" and "likely" that litter the article. You should be aware that anthropology by its very nature abounds in speculation, surmise and conjecture. There is almost no hard evidence. But that is not to say that it is the stamping ground of idiots - all ideas are closely scrutinised, mostly by intelligent minds, and may face a lot of adverse criticism and fine-tuning before being accepted. Androstachys (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wow great debate ..both sides have very valid views..i am a retired Archaeogenetics and do agree that language enabled our ancestors to leave Africa, however the reason for the migration is most likely due to climate change that resulted in loss of subsistence. This forced migration to find food, as most of Africa became a desert. Anyways dont wish to add anything to the article, but you guys might like to watch this documentary that talks about this topic -->Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (movie) - by Spencer Wells - PBS and National Geographic Channel, 2003 - 120 Minutes, UPC/EAN: 841887001267 --> that is based on this book -->Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (book) - by Spencer Wells - Princeton University Press, 2002 (Digitised online by Google Books), ISBN 0812971469.....Buzzzsherman (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that there are 2 key challenges here, both of which I agree with. The first is that linguists, as a rule, do not agree that hominids had what we call "language" much more than 100,000 years ago at the outside. While they may have had a rudimentary form of language more complex than typical systems of animal communication, it most likely was not, according to general consensus (if anyone doesn't want to take my word for this, which is perfectly reasonable, I can provide some specific references), modern human language. So there's the issue of the 1.8 million year date associated with "language". The second issue is that from looking over the discussion, there doesn't seem to be a consensus among anthropologists that this breakthrough in language (if we assume language was present 1.8 million years ago) was the impetus for human migration from Africa. I would propose at the very least softening the claim regarding language. At least in linguistics, when the word "language" is used, it is used to mean fully complex, infinitely recombinatory modern human language. I guarantee that you will find no linguist that claims that this type of language was in use 1.8 million years ago. However, if the claim is merely that around this time there was a paradigm shift in human communication that gave it something unique, like spatial and temporal displacement (the ability to refer to things at times and places other than those of the utterance time, a feature not shared with animal communication), then I think the current claim is fine as is, but probably needs some sort of parenthetical clarification. JohnDillinger43 —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

WTF??[edit]

The following sentence is simply not intelligible, and I was unable to fix it. Can someone who is an authority on the subject AND a native speaker of English please do so?

"Recent genetic studies suggest that Australia and New Guinea were populated by one single migration from Asia as opposed to several waves,in these single migration a population which had split from the ancestral Eurasian population, before Asians and Europeans split each other, reach Australia and Melanesia between 62,000 and 75,000 years before present, the descendants of the earlier migration became assimilated or replaced by the later dispersing populations from the next migration waves, with a few exceptions that include Aboriginals Australians and other related populations like Papuans."

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.21.139 (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of Exit from Africa[edit]

Comment on 2/16/2019 - The first sentence in the second paragraph states "Within Africa, Homo sapiens dispersed around the time of its speciation, roughly 300,000 years ago.[1] " A Google search shows most people think anatomically modern homo sapiens didn't even exist until 200,000 years ago. This sentence merits clarification to distinguish between the two (h. sapien vs. anatomically modern homo sapien). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.103.189 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Modern humans, Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa up to 200,000 years ago and reached the Near East around 125,000 years ago.[3] "

This sentence is sourced from one article in Science News (in turn citing a Science article) but as per the article in Science News is 65K years earlier than the "generally accepted date". I am ok to use the information somewhere, but feel the intro should refer to the generally accepted date. Skates61 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the date had some additional support on the Qafzeh and Skhul remains and now with the findings at Oman and United Arab Emirates, as well at Zhirendong, South China, 125.000 years ago seems an acceptable date. I added some data in order to justify the date on the Exodus from Africa section. Of course, these previous dispersions don't affect the consensual existence of the main one in genetic terms that took place about 60.000 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empirista (talk • contribs) 01:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cro Magnon in Europe[edit]

The maps are cruelly outdated, since we have the Oasis-3 human from the Peștera cu Oase in Rumania, dated to an age of 40 ka.[43] HJJHolm (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which map specifically is cruel?
The section needs a massage, since we have heading "Europe" then three paragraphs, then "Cro-Magnon in Europe". Since this section is about H. sapiens (read: Cro-Magnon), then the sub-section is not needed. Pre-humans are covered in earlier section. Kortoso (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

non-ethnic[edit]

"Current (as of 2010) genetic evidence suggests interbreeding took place with Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) between roughly 80,000 to 50,000 years ago in the Middle East, resulting in non-ethnic sub-Saharan Africans having no Neanderthal DNA and Caucasians and Asians having between 1% and 4% Neanderthal DNA.[42]"

What's the non doing there? Shouldn't it be ethnic sub-Saharan Africans to make sense?

Homo Erectus migrating to Flores ~900k YBP?[edit]

[4] 76.10.128.192 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MRCA and Mitochondrial Eve[edit]

« The most recent common ancestor shared by all living human beings, dubbed Mitochondrial Eve, probably lived roughly 120–150 millennia ago ». I'm not an expert, but this seems to contradict Mitochondrial Eve#Not_the_most_recent_ancestor_shared_by_all_humans. 46.193.142.60 (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Early human migrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early human migrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of Exit from Africa[edit]

I can't see any cite for this:

"When modern humans reached the Near East 125,000 years ago, evidence suggests they retreated back to Africa, as their settlements were replaced by Neanderthals"

- particularly the second half:

"As their settlements were replaced by Neanderthals."

I've added a cite that partly supports the first half of this sentence, but suggests it's not conclusively proven. Perhaps one of the other cites in the article supports this and it's just a case of adding a duplicate ref here? I couldn't see which one though. So added a "Citations needed" tag for now. Robert Walker (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Early human migrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing section "Significant Migration of Two Kinds of Living Humans"[edit]

Tacked onto the end of the article is a section called "Significant Migration of Two Kinds of Living Humans", which tries to cover the history of the Americas from 50kya to Columbus. The only part that actually covers Holocene migration (the parent section) is this:

There were only a handful of families that searched for warmer land in the Americas. With their quest and hunter-gathering skills, they reached what is known today as Mesoamerica.

The section is also written in a style that seems more appropriate to a primary school textbook than an encyclopedia.

Most of the sources are things like the Britannica article on Columbus and the homepage of the National Archives, with the exception of one potentially interesting article (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-americans-lived-on-bering-land-bridge-for-thousands-of-years/).

I'm not sure if there is anything to say about New World migrations after 12kya. If there is, it should probably be grouped with the Caribbean section. But there's nothing relevant in this paragraph, so I'm removing it. --157.131.201.206 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Science[edit]

what were the waves in which ancient man used to move 47.15.249.21 (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories