Human jaw found in the Levant- 50K years older than ever found before

[Threegoofs]

“Teeth from a fossilized portion of a modern human upper jaw, c found in Israel’s Misliya Cave date to between 177,000 and 194,000 years old, which suggests that modern humans were present in the Levant at least 50,000 years earlier than previously thought.”

Modern Human Fossil in Israel Pushes Back Migration Dates - Archaeology Magazine

This may push back the timeline for human origins back a bit.

 

[Soopairik]

Thanks for sharing this interesting news.

 

[OldFatGuy]

A lot of date playing here by the media. I first read about this find a few years ago, in one of the Israeli newspapers, before any peer reviews were available. Look around, you'll find more than a few similar finds in areas of Europe, particularly Spain, Europe, and most recently the British Isles, the Russian steppes, various parts of China, even in South and Central America, with dating analysis reaching as far back as 400k years ago. Questions, of course about dating methods, since these finds challenge the currently popular out of Africa theories and a rigid archeological and anthropological status quo. No one is venturing a guess about human remains, modern human remains found recently in Australia, possibility dating back 300k years, well before any known migrations to the subcontinent can be established.

Unfortunately, our theorists are stuck with evidence that has been found, not found yet doesn't enter the equations. But it looks like the the out of Africa theories may be biting the dust, along with the concept of a single common progenitor species. Denisovans comes to mind, how many others we haven't begun to speculate about as we develop better DNA and now RNA analytical tools. It may well come to a point whereby we no longer need to rely on fossil finds, there may be living evidence. Sheer speculation now, may become meatier with more time passing.

It was believed that the Gaelic language was imported to Eire. Recent linguistic theory is beginning to show the opposite. While the Romans invented the Celts to explain those they found in lands they conquered and make for a common culturally united enemy, and historians along with linguists traced the language back to India when East Indian Company troops found bagpipe players in northern India, and Gaelic speaking Irish travelers to the Pyrenees found they could easily understand some of the Basque languages. More recent examination of the cultural paths show the cultural migration may have been reversed for political reasons, and in fact the cultural migration may have started is Eire, export both northeasterly and southerly. The Etruscans who the Romans absorbed as second citizens of Rome (the first citizens actually a bunch of Greeks from Asia Minor), were Celts by Roman definition.

Recent examinations of the Catalan language showing it is not related to Spanish, vulgar Latin spoken by the Romans who colonised the Tarragona area along with recognizable Gaelic words and phrases, but more important Gaelic speaking rhythms, indicate, along with other "forgotten, not so forgotten" much older Iberian and southern French languages indicated evidence of that Gaelic migration.

"I'm so confused." Vinnie Barbarino

Perhaps even a reason to re-examine your signature line, "there's more to the apple than meets the mind at first look." Here we have a lesson about the superficial pondering of mankind, use it.

 

[Threegoofs]

A lot of date playing here by the media. I first read about this find a few years ago, in one of the Israeli newspapers, before any peer reviews were available. Look around, you'll find more than a few similar finds in areas of Europe, particularly Spain, Europe, and most recently the British Isles, the Russian steppes, various parts of China, even in South and Central America, with dating analysis reaching as far back as 400k years ago. Questions, of course about dating methods, since these finds challenge the currently popular out of Africa theories and a rigid archeological and anthropological status quo. No one is venturing a guess about human remains, modern human remains found recently in Australia, possibility dating back 300k years, well before any known migrations to the subcontinent can be established.

Unfortunately, our theorists are stuck with evidence that has been found, not found yet doesn't enter the equations. But it looks like the the out of Africa theories may be biting the dust, along with the concept of a single common progenitor species. Denisovans comes to mind, how many others we haven't begun to speculate about as we develop better DNA and now RNA analytical tools. It may well come to a point whereby we no longer need to rely on fossil finds, there may be living evidence. Sheer speculation now, may become meatier with more time passing.

It was believed that the Gaelic language was imported to Eire. Recent linguistic theory is beginning to show the opposite. While the Romans invented the Celts to explain those they found in lands they conquered and make for a common culturally united enemy, and historians along with linguists traced the language back to India when East Indian Company troops found bagpipe players in northern India, and Gaelic speaking Irish travelers to the Pyrenees found they could easily understand some of the Basque languages. More recent examination of the cultural paths show the cultural migration may have been reversed for political reasons, and in fact the cultural migration may have started is Eire, export both northeasterly and southerly. The Etruscans who the Romans absorbed as second citizens of Rome (the first citizens actually a bunch of Greeks from Asia Minor), were Celts by Roman definition.

Recent examinations of the Catalan language showing it is not related to Spanish, vulgar Latin spoken by the Romans who colonised the Tarragona area along with recognizable Gaelic words and phrases, but more important Gaelic speaking rhythms, indicate, along with other "forgotten, not so forgotten" much older Iberian and southern French languages indicated evidence of that Gaelic migration.

"I'm so confused." Vinnie Barbarino

Perhaps even a reason to re-examine your signature line, "there's more to the apple than meets the mind at first look." Here we have a lesson about the superficial pondering of mankind, use it.

Glad to know you heard about this find several years ago when it was just described and published this week. :roll

I appreciated you leading with that though, because the decision to skip
The rest of your post was made much easier.

 

[RAMOSS]

“Teeth from a fossilized portion of a modern human upper jaw, c found in Israel’s Misliya Cave date to between 177,000 and 194,000 years old, which suggests that modern humans were present in the Levant at least 50,000 years earlier than previously thought.”

Modern Human Fossil in Israel Pushes Back Migration Dates - Archaeology Magazine

This may push back the timeline for human origins back a bit.

Not quite. What it will push back is the migration of modern humans out of Africa earlier, and it shows that the area that the modern human was living was wider and earlier than initially thought.

 

[Barnacle]

I read about the jaw bone find in Israel a few years ago and had always felt that it would finally throw out that nonsense about Africa being the cradle of civilization.
Had forgotten about it until it was mentioned here. Thanks for reminding me about it.

It took them 15 years to prepare, analyze and date the jaw bone. Fascinating.

 

[Soopairik]

Glad to know you heard about this find several years ago when it was just described and published this week. :roll

I appreciated you leading with that though, because the decision to skip
The rest of your post was made much easier.

He's a time traveler.

 

[cuban smokes]

but Adam & Eve showed up at the Discount Cinema just ~7K years ago; how does the math work?

 

[Somerville]

For those criticising the claims made by a couple of people in this thread; claims of hearing about the jawbone "15 years ago", it is possible they did hear or read about the initial finding. The jawbone was discovered in 2002, however it is only recently that the dating of the bone has been confirmed and the first academic paper was just published in the journal Science: The earliest modern humans outside Africa

Fossil Jawbone Discovered in Israel

Dr. Hawks (paleoanthropologist from the University of Wisconsin, Madison) and other researchers advised caution in interpreting the discovery. Although this ancient person may have shared some anatomical characteristics with present-day people, this “modern human” would have probably looked much different from anyone living in the world today.

“Early modern humans in many respects were not so modern,” said Jean-Jacques Hublin, director of the department of human evolution at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

Dr. Hublin said that by concluding the jawbone came from a “modern human,” the authors were simply saying that the ancient person was morphologically more closely related to us than to Neanderthals.

That does not mean that this person contributed to the DNA of anyone living today, he added. It is possible that the jawbone belonged to a previously unknown population of Homo sapiens that departed Africa and then died off.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Glad to know you heard about this find several years ago when it was just described and published this week. :roll

I appreciated you leading with that though, because the decision to skip
The rest of your post was made much easier.

Right, I forgot your literacy issue. The find was in 2002, the early dating tests, 2004. You need to keep up with things. And just so you know, Archeological Digest is like Popular Mechanics.

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/t/tabun+cave+israel

Same cave system. And as you can see, other finds started showing up in 1955.

https://slideheaven.com/the-middle-paleolithic-of-the-east-mediterranean-levant.html

Here's where I read about this find in 2003, but you'll have to wade through the 82 page paper, and you do have that self admitted literacy issue, again.

:lamo

 

[OldFatGuy]

Not quite. What it will push back is the migration of modern humans out of Africa earlier, and it shows that the area that the modern human was living was wider and earlier than initially thought.

Well, that is the anthropologic question of the moment, does the find support the out of Africa theory, or blow it out of the water? And other finds elsewhere are suggesting the latter.

You might want to start following some of the finds showing with the receding arctic ice cap. Evidence of advanced metal working predating existence of modern man as currently defined, refined jewelry finds dating back further, and plasticized ceramics we're just learning how to create today. Mind boggling, until some UFOlogist starts making a case. Then it's mind challenging.

Here's a goody not yet published in the west:

A team of anthropological archeologists working finds left by the receding permafrost in northeastern Russia, led by China, with participants from Russia, France, Italy and the US has recovered 12 matching, but differently decoratively carved, 32" long extremely carbonized steel swords, 3.4" wide at the pommel. Radiometric dating returns place the origin of the swords back 275-310k years ago. Analysis of the element composition is still ongoing. The team has made no suggestions about who might have created these swords, but they have expressed that other incongruous finds of worked metals, i.e. jewelry, at the same sites have yet to analyzed, including a Rhodium necklace. Rhodium has been mined from Russian nickel and platinum mines in the region. American Anthropological Association responded, "It must be a hoax." Of course no one from the American Anthropological Association has examined the swords or the yet to be analyzed jewelry.

BTW, we still don't have the precision tools for carving extreme high carbon steel decoratively. Extreme high carbons steel is prized for its flexibility, but use of lasers on EhC turns the metal brittle, meaning an item like a sword made from EhC modified with a laser will break during use.

Me, I know nothing and draw no conclusions.

 

[OldFatGuy]

I read about the jaw bone find in Israel a few years ago and had always felt that it would finally throw out that nonsense about Africa being the cradle of civilization.
Had forgotten about it until it was mentioned here. Thanks for reminding me about it.

It took them 15 years to prepare, analyze and date the jaw bone. Fascinating.

I am impressed. An open mind.

But the theory was and is not that Africa is the cradle of civilization, rather that it is the cradle of humanity as a species. And that may still be the case. There is too much that we don't know. Regardless, theories are not facts.

 

[Soopairik]

I am impressed. An open mind.

But the theory was and is not that Africa is the cradle of civilization, rather that it is the cradle of humanity as a species. And that may still be the case. There is too much that we don't know. Regardless, theories are not facts.

But theories are widely tested and use evidence.

 

[OldFatGuy]

But theories are widely tested and use evidence.

And year after year, long accepted theories are blown out of the water by new theories.

We attempt to make the best of what we've got. Doesn't warrant being correct or mistaken.

Even after proving his theories were functional, Alexander Graham Bell was confronted by criticism from the then president of Western Union, who claimed men would never want to speak to each other over wires. Obviously, the man knew nothing of women. Prior to germ theory, surgeons saw no reason to wash their hands, and followed the general theory prevalent in Europe, bathing could make you sick. Everyone knew night vapors were the cause of diseases.
Please pass me that bottle of hand sanitizer. We're still most likely to contract sepsis infections on battlefields and in hospitals, especially the latter.

Diabetes is a disease. Modern theory says no, diabetes is a collective definition of symptoms which may or may not have common cause and therefore it is not a disease.

Modern research shows the brain manufactures a form of insulin which plays no known role for blood sugar metabolization control. No one yet understands the function of this form of insulin. Do you have a explanative theory?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Where something very old is found does not prove that it originated where it was found. For example, one can now find very old things, in museums, attics and basements all over the world, that did not originate there. Finding human remains in a cave does not mean that you have found evidence of a "cave man" any more than finding human remains under ground means that you have found a "mole man". What cannot be answered by finding something old is how or when it got to where you found it.

 

[Threegoofs]

Where something very old is found does not prove that it originated where it was found. For example, one can now find very old things, in museums, attics and basements all over the world, that did not originate there. Finding human remains in a cave does not mean that you have found evidence of a "cave man" any more than finding human remains under ground means that you have found a "mole man". What cannot be answered by finding something old is how or when it got to where you found it.

Ever heard of radiocarbon dating?

It’s gonna blow your mind.

And this phenomenon of having things ‘moved’ is well understood by archeologists. That’s why they carefully categorize everything about the place and manner of discovery of a specimen- dating the objects found nearby, looking at the consistency of the layers above and below.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ever heard of radiocarbon dating?

It’s gonna blow your mind.

And this phenomenon of having things ‘moved’ is well understood by archeologists. That’s why they carefully categorize everything about the place and manner of discovery of a specimen- dating the objects found nearby, looking at the consistency of the layers above and below.

I understand that point, as well, which is why it normally takes multiple similar finds to make that call. Again, the assumption was that a single human part found in that single cave indicated that humans lived in the area rather than a portion of the remains of a fossilized, long dead, single human may have been transported to that location.

 

[Threegoofs]

I understand that point, as well, which is why it normally takes multiple similar finds to make that call. Again, the assumption was that a single human part found in that single cave indicated that humans lived in the area rather than a portion of the remains of a fossilized, long dead, single human may have been transported to that location.

It’s possible that could happen, but there’s lots of checks on that. Are other objects nearby dated to a different time? Is the strata consistent with the date? Etc.

They did this in the paper. That’s one reason it takes years to publish findings.

The earliest modern humans outside Africa | Science

 

[ttwtt78640]

It’s possible that could happen, but there’s lots of checks on that. Are other objects nearby dated to a different time? Is the strata consistent with the date? Etc.

They did this in the paper. That’s one reason it takes years to publish findings.

The earliest modern humans outside Africa | Science

Israel is just barely out of Africa but OK.

 

[PoS]

Unfortunately, our theorists are stuck with evidence that has been found, not found yet doesn't enter the equations. But it looks like the the out of Africa theories may be biting the dust, along with the concept of a single common progenitor species.

Not at all. The out of Africa theory is still the general accepted human origin theory in the scientific community. The real answer lies in DNA sequencing based on people from across the world points out to a single origin of the species, not on who discovered what in a cave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Dispersal_of_modern_Homo_sapiens

 

[Threegoofs]

Israel is just barely out of Africa but OK.

True to some extent... but back then, if you had humans in Israel, they probably spread further - there wasn’t the desert conditions we see today in Mesopotamia.

 

[OldFatGuy]

True to some extent... but back then, if you had humans in Israel, they probably spread further - there wasn’t the desert conditions we see today in Mesopotamia.

Baloney. The Romans cited the Negev has a waterless Hades on earth. Ancient Babylonian steles refer to the Negev as the "home of desert vipers, enemies of men."

From Josephus's Book of Antiquities (XI, 321-47) we know Alexander sacrificed at the Temple in Jerusalem and abandoned conquering the "deserts of Israel."

Here, I did your research for you:

https://books.google.com/books?id=V...ge&q=Book of Antiquities (XI, 321-47)&f=false

See, literacy can work wonders of knowledge, but I'm wasting my breath on you.

 

[Threegoofs]

Baloney. The Romans cited the Negev has a waterless Hades on earth. Ancient Babylonian steles refer to the Negev as the "home of desert vipers, enemies of men."

From Josephus's Book of Antiquities (XI, 321-47) we know Alexander sacrificed at the Temple in Jerusalem and abandoned conquering the "deserts of Israel."

Here, I did your research for you:

https://books.google.com/books?id=V...ge&q=Book of Antiquities (XI, 321-47)&f=false

See, literacy can work wonders of knowledge, but I'm wasting my breath on you.

Not sure if you’re aware, but the Romans and ancient Babylonians came a bit later. Like 100,000 years later.

But thanks so much for the information.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Not at all. The out of Africa theory is still the general accepted human origin theory in the scientific community. The real answer lies in DNA sequencing based on people from across the world points out to a single origin of the species, not on who discovered what in a cave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Dispersal_of_modern_Homo_sapiens

Never trust a wicki.

But let's examine your statement. "The out of Africa theory is still the general accepted..." No question, this is the case. However, as greater evidence keeps popping up with new finds, the theory is finding it is being faced with challenges from alternate theories. "Acceptance" is the status quo. With more recent findings, earlier than those found in Africa, now found in predominantly in Asia, northeastern and Iberian Europe, doubt of the accepted theory grows. As one proponent of the Out of Africa theory suggested the find in question by the OP, was evident of an earlier form of modern man that left Africa and died out prior to affecting our DNA. However, that is in defense of the status quo, what he has based his career upon, and there is nothing to suggest his interpretation is correct. In other words, we don't have enough data yet to rely on about DNA, the efficaciousness of DNA antiquity tracing, and now the field is clouded by theories of greater accuracy of date time lining by using RNA residue for time line traces. Back to "We don't know, theory is not fact."

We easily forget how recent the "out of Africa" theory is. Starting with OoA hypothesis of modern human origins emerging in the mid-1980s, from paleoanthropologists such as Günter Bräuer in Germany, and others who established the groundwork over the previous 100 years or so. But in laymen's terms, and there has been debate for and against in support of a single progenitor species OoA, as opposed by multiple progenitor species regionally developed. The question to be determined, which came first the chicken or the egg? Did the evidence supporting OoA lead to regional forks, or did the multiple regional forks merge into a single species? The Chinese Dani research (i.e. The still unconfirmed by physical finds rather than interpolating by DNA links the theoretical Denisovans population) is suggesting the OoA is mistaken, and it is gaining greater support within the archeological anthropological communities. Now we have a further clouding of the issue with the technically new basis of RNA data and date tracing. An accomplishment that didn't exist as reliable a mere 5 years ago, now suggesting greater accuracy than DNA tracing.

All this means, is once again, conclusions are premature. With as little as I know, I'd be thrilled with a red lollipop when I leave the barber's shop. I don't like the green ones.

I like to keep in mind, the majority of the scientific community still doubts global warming. And those of us who realize the majority of the scientific community knows no more about climatology than the average shoemaker, we say, hogwash to the scientific community at large.

Should you ever come across the opportunity to examine any Encyclopedia published in the US during the 1920's or before, for commentaries from the American scientific community regarding racial purity and definitions as supported by evolution, do so. You'll be shaking your head for months afterwards, asking yourself how so many smart people could be so stupid? Not much different from today's wicki's.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Not sure if you’re aware, but the Romans and ancient Babylonians came a bit later. Like 100,000 years later.

But thanks so much for the information.

Of course, but we use what we have. Israel was never a tropical paradise. Just not enough ground water. Do want me to start showing you geological findings? You can do that on your own, too boring for me. There's plenty of evidence, geological evidence, that the Negev was a desert more than 500k years ago.