I sat down on the wooden bench to survey the autumnal scene. It was a sunny afternoon and freshly fallen leaves were scattered across the grass. Jim sat slightly slumped at the other end with his eyes closed. I wasn’t sure whether he knew I was there. He wasn’t asleep – I think he was meditating.
“I’ve been reading about evolution in the library”, he said. “About the Out of Africa theory, … and I’ve spotted an anomaly”.
“According to the Out of Africa theorists, we Homo sapiens sapiens, you know modern man, first evolved in Africa, and more than this, they claim we first evolved in Southern Africa before spreading north about 100,000 years ago and eventually eastwards into Asia and North West into Europe.”
“Yep, that’s what they say”, I replied.
“They also claim that the most defining difference between modern man and the archaic races that came before us is that Homo sapiens sapiens are so much more creative than archaic Homo.”
“The anthropologists point to evidence of more sophisticated stone tool technologies, the use of bone and wooden tools, needles to sew, fishing hooks, barbed harpoons, stone tipped arrows and the production of carvings, statuettes, and cave paintings. These are many of the things that differentiated the culture of Homo sapiens sapiens from that of archaic Homo who came before us all those many thousands of years ago.”
“Yes, and your point is …?” I asked getting a little impatient.
“Don’t’ rush me,” Jim retorted, placing his hand on my forearm. “You see, ever since the Upper Paleolithic, about 40,000 years ago, our ancestors, the ancestors of us European peoples and to a less marked degree the ancesters of the Oriental peoples, have steadily built up a technological lead over the peoples of the rest of the world, most especially over the peoples of Africa.”
“I can see that”, I nodded in agreement, but what’s your point?”
“Well, if Homo sapiens sapiens evolved first in Southern Africa and cultural creativity is the defining characteristic of Homo sapiens sapiens, how come all the people that stayed behind in the ‘Cradle of Humanity’ as they call it, suddenly forgot how to be creative after our ancestors had migrated away?”
“That’s a good point” I nodded again.
“You see, from the Upper Paleolithic onwards, it was Europe and to a lesser extent Asia and the Mediterranean coast of North Africa that have been the most culturally creative areas of the world, while the people that remained in sub-Saharan Africa remained culturally in the stone age until they came under the influence of European and Arab explorers in more recent times.”
“It doesn’t make sense that the people who are supposed to have originated creativity and who one would expect to have been creative the longest, should have inexplicably lost that creative gift, while only those people that migrated north of the Sahara and eventually out of Africa retained their creative ability and went on to develop higher culture and the sciences.”
“You’re right”, I said, “It doesn’t make sense, unless of course, Homo sapiens sapiens didn’t originate in sub-Saharan Africa and originated somewhere north of there instead?”
“Or unless, despite anatomically modern Homo sapiens having evolved first in sub-Saharan Africa, the evolutionary threshold taking our ancesters to a new level of inventiveness and creativity, the Homo sapiens sapiens threshold, was not passed until our ancestors had migrated out of Africa?”
“The truth will be established one day”, Jim quipped and standing to stretch his legs, he then waved goodbye and wandered off.
####
by Max Musson © 2013
frederickdixon
- Edit
I think your penultimate paragraph has it nearly right. The people who remained in Africa were and are certainly H.Sapiens and had therefore passed the H.Sapiens “threshold”. However, the creativity which distinguishes Sapiens from other humans was not very marked until a quantum leap in evolution occurred, probably in India and probably about 60,000 years ago. The people then in southern India were the ancestors of the Australoid sub-species which, wherever it is still found (including among tribal peoples in southern India), shows little more capacity for advancement than the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa.
But it is thought that the quantum leap occurred among a group of Australoids which had wandered northwards into the colder climate of northern India in the last Ice Age – perhaps it was that change of environment which forced the change to higher intelligence, creativity, and foresight as a simple necessity for survival. As the descendants of that group spread out they evolved further and began to differentiate – those heading north-westwards towards Iran and the steppes of Central Asia became the Caucasoid sub-species; those heading north-eastwards became the ancestors of the Mongoloid sub-species. That split is thought to have happened about 40,000 ya.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Current thinking suggests that while we may have all originated from Africa it was only later that our individual racial characteristics evolved to what we have today. The interesting thing here is that, if true, the human species underwent a refining process by which we became more homogenous as we grew away from our more genetically diverse human clay.
Nick
- Edit
There is little doubt that the Bushman of the Kalahari desert (San people) are genetically the closest to the original Homo-sapien sapien in genetic makeup, and thus, the worlds Oldest Humans. It is also now known that all other modern humans have genetic markers from interbreeding with Neanderthals and probably other variants (eg Denisovians).
It is very likely that this interbreeding has resulted in a human type which was more adaptable to extreme environments (eg the cold northern europe), different diets (eg dairy products) and less dependance on hunter-gathering practices (temperate zones being more suitable for farming and static communities).
The San people were and are perfectly adapted to their environment, so have had no need to change. Evolution has resulted in ‘everyone else’ having these ‘mixed’ genes. Bear in mind that the original populations leaving Africa were extremely small – perhaps less than 100, and we can trace our maternal ancestor to maybe a handful of females around 60,000 years ago.
Max Musson
- Edit
I don’t think it can be established that the San are genetically the closest to the original Homo sapians sapiens and most indications are that the epicentre of human evolution was in Africa north of the Sahara, most likely north-east Africa.
The fate of the San demonstrates why ‘harmony’ with ones environment should never be the goal of humanity, as harmony heralds the end of selective pressures and with that evolutionary stagnation.
When Homo sapians sapiens first evolved, they will have expanded outwards; southwards and south-westwards to interbreed with and/or replace the pre-sapiens peoples that occupied sub-Saharan Africa; north and eastwards to interbreed with and/or replace the pre-sapiens (Homo erectus & Homo erectus pekinensis) relic populations of Asia, including the Denisovans; and northwards into Europe to interbreed with and/or replace Neanderthalers (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) who had already crossed the Homo sapiens threshold.
Evolution didn’t come from having ‘mixed genes’, evolution and the creativity that accompanied it, came from venturing into Europe and Northern Asia and the struggle to survive against the selective pressures imposed by the severe climatic conditions that existed during the Upper Palaeolithic.
Freidrich Nietzsche was correct when he declared, ‘that which does not kill me makes me stronger’.
learning things online
- Edit
To tell the truth it was a fantastic indepth article nevertheless like all wonderful writers there are a few items that could be worked well about. However never the particular less it absolutely was intriguing.