Talk:Early expansions of hominins out of Africa

Google maps routes

Can someone give me Google Maps files with the routes or tell me how to make them? I know the interface but not the details for things like this. Thanks, 205.222.248.69 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the routes are not known. All we have is a handful of sites and the debate is open on how to connect them. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Rename to "Archaic human expansions out of Africa"

"Out of Africa I" is a specialist shorthand that can be misleading because it suggests there was one single pre-modern wave out of Africa rather than several. I am renaming this page to a more descriptive title: "Archaic human expansions out of Africa". Nicolas Perrault (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Renamed again to "Early hominin expansions out of Africa". Nicolas Perrault (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I notice this page has been renamed to "Early human expansions out of Africa". Presumably this was done because the phrase "Early hominin expansions" was taken to mean the migrations of "early hominins" out of Africa, whereas it was supposed to mean the early expansions out of Africa of hominins. To remove this ambiguity, I renamed the page, to "Early expansions of hominins out of Africa". I prefer the word "hominin" to "human", because the word "human" has its problems. According to the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of human evolution, it can be taken to mean at least two things.

1) Any representative of Homo sapiens in the 21st century sense (i.e. excluding Neanderthals). Equivalent to "Anatomically modern humans".

2) Any representative of Homo. In my experience, this meaning is more common.

In the phrase "Early human expansions out of Africa", it is meaning (2) that is meant, because there were no Homo sapiens before 300,000 years ago. Yet, even assuming everyone would understand meaning (2), meaning (2) is a problem because the oldest stone tools in Eurasia (2.12 mya, Shangcheng, China) now appear contemporary or slightly earlier to the earliest representatives of Homo in Africa (Homo habilis, 2.1 mya). Therefore, perhaps Australopithecines made these tools. Australopithecines are not in the Homo genus and are not, to my knowledge, called humans by anyone. This is why I renamed this article to "Early expansions of hominins out of Africa". Nicolas Perrault (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This was not the problem. The problem is that "hominin" refers chimpanzees, australopithecines, and humans, while this article is exclusively about Homo erectus. Why would you use "hominin" to refer to a class that consists exclusively of humans? The title suggests that we have info about australopithecine expansion out of Africa too, which we do not afaics. Might I suggest Dispersal of Homo erectus? Or Dispersal of archaic humans out of Africa? Or just Early expansion of Homo out of Africa, Early human expansion out of Africa? --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that "hominin" refers chimpanzees, australopithecines, and humans, while this article is exclusively about Homo erectus.
— User:Dbachmann 10:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe this is correct regarding chimpanzees. The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of human evolution defines hominins as an "informal or vernacular term for a specimen that belongs to a taxon within the tribe Hominini". It then defines Hominini as "[t]he tribe that includes modern humans and all the fossil taxa more closely related to modern humans than to any other living taxon."

Why would you use "hominin" to refer to a class that consists exclusively of humans?
— User:Dbachmann 10:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

My problem with using "human" is that Homo erectus are usually but not universally considered humans (see above).

Might I suggest Dispersal of Homo erectus? Or Dispersal of archaic humans out of Africa? Or just Early expansion of Homo out of Africa, Early human expansion out of Africa?
— User:Dbachmann 10:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

"Dispersal of Homo erectus" is a good name, but is not in line with the current "Out of Africa" orientation of this article. Yet I do understand that migrations of Homo erectus into southern Africa are of similar (if not greater) importance than migrations out of Africa. Why not create a new article with that title? We could merge it with this one later if there's significant overlap. I do like "Early expansion of Homo out of Africa", but that name would be biased if Homo evolved in Asia. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Date range

The first paragraph of the lede says that Out of Africa I lasted until 500,000 years ago. As far as I can tell, this is not supported by the reference. It also leaves a gap between 500 and 130 ka. I found a research paper from 2015 that says, "Out of Africa 1 refers to the early hominin dispersal prior to Homo sapiens." Title: Evaluation of Out of Africa hypotheses by means of agent-based modeling. (doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.022) Would this work? Zyxwv99 (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I used the 194,000 year date. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the division "OOA I" vs. "OOA II" is rapidly becoming obsolete as more and more "waves" are discovered. We used to think there were two major events, one at 2 Ma, the other at 70 ka. Now it looks like there was a constant to-and-fro between Africa and Eurasia to the point where it becomes arbitrary what you would count as a "wave". Graecopithecus suggests that this was ongoing before we can even talk of hominins, let alone humans.

It appears to me that it has transpired for some time now that the true geographic boundary relevant to human evolution isn't between Africa and Eurasia, but between East/North Africa plus Eurasia on one hand and West, Central and South Africa on the other: the deepest temporal division between human populations is between South Africa and everyone else. Even West Africa has received trickles of back-migration during the Upper Paleolithic, while South Africa seems to have remained practically isolated.

I do not want to impose my own conclusions on the article, but it is also misleading to keep using dated literature that present as consensus things that no longer represent current knowledge. At the very least we will need a recent review of what has changed over the last decade or so. --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs an update. Feel free to work on it as you see fit. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to look around for a good review of recent developments. As far as I can see, everything is uncertain at this point:

• the pre-2.1 Ma dispersal to Asia by a possibly Australopithecine or early H. habilis raises the question whether Homo itself may have developed in Asia
• the location of the emergence of H. erectus 2 Ma is completely open now. May have been East Asia, may have been the Caucasus, or may have been Africa.
• the emergence of H. heidelbergensis 0.8 Ma is completely open, may have been Africa, may have been Western Eurasia
• the derivation of H. sapiens before 0.3 Ma is compeltely open, may have been East Africa, may have been North Africa, may have been West Asia.

the general picture is that there was constant contact between North/East Africa and West Asia, not so much "waves" as constant genetic drift, to the point where it becomes meaningless to ask the "Asia vs. Africa" question because the habitat of these species seems to have been pretty much "transcontinental". --dab (𒁳) 14:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not necessarily agree that it becomes meaningless to ask the "Asia vs. Africa" question. The only assumption in the title of the article is that the most recent chimpanzee-human ancestor, and therefore the earliest hominin, lived in Africa. Maybe Homo did develop in Asia and maybe there were Australopithecines in Asia. Still, Australopithecines are hominins and either they, their descendants, or their hominin ancestors seem to have moved out of Africa. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this, it does not become "meaningless", but there will be a need for precision, is the "Asia vs. Africa" question under discussion that pertaining to (a) Hominini, (b) Australopithecus, (c) Homo, (d) Homo habilis, (e) Homo erectus, (f) Homo heidelbergensis, (g) Homo sapiens. Each of these seven questions is both meaningful and distinct from the others. --dab (𒁳) 10:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be something of the kind I was looking for,

• E.M.L. Scerri; et al. (2018), "Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations across Africa, and Why Does It Matter?", Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 33 (8): 582–594, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2018.05.005 {{citation}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

--dab (𒁳) 06:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Homo erectus new.JPG

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

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

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

• Homo habilis-2.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

• Homo erectus new.JPG (discussion)
• Homo habilis-2.JPG (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

New theory out in Dec. 2020: Homo left Africa as erectus and came back as sapiens sapiens

− This study showed that Eurasia was not the receiver but the donor in Hss evolution. The findings that Homo left Africa as erectus and returned as sapiens sapiens constitute a change in the understanding of Hs evolution to one that conforms to the extensive Eurasian record of Hs palaeontology and archaeology.

− Reference: Árnason Ú, Hallström B. (2020). The reversal of human phylogeny: Homo left Africa as erectus, came back as sapiens sapiens. Hereditas. 2020 Dec 19;157(1):51. Xatnoc (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That paper would seem to be WP:UNDUE since it's a theory radically at odds with the mainstrean consensus, as well as likely WP:FRINGE for similar reasons (and very new, see WP:RECENTISM). Some aspects of WP:REDFLAG seem also to apply, mainly the first and fourth (see the redflag link). The author, Ulfur Arnason has advanced a similar theory/similar paper before, since at least 2016-2017 (see here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378111917305176 ) seemingly still with few to no expert citations. Also, the authors are not specialists in human genetics, archaeology, or paleontology; Arnason apparently is a neuroscientist (affiliated with the Department of Brain Surgery) but has published papers on non-human genetics (also outside of his field of expertise).

From WP:FRINGE: "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter." Skllagyook (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Do not judge the credibility of authors solely by the affiliation they have. The main reason why he is affiliated with the Dept. of Brain Surgery is that Arnasson (which is a retired professor since ca. 2006) publicly criticized his own Faculty's behaviour after a financial crisis. The Faculty chose to solve the problem with the financial crisis by dismissing several professors, instead of going deeper and analyze the real problems. As a consequence of his public criticism, the Faculty of Science removed his Emeritus status from him which in 2009 was an unjustified step, meticulously narrated in Nature https://www.nature.com/news/2009/090624/full/4591040b.html. As a consequence, the Faculty of Medicine affiliated him, aided by a friend who was the Head of the Brain Surgery Dept. Simple, but apparently misleading for the community! As a matter of fact, Ulfur Arnasson DOES have a long-standing record in Genetics and Evolution, just google him. His newest article is just an article of the unpleasant kind, because it challenges, based on solid grounds, the current theory, now to be revised.Xatnoc (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Xatnoc: The authors do not seem to have much of a record in human evolution, human paleontology, or human population genetics/do not seem to be notable in that/those area(s) (with most work instead being on non-human or medical biology, especially, in Arnason's case, the study of marine mammals). But there are other issues with the source than that. Please read the rest of my reply above (and see the blue links). Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Poor soul: you need independent reliable sources to discuss the relationship of theories and for a truth to become true. NB: the current OAAH theory still lacks proofs, as Arnasson also noted: " The hypothesis became gradually a mainstay in the discussion of human evolution and dispersal in spite of the absence of palaeontological support for it and the circumstance that reanalysis of the data [3,4,5] did not favour the phylogenies that constituted the foundation for the OOAH". The fact that nobody questioned a theory which itself is based on speculative grounds and lacking hard evidence does not automatically mean that it is correct. It rather means that scientists were either lazy and frugal not questioning a theory because a "pope" proclaimed it, or it was technically impossible to proof or disprove it. And if time proceeds, in our case 20 years, everybody believes the theory, as there was no objection, hence it must be correct.

I would not blame the authors that they do not have a record in human evolution. It suffices here to master the technique of performing a progressive phylogenetic analysis (PPA), a technique that everybody trained in phylogenetical analyses can do, irrespective of the species to be analyzed. If nobody dares to publish a finding because the result does not conform a current theory, is a poor testimony for science. Here, we have a beautiful example of how science should be: publish an unpleasant article to start a discussion and that is how I also wish to see the procedure in this platform called Wikipedia.Xatnoc (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

We need to wait for that discussion to happen before we can include this on Wikipedia. It's an exceptional claim that requires more than just a single primary source. – Joe (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Just piping up to agree that Skllagyook and Joe Roe are entirely correct here. This paper is an almost perfect illustration of why we have policies like WP:DUE and guidelines like WP:FRINGE. In response to Xatnoc's "Poor soul" comment, which reveals a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia's editorial process, I would also suggest they check out the essay WP:TRUTH. Generalrelative (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Misleading picture

The first map describes the expansion of Erectus, Neanderthalensis and Sapiens, but only Sapiens have dates on the map. This may be misleading. Could an expert include aprox. dates for Erectus and Neanderthals? Thanks! Declamados (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)