Traces of Europe's Earliest Modern Humans Discovered in Russia

[Austrvegr]

Earliest evidence of modern humans in Europe discovered by international team
Stone, bone and ivory artifacts may date back 45,000 years

Modern humans who first arose in Africa had moved into Europe as far back as about 45,000 years ago, according to a new study by an international research team led by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

The evidence consists of stone, bone and ivory tools discovered under a layer of ancient volcanic ash on the Don River in Russia some 250 miles south of Moscow, said John Hoffecker, a fellow of CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. Thought to contain the earliest evidence of modern humans in Europe, the site also has yielded perforated shell ornaments and a carved piece of mammoth ivory that appears to be the head of a small human figurine, which may represent the earliest piece of figurative art in the world, he said.

"The big surprise here is the very early presence of modern humans in one of the coldest, driest places in Europe," Hoffecker said. "It is one of the last places we would have expected people from Africa to occupy first."

A paper by Michael Anikovich and Andrei Sinitsyn of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Hoffecker, and 13 other researchers was published in the Jan. 12 issue of Science.

The excavation took place at Kostenki, a group of more than 20 sites along the Don River that have been under study for many decades. Kostenki previously has yielded anatomically modern human bones and artifacts dating between 30,000 and 40,000 years old, including the oldest firmly dated bone and ivory needles with eyelets that indicate the early inhabitants were tailoring animal furs to help them survive the harsh climate.

Most of the stone used for artifact construction was imported from between 60 miles and 100 miles away, while the perforated shell ornaments discovered at the lowest levels of the Kostenki dig were imported from the Black Sea more than 300 miles away, he said. "Although human skeletal remains in the earliest level of the excavation are confined to isolated teeth, which are notoriously difficult to assign to specific human types, the artifacts are unmistakably the work of modern humans," Hoffecker said.

The sediment overlying the artifacts was dated by several methods, including an analysis of an ash layer deposited by a monumental volcanic eruption in present-day Italy about 40,000 years ago, Hoffecker said. The researchers also used optically stimulated luminescence dating -- which helps them determine how long ago materials were last exposed to daylight -- as well as paleomagnetic dating based on known changes in the orientation and intensity of Earth's magnetic field and radiocarbon calibration.

Anatomically modern humans are thought to have arisen in sub-Saharan Africa around 200,000 years ago.

Kostenki also contains evidence that modern humans were rapidly broadening their diet to include small mammals and freshwater aquatic foods, an indication they were "remaking themselves technologically," he said. They may have used traps and snares to catch hares and arctic foxes, exploiting large areas of the environment with relatively little energy. "They probably set out their nets and traps and went home for lunch," he said.

While there is some evidence Neanderthals once occupied the plains of Eastern Europe, they seem to have been scarce or absent there during the last glacial period when modern humans arrived, he said. The lack of competitors like the Neanderthals might have been the chief attraction to the area and the reason why modern humans first entered this part of Europe, Hoffecker said.

"Unlike the Neanderthals, modern humans had the ability to devise new technologies for coping with cold climates and less than abundant food resources," he said. "The Neanderthals, who had occupied Europe for more than 200,000 years, seem to have left the back door open for modern humans. "

The ivory artifact believed to be the head of a small figurine, discovered during the 2001 field season, was broken and perhaps never was finished by the person who began crafting it more than 40,000 years ago, said Hoffecker. "This is a really interesting piece," he said. "If confirmed, it will be the oldest example of figurative art ever discovered."

Buried under 10 feet to 15 feet of silt, the artifacts at Kostenki include blades, scrapers, drills and awls, as well as sturdy antler digging tools known as mattocks that resemble crude pick-axes, he said. Mattocks have been found at other Old World sites and the arctic and were used to dig large pits for the storage of foods and fuel, although traces of such pits have yet to turn up at the lowest levels of Kostenki, he said.

Large animal remains at Kostenki include mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, bison, horses, moose and reindeer. A bone chemistry analysis from 30,000-year-old human remains indicates a high consumption of freshwater aquatic foods -- either water birds, fish, or both -- more evidence for efficient food gathering techniques, he said.

Except for some early sites in the Near East, the oldest evidence modern humans outside of Africa comes from the Australian continent roughly 50,000 years ago, said Hoffecker, who was awarded an honorary doctorate from the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2006. Several modern human sites in south-central Europe may be almost as old as Kostenki, he said.

Earliest evidence of modern humans in Europe discovered by international team

[Kernunnos]

i think th "out of Africa" theory will fade exactly as many others that have preceded it.

It is just exploited too much politically to be credible.

We are too different from the africans to be born out of the same stock, so soon in geological terms.

The proof we are so different are mostly evident to the eye, history shows it clearly too.

Genetics is in its infancy, while anthropology is based on too few datas to be taken as a science with absolute truths.

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Breha

i think th "out of Africa" theory will fade exactly as many others that have preceded it.

It is just exploited too much politically to be credible.

We are too different from the africans to be born out of the same stock, so soon in geological terms.

The proof we are so different are mostly evident to the eye, history shows it clearly too.

Genetics is in its infancy, while anthropology is based on too few datas to be taken as a science with absolute truths.

If Negroids and Europids did not come from the same branch, they could hardly procreate with each other.

Aswell according to the Y Chromosome haplogroups, all men in the world descend from the "Ethiopian Adam" who lived about 65,000 years ago.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Galaico

If Negroids and Europids did not come from the same branch, they could hardly procreate with each other.

Aswell according to the Y Chromosome haplogroups, all men in the world descend from the "Ethiopian Adam" who lived about 65,000 years ago.

yes, but there are so many evident racial differences that it is difficult sometimes even to speak of them and us as the same species.



There is something more primitive either in their build or in their way of walking, in their traits as well as in their mindsets, not to mention the intelligence quotient, that will point to some substantial genetical difference that simply has yet to be discovered.

Also, if a common ancestor is inferred, it is difficut to understand why it should be in Africa: the oldest skeletons so far found come from here, period.



We have so few of them.

[Racowie]

Originally Posted by Austrvegr

"The big surprise here is the very early presence of modern humans in one of the coldest, driest places in Europe," Hoffecker said. "It is one of the last places we would have expected people from Africa to occupy first."


Earliest evidence of modern humans in Europe discovered by international team

We can`t exclude possibility that climate (micro/macro) was different in time when those humans come to that region. So, their arrival maybe isn`t that much surprising in fact

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Breha

There is something more primitive either in their build or in their way of walking, in their traits as well as in their mindsets, not to mention the intelligence quotient, that will point to some substantial genetical difference that simply has yet to be discovered.

Maybe this genetical difference between Europeans, Asians and Africans is due to some interbreeding with the earliers Humans encountered out of Africa, like Neanderthal in Europe?

Originally Posted by Breha

Also, if a common ancestor is inferred, it is difficut to understand why it should be in Africa: the oldest skeletons so far found come from here, period.



We have so few of them.

True. The very dry climate helps conserving bone material, unlike the forestal soil. Do you know that you can't find an old African pygmee skeleton? The tropical forest's soil is so acid that the bones are dissolved in a few years, 50 tops. Nevertheless, the African origin of the Mankind seems likely. I would even embrace it, I explain why: We (evolved humans) had to break out of Africa (and adapt to other climates) to keep on progressing.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

Maybe this genetical difference between Europeans, Asians and Africans is due to some interbreeding with the earliers Humans encountered out of Africa, like Neanderthal in Europe?

No Neanderthal DNA has been (yet) found on modern human populations.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

No Neanderthal DNA has been (yet) found on modern human populations.

Yes, I know. Not yet. That's why I began my sentence with "maybe". I don't even think myself that interbreeding took place between Cromags and Neanderthals, unless some scientist comes up with a clear stunning proof.

[Menydh]

It did take place (interbreeding). But it was presumably unsuccessful.

This is what derives from the finding of the skeleton of a young individual in an excavation in Portugal, who had Neanderthal and Cromagnon genetic prints. He might have died young due to genetic disorders derived from the mixing, and it is speculated that even if one such union managed to succeed, the probabilities of reproducing further would be at a diminishing rate.

However, notice that while Paleo-Anthropology used to classify Modern Humans and Neanderthals as different species (Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis, respectively), nowadays this distinction is obsolete and today they are classified as of a same species: Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis.

[Savorgnan]

This case is very discussed. Some scientists say that the kid was not mixed. Young Neanderthals could have look quite gracile until they have fully developed. That's why some other scientists believe to see some interbreeding. If interbreeding took place, we know that usually hybrids are infertile. About knowing if Cromags and Neanderthals actually did make out, well, that's another question. I can imagine some ante letteram Stirpes members from the Stone Age displaying their anger about Cromag-Neanderthal couples (see the "Interracial couples" thread)...