Welcome!

This blog provides a forum for presenting and discussing the latest findings relating to the ancient Indian Ocean, from archaeology, molecular genetics, historical linguistics and other disciplines. It takes a long-term view of the Indian Ocean region, exploring the processes that shaped its cultures, societies and environments from the Pleistocene to the historical period.

We welcome your ideas, inputs and views. Please provide news of relevent publications, conferences, meetings, and other events.

Saturday 25 September 2010

Stone tools 'change migration story'


A research team reports new findings of stone age tools that suggest humans came "out of Africa" by land earlier than has been thought.

Click here for the BBC story.

4 comments:

  1. I read it when published. And hence I have a direct question for you: why are you arguing for a land route when you also say that Jwalapuram industries cluster best with African MSA and not the Mousterian that H. sapiens used in Palestine or the Aterian used in North Africa? The Tropical or Southern African origin of the industries rather suggest a coastal route via South Arabia, as may be also supported by the genetic structure.

    Notice that I do agree with you in pushing back the timeline of the migration essentially because I give no credibility to molecular clock guesstimates, which are sometimes presented as "scientific evidence" but are in fact not much more than erudite speculations, which anyhow vary a lot depending on who you read. I agree in general, and specially in the issue of chronology, with the primacy of well-tested archaeological methods and results but I have seen nothing so far that supports the inland route, as Fertile Crescent and Iran in that period show only Mousterian technologies, AFAIK.

    Good job anyhow the one you people are doing researching such a key area as South Asia and Arabia.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Maju,

    Thanks for your excellent comments. In my view there is very weak (or rather nil) evidence to support the rapid coastal hypothesis. At this stage, due to the lack of fieldwork, it is hard to pinpoint the precise routes out of Africa, and small populations may have moved from (and back to) Africa many times. All I can tell you is that in Arabia and South Asia, there are a tremendous number of inland archaeological sites. I would argue that populations were using river valleys and inland basins as they slowly spread across Asia. Clearly, a lot more field work needs to be done to address dispersal processes! But, yes, we are trying to highlight the importance of these critical regions (Arabian peninsula, Indian subcontinent) for hominin movements.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks to you for your reply.

    "In my view there is very weak (or rather nil) evidence to support the rapid coastal hypothesis".

    Well, there's nothing too conclusive but there is some indirect evidence or suggestive indicators, as far as I can tell:

    - odd founder effects in East Asia (genetics)
    - coastal sites, in Arabia and specially West India

    - differences between Arabian-Indian and Fertile Crescent industries potentially calling for a crossing of the Red Sea distinct from the "inland" route to the Fertile Crescent (but not beyond)

    I would not in any case talk of a strictly coastal migration (I have been aware for some time of the India Paleolithic distribution patterns along the riverine routes, as well as the West coast) but would rather argue for a "weak coastal model" in which inland, specially riverine routes were also in play in parallel. My opinion in any case, and with reserves because I have not yet read all your most recent stuff.

    An important point that I'm sure you are conscious of is the rise of sea levels since that time, potentially hiding much of the strictly coastal evidence. However I see in the references mentioned in your first post in this nice and informative blog, that some coastal or near-the-coast sites are also mentioned for Hadramaut and the UAE.

    "All I can tell you is that in Arabia and South Asia, there are a tremendous number of inland archaeological sites".

    I had a glimpse of this fact some years ago but it's a weak memory and have no idea of which dates apply.

    "But, yes, we are trying to highlight the importance of these critical regions (Arabian peninsula, Indian subcontinent) for hominin movements".

    Sure. Keep up the good job. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very informative. Thanks for sharing the info.

    ReplyDelete