Talk:Jebel Irhoud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Humans 300,000 years old?

See also:
Talk:Homo sapiens § News 300,000 years ago; Talk:Anatomically modern human § Revisions to "earliest" dates?; Talk:Timeline of human evolution § Humans 300,000 years old?; and Template talk:Human timeline § Humans 300,000 years old?

Recent news =>

Talk:Homo sapiens#News 300,000 years ago" - AND - "Talk:Anatomically modern human#Revisions to "earliest" dates?" - AND - "Talk:Timeline of human evolution#Humans 300,000 years old?" - AND - "Template talk:Human timeline#Humans 300,000 years old?" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Humans exited Africa 270,000 years ago?

Somewhat related - evidence suggests that Homo sapiens may have migrated from Africa as early as 270,000 years ago, much earlier than the 70,000 years ago thought previously[3][4] - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, but I wonder whether it is misleading (at least for the layman) to describe them as homo sapiens. They were hominims who had anatomical adaptations which put them on the line to modern humans, but there is no evidence that they were more "advanced" in intellect or behaviour.
I was also interested in the quote in ref 4 "The reconstructed skyline plot describes a Neanderthal mtDNA effective population size reduction through Middle and Late Pleistocene, reaching the lowest mean value at around 42 ka. Subsequently, a steep population expansion appears to have occurred before the Neanderthal extinction, in accordance with the reported analyses of chromosome 21 of the Vindija late Neanderthal." The suggestion of a steep population increase after 42 ka goes against everything I have read in recent years. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
homo sapiens in a more modern sense - perhaps we'll have to wait a bit for the science w/ this to be more settled? - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. New York Times
    . Retrieved 12 June 2017.
  2. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22114
    . Retrieved 12 June 2017.
  3. ^
    New York Times
    . Retrieved 4 July 2017.
  4. ^
    doi:10.1038/ncomms16046. Retrieved 4 July 2017. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help
    )

"green Sahara" link is inappropriate

The article refers to "a wetter climate that created a "green Sahara", around 330,000 to 300,000 years ago". "green Sahara" links to the Neolithic Subpluvial article which describes a period "from about 7500–7000 BCE to about 3500–3000 BCE". I could not find any article that discusses the Sahara climate 300,000 years ago.192.249.47.204 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (belatedly) and have deleted the link. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of article title

I've reverted the change from "Jebel Irhoud" to "Jebel Ighud"; as far as I can see the former is the transliteration used in reliable sources. Aterian, if there is evidence that "Jebel Ighud" is a better name for the article, please say so here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

This has been edited since when I first read this three months ago. The bit about these being European origin rather than African remains due to analysis of teeth and brain cavity has completely gone. 90.116.245.225 (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have not been any major deletions recently. To see changes, click on 'View history' at the top of the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why no use of reconstruction image?

Just wondering Elove444 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jebel_Irhoud&oldid=1212771001"