National Geoprahic's genographic project suggests that all humans descend from an African ancestor who lived about 60 000 years ago. Paleoanthropological studies as well as archeological findings hypothesize that homosapiens (Humans) have existed for the last 200, 000 years (some findings suggest even longer). Why then should homo sapiens migrate only 60,000 years ago from Africa if indeed humans already existed 200,000 to 400,000 years ago? I am not totally convinced by the findings of the genographic project just how credible are they?
2006-09-03 11:50:15 · 2 answers · asked by Mr Red 1 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
Judjing by your question neither of them seem credible, thanks to you I want to look into this some more.
Thanks.
2006-09-03 12:01:21 · answer #1 · answered by David 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You ask two questions:
a) The last first = the genographic project is very credible and detailed.
b) Why so little migration? The reasons are numerous and include: a need to migrate, physical barriers cf. Caspian Mountains which held up various migrations for years, a certain physical/capital must be built up to migrate cf. enough young men to fight, enough older women to carry pots and pans, establishment of a large enough community and leadership to migrate, sufficient linguistic skills, and so forth. Being around for so long is not equivalent to being able or equipped for that period.
2006-09-03 12:27:35 · answer #2 · answered by Joe Cool 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋