Mungo

[Jim Warren]

Any thoughts here? I've seen mention elsewhere postulating the Mungo discoveries refuting
the out of Africa scenario.

[Jed Dilligan]

1. You mean in Australia? nt

[Jim Warren]

2. That one, yup.

Dr. Alan Thorne is the leading advocate of the not out of Africa scenario, controversial of course:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/notafrica4.php

See this also, differing views to Thorne's theories about the age of Mungo, a pretty great site just for massive amount of info, go to the home page.
http://donsmaps.com/mungo.html

[Jed Dilligan]

3. Fascinating stuff.

Intuitively, I prefer regional continuity. Not only does it simplify the narrative, it erases a sense that European style conquest and extermination of native peoples is natural and hereditary.

One thing I find funny--in the bradshawfoundation piece, they make it seem like this site is incongruous as a natural park. But the pics on donsmaps show a place as beautiful as any of our national parks. The outback must be amazing--I'd love to go someday.

[Jim Warren]

4. mtDNA- the Eve Gene

ditto on the outback--It is that kind of place, I've known a couple, where there is the unmistakable feeling it was very different than it is today.

Key passage:

The Australian National University team looked at the DNA found in the mitochondria of these ancient people's cells. mtDNA, as it is known, is inherited only from females and also mutates - errors appear - at a steady rate, meaning it can be used as a "molecular clock" to investigate human history.

But the Australian researchers contend that the DNA sequences isolated from Mungo Man's bones show him to have a genetic lineage that is both older and distinct from this line.

Given the undoubted modern appearance of Mungo Man, they argue, major doubt must now be cast on the so-called "Out of Africa" hypothesis in which all living people are said to be descended from a group of modern humans who left their African homeland no earlier than about 120,000 years ago.