Latest news with #StoneAge
Arab Times
18 hours ago
- Science
- Arab Times
Early humans survived in a range of extreme environments before global migration: study
WASHINGTON, June 19, (AP): Humans are the only animal that lives in virtually every possible environment, from rainforests to deserts to tundra. This adaptability is a skill that long predates the modern age. According to a new study published Wednesday in Nature, ancient Homo sapiens developed the flexibility to survive by finding food and other resources in a wide variety of difficult habitats before they dispersed from Africa about 50,000 years ago. "Our superpower is that we are ecosystem generalists,' said Eleanor Scerri, an evolutionary archaeologist at the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena, Germany. Our species first evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago. While prior fossil finds show some groups made early forays outside the continent, lasting human settlements in other parts of the world didn't happen until a series of migrations around 50,000 years ago. "What was different about the circumstance of the migrations that succeeded - why were humans ready this time?' said study co-author Emily Hallett, an archaeologist at Loyola University Chicago. Earlier theories held that Stone Age humans might have made a single important technological advance or developed a new way of sharing information, but researchers haven't found evidence to back that up. This study took a different approach by looking at the trait of flexibility itself. The scientists assembled a database of archaeological sites showing human presence across Africa from 120,000 to 14,000 years ago. For each site, researchers modeled what the local climate would have been like during the time periods that ancient humans lived there. "There was a really sharp change in the range of habitats that humans were using starting around 70,000 years ago,' Hallett said. "We saw a really clear signal that humans were living in more challenging and more extreme environments.' While humans had long survived in savanna and forests, they shifted into everything from dense rainforests to arid deserts in the period leading up to 50,000 years ago, developing what Hallett called an "ecological flexibility that let them succeed.' While this leap in abilities is impressive, it's important not to assume that only Homo sapiens did it, said University of Bordeaux archaeologist William Banks, who was not involved in the research. Other groups of early human ancestors also left Africa and established long-term settlements elsewhere, including those that evolved into Europe's Neanderthals, he said. The new research helps explain why humans were ready to expand across the world way back when, he said, but it doesn't answer the lasting question of why only our species remains today.
Time of India
a day ago
- Science
- Time of India
Homo Sapiens Adaptability: Early humans survived in a range of extreme environments before global migration, study says
WASHINGTON: Humans are the only animal that lives in virtually every possible environment, from rainforests to deserts to tundra. This adaptability is a skill that long predates the modern age. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now According to a new study published Wednesday in Nature, ancient Homo sapiens developed the flexibility to survive by finding food and other resources in a wide variety of difficult habitats before they dispersed from Africa about 50,000 years ago. "Our superpower is that we are ecosystem generalists," said Eleanor Scerri, an evolutionary archaeologist at the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena, Germany. Our species first evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago. While prior fossil finds show some groups made early forays outside the continent, lasting human settlements in other parts of the world didn't happen until a series of migrations around 50,000 years ago. "What was different about the circumstances of the migrations that succeeded - why were humans ready this time?" said study co-author Emily Hallett, an archaeologist at Loyola University Chicago. Earlier theories held that Stone Age humans might have made a single important technological advance or developed a new way of sharing information, but researchers haven't found evidence to back that up. This study took a different approach by looking at the trait of flexibility itself. The scientists assembled a database of archaeological sites showing human presence across Africa from 120,000 to 14,000 years ago. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now For each site, researchers modelled what the local climate would have been like during the time periods that ancient humans lived there. "There was a really sharp change in the range of habitats that humans were using starting around 70,000 years ago," Hallet said. "We saw a really clear signal that humans were living in more challenging and more extreme environments ." While humans had long survived in savannas and forests, they shifted into everything from dense rainforests to arid deserts in the period leading up to 50,000 years ago, developing what Hallet called an " ecological flexibility that let them succeed." While this leap in abilities is impressive, it's important not to assume that only Homo sapiens did it, said University of Bordeaux archaeologist William Banks, who was not involved in the research. Other groups of early human ancestors also left Africa and established long-term settlements elsewhere, including those that evolved into Europe's Neanderthals, he said. The new research helps explain why humans were ready to expand across the world way back when, he said, but it doesn't answer the lasting question of why only our species remains today.
New Indian Express
a day ago
- Science
- New Indian Express
Early humans survived in a range of extreme environments before global migration, study says
WASHINGTON: Humans are the only animal that lives in virtually every possible environment, from rainforests to deserts to tundra. This adaptability is a skill that long predates the modern age. According to a new study published Wednesday in Nature, ancient Homo sapiens developed the flexibility to survive by finding food and other resources in a wide variety of difficult habitats before they dispersed from Africa about 50,000 years ago. 'Our superpower is that we are ecosystem generalists,' said Eleanor Scerri, an evolutionary archaeologist at the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena, Germany. Our species first evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago. While prior fossil finds show some groups made early forays outside the continent, lasting human settlements in other parts of the world didn't happen until a series of migrations around 50,000 years ago. 'What was different about the circumstance of the migrations that succeeded — why were humans ready this time?' said study co-author Emily Hallett, an archaeologist at Loyola University Chicago. Earlier theories held that Stone Age humans might have made a single important technological advance or developed a new way of sharing information, but researchers haven't found evidence to back that up. This study took a different approach by looking at the trait of flexibility itself. The scientists assembled a database of archaeological sites showing human presence across Africa from 120,000 to 14,000 years ago. For each site, researchers modeled what the local climate would have been like during the time periods that ancient humans lived there.
a day ago
- Science
Early humans adapting to extreme habitats set stage for global migration: Researchers
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Humans are the only animal that lives in virtually every possible environment, from rainforests to deserts to tundra. This adaptability is a skill that long predates the modern age. According to a new study published Wednesday in Nature, ancient Homo sapiens developed the flexibility to survive by finding food and other resources in a wide variety of difficult habitats before they dispersed from Africa about 50,000 years ago. 'Our superpower is that we are ecosystem generalists,' said Eleanor Scerri, an evolutionary archaeologist at the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena, Germany. Our species first evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago. While prior fossil finds show some groups made early forays outside the continent, lasting human settlements in other parts of the world didn't happen until a series of migrations around 50,000 years ago. 'What was different about the circumstance of the migrations that succeeded — why were humans ready this time?' said study co-author Emily Hallett, an archaeologist at Loyola University Chicago. Earlier theories held that Stone Age humans might have made a single important technological advance or developed a new way of sharing information, but researchers haven't found evidence to back that up. This study took a different approach by looking at the trait of flexibility itself. The scientists assembled a database of archaeological sites showing human presence across Africa from 120,000 to 14,000 years ago. For each site, researchers modeled what the local climate would have been like during the time periods that ancient humans lived there. 'There was a really sharp change in the range of habitats that humans were using starting around 70,000 years ago,' Hallet said. 'We saw a really clear signal that humans were living in more challenging and more extreme environments.' While humans had long survived in savanna and forests, they shifted into everything from from dense rainforests to arid deserts in the period leading up to 50,000 years ago, developing what Hallet called an "ecological flexibility that let them succeed.' While this leap in abilities is impressive, it's important not to assume that only Homo sapiens did it, said University of Bordeaux archaeologist William Banks, who was not involved in the research. Other groups of early human ancestors also left Africa and established long-term settlements elsewhere, including those that evolved into Europe's Neanderthals, he said. The new research helps explain why humans were ready to expand across the world way back when, he said, but it doesn't answer the lasting question of why only our species remains today. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
New Statesman
2 days ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
The dangerous new neoconservatism
Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl / NurPhoto It is remarkable that many of those who swore never to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq invasion are now set on another misconceived adventure. Once again we are told that a Middle Eastern nation needs to be bombed so it can taste the fruit of freedom. Once again the propaganda machine is on overdrive. Once again it is said that the regime is days away from attacking not just Israel but all of its Western allies with weapons of mass destruction. This is a claim that, in the case of Iran, has been made since 1975, before the rise of Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini and the creation of his Islamic Republic. Once again we are told that Tehran will hand its nuclear weapons – nuclear weapons it does not have – to terrorist groups. The initial claim that Israel attacked Iran on 13 June to dismantle its nuclear programme did not last long. Two days later, Benjamin Netanyahu gave an interview to Fox News saying that regime change was his real goal. He added that assassinating the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, was under consideration (Trump later said he was safe – for now). This was the same Netanyahu who in 2002 promised the American public that invading Iraq would create a new Middle East. An invasion, he argued then, 'will have, I guarantee you, enormous positive reverberations on the region'. You might think the results were calamitous, but from Netanyahu's perspective, the 2003 invasion was a resounding success. Iraq became a failed state, incapable of anything beyond surviving from day to day. Now Israel is able to exert considerable influence in its Kurdish statelet in the north. In 2003 we would have called this neoconservatism. But neoconservatism has evolved. It lost the thin veneer of idealism it once had and turned into a thoroughly nihilistic ideology, openly advocating brute force. Why be so coy as to carry out covert assassinations? If two decades ago neoconservatives envisioned a world made safe by the spread of Western democracy, today they opt for the multiplication of failed states and collapsed regimes. Bashar al-Assad's Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Egypt – all formed a geography of desolation. The impact Israel and Western democracies have had on the Middle East in recent decades can only be compared to the destruction brought about by the Soviet Union in Central Europe. That region recovered after 1989 but its glorious civilisation never did. The old bravado – 'We will return you to the Stone Age' is a cliché going back to the Vietnam War – has morphed into a programme to be interpreted literally. Israel's Channel 14 is now reporting that Netanyahu intends to implement the Dahiya Doctrine in Tehran: destruction of civilian infrastructure as a means of forcing Iranians to turn on the regime. Before Israel's attack, Donald Trump had increased demands on the regime for a deal, which would have stopped Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. (After the attack, these demands turned into threats.) Weakened by decades of sanctions, unpopular at home and unable to recover from setbacks suffered during its imperial adventures in Lebanon and Syria, Iran was out of options. Sensing an imminent deal, Netanyahu became convinced that his window to attack Iran was closing. 'When [Netanyahu] talks about a pre-emptive attack, I actually think he was pre-empting our negotiated solution as much as he was anything the Iranians were doing,' Beth Sanner, Trump's former deputy director of national intelligence, told CNN. Israel's subsequent attack was hardly a surprising development. As far back as last September, Netanyahu was saying that Iran would be 'liberated sooner than people think'. The same month Jared Kushner remarked: 'Moments like this come once in a generation, if they even come at all. The Middle East is too often a solid where little changes. Today, it is a liquid and the ability to reshape is unlimited. Do not squander this moment.' Trump hadn't yet won the election, though. Netanyahu was forced to wait, but after Israel weakened Hezbollah in Lebanon, he became fixated on how auspicious a final confrontation with Iran looked. His priority then became how to drag America into a war it refused to join from the start. American bunker busters are needed to wipe out Iran's nuclear programme, and perhaps US troops will be required, too, if the Khamenei regime is to be ousted. Trump is somewhat more difficult to manage than his bumbling predecessor — he has after all built much of political appeal on a critique of foreign intervention — but how long will even Trump be able to resist the call for a final battle between good and evil? Not long, I think. Trump knows how to capitalise on prevailing myths. He is not known for fighting them. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe What was most astonishing after the initial Israeli attack was the European reaction. Europe has the most to lose from the return of neoconservatism. If the regime in Iran were to collapse and the region devolved into chaos, energy prices would spike, and a large wave of refugees would soon head to Turkey and then Europe. International terrorism would again be a threat. Under current conditions, renewed inflation, a deep economic crisis and an influx of refugees – potentially millions – would propel the far right to power across Europe. How did European leaders react to these very real possibilities? Some were muted, while others giddily applauded. Public opinion in Western democracies seems more cautious. No one has sympathy for the Iranian regime, but writing a blank cheque for Israel now feels risky. There is no point supporting the policy an imaginary Israel might choose because the existing Israel has shown it is capable of destroying, but not of building. It has shown this in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon and even in the new Syria. The only option it will accept is to create a desert and call it peace. [See also: Gaza diary: Amid the rubble] Related
