Talk:Jebel Irhoud

Humans 300,000 years old?

See also: Talk:Human § Humans much older than we thought; 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 => humans evolved 300,000 years ago, much earlier than the 200,000 years ago thought previously? - relevant discussions at the following => "Talk:Human#Humans much older than we thought" - AND - "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)

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 - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your excellent comments - yes - agreed - seems both cited sources are somewhat unclear (evasive?) to some extent about the hominins actually being 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)

References

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Why no use of reconstruction image?

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

Wiki Education assignment: African Prehistory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2024 and 5 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SarabS4r4B (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by SarabS4r4B (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Impression of the original article:

My initial impression of the article is that it is a succinct and informative article for someone who would like to quickly know what the site is. It does not appear overly biased or misleading, but it has lumped topics together that could be understood more clearly if transformed into their own sections. The article is good enough for a quick look-through by a curious person. The article has a good lead paragraph and highlights some of the most relevant aspects of the subject if the reader is trying to gain a brief understanding of the site.

A few citations come from news sources or museum webpages that could be replaced or removed altogether, as they are less relevant to this compared to peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals. There could be more extensive information about the faunal remains and the lithics. It could also include a section on how the site has recently been used to advocate for preservation initiatives and “geo-tourism” in North Africa.

Note on the original article:

In editing, most of the original content of the previous version remained. It has been reorganized to fit the structure of this edited version or slightly reworded in some places. But much of the original content remains the same. This updated version primarily aims to provide new information and article structure.

Description of edits made & reasoning:

1. Reorganization: I restructured the page to include more sections on various topics, broke down the “Dating” section into subsections, and added additional subsections to preexisting sections. This was done to improve the article's overall flow and work in the new sections.
2. Readability: I read over the page multiple times and modified some sentence structure to improve the flow.
3. Citations: While the citations present were good, I added several citations that were more specific to some of the additional sections created for this contribution. Additionally, I removed some citations of new paper articles where academic articles were more fitting.
4. Additional sections:
   1. Site: Description of Basics about Jebel Irhoud
      1. Excavation History: I experienced difficulties finding the exact excavation timeline; I welcome any additions to this part.
      2. Stratigraphy: Brief description of the current stratigraphy of the site and some of its most significant findings.
      3. Geology: Brief description of the geological history of the Jebel Irhoud area. Geology is not my specialty, and I would like to see if others know more about it so that they can contribute.
   2. Human Remains: A table was added using the supplementary information in Hublin et al. (2017). It lists the Jebel Irhoud Specimen by ID with a description, date of discovery, and context.
      1. Morphology: This section was broken down to specify the various essential aspects of the morphology of the Jebel Irhoud specimens.
         1. Facial & Cranial Morphology
         2. Dentition
         3. Mandibular morphology
   3. Stone tools: I briefly described the lithic assemblages and their associated industries here. I included the description of lithic raw materials and some of the more prominent tool types at the site.
   4. Faunal Remains & Environmental Context: These two sections are combined to make it clear that much of the information understood about the environment of Jebel Irhoud in the Pleistocene is derived from faunal analyses. There is also a short list of some of the general fauna described at the site.
   5. Cultural and Heritage Importance: This section is meant to highlight the importance of the Jebel Irhoud within and outside of an archaeological/anthropological context. It intends to showcase current work being completed within the surrounding area to transform the site into a place for geotourism.

Stonetool (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)