The most reliable explanation i can find is in the following link:Originally Posted by Missismiggins
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-big-question-how-old-is-humanity-and-where-did-homo-sapiens-come-from-457807.html
It does not explain how the population of Africa did not develop as quicly in terms of technology, explortion and the colonisation of other continents.
History and the environment seem the logical conclusion. It took thousands of years for homo sapiens to travel around the world and make their homes in very different environmnets to the one they came from. They would have been forced to develop responses to constantly changing circumstances and living conditions. Those that remained behind, clearly did not feel the need or inclination to follow, and remained trapped in a territory so hostile, it took the earliest explorers literally, a lifetime to find them. The sub saharan african ancestors of ours developed in accordance with local needs in a difficult environment. To remain there, it must also have had enough food and other natural resources to sustain them. They would have lived simply and evolved slowly, without the need to assume new methods of coping with a life that changed so little.
Don't forget that at this time, most of the planet was covered by climax woodland, or inhospitable dessert and arctic regions where few could survive. I am assuming that life would develop more quickly in the less severe temperate regions where man could do more with the resources available. The original homo sapiens who remained in sub saharan africa would have had to cope with impenetrable jungle rain forests and vast mountain ranges. A much less friendly environment in which to develop.
Much of this is conjecture on my part, but is a theory based on facts and not modern social distrust of a person because of their origins.
Sorry for the long winded answer. migs, but you did ask!