 |
| Earliest known dog |
A lot of them, but not all, come via Stone Pages' Archaeo News.
Just to get you interested: oldest dog ever, oldest people in America... and the Bubbliverse!
(Not drooling yet?! You're reading the wrong blog then).
Europe
Spain: Andalusian caves were explored with bee wax lamps (candles) and not animal wax ones (which would have been cumbersome). Exposition on this matter on Aug. 10 in Puente Viesgo, Cantabria. ··> Pileta de Prehistoria[es].
Wales: Tests confirm age of Wales rock art. (Direct communication of Prof. Nash to Stone Pages' ArchaeoNews).
Scotland: Sainbury site was sort of Epipaleolithic rest stop. ··> BBC.
Bulgaria: Chalcolithic burial found in Pomorie ··> The Sofia Echo.
Asia
Siberia: Earliest dog skull found in Altai, dated to 33,000 years ago. It has short snout like dogs but long fangs like wolves. ··> BBC, Daily Mail, PLoS ONE (I may write more later on this).
Japan: Chinese style tools were introduced to Japan c. 25-20,000 years ago. ··> Xinhua.
Jordan: Ancient city of Tell Qarqur could withstand massive drought c. 2000 BCE. ··> Live Science.
India: Sebalpani rock paintings may be from historical period. ··> DNA India.
America
USA: Oldest evidence of human presence in all North America found near Salado, Texas. The site has been dated to c. 15,500 BP and has yielded some 16,000 artifacts already. ··> WFAA.
Canada: Evidence of human presence c. 10,000 years ago, near Penfield, New Brunswick. A highway's design has been changed to preserve the site. ··> CBC.
Mexico: Olmec relief 2800 years old found in Chalcatzingo, Morelos ··> Latin American Herald Tribune.
Africa / human evolution
Australopithecus sediba proposed missing link between australopithecines and humans. ··> National Geographic.
Genetics & biology
Alternative splicing to explain mammal brain capabilities. Genes alone cannot account for the improved mammal neural complexity. ··> Science Daily.
Astronomy & cosmology
Multiverse confirmed: our Universe just a bubble among many. Identification in the gamma radiation background by objective computer program adds weight to the idea that other bubble-universes have left their marks on ours. ··> Science Daily.
 |
| Welcome to the Bubbliverse, earthlings! |
OT, but here's some news you may be interested in:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0805/donegal.html
Spanish Armada ship found off coast of Donegal. Donegal in the NorthWest of Ireland is the only place known to have had a few families of Spanish Armada descent.
Interesting and appreciated, Conroy. However I seldom comment on historical (or even Iron Age) matters. Is not any rule but I feel that it has (generally) less interest because it deals with better known matters. My subjectivity...
ReplyDeleteOn the dog: quite interesting, but I doubt dog usage and breeding was so haphazard as it is made out to have been in the article. It had incredibly important functionality, so I think it was coveted and continuously and actively supported.
ReplyDeleteThe Texas site is very important but has been reported on before.
As to the bubble-verse(s), similar attempts were crushed on statistical grounds, before. While the authors are trying harder this time, I still think it's an over-interpretation of expected, random features. We will know much, much more by the end of the year or early next year when the processed Planck spacecraft data will be released.
I must agree with you, Eurologist: having dogs is "cheap", specially for nomads or semi-nomadic peoples, as were all hunter-gatherers. The benefits of such alliance were also potentially huge for the human side of the deal, because dogs/wolves are excellent hunters and trackers, and also great defenders.
ReplyDeleteWe can easily think that people became quite 'invulnerable' vs. nature with the help of dogs.
However Australian Aborigines and dingos also show that people and dogs can get 'divorced', so to say, that the symbiosis was not necessarily all that stable.
"The Texas site is very important but has been reported on before".
I had forgotten or was not aware.
"I still think it's an over-interpretation of expected, random features".
In truth I do not dare to judge but I don't find the idea absurd at all. They made a major effort to avoid subjective interpretation of random features: can a computer commit the same subjectivity errors as humans? So human-like are they or are they still the good ol' calculator machine they are supposed to be?
The Japanese finding is IMHO the most surprising.
ReplyDeleteAlso surprised that there is any place in Sardinia left that is unexplored enough to turn up that big of a find.
I'm not convinced that the multiverse finding really supports the headline conclusion about it.
Woit discusses the problem with the Bubbleverse headline here.
ReplyDeleteSardinia is actually quite abandoned by the cultural authorities. The Berlusconi government has been terrible for historical preservation in any case. Surely those standing stones were there all the time, known to the locals but nobody paid them any attention, just like the marvelous burials that were sealed under concrete and that I have discussed a couple of times at Leherensuge.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Japanese finding, it offers a window for the arrival of "Mongoloid" peoples corresponding maybe to the "Okinawan" yellow cluster in the HUGO paper and to Y-DNA O2b maybe.
The article is not very explicit but I wonder if they mean blade-based tools (and similar techs like Hoabinhian), which spread through mainland East Asia in that period.
"The article is not very explicit but I wonder if they mean blade-based tools (and similar techs like Hoabinhian), which spread through mainland East Asia in that period".
ReplyDeleteThe article is pretty specific about the connection being with North China. The Hoabinhian is SE Asian.
"and to Y-DNA O2b maybe".
Unlikely. The date suggests pre-Jomon/Ainu times and I don't think any O haplogroup is associated even with Jomo people.
The reference for expansion of blade tech in East Asia is in Mongolia some 20 Ka ago. Don't worry about the Hoabinhian, which is just a side mention (either this or this reference, can't recall).
ReplyDelete"The date suggests pre-Jomon/Ainu times and I don't think any O haplogroup is associated even with Jomo people".
The Yayoi are also "pre-Ainu" in the modern sense of the world. I think that North and South Japan may have got two semi-different populations since long ago. There is some skull of Okinawa dated to c. 17 Ka ago that to me looks like some sort of archaic Monogoloid and not like Ainu in any case. On the other hand the "Chinese" skulls of Zhoukoudian (40 Ka) look Ainu-like to me.
So maybe there was a replacement or admixture process c. 20 Ka. Very speculative but I would prefer it over the "Neolithic" models, notably because Native Americans already display "Mongoloid" features a plenty and they surely diverged not much more recently than 20 Ka (and are genetically quite distant from East Asians overall).
"The Yayoi are also 'pre-Ainu' in the modern sense of the world".
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should have used the expression 'pre-Yayoi'. The Ainu certainly descend from people who were in Japan before the Yayoi arrived there.
"I think that North and South Japan may have got two semi-different populations since long ago".
Quite likely so I suspect. Y-hap C1 is evidently not know amoung the Ainu yet is confined to Japan. It must have reached there a long time ago.
"There is some skull of Okinawa dated to c. 17 Ka ago"
That's interesting. Even at times of lowest sea level Okinawa is a long way from the mainland, which implies a very effective boating technology at that date.
"So maybe there was a replacement or admixture process c. 20 Ka".
Again I'm inclined to agree, but I still don't think that any Y-hap O had reached Japan that long ago, especially seeing it is nowhere present in America.
"The Ainu certainly descend from people who were in Japan before the Yayoi arrived there".
ReplyDeleteSure, but in all Japan? Was all Japan the same?
"Y-hap C1 is evidently not know amoung the Ainu yet is confined to Japan".
For instance.
"That's interesting".
I recall the name now: 'Minatogawa man'. Here there is images and discussion by P. Brown. He says that Minatogawa is not Mongoloid (no doubt because he is too dolicocephalic - but many real mongoloids are meso/dolico-cephalic) but I find the face to bee too flat to fin in any other category.
"Apart from the orientation of the malars there is little in the remaining cranio-facial morphology of Minatogawa 1 that is shared with Neolithic and modern East Asians (Brown In Press)."
What makes a 'Mongoloid' but the orientation of the malars (zygomatic or cheek bones)? Sure, there are other traits, most of them not in the bones but skin and hair, but this one is central. He's probably Sundadont but many Mongoloids are also Sundadont, etc.
I'd dare say that Liujiang is transitional to the Mongoloid phenotype as well, but this is much more arguable, I know. Regardless, there are reconstructions that show "him" as clearly Mongoloid - it's all in the eyes (and other fleshy parts), you know. Even Zhoukoudien skulls, which are clearly non-Mongoloid (extremely dolico and other very archaic traits) have been reconstructed as quasi-Mongoloid on occasion.
"... still don't think that any Y-hap O had reached Japan that long ago, especially seeing it is nowhere present in America".
Japan and America don't have much connection. It's Far NE Asia where the origins of American Natives are to be searched for. Or rather all Siberia (NW Asia too) - but not Japan nor China, not even Mongolia probably.
"I recall the name now: 'Minatogawa man'. Here there is images and discussion by P. Brown".
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link. Actually O2b is reasonably common in the Ryukyus so perhaps it is that old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O2b_(Y-DNA)
Quote:
"A subclade of Haplogroup O2b, namely Haplogroup O2b1-47z, is found with high frequency among the Yamato people and Ryukyuan populations of Japan. Haplogroup O2b1 has been detected in approximately 22% of all males who speak a Japonic language, while it has not been found at all among a total of twenty Ainu males whose Y-DNA has been sampled in two genetic studies".
And:
"However, Haplogroup O2b* Y-chromosomes have been detected with high frequency in Korea, where they account for approximately 14%[3][4][14] to 33%[8] of the Korean male population".
So O2b probably coalesced in Korea, and a downstream clade reached the Ryukyus.
"Sure, but in all Japan? Was all Japan the same?"
Possibly not.
"For instance".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14997363
Quote:
"Eleven of the 25 mtDNA sequence types were unique to the Ainu and accounted for over 50% of the population, whereas 14 were widely distributed among other Asian populations. Of the 14 shared types, the most frequently shared type was found in common among the Ainu, Nivkhi in northern Sakhalin, and Koryaks in the Kamchatka Peninsula".
Does suggest a distinction between northern and southern populations.
"On the paternal side, the vast majority (87.5%) of the Ainu exhibited the Asian-specific YAP+ lineages (Y-haplogroups D-M55* and D-M125), which were distributed only in the Japanese Archipelago in this analysis".
That's a high proportion.
"On the other hand, the Ainu exhibited no other Y-haplogroups (C-M8, O-M175*, and O-M122*) common in mainland Japanese and Okinawans".
Places O's arrival late, I'd say. And no C1-M8. It must be southern Japanese?
"It is noteworthy that the rest of the Ainu gene pool was occupied by the paternal lineage (Y-haplogroup C-M217*) from North Asia including Sakhalin".
So Ainu do have C3-M217, but not C1. Intertesting.
Yukaghir (Pakendorf et al. 2006)
ReplyDelete1/13 = 7.7% C3c-M48(xM86)
2/13 = 15.4% C3c-M86
1/13 = 7.7% C3-M217(xC3c-M48/M86)
1/13 = 7.7% F-M89(xJ2-M172, N1-LLY22g, O3-M122, Q1-P36, R1-M173)
4/13 = 30.8% N1c-Tat
4/13 = 30.8% Q1-P36
Yukagirs (Karafet et al. 1999)
1/12 = 8.3% 1B(=BT-SRY10831.1(xC-RPS4Y711, DE-YAP, K-M9))
6/12 = 50.0% 1F(=C-RPS4Y711)
3/12 = 25.0% 1I(=N1c-Tat)
2/12 = 16.7% 1C(=P-DYS257(xQ1a3a-DYS199, R1a1-SRY10831.2))
Nivkh/Northern Sakhalin (Tajima et al. 2004)
8/21 = 38.1% C3-M217
6/21 = 28.6% NO?-AS1(xO1a-M119, O3-M122)
4/21 = 19.0% P-P27(xR1a1-SRY10831b)
2/21 = 9.5% R1a1-SRY10831b
1/21 = 4.8% BT-SRY10831a(xC-RPS4Y711, DE-YAP, K-M9)
Nivkh/Northern Sakhalin ("Bloods were taken
from unrelated and unhybridized individuals living in
Rybnovsk and Nekrasovka villages in northern Sakhalin
Island." Sample description from Torroni et al. 1993, Y-SNP data from Lell et al. 2002.)
6/17 = 35.3% C3c-M48
2/17 = 11.8% C-RPS4Y711(xC3c-M48)
2/17 = 11.8% K-M9(xO1a-M119, N1c-Tat, P-M45)
1/17 = 5.9% O1a-M119
6/17 = 35.3% P-M45(xQ1a3a-M3, R1a1a-M17)
Itel'men (Lell et al. 2002)
4/18 = 22.2% R1a1a-M17
2/18 = 11.1% N1c-Tat
5/18 = 27.8% C-RPS4Y711(xC3c-M48)
7/18 = 38.9% C3c-M48
Koryak (Lell et al. 2002)
5/27 = 18.5% P-M45(xQ1a3a-M3, R1a1a-M17)
6/27 = 22.2% N1c-Tat
7/27 = 25.9% C-RPS4Y711(xC3c-M48)
9/27 = 33.3% C3c-M48
Koryaks (Karafet et al. 2002 as per Pakendorf et al. 2007)
4/12 = 33.3% C3-M217(xC3c-M86)
4/12 = 33.3% N1c1-M178
1/12 = 8.3% O3-M122
2/12 = 16.7% Q1-P36
1/12 = 8.3% Other
Koryaks (Karafet et al. 1999; same sample as Karafet et al. 2002)
1/12 = 8.3% 1B(=BT-SRY10831.1(xC-RPS4Y711, DE-YAP, K-M9))
4/12 = 33.3% 1F(=C-RPS4Y711)
1/12 = 8.3% 1U(=K-M9(xN1c-Tat, M2a-SRY9138, P-DYS257))
4/12 = 33.3% 1I(=N1c-Tat)
2/12 = 16.7% 1C(=P-DYS257(xQ1a3a-DYS199, R1a1-SRY10831.2))
Chukchi (Lell et al. 2002)
3/24 = 12.5% Q1a3a-M3
1/24 = 4.2% R1a1a-M17
5/24 = 20.8% P-M45(xQ1a3a-M3, R1a1a-M17)
14/24 = 58.3% N1c-Tat
1/24 = 4.2% C3c-M48
Chukchi (Karafet et al. 1999)
1/4 = 25% 1F(=C-RPS4Y711)
1/4 = 25% 1I(=N1c-Tat)
1/4 = 25% 1C(=P-DYS257(xQ1a3a-DYS199, R1a1-SRY10831.2))
1/4 = 25% 1G(=Q1a3a-DYS199)
Kanto region total (Nonaka et al. 2007)
2/137 = 1.5% C1-M105
3/137 = 2.2% C3-M217(xC3a-M93, C3b-P39, C3c-M48/M77/M86)
(5/137 = 3.6% C-M130 total)
11/137 = 8.0% D2-M55(xD2a-M116a)
18/137 = 13.1% D2a-M116a(xD2a1-M125, D2a2-M151)
2/137 = 1.5% D2a1-M125(xD2a1b-JST022457)
35/137 = 25.5% D2a1b-022457
(66/137 = 48.2% D2-M55 total)
3/137 = 2.2% O1a-M119(xO1a1a-M101, O1a2-M50)
9/137 = 6.6% O2b-SRY465(xO2b1-47z)
33/137 = 24.1% O2b1-47z
(42/137 = 30.7% O2b-SRY465 total)
2/137 = 1.5% O3-M122(xO3a1-M121, O3a2-M164, O3a3-JST021354, O3a4-JST002611)
3/137 = 2.2% O3a4-JST002611
5/137 = 3.6% O3a3-JST021354(xO3a3b-M7, O3a3c-M134)
4/137 = 2.9% O3a3c-M134(xO3a3c1-M117)
6/137 = 4.4% O3a3c1-M117(xO3a3c1a-M162)
(10/137 = 7.3% O3a3c-M134 total)
(20/137 = 14.6% O3-M122 total)
(65/137 = 47.4% O-M175 total)
1/137 = 0.7% Q1a1-M120
The Koryak and the Chukchi speak obviously related languages (think Portuguese vs. Spanish), but their Y-chromosomes seem to be quite different, with derivatives of C3-M217 being extremely common among the Koryak and much less common among the Chukchi.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the published data regarding the Y-DNA of the Ainu and surrounding populations are difficult to explain. Y-DNA haplogroup D2 clearly connects them to people living further south in Japan, where about half of all males in the most heavily populated region of eastern Honshu belong to this clade. Not even a single DE-YAP Y-chromosome has been reported to have been found in any indigenous population of extreme Northeast Asia/the Russian Far East. On the other hand, DE-YAP Y-chromosomes do appear regularly in samples of populations from western and northern parts of the PRC (though with low frequency in most populations).
The other haplogroup reportedly found in the modern Ainu, C3-M217, is quite rare among Japanese. This haplogroup is instead very common among most indigenous populations of eastern Siberia. However, indigenous peoples of eastern Siberia also exhibit various other haplogroups that have not been reported in the published Ainu sample(s). Have the gene pools of indigenous peoples of the Russian Far East become mixed up because of the activities of the erstwhile Russian Empire and Soviet Union? Or have D2 and C3 Y-chromosomes coexisted in the proto-Ainu population for many generations? (In the latter case, one must explain why D2 is very common but C3 is very rare among modern Japanese.)
It makes sense that all the colonization of Japan arrived from Korea. But it may have arrived in various waves, each one with their specifics. Maybe there was a second wave c. 20-25 Ka. ago that displaced the "proto-Ainu" to the northern half of the archipelago? Or is it just a matter of retained diversity (because of less important drift, because of larger populations)? I'd say that the first but not 100% sure.
ReplyDeleteWhat I notice is that C1 is so low in frequency that it will hardly help to clarify anything, as its presence/absence can well be historical fluke.
C3-M217 is much more common in both Korea (approx. 15%) and China (approx. 10%) than it is in Japan (approx. 2% to 3%). I suppose the frequency of this haplogroup must have increased in mainland East Asia after the Japanese had become genetically isolated in the archipelago.
ReplyDelete"the published data regarding the Y-DNA of the Ainu and surrounding populations are difficult to explain. Y-DNA haplogroup D2 clearly connects them to people living further south in Japan, where about half of all males in the most heavily populated region of eastern Honshu belong to this clade".
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that tend to indicate that D is the earliest Y-hap into Japan?
"In the latter case, one must explain why D2 is very common but C3 is very rare among modern Japanese".
C3 is the next Y-hap into Japan, but came in from the north?
"What I notice is that C1 is so low in frequency that it will hardly help to clarify anything, as its presence/absence can well be historical fluke".
That seems to be the case.
@Ebizur:
ReplyDeleteWhat proportion has C3 among Ainu? I am wondering that, if, as you suggest, Ainu have more C3 than regular Japanese, this may mean a secondary flow from Sakhalin (Nivkh or their ancestors).
Similarly C3 in Korea and North China may represent secondary flows from NE Asia, from Manchuria and Mongolia and such. Or maybe better explained as contact homogenization process between populations that were originally clearly distinct. The Japanese would not have been affected by this process because they would have crossed into the islands before it began or became strong.
However I see how this could clash with the hypothesis I first considered of this techno-cultural flow (migration) into Japan being related to that of Western UP type (blade, mode 4) tech flow into Mongolia from (surely) Altai. On the other hand we do not perceive any genetic flow associated to this techno-cultural flow in Mongolia either, do we? There is no relevant Y-DNA Q (probable culprit) in Mongolia for example.
So I'm going to throw here a weird idea or hypothesis: what if all these tecno-changes correspond to the expansion of the Y-DNA Q "people" into NE Siberia (eventually leading to Native Americans), sharing their tech with some neighbors and in turn maybe triggering a minor but appreciable north to south (East Siberia to Yellow Sea area) technological and then also demographical flow. It's of course an extremely shy draft, a highly tentative hypothesis, and not a finished theory at all.
Only archaeology can help with all this. Only knowing what do the "stones and bones" say, we can have a frame of reference for the genetics.
@Terry:
ReplyDelete"Wouldn't that tend to indicate that D is the earliest Y-hap into Japan?"
I would think so.
"C3 is the next Y-hap into Japan, but came in from the north?"
Looks like, at least for the Ainu area (we do not really know when it arrived there but I agree about a North origin, considering what Ebizur said).
"what if all these tecno-changes correspond to the expansion of the Y-DNA Q 'people' into NE Siberia (eventually leading to Native Americans), sharing their tech with some neighbors and in turn maybe triggering a minor but appreciable north to south (East Siberia to Yellow Sea area) technological and then also demographical flow. It's of course an extremely shy draft, a highly tentative hypothesis, and not a finished theory at all".
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly what I have long accepted.
"Similarly C3 in Korea and North China may represent secondary flows from NE Asia, from Manchuria and Mongolia and such".
That is what I have long assumed. It certainly does not seem to have come from the south even though C2 and C4 are southern.
"this could clash with the hypothesis I first considered of this techno-cultural flow (migration) into Japan being related to that of Western UP type (blade, mode 4) tech flow into Mongolia from (surely) Altai".
C3 could still have brought that techno-culture in if the people adopted it from those living further west.
"There is no relevant Y-DNA Q (probable culprit) in Mongolia for example".
But you've mentioned many times that technology can be adopted and then spread independently of genes. But we still have the problem of C1. Perhaps it was early into Southern Japan and has been largely replaced by later immigrants, starting with D.
"But you've mentioned many times that technology can be adopted and then spread independently of genes".
ReplyDeleteOf course. But some contact must exist, right?
Maju wrote,
ReplyDelete"What proportion has C3 among Ainu? I am wondering that, if, as you suggest, Ainu have more C3 than regular Japanese, this may mean a secondary flow from Sakhalin (Nivkh or their ancestors)."
Tajima et al. (2004) have reported finding 2/16 = 12.5% C3*-M217, and Hammer et al. (2006) have reported finding 1/4 = 25% C3*-M217 in their Ainu sample(s). Frankly, I am not confident that Tajima's Ainu sample and Hammer's Ainu sample are entirely independent of each other (both papers have made use of the same sample of Japanese from Tokushima, for example), but if one were to average the frequencies that have been presented in the two papers, one would obtain a figure of 15% C3*-M217 for the modern Ainu population. This is approximately equal to the frequency of C3*-M217 among modern Koreans, for example.
Maju wrote,
"Similarly C3 in Korea and North China may represent secondary flows from NE Asia, from Manchuria and Mongolia and such. Or maybe better explained as contact homogenization process between populations that were originally clearly distinct. The Japanese would not have been affected by this process because they would have crossed into the islands before it began or became strong."
I have considered and rejected the hypothesis that relatively high C3*-M217 frequencies among Koreans and Chinese (in both northern China and southern China, by the way) are due to recent admixture of Mongols, Manchus, etc. for two reasons:
1) So-called Palaeo-Siberian and (Micro-)Altaic populations exhibit the subclade C3c-M48 with variable but generally high frequency, whereas this subclade has not been reported from samples of Koreans or Han Chinese
2) The Y-STR profiles associated with Korean and Han Chinese C3-M217 are notably diverse and tend to be quite different from the Y-STR profiles associated with C3-M217 Y-chromosomes of Mongols, Manchus, etc. (among whom many sampled individuals tend to share identical or very similar haplotypes).
So do you think that C3 in Chinese and Koreans actually could represent a remnant or different branch(-es) of the original C3 scatter?
ReplyDeleteHas anybody bothered estimating where did this lineage coalesced, is it North China (Beijing area), Korea (probably not but who knows), Manchuria, Mongolia or even further North in NE Siberia? Would I be asked, based on overall distribution I'd think Manchuria maybe but I feel very much unsure in any case - I'd be choosing this area just because it is at the geographic center of C3 distribution, more or less (excluding America, naturally).
In any case I did not mean to speculate with "recent" (Neolithic or later) flow from the North but always in the Paleolithic (maybe c. 20 Ka.)
"But some contact must exist, right?"
ReplyDeleteTrue. But contact between Q and C is quite easy to visualise.
"Would I be asked, based on overall distribution I'd think Manchuria maybe but I feel very much unsure in any case - I'd be choosing this area just because it is at the geographic center of C3 distribution, more or less"
My guess would be further east, in the south-facing hills of Northern Mongolia, perhaps at the eastern end though.
"So do you think that C3 in Chinese and Koreans actually could represent a remnant or different branch(-es) of the original C3 scatter?"
I think so. But it seems obvious to me that C3 underwent a period of drift after it arrived in the north. Quite possibly that was during the LGM.
The map in this is interesting:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C3_(Y-DNA)
Places the centroid around Lake Baikal. However the author claims:
"First, Haplogroup C1 has a relictual distribution in Japan, which suggests an origin in the Jōmon people of the prehistoric Japanese Archipelago".
Which, from Ebizur's data, seems unlikely. And a couple of other statements:
"Haplogroup C* Y-chromosomes, which do not belong to any of the five identified subclades of Haplogroup C, are found at low frequency in Central Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Oceania".
"C3* Typical of Mongolians, Kazakhs, Buryats, Daurs, Kalmyks, Hazaras, Manchus, Sibes, Oroqens, Koryaks, and Itelmens; with a moderate distribution among other Tungusic peoples, Koreans, Ainus, Nivkhs, Altaians, Tuvinians, and Uzbeks"
Consequently I can't see how the author justifies this statement:
"In addition, the C3 haplotypes found with high frequency among North Asian populations appear to belong to a different genealogical branch from the C3 haplotypes found with low frequency among East and Southeast Asians, which suggests that the marginal presence of C3 among modern East and Southeast Asian populations may not be due to recent admixture from Northeast or Central Asia".
Surely it merely shows that C3's movment into SE Asia is ancient.
Terry: Why, why, why? You throw opinions around without backing them in any way and you do that all the time. We are not interested in your opinions (as such) but, if anything, in whatever reason and facts backing them. What we are interested in exchanging is intelligence and not just baseless opinions.
ReplyDelete"The map in this is interesting"...
The map is not very trustworthy. My best clue is Buryats, who live by Lake Baikal, and are mostly Y-DNA N and yet the map happily claims the Buryat country as one of the highest in Y-DNA C3.
Whatever the case, the data on subclades says, simplified:
· C3*: Altaic (micro-Altaic) peoples, Ainu, Nivkh, Hazara
· C3a: Japanese
· C3b: NW Native Americans
· C3c: Altaic peoples
· C3d: South China Tibeto-Burman (Tujia, Bai), Han (where?), Cambodians, Altaic peoples
· C3e: Altaic peoples
· C3f: ??
So it should have scattered from the Altaic area. I'd say that the presence in Japan and America reinforces the idea of Manchuria or Russian Far East as a possible origin for this clade.
"Surely it merely shows that C3's movment into SE Asia is ancient".
That's what I understand, otherwise we'd see a more representative array of "Altaic" lineages, as happens in Central Asia, where we know that the flow is quite recent.
"The map is not very trustworthy".
ReplyDeleteBecause you don't like what it shows?
"So it should have scattered from the Altaic area".
That's a change, coming from you.
"as happens in Central Asia, where we know that the flow is quite recent".
Do we really 'know' that? Isn't that an example of you throwing opinions around without backing them in any way and you do that all the time?
I told you WHY the map is not trustworthy, Terry. Don't be a dick, ok?
ReplyDelete"Do we really 'know' that?"
Yes, I think we do, otherwise there's no reason for it to be so concentrated in certain specific "ultra-nomadic" populations (Kazakhs notably) and almost absent in others which are surely more stable ones (Altaians, Uzbeks).
That is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
ReplyDelete"I told you WHY the map is not trustworthy"
Hardly. You told me why you THINK one aspect of the map is not trustworthy. And that claim doesn't stand scrutiny:
"My best clue is Buryats, who live by Lake Baikal, and are mostly Y-DNA N and yet the map happily claims the Buryat country as one of the highest in Y-DNA C3".
Turns out you are probably wrong in that claim:
http://s6.zetaboards.com/man/topic/528772/1/
"Derenko et al. 2005: n=238;
P(xR1): 4 (1.7%); R1(xR1a1): 2 (0.8); R1a1: 5 (2.1); N(xN3): 3 (1.3); N3: 45 (18.9); C: 152 (63.9); F(xG,H,I,J,K): 4 (1.7); G: 1 (0.4); I: 1 (0.4); K(xL,N,P): 21 (8.8)".
And:
"Hammer et al. 2006: n=81;
C3(xC3c1): 55.6%; C3c1: 4.9; G: 1.2%; J: 1,2%; N(xN3a): 2.5%; N3a: 28.4%; 2,5% O3-Line1; 3,7% R (1 man belonging to R1a1)".
In both cases C outnumbers N, as it does in a third list. I'm sure Ebizur will be able to enlighten as to the truth. But interestingly this link on Y-hap N doesn't mention Buryats at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_(Y-DNA)
The only relevant remark is:
"Meanwhile, the younger subcluster, which they labelled N3a2, originated in south Siberia (probably in the Baikal region) approximately 4,000 years ago".
Ok, I was wrong then, I guess. My ref. is McDonalds' maps but this seems more serious. I trust that Black Man is reporting faithfully.
ReplyDelete"Ok, I was wrong then, I guess".
ReplyDeleteThank you. Now perhaps we can get down to seriously discussing things.
"My ref. is McDonalds' maps but this seems more serious".
I've checked and even the McDonald map has over 50% Y-hap C (orange). But you may now be able to appreciate the map of Iran's flora and fauna shown about halfway down the page in this link (section 3):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Iran
Quote:
"More than one-tenth of the country is forested. The most extensive growths are found on the mountain slopes rising from the Caspian Sea, with stands of oak, ash, elm, cypress, and other valuable trees. On the plateau proper, areas of scrub oak appear on the best-watered mountain slopes"
Ideal human habitat. And note the stretch of 'forest steppe' and 'forest woodland' that reaches all the way into Afghanistan. Admittedly in a narrow stip but we both agree that F's major expansion didn't occur until it had reached the Indian subcontinent.
And just over the border in Afghanistan itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Afghanistan
"Although Herat is approximately 240 m (787 ft) lower than Kandahar, the summer climate there is more temperate, and the climate throughout the year is far from disagreeable. From May to September, the wind blows from the northwest with great force, and this extends across the country to Kandahar. The winter is tolerably mild; snow melts as it falls, and even on the mountains does not lie long. Three years out of four at Herat it does not freeze hard enough for the people to store ice"
And this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herat
"Herodotus described Herāt as the bread-basket of Central Asia".
Sounds like a nice region. And the previous link has this to say concerning the vegetation of Afghanistan:
"The characteristic distribution of vegetation on the mountains of Afghanistan is worthy of attention. The great mass of it is confined to the main ranges and their immediate off-shoots, whilst on the more distant and terminal prolongations it is almost entirely absent; in fact, these are naked rock and stone".
So vegetation is sufficient for human shelter and survival along many of the foothills of the mountain ranges. Now all we have to do is find evidence for human habitation during the Paleolithic.
So you think that the Iranian and Afghan semideserts are cool but the Indian Ocean coastal ones not?
ReplyDeleteProbably not the real case, much less in the midst of the ice age. But, hell, people adapt to almost everything, including Kandahar's climate.
"So you think that the Iranian and Afghan semideserts are cool but the Indian Ocean coastal ones not?"
ReplyDeleteI'd say the northern inland regions are almost certainly cooler than the southern coastal region, and, as the link says, not nearly as arid. In fact not even close to 'semi-desert'. Largely forested. Described as 'forest steppe' and 'forest woodland'.
"Probably not the real case, much less in the midst of the ice age"
The inland route would be even cooler in an ice age but then, if the OoA is older than 70,000 years such a route would have been used before any ice age developed.
"But, hell, people adapt to almost everything, including Kandahar's climate".
Thanks for bringing that up. You have consistently claimed that humans are capable of exploiting a range of environments, and I'm sure they would have less difficulty adapting to the reasonably well-vegetated (although cooler) inland region rather than the very arid coastal region.
Just for interest I looked up Kandahar in Wiki.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar
"Temperatures peak in July with a 24-hour daily average of around 31.9 °C (89.4 °F)".
That's not much hotter than here, although admittedly an 'average'.
"Winter begins in December and sees most of its precipitation in the form of rain. Temperatures average 5.1 °C (41.2 °F) in January, although lows can drop well below freezing".
That is cooler than here, but it would have a 'continental' climate: hot summers and cold winters. The climate here is ameliorated by the sea on both sides. And rainfall is much lower than here.
Mind you, here is the entry for Madrid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid
"The Madrid region features a Continental Mediterranean climate (Köppen Csa)[25][26] with cold winters due to altitude (650 m over the sea level in Alicante), including sporadic snowfalls and minimum temperatures often below freezing. Summer tends to be hot with temperatures that consistently surpass 30 °C (86 °F) in July and August and rarely above 40 °C (104 °F). Due to Madrid's altitude and dry climate, diurnal ranges are often significant during the summer. Precipitation is concentrated in the autumn and spring. It is particularly sparse during the summer, taking the form of one or two showers and/or thunderstorms a month".
So sounds like Kandahar is a more pleasant place to live than Madrid! Madrid does have more rain though.
As a comparison here is my closest main town:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whangarei
"Whangarei falls in the oceanic climate zone. It is the warmest and the northernmost city in NZ. Summer days occasionally exceed 30°C, and there is plentiful rainfall spread relatively evenly over the year ... Whangarei is roughly the antipodal point of Tangier, Morocco".
And much more rain than either Kandahar or Madrid.
Coastal regions are usually more temperate. Inland areas tend be cooler and hotter at different moments (day/night or winter/summer).
ReplyDeleteWhatever the case, heat is good for us, in principle, because we don't have fur (except the "hat") but instead massive distribution of sweating glands designed to withstand the tropical heat - even at noon say some, arguing that this would have allowed our ancestors to compete with lions and hyenas, who, furry as they are, have to rest with so much heat.
Cold on the other hand is bad. We need artificial stuff like clothes and fire to combat it and survive. It may drive innovation but it is potentially deadly too.
"if the OoA is older than 70,000 years such a route would have been used before any ice age developed".
I do not understand. We are in a permanent Ice Age, except for the interglaciars. Now we are at an interglaciar and there was another maybe 120-130 Ka ago (according to the Vostok-Petit data) but all the rest was Ice Age, before and after. Now, within the glaciation, there was a tendency to worsening conditions and more or less abrupt variations, it seems.
You may mean the Abbasia Pluvial, which was roughly between 120-90 Ka., i.e. the beginning of the latest glaciation cycle was humid in the Saharan and Arabian deserts. Maybe it affected Afghanistan but for the same logic it must have affected Makran, whose aridity is a product of the Arabian desert essentially. However since c. 90 Ka. the temperature kept falling culminating in the Toba-induced ash winter c. 74 Ka ago.
A less important second Pluvial (Mosuterian Pluvial) would follow and then again temperatures would collapse until a low limit when the cold subc-cyle ended (temporarily), starting the Holocene.
"and I'm sure they would have less difficulty adapting to the reasonably well-vegetated (although cooler)"...
Have you ever looked at pics of Kandahar? Well vegetated my aunt!
air view, you can see the "vegetation" behind the mud huts
village amd mountains near Kandahar
one with some vegetation so obviously product of irrigation that hurts (look at the arid surroundings).
It doesn't look much better than Makran to me. I guess that with appropriate irrigation works, what means only since Neolithic, it can support small nations, but in the Paleolithic it was just like Makran: a harsh area that limited the number of inhabitants and hence acted as genetic buffer.
South Asia is fully surrounded by the West by that kind of semideserts (plus some full fledged deserts in Iran) that make sure that West and South Asia are clearly different regions.
"I do not understand. We are in a permanent Ice Age, except for the interglaciars".
ReplyDeleteBut from your link you can see that conditions were ameliorated at times. The greatest cooling is around 70,000 years ago and again around 40-20,000 years ago. And around 120-130,000 years ago the climate was particularly warm.
"Have you ever looked at pics of Kandahar? Well vegetated my aunt!"
My original comment had nothing to do with Kandahar.
"It doesn't look much better than Makran to me".
But both places are much less inviting than are Northern Iran and Herat.
"Cold on the other hand is bad. We need artificial stuff like clothes and fire to combat it and survive".
But humans obviously adapted to cold very early in the piece. Neanderthals could survive in it, and so could East Asians. Extreme aridity is very difficult to survive in.
You mentioned the McDonald maps a couple of days ago. Take a look at the Y-hap pie diagram for 'Persia'. Y-haps E3b, F, G, I, J, K, L, O, Q, R(xR1), R1a and R1b. No C or D, but talk about haplogroup diversity! Some are obviously downstream versions but does that apply to all of them?
E3b is obviously the derived E1b1b1, almost certainly from the Horn of Africa, and almost certainly the connection between Iran and Africa is long after any 'original' OoA.
I presume the O is O2a, connected originally to the Austro-Asiatic speaking SE Asians. But R(xR1) is interseting. Presumably R2, the India haplogroup. R derives from P, which derives from MNOPS: SE Asian again. But to me R1b at least is almost certainly Iranian in origin. Perhaps R1a is too, although it has its greatest diversity in India.
I've no idea which Q is represented. All I know is that Q became the most common Y-hap in America and remains commonest in Asia amoung the Selkups and Kets of the Yenisey River catchment. Perhaps Q moved back to Iran from there, but its ancestor must have moved through Iran at some stage.
K is presumably T. L and T both look to be Indian/Pakistani to me and, it seems, to you. But possibly from near the border with Iran/Afghanistan.
What is the F? Whatever, the McDonald map of Europe shows it present as far west as Georgia. So presumably it is F3, a basal F haplogroup.
I and J are the same so that leaves just G and IJ. To me it seems obvious that both coalesced somewhere near Iran, if not actually in it.
I know yoy prefer using mtDNA haplogroups, so a few observations. As well as 'Persia' the McDonald mtDNA map has a group that lives partly in Iran: 'Kurds'. Persia has M, N, I, W, R, HV, H, J, T, U and K. We can argue till the cows come haome as to whether R coalesced in SE or S Asia, but we both agree it is an immigrant into Iran. That leaves M, N, I and W. The Kurds and Persians share their basal N haplogroups although M is absent in the Kurds, as is I. But I has been included in N1'5 now and that could easily be present in the Kurds.
You know my position on the western N haplogroups' presence in Iran so we can leave it. But to me there is no reason why the Iranian members of these haplogroups coalesced anywhere other than where they are found today.
The end result is that we can easily see evidence for a movement of haplogroups through Iran rather than along the coast.
"The greatest cooling is around 70,000 years ago and again around 40-20,000 years ago".
ReplyDeleteBut those are not the ice age, just extremes, for example the low c. 70 Ka was caused by the Toba super-volcano.
"My original comment had nothing to do with Kandahar".
You actually did mention Kandahar at length:
Just for interest I looked up Kandahar in Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar
"Temperatures peak in July with a 24-hour daily average of around 31.9 °C (89.4 °F)".
That's not much hotter than here, although admittedly an 'average'.
However I did miss this: But both places are much less inviting than are Northern Iran and Herat.
Wild grass at Herat Jewish cemetery, at air runway (1), (2).
What's up with you? Can't you even google a few photos before you issue your funny claims? Those areas are arid.
More: they are just East of the major deserts Dasht-e Kavir and Dasht-e Lut of Iran, which are just the driest centers in an otherwise arid landscape dominating most of Iran.
The only way to avoid semidesert In East Iran, in present conditions, is by the border with Uzbekistan. That would bring us to the Kara Kum and Kyzil Kum deserts and only a narrow "oasis strip" by the south of former Soviet Central Asia allows connection between the Zagros/Caucasus and Altai or South Asia.
Conditions of dryness and cold should have in general increased quite a bit in the regular glacial periods, with the exception of the pluvials possibly (but pluvials are defined at the Sahara, not Central Asia, so unsure).
Notice please all the work I could have avoided doing if you bothered checking your facts.
"Neanderthals could survive in [extreme cold], and so could East Asians"...
ReplyDeleteOther Homo species are irrelevant here. For what I know they might well have been furry (or have technology we did not have).
"Take a look at the Y-hap pie diagram for 'Persia'. Y-haps E3b, F, G, I, J, K, L, O, Q, R(xR1), R1a and R1b. No C or D, but talk about haplogroup diversity! Some are obviously downstream versions but does that apply to all of them?"
All those lineages can be described as F* (????), G and IJK. You must first understand the phylogeny at the level of F node and not just talk of "diversity" in general. Also you must understand that the Zagros area (the most habitable part of Iran) was Neanderthal territory for long, while our kin effectively expanded in SE Asia and surroundings.
"What is the F? Whatever, the McDonald map of Europe shows it present as far west as Georgia".
F* is still reported in the Caucasus BUT also in South Asia, where most known sublineages of F still do exist.
All F basal sublineages exist in South Asia, except G. That is a basal diversity index of (8/9) 89%. Unbeatable!!!
In West Asia, second in this matter admittedly, the index is of only (4/9) 44%, half that of South Asia.
Remember please that all within IJK must be considered as a single subclade and hence as 1/9 (or more precisely 1/8 plus "asterisk") of all F basal diversity.
Do not insist again in pretending that somehow downstream diversity increases the basal diversity of F (or any other macro-haplogroup) at all. It'd be like pretending that Europe has the highest diversity for mtDNA N just because there are so many documented subclades of H and U... ridiculous!
"G and IJ. To me it seems obvious that both coalesced somewhere near Iran"...
I can agree with that but that is downstream of F, after the F node, which coalesced in South Asia without doubt.
"That leaves M, N, I and W".
Virtually all Western "M" is M1 and virtually all "N" (N-other) is N1(xI). Don't sweat it, ok?
"Notice please all the work I could have avoided doing if you bothered checking your facts".
ReplyDeleteNotice please the facts I pointed out that you are so keen to ignore.
"More: they are just East of the major deserts Dasht-e Kavir and Dasht-e Lut of Iran, which are just the driest centers in an otherwise arid landscape dominating most of Iran".
So? What's your point? The link actually said:
"More than one-tenth of the country is forested".
And take another look at the map. The dark green and light green are described as 'forest'. Forest does not grow in arid regions. And the 'forest' stretches all the way to the Afghan border.
"That would bring us to the Kara Kum and Kyzil Kum deserts and only a narrow 'oasis strip' by the south of former Soviet Central Asia allows connection between the Zagros/Caucasus and Altai or South Asia".
That is surely enough of a continuous strip for migration along it.
"You actually did mention Kandahar at length"
Yes. But not in relation to a possible migration route. So have a look at this vegetation map of Afghanistan:
http://www.ag-afghanistan.de/files/vegetationmap.jpg
The spots and vertical dashes are described as 'woodlands', as is the khaki-grey. Therefore not arid, and reasonably productive human habitat. The 'woodlands' of Afghanistan form a virtually continuous link with the 'forest' of Iran. So to repeat:
"Notice please all the work I could have avoided doing if you bothered checking your facts".
Only because you refused to accept those facts.
"Also you must understand that the Zagros area (the most habitable part of Iran) was Neanderthal territory for long, while our kin effectively expanded in SE Asia and surroundings".
ReplyDeleteWe don't actually 'know' that. You 'assume' it.
"I can agree with that but that is downstream of F, after the F node, which coalesced in South Asia without doubt".
Without doubt? I don't think so.
"Remember please that all within IJK must be considered as a single subclade and hence as 1/9 (or more precisely 1/8 plus 'asterisk') of all F basal diversity".
The 'basal diversity' of IJK consists of two haplogroups: IJ and K(xIJ). Hardly convincing evidence for a South Asian origin. In fact argues against such an origin. And check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_F_(Y-DNA)
The nine F haplogroups are: F*, F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, G, H, IJK.
Just quoting the article and altering the order a little:
"IJK (L15/S137, L16/S138)
G (M201) - Mainly in Caucasus and Near East.
F3 (P96, M282) - In South Iran and South India.[13] Also in Armenia[14] and rare in Netherlands".
That's three for SW Asia. And:
"F* Specially in India[8] and the Caucasus, and rare through Asia".
So that could be four for SW Asia.
"F1 (P91, P104) - Found in Sri Lanka.
F4 (P254) - In Sri Lanka"
Sri Lanka? Not India? And:
"F2 (M427, M428) - In Lahu people (China)".
Again, not India. Finally:
"F5 (M481) - Found in southeastern India
H (M69, M370) - Typical for the Indian subcontinent".
So three in SW Asia, one common to both SW Asia and India, two in India, two in Sri Lanka and one is East Asia. Of course I realise you're going to claim the article is not very trustworthy because it conflicts with your belief.
You may find this an interesting read concerning Tasmanian Aborigines.
ReplyDeletehttp://austhrutime.com/aboriginal_occupation_south_central_tasmania_pleistocene.htm
Quote:
"They say that the range of variability associated with modern humans is greater than has been realised previously. Evidence has been found that there is not a 1-to-1 correlation between the advent of modern Homo sapiens and any particular classes of stone tools (Trinkhaus, 1986; Foley, 1987). It has been pointed out that, though the first people to arrive in Australia were essentially modern humans, the morphology and technology of their stone artefacts 'could come out of the African or European Lower Palaeolithic (Gowlett, 1987: 215), a pattern that had been recognised by early researchers (Jones, 1977: 190-1; White, 1977: 24)".
So we cannot rely on stone technology as an indicator of Homo sapiens as opposed to other humans.
"In the subantarctic environment that existed in Tasmania during the glacial phase the diet of lean meat would not provide all essential nutrients in late winter and early spring seasonal fluctuations, with the absence of plant carbohydrates".
'Subantarctic'. That would be fairly cold.
And this link is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-arid_climate
"A more precise definition is given by the Köppen climate classification that treats steppe climates (BSk and BSh) as intermediates between desert climates (BW) and humid climates in ecological characteristics and agricultural potential. Semi-arid climates tend to support short or scrubby vegetation, with semi-arid areas usually being dominated by either grasses or shrubs".
So 'semi-arid' is different from 'arid'. Note that Australia has both 'hot semi-arid' and 'cold semi-arid' regions. Aborigines lived in both regions. I have visited the hot semi-arid regions of both Australia and of Africa. In Africa it is known as 'the Sahel' and people have lived there for a very long time. My brother lives in the cold semi-arid region of Southeast Australia so I'm familiar with that too.
Sorry. Me again. Take a look at this map, 'Distribution of Arid and Hyper Arid areas of Iran':
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Iran/Iranfig4.htm
Note the southeastern coastal region. Here's the original link which I'm sure you will find interesting:
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Iran/Iran.htm
"More than one-tenth of the country is forested".
ReplyDeleteThe Balochistan forest...
Look at the map and think again: Iran is huge and most people live in the Western third of the state for a reason. Eastern Iran is a semidesert to desert area that is almost uninhabited. But not totally so. This is true for Balochistan as for other areas.
"So have a look at this vegetation map of Afghanistan":
All the West strip is desertic: sand desert, salicornium desert, other deserts, ephemeral desert, semidesert...
"The 'woodlands' of Afghanistan form a virtually continuous link with the 'forest' of Iran".
Via Uzbekistan mostly, you are describing the Silk Road, the "oasis zone" of Central Asia, nothing else. It is unclear to me how this area was in the cold and dry periods that make up most of the Ice Age.
Whatever the case, it is more likely that this was the Neanderthal and not the Sapiens route, because what are in the Zagros are? Neanderthals! What are in Altai? Neanderthals!
Only since c. 50 Ka. and more like 40 Ka. we start seeing Homo sapiens in all this area instead of just "archaics".
"We don't actually 'know' that. You 'assume' it".
We know it. Have you ever heard of Shanidar?
"The 'basal diversity' of IJK"...
... doesn't matter almost at all. I am talking of F, and IJK is just one out of 9 basal sublineages.
Just like the USA does not matter for the Medieval history of England, which was before. Just like you do not matter to explain your great-grandfather.
"Sri Lanka? Not India?"
LOL, burning nail and extreme clownish contradiction alert!
You always call "India" to all South Asia (I'm generally more careful and I talk of South Asia instead) and now you come with "Sri Lanka is not India"?!
Well, I said South Asia all the time, mind you. The division between "India" and "Sri Lanka" is arbitrary and certainly not anything Prehistoric.
"So three in SW Asia, one common to both SW Asia and India, two in India, two in Sri Lanka"
F*, F3 and IJK do exist in South Asia, at least as much as in West Asia. I did got it wrong F2 maybe but it's still 7/9 in South Asia (and that means 6 in India Republic at least). Most of these lineages do not exist in West Asia (4/9 - G, IJK, F* and F3), much less in East Asia (3/9 - IJK, F* and F2).
Don't fuck with my mind, please. It's tiresome.
"Of course I realise you're going to claim the article is not very trustworthy because it conflicts with your belief".
Not at all. Your interpretation is a horrible deformation of the facts it narrates (up to the point of building a lie out of truthful data, what is so nasty that I promise to ban you if you do again) but the list is probably fine.
"Trinkhaus, 1986"
ReplyDeleteLOL, Trinkaus and misspelled.
"So we cannot rely on stone technology as an indicator of Homo sapiens as opposed to other humans".
We cannot rely on Trinkaus.
While it is true that there is not necessarily a strict correlation between toolkits and species there is still a more than statistically significant one and hence if we see Mousterian and say Neanderthal, we are very likely to be correct.
In any case, there are some actual bones which are like milestones describing the geography of each species before the westwards colonization by our ancestors.
"So 'semi-arid' is different from 'arid'".
And arid is different from desert, etc. It's not me but you who is messing around with categories that were not even the same 12,000 years ago.
In any case, when you compare the alleged Koppen map over there with other local maps, it happens to be wrong all over the place: Makran is arid, not desert. Same for the southern coasts of Arabia, etc.
According to your links, in the Balochi zone (Makran), you can find today the following vegetation: Avicennia officinalis (mangrove tree), Rhizophora mucronata (mangrove tree), Acacia arabica (mimosa), Prosopis spicigera (a pea low tree), Panicum antidotale (rhizomatic grass), Pennisetum (grass), Cenchrus ciliaris (grass), Tricholaena teneriffae (grass?), Taverniera (legume), Astragalus (legume bushes), Rhynchosia (bean-related), Amygdalus scoparia (almond tree/bush), Amygdalus horrida (almond tree/bush), Pistacia khinjuk (pistachio), Stocksia brahuica (?), Pteropyrum aucheri (rosacea).
If there are pistachios, almonds and acacias... not to mention mangroves (fish, crabs, snails...) you can live there.
I think that you cannot insist that the coast was or is inhabitable. It may not be able to support a large army ignorant of the country's peculiarities but for sure it can support knowledgeable small forager clans.
"Eastern Iran is a semidesert to desert area that is almost uninhabited".
ReplyDeleteYes. But the north is far from uninhabited.
"We know it. Have you ever heard of Shanidar?"
A few fossils from a single site in Kurdistan.
"Via Uzbekistan mostly, you are describing the Silk Road, the 'oasis zone' of Central Asia, nothing else. It is unclear to me how this area was in the cold and dry periods that make up most of the Ice Age".
Generally speaking as climate warms the vegetation zones move south and/or to lowere altitudes. The reverse during warmer phases. With increasing aridity forest zones contract and grassland expands. The reverse during pluvials. So the vegetation zones were presumably still present during the ice age. They just shifted.
"I am talking of F, and IJK is just one out of 9 basal sublineages"
As are G and F3. So that's 3 of 9.
"F*, F3 and IJK do exist in South Asia, at least as much as in West Asia".
Not F3 and only downstream mutations of IJK.
"In any case, when you compare the alleged Koppen map over there with other local maps, it happens to be wrong all over the place: Makran is arid, not desert. Same for the southern coasts of Arabia, etc".
The other map shows the same. It's by Hossein Badripour and is part of an FAO report. The map is much the same sort of thing I was making when I first graduated. It is very likely to be correct.
"If there are pistachios, almonds and acacias... not to mention mangroves (fish, crabs, snails...) you can live there".
Not every item of vegetation is found in the one place.
"I think that you cannot insist that the coast was or is inhabitable. It may not be able to support a large army ignorant of the country's peculiarities but for sure it can support knowledgeable small forager clans".
But extremely unlikely to have been any sort of route to anywhere.
I really admire the way you so blatantly massage the data to make it fit your belief.
ReplyDelete"IJK is just one out of 9 basal sublineages".
I find it very difficult to take seriously your belief that IJK coalesced in South Asia when the downstream mutations peel off progressively from west to east: from Iran all the way to Melanesia.
"All F basal sublineages exist in South Asia, except G. That is a basal diversity index of (8/9) 89%. Unbeatable!!!"
Surely the diversity of F in South Asia is a product of the regions large size rather than being 'proof' of origin.
"What are in Altai? Neanderthals!"
Not so, according to the evidence from Denisova.
"Via Uzbekistan mostly, you are describing the Silk Road, the 'oasis zone' of Central Asia, nothing else".
Surely it makes sense that the Silk Road would have followed the easiest pathway between east and west. Consequently it should be no surprise that humans have used it whenever conditions have allowed.
"Don't fuck with my mind, please. It's tiresome".
I'm trying to open it, not fuck with it.
"I find it very difficult to take seriously your belief that IJK coalesced in South Asia"...
ReplyDeleteI have not even arrived to that point yet. I do not have any such belief anyhow (it's a tossed coin, so say Balochistan, which is right in between - and will irk you anyhow).
My only point is where did F coalesce? With 7/9 basal sublineages existing in South Asia (compared to 4 and 3 for competing regions respectively, regions located west and east of South Asia, BTW) the answer is very clear: South Asia.
"Surely the diversity of F in South Asia is a product of the regions large size rather than being 'proof' of origin".
South Asia is not larger than West Eurasia (see this equal area projection map, for example). It is in fact the smaller of the three great regions of Eurasia.
Besides, if there was such a demographic flourishing in West Asia, as you seem to claim, we should have some genetic evidence of it. There is absolutely nothing! And the reason is that our species was restricted to very specific low quality (dry) areas in the South, the most important of which may have been the Persian Gulf 'Oasis', a swampy area now submerged (PGO hereafter).
While it's plausible that the PGO played some role in in the colonization of West Eurasia, specially in relation to Y-DNA IJ and later T maybe, and some mtDNA lineages like M1... all the genetic evidence, certainly all the mtDNA evidence but also the Y-DNA one point to centers of dispersal further east in South and SE Asia.
You are and will be unable to change the reality that F has most diversity in South Asia, double than in other regions, which are regions extending to the West and East of South Asia in any case.
You have to be as stubborn as a Biblical literalist to deny this evidence, which is reinforced by all the mtDNA evidence and all the other Y-DNA evidence, for example the distribution of Y-DNA C, F's "little brother".
IJ and G alone cannot change that reality because they have a second and third tier status in relation to the real thing: macro-haplogroups F, C and D (and their female equivalents M and N).
"Not so, according to the evidence from Denisova".
A single cave in the far North of the region inhabited by hybrids of Neanderthal and some other Homo species, probably H. erectus.
There is clear evidence of Neanderthals in Altai, but south of Denisova. And you know it already (so why do you even argue this?)
"Surely it makes sense that the Silk Road would have followed the easiest pathway between east and west".
There was also a naval Silk Route, it's just less famous. But Marco Polo himself returned through it and it was the naval Silk Route what brought Vasco de Gama to "the Indies".
Also there were no domestic camels in the age we are discussing and these were critical in building up a stable Silk Road by land. Not in vain they are said to be the boats of the desert.
"I'm trying to open it, not fuck with it".
You cheat with the evidence as if you thought you could outsmart me and get away with lies and manipulations. I don't like that at all.
"You cheat with the evidence as if you thought you could outsmart me and get away with lies and manipulations. I don't like that at all".
ReplyDeleteNo Maju. It is you who cheats with the evidence. Even the authors of these Wiki links disagree with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_IJ_(Y-DNA)
Quote:
"The lack of any examples of Haplogroup IJ* belonging to neither Haplogroup I nor Haplogroup J complicates any attempt to deduce the geographical location where Haplogroup IJ first appeared; however, the fact that both Haplogroup I and Haplogroup J are found among modern populations of the Caucasus, Anatolia, and Southwest Asia tends to support the hypothesis that Haplogroup IJ derived from Haplogroup IJK in the vicinity of West Asia or the Middle East and subsequently spread throughout Western Eurasia".
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_IJK_(Y-DNA)
Quote:
"According to Family Tree DNA, the two SNPs defining this haplogroup unite I, J, and K within F as a 'brother clade' to G and H.[1] FTDNA further states that haplogroup IJK's relationship with haplogroup F1 through F4 is unknown".
So G could very easily be 'older' than 'F1 through F4', especially if those Fs are monophyletic.
"My only point is where did F coalesce? With 7/9 basal sublineages existing in South Asia (compared to 4 and 3 for competing regions respectively, regions located west and east of South Asia, BTW) the answer is very clear: South Asia".
As you can see, the answer is far from 'clear', especially for IJK and G.
"South Asia is not larger than West Eurasia"
Maju. One thing we have come to agree on is that the area available for H. sapiens in Iran/Anatolia/Levant was considerably smaller than the whole region. On the other hand most of South Asia was quite habitable.
"for example the distribution of Y-DNA C, F's 'little brother'".
'Little brother'? And this from someone who's just accused ME of being 'as stubborn as a Biblical literalist to deny this evidence'. You've just recently finally admitted that C3 is centred on Lake Baikal. And you know very well that C1 is Japanese, C2 is Wallacean and C4 is Australian. Admittedly you are yet to concede that C5 is concentrated in Pakistan and Nepal, rather than throughout South Asia, so you still have a little more to learn.
"There was also a naval Silk Route, it's just less famous".
And useless until boating technology became sufficiently developed.
They do not disagree with me, Terry, I also think (I am sure) that IJ coalesced in West Asia. It is not too relevant for the origin of its "grandfather" F however.
ReplyDelete"You've just recently finally admitted that C3 is centred on Lake Baikal".
I have not "admitted" anything like that. All I acknowledged is higher frequencies in Buryat Republic than I thought/remembered.
"And you know very well that C1 is Japanese, C2 is Wallacean and C4 is Australian. Admittedly you are yet to concede that C5 is concentrated in Pakistan and Nepal, rather than throughout South Asia"...
Pakistan is South Asia and so is Nepal but whatever the location of C5, C as a whole must have coalesced in SE Asia and scattered quickly northwards and southwards. Because C is distributed essentially along the Western Coast of the Pacific Ocean.
"I also think (I am sure) that IJ coalesced in West Asia. It is not too relevant for the origin of its 'grandfather' F however".
ReplyDeleteIt is relevant for the origin of IJK though. The comment actually was, 'Haplogroup IJ derived from Haplogroup IJK in the vicinity of West Asia or the Middle East'. That strongly suggests that IJK was already in West Asia or the Middle East by the time that IJ arose. Which would show that KMNOPS moved from there into South Asia rather than that IJ moved out from the Indian subcontinent. All this shows that it is extremely unlikely that IJK or its ancestor had ever been anywhere near South Asia. Its 'grandfather' F ('brothers' actually) had presumaby also moved into South Asia from West Asia or the Middle East.
"Pakistan is South Asia and so is Nepal but whatever the location of C5, C as a whole must have coalesced in SE Asia and scattered quickly northwards and southwards".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C_(Y-DNA)
Quote:
"C5 (M356) Found with low frequency in South Asia, Central Asia, and Southwest Asia"
Central Asia and Southwest Asia? C could easily have separated into C3 and C5 in Central Asia.
"Because C is distributed essentially along the Western Coast of the Pacific Ocean".
Have a look at the map of C's distribution here:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SwWxkQGTZYI/AAAAAAAACCw/o3ls7yD1sig/s1600/maps-chiaroni.png
Could you please tell me what in the map demonstrates that C reached East Asia via the Indian subcontinent. And while you're at it could you tell me what element of G's distribution demonstrates that G emerged from the India subcontinent.
And the map of J's distribution tends to indicate that the downstream haplogroup J was the first modern Y-hap into Yemen, not IJ or IJK. In other words the region, so perfect for human habitation and migration, had become uninhabited. And Y-hap J reached Socotra before J1 had begun its own expansion, and Socotra was reached no earlier than about 12,000 years ago.
"There was also a naval Silk Route, it's just less famous".
ReplyDeleteThe map in the link reaches almost to Madagascar, and I presume it is related to human arrival on the island. Madagascar is not included because it did not remain part of the trade route. People didn't arrive in Madagascar until around 2000 years ago. From SE Asia, which is included as part of the naval silk route. That's about the same time as people began moving into the Pacific beyond Samoa and Tonga. They had arrived there about 1000 years earlier, having left SE Asia not much more than 2000 years before that. Something had been happening with boating in SE Asia for quite some time.
"It is relevant for the origin of IJK though".
ReplyDeleteYes but that's deviating the attention. Say Balochistan... (very provisionally).
"The comment actually was, 'Haplogroup IJ derived from Haplogroup IJK in the vicinity of West Asia or the Middle East'. That strongly suggests that IJK was already in West Asia or the Middle East"...
It does not: you are again confusing head and butt. Obviously some IJK line migrated West, probably not yet as IJ (so 'pre-IJ') but nothing is known of the origin of IJK.
This can only be solved (with some uncertainty because the lineage has just two known sub-branches) solving the origin of K first. We can and we should address this matter first of all. I have all the dots in my mind and that's why I think that K coalesced in the Narmada Valley or not far away. K has:
· MNOPS
· LT
LT is so clearly centered in Pakistan that it hurts. MNOPS we have already argued that surely coalesced in SE Asia. I'm ignoring K* because most of it is surely in MNOPS.
Now draw a line between Karachi and Rangoon. Find the middle point. Draw a circle of uncertainty around it on your best guess. That's the probable origin of K.
It is on the Narmada-Son riverine route.
"C could easily have separated into C3 and C5 in Central Asia".
C in Central Asia is generally considered recent, a Neolithic to Turkic expansion phenomenon. Prove me wrong in this.
"Could you please tell me what in the map demonstrates that C reached East Asia via the Indian subcontinent"?
No. The map cannot demonstrate that, nor can I. What the distribution demonstrates is a Pacific Rim phenomenon (with two clear concentrations in NE Asia and Australia/Wallacea). When you draw the centroid of its subclades it unavoidably falls somewhere in SE Asia.
You cannot deny this fact, yet you all the time use distractions to avoid facing it.
So we have this fact: C must have coalesced in SE Asia yet it spread at the margins of an expansion from that area: NE Asia and beyond Wallace Line. This leads us (from context from other genetic lineages/genetic markers) to understand that it was part of the Great Eurasian Expansion and left its print only in those areas/populations, thanks to founder effects.
It says nothing of where it came from but it tells us something about the coalescence of CF, because the C+F centroid falls again in South Asia.
You can of course argue baselessly that it arrived to South Asia via the North Pole or whatever but it's not credible.
"... haplogroup J was the first modern Y-hap into Yemen, not IJ or IJK".
I can agree with that. Luckily mtDNA tells us of a richer and more complex story with "modern" haplogroups remaining from near the time of the OoA most likely.
"... And Y-hap J reached Socotra before J1 had begun its own expansion"...
No way! There's no way you can conclude that. The opposite is probably true. I reconstruct that J split in three main branches: J1 centered in Palestine, J2 centered in the Taurus-Zagros Highlands and "J3" (including most of Arabian J*) to South Arabia.
Only much later this J* ("J3") lineage would reach Socotra... because it's probable that Socotra was not located nor colonized before the Neolithic. Hence it represents a refuge migration of people from Mahra and other South Arabian areas before the pressure of J1 Neolithic settlers from the North.
"It says nothing of where it came from but it tells us something about the coalescence of CF, because the C+F centroid falls again in South Asia".
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you should bring that up. Have a look at ISOGG:
http://www.isogg.org/tree/
"it was part of the Great Eurasian Expansion and left its print only in those areas/populations, thanks to founder effects".
According to ISOGG F's expansion is at least 25 mutations from the CF node whereas C's is 6 mutations from that node. I realise this short C tail could be due in part to lack of research on the haplogroup but that in turn opens up the probability that the C expansion is not 'star-like' but is regionally progressive. Like IJK's. But, just going on the evidence as it stands, C's expansion occurred very soon after the CF node, and independently of F's. So it was almost certainly not 'part of the Great Eurasian Expansion', well certainly not the same part of it as was F.
"You are and will be unable to change the reality that F has most diversity in South Asia, double than in other regions"
But those 25 mutations in F's tail surely indicate that pre-F spent quite some time subject to drift, presumably because it was confined to a region of relatively limited extent before it expanded. The Indian subcontinent hardly fits that requirement. South Asia fits more readily the sudden diversification of the F haplogroups. Expansion and diversification is usually the result of a change in the environment, either by climate change or entry into a new region. And one of the F haplogroups, G, is now shown on ISOGG as having a tail of 21 mutations from the F node before undergoing its own expansion. And IJK lies just 3 mutations from the F node, but IJ has a further 10 mutations before those two haplogroups split. This suggests that both G and IJ remained in the 'region of relatively limited extent' after the others had begun their expansion. And F3's tail has grown somewhat recently.
"J1 centered in Palestine, J2 centered in the Taurus-Zagros Highlands and 'J3' (including most of Arabian J*) to South Arabia".
Possible. Except I've seen no claim that J* is monophyletic.
"LT is so clearly centered in Pakistan that it hurts. MNOPS we have already argued that surely coalesced in SE Asia".
I agree completely with you concerning both those haplogroups. But pre-IJ had branched off long before those haplogroups coalesced.
"Obviously some IJK line migrated West"
Rubbish. K(xIJ) could easily have, and probably did, migrated east.
"I'm ignoring K* because most of it is surely in MNOPS".
Yes, and that is downstream of both IJ and LT.
"C must have coalesced in SE"
It is impossible to claim that with any certainty at all.
"C in Central Asia is generally considered recent, a Neolithic to Turkic expansion phenomenon. Prove me wrong in this".
C in the Lake Baikal region could be way earlier than Neolithic.
"According to ISOGG F's expansion is at least 25 mutations from the CF node whereas C's is 6 mutations from that node".
ReplyDeleteThose are known mutations: we'd need to analyze complete Y-chromosomes (equally for all lineages) in order to know ALL mutations. Naturally F is a much better researched lineage than C.
We cannot count Y-DNA SNPs as we would with mtDNA ones. That's the main reason I prefer to work with mtDNA: it's very well researched because the number of base implicated is many times smaller.
Would we use Y-DNA SNPs (assuming many risks and uncertainties) we'd have to normalize all branches along their full length, so a C-line SNP may be equivalent to 10 or 20 F-line SNPs.
I did that once but I feel it's very slippery terrain, so I won't do that again. Instead I'll study mtDNA and deduce Y-DNA timeline from the mtDNA one and Archaeology.
"Except I've seen no claim that J* is monophyletic".
Not all J* but all or most South Arabian J* is likely to be monophyletic ("J3"). My opinion in any case. It can also be studied at the STR level - when done properly it has sometimes anticipated new haplogroups by detecting distinct branches of STR haplotypes.
"But pre-IJ had branched off long before those haplogroups coalesced".
Probably. So what? It could still be in "limbo" for enough time for MNOPS and LT (and even P and T) coalescing before or simultaneously to IJ proper.
This is something that we cannot know for sure easily but I understand that P-derived pre-R1b and pre-Q (and maybe also T) arrived to West Asia about the same time as pre-IJ and pre-G did. Possibly a bit later than IJ because J's partial hegemony may be based on a founder effect but that's threading too thin for me.
In my latest version of the mtDNA story of human expansion in Eurasia, I estimated that the expansion into West Asia (but not yet Europe) took place in mutational step #5 and #6.
These should correspond to the 50-40 Ka BP bracket (or maybe a fraction of it).
This process should also have involved Y-DNA IJ, R1b, Q, G, T etc. But it's unclear if they arrived in any particular order, numbers or routes. I'd guess for a more northernly route for R1b and G (via the "Silk Road", so to say) and a more southernly one for IJ and T (coastal route), while Q had a more restricted expansion being notable mostly in Altai, with later projection into Siberia and America.
And I'd guess that R1b and IJ were senior partners in the two routes while G and T were less important partners maybe. Alternatively G was senior in the northern route but R1b accidentally managed to establish a founder effect in Europe.
But I do not think in several waves: just one, even if it probably had some complexity.
[MNOPS] "is downstream of both IJ and LT".
No. MNOPS is strictly parallel ("brother") of LT and not even directly downstream of IJ ("uncle"). Sometimes uncles are younger than nephews, moreso when we are using these terms figuratively (i.e. encompassing an unknown but rather large number of generations).
"C in the Lake Baikal region could be way earlier than Neolithic".
Surely. But that's not what I think when I speak of Central Asia. Lake Baikal is the Easternmost border of West Eurasian influence, so I guess it can also be the Easternmost border of Central Asia. Anyhow when I think of Central Asia I think of the former Soviet Central Asia, plus nearby South Siberia, notably Altai and probably also Afghanistan, Kashmir and even Uyghuristan maybe. But not the Buryat Republic nor most of Mongolia: that's clearly NE Asia.
My question is about C3 (and C5?) in Central Asia, which I understand reflects the Turco-Mongol expansion and nothing else.
"Those are known mutations: we'd need to analyze complete Y-chromosomes (equally for all lineages) in order to know ALL mutations. Naturally F is a much better researched lineage than C".
ReplyDeleteCertainly. But that tail for F can only get longer, not shorter.
"we'd have to normalize all branches along their full length, so a C-line SNP may be equivalent to 10 or 20 F-line SNPs".
And you could then very validly be accused of manipulating the data to fit your pre-existing belief unless you can actually find the mutations.
"Not all J* but all or most South Arabian J* is likely to be monophyletic ('J3'). My opinion in any case".
It is your 'opinion' only because it fits your 'faith'.
"Probably. So what? It could still be in 'limbo' for enough time for MNOPS and LT (and even P and T) coalescing before or simultaneously to IJ proper"
And that's what looks to be the case. But that 'limbo' is very unlikely to have been in any region where other Y-haps, such as LT and MNOPS, were diversifying.
"I understand that P-derived pre-R1b and pre-Q (and maybe also T) arrived to West Asia about the same time as pre-IJ and pre-G did".
And you 'understand' that simply because that fits your 'faith'.
"This process should also have involved Y-DNA IJ, R1b, Q, G, T etc."
I strongly suspect that IJ and T arrived in Europe around the Neolithic. Same with E. Obviously that view fits my own 'faith'.
"My question is about C3 (and C5?) in Central Asia, which I understand reflects the Turco-Mongol expansion and nothing else".
The Turco-Mongol expansion looks very likely to have actually originated round the Lake Baikal region. And I see you're prepared to consider the possibility that C3 and C5 are related.
"when I think of Central Asia I think of the former Soviet Central Asia, plus nearby South Siberia, notably Altai and probably also Afghanistan, Kashmir and even Uyghuristan maybe".
A region that has almost certainly varied greatly with changing climate for many thousands of years. No doubt humans have periodically become extinct.
"MNOPS is strictly parallel ('brother') of LT and not even directly downstream of IJ ('uncle')".
That's not what ISOGG says:
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpK.html
It shows LT as 'brother' of K(xLT). The latter haplogroup breaks up into K1, K2, K3, K4, M, NO, P and S. And:
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpF.html
Shows 'brothers' F1, F2, F3, F4, G, H and IJK. IJK then breaks into the 'brothers' IJ and K. So, strictly, I should have written, 'KMNOPS is downstream of both IJ and LT, and LT is downstream of IJ'.
The logical thing, being that C and F are sibling lineages is that they have overall approx. the same total amount of real mutations. The Y-chromosome is large enough to allow for more than one mutation per generation or few generations (I can't find the reference right now but it's something known). This implies that, unlike with mtDNA, there's no conservative drift-caused convergence back to the modal because every newborn boy or almost has new mutations, so the Y-DNA lineages cannot remain fixed: they must evolve and they do it fast.
ReplyDeleteOf those, we know only a few SNPs of all they exist. You may think that 29 SNPs are a lot but in fact they can well accumulate in less than one thousand years: they are only a sample of the whole list of mutations.
And these samples are not equal for all lineages (and in fact new nodes are discovered every few months because there's always another and another SNP hiding and all you have to do is to invest time and money finding it).
What you can do with mtDNA is not exactly the same of what you can do with Y-DNA, just like you don't work the same with bronze and clay, for example, or just like you don't milk your pigs but you do with your sheep.
"But that tail for F can only get longer, not shorter".
Indeed but that is also the case for C and all other branches.
"And you could then very validly be accused of manipulating the data to fit your pre-existing belief unless you can actually find the mutations".
No. I did that in 2009 and all the criticisms I got were in the same line as I did myself: too tentative, too imprecise. But no accusations of "manipulation" at all.
"only because it fits your 'faith'".
ReplyDeleteCan you stop that? Your one-liners with the word "faith" in them are becoming very abusive.
Let me put the rules of conversation clear for you: if you are going to just dismiss my opinion with a short sentence that is all about insulting me with a parroting of the criticism I often (but not so extremely often) make to you of holding unscientific positions stubbornly against all evidence, then don't do it.
Save my time and yours.
And save my anger.
[JT:] "But that 'limbo' is very unlikely to have been in any region where other Y-haps, such as LT and MNOPS, were diversifying".
We cannot determine that. Within South Asia, for example, there are and were many sub-regions and districts without them... while people may have been expanding in sub-region A and B there could have been no expansion in sub-region C for example, specially if this one was an arid zone like Balochistan.
You may say, why would F(pre-IJK) and IJK(pre-IJ) exist in Balochistan of all places? It is speculative of course but Balochistan is a corridor between South and West Asia and one where we know of archaeological evidence in the MP-UP transition (of the blade style). Another possible space would be Afghanistan but this looks more like the F(pre-G) reservoir instead (the south/north route possible dichotomy that I suggested before).
"I strongly suspect that IJ and T arrived in Europe around the Neolithic".
Including I? I do not think that's possible: I is a European lineage almost exclusively and is generally accepted it is a Paleolithic lineage. For some (not me) "the only" such lineage surviving in Europe.
"The Turco-Mongol expansion looks very likely to have actually originated round the Lake Baikal region".
More like Mongolia Republic but loosely so. Would it be Buryats, they would have spread more N to Khazakstan. Instead they spread O (though also some N). Mongolia and Kazakhstan Y-DNA pools are almost identical, after you remove the West Eurasian lineages (and Central Asian ones like Q too). A Buryat influence is notable but minor.
"No doubt humans have periodically become extinct" [in Central Asia].
Do you know that? I do not. There are some lineages like Y-DNA Q or mtDNA H8, U2 and eve G (of Eastern origin but allegedly very old in the region), that speak of very old continuous human presence. Of course, there were other flows, which enriched the genetic makeup but there is a very old Central Asian specific layer as well.
The region hosts two large rivers, a fruitful inland sea (now destroyed) and a host of oasis. All around Uzbekistan. Further North the Altai sub-region also has a well documented old inhabitation dating to the end of the local Neanderthals or just a few millennia later.
"That's not what ISOGG says: (...) It shows LT as 'brother' of K(xLT)".
And what am I saying? "MNOPS [aka K(xLT)] is strictly parallel ('brother') of LT"... so ISOGG and I are in full agreement (actually I follow ISOGG for reference so that should be the case).
"I should have written, 'KMNOPS is downstream of both IJ and LT, and LT is downstream of IJ'".
You are wrong: read again at the ISOGG page:
"K(xLT) M526 (formerly MNOPS)"
I stick to the MNOPS name because I truly don't like some of the ad-hoc nomenclature of ISOGG.
"The logical thing, being that C and F are sibling lineages is that they have overall approx. the same total amount of real mutations".
ReplyDeleteTrue. But are the missing mutations actually present in C's tail or are they to be found within each individual C haplogroup?
"Can you stop that? Your one-liners with the word 'faith' in them are becoming very abusive".
That's very ripe, coming from you. And you told me to talk to a priest so I thought you were one in your chosen belief.
"We cannot determine that. Within South Asia, for example, there are and were many sub-regions and districts without them"
But those sub-regions are likely to have all become rapidly inhabited so we would expact each to have its own haplogroup. In other words diversity would have developed rapidly in any region containing several sub-regions.
"The region hosts two large rivers, a fruitful inland sea (now destroyed) and a host of oasis. All around Uzbekistan".
Exactly. And could have been inhabited early during the expansion of H. sapiens.
"And what am I saying? 'MNOPS [aka K(xLT)] is strictly parallel ('brother') of LT'... so ISOGG and I are in full agreement (actually I follow ISOGG for reference so that should be the case)".
You actually said, 'MNOPS is strictly parallel ('brother') of LT and not even directly downstream of IJ ('uncle')'. Both these 'brothers' are indeed downstream of IJ, and quite possibly migrated as pre-LTKMNOPS from the region where pre-IJ coalesced.
"I stick to the MNOPS name because I truly don't like some of the ad-hoc nomenclature of ISOGG".
And MNOPS (or KMNOPS, because it does include four K haplogroups) did not diversify immediately on becoming 'brother' to LT. So the various haplogroups that make up the MNOPS clade are indeed downstream from the LT/MNOPS node, and presumably formed progressively as the members of the haplogroup moved east. You cannot keep on manipulating the data to make it fit your preconceived ideas (is that better than my calling it your 'faith'?).
"That's very ripe, coming from you".
ReplyDeleteOne-liners are no way to debate (at least in 99% of cases) and one-liners without content ("I think...", "...your faith", etc.) are a total waste of time: your time and my time. I don't care what you do with your time but my time, my life... has some value for me.
You are not paying me to stay here debating with you, remember.
"But those sub-regions are likely to have all become rapidly inhabited so we would expact each to have its own haplogroup".
No idea: we were talking axes, not haplogroups: focus please!
"And could have been inhabited early during the expansion of H. sapiens".
Except that it was Neanderthal territory for all we know.
"You actually said..."
Re-read what YOU said first of all and stop playing mind-games with me and my patience.
"So the various haplogroups that make up the MNOPS clade are indeed downstream from the LT/MNOPS node"...
Of MNOPS and K. They are not downstream of LT.
"... and presumably formed progressively as the members of the haplogroup moved east".
No.
Reason 1: as I understand it, haplogroups coalesce by means of mostly founder effect and/or drift. Mostly the first one. So pre-P, for instance, moved from the MNOPS origin (SEA) to somewhere else (Bengal) where it coalesced by means of founder effect.
Reason 2: some Y-DNA must have back-migrated westward with mtDNA N and that can be no other than MNOPS in its P variant.
You have to see the women's viewpoint to be able to understand men - so to say.
"No idea: we were talking axes, not haplogroups: focus please!"
ReplyDeleteWe were talking haplogroups, specifically IJ, LT and MNOPS.
"Except that it was Neanderthal territory for all we know".
'For all we know'?
http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/glantz/glantz.html
Quote:
"Some pieces from Anghilak cave, however, may indicate the presence of an early Upper Paleolithic or terminal Mousterian industry (Figure 4). The Central Asian Upper Paleolithic is typologically diverse and not analogous to any of the Upper Paleolithic traditions known from neighboring regions. Because few early Upper Paleolithic sites have been discovered in the region, the origins of this tradition in Central Asia are poorly understood. Moreover, the ability to identify early Upper Paleolithic sites based on techno-typological criteria is confounded by the high frequency of Middle Paleolithic elements retained in these assemblages (Vishnyatsky 1999)".
So we appear to have a mixing of Middle and Upper Paleolithic. So even if Neanderthals dominated during the Middle Paleolithic they seem to have been gradually replaced, not suddenly. Certainly humans of some sort have lived in the region continuously.
"So pre-P, for instance, moved from the MNOPS origin (SEA) to somewhere else (Bengal) where it coalesced by means of founder effect".
So pre-KLT, for instance, moved from the IJK origin (Iran) to somewhere else (Gujarat) where it coalesced by means of founder effect. Then pre-K(xLT) moved from the KLT origin (Gujarat) to somewhere else (SE Asia) where it coalesced by means of founder effect. Then pre-P moved from the MNOPS origin (SE Asia) to somewhere else (Bengal) where it coalesced by means of founder effect. What is your objection? Some sort of blind faith on your part?
"some Y-DNA must have back-migrated westward with mtDNA N and that can be no other than MNOPS in its P variant".
You're making a huge, and unjustified, assumption there. Strange, because you are quite happy to have mtDNA N moving through a region leaving no non-R descendants behind, but object strongly to the idea that IJK had earlier moved through the same region actually leaving descendants behind. Your argument is completely circular: No mtDNA haplogroups remained in Iran therefore no Y-haps could have remained there. Because no Y-haps remained in Iran no mtDNA haplogroups could have remained there. There is something really funny going on in your head.
"So we appear to have a mixing of Middle and Upper Paleolithic".
ReplyDeleteLayers?
There's no information on the layering, as all would come together with no chronological order, what is not helpful.
"Future excavations at Anghilak cave will address a number of unresolved questions concerning the Middle Paleolithic and the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in this important intersection of the Old World".
Agreed: wait and see until clear data is documented properly. I would expect that the blade layers are above the Mousterian one and more so if we are talking of "bladelets", which are only found in South Asia form 38 Ka. on, being the oldest date for such microliths anywhere on Earth AFAIK.
I would expect that because that's what we see elsewhere and this ref. you mention is not clear enough to make me think otherwise.
Whatever the case the Neanderthal affinities (Zagros, Altai) of the local Mousterian are crystal clear.
"So pre-KLT"...
ReplyDeleteWhat is that? (pre-) K or LT?
"So pre-KLT, for instance, moved from the IJK origin (Iran) to somewhere else (Gujarat) where it coalesced by means of founder effect".
So K then? Why do you call it KLT? Why do you make up names that only cause confusion?
Anyhow, Gujarat and all that area was surely inhabited by F (in general). There is no particular reason to claim that the IJK origin was in Iran - none at all.
Per parsimony we should look at its origin in South Asia, even if to the NW (Balochistan or Sindh maybe).
"Then pre-K(xLT) moved from the KLT origin (Gujarat) to somewhere else (SE Asia) where it coalesced by means of founder effect".
Fine with me except that I find the nomenclature extremely confusing.
"Then pre-P moved from the MNOPS origin (SE Asia) to somewhere else (Bengal) where it coalesced by means of founder effect".
Fine.
Still this lineage series may have needed a bit more than just founder effect because SEA and Bengal were probably already inhabited by people with D and C Y-DNA lineages and M mtDNA ones. So maybe they were particularly aggressive or who knows.
"What is your objection?"
My only major objection is that there is no reason for IJK to have coalesced in Iran, specially towards the West of it. The geography of all the F&K flows is further to the East, only IJ being westerly in a quite exceptional manner.
Crtically, mtDNA also seems to support a more easterly geography than the one you imagine.
"... happy to have mtDNA N moving through a region leaving no non-R descendants behind".
You are quite happy to falsify reality instead.
All N(xR) lineages found in West Eurasia have a South Asian "twin" (N1'5: N1 and N5, N2: W and N2a). The only exception is X - and exceptions don't make the rules.
"Your argument is completely circular: No mtDNA haplogroups remained in Iran therefore no Y-haps could have remained there. Because no Y-haps remained in Iran no mtDNA haplogroups could have remained there".
My argument is actually about where the geographic centers of basal diversity of Y-DNA F and mtDNA M and N lay. And in no case is in "Iran" or anywhere else in West Asia: they tend to be between Pakistan and the Pacific Ocean.
Don't put words in my mouth, please.
"Why do you make up names that only cause confusion?"
ReplyDeleteThe names shouldn't cause confusion. They're basically the ones ISOGG uses.
"So K then? Why do you call it KLT? Why do you make up names that only cause confusion?"
Pre-K then. But that term is actually confusing unless we agree that 'K' includes LT, so I prefer KLT.
"Anyhow, Gujarat and all that area was surely inhabited by F (in general)".
But F certainly came from Africa in some form. The route is debatable but if you wish it to have flown there that's OK with me.
"There is no particular reason to claim that the IJK origin was in Iran - none at all".
There is even less reason to postulate anywhere on the Indian subcontinent, even in Baluchistan.
"My only major objection is that there is no reason for IJK to have coalesced in Iran, specially towards the West of it. The geography of all the F&K flows is further to the East, only IJ being westerly in a quite exceptional manner".
And that 'quite exceptional manner' is almost certainly significant. And G sits all on its own amoung the F haplogroups, that is if you're prepared to ignore F3.
"Still this lineage series may have needed a bit more than just founder effect because SEA and Bengal were probably already inhabited by people with D and C Y-DNA lineages"
True. But the distribution of those two haplogroups looks to be different from each other. C is primarily coastal in the east, especially around the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan, while D looks to be more inland, reaching the coast only in Japan and the Andaman Islands.
"and M mtDNA ones".
But M looks to be associated with F lineages, especially K, in SE Asia and New Guinea.
"All N(xR) lineages found in West Eurasia have a South Asian 'twin' (N1'5: N1 and N5, N2: W and N2a)".
But those South Asian twins are all northwestern, not widely distributed through South Asia. That is completely unlike the M or R-derived haplogroups.
"You are quite happy to falsify reality instead".
Who is it who is falsifying reality? You are basing your interpretations of the data on some pre-conceived South Asia Garden of Eden belief.
"You are not paying me to stay here debating with you, remember".
I think we should abandon this topic now. But you've certainly provided me with plenty of laughs, such as:
"Then pre-P moved from the MNOPS origin (SE Asia)"
One of the first times you hurled abuse at me was when I suggested that K had originated in SE Asia. Certainly have changed you tune. And you are almost ready to agree that mtDNA R also originated in SE Asia.
"unless we agree that 'K' includes LT"
ReplyDeleteWe do agree.
At least all the World does outside your mind does: it's ISOGG standard, based on the YCC tree. F includes/-ed G, H, I, J (now aggregated into IJ) and K (now aggregated with IJ into IJK); K includes all the remaining single-letter haplogroups: L, M, N, O, P, Q and R (and later also S and T), now aggregated into two haplogroups: LT and MNOPS (or K(xLT)).
"But F certainly came from Africa in some form".
Pre-CF form surely (CDEF(xDE) or as ISOGG calls it now: Y(xA,B) but (xDE) as well).
"And G"...
Alright G too but again is exceptional within F.
You just don't think that greatest basal diversity means anything but I do. So the best that can happen at this point is that we agree to disagree.
"C is primarily coastal in the east"...
I'm surprised you admit to this pattern. Glad to see this fundamental agreement for a change (though I know it will not last).
"... while D looks to be more inland, reaching the coast only in Japan and the Andaman Islands".
It may be, although D* and at least some D1 are found in coastal regions like SE Asia and Han China.
While one could well argue for differential routes for both lineages, they are criss-crossed and have proximate geographic origins. The fact that both seem to have expanded mostly with mtDNA M also adds to their relatedness in origin.
"But M looks to be associated with F lineages, especially K, in SE Asia and New Guinea".
Theres no specific absolute line, as a lot of individual couples were involved, but I associate Y-DNA F in SEA/Melanesia (which is almost all MNOPS) with mtDNA N, specially R (P in Melanesia and the B+F conglomerate in East Asia).
"But those South Asian twins are all northwestern, not widely distributed through South Asia".
I do not know that. Can you document it?
"You are basing your interpretations of the data on some pre-conceived South Asia Garden of Eden belief".
I do not believe in any "Garden of Eden", that's your projection - other than maybe some "international" pasture in proto-historic Sumeria of similar name. I just look at the facts and listen to what they say.
And facts say not just South Asia but also SE Asia: all Tropical Asia from the Yangtze to the Indus. But it's not any "garden of eden" but where our ancestors found a "second Africa" after leaving the true one.
It is only logical that a tropical-adapted species as we are should establish itself in Tropical Asia first of all. Even you could agree to that would you not be so stubborn and blind.
"At least all the World does outside your mind does"
ReplyDeleteI have never been sure that you do. Many times you seem to treat the Ks as being separate haplogroups from MNOPS. ISOGG shows K(xLT) includes K1, K2, K3, K4, M, NO, P and S.
"Alright G too but again is exceptional within F".
As is IJ. So that is two. We could make it three by including F3 although it is also found in parts of South Asia.
"You just don't think that greatest basal diversity means anything but I do. So the best that can happen at this point is that we agree to disagree".
True. But South Asia is a huge place so 'basal diversity' as representing origin there must be accepted cautiously. As an explanation perhaps we could consider a population containing men of the basal F haplogroup. One of these men remained behind as the others moved off. His descendants drifted to G. Slightly further east another basal F haplogoup, pre-IJK, drifted to IJK (more of that later). Further east still, by the border with South Asia, F3 drifted to coalescence. Through much of South Asia Y-hap H came to dominate. In the south F1 and F4 made it to Sri Lanka. F4 made it to East Asia. I see now that a new haplogroup, F5, has been listed for 'southeastern India':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_F_(Y-DNA)
Meanwhile F's 'grandson' K had accompanied basal F. Its own son, LT, came to dominate the Indus/Baluchistan region and the great grandson K(xLT) reached Southeast Asia. From where MNOPS's 'sons' spread north, east and back west.
"I'm surprised you admit to this pattern. Glad to see this fundamental agreement for a change (though I know it will not last)".
No it won't because C is only coastal in the east, although some C* has managed to reach the east coast of India.
"D* and at least some D1 are found in coastal regions like SE Asia and Han China".
But that is hardly surprising given the length of Time D has been present in the East.
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDelete"I do not know that. Can you document it?"
Wikipedia, although not the most relieble of references, is at least the most easily accesible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_(mtDNA)
"Haplogroup N1'5
Haplogroup N1 - found in West Eurasia.[18]
Haplogroup N1b - found in Middle East, Egypt, Caucasus and Europe
N1a'c'd'e'I
Haplogroup N1c - Northern Saudi Arabia, Turkey [7]
N1a'd'e'I
Haplogroup N1d - Hindustan
N1a'e'I
Haplogroup N1a - Arabian Peninsula, Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia and Egypt.[7] Found also in Central Asia and Southern Siberia.[17]
N1e'I
Haplogroup N1e - found in Buryats[17]
Haplogroup I[19] - West Eurasia and South Asia".
So we have just the derived haplogroups N1d in 'Hindustan' (Indus region) and
I in both 'West Eurasia and South Asia'.
"Haplogroup N2
Haplogroup N2a - small clade found in West Europe.[20]
Haplogroup W[21] - found in Western Eurasia and South Asia"
So N2 is mostly West Eurasian. Just some W found in South Asia, mainly in 'Northern Pakistan' evidently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_W_(mtDNA)
And this is interesting regardin N1a:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N1a_(mtDNA)
"In India, N1a was only identified in Indo-Aryan speakers at a frequency of 8.3%.[11] All but one of the N1a individuals were members of the Havik group, a Brahmin upper caste".
All in all hardly convincing evidence for a passage through South Asia from Southeast Asia for those haplogroups.
"The only exception is X - and exceptions don't make the rules".
It's not really the 'only exception' is it?
"I just look at the facts and listen to what they say".
But you have become very prejudiced and look only at South Asia as a source, presumably because European haplogroups have certainly come through that region. But those European haplogroups are all downstream versions. There had been a lot of back and forth before humans reached Europe.
"Even you could agree to that would you not be so stubborn and blind".
I'll refrain from pointing out exactly who is being stubborn and blind here.
Not "the Ks" but K. This is K under the state of the art of genetic knowledge: a phylogenetic node.
ReplyDeleteThat K1...4 retain their K name is just a confusing compromise of the nomenclature, they should be MNOPS1...4 for what I care. Actually I'd revise the whole tree and give each node new names (but guess it's too soon for that, as many new intermediate nodes can still be discovered making that work futile).
The concept of K (M9) has not changed, except for the addition of three new co-defining SNPs, since 2002. The tree downstream and upstream of K may have changed but K remains the same as of yet: the set of Y-DNA haplogroups which have the M9 mutation (and also: P128, P131, P132, discovered later).
"Many times you seem to treat the Ks as being separate haplogroups from MNOPS. ISOGG shows K(xLT) includes K1, K2, K3, K4, M, NO, P and S".
Not really. Since MNOPS was discovered and since Karafet's work in the area, the pertenence of all or most SE Asian & Melanesian K-other to MNOPS became obvious.
I was not sure about those lineages not found towards the SE, like K1 (South Asia) but it seems now it is also under MNOPS. K* also remains a mystery.
"As is IJ".
IJ is exceptional within IJK, not within F.
care to deal with one node at a time? Otherwise is like arguing F based on R1b or Q3 (pointless).
"We could make it three by including F3"...
Your insistence on F3 is pointless because this lineage also adds to the basal diversity of South Asia (as well as that of West Asia). IF and WHEN a structure pointing to an origin in either region happens to be known it may change things but at the moment it is that way (and anyhow something extending from Madras to Yerevan has a center of gravity in Karachi).
"But South Asia is a huge place so 'basal diversity' as representing origin there must be accepted cautiously".
Why? It makes archaeological and genetic sense. It's just you and your boating impossibility fetish - and your Siberian route fetish as well.
It's not just F but also M and everything that is not centered in SE Asia. The only clear signal of early expansion outside South Asia is in SE Asia, even if there archaeological support is weaker at this point.
Regarding N2a, I could find references to this supp. material, which only cites Derbeneva 2002, specifically "Analysis of mitochondrial DNA diversity in the Aleuts of the Commander Islands and its implications for the genetic history of Beringia", which is this paper (freely accessible).
ReplyDeleteI could not find the references in it however. Other Derbeneva 2002 papers are on Siberian mtDNA.
The paper cited by Wikipedia is PPV (and on Italy rather than "West Europe") but does not make any mention to N2a nor any novel lineage in the abstract:
"The majority of mtDNAs detected in the Italian population fell into the most common west Eurasian hgs: R0a (0.76%), HV (4.81%), H (38.99%), HV0 (3.55%), J (7.85%), T (13.42%), U (11.65%), K (10.13%), I (1.52%), X (2.78%), and W (1.01%)".
However it seems true that N2a is not found in South Asia, as I mistakenly thought (at first I thought it was from Australia, go figure! - and that was because Ian Logan made W share one mutation with Australian N lineages).
Logan anyhow mentions a lot of N* in South Asia (the so-called "Asian" sequences).
But actually the PhyloTree reference for N2a is Metspalu 2006, which is PPV again (can you get a copy?)
Metspalu's paper is titled "The Pioneer Settlement of Modern Humans in Asia", not Europe. So I'm quite certain that N2a is found in Asia.
Previous open access work by Metspalu locates the center of W in Pakistan in any case.
I consider at this point the location of N2a dubious at best and South Asian with high probability, considering what most of the Estonian researcher's work was about.
"Just some W found in South Asia, mainly in 'Northern Pakistan'"...
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem of Eurocentrism in genetics: the presence of W in South Asia is at least as important as in West Eurasia. Sure: it is concentrated in Pakistan but it is concentrated there to levels not found anywhere else: above 10%!!!
Besides the North Pakistan-Tajikistan-Kashmir core, other places of high concentrations are Gujarat and some localities of South Azerbaijan.
In Europe, W is almost certainly of recent arrival (Neolithic), so the issue is clearly between South Asia and West Asia on this haplogroup.
"And this is interesting regardin N1a"...
Nobody has any qualm about N1a. N5 is what matters within N1'5.
"The tree downstream and upstream of K may have changed"
ReplyDeleteExactly. and this should have changed our perception of K, but it certainly doesn't seem to have influenced you in the slightest. Upstream IJ has been added, and downstream LT has been peeled off. Surely that tells us something about the origin and dispersal of the clade.
"Since MNOPS was discovered and since Karafet's work in the area, the pertenence of all or most SE Asian & Melanesian K-other to MNOPS became obvious"
I would have thought it was obvious before then. Even the McDonald maps told us that K was SE Asian in origin.
"IJ is exceptional within IJK, not within F".
It is not 'exceptional within IJK'. It is simply the first cklade to branch off.
"care to deal with one node at a time?"
IJK is within the F clade surely.
"Previous open access work by Metspalu locates the center of W in Pakistan in any case".
And the Wiki link says, 'Haplogroup W[21] - found in Western Eurasia and South Asia'. So what's the problem? But W is a branch of N2, the other branch of which is not found in South Asia. And which caldes of W are found in South asia anyway?
"Besides the North Pakistan-Tajikistan-Kashmir core, other places of high concentrations are Gujarat and some localities of South Azerbaijan".
So W's origin could be anywhere between Azerbaijan and North Pakistan. It is a 'sister' clade to both N1'5 and X so that should help us narrow its origin down somewhat.
"Nobody has any qualm about N1a. N5 is what matters within N1'5".
But if you look at Phylotree you will see that N1 is far more diverse than N5. N5 is shown with just one subclade: N5a. N1 has two which break up much further. Of course that may be a result of lack of research on N in South Asia, but I doubt that very much. India geneticists are just as enthusiastic as you are to 'prove' a South Asian origin for all haplogroups.
Anyway the original point made regarding India mtDNA N was:
ReplyDeleteT, 'But those South Asian twins are all northwestern, not widely distributed through South Asia'.
M, 'I do not know that. Can you document it?'
"Sure: it is concentrated in Pakistan but it is concentrated there to levels not found anywhere else: above 10%!!!"
That takes care of W. And supporting comment:
"Besides the North Pakistan-Tajikistan-Kashmir core, other places of high concentrations are Gujarat and some localities of South Azerbaijan".
And its close relation:
"However it seems true that N2a is not found in South Asia, as I mistakenly thought"
So that's N2 taken care of. We know about X but what about the other possible contender for evidence of a trans South Asia route for N: N1'5? N1 is virtually absent in South Asia except for the derived N1d. And even if that is widespread it is almost certainly relatively recent because: 'N1a was only identified in Indo-Aryan speakers at a frequency of 8.3%'. So to its close relation N5:
"But if you look at Phylotree you will see that N1 is far more diverse than N5. N5 is shown with just one subclade: N5a. N1 has two which break up much further".
I've no idea how widespread N5 is in South Asia but I'm prepared to guess that its pretty much confined to the norhtwest. So where is this evidence that N (apart from R-derived haplogroups) moved west through South Asia from SE Asia?
I'm sure you'll find this 2004 paper interesting, although I'm also sure you've seen it before:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182158/
"a minority of lineages are of western Eurasian ancestry; the ancestral population probably entered Pakistan and India either from the west (Iran) or the north (via Central Asia) (see Quintana-Murci et al. 2004). In the opposite direction, gene flow was apparently more limited and not very far-reaching: for example, in the data provided by Quintana-Murci et al. (2004), we can find 4 (i.e., 1 haplogroup R5, 1 N5, and 2 M lineages) of 42 mtDNA lineages from (southern) central Iran but only a single lineage (from macrohaplogroup M) of 95 in northern and western Iran that belongs to (potentially) autochthonous South Asian haplogroups".
The authors seem to assume that N5 entered South Asia from Iran.
... "should have changed our perception of K"...
ReplyDeleteIt has but not the way you wishful-think.
"Upstream IJ has been added, and downstream LT has been peeled off"...
No, no, no, no!
You get all wrong.
JT is not upstream of K but parallel ("brother").
LT is still part of K. Actually what has changed is that L and T have been merged.
K is NOT the same as K(xLT), that is the same as MNOPS. K = LT + MNOPS + K*.
"I would have thought it was obvious before then".
Annoyingly circularly wrong. It could not be obvious that K-others in SEA/Melanesia belonged to MNOPS before MNOPS was even discovered.
You are not reasoning properly and that makes me annoyed.
Example of circular discussion:
I say: "care to deal with one node at a time?"
You reply: "IJK is within the F clade surely".
And I must reply redundantly: Care to deal with one node at a time? Either you're dealing with IJK or with F but not an all out mish-mash in which A, F, IJK and R1a are all part of the same chaotic and meaningless ranting that makes no sense at all.
There is hierarchy in the phylogeny for a reason. H1a is surely part of F, R1b is surely part of F and F is surely part of Y. So what?!
Either you care to think before you post or I will have to apply disciplinary measures. Because what you post is mostly useless noise and that is not what I want in the discussion section of my blogs: I want intelligent commenters who add to our knowledge and not who waste our time.
There are anthropology forums where you can practice against other sparrings (and test the patience of other moderators). When you understand the phylogeny but only then, come back.
I have still to read any open access document other than Wikpedia on N2a. If it is PPV, please send me a copy to my email.
ReplyDeleteSame for N5, because you are prepared to think without enough evidence. Your link says:
"We identified five new autochthonous haplogroups (R7, R8, R30, R31, and N5)". So the authors consider N5 part of Indian subcontinent's "autochthonous" lineages.
They add:
"Our findings demonstrate that the Indian mtDNA pool, even when restricted to macrohaplogroup N, harbors at least as many deepest-branching lineages as the western Eurasian mtDNA pool".
Among these they consider N1d and U-derived lineages which are probably back-flows from the West.
They mention one single case of N5 in southern-central Iran but not further West. This certainly does not make N5 an Iranian or otherwise West Eurasian haplogroup. Not at all.
"Either you're dealing with IJK or with F but not an all out mish-mash in which A, F, IJK and R1a are all part of the same chaotic and meaningless ranting that makes no sense at all".
ReplyDeleteI realise you prefer to ignore the bigger picture because it suits your purpose, but surely you cannot consider each individual haplogroup on its own. That would tell us almost nothing. Considering F as a whole is by no means 'chaotic and meaningless'. It makes complete sense.
"There is hierarchy in the phylogeny for a reason. H1a is surely part of F, R1b is surely part of F and F is surely part of Y. So what?!"
You're contradicting yourself here. First of all you claim, 'There is hierarchy in the phylogeny for a reason' and then you proceed to ignore that hierarchy.
"JT is not upstream of K but parallel ('brother')".
Maju. It may be a brother of 'K' but it is an 'uncle' of LT. And that's what matters. LT is a 'brother' of K, but again it is an 'uncle' of M, NO, P, S, K1, K2, K3 and K4. Again, that's what matters.
"It has but not the way you wishful-think".
Maju. Your whole reasoning indicates you have gone about things in reverse. I'll explain:
"I just look at the facts and listen to what they say".
No you don't. You consistently ignore inconvenient 'facts', as shown by these statements:
"IJ is exceptional within IJK, not within F".
And:
"The only exception is X - and exceptions don't make the rules".
So you admit that these two haplogroups are anomolies. They don't fit your hypothesis. You have also several times commented that mtDNA A is anomalous. These anomalies show that you have gone about things in the reverse order to what is generally accepted scientific practice. In science you are supposed to examine the data and then construct an hypothesis that fits ALL the data. It is very evident that you have constructed your hypothesis and then tried to make the data fit that hypothesis. As a result you have finished up with numerous anomalies. In science the presence of anomalies is supposed to indicate an adjustment of the hypothesis is required. In your case: you simply ignore anomolies.
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteAnd, what's more, any hypothesis is considered likely to be correct if it makes predictions:
"Since MNOPS was discovered and since Karafet's work in the area, the pertenence of all or most SE Asian & Melanesian K-other to MNOPS became obvious".
My hypothesis predicted that Y-haps P and NO had emerged from SE Asia. To you the discovery of MNOPS came as a complete surprise. My hypothesis also predicted that 'modern' humans had mixed with Neanderthals somewhere on the Iranian Plateau. The discovery of 2-4% probable Neanderthal aDNA in non-Eurasians confused you, along with many others. The discovery of 'Denisova' aDNA in Melanesians has inspired several convoluted theories, including one requiring a widespread, homogeneous Homo erectus population spread in a huge arc across Eurasia, spread along a route that H. sapiens was not able to use until relatively recently. In contrast the discovery offered considerable support for my hypothesis, if not actually proof.
"It is only logical that a tropical-adapted species as we are should establish itself in Tropical Asia first of all. Even you could agree to that would you not be so stubborn and blind".
No Maju. It is you who is being 'so stubborn and blind'. In our discussion concerning the route taken by modern humans between Iran and Pakistan/India one fact became obvious. Whatever route was taken (coastal or inland)it would have been very difficult. On the other hand you pointed out yourself that any route involving Northern Iran and Uzbekistan is considerably easier, even taking into consideration the extreme Winter cold. Perhap Homo sapiens entered South Asia by the age-old route, via the Khyber Pass, during a particularly warm Summer. They could have then entered India without crossing either the Lower Indus River or the Thar Desert. That scenario would certainly explain mtDNA M's rapid radiation.
"I have still to read any open access document other than Wikpedia on N2a. If it is PPV, please send me a copy to my email".
I was actually going simply on what the author of the Wiki link claimed. I presume he had his reasons for making the claim.
"This certainly does not make N5 an Iranian or otherwise West Eurasian haplogroup. Not at all".
But it certainly makes any claim that N1'5 as a whole is South Asian very difficult to justify.
"So the authors consider N5 part of Indian subcontinent's 'autochthonous' lineages".
They are obviously looking at the bigger picture (something which you are so reluctant to consider) where they see N5 as a branch of N1'5.
"Considering F as a whole is by no means 'chaotic and meaningless'. It makes complete sense".
ReplyDeleteSure. That would be the case if YOU'd take F as a WHOLE and not just this or that sublineage or even sub-sub-lineage on you whim.
"LT is a 'brother' of K".
Nope.
LT is a "son" of K, brother of MNOPS, aka K(xLT).
[K(xLT) is not K but a sublineage of K. That's why I prefer to call it MNOPS and K1-4 as MNOPS1-4. Alternatively MNOPS could be called K1 and K1-4 become K1a-d.
Whatever the case, if you are so smart, the nomenclature should be no problem to you].
"So you admit that these two haplogroups are anomolies. They don't fit your hypothesis".
They have no problem with my hypothesis because I have no big problem with private precursor lineages migrating long distances and there establishing a founder effect.
But you always resort to them, so I have to explain that, whatever you may think on their meaning, they only weight as one, not as all.
"mtDNA A is anomalous".
In exactly the same way as X.
Advance warning X and A cannot be both at the same time be "normal" because they are located in opposite corners of Asia. Both are belated founder effects by small lineages in remote frontier corners of the Eurasian range of H. sapiens.
A lot of N lineages seem to behave that way. So? N cannot have originated at the same time in West Asia, NE Asia, Australia, SE Asia and South Asia... it must have coalesced (and exploded in a star-like manner) in an specific location and that seems to be SE Asia.
How do you link SEA with West Asia? Via South Asia, there's no other way. But if you don't like that one, use the infamous flying saucer alternative, I could not care less.
"As a result you have finished up with numerous anomalies".
I have not: Nature has. Should you blame me also for the trunk of the elephant, the beak of the flamingo or the survival of the ginkgo?
"In science the presence of anomalies is supposed to indicate an adjustment of the hypothesis is required".
Does then the beak of the flamingo indicate an adjustment of the "evolution hypothesis"? I'm sure it's not the case but I'm also sure that there will be more than one crackpot who thinks it is that way.
Be careful where you walk in: moving sands by that path.
The "problem" is that we lack "fossils" between N and X and between N and A and between N and N12, etc. But there is no better alternative hypothesis than N having coalesced in SEA. So? We must accept that in these cases the "fossil record" is thin and that means that the family line was not to numerous. In other words: my private lineage with eventual founder effect model.
(will continue)
How did N evolve into the various sublineages? It has 15 branches (has grown by two since I last checked) but they did not coalesced all at the same time in new sub-haplogroups.
ReplyDeleteThere are five sublineages that are the elder ones (according to the latest PhyloTree build):
N1'5
N9
N11
S
R
N10 and O are quite close (2 Coding Region mutational steps).
N10 and N11 are "new" lineages and, from the abstract, they are found in South China (adding weight to the SEA theory for N's origin).
Instead N8 (South China too), N13, N14, N21 and N22 are all "infinite" (i.e. by our present knowledge they only have one branch, they have never truly coalesced as distinct haplogroups, with emphasis in groups but remained small for ages).
N2, A and X are all three "exceptional", not belonging to the group of the "elders" nor to the group of small lineages either. They each have 4 or 5 mutations downstream of N, so they expanded only 2-4 times later than the "elder" lineages did.
The seven "elder" lineages are found in: East Asia (N9, N10, N11), Sahul (S, O) and South Asia-plus (N1'5, R). The center of gravity from this viewpoint remains being SE Asia, where we find some of the lesser lineages (N21 and N22 if I recall correctly).
The three "exceptional" lineages (N2, A and X) are found in the two frontier areas of the epoch: West Asia and NE Asia.
The lesser lineages are all found in SEA (incl. South China for N8) and Sahul. Overall all lineages' joint center of gravity is in SEA.
"My hypothesis predicted"....
ReplyDeleteYou had no formal hypothesis. You consistently reject to write on these matters. Maybe it's in your head but you have no way to prove it.
"... that Y-haps P and NO had emerged from SE Asia".
There was absolutely NO reason before the discovery of M526 to think that P would have originated in SE Asia. You did claim that K as a whole originated in SEA but more because of your Wallacean sailing conjecture than anything intrinsically genetic.
"My hypothesis also predicted that 'modern' humans had mixed with Neanderthals somewhere on the Iranian Plateau".
Your hypothesis stated that Neanderthals were indistinct from modern humans and you insistently avoided to make differences between these two categories of humans and their cultural packages, trying to produce blurry scenarios in which neanderthal is sapiens, sapiens is neanderthal and whatever else that fits your scheme.
We have zero evidence in any case of both species mixing specifically in Iran, much less in the arid and then mostly uninhabited Plateau.
"The discovery of 2-4% probable Neanderthal aDNA in non-Eurasians confused you, along with many others".
Surprised me (I did not expect any apparent admixture after mtDNA consistently failed to match). But it did not "confuse" me. I was quickly writing on the matter and explaining the details to others.
"... you pointed out yourself that any route involving Northern Iran and Uzbekistan is considerably easier, even taking into consideration the extreme Winter cold".
I did not say that thing. First it was part of "Neanderland", second it was cold, third it lacked a key resource that our species has shown strong preference for since at least c. 130 Ka ago: seafood!
"I was actually going simply on what the author of the Wiki link claimed. I presume he had his reasons for making the claim".
It could even have been yourself. I'm not saying it was but I'm not trusting such a confusing array of diverse references, neither of which don't seem even related to what the author of that note claims, at least judging from the abstracts.
You'd need something better than that to persuade me.
"But it certainly makes any claim that N1'5 as a whole is South Asian very difficult to justify".
Not more than the presence of N1 erratics in South Asia make N1 a South Asian clade.
Within N1'5, N5 is South Asian and N1 is West Eurasian. That's it, get over it.
Please!
... "the bigger picture (something which you are so reluctant to consider)"...
LOL.
Look please at the 15 lineages of N, draw their locations on a map, join the dots. Tell me what you find.
"You had no formal hypothesis. You consistently reject to write on these matters".
ReplyDeleteThe hypothesis is set out in the series of essays that Tim posted. Nothing of note has been discovered since that necessitates any change.
"Whatever the case, if you are so smart, the nomenclature should be no problem to you".
The ISOGG is no problem to me but it certainly seems to be a problem to you.
"That would be the case if YOU'd take F as a WHOLE and not just this or that sublineage or even sub-sub-lineage on you whim".
OK. From ISOGG: IJK is a single lineage within F. Its 'brothers' are G, H, F1, F2, F3 and F4.
IJK has two 'sons': IJ and K.
Then K has two 'sons': LT and K(xLT).
Then K(xLT) has eight 'sons: K1, K2, K3, K4, M, NO, P and S.
Follow that? Simple isn't it? Note that IJ's 'sons' are both SW Asian, not S Asian. And note that one of K's sons is S Asia but the other is not. K(xLT)'s 'sons' all spread from SE Asia. So, as we move along the haplogroup's ancestry from F to MNOPS the 'sons' are scattered geographically from SW Asia to SE Asia. I would have though it was simple and obvious.
"Advance warning X and A cannot be both at the same time be 'normal' because they are located in opposite corners of Asia. Both are belated founder effects by small lineages in remote frontier corners of the Eurasian range of H. sapiens".
It is impossible to 'know' that. You simply 'assume' it because it suits your hypothesis.
"A lot of N lineages seem to behave that way".
Don't you find that rather strange?
"N cannot have originated at the same time in West Asia, NE Asia, Australia, SE Asia and South Asia..."
It certainly can have done so if expansion was rapid.
"How do you link SEA with West Asia? Via South Asia, there's no other way".
Only because you say so. It is certainly not necessary to invoke flying saucers.
"The 'problem' is that we lack 'fossils' between N and X and between N and A and between N and N12, etc".
As usual you are being completely inconsistent. I read just a few minutes ago (concerning lack of evidence for Mediterranean island inhabitants) your claim that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' yet here you are claiming exactly that. I didn't bother replying there because absence of hand-axes is not the only evidence that's lacking in that case.
"Look please at the 15 lineages of N, draw their locations on a map, join the dots. Tell me what you find".
I have. Many times. They form an almost continuous arc across Eurasia.
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDelete"There was absolutely NO reason before the discovery of M526 to think that P would have originated in SE Asia".
Yes there was. Even the most perfunctory look at the McDonald maps revealed almost all Y-haps descended from K were SE Asian, especially if the various 'K' haplogroups were considered. It's just that you were obsessed with your South Asian Garden of Eden hypothesis.
"it lacked a key resource that our species has shown strong preference for since at least c. 130 Ka ago: seafood!"
There is absolutely no evidence that ancient humans have ever had a 'strong preference for' seafood. The most we can say is that some groups have used it periodically, usually to supplement other sources of protein.
"I'm not trusting such a confusing array of diverse references, neither of which don't seem even related to what the author of that note claims, at least judging from the abstracts".
You have many times claimed Wiki as a reference with even less credibility.
"Within N1'5, N5 is South Asian and N1 is West Eurasian. That's it, get over it".
That is in no way convincing evidence that N1'5 is South Asian. In fact it is most unlikely to have been.
"Your hypothesis stated that Neanderthals were indistinct from modern humans and you insistently avoided to make differences between these two categories of humans and their cultural packages, trying to produce blurry scenarios in which neanderthal is sapiens, sapiens is neanderthal and whatever else that fits your scheme".
ReplyDeleteSeems I'm not alone:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/early-divergence-of-khoesan-ancestors.html
"We should not, however, forget that modern human evolution is looking less and less like a tree, with Neandertals, Denisovans, and now archaic African Homo emerging as relevant to our human story, and horizontal admixture in both the sapiens lineage and across Homo species (or should they be subspecies?) is becoming ever more important".
Damnit Terry! I know that IJ is West Eurasian, and you know I do. Why do you accuse me of claiming otherwise?!
ReplyDeleteIt's totally unfair and frustrating to discuss with someone so interested in not even really paying any attention to what I say.
As for your essays, they deal with a lot of different things and almost not with the evolution of H. sapiens, much less population genetics. You could quote all relevant paragraphs in a Blogger comment without surpassing the character limit.
An no N cannot have originated in all Asia at the same time. It's a ridiculous claim. Besides your "evidence" are precisely those sublineages which did not expand rapidly, but more slowly.
"... 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' yet here you are claiming exactly that".
Not at all. I am saying that three N-derived lineages left no track (we can find) between N's origin and their respective destinations. That is absence of evidence, NOT evidence of absence.
I'm just stating the obvious: no evidence between SEA and WEA/NEA for these lineages, for the 4-5 mutations that separates them from N. That means that they were not numerous (not absent!) in route.
"They [N sublineages] form an almost continuous arc across Eurasia".
They don't they form a line from NEA (thin) to Australia (thicker) and a few isolated dots in West Asia (and South Asia). You can also see that as a triangle if you wish but never as an arc, because there's no basal N sublineage centered in Altai or anything of the like.
As happens in other cases, Central Asia is empty of deep lineages and only has derived ones, a clear sign of late colonization by our species ("late" here means 40 Ka ago or a bit earlier, at the end of the Eurasian expansion).
...
...
ReplyDeleteSo you thought that all K originated in SE Asia. Ok. That's not the same as P but whatever.
"There is absolutely no evidence that ancient humans have ever had a 'strong preference for' seafood".
And all those shells found all around Africa? Don't they mean seafood? All those coastal sites...
"You have many times claimed Wiki as a reference with even less credibility".
I don't think so.
"Seems I'm not alone"...
This you mention seems totally irrelevant for the discussion: the link talks about the early divergence of the Khoisanid population and not about lack of differences with Neanderthals, Erectus and such.
Anyhow, the fundamental Khoisanid divergence must be older than 110 Ka. (though there's been minor admixture later). Adjusting for the basic error of the Pan-Homo divergence it is min. +33%, what makes it some 146 Ka. (at the least!)
It's older than I would have estimated for L0d1'2 but fits well with my corrected estimate for L0 as a whole (c. 157 Ka ago).
I do not understand how that has anything to do with our discussion in any case.
"As for your essays, they deal with a lot of different things and almost not with the evolution of H. sapiens, much less population genetics".
ReplyDeleteThey deal totally with the evolution of H. erectus and population genetics. I use evidence from other species and from modern days to illustrate various facts.
"Damnit Terry! I know that IJ is West Eurasian, and you know I do. Why do you accuse me of claiming otherwise?!"
So how can you continue to claim IJK is South Asian?
"I do not understand how that has anything to do with our discussion in any case".
You were claiming humans and Neanderthals were completely different species and incapable of mixing, in contrast to my own view.
"And all those shells found all around Africa? Don't they mean seafood? All those coastal sites..."
Of course it means 'sea food', but it hardly indicates they were obligate sea-food eaters.
"An no N cannot have originated in all Asia at the same time".
But you're claiming exactly the same thing for M's expansion. You claim M originated right across Southern Asia, from Pakistan to Australia, 'at the same time'. Like M's diversification, N's diversification is starlike, so it must have expanded rapidly.
"They don't they form a line from NEA (thin) to Australia (thicker)"
They most definitely do. We have N9 in NE Asia, N8, N10 and N11 in China, R in South China, N22 in Malaya, N21 in Sumatra, O and S in Australia. That's a fairly continuous line.
"a few isolated dots in West Asia (and South Asia)".
So N1'5, N2 and X are 'isoloated dots'?
"no evidence between SEA and WEA/NEA for these lineages, for the 4-5 mutations that separates them from N. That means that they were not numerous (not absent!) in route".
ReplyDeleteI agree, they were not numerous but it is far more likely to indicate that they underwent a period of drift some time after they arrived in their respective regions, before being able to expand.
"As happens in other cases, Central Asia is empty of deep lineages and only has derived ones"
A is fairly 'basal', as is X.
"I am saying that three N-derived lineages left no track (we can find) between N's origin and their respective destinations".
And I claim that we can find it I've had a look at mtDNA A at Phylotree. The McDonald map shows A as spread through the Northern Han Chinese from the Uzbeks in the west to the Japanese in the east. And in America of course. It seems there are actually four basal lineages: A5, A8, A10 and 'the rest'. In some ways 'the rest' also constitutes a series of 'basal' lineages as they're combined by a just a single control region mutation. The rest includes A3, A4, A7, A9 and A11.
The references in Phylotree seem to indicate that A5 is Northern Asia/Chinese, with A5b reaching SE Asia. A8 and A10 are both present in the 'Volga Tatars', with A8 also in 'Arctic Siberia' and A10 in 'Tibet'.
Of 'the rest' I cannot narrow down A3, A7 and A9 any further than 'Asia'. But A11 is found in 'China' and on the 'Tibetan Plateau'. A4 is from 'Northern Asia', A6 is 'East Asia' and A2 is 'America'.
All the above suggests a North Asian origin for the haplogroup as a whole. It is difficult to make a case for it having come from SE Asia. And one of the references, qin (2010), has this to say, 'Also, the analysis of one major pre-LGM sublineage A10 showed a strong signal of post-LGM population expansion (about 15,000 years ago) and greater diversity in the southern part of the Tibetan Plateau, indicating the southern plateau as a refuge place when climate dramatically changed during LGM'.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21350/abstract
"They deal totally with the evolution of H. erectus (...) I use evidence from other species and from modern days to illustrate various facts".
ReplyDeleteAll very relevant to our debate (ahem).
"So how can you continue to claim IJK is South Asian?"
I don't "claim that" but as F is SA and K is SA, there is no reason to think that IJK emigrated until after the divergence of the K-leading branch. Parsimony.
Otherwise we'd be proposing an emigration and back-immigration for no reason at all.
...
Me: "I do not understand how that has anything to do with our discussion in any case".
Terry: "You were claiming humans and Neanderthals were completely different species and incapable of mixing, in contrast to my own view".
And how does an article on Khoisan genetics has anything to do with Neanderthals.
"... it hardly indicates they were obligate sea-food eaters".
Not "obligate" of course, just very favored (preferred) or favorable (easy to secure).
"You claim M originated right across Southern Asia, from Pakistan to Australia, 'at the same time'".
No. Not at all. M coalesced in South Asia, probably in the Sindh-Gujarat-Maharastra arch. It expanded from South Asia into SE Asia, Sahul and even NE Asia.
"Like M's diversification, N's diversification is starlike, so it must have expanded rapidly".
N did (like M but much less dramatically) experience a moment of rapid expansion judging from the star-like structure, however half of those 15 basal sublineages do not show signs of immediate re-expansion but either delayed expansion (A, N2, X) or no expansion at all. The other half do show sings of immediate re-expansion, within one or two CR mutations and they expanded in East Asia (3), Sahul(2) and South Asia (2, one of them being R), with a probable center in SE Asia (maybe Indochina, maybe South China).
"So N1'5, N2 and X are 'isoloated dots'?"
If you represent, as I did in my mind (and in previous cases in actual maps) each haplogroup as a dot, yes, they are dots. And they are isolated in time (4-5 mutational steps, instead of the 1-2 to which all the rest belong) and in space: the frontiers of the Eurasian Homo sapiens in that time: the very cold NE Asia and the Neanderthal dominated West and Central Asia (or its South Asian border areas).
Yes: they are anomalies, not normal.
"I agree, they were not numerous but it is far more likely to indicate that they underwent a period of drift some time after they arrived in their respective regions, before being able to expand".
ReplyDeleteThat could also be a case but here we find them farther away from the estimated origin of N (SEA) than most, if not all, other basal sublineages. So it is in fact more likely that the stem-phase happened on the way from point SEA to points WEA and NEA respectively.
Also I tend to understand that they were likely to find room for expansion as soon as they joined previously arrived lineages in WEA (and NEA?) because these were frontier zones where there were opportunities for such expansion (and that's why we're talking of these lineages at all - otherwise they'd be quite irrelevant and rare).
Just imagine these being 19th century New York families with no room to expand but which choose to migrate to California, where they thrived. Something like that.
"A is fairly 'basal', as is X".
Neither one is centered in Central Asia. Branches of them (and other lineages like U, H, G, etc.) have extended there but this cannot be considered basal in any sense. X originates in West Asia and A in NE Asia: neither originates in Altai or elsewhere in Central Asia.
This is not just important to debunk your hypothesis but also to establish a time-frame for mtDNA (and Y-DNA possibly too): all those lineages surely existed before c. 40+ Ka ago, when Altai was colonized by H. sapiens with Aurignacoid industries. The colonization of the Fertile Crescent, Europe and Altai, which were Neanderthal territory before c. 50-40 Ka. gives us a calibration point.
"All the above suggests a North Asian origin for the haplogroup [A] as a whole".
Totally in agreement. I'd say NE Asia, possibly North China or even further North.
"It is difficult to make a case for it having come from SE Asia".
A did not come from SE Asia. But as N coalesced in SE Asia, pre-A or N*(leading to A) did necessarily.
One thing is N (SEA) and another A (NEA), draw a dotted line with an arrow ending towards the North and you'll be happier about it.
N ····> A (but from South to North).
I've documented N2a in two Mansis, one Ket, one Iranian, one Armenian, one Turk, one Greek, one Tuscan and one person rooted in South Carolina (possibly of Turkish origins, via Melungeon community?). All the links are at the Wiki:
ReplyDeletehttp://ourorigins.wikia.com/wiki/MtDNA_haplogroup_N
"as F is SA and K is SA, there is no reason to think that IJK emigrated until after the divergence of the K-leading branch. Parsimony".
ReplyDeleteThat's not parsimony at all. We have a basal F in the west (G), and possibly another (F3), so surely it is hardly surprising that a branch of a haplogroup close to basal F (IJ) is also found in the west. It is hardly 'parsimonious' to allow all that backwards and forwards.
"Otherwise we'd be proposing an emigration and back-immigration for no reason at all".
That is exactly what you are proposing.
"We have N9 in NE Asia, N8, N10 and N11 in China, R in South China, N22 in Malaya, N21 in Sumatra, O and S in Australia. That's a fairly continuous line".
Sorry. I missed two haplogroups out: N13 and N14. Both from Australia. So that makes N's greatest diversity in Australia. Doesn't that tell us that N's origin must be Australia according to your theory?
"The seven 'elder' lineages are found in: East Asia (N9, N10, N11), Sahul (S, O) and South Asia-plus (N1'5, R). The center of gravity from this viewpoint remains being SE Asia, where we find some of the lesser lineages (N21 and N22 if I recall correctly)".
As you say the above 'elder' lineages are those with just one mutation for the N root. But N1'5 can hardly be described as 'South Asian', and R doubtfully so. For example, ignoring control region mutations (which you are quite happy to do when considering R's distance from the root N), we get the following 'elder lineages' within R, all just one mutation from the R root: R0 (West Eurasia), R2'JT South/SW Asia), R6 (South Asia), R30 (South Asia), R31 (South Asia), P (OZ/NG), R11'B6 East/SE Asia), R24 (East/SE Asia), B4a (East/SE Asia), B4b'd'e (East/SE Asia), B4c (East/SE Asia), B4f (East/SE Asia), B4g (East/SE Asia), B4h (East/SE Asia) and B5 (East/SE Asia).
So where is the greatest basal diversity within R? And when we turn to R haplogroups with two or more mutations we find that all eleven are within the region the above haplogroups with the single mutations already occupied: R12'21, R9, U, R5, R22, R8, R7, R3, R14, R23 and R1. These haplogroups are almost certainly the result of populations that became isolted within the region of the original R expansion before expanding in turn.
(continued)
"as F is SA and K is SA, there is no reason to think that IJK emigrated until after the divergence of the K-leading branch. Parsimony".
ReplyDeleteThat's not parsimony at all. We have a basal F in the west (G), and possibly another (F3), so surely it is hardly surprising that a branch of a haplogroup close to basal F (IJ) is also found in the west. It is hardly 'parsimonious' to allow all that backwards and forwards.
"Otherwise we'd be proposing an emigration and back-immigration for no reason at all".
That is exactly what you are proposing.
"We have N9 in NE Asia, N8, N10 and N11 in China, R in South China, N22 in Malaya, N21 in Sumatra, O and S in Australia. That's a fairly continuous line".
Sorry. I missed two haplogroups out: N13 and N14. Both from Australia. So that makes N's greatest diversity in Australia. Doesn't that tell us that N's origin must be Australia according to your theory?
"The seven 'elder' lineages are found in: East Asia (N9, N10, N11), Sahul (S, O) and South Asia-plus (N1'5, R). The center of gravity from this viewpoint remains being SE Asia, where we find some of the lesser lineages (N21 and N22 if I recall correctly)".
As you say the above 'elder' lineages are those with just one mutation for the N root. But N1'5 can hardly be described as 'South Asian', and R doubtfully so. For example, ignoring control region mutations (which you are quite happy to do when considering R's distance from the root N), we get the following 'elder lineages' within R, all just one mutation from the R root: R0 (West Eurasia), R2'JT South/SW Asia), R6 (South Asia), R30 (South Asia), R31 (South Asia), P (OZ/NG), R11'B6 East/SE Asia), R24 (East/SE Asia), B4a (East/SE Asia), B4b'd'e (East/SE Asia), B4c (East/SE Asia), B4f (East/SE Asia), B4g (East/SE Asia), B4h (East/SE Asia) and B5 (East/SE Asia).
So where is the greatest basal diversity within R? And when we turn to R haplogroups with two or more mutations we find that all eleven are within the region the above haplogroups with the single mutations already occupied: R12'21, R9, U, R5, R22, R8, R7, R3, R14, R23 and R1. These haplogroups are almost certainly the result of populations that became isolted within the region of the original R expansion before expanding in turn.
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDelete"Neither one is centered in Central Asia. Branches of them (and other lineages like U, H, G, etc.) have extended there but this cannot be considered basal in any sense. X originates in West Asia and A in NE Asia: neither originates in Altai or elsewhere in Central Asia".
I wouldn't be too sure of that:
"Yes: they are anomalies, not normal".
But they are easily explained in fact. Again ignoring control region mutations we get thirteen basal haplogroups within A. First with no further mutations from the A root: A4d and A4c, in 'Northern Asia', and A8 in 'Arctic Siberia' and amoung the Tatars. One more mutation takes us to A11 on the Tibetan Plateau/China and A4a in 'Northern Asia'. Yet another mutation from the N root (7 in total from L3) takes us to A4b in 'Northern Asia' and A5 in China/SE Asia. At eight mutations from N we have A3 and A7 in 'Asia' and A2 in America. With nine mutations we're back in Tibet with the Tatars as A10, in 'East Asia' as A6 and in 'Asia' with A9. These last haplogroups almost certainly represent survivors who had undergone a period of drift once the particular groups had become isolated from other 'A's following the 'original' A expansion. Doesn't the above pattern closely follow what we expect of an expansion from somewhere in Central Asia? It starts between Tibet and Arctic Siberia.
"half of those 15 basal sublineages do not show signs of immediate re-expansion but either delayed expansion (A, N2, X) or no expansion at all. The other half do show sings of immediate re-expansion, within one or two CR mutations"
So we should take a look at them. After taking the haplogroups just a single mutation from basal N we again find haplogroups that probably became isolated following N's 'original' expansion. They fit within the region haplogroup N covered with the single mutation derivatives. All, that is, except A. To me it seems obvious that A is a product of a population that became isolated from other 'N's and subject to a period of drift after N's 'original' expansion.
With regard to the origin and spread of CF (or CTxED), I think the question of timing is the most important. After ~100,000ya, there really wasn't any region between Africa and the Indian subcontinent that would have allowed for any significant population growth, or large intermediate, "left behind" populations. I think it may well be that ED spread earlier (130,000-100,000ya), but it would be hard to make such a case for CF.
ReplyDeleteF* and F1-5 are pretty meaningless in this context, IMO - they just indicate that in addition to the subgroups that underwent explosive growth, there are still remnants derived from local population niches, which could have survived pretty much anywhere not too far from S and SE Asia, and then spread from there a bit further. It does show, though, that at least the majority of F and its subgroups originated on the subcontinent.
As I have written before, it seems quite likely from the distribution that G derives from a population that was "left behind," likely some place in or close to W Pakistan with very limited pre-neolithic growth opportunity, while other groups marched on and populated S and SE Asia (creating the other F sub groups). I don't like the idea of G being a part of the original migration towards the subcontinent that then went off and tried out hunting grounds farther north in Eastern Iran/Afghanistan - those areas where either extremely inhospitable, or populated by Neanderthals, then.
H again tells us nothing except that F evidently underwent explosive population growth (and concomitant splits into subgroups) in the Indian subcontinent. As expected from a very early split-off, H is quite widely distributed outside the subcontinent, at very low levels. It would be worthwhile to study its subgroups more carefully to deduce distribution routes and timings.
I see IJ basically the same way as G - they could have even been collocated for a while, but then back-migrated East on slightly different routes. In other words, IJ is just the portion of IJK that stayed behind.
I don't think F split before entry into the subcontinent, but immediately at entry when areas where found in which AMHs could multiply, into G, IJK, and F(xG,IJK) (the timing of H with respect to this is kind of irrelevant).
If F split before reaching the subcontinent, then we must postulate that so did CF (and much, much earlier, at that) - but where is this area that allowed a lot of population growth and a lot of time before this group (of CF sons) reached the subcontinent? I don't think such a place existed, unless one postulates the timing to be during the 130,000-100,000 wet phase. I'd rather leave that to DE. We must then also postulate that C drifted out and vanished, in this region, and so did all of the F* that might have arisen there, then, as well. And we should see structure in these groups that make them look 30,000-50,000 older - I don't see this.
"It is hardly 'parsimonious' to allow all that backwards and forwards".
ReplyDeleteWhatever rocks your boat man. Occam calls for the simplest possible explanation but if you prefer the complex-est, up to you.
"N's greatest diversity in Australia".
By regions, N's greatest basal diversity is in SE Asia, where we find at least five different subclades.
But the other reason, the old one, is geometry. The centroid of all that scatter of N subclades fall where? In SEA.
"But N1'5 can hardly be described as 'South Asian', and R doubtfully so".
Whatever. South Asia is just an empty desert... repeat with me...
Please!
"For example, ignoring control region mutations (which you are quite happy to do when considering R's distance from the root N)",
... and in general...
... "we get the following 'elder lineages' within R, all just one mutation from the R root: R0 (West Eurasia), R2'JT South/SW Asia), R6 (South Asia), R30 (South Asia), R31 (South Asia), P (OZ/NG), R11'B6 East/SE Asia)"...
... so far so good...
... "R24 (East/SE Asia), B4a (East/SE Asia), B4b'd'e (East/SE Asia), B4c (East/SE Asia), B4f (East/SE Asia), B4g (East/SE Asia), B4h (East/SE Asia) and B5 (East/SE Asia)".
All that however is just one single haplogroup per the latest build: B4'5, defined by transition at loci 8281-8289d.
Even if that would not be the case, that it is, B4g, B4f, B5... could not be described as "elders", in the sense I did a few comments ago (up to two mutations downstream of the basal node), because they have four mutations downstream of B4'5. They are not "elders" even within B4'5.
Quit cheating!
"So where is the greatest basal diversity within R?"
It's in SA, there's no doubt about it. I did not use the distinction between elder and other N clades to find where N coalesced, just to explain you (quite uselessly, it seems) that these lineages behaved differently at their origins and that must be considered and understood.
And regardless, even if we only consider "elder" lineages under R, it's still four in SA, vs 3 in EA+Australasia.
So far the evidence indicates that R coalesced in SA, as did M before it. However they both have a very strong presence in the East. This last, together with the location of N (and similar stuff in the Y-DNA side) reinforces the idea that both SE Asia and South Asia played important and dynamic roles in an early "Asia of the H. sapiens" in which they were still very strongly communicating and the flow had not yet fully stopped. But of the two, South Asia is the big one, while SEA played a somewhat second role (but still very important).
"Doesn't the above pattern closely follow what we expect of an expansion from somewhere in Central Asia?"
ReplyDeleteNorth Asia, Actic Siberia, North Asia... China/Tibet... America (i.e. Alaska and Chukotka at the origin)
Where do you find Central Asia?
"It starts between Tibet and Arctic Siberia".
Siberia weights 3, China 1 and America (Alaska) 1 (two are undefined "Asian"). It falls in NE Asia without almost any doubt.
Just wishing something doesn't make it any more real. You should know at your age.
"To me it seems obvious that A is a product of a population that became isolated from other 'N's and subject to a period of drift after N's 'original' expansion".
To me that is anything but "obvious". For me, the ancestors of A took part in a more ample migration northwards, involving other lineages (surely its "elder sister" N9 or its daughters, maybe M8, M9, D, etc. as well).
A is roughly contemporary (mutation up, mutation down) of N9b and Y1 (and also in the south N9a and Y2). So I think it's easy to conclude that the evolution of A is closely linked to its sister N9's - or more like to the N9 clan's nieces and grand-nieces (in Y).
@Eurologist: first of all I'm glad that someone else beside Terry and I read this. At least it has a use (because I despair of opening Terry's mind to the obvious).
ReplyDelete"I don't like the idea of G being a part of the original migration towards the subcontinent that then went off and tried out hunting grounds farther north in Eastern Iran/Afghanistan - those areas where either extremely inhospitable, or populated by Neanderthals, then".
That's where I'd suggest that you look at the matter from the mtDNA side, not for G but in general for the colonization of West Eurasia and Eurasia in general. We see (I see at least):
1. A phase of expansion Eastwards from South Asia and, secondarily from SE Asia, reaching Sahul and mid-East Asia. A T shaped pattern with top to the East.
2. A lesser phase of backflow to South Asia (mtDNA N leading to R, etc., Y-DNA P).
3. A last backflow to East Asia (mtDNA R, leading to R11'F and B).
4. Expansion to West Eurasia and NE Asia.
This last phase happens only quite late. Why? Because it is a last resort choice: only when there is no more room for expansion, when the flow between SA and SEA (and Sahul) is clearly stopped or reduced to a trickle, only then some populations considered facing the hardest options: Neanderland (West Eurasia) and the Frostlands (NE Asia).
So I'd place the expansion of Y-DNA G, IJ, R1(b), T... in this context. Instead of reading Y-DNA alone, what is confusing, I try to read it in relation to the more legible mtDNA flow, and then it makes sense. I finally got them making sense at least.
"H again tells us nothing"...
If we knew a bit more about the substructure of H it'd tell us something I suspect. But essentially you're right.
"I see IJ basically the same way as G"...
I do too, with the caveat that IJ seems to have got a more southernly core and expansion zone. But again, I see these along with mtDNA and not as impossible bachelor guys.
So they did not "stay behind" but migrated Westwards, as mtDNA so clearly did.
"If F split before reaching the subcontinent"...
We'd know by now. F is very well researched. Y-DNA mutates to fast to hide such a split. F expanded from SA without doubt and the mtDNA signature reinforces this idea because IJ and G could not have stayed as bachelors in the West.
... and would they have survived with L3(xM,N) lineages, we'd find them today instead of N-derived ones, right?
As for the timing, I tend to think that CF is elder to D but not to DE (which is why E became dominant in Africa, because E was elder within DE, which was elder within CF'DE). I suspect that DE (leading to D) migrated as lesser lineage with CF, same as mtDNA L3n did with L3m. But eventually mtDNA N was more successful (they are not necessarily coupled anyhow, just both are smaller lineages, which were "drifted out" almost everywhere - almost).
Sorry for the double post.
ReplyDelete"After ~100,000ya, there really wasn't any region between Africa and the Indian subcontinent that would have allowed for any significant population growth, or large intermediate, 'left behind' populations".
That would explain why G, IJK and F3 have long 'tails'. They were confined to a small region and subject to drift.
" it seems quite likely from the distribution that G derives from a population that was "left behind," likely some place in or close to W Pakistan with very limited pre-neolithic growth opportunity, while other groups marched on and populated S and SE Asia (creating the other F sub groups)".
I have been trying to convince Maju of that since we first made contact.
"H again tells us nothing except that F evidently underwent explosive population growth (and concomitant splits into subgroups) in the Indian subcontinent".
To me that explains the evidence as we know it at present.
"I see IJ basically the same way as G - they could have even been collocated for a while, but then back-migrated East on slightly different routes. In other words, IJ is just the portion of IJK that stayed behind".
I basically agree, although I see no need to postulate they 'back-migrated East'. They may always have lived somewhere within the region they are found today.
"I don't think F split before entry into the subcontinent"
It doesn't actually have to 'split' before entering the subcontinent. It simply has to consist of a population of basal F haplotypes.
"but where is this area that allowed a lot of population growth and a lot of time before this group (of CF sons) reached the subcontinent?"
I don't think we need postulate any period of 'population growth'. F has a considerable tail before it diversifies, presumably the result of a long period of drift while it was confined to a small region. So I would agree with 'a lot of time'.
"Occam calls for the simplest possible explanation but if you prefer the complex-est, up to you".
ReplyDeleteYou have F (or CF, or CT) moving east from Africa to South Asia leaving no footprint. Then G and IJ moving west from South Asia to Anatolia/Iran leaving no footprint. Then J2 moving east from Anatolia/Iran to South Asia and, finally we see a footprint. Do you really believe that is a parsimonious solution?
"N's greatest basal diversity is in SE Asia, where we find at least five different subclades".
Five? What are they? I make it three: N21, N22 and R. Australia wins!
"South Asia is just an empty desert... repeat with me..."
South Asia is not an empty desert. It is simply empty of basal N clades. M and R seemed to manage there quite well, thanks.
"B4'5, defined by transition at loci 8281-8289d".
Thanks for that. I wonder when they're going to rationalise haplogroup M.
I have to go now, so I'll carry on later.
"I did not use the distinction between elder and other N clades to find where N coalesced, just to explain you (quite uselessly, it seems) that these lineages behaved differently at their origins and that must be considered and understood".
ReplyDeleteAnd, interestingly, A behaves in exactly the same manner as all other haplogrouops. It is not an anomaly at all. There are numerous examples of haplogroups with a long 'tail' separating them from their 'parent' haplogroup. And they are all found within the region of their parent's geographic range. In other words they have undergone drift locally as they became isolated, not as they migrated. You claim that A is an anomaly in this. The only one? Find us an example of another haplogroup with a long tail that has migrated from somewhere other than within the region where it is now found.
But there are actually numerous examples of haplogroups having migrated from the region their parent haplogroups occupied: Europe, America and Polynesia for example. Polynesian B is B4a1a1a, obviously derived from B4 which is still found in South China/SE Asia. America too has B, this time B2, a clade within B4b'd'e. America has A2, a clade within A4, as well as specific clades of C, D and X. Europe has specific clades of H and V, both within R0, as well as specific clades of J, T, K and I. In all cases it is very easy to see where their orgin lies. Even U has non-European members. But A appears to have no immediate ancestors, just undifferentiated N. Again A is the only amomaly. This means that any hypothesis other than autochthonous origin must be abandoned.
"Where do you find Central Asia?"
Right next to 'North Asia, Actic Siberia, North Asia... China/Tibet... America'.
"It falls in NE Asia without almost any doubt".
Especially if you choose to ignore the two Tibetan/Tatar A haplogroups.
"To me that is anything but 'obvious'".
Because you don't understand population genetics?
"For me, the ancestors of A took part in a more ample migration northwards, involving other lineages (surely its 'elder sister' N9 or its daughters, maybe M8, M9, D, etc. as well)".
Ahaa. The great single migration from the Garden of Eden raises its ugly head yet again.
"This last phase happens only quite late. Why?"
The development or aquisition of some new technology?
"IJ and G could not have stayed as bachelors in the West".
There is absolutely no need for them to have 'stayed as bachelors in the West'. There was no shortage of females.
"... and would they have survived with L3(xM,N) lineages, we'd find them today instead of N-derived ones, right?"
Why only L3(xM,N)? Why not N, such as N1'5, X and even N2?
"I tend to think that CF is elder to D but not to DE"
I suspect all four are about the same age. They just coalesced at different margins of the early H. sapiens geographic distribution. Then headed off in different directions.
"I'm glad that someone else beside Terry and I read this".
Yes. I was beginning to think I was the only one stupid enough to bother trying to explain anything to you.
"It simply has to consist of a population of basal F haplotypes".
ReplyDeleteThat does not happen with Y-DNA: the Y chromosome is too large not to mutate at every generation or so. MtDNA is another story, there a mutation can go unchanged for a hundred generations or more. The difference is quite brutal but that's also the difference of length of the respective DNA chains.
"F has a considerable tail before it diversifies"...
Forget about SNP tails (or heads or whatever) in Y-DNA that only indicates, specially if unqualified, the level of research of each lineage. F will necessarily have a much larger tail because it's a larger haplogroup present in many populations full of genetic researchers finding more and more mutations every other year or even month.
"You have F (or CF, or CT) moving east from Africa to South Asia leaving no footprint".
I do? Or it does itself?
And why would F leave a footprint if mtDNA M did not? Why do you guys insist on debating Y-DNA without paying any attention to mtDNA, when this one is much more likely to have retained most of the information?
"Then G and IJ moving west from South Asia to Anatolia/Iran leaving no footprint".
First, you make my words dance: for me G and IJ never did such a migration, their F and IJK precursors did instead. Second, no idea what footprint do you expect them to leave when they move between adjacent regions.
"Then J2 moving east from Anatolia/Iran to South Asia"...
That's mainstream. Do you want me to debate that also? Are you questioning this?
"Five? What are they?"
N8, N10, N11, N21, N22... and maybe N9 too.
"It is simply empty of basal N clades".
Is it? Really?
"I wonder when they're going to rationalise haplogroup M".
Next reincarnation.
"And, interestingly, A behaves in exactly the same manner as all other haplogrouops. It is not an anomaly at all. There are numerous examples of haplogroups with a long 'tail' separating them from their 'parent' haplogroup".
I know.
I was just trying to make you pay attention to the topography of N.
In any case, longer stems mean longer time as "private", small lineage (mtDNA only, not extensible to Y-DNA, because the apportion of knowledge is radically different).
"And they are all found within the region of their parent's geographic range".
Sometimes. Sometimes they are not. And sometimes short stems include lineages very far away from parent. P is an example of the latter, far away from South Asia (R), while N is a case like A, far away from Africa (L3).
In any case, the long stem indicates that the lineage did not find room to expand and was "latent" (and at risk of extinction) in the meanwhile.
...
...
ReplyDelete"Find us an example of another haplogroup with a long tail that has migrated from somewhere other than within the region where it is now found".
L1 (5 mutations, migrated from Upper Nile to Cameroon), L0d (9 mutations, migrated from Tanzania? to South Africa), N (5 mutations, migrated from Ethiopia to SE Asia), M8 (4 mutations, migrated from South Asia to NE Asia), Y2 (5 mutations, migrated it seems from NE Asia to Indonesia), X and N2 (5 mutations, migrated from SEA to the Levant).
The real problem is migrating so fast as to no accumulate almost any mutations. It happens too and that's why geneticists sometimes talk of "rapid (coastal) migration".
"Again A is the only amomaly".
A is not the only anomaly, much less within N: X and N2 are as well. The three have very similar behaviors.
But two in West Asia and the other in NE Asia. It is not possible for "undifferentiated N" to have existed in all those different areas at the same time and not have left any more tracks, notably lineages separated by only one or two mutations, as we find in SEA, Sahul, mid-East Asia and South Asia.
You take advantage of my good will to waste my time with all that. If the stem is short because it is short, if long because long... all is the same to you as long as the road from Addis Abbaba to Sydney goes through Altai.
It does not: nothing matches that idea. It is just an old absurd idea.
"Especially if you choose to ignore the two Tibetan/Tatar A haplogroups".
Tibetan AND CHINESE, Tatar AND NORTH ASIAN in general. Actually A is most common in NE Asia and has a distribution that is somewhat similar to Y-DNA C3, with the occasional scatter westward, where C3 does exist too. However mtDNA D and CZ match Y-DNA C3 even better.
"Because you don't understand population genetics?"
Sure, whatever.
"Ahaa. The great single migration from the Garden of Eden"...
The Garden of Eden is allegedly in Mesopotamia, mind you.
I'm tired and I find this a total waste of time. I won't debate with you further. I hope to have more interested and interesting readers.
Otherwise, I guess each one gets what he deserves. I can only blame myself for replying to you when you go in nonsense rampage every two posts.
And post every day.
And it's the same old repetitive debate and you never seem to understand nor acknowledge my viewpoint.
Sick. Boring. Useless.
But I deserve it for replying to you.
C'est fini!
Couple of quick comments.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, of course I meant back-migrated West - not East - when talking about IJ.
Secondly, yes, Terry, if F had split before entry to SA, that would require regions of substantial growth that did not then exist.
"F will necessarily have a much larger tail because it's a larger haplogroup present in many populations full of genetic researchers finding more and more mutations every other year or even month".
ReplyDeleteTrue. But the tail still indicates a relativley long period of drift. But, as you point out, a short tail doesn't necessarily represent a short period of drift.
"I do? Or it does itself?"
Obviously F or its ancestor came from Africa at some time.
"And why would F leave a footprint if mtDNA M did not?"
M1'20'51? But that haplogroup appears to have originated further east than did the western basal Ns. Again the two haplogroups probably represent separate regions of fixation within a single population.
"Second, no idea what footprint do you expect them to leave when they move between adjacent regions".
When any population moves it usually leaves members along the way. The population seldom moves as a self-contained unit. As I pointed out yesterday we can follow the route all the mtDNA haplogroups took to Europe, America and Polynesia. All except one, that is.
"for me G and IJ never did such a migration, their F and IJK precursors did instead".
That's even more jumping around. You now have IJK's ancestor coming from South Asia then K moving east again.
"That's mainstream. Do you want me to debate that also? Are you questioning this?"
Of course it's mainstream. I was merely pointing out that the migration of J2 to South Asia is the very first time we see any trace of source population under your hypothesis.
"N8, N10, N11, N21, N22... and maybe N9 too".
N9 is certainly not SE Asian. N10 and N11 aren't either. They are more realistically called 'South Chinese'. That leaves N21 and N22 as 'Southeast Asian'.
"Is it? Really?"
Yes. Unless you're going to insist on calling several R clades 'basal'.
"In any case, longer stems mean longer time as 'private', small lineage"
Yes. And such a lineage is extremely unlikely to move very far from its place of origin before it becomes extinct.
"Sometimes. Sometimes they are not".
And examples of 'Sometimes they are not'?
"P is an example of the latter, far away from South Asia (R)"
No. P is quite close to its ancestor in SE Asia.
"while N is a case like A, far away from Africa (L3)".
No. Members of the haplogroup are quite close to its African relations.
"the long stem indicates that the lineage did not find room to expand and was 'latent' (and at risk of extinction) in the meanwhile".
I agree 100%. But such a lineage is unlikely to be able to expand far unless it emerges into a so far unexploited region or the climate changes dramatically. In which case it can expand widely, but its base will still be somewhere near its origin.
Must go.
I could discuss some points, all points, but it's pointless. You'll make silly and wrong distinctions like claiming that South China is not SEA when you know perfectly that it is, and not just for me.
ReplyDeleteIt's a waste of time debating with you Terry.
"I'm tired and I find this a total waste of time. I won't debate with you further".
ReplyDeleteI understand. You find it unpleasant to have someone point out the weaknesses in your reasoning.
"The Garden of Eden is allegedly in Mesopotamia, mind you".
It's actually mythical so you can place it where-ever you wish.
"L1 (5 mutations, migrated from Upper Nile to Cameroon), L0d (9 mutations, migrated from Tanzania? to South Africa)"
I've tried several times, but to no avail, to point out to you that the evidence best fits an origin for L0 along the southern margin of the Congo rainforest and L1 along the northern margin. Under that scenario there is complete continuity in the two populations so the apparent 'problem of the tails' disappears. Again they simply coalesced at opposite geographic extremes within the same region. They certainly didn't move while their tails were forming. The tails formed once they each became isolated.
"M8 (4 mutations, migrated from South Asia to NE Asia)"
But M8 migrated from Northeast India after the 4 mutation tail was completed, not while the tail was developing. It is very easy to follow M8/CZ's expansion from then on, east and north, and even to America. It left plenty of 'footprints'.
"Y2 (5 mutations, migrated it seems from NE Asia to Indonesia)"
That migration is relatively late. Possibly even associated with the Neolithic. And, as far as I'm aware it is just one branch of Y2 (Y2a or Y2b, I forget which) and it is not found only in Indonesia.
"N (5 mutations, migrated from Ethiopia to SE Asia)"
That is precisely where I claim you are mistaken, the point we disagree on. You cannot use that example as 'proof' of your hypothesis. N (as well as M) are simply single clades of L3, the other members of which are found right across Africa. N and M obviously underwent a period of drift before they were able to diversify considerably, presumably because they were eventually able to expand rapidly further into Eurasia from their respective regions of coalescence.
"It is not possible for 'undifferentiated N' to have existed in all those different areas at the same time and not have left any more tracks, notably lineages separated by only one or two mutations, as we find in SEA, Sahul, mid-East Asia and South Asia".
N did leave tracks. You are forgetting that there was a rather severe ice age that would have considerably restricted population expansion in northern regions. The effect would have been much smaller in SEA, Sahul, mid-East Asia and South Asia. Besides which N1'5 has just one mutation before it separates into N1 and N5. And N5 hardly shows the diversity in South Asia one would expect if it had entered with M.
"X and N2 (5 mutations, migrated from SEA to the Levant)".
Again that's exactly where we disagree, and is the point you're trying to 'prove', as far as I'm concerned. You are just arguing in circles.
"A is not the only anomaly, much less within N: X and N2 are as well. The three have very similar behaviors".
My point exactly. And N9.
"You'll make silly and wrong distinctions like claiming that South China is not SEA when you know perfectly that it is"
ReplyDeleteRubbish Maju. Southeast Asia is Southeast Asia and South China is South China. If you're going to claim basal diversity within particular regions it is necessary to confine those regions as much as possible otherwise you're claiming that particular regions have greater diversity simply because they are larger.
"It's a waste of time debating with you Terry".
You've never actually debated. You've always just insisted your hypothesis is correct.
You know perfectly that for me (and often in anthropological and prehistory contexts at least South China is SE Asia.
ReplyDeleteBut whatever, I'm fucking tired of even having to discuss this. You know what are my terms, you don't debate them every other day. It'd be understandable if you'd be new but you are a very old visitor.
You have no excuse. You just play with my mind and I don't have to put up with that. Bye.