September 24, 2011

'Denisovan' admixture widespread beyond Wallace Line, non-existant elsewhere

Reconstructed H. erectus
Remember that last Christmas we got an unusual gift of knowledge in the finding by Reich et al. that Melanesians of all modern humans researched back in the day were the only ones to show admixture with the mysterious Denisova fingers?

Remember that I said already back then that this admixture was not with Denisovans as such but a related species (probably H. erectus) of which the Denisova hominings were just the tip of the iceberg and a Neanderthal-admixed tip actually.

I proposed therefore that the admixture shown by Melanesians but not continental Eurasians was probably the product of admixture with H. erectus solensis (or something like that) in Indonesia, while 'Denisovans' were hybrids of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis, possibly at near 50% levels.

I suggested then this scenario:



With the 2nd admixture representing this regional H. erectus introgression and the 1st one being that from Neanderthals or maybe a related Heidelbergensis-derived population in South Asia (Hathnora hominin).

I also said that the figures of 'Denisovan' admixture had to be cut by half because the authors were counting Neanderthal admixture twice in Melanesians (as 'Denisovans' were probably Neanderthal-Erectus hybrids). Quoting myself:

They suggest (supp. info 8) that Melanesians would have as much as 7.4% of admixture with archaic species: 4.8% Denisovan plus 2.5% Neanderthal. But, if Denisovans are hybrids of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis (as seems most likely, see above), then the real admixture with H. erectus would be an undetermined percentage but always less than 4.8%. As we know that the Neanderthal (or Heidelbergensis) component is 2.5%, it is most likely that the actual Erectus admixture in Melanesians is of only 2.3% or 2.4%, totaling 4.8%.

Now we are told that all the aboriginal peoples of Near Oceania, plus Wallacea and Filipino Negritos, show that admixture at similar or lower levels:


I could browse the paper a day or so ago, so I hoped this was an open access paper. Yet today I find it is PPV. Luckily Dienekes has published most of the relevant graphs at his blog.

In any case the relevant information is this map (from Neanderfollia[cat]):



It tells us that Papuans and Australian Aborigines share the greatest fraction of 'Denisovan' introgression, followed by Boungaville Melanesians, Fijians, Timorese, Alorese and Mamanwa speakers (probable Ati). These and other peoples of beyond what used to be the continental landmass of Asia in the Ice Age, retain some level of 'Denisovan' admixture. 

But Denisova is very far away and no admixture is known elsewhere. Why? Because the admixture surely happened in or near Indonesia and was not with the Neanderhal-hybridized Denisovans but with pure H. erectus from the region.

Papuans and Australian aborigines have probably 2.4% admixture from H. erectus, in people like the Timorese that would be 1.2% and in a group like the Roti (RO) it is of just 0.6%. That's my interpretation of the available data. 

But from Sundaland to the West and North there is no such admixture: zero!

And that can only be explained if the admixture happened in Indonesia, maybe in Flores?

93 comments:

  1. "And that can only be explained if the admixture happened in Indonesia, maybe in Flores? "

    God no! They were only 1 meter tall! There's no consensus on what species do they belong to. Even some think they are more related to australopithecines.

    In any case, how can this be possible, for the ancestors of melanesians to mix with Floresiensis while Denisovans have no descendants alive? No, I think the most plausible scenario is that melanesians and australians arrived in Asia much earlier than the ancestors of the Chinese/Japanese/Cambodjan, etc. Maybe they admixed in India and not Indonesia, but what's clear is that the descendants of this early wave have have almost been replaced by a newer wave. You only have to look at their faces: they have nothing in common with mainland Asians.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "this admixture was not with Denisovans as such but a related species (probably H. erectus) of which the Denisova hominings were just the tip of the iceberg"

    The chances of the widely separated Indonesian and Central Asia ancient humans being more similar to each other than either is to any other ancient group is virtually nil.

    "what's clear is that the descendants of this early wave have have almost been replaced by a newer wave. You only have to look at their faces: they have nothing in common with mainland Asians".

    To me also that is the most likely explanation. The original Papuan/Australian type in SE Asia has been replaced by a 'Mongoloid' phenotype from the north. But Maju and I have had this argument before.

    "followed by Boungaville Melanesians, Fijians, Timorese, Alorese and Mamanwa speakers (probable Ati)".

    And those groups have lesser amounts than do Papuans/Australians also because of admixture with the Mongoloid people in the form of Austronesian-speakers.

    "And that can only be explained if the admixture happened in Indonesia"

    You know very well that there is another explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I also have a hard time believing Denisovans lived from the Altai to SE Asia - I would have assumed heidelbergensis-like in the North, and erectus in the South.

    Also, don't forget that East Asians do have "Denisovan" introgression: in the immune system coding regions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Re: "You only have to look at their faces"

    Agree. I have been on every major landmass x Africa, and through much of the Pacific. I have certainly met enough east, south, and west African expats to get a feel for those peoples as well.

    IMO, the differences between an east Asian, a west European, and a native American are superficial and trivial. Sub-Saharan Africans are more divergent in appearance compared to the OOA diaspora, but are also quite recognizable as fully anatomically modern people.

    I have met a few native Australians, Fijians and Papuans. I have to say, even a university engineering student from PNG in modern western dress is about as "different looking" a person as any I have seen.

    Ok, having two OOA waves would certainly allow people in PNG and Australia to have retained more African modern H.s. features than the second wave. But that always failed to explain why people in PNG/Australia look more like archaic Homo than their presumed ancestral source population in east Africa. Confirmation of genetic admixture with local archaic Homo is a scientific tour de force, but not a surprise at all.

    Agree that the admixture had to happen in SE Asia, possibly in Indonesia. Otherwise the Andaman would have Densiovan admixture and they do not.

    Of interest to me, Polynesians appear to have circa 20% as much "Denisovan" as people from PNG/Solomon. That fits with previous work suggesting that the Polynesians are circa 80% Taiwanese and 20% Solomon admixture.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Neanderthalerin:

    I generally think of H. floresiensis as a pygmy H. erectus. There are other hypothesis but all remain to be demonstrated, meanwhile Occam's razor cries: it has to be H. erectus because that's what we know to have existed in Est Asia before the arrival of H. sapiens, everything else seems speculative.

    But of course we can't say for sure. Just an option I pointed to because H. floresiensis is the only Wallacean hominin other than us we know of. And all the admixture is East of Wallace Line (and whatever the name of the line separating Borneo from Philippines).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Terry said: "The chances of the widely separated Indonesian and Central Asia ancient humans being more similar to each other than either is to any other ancient group is virtually nil".

    Me: We know of H. erectus from North China to Indonesia. In fact the first known H. erectus ever came from those two places: Peking and Java men.

    They are the same species and we know not of any other species (except the controversial H. floresiensis) ever penetrating into East Asia.

    Eurologist said: "I also have a hard time believing Denisovans lived from the Altai to SE Asia - I would have assumed heidelbergensis-like in the North, and erectus in the South".

    There are no known Heidelbergensis/Neanderthal of any sort in NE Asia or anywhere in East Asia. Altai is a crossroads but mostly belongs to Central Asia and therefore to West Eurasia. Through all prehistory it is always more closely attached to the West than the East.

    For the period of our interest, we know of Neanderthals, we know of H. sapiens of Western techno-culture ('Aurignacoid') and we know of two odd fingers that have produced very strange sequences:

    1. mtDNA that is outside of the Neanderthal-Sapiens (H. ergaster) set and hence must be from H. erectus.

    2. autosomal DNA that is somewhat but not very similar to Neanderthals. The NJ/ML trees force hybrid branches exactly as the 'Denisovan' one is located: very high inside the branch of one of the relatives.

    So I think it is H. erectus, which is widely attested in East Asia before the arrival of AMHs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "You only have to look at their faces: they have nothing in common with mainland Asians".

    I must disagree with this assessment and the adhesions that followed: Australian Aboriginal faces are not that different from some South Asian ones. Papuan faces are not that different from West Asian ones (though the closest ones IMO are some Western Pygmies), Filipino Negrito look sometimes quasi-Mediterranean to me (except for the skin color and thin curly hair, which are more African-like).

    Overall I get the impression of an "Australo-Caucasoid" main Eurasian phenotype extending from the North Atlantic to the South Pacific (with many local variations and gradations, of course). The anomaly is the East Asian 'Mongoloid' phenotype and that's the one requiring an explanation (explanation I don't have yet).

    Also 2.4% or even 7% admixture would not be noticeable. "Octoroons" (people with 12.5% admixture) fall invariably inside their majority component, at most displaying very very diffuse affinities with the minority one. An example are Finnish people, who look almost invariable "Caucasoid" but are in fact slightly "Mongoloid" genetically (5-10%).

    2.4% is so tiny that cannot be noticed, certainly not the way you say.

    Exception might be if an specific trait inherited from those archaic ancestors would be fixated early on, maybe because it was advantageous in evolutionary terms or by mere chance. I suspect that straight hair (unknown in Africa) may be such a trait but I'd rather imagine it being imported from Neanderthals than Erectus/Denisovans.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eurologist said: "Also, don't forget that East Asians do have "Denisovan" introgression: in the immune system coding regions".

    Me: Problem is that such introgression also exists in Uganda. So it may well be a total illusion.

    Joy said: "Ok, having two OOA waves"...

    Me: This would require another debate. I really have a problem with this: haploid DNA: the patri- and matrilineages (C and N mostly respectively) of Australian aborigines do not support two migrations.

    That some savants in a "hidden" PPV paper have modeled that a single Australian Aboriginal genome supports that, beats me very much. But I have not read the paper and until I do I won't be able to put up a coherent critique.

    In the meantime I consider the idea highly suspicious.

    However I must say that archaeology could support such double wave model (though in India and Arabia, not Australia) but, I insist, haploid lineages do not.

    Joy said: "Agree that the admixture had to happen in SE Asia, possibly in Indonesia. Otherwise the Andaman would have Densiovan admixture and they do not".

    In this I agree 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "But of course we can't say for sure. Just an option I pointed to because H. floresiensis is the only Wallacean hominin other than us we know of. And all the admixture is East of Wallace Line (and whatever the name of the line separating Borneo from Philippines)."

    In addition to cultural and behavioural differences with modern humans, it'd have been extremely difficult to have productive sex with them. That's why I highly doubt it, maybe there are other remains of H.erectus waiting to be discovered.

    "I suspect that straight hair (unknown in Africa) may be such a trait but I'd rather imagine it being imported from Neanderthals than Erectus/Denisovans."

    I've seen this suspection many times, but I think it doesn't work well with some melanesians, who have kinky hair, much like Africans.

    "I must disagree with this assessment and the adhesions that followed: Australian Aboriginal faces are not that different from some South Asian ones."

    Yes, I know in India there are some "australoid"·looking groups, but precisely these types are known for their archaic features (robust mandible, big teeth, pronounced superciliar archs), but they look very different from "mongoloids", and perhaps more akin to Africans. Australian aborigines are often called "blacks" by white Australians, like African Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Yes, I know in India there are some "australoid"·looking groups, but precisely these types are known for their archaic features (robust mandible, big teeth, pronounced superciliar archs), but they look very different from "mongoloids", and perhaps more akin to Africans".

    "Archaic" is a judgment and in any case, to my judgment, they look much like West Eurasians in most traits. Actually there are many West Eurasians who have robust jaws, pronounced superciliary arches, etc. Big teeth: no idea if that's even correct for "Australoids".

    "Australian aborigines are often called "blacks" by white Australians, like African Americans".

    But the similitude seems to be nonexistent other than skin color (somewhat, very variable) and nasal breadth. To me they look dark, broad-nosed "Europeans" - or at least that's the closest I can compare with. Just that Europeans tended to call everybody else 'black' or 'brown', specially the English did that all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Admixed Australians are interesting also in this matter of phenotype screening, for example Troy Cassar-Daley is half Aborigine and half Maltese and he looks like a dark Northern European.

    I have no idea of the ancestry of Alan Dargin but could not he be Andalusian or Moroccan?

    These two seem 100% native and they could be from Peru fro what I care. So good for the "Mongoloid" phenotype.

    One thing I'm sure: they do NOT look African.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "One thing I'm sure: they do NOT look African."

    Yes, it's true some look more European, others more Asian and others more on their own way. But some resemble Africans as well. What about these ones?

    http://i.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-3825073020-image/People_around_the_World/Oceania/Australia/Australian_Aborigines/Australian_Aborigines-image-4.jpg

    http://www.janesoceania.com/oceaniamyths_australia/AUSTRALIA%20Aboriginal.jpg

    http://us.acidcow.com/pics/20101018/australian_aborigines_09.jpg

    Here's a comparsion with an European:

    http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/jaw.projection.2.jpg

    Recently an Aboriginal genome has been published. It is said Asians and Europeans are much more closely related to each other than neither is to A.A, and that there was more than one migration to Asia.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Guess it's a lot how each see them but to me they do not seem African-like, even if they are darker and have thick lips. The overall traits are very different.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I generally think of H. floresiensis as a pygmy H. erectus".

    I think there is no doubt about that, in spite of continued efforts to claim deformity as the explanation.

    "even a university engineering student from PNG in modern western dress is about as 'different looking' a person as any I have seen".

    And you're very unlikely to confuse them with an African, of any kind.

    "We know of H. erectus from North China to Indonesia. In fact the first known H. erectus ever came from those two places: Peking and Java men".

    Yes. And it is not surprising there is a relationship between the two. However any similarity between Pekin Man and Denisova is yet to be demonstrated.

    "There are no known Heidelbergensis/Neanderthal of any sort in NE Asia or anywhere in East Asia. Altai is a crossroads but mostly belongs to Central Asia and therefore to West Eurasia. Through all prehistory it is always more closely attached to the West than the East".

    Isn't that exactly what Eurologist was getting at?

    "Australian Aboriginal faces are not that different from some South Asian ones".

    True. But the two regions are today separated by people who look completely different from either of them.

    "Papuan faces are not that different from West Asian ones (though the closest ones IMO are some Western Pygmies)"

    What? I've seen many Papuans, Melanesians and Polynesians. None look remotely like anyone from West Asia, or Africa. True, some look like Africans with some European admixture. Explain that!

    "I really have a problem with this: haploid DNA: the patri- and matrilineages (C and N mostly respectively) of Australian aborigines do not support two migrations".

    It certainly doesn't support 'two migrations' but it does support 'two strands' of migration: one south of the Himalayas through South Asia and one north of the Himalayas.

    "Overall I get the impression of an 'Australo-Caucasoid' main Eurasian phenotype extending from the North Atlantic to the South Pacific (with many local variations and gradations, of course)".

    I mentioned that concept some time ago and you disagreed vehemently. But the 'Australo-Caucasoid' doesn't spread far into the South Pacific, just to Australia. Papuans are not part of it but Ainu are.

    "The anomaly is the East Asian 'Mongoloid' phenotype and that's the one requiring an explanation (explanation I don't have yet)".

    Agreed. Yet I'm inclined to predict that it will be shown to be the product of yet another 'ancient' admixture.

    "I suspect that straight hair (unknown in Africa) may be such a trait but I'd rather imagine it being imported from Neanderthals than Erectus/Denisovans".

    Or from an archaic population in Northeast Asia. After all, the trait is particularly common there.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I have no idea of the ancestry of Alan Dargin but could not he be Andalusian or Moroccan?"

    He could be fairly 'pure' Aborigine. Some look like him although mainly those with some European ancestry.

    "These two seem 100% native and they could be from Peru fro what I care".

    Do you really think so? The woman especially looks 'pure'. She certainly doesn't look 'Mongoloid'.

    "But some resemble Africans as well. What about these ones?"

    Surely the women in the first photograph do not look remotely 'African'. The North Queenslander looks slightly 'Papuan', as you would expect, but again hardly 'African'.

    "Guess it's a lot how each see them but to me they do not seem African-like, even if they are darker and have thick lips. The overall traits are very different".

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Isn't that exactly what Eurologist was getting at?"

    He outlined a North/South conjectured division when in fact there's a West/East one.

    "True, some look like Africans with some European admixture".

    They do not look like Africans at all, except in some generic traits (skin color, nose breadth but not flatness, hair texture). They tend to look a lot like European "caricatures", so to say (in black indeed). Their big, prominent noses, help with that.

    Take for example this guy, lighten his skin and give him Western clothes... he could pass unnoticed in Greece, for example. Ok, not quite but almost so. More than in Nigeria, I believe.

    Ok, there are others that may look more "African" (always with a strange deviation anyhow) but most look like dark prognathous West Eurasians.

    "I mentioned that concept some time ago and you disagreed vehemently".

    I can't remember, Terry. I have been toying with the idea of a basic Eurasian "Australo-Caucasoid" phenotype range for quite a while, so you must be confusing things. Another thing is that I disagree with your ideas on how the "dissident" Mongoloid phenotype spread. I think it's a Paleolithic phenomenon and not a Neolithic one and that it may be a trend rather than a finished singly distinct phenotype.

    "But the 'Australo-Caucasoid' doesn't spread far into the South Pacific, just to Australia".

    Australia amply borders the South Pacific, i.e. the Pacific south of the Equator. Why do you have to discuss even this?!

    "Papuans are not part of it but Ainu are".

    IMO Papuans and other Melanesians are part of that continuum as are Filipino Negritos, who often resemble people I know from Spain and such (and it's not Spanish 'missionary' blood, not at all, just generic phenotype continuity).

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  17. ...

    "I'm inclined to predict that it will be shown to be the product of yet another 'ancient' admixture".

    With Khoisan or proto-North-Africans? Otherwise I disagree. There's no indication that Est Asians went through any other admixture episode than the ones we know already. Hence it's a local/regional founder effect, gradually amplified with time. I think this is more easily seen in Native America, where some look very "finished" Mongoloid while others sport other less "finished" looks, SE-Asian-like, diffusely Australoid or even quite unique as the Andean big-nosed phenotype, whose noses are more prominent and thinner than anything in West Eurasia probably.

    And all these peoples come from a single founder population most probably, some 20 Ka ago. Yet they sport such a wide range of diverse looks, more diverse than in all East Asia, I'd dare say.

    "Or from an archaic population in Northeast Asia. After all, the trait is particularly common there".

    Straight hair is also very common (clearly dominant) in South Asia and much of Europe, specially towards the NE. So rather not.

    Fixation does not mean origin, just internal founder effect.

    "She certainly doesn't look 'Mongoloid'".

    I don't know how familiar you are with Native American phenotypes but only a few look really "Mongoloid", most have Mongoloid affinities but would strike out in Seoul as much as you or me, and there are some groups that do not look Mongoloid at all.

    How does he look 'Mongoloid'? And them? Even those who look somewhat 'Mongoloid' are very distinct from East Asians, and remind more to SE Asians if anything, which you think of as "admixed" and I think of as the purer East Asian look instead (less finished "Mongoloid" precisely because it retains more of the old pan-Eurasian look).

    ReplyDelete
  18. To me, the who-looks-like-who game is both fun and dangerous.

    Certainly, you can find, e.g., an ancient central European/West Baltic look in persons like myself and in (image-google) Franka Potente (1/4 Italian), Katia Ebstein, or Kristina Schröder, to name a few. So, at times one may be able to select a particular group in a vast sea of faces.

    On the flip side, Native Americans IMO have at the minimum three contributions: (i) Coastal and (ii) internal migrants from Beringia, and (iii) Inuits. Of these, the coastal ones probably looked more like Ainu than typical Mongoloid, and the most Mongoloid were the Inuits, as today attested by NW coastal and high N native Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  19. There are numerous Native Americans that look surprisingly mongoloid. The Chinese tend to hire -- more-or-less -- Han waiters and Mexican busboys in their US restaurants. It is often difficult to tell which are which.

    On the other hand, my wife is 3/4 Nicaraguan and she does not look mongoloid in the slightest, neither does anyone in her family, on either side.

    So, it depends. There is radical variation in phenotype and you cannot tell too much from a few photos found online, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Conceded that it's a slippery slope of subjectivity (admixed with some objectivity) but I must say that your Chinese "Han" of restaurants and such are almost invariably Cantonese or Hakka and not "true Han" from the north, who may approach better the ideal "Mongoloid" phenotype.

    Also, normally Native Americans show a distinct genetic component to East Asians, assumed sufficiently large samples and sufficiently deep analysis. They are related but they are not identical. And genetically "Mongoloid" Amerindians cluster with "non-Mongoloid" ones, and not with "Mongoloid" East Asians primarily.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A problem we have when using these categories is that the people who thought in terms of races some 100 or even 50 years ago (Coon and the rest) typically thought in terms of idealized "pure races" that mixed with each other (forming admixed populations), while the reality is that "pure races" can only appear as result of loss of diversity, by fixation of traits by inbreeding.

    So diverse looking populations are in fact more genuine and the source of all inbred "pure races" of the racialist imaginary.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Maju, point taken and after posting my comment I had considered that myself. There is a rich diversity of phenotypes in China. It isn't too terribly difficult to tell roughly northern Chinese from southern -- I have known examples from both populations as such, not merely Cantonese-- and the southern indeed tend to look more like some Mexicans.

    Also, I was reminded by my wife that her maternal grandmother had somewhat mongoloid features, but it is likely that her family was originally from Mexico and not native to Nicaragua.

    I don't even understand what you are trying to say about Native Americans and some "finished" or "less finished" mongoloid phenotype. Some Native Americans do not look the slightest bit mongoloid or even typically Native American. Eastern Cherokee immediately come to mind, as do some Central Americans. Is this what you mean by a "less finished" type?

    ReplyDelete
  23. And for the record, Ruby Hunter and Archie Roach do not look the slightest bit Native American, not Peruvian, not from any New-World ethnicity known to me.

    Is it possible that living within such a racially homogeneous population your eye is not as sensitive to such differences? No offense intended, but given what you claim to see, or rather not see, in Australian Aborigines, it is tempting to consider the possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I don't even understand what you are trying to say about Native Americans and some "finished" or "less finished" mongoloid phenotype".

    I lost the thread a bit but I think that my point is that the concept of a "Mongoloid" phenotype is a bit misleading and that, in any case, it represents the "distillation" (inbreeding) of a more diverse background.

    In opposition to the classical racialist idea of "pure races" that mix, I rather defend diverse phenotype pools that are distilled occasionally by inbreeding into less diverse, more homogeneous (and hence easier to point out) populations. Then Coon and co. come and claim these "distilled" groups are "pure races" and the others "mixes" - but they are very wrong.

    This racialist error causes much confusion. I think that was my point.

    "Is it possible that living within such a racially homogeneous population your eye is not as sensitive to such differences? No offense intended"...

    No offense taken, though I actually do not live in any such "racially homogeneous" population. I estimate that maybe 20% of my neighbors are from diverse parts of the World, specially Africa and America (also some South Asians and the Roma, who have SA ancestry, and some East Asians as well).

    But I might have taken some liberties because my intent was to emphasize similitudes rather than differences. I'm normally more impressed when someone from elsewhere looks like someone I know than when they look totally different (which is the expectation). I've found "clones" of my brother from Congo to Bangla Desh even if he's blond. And my brother is not that different from myself.

    Other minds may work differently, so when I find that my cousin looks like Brad Pitt, other may find that he, my cousin, is dark haired and has a shorter vertical head length for example and say: "no they do not look the same at all".

    ReplyDelete
  25. "There is a rich diversity of phenotypes in China. It isn't too terribly difficult to tell roughly northern Chinese from southern..."

    Va_Highlander,

    There surely is a lot of diversity, and it goes beyond north and south. Some southern Chinese (less influenced by Han) have a very "archaic" look closer to extreme SE Asians, and some northern Chinese look decidedly less Mongoloid than Han. Part of that may be due to Caucasoid admixture (which is documented), but another part is clearly because NE Siberians were not Mongoloid to start with, even ~30,000-20,000 ya.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Another thing is that I disagree with your ideas on how the 'dissident' Mongoloid phenotype spread. I think it's a Paleolithic phenomenon and not a Neolithic one"

    I'd certainly accept its 'origin' as Paleolithic however it is difficult to argue a move southwards any earlier than Neolithic or near-Neolithic.

    "Australia amply borders the South Pacific, i.e. the Pacific south of the Equator. Why do you have to discuss even this?!"

    because we have very different-looking people as we move eastwards out into the Pacific. There was no simple single migration beyond SE Asia.

    "I think this is more easily seen in Native America, where some look very 'finished' Mongoloid while others sport other less 'finished' looks, SE-Asian-like, diffusely Australoid"

    Only those from the very far north look anything like 'finished Mongoloid', and are probably recent arrivals. You even contradict your self:

    "I don't know how familiar you are with Native American phenotypes but only a few look really 'Mongoloid', most have Mongoloid affinities but would strike out in Seoul as much as you or me, and there are some groups that do not look Mongoloid at all".

    So some other explanation is needed.

    "Straight hair is also very common (clearly dominant) in South Asia"

    I don't think so. Most Indians have wavy hair.

    "and much of Europe, specially towards the NE".

    Its presence in NE Europe is easily explained as having come in from NE Asia at some time.

    "Native Americans IMO have at the minimum three contributions: (i) Coastal and (ii) internal migrants from Beringia, and (iii) Inuits. Of these, the coastal ones probably looked more like Ainu than typical Mongoloid, and the most Mongoloid were the Inuits, as today attested by NW coastal and high N native Americans".

    I'm very much inclined to agree.

    "it goes beyond north and south. Some southern Chinese (less influenced by Han) have a very 'archaic' look closer to extreme SE Asians"

    What we have is basically a cline from north to south in East Asia with the 'Mongoloid' influence diluted as we move south. The cline breaks down at Wallace's line, beyond which the Mongoloid look is confined to an element within the Polynesians and Micronesians.

    "Part of that may be due to Caucasoid admixture (which is documented), but another part is clearly because NE Siberians were not Mongoloid to start with, even ~30,000-20,000 ya".

    So where did the Mongoloid phenotype develop? My guess is somewhere around the margin of the Tibetan Plateau.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "So where did the Mongoloid phenotype develop? My guess is somewhere around the margin of the Tibetan Plateau. "

    That's certainly a possibility, especially since the ancient NE coastal population seems less (or not at all) mongoloid. I have been trying to wrap my head around this, but simply don't have enough data/information, at this point. If you have three different phenotypes in the region 20,000 ya, you probably need fossils or ancient DNA to make sense of it.

    Another huge problem is the access routes. How did people get to the NE? How and why did they get to the more central Siberia first, before migrating East, inland?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "however it is difficult to argue a move southwards"...

    You're thinking 'Coonishly' here again: you think it as a single "pure race" that spreads and admixes, while the fact is that it is just a series of traits that are common enough, come from nowhere that we can pinpoint and migrate to nowhere. It's like blondisms in the West: maybe they are concentrated in some areas (NW Europe) but that does not mean they originated there.

    "Only those from the very far north look anything like 'finished Mongoloid', and are probably recent arrivals".

    Inuits and such do(on first look) but also many peoples of the Amazon jungle, which are probably quite older. Also Inuits do not cluster with Chinese by skull measures, as we have discussed more than once: they may look "archetypal mongoloid" but then they do not cluster with other "archetypal mongoloid" peoples like Chinese or Mongols. It's such a slippery category!

    "Most Indians have wavy hair".

    Not at all. Some do but most display straight deep black hair. Wavy and curly hair is a matter of Australo-Melanesians and West Eurasians (with the occasional exception elsewhere), precisely the two groups that also display blond hair most frequently and abundant body hair. I wonder if there is a relationship.

    "What we have is basically a cline from north to south in East Asia"...

    I do not think so: according to Dienekes's own calculations, Mongols (Buryats) and Inuits are not in the main East Asian cluster which spans from Indonesia to North China. They diverge before Native Americans do! Instead the main "Mongoloid" cluster spanning from Japan to Philippines remains homgeneous in all the run, as do the "Caucasoid" one from Norway to Egypt.

    No cline, no nothing. They just show homogeneity among them and differences towards others and among these others are some of your precious purebred "Mongoloid" arctic peoples.

    It's not a phylogeny but it demolishes the notion of a "Mogoloid race" (phenotype cluster) of any sort.

    "So where did the Mongoloid phenotype develop?"

    Nowhere, everywhere. It's no such phenotype but a series of traits like epicanthic fold, flat nose, marked cheeks and straight black hair common (but occasionally less common) in East Asia and Native America.

    I can imagine that these traits were already common to some extent among the peoples who colonized East Asia in the first and/or second wave (and hence they come from SE Asia s.l.) but obviously they were not as standarized as they are today. For example Upper Cave skulls display some but not other of the idealized Mongoloid phenotype traits, same for Minatogawa, etc.

    It's more ghostly than you want to admit with your Coonish view of phenotype.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "How did people get to the NE? How and why did they get to the more central Siberia first, before migrating East, inland?"

    I do not understand this. They first or simultaneously migrated to NE Asia. If genetics flowed from East Asia to Central Asia/Siberia that happened AFTER the colonization of the coastlands.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I do not understand this.

    I was specifically talking about Siberia, Beringia, and the Americas.

    There was a fairly convincing paper recently that determined the dates of settlements, and found the oldest ones in roughly central Siberia, with subsequent younger ones further eastward into Beringia.

    There were very few time periods during which getting into Central Siberia would have been feasible. Furthermore, these were steppe hunters - I doubt they came from the coast (leaving no trace) and then decided to make a 180 degree turn.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ah, you're thinking about Y-DNA Q mostly, right?

    I understand that they arrived to Altai c. 40 Ka ago (or maybe earlier) with an Aurignacoid industry related to those of West Asia, Europe and North Africa. Now, the expansion into NE Sibera was probably very thin and would be extremely hard to unveil by means of archaeology in the immensity of Siberia (almost 1/3 of all Asia).

    The highest diversity of Q (and mtDNA X2, in some correlation for what we are discussing now) is in West Asia and that's their origin surely.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Another huge problem is the access routes. How did people get to the NE? How and why did they get to the more central Siberia first, before migrating East, inland?"

    I think Maju is correct when he said, 'the expansion into NE Sibera was probably very thin'.

    "the oldest ones in roughly central Siberia, with subsequent younger ones further eastward into Beringia".

    Isn't that what we'd expect?

    "these were steppe hunters - I doubt they came from the coast (leaving no trace) and then decided to make a 180 degree turn".

    I'm sure that most American haplogroups arrived over land. The most likley exception is mtDNA B as it is spread all along the East eurasian coast and out into the Pacific. But I'm sure that A, X, C and probably D were overland migrants.

    "The highest diversity of Q (and mtDNA X2, in some correlation for what we are discussing now) is in West Asia and that's their origin surely".

    And the advancing Y-hap picked up the mtDNAs progressively as it moved through Central Siberia.

    "it is just a series of traits"

    Isn't that exactly what a 'race' is?

    "It's like blondisms in the West: maybe they are concentrated in some areas (NW Europe) but that does not mean they originated there".

    To me 'blondism' is concentrated in a reasonably narrow strip from the Eastern Baltic to the Urals. Where it is found outside that region it most likely indicates migration from the above region, so it probably originated there.

    "also many peoples of the Amazon jungle"

    I've never seen anyone from anywhere in South America that looks especially 'Mongoloid'. Any photographs?

    "Inuits do not cluster with Chinese by skull measures"

    But the Chinese themselves are less 'Mongoloid' than are people to the north of that country, so that is not surprising.

    "Mongols (Buryats) and Inuits are not in the main East Asian cluster which spans from Indonesia to North China".

    Quite. Indonesians are considerably admixed with 'Papuan' or 'Australian' people. As are Chinese, especially southern ones.

    "It's no such phenotype but a series of traits like epicanthic fold, flat nose, marked cheeks and straight black hair common (but occasionally less common) in East Asia and Native America".

    which indicates a common origin, and such clustering of characters is exactly what most of us call a 'race'.

    "I can imagine that these traits were already common to some extent among the peoples who colonized East Asia in the first and/or second wave (and hence they come from SE Asia s.l.)"

    They are much less pronounced in SE Asia than they are further north. So it is very unlikely that they originated in SE Asia.

    "but obviously they were not as standarized as they are today".

    How on earth would they become 'standarized' during a period of expanding population numbers? Surely some sort of selection is necessary, implying some level of inbreeding.

    "For example Upper Cave skulls display some but not other of the idealized Mongoloid phenotype traits, same for Minatogawa, etc."

    Quite possibly because the Mongoloid expansion was still at its early stages.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Not going to enter in all the many one-liners, just:

    "To me 'blondism' is concentrated in a reasonably narrow strip from the Eastern Baltic to the Urals".

    Not at all. That's called "Russia", not "blondism". Blondisms are of course scattered from Australia (Aborigines) to Ireland, at least in what regards to hair color. Other blondisms, even if more specific of West Eurasia maybe, are anyhow wildly scattered through the region. If there's any area of greatest concentration this is around the North Sea rather than the Baltic but whatever.

    "ve never seen anyone from anywhere in South America that looks especially 'Mongoloid'. Any photographs?"

    Google for Yanomamo for example.

    "But the Chinese themselves are less 'Mongoloid' than are people to the north of that country, so that is not surprising".

    They are different types of "Mongoloid" not more or less. There is no single "Mongoloid" phenotype just because you or Coon say so, although maybe you wish to define an "Eskimoid" one only for the Inuit and a "Sinoid" one for 99% of East and SE Asians (but not Mongols).

    What you can't do is to define the rule by an extreme, an outlier.

    "Quite. Indonesians are considerably admixed with 'Papuan' or 'Australian' people".

    That's your "theory" but not what either skulls nor genes appear to say. The data do not seem to support your model.

    "which indicates a common origin"...

    A common origin in Africa? I can take that and that way connect the "Mongoloid" traits like epicanthic fold or marked cheekbones in Africa and East Asia (and other places like Europe itself).

    I don't think they indicate a common origin in the way you think. Maybe a remote common origin at the Eurasian colonization but then just drift.

    Drift (maybe with some help of ethnic beauty ideals??) can perfectly fixate some traits, not just haplogroups also looks. You begin with six alleles but then one or three get more and more common and these alleles are not strictly genes but phenotype traits and it still works the same.

    "... the Mongoloid expansion was still at its early stages".

    Mongoloid coalescence, not expansion. Expansion from where anyhow? What evidence do you have for that "expansion" other speculations? Nothing! It's not like we have for 20 or 10 Ka all skulls in region A with a defined Mongoloid phenotype and in regions B, C and D other clearly distinct phenotypes. Not at all: there's no region A: nowhere that we can say: from here the "Mongoloids" came from. Neither are there regions B, C and D because in all those regions we see skulls that are somewhat but only somewhat related to the idealized "Mongoloid" phenotype.

    That's why Kennewick man or Luzia drive people nuts: it could be Jeronimo's skull itself and people would still think "not quite Mongoloid, not the Coonish idea - it must be Caucasoid or Australoid"...

    All nothing but a pile of stinky bullshit: you guys create an idea in your mind and try to bend reality into such a predetermined frame... but reality is stubborn and not that flexible.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Blondisms are of course scattered from Australia (Aborigines)"

    Maju. If you can't tell 'blond' Aborigines from blond Europeans you need a new set of glasses. And it is certainly not representative of that group.

    "Google for Yanomamo for example".

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&cp=8&gs_id=4&xhr=t&q=yanomamo&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1153&bih=519&wrapid=tljp131770736960900&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

    Some look remotely SE Asian, specifically Borneo, but none look particularly 'Mongoloid'.

    "There is no single 'Mongoloid' phenotype just because you or Coon say so"

    Quite. But the Mongolod phenotype is more strongly expressed in the northern populations.

    "What you can't do is to define the rule by an extreme, an outlier".

    But that is exactly what you are attempting to do by claiming an outlier (SE Asia) is representative of the group. Most accept SE Asians as an outlier group to the Mongoloid phenotype.

    "you guys create an idea in your mind and try to bend reality into such a predetermined frame..."

    It seems to be you who has some sort of political agenda.

    "Drift (maybe with some help of ethnic beauty ideals??) can perfectly fixate some traits"

    Only with very small numbers in the population.

    "it could be Jeronimo's skull itself and people would still think 'not quite Mongoloid ...'"

    It wouldn't be Mongoloid, would it?

    ReplyDelete
  35. "If you can't tell 'blond' Aborigines from blond Europeans"...

    In hair color and texture? No I cannot take them apart. In any case it is a blondism (you can't deny that) and probably one that has a common origin in the ancient common ancestors at the Root Eurasian Population (though this would need confirmation via genetics, which seems far away in time).

    Yanonmami: chinky, chinky, chinky, chinky and chinky.

    I find some Amazon Natives as the most markedly "Mongoloid" of all Native Americans, excepted arguably the Inuit.

    Other random "chinky" Amazon natives: one, two, three, four, five.

    Sure, there are many others which look more like Filipinos and no one with white skin (they live by the Equator, so...) but the affinity with "impurely" Mongoloid groups like SE Asians, Han or Japanese (but also Siberians like the Nganasan, for example) actually reinforces my notion that the Mongoloid type is not as real as some want us to believe but a peculiar "distillation" of a wider, less precise, True East Asian (and American) range of phenotypes; range that is not as discordant with the pan-Eurasian one as the "refined Mongoloid" ideal (not too real) is.

    For you and all the Coonists, every Mongoloid is "admixed", "impure" and what not. And I say that is a stupid racist idea that holds not the slightest critical analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "But the Mongolod phenotype is more strongly expressed in the northern populations".

    It's always imprecise: "the northern populations", "the hyperboreans"...

    Be specific: because Han and Japanese cluster with Filipinos and Indonesians, while Mongols and Inuit do not (each falls in their own cluster). So either Mongols are "true Mongoloid" and then all the rest are "mixed" or the single East Asian (but excluding Mongols) cluster is the thing we are talking about and a Filipino is much better example of "Mongoloid" (or more properly "Sinoid" maybe) than a Mongol.

    "an outlier (SE Asia)"

    SE Asians are not outliers. SE Asians and "middle" East Asians (all the "O peoples" incidentally) cluster together in a single phenotype, at least following Dienekes' work (designed to prove "the reality of race", so not exactly my cup of tea). This large homogeneous area should be the reference, even if we must change the name of the type to "Sinoid".

    [Geronimo's skull] "wouldn't be Mongoloid, would it?"

    If you think that there is a phenotype said "Mongoloid" and that Native Americans form part of it, Geronimo, which is no outlier in looks in his context, should be considered "Mongoloid". Certainly he's not "Caucasoid", nor "Negroid", nor "Capoid", nor "Australoid", nor has any known admixture from those putative clusters.

    I guess that it is the very concept of "Mongoloid" which is to be revised and retained at most to identify the generic East Asian and Native American typology (a very loose term). Otherwise I'd propose a major and more clearly defined type in geography at least: 'Sinoid' and minor local phenotypes in North Asia and America (for example, at K=10: Mongol, Inuit, California and Peru, at K=11 you can add Ainu too; there may be more).

    ReplyDelete
  37. "SE Asians are not outliers".

    If want to believe that Indonesians look the same as Chinese or Mongolians that's up to you, but I think you need new spectacles.

    "It's always imprecise: 'the northern populations', 'the hyperboreans'... "

    tibetans, Mongolians and Buryats look different from Americans, Malays or even Chinese as far as I can see.

    "So either Mongols are 'true Mongoloid' and then all the rest are 'mixed'"

    That's pretty close to how I see it.

    "a Filipino is much better example of 'Mongoloid'"

    Filipinos are definitely mixed.

    "In hair color and texture? No I cannot take them apart".

    Do you really mean to say that the young Melanesian in the following link is indistinguishable from Europeans?

    http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=blonde+aborigines&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1153&bih=519&tbm=isch&tbnid=3_EBHCO4nGZgMM:&imgrefurl=http://news.softpedia.com/news/Naturally-Blonde-Blacks-48181.shtml&docid=qCy3PAXxP7gkWM&w=300&h=200&ei=JmSNTrbMBOSAmQWGpcQJ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=125&page=1&tbnh=133&tbnw=200&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&tx=115&ty=77

    Aborigine children often have blond hair but it turns darker with adulthood. This child is fairly typical:

    http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=blonde+aborigines&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1153&bih=519&tbm=isch&tbnid=VHsLNTFV4M6P1M:&imgrefurl=http://www.nordisk.nu/showthread.php%3Ft%3D39725%26page%3D1&docid=pt-pQhc7KywyiM&w=500&h=399&ei=JmSNTrbMBOSAmQWGpcQJ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=481&vpy=198&dur=547&hovh=200&hovw=251&tx=156&ty=149&page=1&tbnh=154&tbnw=193&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0

    "In any case it is a blondism (you can't deny that) and probably one that has a common origin in the ancient common ancestors at the Root Eurasian Population"

    From the above it seems almost certain Aborigine/Melanesian blondism involves different genes from Eurpean blondism.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Some more Melanesian blonds:

    http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=blonde+aborigines&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1153&bih=519&tbm=isch&tbnid=hyKHU-dRyLUulM:&imgrefurl=http://archive.worldhistoria.com/pashtuns-or-pathans-can-be-original-aryans_topic25581.html&docid=O05SZanmkzNS_M&w=576&h=380&ei=JmSNTrbMBOSAmQWGpcQJ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=219&page=3&tbnh=133&tbnw=175&start=22&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:22&tx=101&ty=97

    And an article about blonds which includes the previous Melanesian photo and another of a young Aborigine:

    http://affability.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/blond-ambition/

    Quote:

    "Australian Aborigines are born with blond hair too".

    And note the map of Europe. Blondism is concentrated around the North Baltic Sea.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "If want to believe that Indonesians look the same as Chinese or Mongolians"...

    Not Mongolians, only Chinese if anything. I'm not talking about looks in any case but about craniometry: measure of skulls. That's what algebra has to say in this matter, it seems.

    Obviously looks are also and maybe even mostly defined by soft tissue like nose, lips, skin, eyes and hair. I'm not going into that. All I say is that craniometry, as used by a stubborn racialist as Dienekes, says that: that Japanese and Han are closer to Filipinos and Indonesians in skull measures than either are to Mongols or Inuit.

    "tibetans, Mongolians and Buryats look different from Americans, Malays or even Chinese as far as I can see"...

    Do they? I could say some ideas of mine but would only muddle things. Overall these are marginal populations that are somewhat distinct and in any case can't be the source of the rest.

    "Filipinos are definitely mixed".

    Evidence?

    "Do you really mean to say that the young Melanesian in the following link is indistinguishable from Europeans?"

    In hair color indeed (not in texture).

    I was thinking of Australian Aborigines whose hair texture and color combo, when blond, is identical to what can be find in many Europeans (adult red haired woman, blond child). Not just that: overall facial features approach those of West Eurasians to some extent, at least in some individuals.

    "Aborigine children often have blond hair but it turns darker with adulthood".

    That happens also here: blond hair is a paedomorphic trait, it seems, and tends to get darker (at least to some extent) as people age. But it may depend on individuals and hence on the genes involved (not really known as of yet). Also I have the impression that weakly melanic hairs (blond specially) tend to whiten more easily and deeply than dark ones (that take longer and adopt a grayer shade).

    "From the above it seems almost certain Aborigine/Melanesian blondism involves different genes from Eurpean blondism".

    Not that I can see, much less when also red hair is involved: we are before a shared phenotype, a phenotype that is so difficult to coalesce that it does not exist in Africa at all (except where Eurasian genes have intruded) loss of hair pigmentation in H. sapiens probably has common origins in the founding proto-Eurasian population.

    I'm almost certain but we'll have to wait till genetics can find which genes are actually involved (for real).

    ReplyDelete
  40. Quick post: I am one of them. I had straw-blond hair the first few years, in the teens turning into light brown (but easily blonded by light and sea water in the summer, though), then turning to brown in the late twenties, and finally to very dark brown/ almost black just before parts turned gray.

    Surely connected to the high Vitamin D demand at younger age - every bit helps in a darkish environment in the winter, when clothing (except for the head) is not optional.

    This is similar to the discussion around seasonal UV skin transmission adaptability. Obviously, it's not just about how dark your skin is, but also how much you can vary it to get vitamin D in the winter, yet protect folic acid in the summer.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Actually, according to my mother, I was born with blond, "golden", hair and in few days I was black haired. As I'm too much like some of my brothers physically, I do not think this is because the baby was switched at hospital, so it must be accurate (also most of my siblings and many other relatives are blond, so it makes some sense).

    "Surely connected to the high Vitamin D demand at younger age"...

    Makes good sense.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "In hair color indeed (not in texture)".

    Ypu included 'texture' in your original comment. Changed your mind?

    "Japanese and Han are closer to Filipinos and Indonesians in skull measures than either are to Mongols or Inuit".

    Perhaps the result of admixture with coastal inhabitants?

    "these are marginal populations that are somewhat distinct and in any case can't be the source of the rest".

    But they can easily be the source of the original 'Mongoloid' phenotype.

    "Evidence?" ('Filipinos are definitely mixed').

    They have both 'northern' and 'Melanesian' haplogroups for a start. Most scientists who have studied Polynesian origins agree the Filipinos are an admixed population.

    "I was thinking of Australian Aborigines whose hair texture and color combo, when blond, is identical to what can be find in many Europeans"

    The woman could hardly be described as 'blond'. And the child only just so.

    "we are before a shared phenotype, a phenotype that is so difficult to coalesce that it does not exist in Africa at all (except where Eurasian genes have intruded)"

    So you envisage a shared origin for the trait? Interesting that it doesn't occur in India. Surely it could only have reached the region beyond SE Asia via Central Asia.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Changed your mind?"

    No. You misinterpreted me (intently?): I said Australia Aboriginals and you showed a Melanesian.

    "Perhaps the result of admixture with coastal inhabitants?"

    Or perhaps the fact that all them live to the South of Mongols and share Y-DNA O as dominant. Just perhaps.

    "But they can easily be the source of the original 'Mongoloid' phenotype".

    No. They can't. They can't in numbers, they can't archaeologically and they can't by reason that there is no such "original Mongoloid" phenotype that we know of, only finished modern phenotypes in their complex intricacy. "Pure races" are mere fantasies: they have never existed.

    "They have both 'northern' and 'Melanesian' haplogroups"...

    Following Karafet 2010, they are almost 100% MNOPS: 22/48 K*-M256 [MNOPS*], 25/48 O (largely O3a2-P201, a trait shared only in fact with Sumatra), 1/48 C3 and 1/48 S.

    Unless you consider MNOPS* such a sign of admixture, I do not see how can you claim that. MNOPS* it is as related to P and O as to M and S in fact and Filipinos almost totally lack M and C2, unlike Melanesians and Wallaceans. So, wherever that MNOPS* comes from, it is not a sign of admixture with Melanesians nor Wallaceans but one of their deep locally rooted origins.

    Of course other samples may be different but not enough to change the overall picture surely. For me both O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*) appear native of Philippines, and may have expanded to at least some extent with the Malayo-Polynesian (Austronesian) expansion, which originated in Philippines (after whatever linguistic acculturation from Taiwan in the formative period).

    "The woman could hardly be described as 'blond'".

    Didn't I write red haired? It surprised me so much to see red hair in Australian Natives that I would have expected a more comely reaction from you. But instead you just protest she is not blond. Mind you that red hair is also a blondism: a loss of pigmentation or eumelanin (but in this case pheomelanin takes over, while true blond people and many black haired people have little pheomelanin instead).

    "And the child only just so".

    The child, as the one you posted, is golden blond. What you do not find is the extreme platinum blond (white-yellow) phenotype, such as Assange's, but you don't find it here either. That's almost full albinism.

    "Interesting that it doesn't occur in India".

    It does occur in India and SE Asia but it is less common and almost always restricted to children (in India, I've seen blond adults in SE Asia, very rare but they do exist). In general eumelanin dominates and more so in the tropics so the surprise is not the lack of the trait but its presence. Even in Europe it is surprising because NE Asians have found different adaption routes to low solar input that do imply white skin (and rosy cheeks) but not pigmentation loss in hair.

    Actually, in their rarity, hair blondism is more common in South Asia than in NE Asia (excepting Russians).

    ReplyDelete
  44. "You misinterpreted me (intently?): I said Australia Aboriginals and you showed a Melanesian".

    You are shifting position. You originally combined the two regions thus: 'Wavy and curly hair is a matter of Australo-Melanesians and West Eurasians (with the occasional exception elsewhere), precisely the two groups that also display blond hair most frequently'. If you now want to confine the discussion to 'Australians' rather than 'Australo-Melanesians' that's OK by me.

    "Didn't I write red haired?"

    Yes, you did. But we were talking about 'blonds'.

    "What you do not find is the extreme platinum blond (white-yellow) phenotype"

    Which supports the concept that blondism in the two opposite regions of the world developed independently.

    "I've seen blond adults in SE Asia, very rare but they do exist"

    When did you visit there?

    "there is no such "original Mongoloid" phenotype that we know of, only finished modern phenotypes in their complex intricacy".

    True. But we can examine the spread for where particular phenotypes are most strongly developed, which may provide information on the spread of such phenotypes.

    "Following Karafet 2010, they are almost 100% MNOPS: 22/48 K*-M256 [MNOPS*], 25/48 O (largely O3a2-P201, a trait shared only in fact with Sumatra), 1/48 C3 and 1/48 S".

    C3 is definitely 'northern' not SE Asian. As is, most probably, O3a2, especially as you correctly state, 'a trait shared only in fact with Sumatra'. O3 could have arrived in the Philippines via Sumatra. S is almost certainly an immigrant to the Philippines from New Guinea/Melanesia. So there's you north/south hybrid fairly obviously right from the word 'go'.

    "Unless you consider MNOPS* such a sign of admixture, I do not see how can you claim that. MNOPS* it is as related to P and O as to M and S"

    MNOPS* is a SE Asian haplogroup, but unlikely to be Filipino for reasons I'll touch on soon. But you can't assume a unidirectional migration. People move backwards and forwards. O is part of NO and N is a northern haplogroup. It is quite likely that NO moved north then various Os moved back south. To me it is obvious that South China was little inhabited until the early Neolithic. All sorts of species remain there which have rapidly become extinct elsewhere with human arrival.

    "Filipinos almost totally lack M and C2, unlike Melanesians and Wallaceans".

    Which is almost impossible to account for if you're going to claim, 'both O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*) appear native of Philippines'. Both movements across Wallace's Line to New Guinea/Australia must have bypassed those islands. This implies people had crossed Wallace's Line long before the Philippines were settled. It is extremely unlikely that 'both O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*)' are native to the Philippines. They are both immigrants.

    "may have expanded to at least some extent with the Malayo-Polynesian (Austronesian) expansion"

    Almost certainly so.

    "which originated in Philippines (after whatever linguistic acculturation from Taiwan in the formative period)".

    The Philippines were certainly involved, but they may not have been occupied by 'surviving' haplogroups until that 'formative period'. It was the north/south mixing that led to the Austronesian expansion.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "What you do not find is the extreme platinum blond (white-yellow) phenotype"

    Which supports the concept that blondism in the two opposite regions of the world developed independently
    .

    There're no platinum blonds (other than the occasional albino) in my town nor in any town in maybe two thousand kilometers around (dunno, maybe an immigrant or tourist). Platinum blond hair begins (roughly) in Friesland, in the Far North of Euorope.

    It is therefore a very specific "Nordic" and not generic West Eurasian (or "Caucasoid") trait: a local evolution of that area that benefited to some extent from the end of the Ice Age (and later from the heavy plow) for its expansion. We cannot compare with that extreme and quite rare trait, so clearly linked to the loss of skin pigmentation (also at extreme levels).

    "I've seen blond adults in SE Asia, very rare but they do exist"

    When did you visit there?


    That's a joke, right? I've seen them in pictures.

    "Following Karafet 2010, they are almost 100% MNOPS: 22/48 K*-M256 [MNOPS*], 25/48 O (largely O3a2-P201, a trait shared only in fact with Sumatra), 1/48 C3 and 1/48 S".

    C3 is definitely 'northern' not SE Asian. As is, most probably, O3a2, especially as you correctly state, 'a trait shared only in fact with Sumatra'
    .

    C3 is anecdotal (2%) but I would not so happily discard it as original from the north without seeing a haplotype NJ tree first.

    O3a2 is not anecdotal at all (25%) but it's extremely thin prtesence in South China overall (incl. Taiwan Aborigines) strongly suggests to me it is an insular SE Asian haplogroup (contradicting Karafet in this). Again a haplotype structre would be most informative indeed.

    [Re. MNOPS*] ... you can't assume a unidirectional migration...

    I'm not assuming anything: I'm just assuming that each haplogroup "layer" migrated from where it is most diverse to where it is less diverse. Sometimes we lack the diversity figures and we work with mere frequency ones, which may be very misleading, but in any case the impression I get is that MNOPS migrated from SEA to elsewhere on Earth.

    People move backwards and forwards.

    Individual people may do that but "statistical people" (so to say) do not - at least not so easily.

    "Filipinos almost totally lack M and C2, unlike Melanesians and Wallaceans".

    Which is almost impossible to account for if you're going to claim, 'both O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*) appear native of Philippines'
    .

    They appear to be descendants of Sundaland peoples, not Wallacean nor Melanesians. What's so "impossible" about it?

    Both movements across Wallace's Line to New Guinea/Australia must have bypassed those islands.

    We have discussed that before and I do not share that opinion: IMO the migration(s) to Philippines are distinct from those to Sahul via Wallacea. The shortest crossing (in Ice Age conditions) is between Borneo and Sulawesi and overall all crossings via Sulawesi or even the Lesser Sunda islands are shorter than those using Philippines.

    Philippines were a different route and a different cul-de-sac (until navigation), albeit related via Sundaland.

    "It is extremely unlikely that 'both O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*)' are native to the Philippines. They are both immigrants".

    I can't say if they are immigrants (when?) but I can say that, if so, they arrived from Indochina and Sundaland and not China/Taiwan.

    Debating this in greater detail would require also greater detail of genetic info for both Philippines and SE Asia overall.

    "It was the north/south mixing that led to the Austronesian expansion".

    Prejudice! For you all must come from the North: that is Nordicism and I'm having none of it!

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Platinum blond hair begins (roughly) in Friesland, in the Far North of Euorope".

    And that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you.

    "It is therefore a very specific 'Nordic' and not generic West Eurasian (or 'Caucasoid') trait"

    I have never claimed otherwise. Where we possibly disagree is as to its age.

    "That's a joke, right? I've seen them in pictures".

    No, it wasn't a joke. I thought you might have seen them for yourself. There are many Indians in this country and I have certainly never seen any people of Indian origin with blond hair (of any shade).

    "C3 is anecdotal (2%) but I would not so happily discard it as original from the north without seeing a haplotype NJ tree first".

    Almost certainly the downstream C3d:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C3_(Y-DNA)

    Quote:

    "C3d (M407) Found with low frequency in Bai, Cambodian, Han Chinese, Manchu, Tujia, Uyghur, and Yakut populations"

    "O3a2 is not anecdotal at all (25%) but it's extremely thin prtesence in South China overall (incl. Taiwan Aborigines) strongly suggests to me it is an insular SE Asian haplogroup (contradicting Karafet in this)".

    And contradicting almost everyone else as well. O3a is common in Western China and Tibet amoung speakers of Tibeto-Burman languages. In my notes I've written (from somewhere) O3a2*-P201 as being Chinese Han although I have the subclade O3a2b-M7 as Daxi, Hmong Mien. Under the old classification O3a2 is M164 (now O3a1b-M164) and is 'Cambodian'. So it is very doubtful that is is 'an insular SE Asian haplogroup' even though some O3a-M324 emerged out into the Pacific. The fact it is not common in Taiwan Aborigines is irrelevant as the Austronesians had been milling about in SE Asia for some time before they ventured out east through the islands. So the Austronesian O3a-M324 could easily have come from mainland SE Asia.

    "the impression I get is that MNOPS migrated from SEA to elsewhere on Earth".

    I agree completely. But it migrated as haplogroups M, NO, P and S, not as MNOPS. The products of that migration have subsequently undergone their own independent migrations.

    "They [O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*)] appear to be descendants of Sundaland peoples, not Wallacean nor Melanesians. What's so 'impossible' about it?"

    Wallacean people are 'descendants of Sundaland peoples' as well. Presumably if it were possible to reach the Philippines at the time the Sundalanders would have done so. We can argue as to whether or not the Philippines are Wallacean or not, but the islands are certainly virtually Wallacean.

    "IMO the migration(s) to Philippines are distinct from those to Sahul via Wallacea".

    Certainly distinct. And the obvious reason for that is the the migration to the Philippines was later than the migration across Wallacea.

    "The shortest crossing (in Ice Age conditions) is between Borneo and Sulawesi and overall all crossings via Sulawesi or even the Lesser Sunda islands are shorter than those using Philippines".

    The Philippines are virtually connected to Borneo at times of low sea level, via Palawan:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palawan

    "I can't say if they [O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*)] are immigrants (when?)"

    Quite likely part of the mixture that eventually gave rise to the Austronesian expansion.

    "Debating this in greater detail would require also greater detail of genetic info for both Philippines and SE Asia overall".

    There was a paper not so long ago dealing with exactly that. I'm sure you blogged on it. I'll see if I can find it.

    "Prejudice! For you all must come from the North: that is Nordicism and I'm having none of it!"

    So there are 'Nordics' around the Hwang Ho/Yangtse in Central China?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Filipino Y-haps, Dienekes:

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/09/y-chromomes-of-filipino-negritos-and.html

    The mtDNA is also interesting:

    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/1/21.full

    "Analysis of hypervariable segment I sequence variation within individual mtDNA haplogroups indicates a general decrease in the diversity of the most frequent types (B4a1a, E1a1a, and M7c3c) from the Taiwanese aborigines to the Philippines and Sulawesi, although calculated standard error measures overlap for these populations. This finding, together with the geographical distribution of ancestral and derived haplotypes of the B4a1a subclade including the Polynesian Motif, is consistent with southward dispersal of these lineages 'Out of Taiwan' via the Philippines to Near Oceania and Polynesia. In addition to the mtDNA components shared with Taiwanese aborigines, complete sequence analyses revealed a minority of lineages in the Philippines that share their origins—possibly dating back to the Paleolithic—with haplogroups from Indonesia and New Guinea. Other rare lineages in the Philippines have no closely related types yet identified elsewhere".

    "Although the M7c3 clade shows several derived variants in China, subclade M7c3c is rare in the mainland. M7c3c is found at higher frequencies in ISEA and has therefore been identified as a potentially informative marker of Southeast Asian prehistory (Trejaut et al. 2005; Hill et al. 2007). An examination of the M7c3 subclade distribution shows that the Taiwanese aboriginals have both M7c3a and M7c3c types, whereas in the Philippines, Sulawesi, and other Southeast Asian populations, only M7c3c is observed".

    ReplyDelete
  48. I did not say blond South Asians but blond SE Asians. Check please. There are occasional blond South Asian children (among the hyper-aboriginal Irula, for example) but that's about it as far as I know. Contrarily hair-blondism in Indochina (notably Cambodia, Laos) is rare but common enough to be noticed, not just in children but also adults.

    http://s6.zetaboards.com/man/topic/527712/1/

    In general we have hair-blondism all over Eurasia (but nowhere in Africa, except where Eurasian influence is marked). It is therefore a pan-Eurasian trait even if prevalence varies a lot.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  49. ...

    Regarding O3a2 I must say that, even if it's occasionally found in South China (and you're not saying otherwise), it is also found at much greater frequencies in Island SE Asia, as already mentioned.

    I know that for you it's conceptually impossible that any single haplogroup may have migrated from South to North but I could not care less: the haplogroup looks very much SE Asian and I could not find any info that says otherwise.

    At least by frequency it is centered in Sumatra and Philippines and it is rare in the mainland (shown only >3%):

    Sumatra: 55%
    Tonga: 42%
    Filipinos: 25%
    Micronesians: 19%
    Sulawesi: 17%
    Samoans (all): 17%
    Borneo: 16%
    Tujia: 14%
    Tahiti: 13%
    Malaysians: 12%
    Timorese: 11%
    Malukku: 10%
    Han (South): 8%
    Papuans-Coast*: 7%
    Taiwan Abor.: 6%
    Balinese: 5%
    Flores: 5%
    Vanuatu-Maewo: 5%
    Papuans-Highlands*: 3%

    [* single individuals amount for all the percentage]

    "Purebred Austronesians" like Nias: 0%!!! This population retains, unlike most modern Austronesians, almost the same Y-DNA template as Taiwan Aborigines: lots of O1a1-P203 and some O1a2-M110.

    The Mentawai, another island people, who are also dominated by O1a, albeit largely of the O1a* type, also have 0% O3a2-P201.

    It does look like an Austronesian signature but only from Philippines on, not from Taiwan. It also seems to have got some important presence in SEA, including and maybe centered in Sundaland/Philippines.

    This can only be (+/-) fully clarified if the internal structure and local haplotype diversity is studied. But all the evidence suggests a SE Asian haplogroup, possibly a Sundaland-originated one.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Sadly Dienekes' report on that PPV paper is not very good. The image however manages to retain colors for Philippines indicating that O3 (surely almost all O3a2, following Karafet) is very common, as is K* (surely all MNOPS*).

    Interestingly there's much more C than reported by Karafet's small sample, specially among populations that might have Negrito influence (but not too precise on what kind of C is this: C*, C2, C4, C3?)

    I can imagine that C2 but who knows.

    Anyhow. We are way off topic. I know you'd debate on Wallacea, East Asia and Austronesians like forever but you should do that in appropriate spaces, for example your own blog - or at least on topic.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Anyhow. We are way off topic. I know you'd debate on Wallacea, East Asia and Austronesians like forever"

    But this discussion is relevant concerning the arrival of Denisovan genes in SE Asia.

    "In general we have hair-blondism all over Eurasia (but nowhere in Africa, except where Eurasian influence is marked). It is therefore a pan-Eurasian trait even if prevalence varies a lot".

    Regardless, it has not been selected for outside a specific region of Northwest Europe. And outside that region most examples could hardly be described as 'blond'.

    "I know that for you it's conceptually impossible that any single haplogroup may have migrated from South to North but I could not care less"

    NO definitely 'migrated from South to North', as did the odd F and K. I have actually examined the evidence, with no preconceived ideas, and that tells me that the O haplogroups originated to the north of SE Asia.

    "Regarding O3a2 I must say that, even if it's occasionally found in South China (and you're not saying otherwise), it is also found at much greater frequencies in Island SE Asia, as already mentioned".

    O3a2 is hardly 'occasionally found in South China'. It occurs with great frequency amoung speakers of Sino-Tibetan languages (O3a2c) as well as in the Hmong-Mien and other South Chinese populations (O3a2b). O3a2's greater frequency in island SE Asia is hardly evidence of origin. Especially when we get around to considering Tonga. I'll come back to that.

    "At least by frequency it is centered in Sumatra and Philippines and it is rare in the mainland (shown only >3%)"

    Why have you not included parts of the mainland to the north of SE Asia? And several islands you list were unoccupied by anyone until just two or three thousand years ago. And you haven't shown which clades of O3a2 occurr on each island.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O3_(Y-DNA)

    Quote:

    "In a systematic sampling and genetic screening of an East Asian–specific Y-chromosome haplogroup (O3-M122) [which does include both O3a1 and O3a2 along with O3a3 and O3a4] in 2,332 individuals from diverse East Asian populations, results indicate that the O3-M122 lineage is dominant in East Asian populations, with an average frequency of 44.3%".

    Exceeded only by O3a2 in Sumatra. And close to O3a in Tonga, which was settled just three thousand years ago. By your reasoning we could place O3a2's origin there. The preponderance in Sumatra to me indicates the island was virtually uninhabited when O3a2 reached it.

    And:

    "Among all the populations of East and Southeast Asia, Haplogroup O3 is most closely associated with those that speak a Sinitic, Tibeto-Burman, or Hmong–Mien language. Haplogroup O3 comprises about 50% or more of the total Y-chromosome variation among the populations of each of these language families. The Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman language families are generally believed to be derived from a common Sino-Tibetan protolanguage, and most linguists place the homeland of the Sino-Tibetan language family somewhere in northern China. The Hmong–Mien languages and cultures, for various archaeological and ethnohistorical reasons, are also generally believed to have derived from a source somewhere north of their current distribution, perhaps in northern or central China".

    You appear to be on your own when it comes to O3's origin.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "'Purebred Austronesians' like Nias: 0%!!! This population retains, unlike most modern Austronesians, almost the same Y-DNA template as Taiwan Aborigines: lots of O1a1-P203 and some O1a2-M110".

    Maju. You haven't understood a word I've writen have you? I've tried to explain many times that the Austronesians started out as O1a, from Taiwan. Presumably Nias was settled early during this expansion. But as the Austronesians moved around island SE Asia and the nearby coast they mixed with other people they met. They were not worried about purebred races, unlike some who believe each race has a defined set of haplogroups. They mixed with a population containing O3a2, and this haplogroup came to dominate the geographic margins of the Austronesian spread.

    "The Mentawai, another island people, who are also dominated by O1a"

    To me this is further evidence that the jungle and swamp forest along the northeast coast of Sumatra was not attractive habitat to the first people. Even today that region is not as heavily populated as is the region southwest of the mountain range. So O3a2 is not indigenous to Sumatra. It arrived after O1 had already occupied the islands off its southwest coast.

    "But all the evidence suggests a SE Asian haplogroup, possibly a Sundaland-originated one".

    Only if you choose to ignore a whole lot of inconvenient evidence. O3a2's history is far from simple. It seems very much as though the later migrations into island, and even mainland, SE Asia have come to dominate that region. They largely replaced earlier haplogroups.

    "there's much more C than reported by Karafet's small sample, specially among populations that might have Negrito influence (but not too precise on what kind of C is this: C*, C2, C4, C3?)"

    Not C4. and not C3c-M86 evidently. Probably mostly C*, perhaps with some C2 from further south. Ebizur would probably know.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "But this discussion is relevant concerning the arrival of Denisovan genes in SE Asia".

    Could you remind me how? We agree that Australian Aborigines and Papuans migrated across Wallace Line early on in the Eurasian colonization process, don't we? And that others, not admixed with "Denisovans", remained behind, in the mainland.

    That's all we need to know, right. Do not hijack the thread for your personal obsessions, please.

    "... it has not been selected for outside a specific region of Northwest Europe".

    I do not think that blond hair has been "selected for" anywhere. It has hijacked other more important pigmentation traits (skin).

    There are more blonds anyhow in Central Australia (Aborigines, lighter color is 80% or more) than in England. Why? Just because: it has no adaptive value other than maybe in sexual selection.

    "I have actually examined the evidence, with no preconceived ideas, and that tells me that the O haplogroups originated to the north of SE Asia".

    We are in disagreement, all scientists I know of are in disagreement with you and that's about it.

    "O3a2 is hardly 'occasionally found in South China'. It occurs with great frequency amoung speakers of Sino-Tibetan languages (O3a2c) as well as in the Hmong-Mien and other South Chinese populations (O3a2b)".

    Vagueness! "Great frequency" means what? 7%?! Why would these two sublineages, obviously local branches, would be more important than the whole?

    You are wasting my time and that of other readers.

    "O3a2's greater frequency in island SE Asia is hardly evidence of origin. Especially when we get around to considering Tonga".

    Tonga is hardly relevant because it's surely derived from Philippines, as all Polynesian lineages, except C2 maybe, are ultimately.

    "I'll come back to that".

    No need to, thanks.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  54. ...

    "Why have you not included parts of the mainland to the north of SE Asia?"

    Because Karafet did not study them and I could not find any further info. Do you have any or again daydreaming?

    "And you haven't shown which clades of O3a2 occurr on each island".

    I do not have that info, do you?

    If I would have that info, I could potentially pinpoint the origin of the haplogroup with great certainty. But I do not, so all I can say is: greater frequencies and commonality towards the south, specially in the islands.

    "the O3-M122 lineage is dominant in East Asian populations, with an average frequency of 44.3%"

    So what? We're not talking O3 as a whole, but O3a2 here.

    Focus, focus, focus!!!

    "The preponderance in Sumatra to me indicates the island was virtually uninhabited when O3a2 reached it".

    It's a possibility yet we do not know it. In principle all the area was "always" inhabited but the archaeology has been very restricted to a handful of (easier to access) Javanese sites in the region. If Java was inhabited so must have been Sumatra, Borneo and all Sundaland anyhow - at least to some extent.

    "You appear to be on your own when it comes to O3's origin".

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226206/

    "Y-Chromosome Evidence of Southern Origin of the East Asian–Specific Haplogroup O3-M122"

    Am I?

    "I've tried to explain many times that the Austronesians started out as O1a, from Taiwan. Presumably Nias was settled early during this expansion".

    Surely. But (1) Nias is in Sumatra, very far away and definitely not in the first Austronesian wave.

    Whatever the case I do not care: my whole point is that real Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) expansion is from Philippines, not really Taiwan. That's why all languages outside Taiwan belong to a single branch and that's why we find Filipino lineages all around the Austronesian zone of expansion.

    But why do I have to repeat this and why does it matter for Denisovan admixture? Beats me.

    "Not C4".

    Probably not, but why? Where's the data? Unlike you, I do not know until I really know. I keep my mind open to all possibilities because life gives surprises.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Could you remind me how? We agree that Australian Aborigines and Papuans migrated across Wallace Line early on in the Eurasian colonization process, don't we?"

    Yes. and you claim some unlikely similarity between the 'original' inhabitants of SE Asia and the Denisovans.

    "And that others, not admixed with 'Denisovans', remained behind, in the mainland".

    No. Those 'unmixed' people are a later movement into the region from the north.

    "I do not think that blond hair has been 'selected for' anywhere. It has hijacked other more important pigmentation traits (skin)".

    Which were 'selected for'. If the selection was for vitamin D, as many claim, how do you explain the development of white skin in a population that was presumably fully clothed?

    "There are more blonds anyhow in Central Australia (Aborigines, lighter color is 80% or more) than in England".

    Maju. Stop going round in circles. You know very well that Aborigines are not 'blond'. Just give up.

    "If Java was inhabited so must have been Sumatra, Borneo and all Sundaland anyhow - at least to some extent.

    "Unlike you, I do not know until I really know".

    You consistently make things up to suit your pre-existing belief.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "and you claim some unlikely similarity between the 'original' inhabitants of SE Asia and the Denisovans".

    Not "unlikely" considering what we know about H. erectus, the "Denisovan" genome and the "Denisovan-admixed" modern humans.

    You don't likely? Fair enough. If you want to question it at least do it in orderly paragraphs and not with annoying one-liners. I do not want to discipline you but one-liners, often shorter than the quote they try to contradict, are totally annoying and an impossible way to keep a normal, useful conversation.

    You typically quote me and then say "I don't think so" - no reason, no exposition, no nothing.

    You can also shut up if you're just going to say that, thanks.

    "You know very well that Aborigines are not 'blond'. Just give up".

    Sorry but the evidence is much stronger than your pitiful attempt of hypnosis.

    Australian Aborigines (there are aborigines elsewhere) are in many cases blond (and red-haired). So are many Melanesians, some mainland SE Asians and some Indians like the Irula (at least when young).

    Blond hair is widespread in Greater Eurasia: it is by no means an exclusive European marker, not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "considering what we know about H. erectus, the 'Denisovan' genome"

    and what, exactly, do we know about the two of them?

    "If you want to question it at least do it in orderly paragraphs and not with annoying one-liners".

    Sorry. But you really set yourself up for it.

    "You typically quote me and then say 'I don't think so' - no reason, no exposition, no nothing".

    OK. Look at this:

    "But (1) Nias is in Sumatra, very far away and definitely not in the first Austronesian wave".

    The gap between Sumatra and both Nias and Mentawai is much wider that any gap the first Australians had to cross. So it's extremely likely that O1a was the first Y-hap to arrive on those islands. The most casual glance at a map would have avoided your making such a silly comment. And:

    "my whole point is that real Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) expansion is from Philippines, not really Taiwan".

    What do you mean by 'real Austronesians'? Certainly they're from the Philippines, but you admitted yourself that 'all languages outside Taiwan belong to a single branch and that's why we find Filipino lineages all around the Austronesian zone of expansion'. So the language, and Y-hap O1a, came originally from Taiwan. I'll grant that mtDNA B4a could well be indigenous Filipino, but O1a isn't. They may have met in the Philippines. They met Y-hap C in Southern Wallacea and Y-hap O3 somewhere between Vietnam and Sumatra. Simple, surely. But O1a may have brought B4 into the Philippines. Small levels of mtDNA P and the presence of C and different F(xO) Y-haps hint at an earlier population with southern connections. Sorry. Another couple of one-liners coming up:

    "We are in disagreement, all scientists I know of are in disagreement with you and that's about it".

    So everyone but me believes that the Sino-Tibetan-Burman language, and Y-hap O3, moved north into China from Sumatra?

    "Australian Aborigines (there are aborigines elsewhere) are in many cases blond (and red-haired). So are many Melanesians, some mainland SE Asians and some Indians like the Irula (at least when young)".

    It is extremely rare in all those cases. Not 'many cases'.

    "Blond hair is widespread in Greater Eurasia: it is by no means an exclusive European marker, not at all".

    But it has been selected for there, nowhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "What do you mean by 'real Austronesians'?"

    I wrote "real Austronesian expansion" (i.e. "real expansion" but of the Austronesian kind of expansions).

    "So the language, and Y-hap O1a, came originally from Taiwan".

    O1a is NOT original from Taiwan.

    O1a* does not exist among Taiwan aboriginals and is almost non-existant in mainland East Asia. The greatest frequency by far is in former Sundaland (West Indonesia, Malaysia), where it reaches 10% in some cases. It is concentrated specially in Bali (8%) Sumatra (10%) and among the Mentawai (57%).

    Only O1a1 is present (and dominant) among Taiwan Aborigines but is also relatively important (>10%) in Java, Bali, the Mentawai and almost fixated in Nias (the rest is O1a2).

    Finally O1a2 is important (in minority) among Taiwan Aborigines and their Nias "clones". BUT is also found at almost the same frequencies in Borneo, Sulawesi and Sumba.

    I'm ready to assume that Nias people are pure descendants of the only Taiwanese immigrants which did not became extremely diluted. But I'm not ready to assume that O1a as a whole or even in part originated in Taiwan. If that would be the case, the result of that "Taiwanese emigration" would exclude O1a* and see O1a2 only as minority sidekick of O1a1. We do not see that anywhere but in Nias.

    The greatest basal diversity of O1a appears to be in Sundaland, so, unless you show me evidence of the opposite: O1a emigrated from Sundaland to Taiwan, where it had a massive founder effect, regardless that there was later a less important back-migration (the Austronesian wave, which was anyhow very important linguistically).

    "I'll grant that mtDNA B4a could well be indigenous Filipino, but O1a isn't".

    When I say Filipino origin of much of the Austronesian-language wave I do not think of O1a because O1a migrated, in my understanding, essentially in the opposite direction, founding the Taiwan Aboriginal peoples (no idea how or when but that's what genetics seem to say).

    I think of O3a2. And I may also think of MNOPS* and C2 as well. Probably Philippines (and in general the Austronesian migrations) had much greater impact in the then empty Micronesia and Polynesia than in the already inhabited Sundaland, Wallacea or Melanesia. This is not just logical, you can also see the pattern in the genetic lineages as well.

    In the Malay archipelago the genetic impact of Austronesians, either from Philippines or from the remote Taiwan, was quite limited (even almost zero in many cases). Instead in the small islands of the Pacific was outstanding.

    All the rest are one-liners of the worst kind ("everyone believes", Nias was "not" part of the mainland in the Ice Age, etc.)

    "Sorry. But you really set yourself up for it".

    No. I definitely DO NOT deserve that insulting style of thoughtless one-liners, much less to be blamed (without any explanation) for what is your vice.

    If you have NOTHING of importance to say, just shut up. Yo do NOT need to make a comment or several every day.

    You DO NEED to respect more your correspondents and their opinions. Please DO.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "You DO NEED to respect more your correspondents and their opinions".

    OK. I'll do my best.

    "The greatest basal diversity of O1a appears to be in Sundaland, so, unless you show me evidence of the opposite: O1a emigrated from Sundaland to Taiwan"

    Possibly so. But Wiki has this to say:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O1_(Y-DNA)

    "Also, it has been noted that Haplogroup O1 lineages among populations of continental Southeast Asia outside of China display a reduced level of diversity when compared with populations of South China and insular Southeast Asia, which may be evidence of a bottleneck associated with the westward migration and settlement of ancestral Daic-speaking populations in Indochina".

    So the author disagrees with your statement. Further:

    "The frequencies of Haplogroup O1 among various East Asian and Austronesian populations suggest a complex genetic history of the modern Han populations of southern China".

    Which I'm sure you're prepared to agree with. People were moving backwards and forwards. Next:

    "Although Haplogroup O1 occurs only at an average frequency of approximately 4% among Han populations of northern China and peoples of southwestern China and Southeast Asia who speak Tibeto-Burman languages, the frequency of this haplogroup among the Han populations of southern China nearly quadruples to about 15%".

    I presume the author is not talking specifically about O1a. So O1 looks South Chinese in origin. As also shown by:

    "The frequency of Haplogroup O1 among the Southern Han has been found to be slightly greater than the arithmetic mean of the frequencies of Haplogroup O1 among the Northern Han and a pooled sample of Austronesian populations. This suggests that modern Southern Han populations may possess a non-trivial number of male ancestors who were originally affiliated with some Austronesian-related culture, or who at least shared a genetic affinity with many of the ancestors of modern Austronesian peoples".

    And earlier:

    "The distribution of Daic languages in Thailand and other parts of Southeast Asia outside of China has long been believed, for reasons of traditional linguistic geography, to reflect a recent invasion of Southeast Asia by Daic-speaking populations originating from southeastern China, and the somewhat elevated frequency of Haplogroup O1 among the Daic populations, coupled with a high frequency of Haplogroup O2a, which is a genetic characteristic of the Austro-Asiatic peoples of Southeast Asia, suggests that the genetic signature of the Daic peoples' affinity with populations of southeastern China has been weakened due to extensive assimilation of the earlier Austro-Asiatic residents of the lands which the Daic peoples invaded".

    So O1 is associated with Daic-speaking people also. Which supports the connection some have claimed between Austronesian and Daic.

    So there you have it. A south China origin for O1, although it's possible that O1a entered Taiwan from the Philippines. But the Austronesian language is certainly Taiwanese in origin, and spread from there. Who carried it?

    "O1a emigrated from Sundaland to Taiwan, where it had a massive founder effect"

    Seems unlikely seeing that the greatest diversity of Austronesian languages is in Taiwan, so people must have populated Taiwan before just the single branch managed to leave.

    "Probably Philippines (and in general the Austronesian migrations) had much greater impact in the then empty Micronesia and Polynesia than in the already inhabited Sundaland, Wallacea or Melanesia".

    Agreed, to some extent. Many groups adopted the language, but someone must have carried it round the islands and nearby mainland.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "So the author disagrees with your statement".

    Not really, because he/she is talking about Continental SE Asia and I'm talking of Island SE Asia. Besides there's very little O1 in mainland Asia overall (correct me if I am wrong).

    Plus it is Wiipedia, which may be useful but hardly has any *author-ity* unless double-checked. But not just Wikipedia, it is always almost necessary to contrast anyone's assessment (regardless of qualifications and curriculum), because even the wisest ones can be wrong. Only hard facts are unavoidably right.

    What I'm considering is that O1 coalesced in Sundaland and migrated Northwards, specially along the coast. But I do not know enough the fine detail to assess the matter well enough.

    And all what that Wikipedia mystery author(s) says is in contradiction with what Karafet and her data say: China Han (who are from the South) in Karafet 2010 have only meaningful O1a1 (9%) of the three discernible clades of O1. This situation is essentially the same in all mainland SE Asia. O1 is only diverse in the islands and in these the highest diversity (high amounts of all three discernible clades) is in former Sundaland, probably the origin of the haplogroup.

    I'm sorry but you are arguing with words, not with data. And without data to back them, words are empty.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "And all what that Wikipedia mystery author(s) says is in contradiction with what Karafet and her data say"

    But that too is just one paper, and I question the political motives behind it.

    "Besides there's very little O1 in mainland Asia overall (correct me if I am wrong)".

    According to the author of the Wiki link:

    "the frequency of this haplogroup among the Han populations of southern China nearly quadruples to about 15%".

    Fifteen percent is very little? Mind you, I've no idea if that is O1, O1a1 or O1a2.

    "What I'm considering is that O1 coalesced in Sundaland and migrated Northwards, specially along the coast. But I do not know enough the fine detail to assess the matter well enough".

    It's doubtful if O of any kind coalesced in Sundaland. And especially not O3 for example. You may find this interesting, although I'm sure you'll remain unconvinced:

    http://159.226.149.45/compgenegroup/paper/wenbo%20han%20culture%20paper%20(2004).pdf

    It deals with the sex-biased southward movement of Han haplogroups, specifically over the last two thousand years. But the authors make the interesting observation that 'southern Hans and northern Hans share similar frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroups', which implies a relatively recent expansion, not a Paleolithic one. O2a and O1 are described as being 'prevalent in southern natives, are more frequent in southern Hans', which makes sense, although 'Aside from these three waves, other smaller southward migrations also occurred during almost all periods of the past two millenia'. And that is just a continuation of a process that began long ago. So it is difficult to accept that Y-hap O3, or even Y-hap O as a whole, originated in SE Asia then moved north and then south collectively.

    "O1 is only diverse in the islands and in these the highest diversity (high amounts of all three discernible clades) is in former Sundaland, probably the origin of the haplogroup".

    Even Dienekes keeps trying to persuade you that 'diversity does not equal 'origin'. In this case diversity almost certainly indicates the arrival of the haplogroup in a virtually deserted heavily forested region. Thus being able to expand rapidly, preserving any original diversity. I agree that Sundaland could not be described as 'deserted', but the arrival of slash-and-burn agriculture allowed a much greater population.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Notice that the paper reads:

    Haplogroups carrying M119-C (O1* and O1b) and/or M95-T (O2a* and O2a1) (following the nomenclature of the Y Chromosome Consortium) which are prevalent in southern natives, are more frequent in southern Hans (19%, 3–42%) than in northern Hans (5%, 1–10%).

    It's mixing two things (almost all O(xO3)). There's no contradiction with Karafet's paper (O2=10%, O1=10%, total=20%, almost the same as Bo Wen's 19%).

    "... and I question the political motives behind it".

    I can't but laugh.

    Which are the "political motives" of Tatiana Karafet et al.?

    You can't throw that vague accusation, then squirrel away without further explanation and still pretend we take you seriously.

    "Fifteen percent is very little?"

    Be it 10% or 15% it's all O1a1. That's not the origin of all O1 but a branch destination.

    "Mind you, I've no idea if that is O1, O1a1 or O1a2".

    I'm telling you (what requires more effort than I think desirable). Don't you have Karafet's paper? I can send you a copy if you wish.

    "It's doubtful if O of any kind coalesced in Sundaland. And especially not O3 for example".

    I do not think O3, nor probably O2 either, coalesced in Sundaland but O1 looks like it did. IMO O3 coalesced in mainland SE Asia (includes Southern China) and that was probably also the case of O2 before jumping to Japan (a branch).

    It's possible, probable that (some?) South Han are partly descendant from North Han but we know now better than in 2004 and the case has with time become very dubious for a simplistic explanation like the one proposed by Bo Wen.

    All their methodology is PCA, which is not really reliable. Also more than half of those "South Han" samples are from near Shanghai and other rather central areas and the authors make no qualification for that.

    Considering this "deceit" (or unjustifiable bias) in the sampling, we can give more relevance to the fact that, even in the Y-DNA side, seven SH samples really do not cluster at all with NH ones, indicating marked difference of origins. Of these, at least four clearly cluster with HM and the other three (or four) are intermediate.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "Don't you have Karafet's paper? I can send you a copy if you wish".

    Her paper concerns the divide across Wallacea, and makes the unjustified assumption that O is southern. Contradictions arise within the paper. I've read it several times and unlike you I am not at all convinced. For example:

    "whereas the majority of western Y chromosomes (i.e., O-M119*, O-P203, and O-M95*) are related to haplogroups that may have entered Indonesia during the Paleolithic from mainland Asia".

    'May have', and then she proceeds as if they 'must have'. All the paper really shows is, 'Here, in the largest survey of Indonesian Y chromosomes to date, we present evidence for multiple genetic strata that likely arose through a series of distinct migratory processes'.

    "Which are the 'political motives' of Tatiana Karafet et al.?"

    Although no Chinese were involved in her paper she, like Underhill in the following paper, needs to work with Chinese scientists. The bias is the desire to show that the Chinese are not, and never have been, an expansionist people as shown by these, mostly Chinese authors from Kunming:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226206/

    The paper is desperate to show a southern origin for O3 but is full of contradictions.

    "It's possible, probable that (some?) South Han are partly descendant from North Han but we know now better than in 2004 and the case has with time become very dubious for a simplistic explanation"

    Quote from the above paper (2005, admittedly):

    "there was a lot of similar STR evolution after the emergence of O3-M122, and many shared STR haplotypes were observed between northern and southern populations, again confirmation of the recent common ancestry of the M122 lineage in East Asia".

    How is it then possible to claim 'estimated that the early northward migration of the O3-M122 lineages in East Asia occurred ~25,000–30,000 years ago'? And:

    "It has been well documented that the Tibeto-Burman populations living in southwestern China were originally, during the late Neolithic period, from the north"

    That actually takes care of most O3 lineages.

    "that was probably also the case of O2 before jumping to Japan (a branch)".

    So on what grounds do you claim O2b as a branch of O2, rather that O2being a branch and having come from the north?

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Her paper concerns the divide across Wallacea, and makes the unjustified assumption that O is southern. Contradictions arise within the paper. I've read it several times and unlike you I am not at all convinced".

    It's not so important if you agree or not: there's a lot of raw data (in the supplementary file specially) that is hardly questionable and you should check it because it's information you need to know in order to form your judgment, as has become clear in this discussion.

    You may have noticed that I have not quoted a single sentence from the paper. Why? Because I'm just using the raw data. I may also disagree with some of the conclusions of the paper but the throughout sampling across such a wide area is extremely informative. Much better than Wikipedia.

    I'm not following the words but the numbers of that paper: X O1a here, Y O2b there, etc. That's what really matters.

    "Although no Chinese were involved in her paper she, like Underhill in the following paper, needs to work with Chinese scientists. The bias is the desire to show that the Chinese are not, and never have been, an expansionist people as shown by these, mostly Chinese authors"...

    Nonsense: the Chinese historical "doctrine" has been traditionally the same as yours more or less, maybe because of Western influence or maybe because of Han chauvinism (or both). There's no such "doctrine" that China has never been expansive nor seems to matter for the pre-China reality anyhow.

    This is some very distasteful "conspiracy theory" that you are making up out of the blue to justify that most researchers who do deep serious work on East Asian genetics disagree with you.

    I think that these researchers that have given us so much valuable info do not deserve your insulting disqualifications just because you cannot think anymore of a single argument that backs your prejudiced models of East Asian Prehistory, just because you are cornered against the wall.

    Worthy people accept that they can be wrong and do not go around insulting respectful researchers just because they desperately need to demolish their research somehow and can't bother THINKING about it instead of just word-fighting.

    It's horribly low. You should be ashamed.

    As for your alleged contradictions:

    "North" in TB context is Sichuan. But anyhow, while this may apply to culture and language, it does not apply to genetics (at least not too much).

    You don't "take care" of O3 by appealing to historical "legends": you do by looking at the relevant data, what you continuously refuse to do.

    You seem to think that words are important, when they are just a vehicle for facts or are just empty bubbles.

    "So on what grounds do you claim O2b as a branch of O2, rather that O2 being a branch and having come from the north?"

    Uh? Do you understand anything about the hierarchy of phylogeny. This sentence makes me think you do not.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "You may have noticed that I have not quoted a single sentence from the paper".

    I would like to point out though that Karafet actually claims that Y-hap O arrived in SE Asia between 19-8 ka, from further north.

    "It's not so important if you agree or not: there's a lot of raw data"

    True. I've just read the paper again. I see that if you are correct in your interpretation you have no option but to agree that MNOPS coalesced around Wallacea, M and S to the east and NO and P to the west. Which was an early source of disagreement between us.

    "the throughout sampling across such a wide area is extremely informative. Much better than Wikipedia".

    Yes. The 'raw data' s extremely revealing in the light of the re-arranged Y-hap O phylogeny. We have the interesting information in the paper that O-P201 in Taiwan, The Philippines and Indonesia is exactly the same, so it must have expanded through those islands quite recently, certainly nowhere near Paleolithic. Does that mean the whole O-P201 clade is recent? O-P201 is now classified as O3a2, one of four basal O3a clades. O3a2 is also widespread in the Han. The distribution of the O3a2 clades as presently understood are: O3a2a unknown. O3a2b in South China amoung the Daxi, Hmong-Mien and Mon-Kmer. O3a2c from Tibet to Japan. If O2a2 represents a recent clade, then the downstream clades are even more so. Unlikely. It is more likely that all three share a common origin on the mainland, probably at least as far north as the Chinese/Tibetan border.

    "You don't 'take care' of O3 by appealing to historical 'legends': you do by looking at the relevant data, what you continuously refuse to do".

    No Maju. It is you who is manipulating the data.

    "Uh? Do you understand anything about the hierarchy of phylogeny. This sentence makes me think you do not".

    O2-P31 has two branches: O2a and O2b. We cannot tell from that alone which branch remains in the 'original' region. Although both are present in SE Asia O2b is present only in the downstream mutation O2b1b-L682. So it is most likely a recent arrival, not indigenous. So did O2a move south or did O2b move north? Or did they move separately north and south from the source?

    "But I'm not ready to assume that O1a as a whole or even in part originated in Taiwan. If that would be the case, the result of that 'Taiwanese emigration' would exclude O1a* and see O1a2 only as minority sidekick of O1a1. We do not see that anywhere but in Nias".

    The Karafet paper is very instructive concerning O1. O1a1-P203 is present in Indonesia, especially Bali, but not in Eastern Indonesia. O1a2 is in Western Indonesia, especially Nias, and in Taiwan. So the Austronesian expansion presuably began with the expansion of O1 specifically. It broke into eastern and western varieties which moved around, again probably just 4 or 5000 years ago. Did it come from Taiwan? Nothing like impossible. The fact that O1 was basically unable to cross Wallace's line suggests strongly that it expanded during a period of raised sea level. So an SE Asian origin for the whole O1 haplogroup looks unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "I would like to point out though that Karafet actually claims"...

    Wasn't she politically motivated or something? (sarcasm meant)

    I am not relying on what this or that author say in words: I use figures almost exclusively and I reason them myself.

    "I see that if you are correct in your interpretation you have no option but to agree that MNOPS coalesced around Wallacea"...

    No problem with me. I'd say Sundaland or Indochina but OK. I do not really want to argue in length why here but, for example, I seriously doubt that there was any such major founder back-flow from Wallacea or Melanesia across the Wallace Line an not carry any "Denisovan" (H. erectus) admixture with them. We are talking after all of the largest single haplogroup of Eurasia, dominant or very top positioned in all regions, incl. Melanesia and Native America.

    "O-P201 in Taiwan, The Philippines and Indonesia is exactly the same"...

    No, sorry:

    Taiwan: 6%
    Philippines: 25%
    Java: 2%
    Sumatra 55%
    Borneo: 16%
    Wallacea: 4%

    It's much more common in Sumatra, (Borneo) and Philippines than anywhere else, incl. Taiwan. To me it looks like a "North Malay" (Malaysia: 12%) clade if anything. But we'd need to know about it's substructure to discuss it further. Frequency may be misleading but founder effects should keep, more or less, the apportions of the homeland (Taiwan) and that only happens in Nias of all places. You could argue also some other cases (Mentawai, provided 50% or more is from a different origin) but that's about it.

    You cannot take a single haplogroup and "invent" a recent history for it: that haplogroup is and has recently been in a context that you cannot ignore and can't go around so easily causing massive founder effects of its own just because you desire it. Wishful thinking is not science.

    Maybe it happened at the beginning of all, in the depths of the Paleolithic, when populations were much smaller but can't be the case in Neolithic or in any other scenario where you posit a radical replacement of populations.

    Do we see such extremely marked founder effects in New Zealand or the USA? No, we do not because the immigrants were a more or less balanced sample of the ancestral European populations. For all that some people put modern colonialism as example for Neolithic "replacements" they have never even bothered looking at these recent industrial colonizations in any detail: no widespread founder effects, no extreme distortions of the ancestral DNA pools exist in reality.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "O3a2 is also widespread in the Han"

    It's rather rare in fact, as I already mentioned in this circular discussion: just 8%. And we're talking South Han. The only other group in China where it's somewhat important it's the Tujia: 14%. All this is low compared to Philippines and Sumatra, even if it's higher than Taiwan aboriginals.

    IF O3a2 migrated from North to South into ISEA (what is possible considering the overall origin of O3 in southernmost China) it must have done when it could still make a huge founder effect, as observed and when it would not have yet carried a balanced sample of the ancestral population, so Paleolithic most likely.

    One of the problems is that we have very little idea of the Paleolithic of the area.

    "The distribution of the O3a2 clades as presently understood are"...

    We do not know but as anecdote. Which are the subclades actually present in Philippines, Sumatra and such (Taiwan as well)? That's what we'd need to know.

    You mention Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien, which Karafet did not sample. They may well be the substrate source of "Han-plus" O3a2 and we'd still be talking at most of a Paleolithic flow most likely (even assuming that they are the origin of all, what is a lot to assume but would be loosely consistent with what I know of the region's genetics and prehistory).

    "It is more likely that all three share a common origin on the mainland, probably at least as far north as the Chinese/Tibetan border".

    LOL, now you are going on irrational fantasy wishful thinking rampage. No comments: not worth it.

    "O2-P31 has two branches: O2a and O2b. We cannot tell from that alone which branch remains in the 'original' region".

    That was not what you said before but let it be.

    This much I know already, thanks. But if MNOPS has a southern origin, NO has a southern origin, O1 and O3 have southern origins as well (and therefore O as a whole does too), it's only parsimonious to assume that O2 is also of southern origin.

    Prove me wrong. But PROVE it, not just cry loud.

    It's possible however that O2b1b-L682 is a backflow from the North. What do we know about the "asterisk" paragroups?

    ReplyDelete
  68. "The Karafet paper is very instructive concerning O1".

    I think so as well. And not just O1. There's not so much info on ISEA, so every bit of it is useful.

    "O1a1-P203 is present in Indonesia, especially Bali, but not in Eastern Indonesia".

    It's 9% in Flores for example but otherwise it's indeed rare in East Indonesia. It's NOT higher in Bali (9% as well) or Java (10%), while Sumatra or Borneo have almost nothing of it.

    While it's more work, I'd strongly recommend that you do not look too much at the West/East Indonesia added figures because some islands are oversampled. Notably Balians make up 2/3 of the overall West Indonesian sample, when they are actually just a small island.

    But this clade, assuming it flowed from Taiwan southwards, would give us a basic idea of how strong was Taiwanese migration in each island, because it makes 70% of all T. Aborigines' Y-DNA (so we have to multiply by, roughly, 1.4). So they would have got an estimated (male-only) impact of:

    Nias: 120% (100%)
    Mentawai: 40%
    Flores: 13%
    Java, Bali, West Samoa: 12%
    Borneo: 8%
    Malukku: 5%
    Sumatra, Highland Papua: 4%
    Philippines: 3%
    Sumba, Lembata: 1%
    Sulawesi, Alor, Timor, Coastal Papua, most Polynesia/Micronesia: 0%

    That's your actual Y-DNA genuine Austronesians from Taiwan. At most!

    We do not know with any certainty if all or only some of this O1a1 clade is actually original from Taiwan, considering what we know now about O1 overall (original from Sundaland most likely). It's a matter to remain open by the moment.

    "So the Austronesian expansion presuably began with the expansion of O1 specifically".

    Not at all. O1 is from Sundaland, as I have more than reasonably demonstrated in previous comments (please avoid circular discussion that brings us nowhere, thanks).

    ReplyDelete
  69. "It's [O1a1-P203] 19% in Flores for example but otherwise it's indeed rare in East Indonesia. It's NOT higher in Bali (9% as well) or Java (10%), while Sumatra or Borneo have almost nothing of it.

    Sorry. I meant O2a1.

    "It's [O3a2-P201] much more common in Sumatra, (Borneo) and Philippines than anywhere else, incl. Taiwan".

    I'm not talking 'proportion', I'm talking actual 'haplogroup'. Just a single O3 haplogroup is found through the whole region.

    "But we'd need to know about it's substructure to discuss it further".

    Turns out that going back to the Karafet paper does tell us a great deal about the substructure.

    "We do not know but as anecdote. Which are the subclades actually present in Philippines, Sumatra and such (Taiwan as well)? That's what we'd need to know".

    It turns out that Austronesian O3 is not basal at all. The paper tells us that virtually all O3 outside mainland Asia is O3a2-P201, and not many clades within that haplogroup reach even as far as Western Indonesia. Just O3a2c makes it to the islands you list. But O3a2 is really widespread from Tibet to Japan, and occurrs as a trickle down into SE Asia and Indonesia. It's certainly no Paleolithic arrival in SE Asia.

    "Frequency may be misleading but founder effects should keep, more or less, the apportions of the homeland (Taiwan) and that only happens in Nias of all places".

    The founder effect in Nias involves O1a2-M110, not O3-P201. We can be reasonably sure that O1 is associated with the Austronesian languages. The extra-Taiwan Austronesian languages (Malayo-Polynesian) are often classified into eastern and western versions. Turns out that O1a also breaks into two: O1a2 in Western Indonesia (especially the islands off Sumatra) and Taiwan, with O1a1 making up the majority of Taiwanese Aboriginals and spreading through the Philippines and eastern Indonesia out into the Pacific.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "IF O3a2 migrated from North to South into ISEA (what is possible considering the overall origin of O3 in southernmost China) it must have done when it could still make a huge founder effect, as observed"

    Its founder effect in parts of SE Asia is a result of it being one of the first onto particular islands.

    "You mention Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien, which Karafet did not sample. They may well be the substrate source of 'Han-plus' O3a2 and we'd still be talking at most of a Paleolithic flow"

    The authors of this paper have no reluctance in placing O3 throughout much of China:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21505448

    "It's possible however that O2b1b-L682 is a backflow from the North. What do we know about the 'asterisk' paragroups?"

    Nothing, as far as I'm aware. However the Karafet paper does tell us something. O2a is widespread through South China and Vietnam, and O2a1 made it into Indonesia as far east as Bali, with an outcrop on Sulawesi. There is disagreement as to whether the Hoabinhian reached New Guinea, but it probably reached Sulawesi. So O2a is most likely tied up in some way with the Hoabinhian, but almost certainly didn't invent it. O2a1a made it as far west as the Pashtuns. O2a's age in SE Asia is probably no more than 10-12,000 years, but it looks to have been the first O haplogroup to enter any offshore islands. Followed by O1 at the beginning of the Austronesian expansion, perhaps 7000 years ago. Wiki yet again, quoting Karafet concerning O1a:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O1_(Y-DNA)

    Quote:

    "Approximately 5000 BCE, Haplogroup O1 coalesced at Sundaland and migrated northwards to as far as Taiwan",

    And lastly O3a2's expansion around 4000 years ago.

    "O1 is from Sundaland, as I have more than reasonably demonstrated in previous comments"

    No O haplogroups look remotely Paleolithic anywhere near the region. O1a may coalesced in Sundaland, but O1 cannot possibly be originally from there. It is far maore likely it is from the mainland between Vietnam and the mouth of the Yangtze.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "Sorry. I meant O2a1".

    What can I say? Fuck you! You make me check all that damn fucking data, with all the complication of the different nomenclatures and island detail and then you're talking of something else?!

    Do not waste my time, seriously. Nobody is even arguing for the origin of O2 in ISEA.

    O2a1 (M95) is trivial: it's obvious from the mainland. Or do you want to also argue that as well?

    "I'm not talking 'proportion', I'm talking actual 'haplogroup'. Just a single O3 haplogroup is found through the whole region".

    Absolutely unintelligible. :(

    "It turns out that Austronesian O3 is not basal at all".

    Who said it was. I was talking of O3a2.

    "Just O3a2c makes it to the islands you list".

    That's false. There's no O3a2c tested for in Karafet'10, it's O3a2-P201 and O3a2b-M7. And both are present in "the islands I say".

    You are going to drive me crazy with your come-and-go and nomenclature sloppiness. Why don't you sit down for a week and chew on it and then write a nice opinion entry at your blog taking care of the details?

    "The founder effect in Nias involves O1a2-M110, not O3-P201".

    Sure, there's almost no O3 among Taiwan Aborigines, mind you.

    So what does this mean other than trying to mind-boggle me? Noise, junk and wasting my time.

    "We can be reasonably sure that O1 is associated with the Austronesian languages".

    Only like E1b1b1 is associated with Arabic: by historical accident. Unless you want to make Austronesian languages original from West Indonesia and Philippines and not Taiwan (which would be a destination, oddly enough).

    "Turns out that O1a also breaks into two: O1a2 in Western Indonesia (especially the islands off Sumatra) and Taiwan, with O1a1 making up the majority of Taiwanese Aboriginals and spreading through the Philippines and eastern Indonesia out into the Pacific".

    I know that it's divided not in two but in at least three (don't forget the numerous O1a*, all concentrated in the Malay Archipelago and ABSENT among Taiwan Aboriginals). Also your geographical associations are sloppy again and not worth even discussing.

    The only possible origin for O1a is Sundaland, where all three clades are found and in substantial frequencies.

    "The authors of this paper"...

    I don't care: it's pay per view, so I'm not discussing it unless you send me a free copy.

    "... have no reluctance in placing O3 throughout much of China".

    What's the mystery about that?

    "O1a may coalesced in Sundaland, but O1 cannot possibly be originally from there. It is far maore likely it is from the mainland between Vietnam and the mouth of the Yangtze".

    Why? Do you know anything that I do not know? Otherwise: Sundaland.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "What can I say? Fuck you! You make me check all that damn fucking data, with all the complication of the different nomenclatures and island detail and then you're talking of something else?!"

    Apologies for my stuff-up.

    "[Just a single O3 haplogroup is found through the whole region] Absolutely unintelligible. :("

    Why is that? The Karafet paper claims,

    "The derived O-M134, O-M7, and O-JST002611 subhaplogroups are absent or found at very low frequencies in Indonesia but are prevalent in different ethnic groups in China and SEA".

    Two are subcaldes of O3a2. O-M134 is O3a2c1, O-M7 is O3a2b and O-JST002611 is O3a1c. So that actually takes care of most of the possible O3 haplogroups.

    "That's false. There's no O3a2c tested for in Karafet'10, it's O3a2-P201 and O3a2b-M7. And both are present in 'the islands I say'".

    Wrong. See above. O3a2c1 is one of the haplogroups that is very low frequency in Indonesia, and spreads very little beyond it. Karafet again:

    "Only paragroup O-P201* has a wide geographic distribution and is found in all geographic regions surveyed".

    But within that O3a2 there is no O3a2c1 nor O3a2b. That doesn't leave a lot.

    "More notable are the results of typing the novel marker P201, which has the effect of converting almost all chromosomes outside of mainland Asia that were previously identified as O-M122* to O-P201*. Given this widespread pattern, it may be that O-M122 chromosomes previously found at high frequency on many Pacific Islands (Kayser et al. 2006) are actually O-P201*"

    And:

    "despite its relatively low frequency on Taiwan (∼6%), genetic distances based on STR variation associated with P201 chromosomes reveal a much closer relationship among Taiwanese aboriginals/Filipinos, Indonesians, and Oceanians than between any of these groups and mainland Southeast Asians (supplementary table S4, Supplementary Material online). Therefore, we hypothesize that this new marker traces the large population expansion associated with the spread of Austronesian languages and culture".

    It's recent, and a single haplogroup within O3a2.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Only like E1b1b1 is associated with Arabic: by historical accident. Unless you want to make Austronesian languages original from West Indonesia and Philippines and not Taiwan"

    We can be sure that humans didn't spread through the SE Asian islands like ink through blotting paper. The distribution of the O haplogroups may tell us a little about its spread. If you're prepared to look you can see that most movements into the islands have spread from the Malay Peninsula, not straight across the water.

    There is no question that the Austronesian language spread from Taiwan. It's quite possible that O1 may have been drifted out on the island. It's a fairly small island after all. O1 looks to have followed the Asian coastline (via Vietnam presumably) before following the Malay Peninsula out into the islands off Sumatra, where it formed O1a2. O1a1 then spread east through the islands to the Philippines and back to Taiwan, possibly along with some haplogroup within O3a2. The last haplogroup carried on east into the Pacific. But before O1 had left Taiwan O2 had already spread with the Hoabinhian from Vietnam out into some SE Asian islands, notably Bali and Sulawesi.

    "The only possible origin for O1a is Sundaland, where all three clades are found and in substantial frequencies".

    Rubbish. O1a may have 'coalesced' in Sundaland, but it arrived there from elsewhere. Even Karafet doesn't claim what you're claiming:

    "The current results reveal that while the 'ancestral' O-M119* lineage is virtually absent in mainland Southeast Asia, the derived O-P203 subclade is frequent there, as well as in western Indonesia"

    Nothing about the lineage ancestral to O-P203 (O1-MSY2.2).

    "Also your geographical associations are sloppy again and not worth even discussing".

    Where are they 'sloppy'?

    ReplyDelete
  74. "The Karafet paper claims,

    "The derived O-M134, O-M7, and O-JST002611 subhaplogroups are absent or found at very low frequencies in Indonesia but are prevalent in different ethnic groups in China and SEA"".

    That is not fully correct following their own data in the supplement, which I beg you check.

    O3a2b-M7 is not absent and, furthermore, it is very strong in Borneo (17/86) and Java (7/61). It also seems important among Malays (4/32), Miao (21/58), She (29/51) and Yao (29/60).

    However it is true that the paragroup O3a2*-P201 (probably more than just one sibling haplogroup in relation to O3a2b-M7) is the most important clade in the islands (within the O3 haplogroup), being very strong in Sumatra, Borneo, Philippines and Malaysia and quite rare in the mainland instead.

    While other O3 is rare, O3a2 is not just common enough but probably highly diverse to be (at least tentatively) considered of ISEA origin. As I said before the paragroup O3a2*-P201 should be researched in greater depth to be safe on this matter but the evidence is at least suggestive of a Sundaland origin for the clade.

    Definitely not Taiwan-Austronesian in any case.

    "Wrong. See above. O3a2c1 is one of the haplogroups that is very low frequency in Indonesia"...

    It's O3a1c-IMS-JST002611!!!

    For a moment I thought I had committed an error (crazy nomenclature) but nope: this is within the other O3a subclade: O3a1, which I do not doubt is from the mainland.

    All I say is that O3a2 looks a lot like original from Sundaland or maybe Philippines. But more research is needed in any case to be safe.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "There is no question that the Austronesian language spread from Taiwan".

    I also think that's probably right. However there is another possibility:

    (1) pre-Austronesian languages expanded to Taiwan from ISEA

    (2) Malay-Polynesian (and only this branch!) expanded from Luzon. This may be justified to some extent by the fact that Filipino genetic pool seems to have made much more of an impact into the Austronesian-speaking areas than anything from Taiwan.

    Just food for thought. After all we are finding here that there's nothing particularly "Taiwanese" in the Malay Archipelago (excepting Nias) but there is a lot "Malay" among Taiwan aborigines.

    "It's quite possible that O1 may have been drifted out on the island".

    Since Neolithic? No way!

    "It's a fairly small island after all".

    You must be kidding. It ranks 38th among the islands of the World, being about half the size of Sri Lanka or Ireland. It's larger than any single Mediterranean island (Sicily is the largest one) and today holds 23 million people (500,000 Taiwan Aborigines), having a very favorable climate (mildly tropical, similar to Canary Islands but wetter) - except for the danger of cyclones.

    It's logically impossible that any meaningful drift has happened since the onset of agriculture.

    "O1a may have 'coalesced' in Sundaland, but it arrived there from elsewhere".

    If it "coalesced" there, then it was formed there and did not arrive from anywhere else. Look up the word "coalesce" in your dictionary.

    "Even Karafet doesn't claim what you're claiming".

    I've never pretended that. In fact I do not care much about what scholars claim or don't claim: I'm only interested in the raw data, not their secondary opinions, which may be correct or (way too often) are not.

    "Where are they 'sloppy'?"

    I forgot. And I do not feel like reviewing all the thread.

    Remember that this debate is about "Denisovan" admixture.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "O3a2b-M7 is not absent and, furthermore, it is very strong in Borneo (17/86) and Java (7/61). It also seems important among Malays (4/32), Miao (21/58), She (29/51) and Yao (29/60)".

    The last three are mainland, and even Malays are presumably mostly so. Borneo and Java O3a2b-M7 are probably post-Neolithic arrivals from the mainland.

    "However it is true that the paragroup O3a2*-P201 (probably more than just one sibling haplogroup in relation to O3a2b-M7) is the most important clade in the islands (within the O3 haplogroup), being very strong in Sumatra, Borneo, Philippines and Malaysia and quite rare in the mainland instead".

    Probably not 'more than just one sibling haplogroup'. The authors specifically state, 'The divergence between Filipinos/Taiwanese aboriginals and Indonesians was insignificant and 10-fold less than that between Southeast Asians and Indonesians (0.027, P = 0.11 vs. 0.349, P = 0.00). Genetic distances between Oceania and Philippines/Taiwanese aboriginals were even lower (0.007, P = 0.35)'. Sounds like a single haplogroup all through there.

    "While other O3 is rare, O3a2 is not just common enough but probably highly diverse to be (at least tentatively) considered of ISEA origin".

    Doubtful. I don't know about O3a2a but O3a2b is much higher in China compared to SE Asia, especially island SE Asia, and O3a2c is especially common amoung Sino-Tibetan speakers in western and Southern China. Both haplogroups are specifically mentioned in the paper as being low in Indonesia (island SE Asia) although you disagree.

    "Definitely not Taiwan-Austronesian in any case".

    I agree. However some haplogroup within it does seem to have been picked up by Austronesians and carried out into the Pacific.

    "For a moment I thought I had committed an error (crazy nomenclature) but nope: this is within the other O3a subclade: O3a1, which I do not doubt is from the mainland".

    Your original comment was, 'There's no O3a2c tested for in Karafet'10, it's O3a2-P201 and O3a2b-M7. And both are present in the islands I say'. They tested O3a2c1-M134, a downstream clade within O3a2c, and they state it is very rare in the islands whereas it is high in China, from Tibet to Japan. That leaves just the basal O3a2c-P164. It is doubtful that O3a2c coalesced in island SE Asia.

    "All I say is that O3a2 looks a lot like original from Sundaland or maybe Philippines. But more research is needed in any case to be safe".

    Extremely unlikely that 'more research' will reveal it as having coalesced in 'Sundaland'.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "(1) pre-Austronesian languages expanded to Taiwan from ISEA
    (2) Malay-Polynesian (and only this branch!) expanded from Luzon. This may be justified to some extent by the fact that Filipino genetic pool seems to have made much more of an impact into the Austronesian-speaking areas than anything from Taiwan".

    That is probably correct, but not quite how you envisage it. The Karafet paper expands on, and re-inforces' what I claimed way back in my essay on the subject:

    http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.com/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-polynesian.html

    Quote:

    "The diagram of the diversification of the languages [Language Families] shows the Austronesian languages in Taiwan appear on two different branches. This suggests a ripple of movement, and probably transmission of technology, north from the Philippine Islands to Taiwan. The development of the improved boating technology in Island Southeast Asia was probably the result of a complicated series of population movements in the region".

    The paper indicates that the gap between Taiwan and the Philippines was not first crossed from north to south, but north from the Philippines. By O1a1. Just one of the Taiwanese Austronesian languages derives from the Philippines, but Autronesian as a whole derives from Taiwan. The language must have traveled along the mainland coast and down the Malay Peninsula before moving through Western Indonesia and back east to the Philippies. Where it completed the circle.

    "Since Neolithic? No way!"

    How can you be so definite about that? The Taiwanese Aborigines have been under population pressure for some time now. You even quote some figures, 'today holds 23 million people (500,000 Taiwan Aborigines)'.

    "You must be kidding. It ranks 38th among the islands of the World, being about half the size of Sri Lanka or Ireland".

    According to my Pear's Cyclopedia it's a little more than half the size of Sri Lanka and a little less than half the size of all Ireland. It's just over a quarter of the size of the North Island of New Zealand, with basically ten times the population.

    "I forgot. And I do not feel like reviewing all the thread".

    When I first left university my job was making maps. And I have visited many continents. I understand geography, presumably much better than you do.

    ReplyDelete
  78. You're not paying attention to what I say: it's not just that O3a2b-M7 is present in Sundaland but also that paragroup O3a2*-P201 (brothers of M7) are almost only found in Sundaland, suggesting that this lineage is original from that region.

    It is NOT M7 the most important thing here but P201. Got it?

    "Sounds like a single haplogroup all through there".

    Highly conjectural. And even if it is "a single haplogroup", there's still more diversity (2) in Sundaland and Philippines than anywhere in the mainland (1), with the only and very partial exception of Southern Han (but Austronesians are not Chinese, are they?)

    The issue is open but a southern (Sundaland) origin of this lineage is very possible.

    "O3a2b is much higher in China compared to SE Asia, especially island SE Asia"...

    Can you read? Read the Karafet'10 supplement!

    Can you divide? Divide the data in there:
    China (Han): 3/165=0.02
    Java: 7/61=0.11

    0.11 > 0.02

    SE Asian ethnicities within the artificial and imposed borders of China, do in some cases have greater frequencies than Javanese or Borneans (0.20) but that's NOT "China". Not for me at least: China=Han Country.

    "Both haplogroups are specifically mentioned in the paper as being low in Indonesia (island SE Asia) although you disagree".

    10-20% is not "low", so I have good reason to disagree.

    "However some haplogroup within it does seem to have been picked up by Austronesians and carried out into the Pacific".

    Filipinos (25% O-P201) are surely the source of that.

    "They tested O3a2c1-M134, a downstream clade within O3a2c"...

    I'm getting messed up: I was thinking of O-JST002611, which is O3a1c. Why? Because you said so:

    "and O-JST002611 is O3a1c".

    So sorry but it's your fault. Where's the sloppiness? In this kind of stuff.

    You are right however for O3a2c1-M134 (it was tested for and it is not present in the islands) but that tells us nothing about O3a2c* (not tested) which can well be part of that O3a2*-P201 that is almost only found in Sundaland and Philippines.

    I think that O3a2*-P201 is the key, all the rest are localized founder effects of downstream clades.

    There's too much unknown left in this testing strategy:
    (1) "true" O3a2* (i.e. not yet classified)
    (2) O3a2a
    (3) O3a2c(xO3a2c1)

    All that shows up only as O3a2-P201 and that only shows up in Sundaland-Philippines (plus Austronesian scatter) and among the South Han.

    "Extremely unlikely that 'more research' will reveal it as having coalesced in 'Sundaland'".

    Extremely likely that it will be much more productive and revealing than this circular discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "Remember that this debate is about 'Denisovan' admixture".

    Try this, via Dienekes:

    http://www.ashg.org/pdf/pr_ichg_evoandpopulationgenetics.pdf

    Quote:

    "The results also suggest that relatives of present-day East Asians were not in Southeast Asia when the gene flow occurred, rather they descended from later migrations".

    What haplogroups may be represented in these 'later migration'?

    "it's not just that O3a2b-M7 is present in Sundaland"

    But it is apparent that O3a2b-M7 was not present when the region was actually 'Sundaland'. Sundaland had already broken into individual islands.

    "but also that paragroup O3a2*-P201 (brothers of M7) are almost only found in Sundaland, suggesting that this lineage is original from that region".

    Where did you get the information that 'O3a2*-P201 (brothers of M7) are almost only found in Sundaland'? Quote from Karafet:

    "Only paragroup O-P201* has a wide geographic distribution and is found in all geographic regions surveyed".

    Including China. Certainly its descendant O3a2b-M7 is widespread in China:

    "The derived O-M134, O-M7, and O-JST002611 subhaplogroups are absent or found at very low frequencies in Indonesia but are prevalent in different ethnic groups in China and SEA".

    From other sources I note that o3a2b-M7 is prevalent amoung Daxi, Hmong-Mien and Mon-Kmer. Hardly support for an island SE Asia origin.

    "SE Asian ethnicities within the artificial and imposed borders of China, do in some cases have greater frequencies than Javanese or Borneans (0.20) but that's NOT 'China'. Not for me at least"

    Only as far as you're concerned. Everyone else considers 'South China' to be 'China'. It's certainly not 'Southeast Asia'.

    "Can you read? Read the Karafet'10 supplement!"

    From within China Karafet et al sampled just:

    "HAN, Han Chinese; TUJ, Tujia; MIA, Miao; YAO, Yao; SHE, She"

    Hardly representative of South China, especially not Han.

    "So sorry but it's your fault".

    It was you who made the claim they'd tested very few O3 haplogroups.

    "that tells us nothing about O3a2c* (not tested) which can well be part of that O3a2*-P201 that is almost only found in Sundaland and Philippines".

    Unlikely to be 'only' so, as they tested very little in China. Where is O3a2a-M159 found? Not SE Asia. And as I pointed out above O3a2b is mainly South China, not island SE Asia. And the derived O3a2c1 is also hardly 'SE Asian'. That takes care of the three derived clades within O3a2. It is therefore extremely unlikely that O2a2 coalesced in SE Asia.

    "I think that O3a2*-P201 is the key, all the rest are localized founder effects of downstream clades".

    But Karafet said only members of O3a2 haplogroup (and possibly only one haplogroup within that clade) are found beyond Indonesia, and even then just a few are found outside China. Hardly convincing evidence for an origin outside China.

    "10-20% is not 'low', so I have good reason to disagree".

    As usual you cherry pick the information you agree with and ignore the inconvenient bits.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "The results also suggest that relatives of present-day East Asians were not in Southeast Asia when the gene flow occurred, rather they descended from later migrations".

    Why?

    The results DO NOT suggest that as far as I can see, that is just an interpretation of someone with a mental barrier.

    It's not the results but the mental barrier which suggest such thing. I lack the barrier so I can't see the "logic" at all.

    "Sundaland had already broken into individual islands".

    How do you know: luckily there is no molecular clock, so you can't know.

    Considering that since people migrated out of Africa and today Sundaland has existed most of the time, chances are that you're wrong.

    "Where did you get the information that 'O3a2*-P201 (brothers of M7) are almost only found in Sundaland'?"

    Reading the supplemental material of Karafet'2010.

    "Only paragroup O-P201* has a wide geographic distribution and is found in all geographic regions surveyed".

    Considering that 4 of the 5 regions of Karafet are insular and that it's indeed found among the South Han and that Philippines, where it is also found, is in the Mainland Asia region...

    Read the data, words are confusing (and sometimes confused). Look at the data and chew on it with your own brain.

    "'South China' (...) It's certainly not 'Southeast Asia'".

    In anthropological contexts South China is almost invariable considered SE Asia. This is logical because there are strong links, cultural and genetic, to Indochina and ISEA and striking differences with NE Asia (including North China, Korea and Japan lus the empty expanses of the Far NE).

    "Hardly representative of South China, especially not Han".

    They are South Han, overall they represent reasonably well the diversity of South China: 3 Hmong-Mien (She, Miao, Yao), 2 Sino-Tibetan (Tujia and South Han). Only Daic peoples are absent.

    "Unlikely to be 'only' so, as they tested very little in China".

    Excuses, burning nails for your preconceptions.

    "Where is O3a2a-M159 found? Not SE Asia".

    Do you know it for a fact (if so, reference please) or are you ranting wildly again?

    "And as I pointed out above O3a2b is mainly South China"...

    And as I corrected you it is also in ISEA: Java, Bali, Borneo.

    Please: read Karafet's supplement, get your data straight and then find an appropriate thread to discuss whatever is left to discuss. I can try to help you understand things but I'm not going to fight pointless battles on issues on which you once and again insist on such clear errors of basic data itself.

    Document your case and then come back to court. Or give up.

    "But Karafet said"...

    In what regards to me Karafet only "said" what she or her aides tabbed in the tables. Words are empty if contradicted by facts.

    "... and possibly only one haplogroup within that clade"...

    Your imagination. Of three tabbed categories within O3a2, two are present in West Indonesia in strong numbers. One of them is the "asterisk" category which is almost exclusive of Sundaland.

    "As usual you cherry pick the information you agree with and ignore the inconvenient bits".

    Fuck you! 10-20% in two of the major islands of West Indonesia is not "cherry picking" my info. It's showing you how wrong your fucking thoughtless claims built on nothing but wishful thinking (and no real thinking at all) are.

    Shut up if you have nothing good to say, please. You are getting me really angry with your insistence on beating a dead and rotting horse as is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Also your geographical associations are sloppy again and not worth even discussing".

    Well. How about this:

    "And as I corrected you it is also in ISEA: Java, Bali, Borneo".

    Here it is you whose 'geographical associations are sloppy again'. You have failed to read Karafet. She said that although O3a1c, O3a2b and O3a2c1 had reached Western Indonesia they were basically not found beyond Flores. Now, tell me, which islands make up Western Indonesia?

    "Why? ['The results also suggest that relatives of present-day East Asians were not in Southeast Asia when the gene flow occurred, rather they descended from later migrations']".

    Presumably because the authors, along with everybody else except you, considers that to be the case. It's not my quote.

    "I lack the barrier so I can't see the 'logic' at all".

    No. You have a huge barrier because you obviously know nothing about SE Asian pre-history.

    "Reading the supplemental material of Karafet'2010 ['O3a2*-P201 are almost only found in Sundaland]?"

    Well, you obviously should read a little more widely. The paper on the updated phylogeny of O (which you blogged about some time back) claims O3a3*-P201 is 1.8% East China, 0.8% North China and 3.1% South China. The reason for the low percentages is the preponderance of other O haplogroups, mainly derived from O3a2-P201.

    "Of three tabbed categories within O3a2, two are present in West Indonesia in strong numbers. One of them is the 'asterisk' category which is almost exclusive of Sundaland".

    I suppose you're going to claim that the O3 haplogroup that made it to Tonga is polyphyletic. Most unlikely to be so. A map I have shows the Tongan haplogroup to be O-M324, although the Karafet paper narrows that down to a subclade of O3a-P201. But the map excludes most O3a2 clades, such as O3a2a-M159, O3a2b-M7 and O3a2c1-M134. That doesn't leave a lot. Perhaps the Sino-Tibetan speaking people originated in SE Asia, moved way north, and then moved way south again. Unlikely.

    "I can try to help you understand things but I'm not going to fight pointless battles on issues on which you once and again insist on such clear errors of basic data itself".

    Thank you for the reminder. I will give up trying top make you see sense reagrding SE Asia. Keep hold of your dreams. There is no way any of the three O haplogroups originated in island SE Asia, or Sundaland.

    ReplyDelete
  82. ..."which islands make up Western Indonesia?"

    Not Flores if that is what you ask.

    I fail to see any logic in all your rant up to this sentence. Each new post it's more difficult to make sense of what you say.

    ... "you obviously know nothing about SE Asian pre-history".

    I think that roughly the same as you. But IF your know something that I do not, please do not hesitate and illustrate me and whichever reader who is still able to follow this endless circular chatter.

    "The paper on the updated phylogeny of O (which you blogged about some time back) claims O3a3*-P201 is 1.8% East China, 0.8% North China and 3.1% South China".

    Excellent finding (I had totally forgotten about this), now you are being useful.

    Still almost all O3a2 in China is O3a2c, what is consistent with my narrative so far. O3a2*, O3a2a and O3a2b are found only in small numbers and, exception O3a2b (more common around Shanghai), all are more common to the South (O3a2a is only found over there).

    Also that table provides info on O2(xO2a,O2b) which is not that rare, reaching highest concentrations around Shanghai (6%).

    I'd say that the origin of O3a2 remains open with Sundaland being a candidate (the other being South China, where all clades are found, unlike the other regions). The handicap for Sundaland is the lack of O3a2b-M7 but the extremely high amounts of O3a2*-P201 could well compensate it. It all depends on the internal structure of the "asterisk" paragroup.

    We should not forget about Indochina, after all it's the region in between and the research is poor.

    "I suppose you're going to claim that the O3 haplogroup that made it to Tonga is polyphyletic".

    I do not know but I don't suppose so. But that does not preclude at all that O3a2*-P201 in Philippines (the likely origin) is actually polyphyletic.

    "Perhaps the Sino-Tibetan speaking people originated in SE Asia, moved way north, and then moved way south again".

    I for one do not believe in Sino-Tibetan too much. I treat Tibeto-Burman and Sinitic as two distinct language families. They may still be related but that's an open matter.

    Also I do not think that the people who moved northwards (or southwards or whatever) some 40 or 30 Ka can be described as speaking anything that we can describe other than as "some language(s)".

    But indeed the people moved North first and later they moved Southwards with smaller impact (and maybe again northwards and southwards and that is what we are trying to discern).

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  83. ...

    "There is no way any of the three O haplogroups originated in island SE Asia, or Sundaland".

    You are denying the data for the case of O1, or at least O1a-M119.

    This lineage in Sundaland reaches 10% in some cases (Sumatra and Bali, and even more among the Mentawai, expanding also to Sulawesi and Sumba in Wallacea). To me it looks like a Sumatran lineage with some scatter to the East (specially).

    Instead in the mainland, following Shi Yan, it reaches only 1.4% (all three regions are similar). Shi Yang however is interesting re. the coalescence of the main Taiwan-Austronesian lineage: O1a1-P203, which reaches quite high frequencies towards East-South China, suggesting the possible intermediate step in the scatter of O1a before arrival to Taiwan.

    However the area lacks O1a2, with partial exception in the South (3%), so it is still likely that the clade originated in Sundaland, migrated northwards (coasting?) and then maybe back-migrated southwards with the famed Austronesians. Greater resolution of the internal structure of O1a and specially O1a1 and their geographical scatter could clarify the matter.

    I just fail to see any sort of retainment of the 1-4 proportion that the O1a2 and O1a1 have in Taiwan (and South China). The closest is Nias (1-7, making 100%) and Java (1-7, making 10% - but also 3% O1a*) but then it just goes nuts:

    Philippines: 4-1 (inverted!)
    Malaysia: no O1a2, residual O1a1
    Bali: 1-15 [9% O1a*]
    Sumatra: no O1a2, residual O1a1 [11% O1a*]
    Borneo 3-1 (inverted!)
    Mentawai: 1-21 [57% O1a*]
    Flores: no O1a2, 9% O1a1
    Sulawesi: no O1a1, 7% O1a2 [13% O1a1]
    Sumba: 7-1 (inverted!) [5% O1a1]
    etc.

    You could force-feed Bali and maybe argue for recent founder effects in beyond Wallace Line but most of Sundaland and Philippines just do not fit with any colonization from Taiwan (nor mainland China, nor Indochina). So their Y-DNA patterns look from a time when fixation by founder effect and drift was still possible: the Paleolithic or at most the very first Neolithic, such as the Hoabinhian-Toalean maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  84. At the obvious risk of completely wasting my time:

    "But IF your know something that I do not, please do not hesitate and illustrate me and whichever reader who is still able to follow this endless circular chatter".

    I have provided endless links. You simply claim they are wrong, mainly because they don't fit your pre-conceived beliefs.

    "I fail to see any logic in all your rant up to this sentence. Each new post it's more difficult to make sense of what you say".

    It is apparent that just one O3 haplogroup makes it further out into the islands than Flores, Western Indonesia. This shows that, in spite of what you claim, basal O3 is very unlikely to be ancient in Western Indonesia. The maps in the Karafet paper show that O3-M122 and O3a-P197 are mainland China, with a very strange outpost in Polynesia.

    "You are denying the data for the case of O1, or at least O1a-M119".

    I can accept O1a, perhaps, but that tells us nothing about basal O1.

    "This lineage in Sundaland reaches 10% in some cases (Sumatra and Bali, and even more among the Mentawai, expanding also to Sulawesi and Sumba in Wallacea). To me it looks like a Sumatran lineage with some scatter to the East (specially)".

    It is much more likely to indicate an arrival in a previously sparsely inhabited region, in which they were able to expand rapidly.

    "So their Y-DNA patterns look from a time when fixation by founder effect and drift was still possible: the Paleolithic or at most the very first Neolithic, such as the Hoabinhian-Toalean maybe".

    No. Mentawai and Nias, at least, were probably completely uninhabited until Austronesian-speaking people arrived. The Hoabinhian-Toalean population may not have been particularly large over most of its spread either, although evidence for reasonable population size exists on Vietnam, Sumatra and Sulawesi.

    "I just fail to see any sort of retainment of the 1-4 proportion that the O1a2 and O1a1 have in Taiwan (and South China)".

    Why would you expect the retention of proportion? We know that the Austronesian languages outside Taiwan are hardly a representative sample.

    "I do not know but I don't suppose so. But that does not preclude at all that O3a2*-P201 in Philippines (the likely origin) is actually polyphyletic".

    It doesn't 'preclude' the possibility, but it makes it extremely unlikely.

    "I'd say that the origin of O3a2 remains open with Sundaland being a candidate (the other being South China, where all clades are found, unlike the other regions). The handicap for Sundaland is the lack of O3a2b-M7 but the extremely high amounts of O3a2*-P201 could well compensate it. It all depends on the internal structure of the 'asterisk' paragroup".

    And a huge 'handicap' it is. It is extremely unlikely that O3a2a, O3a2b and O3a2c have all moved north into China from Sundaland. It is far more likely that a lone O3a haplogroup left Southern China at some time and moved through the Malay Peninsula and out into the Pacific. O3a2-P201 appears 'everywhere' and O3a2*, at least beyond Western Indonesia, is almost certainly just a single haplogroup. The internal structure is yet to be worked out but it is extremely likely that the defining mutation is as yet undiscovered.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "Still almost all O3a2 in China is O3a2c, what is consistent with my narrative so far. O3a2*, O3a2a and O3a2b are found only in small numbers and, exception O3a2b (more common around Shanghai), all are more common to the South (O3a2a is only found over there)".

    Yes. The derived haplogroups have become much more common than are their ancestral haplogroups. In a sense derived haplogroups have replaced basal haplogroups, but this is much more likely to be a product of later expansion of population numbers rather than direct 'replacement'.

    "Also that table provides info on O2(xO2a,O2b) which is not that rare, reaching highest concentrations around Shanghai (6%)".

    Which is exactly where I've long maintained both O2a and O2b started from, i.e. The mouth of the Yangtze.

    "We should not forget about Indochina, after all it's the region in between and the research is poor".

    I remember an excellent paper on Laos mtDNA, which I think you blogged about. The haplogroups 'missing' in Laos are as interesting as those present. It tends to support an mtDNA M entry into East Asia via Northeast India and Southwest China, rather than via the coast.

    "I for one do not believe in Sino-Tibetan too much. I treat Tibeto-Burman and Sinitic as two distinct language families. They may still be related but that's an open matter".

    Most linguists assume they are related. And Tibeto-Burman is also part of the mix. I tend to accept the linguistic connection as it fits what little we know about the prehistory of the region.

    "Also I do not think that the people who moved northwards (or southwards or whatever) some 40 or 30 Ka can be described as speaking anything that we can describe other than as 'some language(s)'".

    Unlikely to leave even the slightest trace of common origin at that age though.

    "But indeed the people moved North first and later they moved Southwards with smaller impact (and maybe again northwards and southwards and that is what we are trying to discern)".

    I agree. and the fact that we have surviving 'Negrito' groups suggests very strongly that there has been a relatively recent movement into the region from elsewhere. And let's not forget that it was probably NO that moved north, not O and N separately.

    By the way. Your consistent arguing against my position has helped me considerably in my efforts to trace the ancient origin of the Polynesians. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "... but that tells us nothing about basal O1".

    I am not aware of O1(xO1a) anywhere. It probably does exist but at very low frequencies. I don't know of any study that has identified it clearly.

    Whatever the case I was talking of O1a all the time (because I can't judge the upstream node without data). It was you who assumed that the conclusions extended to all O1. I have never said that however (although it is possible for what I know).

    "Mentawai and Nias, at least, were probably completely uninhabited until Austronesian-speaking people arrived".

    That's just a guess. Nias looks like it is the case but the Mentawai have a distinct, local, Y-DNA composition that does not necessarily or even likely fit with that idea. Also culturally, the people of Nias seem somewhat "more civilized" than the Mentawai, who could well represent an older layer.

    "Why would you expect the retention of proportion?"

    Because if one people (which according to you is the only source of those haplogroups) emigrates and colonizes other areas, chances are that the proportion of the ancestral lineages are roughly retained. Just compare Y-DNA in New Zealand with Y-DNA in the British Islands: the proportions should be roughly the same, specially for larger categories as haplogroups of the level of O1a2 and O1a1 (i.e. we are not looking at hyper-specific family-lineage level but whole haplogroups).

    "It is extremely unlikely that O3a2a, O3a2b and O3a2c have all moved north into China from Sundaland".

    I did not say that. IF O3a2 is original from the South, at least O3a2b is not and must have coalesced in China. But at the O3a2 level we just do not know and the situation is very balanced so taking sides for a China origin is a subjective choice and not an objective one.

    I'm not willing to discuss your subjectivity. You just assume that your fantasies equal to "high likelhood" and that is not that way in reality.

    Reality check, Terry.

    ReplyDelete
  87. 'Because if one people (which according to you is the only source of those haplogroups) emigrates and colonizes other areas, chances are that the proportion of the ancestral lineages are roughly retained".

    Migration is extremely unlikely to consist of a representative sample of the source population.

    "Just compare Y-DNA in New Zealand with Y-DNA in the British Islands: the proportions should be roughly the same"

    Not so. Southern England, lowland Scotland and Northern Ireland are over-represented.

    "IF O3a2 is original from the South, at least O3a2b is not and must have coalesced in China. But at the O3a2 level we just do not know and the situation is very balanced so taking sides for a China origin is a subjective choice and not an objective one".

    That is a very big assumption with your 'IF'. I agree that O3a2b must have coalesced in China, but I see no reason at all why you insist on the possibility that O3a2 did not coalesce there. Perhaps it would pay you to check up on what various authors mean by 'South Chinese'. Usually they mean 'south of the Tsin Ling Mountains' and that includes virtually all of the Yangtze valley. It does not mean just the mountainous region in Southern China.

    "so taking sides for a China origin is a subjective choice and not an objective one".

    Even Karafet takes as assumed that the original O Y-haps in SE Asia are immigrants. She actually provides a wide window for their arrival: 19-8 ka. Presumably she places their origin in China somewhere.

    "Also culturally, the people of Nias seem somewhat 'more civilized' than the Mentawai, who could well represent an older layer".

    This link may explain why that is:

    http://www.rogerblench.info/Archaeology%20data/SE%20Asia/Berlin%202010/Nias%20Euraseaa%20paper%20final.pdf

    "Nias looks like it is the case but the Mentawai have a distinct, local, Y-DNA composition that does not necessarily or even likely fit with that idea".

    The main difference appears to be that Mentawai has Y-hap C, presumably C2. How does that difference make it unlikely that Mentawai was uninhabited before the Austronesians arrived? C2 is certainly associated with Austronesians to the east, and looks very likely to have originated in Southern Wallacea. And even though the Nias link suggests people were in Nias by 12,000 years ago they stress that those people died out, either before or after the Austronesians arrived.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "Southern England, lowland Scotland and Northern Ireland are over-represented".

    Maybe but still the distortion of overall British lineages for that reason is extreme or just mild. I'm sure it's quite mild and that you don't get 90% R1a anywhere in New Zealand, not even 90% R1b, even if the starting gene pool is at least 50% for this lineage.

    "I see no reason at all why you insist on the possibility that O3a2 did not coalesce there".

    It's obvious: there is a lot of unresolved O3a2* in Indonesia and NOT in China. That is a big flashing exclamation mark on Indonesia that you should be able to see - so it's only your dark glasses.

    "Even Karafet takes as assumed that the original O Y-haps in SE Asia are immigrants".

    There are barriers that she dares to cross and others that she does not. An opinion is not important unless you found yours on what others think and not the data. I may do that on matters I do not know much about, like football, but not on matters I have a keen interest in.

    "The main difference appears to be that Mentawai has Y-hap C"...

    No, that was not what I meant: the Mentawai have lots O1a*-M119, which is totally absent in Taiwan. For that reason they look as mostly pre-Austronesians (Y-DNA-wise), as do other Indonesians, Filipino, etc. (most Austronesian-speakers in fact look strikingly non-Taiwanese from a genetic viewpoint, notably Y-DNA).

    I do not know how the paper you linked could explain the peculiar Taiwan affinity of Nias (can you explain with your own words?) but it is indeed interesting in a very general sense.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Erratum:

    "Maybe but still the distortion of overall British lineages for that reason is extreme or just mild".

    ... should be read as a question:

    "Maybe but, still, IS the distortion of overall British lineages for that reason extreme or just mild?"

    Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "Maybe but, still, IS the distortion of overall British lineages for that reason extreme or just mild?"

    Reasonably mild would be my guess. But in the case of a migration from Taiwan I would expect one particular region within the island to be involved more than would be the island as a whole. Perhaps the part of Taiwan nearest the Philippines. I seem to remember that the Malayo-Polynesian language family is most closely related to a southern Taiwanese language, as in this link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayo-Polynesian_languages

    Quote:

    "The Malayo-Polynesian languages share several phonological and lexical innovations with the eastern Formosan languages"

    "It's obvious: there is a lot of unresolved O3a2* in Indonesia and NOT in China. That is a big flashing exclamation mark on Indonesia that you should be able to see - so it's only your dark glasses".

    The problem for you is that the 'big flashing exclamation mark' includes Tonga. That remote island is extremely unlikely to contain a wide variety of O3 haplogroups. Consequently it is reasonable to assume that the Indonesian O3a2* is actually just a single haplogroup within O3a2. There are any number of O3a2 haplogroups in China, and even in Japan and Tibet.

    "There are barriers that she dares to cross and others that she does not".

    Changed you mind, have you?

    "most Austronesian-speakers in fact look strikingly non-Taiwanese from a genetic viewpoint, notably Y-DNA".

    Migration to Taiwan from the mainland was certainly not just confined to the period of the Kuomintang.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang

    "the Mentawai have lots O1a*-M119, which is totally absent in Taiwan. For that reason they look as mostly pre-Austronesians (Y-DNA-wise), as do other Indonesians, Filipino, etc".

    Indonesians and Filipinos look very much like slightly smaller versions of Polynesians, a people who are certainly not 'pre-Austronesians'. And 'Austronesian Y-DNA' is a mix of O1, O3 and C2, not just one particular haplogroup. I've mentioned before that the absence of O1a*-M119 on Taiwan could be explained as a result of drift.

    "I do not know how the paper you linked could explain the peculiar Taiwan affinity of Nias"

    I linked to it to explain the difference between that island and Mentawai. The paper is also very relevant regarding particulars within the Austronesian expansion.

    ReplyDelete
  91. "But in the case of a migration from Taiwan I would expect one particular region within the island to be involved more than would be the island as a whole".

    Maybe but that makes it even harder that such a tiny source could replace all the ancestral inhabitants of Sundaland/Philippines.

    And, anyhow, they are still lacking O1a*.

    And, anyhow, IF they are +/- the same as the rest of Taiwan when colonizing Nias or Java (at 10% dilution in this case), why would they'd be different for the rest of islands?

    No reason.

    So assuming a source population like average Taiwan Aboriginals is most reasonable. And no matter what acrobatics you make, it does NOT fit with the end result.

    "The problem for you is that the 'big flashing exclamation mark' includes Tonga".

    No problem, as Tonga is in my scheme derive from derived from the Malay Archipelago. It's trivial: a founder effect accident in a small remote island group, not any problem.

    "There are any number of O3a2 haplogroups in China, and even in Japan and Tibet".

    We need better resolution.

    "Migration to Taiwan from the mainland was certainly not just confined to the period of the Kuomintang".

    What the heck?! "Non-Taiwanese" or "in Taiwan" in the context of this discussion refer ONLY to Taiwanese aboriginals, whose Y-DNA gene pool is very specific. Why do you AGAIN try to confuse things instead of just facing the facts?

    "Indonesians and Filipinos look very much like slightly smaller versions of Polynesians"...

    Like the motherland of Polynesia in fact.

    "I've mentioned before that the absence of O1a*-M119 on Taiwan could be explained as a result of drift".

    I don't accept that argument. I've also said that before.

    ReplyDelete
  92. 'We need better resolution".

    Yes we do. But until such time as we have better resolution it is still unlikely that multiple O3a2-P201 lines made it beyond Western Indonesia while such a limited number of other O haplogroups even made it that far.

    "I don't accept that argument. I've also said that before".

    And the only reason you don't accept it is because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  93. The only reason why I do not accept that argument is that it makes no sense whatsoever that some 10-20% of O1a* has just vanished "by drift" AFTER the Austronesian emigration from Taiwan. It's totally against Occam's Razor and demands lots of FAITH to believe such nonsense. It's not much more credible than the 12 plagues and such.

    ReplyDelete

Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. Personal attacks, manipulation and trolling are also very much unwelcome here.The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Preliminary comment moderation is... ON (sorry, too many trolls).