 |
| Mehri boy |
While my reserves are about the size of samples, specially in Africa and the depth of lineage description, Terry argues that these lineages appear to be younger in Arabia than those arrived from South Asia, notably R0a (R0a1 actually in this area).
The lineages I feel most confident, after due revision, to represent an ancient flow out of Africa across the Red Sea at nearly the same time as the flow that seeded Eurasia with modern humankind (lineages M and N) are L0a1b2, L0f2a, L6, L4b1 and L3e2b2 (in red below).
In the following scheme the ">" signs represent one coding region mutation each (using PhyloTree, build 12). Count begins at the MRCA of all humans, "mtDNA Eve". Purple color used to mark x10 CR mutations from MRCA for easier count.
>>>>>>>>>L0
>>L0'a'b'f'k
>>>>>L0a'b'f
>>>L0a'b
>>>>L0a
>L0a1
>>L0a1b
>>L0a1b2 (Arabia Pen.)
>>>>>>>>>L0f
>>>>L0f2
>>>>L0f2a (Oman)
>>>>>L1-6
>>>>L2-6
>>>>>>>L2'3'4'6
>>L3'4'6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>L6 (Yemen)
>>>L3'4
>L4
>>L4b
·······> L4b1 (infinite line, Yemen)
>>L3
>L3e'i'k'x
>>L3e
>L3e2
>L3e2b2 (Oman, Egypt)>>L0'a'b'f'k
>>>>>L0a'b'f
>>>L0a'b
>>>>L0a
>L0a1
>>L0a1b
>>L0a1b2 (Arabia Pen.)
>>>>>>>>>L0f
>>>>L0f2
>>>>L0f2a (Oman)
>>>>>L1-6
>>>>L2-6
>>>>>>>L2'3'4'6
>>L3'4'6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>L6 (Yemen)
>>>L3'4
>L4
>>L4b
·······> L4b1 (infinite line, Yemen)
>>L3
>L3e'i'k'x
>>L3e
>L3e2
>>>M
>M1'20'51
>>>>M1
>>>>>N
>N1'5
>>N1
>N1a'c'd'e'l
>>N1a'e'l
>>>>N1a
>R
>R0
>R0a'b
>>R0a
>R0a1
>HV
>>H (for reference only)
>R2'JT
>>JT
>>>J
>J1
>J1b
>>>U
>U2'3'4'7'8'9
>U8
>>>U8b
>>>K
The blue clades are not necessarily only found in Arabia but they are common enough to help us discern the matter and, in any case, did not coalesce before the backflow from Southern Asia took place, maybe c. 48,000 years ago.
What can we discern? That at least two of the suspect lineages appear to be older than any backflow from Asia, which could not have happened before the 30th C.R. mutational step. These two lineages (L0a1b2 and L3e2b2) coalesced, it seems, at the 28th mutational step and are therefore of the same estimated age as N, the ancestor of R0a, which probably lived in SE Asia.
L0f2a also coalesced before R0a1 (1 mutational step earlier). L6 however appears younger but it is the best researched case of all these lineages, with the haplotype structure pointing to a coalescence in Yemen (and later migration to Semitic Ethiopia). So what it lacks in age, it has in certainty.
My only claim is that these lineages may be remnants of a once maybe steady flow across the Red Sea into Arabia Peninsula (evidence for the Fertile Crescent seems weaker), survivors of bottlenecks produced by periods of aridity and the backflow from South Asia and further North in the West Asian region.
There may be more, looking at Amero 2007 there is a clear diversity of L(xM,N) lineages in the area but no academic effort has been made to discern which of these L(xM,N) lineages might be specific of Arabia (or North Africa also) with deep local roots. In general the assumption has been that they are recent historical arrivals but that assumption probably does not hold. L(xM,N) lineages in Yemen (the most fertile part of Arabia) are as much as 37%.
Another complaint by Terry is that there is not much L3 in the region, what makes these lineages less likely (??) to be part of an Out-of-Africa migration led precisely by L3 subclades (M and N). I have admittedly not found too many specific L3 sublineages that can be claimed to be part of such old OoA flow into Arabia but the possibility remains as L3 makes up 11% of Yemeni mtDNA pool and L3d is surprisingly common (4%, more than in Ethiopia), hinting at the possibility of finding other Arabian-specific lineages within this clade.
The full development of this line of research obviously beats my means, as I only work with data mined by academic researchers. I can just hope that someone finds this preliminary exploration interesting and develops it further in the future.
Based on the lack of L3 and lack of L2 (characteristic of Bantu and Western Africa) and the association of the many branches of the old lineages with hunter-gatherer groups in Africa, particularly East Africa, I'd have to favor a slave trade/indentured servitude theory rather than a remnant of Out of Africa theory for these L haplogroups. There is too much diversity and the wrong hgs for these to be remanants of an Out of Africa population and the opportunity for Indian ocean trade to transport people prehistorically was definitely present from Egyptian times at least.
ReplyDeletePrecisely it is "the association of the many branches of the old lineages with hunter-gatherer groups in Africa" one of the aspects that I find most striking: would it be slave trade or otherwise migration within the Indian Ocean trade routes, the last we should expect is any correlation with tiny marginal hunter-gatherer groups. We'd find a typical Bantu or rather Bantu/Nilotic/Cushitic but mainstream, not marginal.
ReplyDeleteForagers by the way do not make good slaves, that's the main reason behind the Native American genocide (together with the bacterian shock): that they were not good disciplined workers but rebellious and lazy (except in the areas where there were previously existing illustrated tyrannies... I mean... "agrarian civilizations").
When Europeans looked for a replacement, they did not look for sparse and equally indomitable hunter-gatherer sources such as Pygmies or Khoisans but for your usual African Iron Age farmer.
I really can't understand why, with so many clues, you reach to such strange conclusions.
I agree with Andrew to a large extent. However I feel no need to suggest they are as recent as 'slave trade/indentured servitude theory'. They could well be older than that.
ReplyDelete"would it be slave trade or otherwise migration within the Indian Ocean trade routes, the last we should expect is any correlation with tiny marginal hunter-gatherer groups. We'd find a typical Bantu or rather Bantu/Nilotic/Cushitic but mainstream, not marginal".
No. Those groups are not really 'coastal'. We would expect mt-haps that made it to Southern arabia to belong to Easter african haplogroups. That is exactly what we find.
"I really can't understand why, with so many clues, you reach to such strange conclusions".
My sentiments exactly, but in my case the doubts apply to your beliefs.
"Another complaint by Terry is that there is not much L3 in the region, what makes these lineages less likely (??) to be part of an Out-of-Africa migration led precisely by L3 subclades (M and N). I have admittedly not found too many specific L3 sublineages that can be claimed to be part of such old OoA flow into Arabia"
That remains a huge obstacle. Your 'explanation' is completely inadequate.
"These two lineages (L0a1b2 and L3e2b2) coalesced, it seems, at the 28th mutational step and are therefore of the same estimated age as N, the ancestor of R0a, which probably lived in SE Asia".
Almost certainly N and M coalesced outside Africa and so the mutation level for N you should be considering is the time of coalescence of N from L3: 23 mutations. The two '28 mutation lineages' are therefore younger than the OoA. And consider the spread of the haplogroups L0a1b and L3e2b. Both reasonably widespread within Africa.
"My only claim is that these lineages may be remnants of a once maybe steady flow across the Red Sea into Arabia Peninsula (evidence for the Fertile Crescent seems weaker)"
I agree they 'may' be, but unlikely to be as ancient as the OoA. I also agree it is unlikely that they represent flow via the Fertile Crescent.
"We would expect mt-haps that made it to Southern arabia to belong to Easter african haplogroups. That is exactly what we find".
ReplyDeleteNo. That is not what we find: the lineages I mentioned are exclusive of Arabia (or, in the case of L6, diversity and ethno-history tells us they originated there).
Even the other lineages in many cases do not seem to be typical Zandji lineages at all.
"That remains a huge obstacle".
Not really because all I know about this is that presumed "African" L(xM,N) lineages appear to exist since the time of the OoA in Arabia.
I understand that different lineages within the L3'4'6 and L0 pools (L2?, L5?) emigrated then and that, with time, because of drift and the pressure of Asian back-migrants, many of them (including pre-M and pre-N), went extinct.
The reasons for the survival of this or that lineage here or there are quite random and in any case not something we can unravel without a time machine with DNA-testing lab.
"Almost certainly N and M coalesced outside Africa"...
Indeed. And that is also the case of the L lineages we find specific of Arabia.
But while M and N clearly experienced large star-like expansive phenomena, this is not the case for the Arabian clades (logically because "empty" India and SE Asia were and still are much more favorable and simply large habitats than Yemen and Oman).
"And consider the spread of the haplogroups L0a1b and L3e2b. Both reasonably widespread within Africa".
You have claimed this before but that's not that way at all: L0a1b AFAIK has been found in two extreme locations of Africa only: among the Khoisan and in Morocco, so it's not "widespread" but "wildly scattered" in fact it seems to be a lineage that did not survive in its original East Africa (?) or maybe survived in a remote unsampled population (but this so far is not any data). The estimated age of the lineage and such suggests that this scatter is broadly related to the OoA (of which migration to North Africa, not discussed here) is also a part.
Finally I am arguing here for a descendant of that lineage (with such strong migrant tendencies in the deep past), L0a1b2, and caring to make sure that its characterization is not blurred by that of its ancestors and relatives. What you say is as good as describing M based on L3.
L3e2 is indeed widespread in Africa (as we can expect of many of those ancient lineages that were there maybe 100,000 years ago), specially in West Africa (but not East). L3e2b still has a branch representing it in West Africa... but L3e2b2b, what matters here, is only found in Oman and Egypt AFAIK.
So not just "widespread in Africa" is a useless generalization (aimed only at creating confusion and not at clarifying matters) but the African ancestors are not the migrant descendants. And we are interested here only on these.
... "but unlikely to be as ancient as the OoA"
More or less that's what I get from the data. Hence I'd like that you question if (if you must) with data and not with weasel words that only represent belief and preconception such as "unlikely" or "I think".
If not from the OoA as such, from its rear end wave, and preceding the backflow from mainland Asia.
Foragers by the way do not make good slaves, that's the main reason behind the Native American genocide (together with the bacterian shock): that they were not good disciplined workers but rebellious and lazy (except in the areas where there were previously existing illustrated tyrannies... I mean... "agrarian civilizations").
ReplyDeleteNo, it wasn't the "main reason" at all and, more generally, I find that a sound critique of history is best founded upon objective fact and not distilled synthetically from a political ideology.
Dowd's, War Under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations, and the British Empire, is probably a good place to begin your education.
I disagree, to begin with because you are not expressing your own opinion but someone else's and you know it so badly that you cannot expose it yourself in your own words. It's like a religious believer addressing me to a superior "authority" like a preacher or a theologist. If you are in such situation, Highlander, you should not "give lessons".
ReplyDeleteSecond, because I think I already have a good education on the matter and my own sound opinions and I'm open to discuss them directly.
"I really can't understand why, with so many clues, you reach to such strange conclusions."
ReplyDeleteMy theory is that when it comes to low level isolated person snatching, as opposed to the kind of commercially/sovereignly endorsed scale trade of the triangular trade across the Atlantic, that hunter-gatherer people are least able to defend themselves and hence more vulnerable.
Also, consider that we are seeing mtDNA signs, which mean female salves, at low levels, in a context in which there is no reason to think that slaves were sought for hard organized field or manfacturing or mining or construction labor. These women were likely snatched in low numbers to be concubines, exotic additions to the household for display, and perhaps nannies. There is no good reason to think that hunter-gather women would be inferior for these purposes.
In general they are much less available. I never heard of hunter-gatherers being enslaved in Africa (except as whole tribal groups and very sui-generis forms of servitude) but if you read Livingston's journey, he goes through scores of eerie abandoned farmer villages in East Africa, which were the main source of the slave trade.
ReplyDeleteEven in South Africa Bushmen were not usually enslaved, Khoikhoi (Hottentots, pastoralists) were instead. Bushmen were murdered, hunted like vermin.
Today there is still some slave trade in parts of Africa, specially with children. These are usually sold by their relatives. This kind of "production" was surely also a source but it's also something unthinkable for the hunter-gatherer mentality: you need to be civilized (and possibly a drug addict, alcoholic...) to value money and wealth, specially up to the point of selling your nephew.
"No. That is not what we find: the lineages I mentioned are exclusive of Arabia"
ReplyDeleteBut they're all downstream clades of haplogroups found in East Africa. I'll admit L:6 is rather strange but we shouldn't jump to conclusions over just one haplogroup.
"Not really because all I know about this is that presumed 'African' L(xM,N) lineages appear to exist since the time of the OoA in Arabia".
You'd like to believe that but you have not shown it to be so. They don't really fit any 'original' modern mtDNA OoA.
"I understand that different lineages within the L3'4'6 and L0 pools (L2?, L5?) emigrated then and that, with time, because of drift and the pressure of Asian back-migrants, many of them (including pre-M and pre-N), went extinct".
You are forced to assume they have become extinct in order to fit the evidence to your belief. I'll admit drift may have acted to some extent, but it is completely possible to explain the evidence without resorting to that magic trick.
"Indeed. And that is also the case of the L lineages we find specific of Arabia".
Quite possibly so, but they coalesced there some time after L3 (in the form of M and N) had emerged from Africa.
"But while M and N clearly experienced large star-like expansive phenomena, this is not the case for the Arabian clades (logically because 'empty' India and SE Asia were and still are much more favorable and simply large habitats than Yemen and Oman)".
Yet curiously haplogroup R0 experienced a 'large star-like expansive phenomena' in that region. Doesn't that suggest it was empty when R arrived? And it is obvious from that that M and N didn't enter Eurasia via Yemen and Oman.
"L0a1b AFAIK has been found in two extreme locations of Africa only: among the Khoisan and in Morocco, so it's not 'widespread' but 'wildly scattered' in fact it seems to be a lineage that did not survive in its original East Africa"
It is true that L0a1b1 is found only in 'the Khoisan and in Morocco', but your own diagram of some time ago has L0a1b surviving 'in its original East Africa', in the Sudan and Chad. Presumably L0a1b1 made it to the geographic extremities of L0a1b's expansion.
"Finally I am arguing here for a descendant of that lineage (with such strong migrant tendencies in the deep past), L0a1b2, and caring to make sure that its characterization is not blurred by that of its ancestors and relatives".
ReplyDeleteL0a1b2 is present in Arabia but we have no way of knowing its route there. Its origin lies probably somewhere in the Sudan, not across the Red Sea from Yemen.
"L3e2 is indeed widespread in Africa (as we can expect of many of those ancient lineages that were there maybe 100,000 years ago), specially in West Africa (but not East)".
That would strongly imply that the whole L3 clade is west Ethiopian, not east Ethiopian. Let's not forget that 'Ethiopia' includes the whole margin of the Ethiopian Highlands, not just the eastern margin and the Red Sea coast. I've noticed that you consistently ignore geography and ecology. This led recently to your ridiculous comments concerning the SE Asian/New Guinea rainforest.
"but L3e2b2b, what matters here, is only found in Oman and Egypt AFAIK".
Again we have no way of knowing L3e2b2's route from Egypt to Oman, but it need not have been via the Bab al Mandab. After all, according to your old diagram, L3e2 is present in Jordan, and L3e1 makes it into Palestine, Syria and Arabia.
"but the African ancestors are not the migrant descendants".
But many of them did migrate, if only within Africa. We can safely assume that the exit from Africa was accompanied by some sort of expansion within Africa.
"Hence I'd like that you question if (if you must) with data"
I have, but it's a bit long to post as a comment. But I certainly concluded that the expansion from Ethiopia was from the western margin of the Highlands, not from the Highlands themselves, or from the eastern margin.
L6 is just like any of the rest. It is also downstream to L3'4'6, which is original from Africa and widespread there (as L3 and L4). You should not be deceived by a mere matter of nomenclature (in any case L6 and L4 are minor "pre-L3" clades).
ReplyDeleteContrary to your second one-liner (quit that totally brainless custom, please!) I have shown (according to my usual methodology of coding region mutation count from the MRCA) that the lineages were in Arabia since the times of the OoA.
You have a problem with "pruning" by drift (and other phenomena like being rolled over by masses of Eurasian back-migrants). That's your problem: the mechanism is not just plausible but extremely likely.
"... haplogroup R0 experienced a 'large star-like expansive phenomena' in that region".
R0 did not. Star-like structures are apparent downstream, at the R0a1a and the R0a2 levels. I am in position to tell you upfront that R0a2 has nothing to do with Arabia because the Arabian subclade is R0a1 (per Amero 2007, link in article, mentioned as "(preHV)1").
So at best there is a smaller (four branches) R0a1a "star-like" structure. It would have to be demonstrated that it belongs to the geography of Arabia but let's assume it's correct: what difference does it make?
"Doesn't that suggest it was empty when R arrived?"
No. The same that the huge M and H star-like clusters do not preclude previous inhabitants, such as the famous Neanderthals. It just indicates a rapid expansion, whatever the reasons.
"And it is obvious from that that M and N didn't enter Eurasia via Yemen and Oman".
???????????
Obvious? Not obvious at all to me. M and N first of all never entered Eurasia but coalesced already in Asia. Precursor L3 did, we do not know at what "evolutionary" stage (there's some "other" or M* category in Arabia but hard to say what it means).
"but your own diagram of some time ago has L0a1b surviving 'in its original East Africa', in the Sudan and Chad"...
Fair enough: L0a1b* is found in those areas (I missed that detail). It does not matter because that would be the remnant of the common ancestor of all branches and here I am interested ONLY in L0a1b2, which is not found out of Arabia AFAIK and sits in time between the coalescence of M and that of N (i.e. before the R0a1+ backflow).
"That would strongly imply that the whole L3 clade is west Ethiopian, not east Ethiopian".
L3e2 on its own does not say much of the whole L3 clade, sorry. At most may indicate something about L3e2 itself (of course) and L3e. L3e2 is several levels downstream of L3 and L3 has scores of hanging branches of that level. L3e2 is comparable in phylogenetic layer and overall weight within L3 to M1 or R0, go figure!
"... your ridiculous comments concerning the SE Asian/New Guinea rainforest".
No idea what's "ridiculous" about them. And better not begin debating ridiculousness... you may end up in the wrong end of the comparison.
(continues below)
...
ReplyDelete"Again we have no way of knowing L3e2b2's route from Egypt to Oman, but it need not have been via the Bab al Mandab. After all, according to your old diagram, L3e2 is present in Jordan, and L3e1 makes it into Palestine, Syria and Arabia".
Bravo! I was in fact waiting to see if you could spot that one. This lineage is the "weak link" indeed, specially if you wish to emphasize the L3 aspect of the migration, which is apparent in the final result M and N, both being L3 sublineages.
Let me discuss this in somewhat greater extension than usual.
Michael Petraglia argued that, in his qualified opinion, there was rather a front advance all through Arabia Peninsula c. 90 Ka ago. On the other hand Armitage argued for a strictly coastal route c. 130 Ka. In addition Rose mentioned the swampy Persian Gulf "oasis" and I made my last incursion on the debate here.
Actually per Petraglia 2009 (complemented with Armitage 2011), there is evidence for two waves: one rather thin and coastal and probably now totally extinct and another thicker and not strictly coastal (but rather through all the Arabia Peninsula like a long wave). This one is probably at the origin of modern Eurasians (at least via mtDNA, and probably Y-DNA as well).
But let's be clear: L3e is not much more closely related to M and N than L4 is. Emphasizing L3 may be convenient at this point for your pet theory but it's not as safe as you want us believe. Less so when L3i phylo-geo-centroid appears to hang right over the middle of the Southern Red Sea and L3 itself (its phylo-geo-centroid) is extremely close to the southern end of the Red Sea, even if we remove M and N from the equation (although this is more true of its ancestors L3'4 and L3'4'6).
Crossing the Red Sea, which was generally even narrower than today, may have been easier in any case than crossing the Sinai Desert. Also the archaeological evidence does support a strictly coastal migration (Armitage) even if this one failed to set the foundations (mostly?, did it?) of the modern Eurasian macro-population.
"We can safely assume that the exit from Africa was accompanied by some sort of expansion within Africa".
Maybe but this is not probably the best place to debate that.
"I have [data = factual evidence], but it's a bit long to post as a comment".
Well, post it in your blog, in two comments... I don't care as long as we can access it.
"But I certainly concluded that the expansion from Ethiopia was from the western margin of the Highlands, not from the Highlands themselves, or from the eastern margin".
What about L3'4 or L3'4'6? They look totally "Eritrean" to me.
"What about L3'4 or L3'4'6? They look totally 'Eritrean' to me".
ReplyDeleteFrom that post:
"Then L3'4 split up, with L3 expanding rapidly in Ethiopia, Sudan and towards Lake Chad and L4 scattering along the Rift Valley down to Tanzania"
I agree. So where is the evidence for an Eritrean origin? Far more likely to indicate a West Ethiopian origin, surely, rather than 'Eritrean'. You even mention that the centroids are 'raw'.
"Michael Petraglia argued that, in his qualified opinion, there was rather a front advance all through Arabia Peninsula c. 90 Ka ago".
I'd agree with that, except I'd place its entry to somewhere near the mediterranean coast.
"But let's be clear: L3e is not much more closely related to M and N than L4 is".
But it is 'more closely related', and you cannot ignore that fact just because it suits your hypothesis. And L3e is certainly closely related to L3i, L3k and L3x than it is to any other L3s let alone L4.
"Bravo! I was in fact waiting to see if you could spot that one. This lineage is the 'weak link' indeed"
Very weak link, whatever way you choose to look at it. L3e'i'k'x is a most interesting haplogroup. Your diagram has L3k in 'North Africa', L3i in 'Ethiopia, Sudan, Oman and Yemen' and L3x in 'Ethiopia, Arabia and Yemen'. L3e is even more interesting. L3e1 in 'Kenya, South Africa, Palestine, Syria, Arabia and Oman', L3e2 in 'Ethiopia, West Africa, Egypt an Oman' and L3e3'4'5 in 'Ethiopia, Chad, Kenya, West and South Africa, Arabia and Yemen'. Hardly convincing evidence for a crossing of the Red Sea at some stage. In fact we have E3e1 in Egypt, Palestine and Syria.
"Well, post it in your blog, in two comments... I don't care as long as we can access it'.
ReplyDeleteI can do it briefly now. At the beginning of l3's expansion its geographic range almost certainly included Ethiopia. Even M and N have representativeds there, although almost certainly the product of back migration. L3a and L3h2 are confined to Ethiopia as far as I can tell. But L3h2's sister haplogroup tends to have a western spread, perhaps from the Sudan or Chad. I'd guess that L3h2's long 'tail' is the result of a long period of drift while confined to little more than a single mountain valley, rather than being an indication of a long period of wandering.
But as well as Ethiopia most L3 haplogroups are well represented in the Sudan and Chad as well. As well as Kenya. That implies very strongly that L3's original geographic range included much of those regions as well. In other words the western and southern margins of the Ethiopian Highlands. Their geographic spread is not contiguous with the Eastern margin of the Ethiopian Highlands, or the Red Sea coast. The only possible 'Eritrean' haplogroup is L3c, but even then its closest relations are L3j in the Sudan and L3d, widespread in West Africa. So L3 looks most likely to be a West Ethiopian/Sudan haplogroup, not a Red Sea haplogroup.
Sorry I missed your earlier comment, but I'm sure I've covered it. Except for:
ReplyDelete"No idea what's "ridiculous" about them".
What is ridiculous is your display of a total lack of understanding of geography of ecology. If I can be bothered I'll go back and comment.
"So where is the evidence for an Eritrean origin?"
ReplyDeleteThere's no specific evidence other than archaeological facts and inferences (by me) from genetic facts. For me it's more than good enough, specially because I see no evidence that could counter it.
"Far more likely to indicate a West Ethiopian origin, surely, rather than 'Eritrean'. You even mention that the centroids are 'raw'".
I don't see too clear that this is that way. When I drew the likely origin of L3'4'6 I located it on Eritrea, and I had to do the same with L3'4. When I drew L3 I projected it over a larger area which includes Eritrea, most of Ethiopia and much of the Sudans. Do you want it to be "Western Ethiopia"? I don't have any objection except that it is probably too localized to represent well the truth of a people which alread appears to be expansive and moving and which came from the Eritrea area in any case, and whose closest relatives are located in Yemen (L6) and maybe Somalia or Kenya (centroid of L4?)
But sure: the Blue Nile is a great area to have been one of the main centers of that population. In fact at some point I considered that the border zone between Ethiopia and the Sudans was maybe all the time the "pump" from where each branch (L0, L1, L2) represented a migration. But I on second thought I felt that was too much.
"... except I'd place its entry to somewhere near the mediterranean coast".
We don't have much evidence from Egypt, which would be the necessary passage. The rare L(xM,N) clades are less abundant in Egypt than in NW Africa or Arabia, only the Levant is even less of a flashing light in this matter. The shared lineage between Egypt and Oman might have migrated from Egypt very long ago but may well have also migrated from Oman with the Arabs in fact, or even recently from Egypt to Oman also. We just don't know.
What we know is that where I have spotted 5-6 such lineages in Arabia and 4 in NW Africa, I have only located 2 in Egypt and one in the Levant. Of course there may be flukes in all this data but until we get better stuff that's what we have.
...
...
ReplyDelete"But it is 'more closely related'"...
Actually not. The same that your niece is not more related to you than your aunt. You opened my eyes with this sentence that follows:
"And L3e is certainly closely related to L3i, L3k and L3x than it is to any other L3s let alone L4".
Bravo! Good finding! Do you notice that all the L3(xM,N) clades I have spotted in this OoA observation belong to L3e'i'k'x?! L3e2b,L3k and L3i! These do not represent the expansion of L3 as such but of sublineage L3e'i'k'x. That's brilliant! It's obvious but I would have probably never thought of it without this sentence of yours.
When you look at the known locations of this, mostly African, macro-lineage, we can easily see how it is scattered mostly through the Sahel... and across the Sahara into North Africa and West Asia (mostly Levant, the main exception being L3i, which is the branch of the Red Sea - both shores). L3e'i'k'x is indeed the "little OoA sister" of M and N but it remained in Africa mostly, even with a strong tendency towards the North and the Red Sea and Levant. This makes sense because L3e'i'k'x branched out two mutational steps earlier than M. So pre-M and pre-N were still in embryonic state and did not participate of this L3e'i'k'x expansion. This says nothing in positive but is suggestive that they may have been part of a more underdog kind of migration, where they did not have the opportunities for expansion until they arrived to South Asia.
"L3e'i'k'x is a most interesting haplogroup".
Yes indeed. :)
"Your diagram has L3k in 'North Africa', L3i in 'Ethiopia, Sudan, Oman and Yemen' and L3x in 'Ethiopia, Arabia and Yemen'"...
Yes! :D
For once we agree. It says nothing of M and N but we can agree on this very well.
About M and N... did they migrate with the offshoots of L3e we have been considering or with L3i? Or a totally different case like with aunt L4's clan?
We can't discern that. Not with the current data.
"The only possible 'Eritrean' haplogroup is L3c"...
ReplyDeleteOf course Eritrea is a smaller place than Ethiopia or Sudan and, in addition, it has not been sampled. So when we talk of Eritrea is always by approximations. Most of the Ethiopian rare lineages probably come from the tribal state of the SW and guess one can easily build a narrative on such diversity and trace it back to Omo 2. It's possible but also extremely risky. We don't have skulls from Eritrea as such (although we do have other remains which clearly indicate coastal foraging in the area) but the second oldest H. sapiens skull in the region is Herto/Idaltu, which is from Harar, near Eritrea, Djibouti and Somaliland, a very arid area nowadays. It comes to show that people were living in all the niches. Which one is the one that woman first carrying the L3 mutation lived in? Hard to say but in that area of the Horn/Upper Nile for sure.
"So L3 looks most likely to be a West Ethiopian/Sudan haplogroup, not a Red Sea haplogroup".
Maybe. I have never said otherwise. But the Red Sea is just at spitting distance, so to say, from the Nile. You can't easily trace such a subtle difference: it will be always approximate. If you ask me Ethiopia or South Africa, I have no doubt but if you ask Ethiopia or Sudan... or Eritrea, I can't but be unsure.
In general I favor the Upper Nile as "pump" or "urheimat" of Humankind. The Red Sea is a secondary related niche, yet one exploited since very early and the likely highway to Asia (and Australia, Europe, America...)
"What is ridiculous is your display of a total lack of understanding of geography of ecology".
I understand enough, I just don't agree with you about the "impossibility" of exploitation of some niches like the seashores or the jungle. Nor I agree with the prairie as such having any extremely strong attraction for our kind even when it is freezing cold. It's maybe my upbringing but I'd prefer hills and sea to any prairie, even a warm ancestral savanna. But there are tastes for everything: we're cultural animals.
"There's no specific evidence other than archaeological facts and inferences (by me) from genetic facts".
ReplyDeleteYour manipulation of genetic facts to suit your belief. The other day you wrote:
"You have a problem with 'pruning' by drift (and other phenomena like being rolled over by masses of Eurasian back-migrants)".
I'm quite prepared to accept that drift occurrs. It's just that, unlike you, I'm unwilling to call upon it whenever the available facts don't fit a particular hypothesis. I'm prepared to re-examine my hypothesis. You also wrote:
"I have shown (according to my usual methodology of coding region mutation count from the MRCA) that the lineages were in Arabia since the times of the OoA".
I'm glad you've finally seen that. Some time back I pointed out that no specifically Pygmy haplogroups are older than about 29 mutations, some time after the Ooa. at the time you claimed that was meaningless. The Pygmies had lived in the rainforest long before then.
"When I drew the likely origin of L3'4'6 I located it on Eritrea, and I had to do the same with L3'4. When I drew L3 I projected it over a larger area which includes Eritrea, most of Ethiopia and much of the Sudans"
Only because you'd made up your mind that Eritrea was necessary to fit your hypothesis. There is no evidence for such a belief.
"Most of the Ethiopian rare lineages probably come from the tribal state of the SW"
That goes for the 'Eritrean' lineages as well.
"Do you want it to be 'Western Ethiopia'? I don't have any objection except that it is probably too localized"
It is certainly not 'too localised' if you're prepared to include at least the Sudan and Kenya. However Eritrea is isolated from those regions and unlikley tro have been part of their geographic range.
"But the Red Sea is just at spitting distance, so to say, from the Nile".
Not really:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/at/at1007_full.html
Quote:
"During the last Ice Age, this entire ecoregion would have been similar to the Eurasian tundras, while still higher elevations were capped with glaciers".
So the Highlands were not really habitable until the climate warmed.
"I considered that the border zone between Ethiopia and the Sudans was maybe all the time the 'pump' from where each branch (L0, L1, L2) represented a migration. But I on second thought I felt that was too much".
Why did you actually change your mind? Were you simply trying to fit the evidence to a Bab al Mandab crossing?
"What we know is that where I have spotted 5-6 such lineages in Arabia and 4 in NW Africa, I have only located 2 in Egypt and one in the Levant. Of course there may be flukes in all this data but until we get better stuff that's what we have".
ReplyDeleteIs that really such convincing evidence though? We know for certain that M and N emerged from Africa yet no remnant of their early presence there remains.
"The same that your niece is not more related to you than your aunt".
But it is more related than your great aunt, which is what we're considering in relation to L4 and L3e/M/N.
"These do not represent the expansion of L3 as such but of sublineage L3e'i'k'x. That's brilliant! It's obvious but I would have probably never thought of it without this sentence of yours".
I considered the very likely possibility that the L3e'i'k'x expansion was in fact associated with the L3 expansion. It's only 3 mutations beyond the 23 level, at 26 mutations. And, as you've consistently pointed out, L3 was not the only haplogroup involved. The expansion is part of a wider process which, as well as L4 and L6, in the south (from Kenya?) included L0a, L0f and L0d, although the last began a little before the 23 level at 19 mutations. In the west (from Chad?) L1c also spread at the 19 mutation level. It broke into L1c1, L1c2'4 and L1c3. We also find L2separating into L2a'd, L2b'c, L2d and L2e around 23 mutation level. L2a's big expansion is later though, at 31 mutations. It seems obvious to me that L3's expansion is just the culmination of a long process.
"L3e'i'k'x is indeed the 'little OoA sister' of M and N but it remained in Africa mostly"
It is the last gasp of the expansion that led to the OoA, although later expansions within Africa were still to follow, especially around the 30 mutation level. It is actually this last seems to be associated with any crossing of the Red Sea.
"This makes sense because L3e'i'k'x branched out two mutational steps earlier than M. So pre-M and pre-N were still in embryonic state and did not participate of this L3e'i'k'x expansion".
No. Because they had already left Africa in that 'embryonic state'. You insist on saying they were not yet M and N, but surely that is just splitting hairs.
"I understand enough, I just don't agree with you about the "impossibility" of exploitation of some niches like the seashores or the jungle. Nor I agree with the prairie as such having any extremely strong attraction for our kind even when it is freezing cold".
Neither place is particularly appealing to humans. The margin between forest and grassland has always been the most prefered habitat, as demonstrated by the habitat involved during the spread of haplogroups at the 20-26 mutation level. No Pygmy haplogroups are as ancient as that. We find them only beyond the 30 mutation level.
Drift: we're talking of the very arid region of Arabia Peninsula and maybe some 90 Ka ago... you must account for drift!
ReplyDeletePygmies: I don't recall what you and I say about Pygmies and I'm not going to allow you to divert this debate to that other debate. It'd be tiresome and pointless.
"Eritrea was necessary to fit your hypothesis"...
Not really. Coastal Sudan, Djibuti, Somalia... can do. Just that Eritrea is known to have been inhabited by AMH coastal foragers, so most likely these have some relation with those who crossed the Red Sea. Also Eritrea (+/-) appears as the centroid (most likely origin) for the precursors of L3, if not L3 itself.
I don't need L3 coalescing in Eritrea, it can well coalesce in the Blue Nile for what I care: people are not trees and they can and do move quite a bit, so back-flow to Eritrea or somewhere over there is very possible, as suggested by L3i. Eritrea fell in because it was the only way to include also parts of Chad (so no for the reasons you want to attribute me in fact).
"Eritrea is isolated from those regions and unlikley tro have been part of their geographic range".
I do not think it's isolate. Unlike what modern horse-riding flatland dwellers often think, mountains are backbones and not barriers. Ask anyone living in a non-impassable mountain area such as Basques or Ethiopians. Mountains add diversity of ecosystems and serve as nexus between the two (or sometimes more) river basins flowing out of them. Typically mountains are for the summer here, unsure about Ethiopia because it has a different seasonal pattern.
"this entire ecoregion would have been similar to the Eurasian tundras"...
Do we have evidence of permafrost (a clear indicator of tundra-ness)? I must say that I am quite skeptical of this claim, specially for the whole ecoregion.
Whatever the case, you can travel along the edge of the massif to the Red Sea, exploiting the transition environments, which typically are the best of all, allowing for diversity of econiches to be exploited at convenience with just short walks. Such a route would have bring people forth and back between Eritrea and the Blue Nile. Another more "highlander" route (but not through the highest peaks) would go directly through the Rift Valley between Omo and Harar (and from there to Djibouti and Eritrea). Finally the flatlands route would cut through Sudan to the Beja Country (a bit arid for my taste but guess that possible in certain climates).
The Ethiopian highlands are not between the Nile and Eritrea but between the Nile and Somalia in fact.
"Is that really such convincing evidence though?"
ReplyDeleteIt is rather strongly suggestive as long as you remain open to all possibilities, what is obviously not your case.
"But it is more related than your great aunt, which is what we're considering in relation to L4 and L3e/M/N".
False. L4 is "aunt" for M and N and great-aunt for L3e only, which is niece (and not sister) of M and N. You knew that (as you have been discussing L3e'i'k'x in some extent here recently). Why then you write such falsehood? Why to resort to deceit and manipulation. Why is your agenda more important than the truth?
"I considered the very likely possibility that the L3e'i'k'x expansion was in fact associated with the L3 expansion".
Of course it is. Just like the R node is related to the N one: they branch out in rapid succession.
What is not directly related in that of M and N, separated by longer stems.
[L3e'i'k'x] "is the last gasp of the expansion that led to the OoA"...
Yes, one of them: at least three other L3 branches (L3a, L3b'f, L3c'd'j) have the same apparent timing. It is also the case of L4b (a close relative of our interest), L0a1 and possibly others in the L0, L2 and L5 branches.
"You insist on saying they were not yet M and N, but surely that is just splitting hairs".
Important details are not "splitting hairs". They were not M and N until their respective nodes. You can describe their migrating ancestors as either L3 or as pre-M and pre-N or whatever combo such as L3(pre-M) but M is only M at the node where it branches out in sublineages. Otherwise we could say that L6 and L4 are L3 and that is not true, they are however part of the pre-L3 lineage (aka L3'4'6).
"The margin between forest and grassland has always been the most prefered habitat"...
I'm not sure that you are right here either but, assuming you were right, then it'd be only natural that people migrated and adapted to both the grassland-only and the forest-only habitats sooner than later.
"I never heard of hunter-gatherers being enslaved in Africa."
ReplyDeleteThere are multiple ancient Egyptian accounts of isolated hunter-gatherers being enslaved as luxury novelties, and often a Pharonic request along with various exotic jewels, woods, etc.
I know of one account of what seems to be an enslaved Pygmy. It is anecdotal evidence and we are discussing here the general patterns not the exceptions.
ReplyDelete"Also Eritrea (+/-) appears as the centroid (most likely origin) for the precursors of L3, if not L3 itself".
ReplyDeleteOn what grounds do you claim that?
"Drift: we're talking of the very arid region of Arabia Peninsula and maybe some 90 Ka ago... you must account for drift!"
Yes, but you can't just make up patterns of drift just to suit your hypothesis. You must have evidence.
"Just that Eritrea is known to have been inhabited by AMH coastal foragers, so most likely these have some relation with those who crossed the Red Sea".
Eritrea is far more arid than are the Sudan, Kenya or even Ethiopia. People are unlikely to have moved into the region in any sort of numbers as compared to those regions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea
Quote:
"The country is virtually bisected by one of the world's longest mountain ranges[clarification needed], formed by the processes that formed the Great Rift Valley, with fertile lands to the west, descending to desert in the east. Eritrea, at the southern end of the Red Sea, is the home of the fork in the rift. The Dahlak Archipelago and its fishing grounds are situated off the sandy and arid coastline. The land to the south, in the highlands, is slightly drier and cooler".
"Whatever the case, you can travel along the edge of the massif to the Red Sea, exploiting the transition environments, which typically are the best of all, allowing for diversity of econiches to be exploited at convenience with just short walks".
Exploiting the arid desert?
"people are not trees and they can and do move quite a bit, so back-flow to Eritrea or somewhere over there is very possible, as suggested by L3i".
But people generally, and especially women, tend to stay close to where they were brought up. And what is it about L3i that suggests 'Eritrea'? Your own diagram has L3i in Ethiopia and the Sudan, as well as in Oman and Yemen.
"Important details are not 'splitting hairs'"
It has always been 'splitting hairs' on your part. I have use 'M' and 'N' as shortahnd for 'embryonic M' and embryonic N' but it has suited your purpose to pretend ignorance. Although sometime I wonder if your are actually pretending.
"I'm not sure that you are right here either but, assuming you were right, then it'd be only natural that people migrated and adapted to both the grassland-only and the forest-only habitats sooner than later".
Wrong. The adaptation took some time, as demonstrated by the Pygmies.
"Pygmies: I don't recall what you and I say about Pygmies and I'm not going to allow you to divert this debate to that other debate. It'd be tiresome and pointless".
As I have consistently tried to point out to you: no specifically Pygmy haplogroups are older than about 29 mutations yet members with related or ancestral haplogroups are long-established along the borders of the rainforest zone.
"I know of one account of what seems to be an enslaved Pygmy. It is anecdotal evidence and we are discussing here the general patterns not the exceptions".
ReplyDeleteThere you go again, splitting hairs. As I understand the situation Pymies were not uncommon in ancient Egypt.
"On what grounds do you claim that?"
ReplyDeletehttp://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/03/early-expansion-of-h-sapiens-in-africa.html
I get both L3'4'6 and L3'4 in what seems to be Eritrea.
You know that already.
"... you can't just make up patterns of drift just to suit your hypothesis".
Drift is a common phenomenon we should expect to happen all the time in foragrer (and generally low numbers and low growth) conditions. Drift is a reality of life like sex, death or that Santa is a myth. We have to factor all that in any equation.
"You must have evidence".
What kind of "evidence" do you need? For drift?! The evidence is that no known pre-M or pre-N (after the L3 node)has survived the journey: drift killed them (or made them so extremely thin that we are unable to find them).
If that's not "evidence", then what is it?
"Eritrea is far more arid than are the Sudan, Kenya or even Ethiopia".
Eritrea is fairly arid (except for the highlands - "up to 610 mm (24.0 in) of rainfall annually") but it has a nice lustful coast full of reefs and all kinds of seafood. Anyhow, if the glacier line fell so much as you say, then it should also have benefited of a cooler climate in such periods, the same it must have also benefited from the general increased humidity of the pluvial periods.
Anyhow, for whatever is worth, this is the Wiki-description of the Eritrean climate today:
"Hot, dry desert strip along Red Sea coast; cooler and wetter in the central highlands (up to 610 mm (24.0 in) of rainfall annually); semiarid in western hills and lowlands; rainfall heaviest during June–September except in coastal desert. The climate is temperate in the mountains and hot in the lowlands".
Besides the providing seashore, documented archaeologically to have been exploited c. 130 Ka. Most of Eritrea has a rather sharp change of altitude (Asmara is 2300m above sea level and yet you can walk from there to the Red Sea as there's barely some 50 km of horizontal distance) that must have allowed people to adapt their lifestyle to climatic changes, providing, as well with the rest of the Ethiopian massif, some sort of oasis in times of extreme aridity and a demic pump when the climate improved.
So quit your Eritrea-bashing: it's about the most appropriate platform for change of habits between the mountains, the hills, the semi-arid flatlands and the arid yet plentiful coastal strips (as per today's climate).
...
...
ReplyDelete"But people generally, and especially women, tend to stay close to where they were brought up".
Nomads, not farmers!
Hunter-gatherers move, move a lot. Women and men alike. When there is an internal conflict, they often move, when there is an external conflict the loser also moves... it's a way to leave conflict behind and get the path of hope instead.
"Your own diagram has L3i in Ethiopia and the Sudan, as well as in Oman and Yemen".
Red Sea. That's what I got. Obviously it must have been either this or the other shore (or above a raft?) but that's what I got from the data.
"It has always been 'splitting hairs' on your part. I have use 'M' and 'N' as shortahnd for 'embryonic M' and embryonic N'"...
I can't accept that. No splitting hairs: that is L3 and not yet M nor N. Want to use a shorthand, use pre-M, pre-N - but never "M" or "N", because these had not yet coalesced.
"Although sometime I wonder if your are actually pretending".
I'm not pretending and is not "ignorance": it is method, clarity and precision. Sloppiness did not a Darwin make.
"... as demonstrated by the Pygmies".
That's another debate.
"As I understand the situation Pymies were not uncommon in ancient Egypt".
They were so extremely uncommon that I have only once ever read of one Pygmy, who was some sort of circus attraction of the time (so rare he was). Maybe there were a handful through all history but they were anything but "common".
"women, tend to stay close to where they were brought up"
ReplyDeleteThere isn't one general rule. In patrilocal Corded Ware communities, the women were typically imports and the men were local. There are a lot of cases of Y-DNA carried by male dominated conquerer-Army-explorer populations having impact while not disturbing local mtDNA nearly as much, but you need a social narrative to make a valid prediction.
"There isn't one general rule. In patrilocal Corded Ware communities, the women were typically imports and the men were local".
ReplyDeleteBut women seldom move as far as half a continent away, which is what Maju is basically claiming.
"I get both L3'4'6 and L3'4 in what seems to be Eritrea. You know that already".
I know that you 'claim' it to be so, but that doesn't 'make' it so.
"Drift is a common phenomenon we should expect to happen all the time in foragrer (and generally low numbers and low growth) conditions. Drift is a reality of life like sex, death or that Santa is a myth. We have to factor all that in any equation".
I agree with that statement, but that is not what you do. You have formed a theory and whenever the evidence fails to fit that theory you claim 'drift'. Surely it's time you examined your theory critically.
"The evidence is that no known pre-M or pre-N (after the L3 node)has survived the journey: drift killed them (or made them so extremely thin that we are unable to find them)".
Again you're sticking to your theory. The 'tails' of both M and N are very likely to be a product of a long period of time spent living within a relatively confined region. The tails are unliklet to be the product of a long migration through presumably largely uninhabited regions where we would expect representatives of the haplogroups to have survived, or even multiplied considerably.
"If that's not 'evidence', then what is it?"
It's 'doctoring the evidence'.
"Eritrea is fairly arid (except for the highlands - 'up to 610 mm (24.0 in) of rainfall annually') but it has a nice lustful coast full of reefs and all kinds of seafood".
Even your incredibly resourceful humans cannot survive long without fresh water.
"rainfall heaviest during June–September except in coastal desert".
OK. What are people going to drink there? Coca cola?
"providing, as well with the rest of the Ethiopian massif, some sort of oasis in times of extreme aridity and a demic pump when the climate improved".
Yes. Ethiopia, from where the best habitat was to the west or north along the Nile.
"I can't accept that. No splitting hairs: that is L3 and not yet M nor N".
It is not 'L3' if one is trying to specify embryonic M or N. So you are consistently splitting hairs, presumably to confuse the issue.
"But women seldom move as far as half a continent away, which is what Maju is basically claiming".
ReplyDeleteAm I?
No I am not. In fact I generally try to explain the DNA patterns in terms of both men and women. I just consider the matrilineages more trustworthy (less exposed to sudden sex-biased overflows, extreme drift, etc.)
"I know that you 'claim' it to be so, but that doesn't 'make' it so".
I arrived to that conclusion by purely geometric means, as explained in the relevant article. If you can demonstrate by similar means that I am wrong...
Do your homework.
"I agree with that statement, but that is not what you do. You have formed a theory and whenever the evidence fails to fit that theory you claim 'drift'. I agree with that statement, but that is not what you do. You have formed a theory and whenever the evidence fails to fit that theory you claim 'drift'. Surely it's time you examined your theory critically".
Uh? That is what I do. If you are to make a criticism to my "theory" (do I have one?) you should do it yourself and not just by launching blank slate accusation ("you do this - no I don't"), etc. But by methodically pointing out where there may be errors (so far I have not seen any such specific error or they do not seem to hold or they are trivial). Or better by drafting a better alternative theory yourself, with all the work that implies. Hopefully you'll begin such endeavor with the same open mind to the results I had.
I say "hopefully" because I do not think that is "likely": I have looked at all these matters because I wanted to know with my own mind and criteria and not to depend anymore just in others' opinions. I have researched and found some alleged (or even totally unexpected) facts to be very likely and other alleged facts as extremely unlikely.
Instead you have decided that some factoids are the truth a priori and you spend a lot of energies trying to defend them against all evidence, wasting my time when I have already looked at all those matters (or most of them) in detail with an open mind and reached to different conclusions.
You should look at these matters without ANY preconceptions, being open to whatever comes. If you could do that you'd probably see what I see - but you're probably just too old for that "virginal" research. I don't want to be ageist but old people tend to become stuck in ideas learned in previous phases of life - and when research and knowledge advance as fast as they do in population genetics (or some aspects of archaeology), that is no advantage at all.
...
...
ReplyDelete"The 'tails' of both M and N are very likely to be a product of a long period of time spent living within a relatively confined region".
Like Oman?
I don't know if they were confined to a narrow valley in Yemen or traveling forth and back through all Arabia (or whatever else you may imagine), what I know is that these "long stems" (not so long for M anyhow) mean that they did not have any expansion worth that name and that therefore they had not arrived to any fertile "empty" area, be it South Asia, the Fertile Crescent or whatever else you may imagine.
When they finally arrived to a destination where they could thrive, then they almost literally exploded - and what explosion was that one of M!
"The tails are unliklet to be the product of a long migration through presumably largely uninhabited regions where we would expect representatives of the haplogroups to have survived, or even multiplied considerably".
Uh? If they shared those areas with other lineages and they were as dry (hostile) as Arabia peninsula, then they would have left no track probably because drift was acting as they marched, fixating one lineage here and another one there... just randomly.
The most mysterious case is that of N, if it really coalesced in SE Asia, because it would effectively have crossed through fertile areas (India by the coastal route or China by the continental hypothesis), yet it did not explode until arrival to SEA apparently. That implies a rapid migration or maybe that the stem was unexpectedly pruned by some brutal catastrophe like the Toba explosion.
"It's 'doctoring the evidence'".
Not at all. Your accusation is totally unfounded. I demand an apology - at risk of sounding ridiculous. I'm not "doctoring" anything: drift is real!
"Even your incredibly resourceful humans cannot survive long without fresh water".
That is doctoring the evidence! Suggesting that there is no freshwater in the coastal route!
Quit lying!
Or better: pack your bags and go on vacation to the area and learn something on how do people manage to not die from thirst without divine miracles.
You are pushing things too much. I'm fucking tired of your false accusations, your one liners that force me to go back once and again to find out what are you talking about... only to have to do it again at the next sentence, your lack of argumentative honesty...
I'm fucking tired.
"I'm fucking tired".
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm getting sick of trying to point you in the right direction.
"You should look at these matters without ANY preconceptions, being open to whatever comes".
Why don't you try it some time?
"If you are to make a criticism to my 'theory' (do I have one?)"
You insist on a crossing of the bab al Mandab with no supporting evidence whatsoever (in fact much against such a theory) and a 'coastal migration, which you now insist is not specifically coastal but still seem to assume was such.
"Or better by drafting a better alternative theory yourself, with all the work that implies. Hopefully you'll begin such endeavor with the same open mind to the results I had".
You are very well aware of what I think happened, or else you ar ebeing deliberately obtuse.
"I don't know if they were confined to a narrow valley in Yemen or traveling forth and back through all Arabia"
Unlikely. Probably confined to a small region near Palestine. I see even Dienekes is now looking at somewhere just beyond Suez for the origin of M and N.
"what I know is that these 'long stems' (not so long for M anyhow) mean that they did not have any expansion worth that name and that therefore they had not arrived to any fertile 'empty' area"
It looks extremely likely that it was a change of climate that allowed M to enter South Asia and expand rapidly through the subcontinent, and for N to expand less rapidly far beyong its original home somewhere in Anatolia or Iran. Modern haplogroup distribution fits that scenario perfectly.
"If they shared those areas with other lineages and they were as dry (hostile) as Arabia peninsula, then they would have left no track probably because drift was acting as they marched"
Obviously they left no track in Southern Arabia because they didn't go that way. They left plenty of track to the north of Arabia. It's just that you're so committed to your preconceptions you are unable to 'see what I see'.
"drift was acting as they marched, fixating one lineage here and another one there... just randomly".
And that's exactly what we see with N. with more analysis of M I'm sure we will also see it with that haplogroup.
"The most mysterious case is that of N, if it really coalesced in SE Asia, because it would effectively have crossed through fertile areas (India by the coastal route or China by the continental hypothesis), yet it did not explode until arrival to SEA apparently".
It's only 'mysterious' because you choose to make it so. You are forced to make it so because otherwise it is impossible to fit it with your preconceptions.
"That is doctoring the evidence! Suggesting that there is no freshwater in the coastal route!"
OK. Where is the fresh water along the Eritrea coast?
"... to point you in the right direction".
ReplyDeleteHow arrogantly certain you are of you being in the "right direction"!
"You insist on a crossing of the bab al Mandab with no supporting evidence whatsoever"...
At least some indications there are and there is not any negative evidence either. The alternative route would be through the Fertile Crescent, an area fruitful enough to have retained the implicated lineages in much more clear manner than we can expect from arid Arabia.
IF the route was through the Fertile Crescent, we should see pre-M there, but we do not see even any significant L(xM,N). Either there was a radical catastrophe of some sort (evidence needed) or that was NOT the route.
You have that damn prejudice against any sort of boating, then you have that other damn prejudice in favor of a Siberian route that makes no sense whatsoever and finally you have unspoken racist prejudices against Eurasian populations as a whole having coalesced first in the "brown" areas of Asia (i.e. Tropical Asia).
You have prejudices against jungle, you have prejudices against mangroves, you have prejudices against every other possibility. You are a pain in the ass in regards to free thought: you have certain "right" schemes and you can't even agree to disagree: you will charge once and again with the same old boring discourse.
Gimme a break!
"You are very well aware of what I think happened"...
I am fragmentarily aware of your mental barriers. I make no sense of "what you think happened": it's narrow thinking and the pieces do not fit with the data. Of course your reasoning has two central weak points: (1) that you arbitrarily chose to believe that modern-like people 100,000 years ago were not able to even build a raft (they must have been all retards with no creativity, ingenuity or daring) and (2) that they went through Altai, which was inhabited by other species (problem that you try to dribble, quite pathetically, by pretending that all Homo species are the same).
I've lost patience with you and your "truth". Keep it for yourself, as Machado said.
"I see even Dienekes is now looking at somewhere just beyond Suez for the origin of M and N".
He shares the same racial prejudices you have more or less. He's even less shy about that and more emphatic, even if he's not completely open.
... "for N to expand less rapidly far beyong its original home somewhere in Anatolia or Iran".
There's zero evidence for that homeland claim: N looks 100% SE Asian in origin. Again I see that you take an unscientific approach just to fit your preconceived narrative.
"Obviously they left no track in Southern Arabia because they didn't go that way.".
Nor anywhere else, so flying saucer abduction, right?
The greatest amount of evidence I can see, both genetic and archaeological, points to Arabia.
I said: "drift was acting as they marched, fixating one lineage here and another one there... just randomly".
And you added totally missing the point: "And that's exactly what we see with N".
WTF?! I'm talking of African-derived lineages not N-derived ones, which must have back-migrated from SE Asia! First localize the origin of the mother haplogroup, then describe what the daughter ones did: can you follow such a simple method?
Quit it. We are not just not going to agree ever in the essentials but you continuously misread what I say for your convenience, what is quite abusive and a waste of time.
"OK. Where is the fresh water along the Eritrea coast?"
Go and check. I know that in every modern settlement there is some source of freshwater: it's as simple as that. And the Eritrean coast may be arid but is not deserted.
We are obviously wasting eacjh others' time, so this will be my last comment on your blog.
ReplyDelete"There's zero evidence for that homeland claim: N looks 100% SE Asian in origin".
Rubbish. We have X, N1'5 and N2 all nearby. These three haplogroups have no representatives at all in SE Asia. so your comment:
"Nor anywhere else, so flying saucer abduction, right?"
is, as usual, ridiculous.
"WTF?! I'm talking of African-derived lineages not N-derived ones, which must have back-migrated from SE Asia!"
Only because you say so. And African-derived lineages would behave in basically much the same way as N-derived ones.
"First localize the origin of the mother haplogroup, then describe what the daughter ones did: can you follow such a simple method?"
That's exactly what I have done, and you have failed dismally regarding haplogroup N.
"IF the route was through the Fertile Crescent, we should see pre-M there, but we do not see even any significant L(xM,N)".
But we do see N, which probaly indicates an early split between pre-M and pre-N. M being more easterly.
"You have prejudices against jungle, you have prejudices against mangroves"
Completely justified prejudices. Your romantic notions about Paleolithic human capabilities means you are unable to see that fact though.
"The alternative route would be through the Fertile Crescent, an area fruitful enough to have retained the implicated lineages in much more clear manner than we can expect from arid Arabia".
So where's the problem exactly? Especially when you go on to say:
"that they went through Altai, which was inhabited by other species (problem that you try to dribble, quite pathetically, by pretending that all Homo species are the same)".
You forget that South Asia was already inhabited by a pre-modern species as well.
"Go and check. I know that in every modern settlement there is some source of freshwater: it's as simple as that. And the Eritrean coast may be arid but is not deserted".
But nearly deserted:
http://www.eritreaembassy-japan.org/data/State_of_the_Coast_2006-2007_FULL.pdf
"The coastal areas are sparsely populated with approximately 5% of the national population, the majority residing in the coastal cities of Massawa and Asseb.... A shortage of fresh water is a characteristic feature of the Eritrean coastline and islands. Individually owned or commercially operated wells are the primary sources of fresh water supply."
I presume these wells have been commercially operated since the Paleolithic.
"... so this will be my last comment on your blog".
ReplyDeleteYou say that too often.
"Rubbish. We have X, N1'5 and N2 all nearby. These three haplogroups have no representatives at all in SE Asia".
Three haplogroups out of eight, mind you. Do your homework.
What we can infer is that the proto-lineages leading to these three, as well as to R, migrated through South Asia with Y-DNA P. At least that's my best theory so far.
"African-derived lineages would behave in basically much the same way as N-derived ones".
Only in relation to their mother haplogroups, which were typically in East Africa (as far as I can discern). East Africa is not farther away from West Asia and specially Arabia than SE Asia is.
"That's exactly what I have done"...
You have not followed the reconstructive method with N, you arbitrarily chose a secondary destination of its daughters as origin (for what I know you could have chosen Australia instead), what is irrational and not methodical at all.
"Your romantic notions about Paleolithic human capabilities"...
Not romantic and not specifically about Paleolithic humans. I fail to see any relevant difference between Paleolithic and Neolithic humans that is not, if anything, a chant to their being finished or even improved "us".
Your antiquated notion of evolution being gradual instead of punctuated gets you strayed (among other reasons).
I said: "The alternative route would be through the Fertile Crescent, an area fruitful enough to have retained the implicated lineages in much more clear manner than we can expect from arid Arabia".
You replied: "So where's the problem exactly?"
That there are no such lineages anywhere. The Fertile Crescent did not host the OoA at all... or there was such a radical population replacement that modern industrial genocides are a pale shadow of it.
I don't think the latter is even worth considering, so the former: no OoA activity found in the Fertile Crescent at all.
"You forget that South Asia was already inhabited by a pre-modern species as well".
We do not know much about them: just an old skull. Whatever the case, we clearly overrun them very quickly.
"I presume these wells have been commercially operated since the Paleolithic".
Hard to say but it's clear that the people of the area have lived there "always". We even have major archaeological evidence that you keep ignoring. Either their needs of freshwater were fulfilled with more modest means or that the Pluvial made the desert lush. We don't need freshwater for tens of thousands, just for a few scattered hundreds.
It is not the Sahara nor Rub al Khali in any case.
Well, I was going to ask you not to be "too one-sided" but that is like asking the fire not to be hot or the water not to be wet...
My haplogroup is L3e2b2 (African American).
ReplyDelete