tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post1511916243883314901..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: ArchaeoNews April 23Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-71987510690474512872011-04-27T04:59:18.052+02:002011-04-27T04:59:18.052+02:00"My blog? Where? I doubt that Fuzhou as such ..."My blog? Where? I doubt that Fuzhou as such has come around before this very post". <br /><br />And it is this very post I'm talking about. A group of peopel from Fuzhou reached Taiwan and introduced a new boating technology. It is therefore highly likely that carried haplogroup O1. <br /><br />"Rising Seas transformed rice farmers into fishermen at Fuzhou (SE China), what might have triggered the Austronesian expansion" <br /><br />The early stages of the Austronesian expansion are closely correlated with O1a.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-35510619431301611842011-04-27T04:25:29.086+02:002011-04-27T04:25:29.086+02:00You asked about O1a, not O1. I did not claim hat O...You asked about O1a, not O1. I did not claim hat O1 or O1a was indigenous to Taiwan (just implied it's more frequent there than in most other places). <br /><br />"Your blog strongly implictates Fuzhou".<br /><br />My blog? Where? I doubt that Fuzhou as such has come around before this very post.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-11909506316069939752011-04-27T04:03:27.674+02:002011-04-27T04:03:27.674+02:00"It seems important (22%) in East China, so p..."It seems important (22%) in East China, so probably yes (up to a point: it's not Taiwan)". <br /><br />I doubt very much that O1 is indigenous to Taiwan. It must have come from the mainland somewhere. Your blog strongly implictates Fuzhou. But where before that? My guess, obviously, is somewhere within the region of the Chinese neolithic.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-33530076028493319052011-04-25T07:29:26.887+02:002011-04-25T07:29:26.887+02:00AFAIK rice was domesticated in South China, the No...AFAIK rice was domesticated in South China, the Northern Neolithic is based in sorghum instead. So the "popular view" is incorrect in any case. <br /><br />"It would be interesting to know if Y-hap O1a is especially present in that region".<br /><br />It seems important (22%) in East China, so probably yes (up to a point: it's not Taiwan).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-61714477533043000042011-04-25T04:21:28.831+02:002011-04-25T04:21:28.831+02:00"Rising Seas transformed rice farmers into fi..."Rising Seas transformed rice farmers into fishermen at Fuzhou (SE China), what might have triggered the Austronesian expansion" <br /><br />Makes sense. However the New scientist article has a few contradictions: <br /><br />"Rolett’s findings challenge a popular scientific view that a transition to village life in northern China around 8,000 years ago triggered rice-fueled population growth that spread southward". <br /><br />They don't really 'challenge' such a view. The article next states: <br /><br />"In that scenario, shortages of marshy land suitable for rice paddies motivated sea crossings to Taiwan, possibly originating in the Yangtze Delta just north of the Fuzhou Basin" <br /><br />So the Fuzhou region was presumably culturally connected to the Yangtze Neolithic. It would be interesting to know if Y-hap O1a is especially present in that region. <br /><br />"Villages from around 5,000 years ago in Fuzhou Basin and on Taiwan contain similar types of pottery" <br /><br />That's pretty convincing evidence to me.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com