tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post3245901332787043350..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Haplogroup O3 downstream structure refinedMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-81785351504779247322011-05-07T12:31:55.542+02:002011-05-07T12:31:55.542+02:00No but I'm not going to discuss anymore on E h...No but I'm not going to discuss anymore on E here. Repost where relevant.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-74382836400943870642011-05-07T05:29:33.615+02:002011-05-07T05:29:33.615+02:00"Anyhow, we are getting off-topic. Please con..."Anyhow, we are getting off-topic. Please continue in the relevant threads if need be". <br /><br />OK. But I'll make a few last comments here. <br /><br />"E1b1b1a1 (M78) seems to represent (together with J1 and maybe other more localized lineages like R1b1a) the flow of Afroasiatic languages from the area of Egypt/Sudan". <br /><br />Actually the whole of E1b1b1-M35 could be at the base of Afro-Asiatic language spread. E1b1b1c-M123 is at least as 'Jewish' as E1b1b1a1-M78. Certainly E1b1b1 is very much present in the region where Austro-Asiatic languages are spoken today. The regions where the haplogroup and the languages don't both exist are easily explained way by later language replacement. <br /><br />"if we are to make any association between AA languages and E1b, it must be largely pre-Neolithic". <br /><br />OK. E1b's expansion is obviously 'largely pre-Neolithic'. But E1b1b1-M35's is later than that of E1b-P2's, and is probably associated with Austro-Asiatic. <br /><br />"No and I don't see how you can reach to any such conclusion". <br /><br />We need to get this straight then. So you accept that basal haplogroup diversity indicates region of origin, except when that would conflict with what you alreay believe. Is that correct? And E1b1b1-M35's expansion is 'starlike'. When considering other haplogroups you have always claimed that this is an indicator of rapid expansion. Do you always alter your interpretation of the evidence to suit your pre-existing belief? I suspect that a starlike pattern of haplogroup phylogeny can mean a population growth rather than necessarily expansion. But Population expansion is usually preceded by a growth in population, and I'm sure that is what we see in the case of E1b1b1-M35's starlike pattern. The same with O3a_M324. <br /><br />"for me Sardinian E1b is derived from their surroundings and a 'recent' arrival". <br /><br />I agree with the recent arrival bit. But the only E1b1b-M215 haplogroups in North Africa outside the Northeast are E1b1b1a1 and E1b1b1b. Both haplogroups are also found scattered through the Mediterranean, and neither have close relations in North Africa. So it is most parsimonious to conclude that their presence in North Africa is a product of their presence in the Mediterranean, rather than the other way round. <br /><br />"If you want Sardinia to play any role, the less you can do is document your claims (link preferably)". <br /><br />Good old Wiki again: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"E1b1b1a (E-V68), is dominated by its longer-known sub-clade E-M78 (E1b1b1a1). Three 'E-V68*' individuals who are in E-V68 but not E-M78 have been reported in Sardinia, by Trombetta et al. (2011), when announcing its discovery. The authors noted that because E-V68* was not found in the Middle Eastern samples, this appears to be evidence of maritime migration from Africa to southwestern Europe". <br /><br />And: <br /><br />"E1b1b1b is dominated by its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1b1 (E-M81) ... V257's discovery was announced in Trombetta et al. (2011) ... They found 6 'E-V257*' individuals in their samples who were E-V257, but not E-M81. A Borana from Kenya, a Marrakesh Berber, a Corsican, a Sardinian, a southern Spaniard and a Cantabrian". <br /><br />Surely the presence of these two widespread basal haplogroups suggests strongly that E1b1b1-M35's expansion was rapid, and included the Mediterranean islands. And here's the article the haplogroup diagram in Wiki is based on: <br /><br />http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016073terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-55629609206975173802011-05-06T09:39:05.827+02:002011-05-06T09:39:05.827+02:00"Sardinian haplogroups are close to basal&quo..."Sardinian haplogroups are close to basal".<br /><br />If you want Sardinia to play any role, the less you can do is document your claims (link preferably). I cannot discuss claims I have never before heard about: for me Sardinian E1b is derived from their surroundings and a "recent" arrival. Never before yesterday I read otherwise.<br /><br />"we'd have to conclude that the subclades of E1b1b1a-M68 were already part of the original E1b1b1-M35 expansion".<br /><br />No and I don't see how you can reach to any such conclusion. <br /><br />It seems the flaw in your quite convoluted and obscure logic is in this:<br /><br />"Unless E1b1b1a-M78 moved back up the Nile to Sudan and the Horn"...<br /><br />Most likely on light of Battaglia 2008, right? E1b1b1a1 (M78) seems to represent (together with J1 and maybe other more localized lineages like R1b1a) the flow of Afroasiatic languages from the area of Egypt/Sudan. It is true that the languages may have an older cradle further south but a lot on this judgment depends on the belonging or not of Omotic to this phylum. <br /><br />It is even possible that there were two successive cradles: one early on in Ethiopia, deep in the Upper Paleolithic and another later on in Nubia in the late Upper Paleolithic. Whatever the case, if we are to make any association between AA languages and E1b, it must be largely pre-Neolithic. <br /><br />I'd even argue (weakly but still) that some of the principles of would-be West Asian Neolithic, notably the harvesting of grasses (cereals) to eat their seeds, was first developed in Nubia. But at best we'd be talking of a Mesolithic (proto-Neolithic) and not Neolithic yet. <br /><br />Mathilda once also argued for a Mesolithic microlithism flowing from Nubia to Palestine via Egypt. I lack of solid knowledge of this matter to be sure (specially because microlithism is an slippery concept and something invented many times in many places). <br /><br />Anyhow, we are getting off-topic. Please continue in the relevant threads if need be.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-69088237479007564012011-05-06T05:54:19.488+02:002011-05-06T05:54:19.488+02:00"Because you are not putting your finger on t..."Because you are not putting your finger on the map as you read them" <br /><br />Yes. I lost count of the 1bs and got confused. <br /><br />"As for E1b, I do not think that Sardinia has anything to do: it is a secondary destination and not any origin". <br /><br />I never claimed it was the origin. But the Sardinian haplogroups are close to basal, so where-ever E1b1b1-M35 originated it reached Sardinia rapidly. <br /><br />"1. E1b1b1a1 expands with Capsian (late UP)<br />2. E1b1b1a1 arrives to Greece/Albania in the Epipaleolithic<br />3. E1b1b1a1 ('Greek' variant V13) expands from the SW Balcans with Neolithic flows into Europe" <br /><br />I don't think so. For a variety of reason E's phylogeny has been particularly well studied. And so we should be able to come to reasonably sound conclusions. You mentioned earlier: <br /><br />"In any case Greek/Albanian centered E1b1b1a1b (V13) is just a second tier subclade and one that I already considered to be of possible Neolithic expansion above". <br /><br />But it's quite possible that at least the E1b1b1a-M68 and E1b1b1a1-M78 mutations had already formed by the time E1b1b1-M35's expansion began. I'll explain: <br /><br />The region of E1b1b1-M35's highest basal diversity readily stands out. From your continued claims that 'basal diversity' indicates 'origin' we can say with some confidence that E1b1b1-M35 originated in the Horn of Africa. Three of its seven basal haplogroups are found only or mainly there: E1b1b1d, E1b1b1f and E1b1b1g. Another of the seven, E1b1b1e, looks to have moved south from there, possibly with the expansion of pastoralism (giving us another dating method for E1b1b's expansion). <br /><br />The remaining three basal haplogroups ended up around the Mediterranean. This impies they had boats. So what was their route into the Mediterranean? The Red Sea or the Nile? <br /><br />It's possible that E1b1b1c-M123 moved along the Red Sea and diversified through Arabia and the Levant and up into Anatolia. But what about the other two? E1b1b1a-M78 broke into 6 subclades, although the first two in the next list may be combined. One is found through the Horn, Ethiopia and Kenya (E1b1b1a1a2-V32), one in the Sudan and Egypt (E1b1b1a1a-V12), one in the Horn, Sudan, Egypt and the Middle East (E1b1b1a1c-V22), one in the Balkans (E1b1b1a1b-V13), one in Greece (E1b1b1a1e-M521) and one through the Maghreb, Italy and Spain (E1b1b1a1d-V657). So that subclade seems also to have originated in the Horn. Unless E1b1b1a-M78 moved back up the Nile to Sudan and the Horn the most logical explanation is that the haplogroups are spread along what was the route from the Horn to the Mediterranean. In other words we'd have to conclude that the subclades of E1b1b1a-M68 were already part of the original E1b1b1-M35 expansion. E1b1b1a1b-V13's presence in the Balkans is the result of drift and founder effect acting on the populations resulting from that expansion. So the E1b1b1a1b-V13 arrived in the Balkans during E-1b1b1-M35's expansion.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-16285688085774563852011-05-05T08:22:35.038+02:002011-05-05T08:22:35.038+02:00As for E1b, I do not think that Sardinia has anyth...As for E1b, I do not think that Sardinia has anything to do: it is a secondary destination and not any origin. Anyhow nowadays it seems Sardinia was colonized as early as the Epipaleolithic (though this is irrelevant because E1b, as well as other clades corresponds to the Neolithic layers in that island AFAIK). <br /><br />"The two statements conflict and don't make sense".<br /><br />Because you are not putting your finger on the map as you read them:<br /><br />1. E1b1b1a1 expands with Capsian (late UP)<br />2. E1b1b1a1 arrives to Greece/Albania in the Epipaleolithic<br />3. E1b1b1a1 ("Greek" variant V13) expands from the SW Balcans with Neolithic flows into EuropeMajuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-21156500897155118492011-05-05T08:17:43.087+02:002011-05-05T08:17:43.087+02:00You claim too many things without any support what...You claim too many things without any support whatsoever, Terry. <br /><br />Naturally, the origin of O2, taken alone and on light of the existing data, is inconclusive (not "most likely in the north") but I do apply maximum parsimony (Occam) by looking at the other related clades, what suggest a southern origin, if anything. <br /><br />In the case of N, high amounts of N(xN1) may mean highest diversity or at least equally high basal diversity in the South as in the North, so in the worst case we are like with O2 (inconclusive) and in the best case it is a clear case of S->N flow. In no case this one is a "most unlikely scenario" using a rational mind. <br /><br />"Evidence?"<br /><br />Evidence of an "if anything" case? Please!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-78309010785410677142011-05-05T05:31:43.099+02:002011-05-05T05:31:43.099+02:00"O2b is probably northerner but not all O2. O..."O2b is probably northerner but not all O2. O2a is clearly southerner". <br /><br />They must have a common source, somewhere. Most likely in the north, rather than O2b having moved north. <br /><br />"N is probably of Southern origin (high N(xN1)), even if its greatest expansion in terms of numbers (founder effects) happened in the Far North". <br /><br />That is an extremely unlikely scenario. <br /><br />"The Middle (but not Upper) Yangtze is the core of the East Asian Neolithic as far as I can tell". <br /><br />OK. So that's the orgin of O's expansion. <br /><br />"If anything it'd would argue for a south to north 'Neolithic' flow". <br /><br />Evidence? <br /><br />"That only happens in the Western Iberian Peninsula, mind you. But otherwise it is true". <br /><br />I haven't really looked at E much before, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. It looks very much as though basically members of two E haplogroups reached Europe: E1b1b1a (V68) and E1b1b1b (V257). But to me it looks quite possible that they are just an eastern (E1b1b1b) and western (E1b1b1a) Mediterranean population. The two may well have entered the Mediterranean together, from the same region of North Africa. One spread east as far as Albania (and beyond) and one spread west to Gibraltar (and beyond). So when did E develop or aquire the ability to travel through the Mediterranean? <br /><br />Sardinia looks to hold the key. It has basal members of both haplogroups. So when did people first reacg Sardinia? Species extinction on the island suggests it was during the early Neolithic, or perhaps as recently as 7000 years ago. <br /><br />Of course e may not have been the first Y-hap to reach Sardinia. But it does give us the earliest possible date for the expansion of E1b1b1-M35. <br /><br />"I'm not sure if you took part but there is a lot of people who agrees that E1b1b1b1 specifically must have been dominant in NW Africa before c. 20,000 years ago". <br /><br />No matter what 'lot of people' agree with, E-M35's (E1b1b1) expansion cannot have been much before E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b were able to spread through the Mediterranean and reach Sardinia. So the downstream haplogroup E1b1b1b1 cannot have been 'dominant in NW Africa before c. 20,000 years ago'. Besides which those discussions took place before the revision of E-P2's (E1b1) phylogeny. <br /><br />"Cruciani 2007 says is that E1b1b1a1 spread with Capsian (late Paleolithic) and arrived to Europe maybe 8500 BCE, which is a bit earlier for Neolithic" <br /><br />But hang on: <br /><br />"In any case Greek/Albanian centered E1b1b1a1b (V13) is just a second tier subclade and one that I already considered to be of possible Neolithic expansion above". <br /><br />Isn't E1b1b1a1b (V13) a downstream haplogroup from E1b1b1a1? The two statements conflict and don't make sense.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-49936880035435268752011-05-04T08:39:07.908+02:002011-05-04T08:39:07.908+02:00Re. E1b1b1, there is another recent thread here, a...Re. E1b1b1, there is another recent thread <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/04/africanness-of-europeans-and-west.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and a bit older but more specific <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/01/some-new-insights-in-phylogeny-of-y-dna.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I'm not sure if you took part but there is a lot of people who agrees that E1b1b1b1 specifically must have been dominant in NW Africa before c. 20,000 years ago. <br /><br />Anyhow what Wikipedia, or rather Cruciani 2007 says is that E1b1b1a1 spread with Capsian (late Paleolithic) and arrived to Europe maybe 8500 BCE, which is a bit earlier for Neolithic (and there is an Epipaleolithic-rooted model of Greek Neolithic anyhow). <br /><br />In any case Greek/Albanian centered E1b1b1a1b (V13) is just a second tier subclade and one that I already considered to be of possible Neolithic expansion above. <br /><br />Dead horse again, just that this time you don't even seem to realize that I already said, or assumed as generally known, all you would eventually quote from Wikipedia, which, in this particular case only supports almost millimetrically my thesis. <br /><br />However I cannot agree with <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/" rel="nofollow">Arredi 2004</a> for several reasons:<br /><br />1. There is no Neolithic cultural flow in North Africa that could explain this E->W alleged migration. <br /><br />2. It'd need to be Capsian (which is pre-Neolithic anyhow) and this means origin in Upper (and not Lower) Egypt. But S. Egypt is peripheral in the haplotype structure. <br /><br />The real central node of E1b1b1b1 (M81) is in NW Africa, between South Morocco and Tunisia. This seems pretty clear to me. Haplotype 46 (and only that one) could have back-migrated with Capsian. <br /><br />There is in any case no particular reason (other than preconceptions and bias) to suggest any Neolithic origin for this haplogroup. <br /><br />As I have argued once and again its unusually high presence in Asturias and Cantabria (NW Iberia of deep Paleolithic settlement) strongly argue for a Solutrean founder effect in relation with the Oranian genesis. <br /><br />One would need to know quite a bit about Iberian and North African Paleolithic in order to even consider that, I know. But once you know it's quite compelling. <br /><br />"In Europe, E-M81 is found everywhere but mostly in the Iberian Peninsula, where unlike in the rest of Europe[Note 6] it is more common than E-M78" <br /><br />That only happens in the Western Iberian Peninsula, mind you. But otherwise it is true. <br /><br />In Europe this marker (which probably exists at low frequencies and the occasional localized founder effect though the Atlantic) should be considered a quality marker for Neolithic flow from Megalithic Portugal. The low apportion of this marker really indicates that there was just very limited demographic flow through the Atlantic waterways in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and later on, at least in the South-North direction. But there was some, because the marker is not totally absent (and is at most 9% in West Iberia - so a 1% in say Wales, means a 10% demic flow from West Iberia potentially).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-40628692167883434712011-05-04T08:18:18.306+02:002011-05-04T08:18:18.306+02:00"And we seem to have established that O2 is n..."And we seem to have established that O2 is northern as is N".<br /><br />No!<br /><br />O2b is probably northerner but not all O2. O2a is clearly southerner. <br /><br />N is probably of Southern origin (high N(xN1)), even if its greatest expansion in terms of numbers (founder effects) happened in the Far North. <br /><br />You know all that already, why are you beating not one but several dead horses?<br /><br />"... 'the middle and upper Yangtze' certainly encompasses the main Chinese Neolithic".<br /><br />The Middle (but not Upper) Yangtze is the core of the East Asian Neolithic as far as I can tell. <br /><br />But it is in the South. If anything it'd would argue for a south to north "Neolithic" flow. Yet the Northern Neolithic is so different and almost immediate in time that there is no archaeological grounds for any meaningful flow in either direction. <br /><br />Therefore the concept "Neolithic" is horrible to explain any kind of genetic homogeneity within the borders of modern China, whichever direction of flow you favor. <br /><br />Think about this if you can hold still and do it.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-38317860868946693122011-05-04T05:25:02.750+02:002011-05-04T05:25:02.750+02:00"O3a2c and O3a2b, which were demonstrated by ..."O3a2c and O3a2b, which were demonstrated by Hong Shi 2005 to have a southern origin" <br /><br />Their work is convincing only if you are desperate to believe. The phylogeny has been altered since their research anyway, so its even less convincing. And we seem to have established that O2 is northern as is N. O1 is indeed fairly southern as in from the Yangtze River mouth. Surely O3 should have coalesce somewhere near where the other three coalesced. <br /><br />"IDK, for instance (Hong Shi 2005 again) O3a2b is concentrated towards Tonkin and South Fujian, while O3a2c1 extends along the middle and upper Yangtze mostly". <br /><br />But the haplogroups that are evenly distributed (under the new phylogeny) are O3a1c, O3a2c1 and O3a2c1a. And 'the middle and upper Yangtze' certainly encompasses the main Chinese Neolithic. <br /><br />"It is also impossible that E1b1b1 major subclades spread in the Neolithic" <br /><br />Impossible? Well. This is what wikipedia says: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />'Based on genetic STR variance data, Cruciani et al. (2007) suggests that E1b1b1a1 [E-M78] originated in 'Northeastern Africa', which in their study refers specifically to Egypt and Libya.[Note 4] about 18,600 years ago (17,300 - 20,000 years ago)... based on archaeological data, they propose that the point of origin of E-M78 (as opposed to later dispersals from Egypt) may have been in a refugium which existed on the border of present-day Sudan and Egypt, near Lake Nubia, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC. The northward-moving rainfall belts during this period could have also spurred a rapid migration of Mesolithic foragers northwards in Africa, the Levant and ultimately onwards to Asia Minor and Europe, where they each eventually differentiated into their regionally distinctive branches" <br /><br />So members of E1b1b1a1 cannot have reached Europe before 8500 years ago. That's relatively recent as far as I'm concerned. And the downstream clades such as E-V13, E-V65 and E-M521 must be even more recent. The other European E clade is E-V257. Quote from Wiki: <br /><br />"Arredi et al. (2004) believe the pattern of distribution and variance to be consistent with the hypothesis of a post Paleolithic 'demic diffusion' from the East. The ancestral lineage of E-M81 in their hypothesis could have been linked with the spread of Neolithic food-producing technologies from the Fertile Crescent via the Nile, although pastoralism rather than agriculture". <br /><br />And: <br /><br />"In Europe, E-M81 is found everywhere but mostly in the Iberian Peninsula, where unlike in the rest of Europe[Note 6] it is more common than E-M78" <br /><br />So the ranges of E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b can hardly be said to 'overlap'. And their arrival in Europe, and probably their spread, is hardly 'ancient'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-49041131853343513342011-05-03T09:29:22.563+02:002011-05-03T09:29:22.563+02:00As for the rest, I do not think that O3 subclades ...As for the rest, I do not think that O3 subclades are "evenly distributed": it'd be foolish to think that way. They overlap but they typically have their own "home districts" where they are more dense. <br /><br />IDK, for instance (Hong Shi 2005 again) O3a2b is concentrated towards Tonkin and South Fujian, while O3a2c1 extends along the middle and upper Yangtze mostly. Just that no such mapping effort has been made AFAIK. <br /><br />It is also impossible that E1b1b1 major subclades spread in the Neolithic, none of them having greatest diversity in the fertile crescent or anything of the like. They spread in most cases before Neolithic, though some late expansion may have happened under Neolithic conditions (this is specially true for E-V13 but only for this one clade).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-4355402456997849072011-05-03T09:18:19.332+02:002011-05-03T09:18:19.332+02:00Why has O3a2 been demonstrated to have a Southern ...Why has O3a2 been <b>demonstrated</b> to have a Southern origin within China? <br /><br />O3a2c and O3a2b, which were demonstrated by Hong Shi 2005 to have a southern origin (with or without considering Southern Han and Sino-Tibetans). He discerned the defining mutations of these lineages and studied their haplotype structure separately, always pointing to a clear Southern origin.<br /><br />The only remaining subhaplogroup, O3a2a, was not studied by Hong Shi 2005 but it seems to only exist in the South anyhow, so I understand that it is a moot point. The only doubt could exist re. paragroup O3a2* but eve this one is much more frequent in the South than in the North - for whatever that is worth. <br /><br />So I understand that the Southern origin of O3a2 is quite solidly demonstrated, notwithstanding that some new contradictory evidence could arose in the future as can always happen in matters of science. <br /><br />I hope that you get that straight because I am not going to repeat this again (you should have got it straight many posts ago and even many years ago, as this issue has been arising once and again in discussions involving you, Terry, and only you).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-79907100302957801372011-05-03T06:43:08.098+02:002011-05-03T06:43:08.098+02:00"I think that (thanks to Hong Shi's pione..."I think that (thanks to Hong Shi's pioneer work) the case for a southern origin of O3a2 and subclades is quite clear". <br /><br />It's far from 'quite clear'. The phylogeny of O3 is nowhere near finalised so all calculations of its dating and point of origin could be way off. <br /><br />"O3 split in two subclades: O3a1 and O3a2". <br /><br />We have no way of knowing whether that split occurred during a northward or southward movement. <br /><br />"notice comparatively high O3a1* in the north in this paper" <br /><br />And O3a*-M324 (in the Korean paper). <br /><br />"In any case these two lineages and their subclades were in continuous contact and nothing really opposed their flow and that's why we see them now so interspersed". <br /><br />I doubt very much that is the explanation for the current mixed distribution of the two haplogroups. <br /><br />"You see that between R1a and R2 in South Asia" <br /><br />Those two haplogroups could hardly be called 'evenly distributed' through any part of India. R1a tends to be much more common than is R1b and tends to be northern. R1a has all the characteristics of being indigenous to India while R1b looks to be an immigrant. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA)<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"R1a is typical in populations of Eastern Europe, Indian Subcontinent and parts of Central Asia ... Haplogroup R2aHaplogroup R2a ... is mainly found in South Asia and southern Central Asia". <br /><br />So R1a tends to be north of R2. Back to you: <br /><br />"M and S in Melanesia" <br /><br />M tends to be concentrated in the Melanesian islands, S in mainland New Guinea: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_S_(Y-DNA)<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"Haplogroup S is commonly found among populations of the highlands of Papua New Guinea.[3] It is also found at lower frequencies in adjacent parts of Indonesia and Melanesia". <br /><br />And:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(Y-DNA)<br /><br />Just M1 is from New Guinea. M1 derivatives M1a and M1b, along with M2 and M3 are offshore. <br /><br />"Also several E1b1b1 subclades do clearly overlap" <br /><br />They 'overlap' but are not 'evenly distributed'. Each tends to be concentrated in their particular region. Besides which I'd argue for a Neolthic expansion of the E1b1b1 subclades, not Paleolithic. <br /><br />"probably E1a1a1 do as well" <br /><br />You probably mean E1b1a, which is spread through much of Africa except for the northeast. Again my guess is that the haplogroup is not 'evenly distributed' through the region. And where it is the distribution is a product of relatively recent arrival. E1a1 and E1a2 tend to be west African and E1a is a minor haplogroup overall.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-53622108158887338352011-05-02T06:36:30.360+02:002011-05-02T06:36:30.360+02:00Erratum:
"Unless... you can't prove"...<b>Erratum:</b><br /><br />"Unless... you can't <b>prove</b>"...<br /><br />should read:<br /><br />"Unless... you can <b>prove</b> otherwise"...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-60993490658700650502011-05-02T06:34:13.073+02:002011-05-02T06:34:13.073+02:00There's a reason why NO probably did not move ...There's a reason why NO probably did not move North immediately: we see no traces of such migration such as NO* scattered along the route. You compare with P but I estimate that P coalesced in Bengal, what is almost like Indochina, not really far away in any case from the putative MNOPS urheimat in Sundaland or Indochina. By comparison your obsessive "North" is much farther away, not considering the climate as barrier and obstacle for demographic growth. <br /><br />In fact, my null hypothesis right now is that all early Oriental lineages (D, C1'3 and NO migrated more or less jointly nortwards, with N, the several O, D and C subclades having localized founder effects in diverse areas. Notice that I'm not even saying that they were the same tribe or ethnicity, but that they were interacting closely all the time (constituting therefore a single population). <br /><br />There are other possibilities, specially earlier D and/or C layers and replacement by an expansive northwards migrating NO but I fail to see the archaeology of such a process. <br /><br />"But in that scenario O3's expansion was not subject to a 'corresponding diversification"...<br /><br />There is: O3 split in two subclades: O3a1 and O3a2. I think that (thanks to Hong Shi's pioneer work) the case for a southern origin of O3a2 and subclades is quite clear. It may be not so clear for O3a1 (notice comparatively high O3a1* in the north in this paper) but it's not something we may discern right now (because we lack data). <br /><br />In any case these two lineages and their subclades were in continuous contact and nothing really opposed their flow and that's why we see them now so interspersed. <br /><br />Unless... you can't <b>prove</b>, which you cannot at the present level of knowledge. <br /><br />"No R haplogroup (for example) at any level displays such a phenomenon".<br /><br />You see that between R1a and R2 in South Asia, M and S in Melanesia. Also several E1b1b1 subclades do clearly overlap and probably E1a1a1 do as well. Most other haplogroups have never been researched so much: what do we know of the structure of H, one of the most important human Y-DNA haplogroups by numbers? Really little.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-72065430828533968552011-05-02T05:15:34.773+02:002011-05-02T05:15:34.773+02:00"However the time between one phylogenetic st..."However the time between one phylogenetic stage and the next one (i.e. the process of coalescence as 'coalescing' and not yet as 'coalesced') can take some good time indeed. That's why t=(1,2,3...)" <br /><br />That is exactly what I'm getting at. We don't really know what happened to NO, or even MNOPS, during t=1, t=2 etc. <br /><br />"When I say 'initial drift', I refer for the initial 'NO population' at t=1. When you discuss O3 that is at t=3, some time after t=1, a very different scenario as far as I can infer". <br /><br />I agree with that completely. <br /><br />"1. (t=1) NO proto-Oriental 'tribe' (in SE Asia or South China)" <br /><br />We know that P moved west rapidly, leaving no remnant behind but, in the form of its descendant haplogroups, became very common through India and out into wider Eurasia. And M and S both spread rapidly to New Guinea/Melanesia. So there's no reason at all why NO was unable to begin moving north immediately. <br /><br />"2. (t=2) coalescence of the four major subclades (N, O1, O2 and O3, maybe some of their subclades)" <br /><br />Each somewhere within the region that NO had spread through, not necessarily in the region where NO or MNOPS had originally coalesced. I'd guess the region the four haplogroups coalesced encompassed much of what is now China north of Zomia and the Nan Ling, with N in the north, O2 in the northeast, O1 in the east and O3 in western China. <br /><br />"3. (t=3) expansion of these subclades (and corresponding diversification)". <br /><br />But in that scenario O3's expansion was not subject to a 'corresponding diversification, especially in the case of O3a1c and O3a2c. No R haplogroup (for example) at any level displays such a phenomenon. And as you say: <br /><br />"Another thing is whether we can estimate their ages with any accuracy however". <br /><br />To me the fact that several O3s are widespread, as opposed to the other haplogroups, suggests their expansion is relatively recent. They have not been overlaid by any more recent expansion. Again, to me that suggests their expansion is more recent than the Paleolithic. Of course regional diversification in those O3 haplogroups may show up at a finer level but we certainly have no hint of such diversification at this stage. <br /><br />"This means that whatever the connection between SE Asian and NE Asian O2b is not through North China but probably by a long erased coastal route of some sort". <br /><br />I agree with that completely. We actually see regional diversification in O2. But I suspect that the origin of that coastal connection is from somewhere around the Sea Of Japan. The spread probably involved the Ryukyu Islands as O2b is reasonably common there.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-44398804549955540412011-04-29T14:52:07.347+02:002011-04-29T14:52:07.347+02:00I'll be back later with the O2b paper. Just re...I'll be back later with the O2b paper. Just remind that this haplogroup is not exclusive of NE Asia but is also found at low frequencies though SE Asia, while AFAIK never in North China, invalidating any possible "Neolithic" flow conjecture. This means that whatever the connection between SE Asian and NE Asian O2b is not through North China but probably by a long erased coastal route of some sort. <br /><br />When I say "initial drift", I refer for the initial "NO population" at t=1. When you discuss O3 that is at t=3, some time after t=1, a very different scenario as far as I can infer, when O was expanding all around already. <br /><br />Different moments. I hope you can understand this simple idea. <br /><br />"how do you explain that skewed distribution, if not as indicating independent migrations from different regions?"<br /><br />Actually I think in the following terms:<br /><br />1. (t=1) NO proto-Oriental "tribe" (in SE Asia or South China)<br />2. (t=2) coalescence of the four major subclades (N, O1, O2 and O3, maybe some of their subclades)<br />3. (t=3) expansion of these subclades (and corresponding diversification). Some (N, O2b) reach the far North in localized founder effects), while others (O3 and sublineages) expand in a wide front across China.<br /><br />Unsure if the northern C lineages, and maybe even the D ones, migrated also in this process (it's possible indeed).<br /><br />"The Nanling Mountains are virtually uninhabited".<br /><br />Anecdotal stuff. You are already touching Zomia anyhow. <br /><br />"You obviously don't realise that the 'age' of a haplogroup is not the same as the time of its 'expansion'. A haplogroup can coalesce thousands of years before it expands".<br /><br />Not really. Not in the case of Y-DNA. Y chromosome mutations are way too frequent for that. That can be true in the much shorter mtDNA ring but not in the comparatively huge Y chromosome. However the time between one phylogenetic stage and the next one (i.e. the process of coalescence as "coalescing" and not yet as "coalesced") can take some good time indeed. That's why t=(1,2,3...)<br /><br />In Y-DNA, coalescence as haplogroup (emphasis as always in "group": branching node) and expansion must be the same. Another thing is whether we can estimate their ages with any accuracy however.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-20358025840816987652011-04-29T13:08:40.352+02:002011-04-29T13:08:40.352+02:00You may find this interesting:
http://www.invest...You may find this interesting: <br /><br />http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/2/1/10/abstract<br /><br />"Interestingly, a high frequency (31.4%) of haplogroup O2b- SRY465 (and its sublineage) is characteristic of male Koreans, whereas the haplogroup distribution elsewhere in East Asian populations is patchy. The ages of the haplogroup O2b-SRY465 lineages (~9,900 years) and the pattern of variation within the lineages suggested an ancient origin in a nearby part of northeastern Asia, followed by an expansion in the vicinity of the Korean Peninsula. In addition, the coalescence time (~4,400 years) for the age of haplogroup O2b1-47z, and its Y-STR diversity, suggest that this lineage probably originated in Korea". <br /><br />And: <br /><br />"These findings are consistent with linguistic, archaeological andhistorical evidence, which suggest that the direct ancestors of Koreans were proto-Koreans who inhabited the northeastern region of China and the Korean Peninsula during the Neolithic (8,000-1,000 BC) and Bronze (1,500-400 BC) Ages". <br /><br />That takes care of O2b. Now: <br /><br />"probably dominant in the population involved in the initial northward migration" <br /><br />Several unjustified assumptions straight away. <br /><br />"N, which should be considered for practical purposes of historical reconstruction as a fourth major subhaplogroup of NO" <br /><br />Agreed. But that becomes a problem for your theory. <br /><br />"Initial drift favored one over the other (without really fixating it totally). It happens a lot". <br /><br />But you quote from the other paper: <br /><br />"therefore, no obvious bottleneck occurred for the O3-M122 lineage" <br /><br />So why on earth should just one haplogroup suffer a bottleneck when the others didn't? Especially considering (according to you) the original population entered a region where it was able to expand unhindered? Drift, bottlenecks and founder effects should have had no influence at all. <br /><br />"in contrast with the skewed distribution of the O2-M95 and O1-M119 lineages" <br /><br />So how do you explain that skewed distribution, if not as indicating independent migrations from different regions? Doesn't make sense, if you're correct, and all four haplogroups expanded from the same region in South China through a region with no obstacles other than rivers. <br /><br />"Somewhat concentrated as you say, indeed. So what?" <br /><br />The Nanling Mountains are virtually uninhabited. They may not be to high but they sure are steep. <br /><br />"all the subhaplogroups have a history older than the Neolithic time, with a range of 25,000–30,000 years ago". <br /><br />Maju. You obviously don't realise that the 'age' of a haplogroup is not the same as the time of its 'expansion'. A haplogroup can coalesce thousands of years before it expands. <br /><br />"Bu why do I have to quote all that when obviously you had read it already?" <br /><br />Because, unlike the case for many links I've provided, you fail to see the weaknesses in the argument.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-68655802036316087872011-04-29T12:27:55.694+02:002011-04-29T12:27:55.694+02:00As for Hong Shi 2005, it seems obvious to me that ...As for Hong Shi 2005, it seems obvious to me that you insist in misquoting and misinterpreting. A good synthesis is in this paragraph:<br /><br />"It should be noted that the lack of genetic divergence, in view of the gene diversity between the southern and northern O3-M122 lineages, indicates that <b>the O3-M122 lineages were probably dominant in the population involved in the initial northward migration; therefore, no obvious bottleneck occurred for the O3-M122 lineage</b>, in contrast with the skewed distribution of the O2-M95 and O1-M119 lineages (Su et al. 1999; Wen et al. 2004b).<br /><br />That is what they say. <br /><br />"Table 3 lists the age estimations; all the subhaplogroups have a history older than the Neolithic time, with a range of 25,000–30,000 years ago".<br /><br />Notice that these are the subhaplogroups, not O3 as such, and that I consider that the Zhivotovski method underestimates age by 15-100% (Pan-Homo divergence systematic underestimation). So we can easily be talking of 60 Ka realistic age for O3 - no kidding. <br /><br />Notice also that the "skewed distribution" of O1 and O2 is also paralleled (in its own way) by N, which should be considered for practical purposes of historical reconstruction as a fourth major subhaplogroup of NO rather than as a totally distinct haplogroup with a totally different history. <br /><br />All this only the Results section that you misquote so much. The Discussion section is even more clear:<br /><br />"As we described above, the distribution of the O3-M122 haplotypes in East Asian populations supports a southern origin".<br /><br />And at the very end:<br /><br />"In summary, our data about the East Asian–specific haplogroup O3-M122 indicates a southern origin of the O3-M122 lineage, therefore supporting the hypothesized southern origin of modern humans in East Asia. The initial prehistoric northward migration was estimated at 25,000–30,000 years ago".<br /><br />Bu why do I have to quote all that when obviously you had read it already? :(Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-27139639123712822582011-04-29T12:13:22.384+02:002011-04-29T12:13:22.384+02:00"Why are you not prepared to accept the evide..."Why are you not prepared to accept the evidence at face value?"<br /><br />What evidence, what face value? Just yelling at me. :(<br /><br />"Why would it not expand at the same time as its brother O?" <br /><br />Initial drift favored one over the other (without really fixating it totally). It happens a lot. <br /><br />"You can see that the population is concentrated along the major river basins and in patches along the coast".<br /><br />Somewhat concentrated as you say, indeed. So what? I have always been pretty much conscious of the attractor role that waterways exert over people: that happens everywhere, <a href="http://mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/european_union_population_density.png" rel="nofollow">including the North European Plain</a> (where you must agree that there are no obstacles other than rivers, which actually act as attractors more than true obstacles most of the time). <br /><br />This has nothing to do with the existence or lack of obstacles but with the existence of attractor waterways.<br /><br />"... it's more than just possible they are migrants from the north too".<br /><br />Why? Because someone picks his nose? Or because there is evidence suggesting it? If so, which one? I have yet to see any such evidence: it's all (or most) wild speculation made academic doctrine (what is not the same as science, mind you). <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-7720266260378244002011-04-29T11:41:55.237+02:002011-04-29T11:41:55.237+02:00"look at Hong Shi's structure analysis an..."look at Hong Shi's structure analysis and you'll realize (as soon as you can put your faith to the side) that these two haplogroups expanded from South to North". <br /><br />Quote from that paper: <br /><br />"In general, the distribution of the O3-M122 haplotypes did not show distinctive divergence between southern and northern populations, with all the major subhaplogroups shared between them—except for O3-M7, which was observed only in the southern populations and therefore indicates a recent common ancestry of the O3-M122 lineage in East Asia". <br /><br />Do I read correctly? 'recent common ancestry of the O3-M122 lineage in East Asia'? That's the whole of O3 according to the reconstruction. M7 (now O3a2b) is Hmong-Mien as far as I'm aware, so it is now a 'southern' haplogroup, but may not have first coalesced there anyway. And the paper goes on: <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />'Recent common ancestry', again? <br /><br />"Using the STR data, we calculated the gene diversities; no significant differences were observed between SEAS and NEAS or among different language groups (data not shown)". <br /><br />Proves that the 'haplogroups expanded from South to North'? <br /><br />"However, the MDS analysis showed that the NEAS are closely related by clustering together, whereas the SEAS showed relatively loose connections with larger variance, indicating that SEAS are genetically more polymorphic than are NEAS (fig. 5)". <br /><br />As we would expaect if the haploups had expanded from north to south, separating as they did so. Seems the author assumed that the Hmong-Mien, Austro-Asiatic, Tai-Kradai and Austronesian people are aboriginal Southern Chinese, whereas it's more than just possible they are migrants from the north too. <br /><br />"However, our previous studies showed that northern Han populations are relatively homogenous, with similar Y-chromosome haplotype distributions" <br /><br />The paper you blog here shows that not really to be so. Therefore the Hong She comment, 'It should be noted that the difference in genetic variance between NEAS and SEAS could be due to the sampling-density discrepancy' is correct. <br /><br />"it's actually somewhat hilly, specially in the south, I know, but nothing too marked". <br /><br />http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mapcruzin.com/free-maps-thematic/china_population_83.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mapcruzin.com/free-world-population-maps.htm&h=1014&w=1056&sz=129&tbnid=miqzJq59bbDrwM:&tbnh=144&tbnw=150&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dchina%2Bpopulation%2Bdistribution%2Bmap%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=china+population+distribution+map&hl=en&usg=__TyPzf4FucDQvy6exzxFp_4ewWWo=&sa=X&ei=VoO6Td-eFIqssAO5p-TWBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQ9QEwAA<br /><br />So how come there is a distinct thinning of the population through that 'somewhat hilly' country? You can see that the population is concentrated along the major river basins and in patches along the coast. <br /><br />"According to what I think, N was always rare in South China, it never had room to expand there (because of its dominant "brother" O mostly). However it still coalesced there as a minority lineage" <br /><br />There you go, as usual. Come up with a theory and then manipulate the evidence to fit it by invoking unfounded inventions of drift, bottlenecks and founder effects. Why are you not prepared to accept the evidence at face value? Why would it not expand at the same time as its brother O? Especially considering we're dealing with 'what could well be termed the great Chinese flatland'. Your theory doesn't make any sense.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-34159179548009657402011-04-29T10:49:40.013+02:002011-04-29T10:49:40.013+02:00I'm not ignoring any possibilities, just don&#...I'm not ignoring any possibilities, just don't see any clear evidence anywhere, rather the opposite - but if you're going to disqualify with a blank slate disdainful sentence... whatever. <br /><br />"... according to your argument N would not have been 'rare' in South China".<br /><br />According to what I think, N was always rare in South China, it never had room to expand there (because of its dominant "brother" O mostly). However it still coalesced there as a minority lineage (probably, mind you, not "for sure": only further research will clarify this matter). <br /><br />"More likely Central Asia I'd say" [locality of Q's coalescence].<br /><br />Maybe. It's not like it's too frequent in Central Asia anyhow, besides Alta (where it may be 20-25%). The greatest frequencies area always found in localities that imply a late colonization, such as America or the colder parts of Siberia. <br /><br />"Rubbish" [re. the lack of geographical barriers between Tonkin and Manchuria other than rivers]<br /><br />Instead of reacting emotionally, could you mention such "barriers"? <br /><br />See: <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/China_100.78713E_35.63718N.jpg" rel="nofollow">satellite image of China</a>. Mountains begin when you approach Tibet or get into Indochina, not in what could well be termed the "great Chinese flatland" (it's actually somewhat hilly, specially in the south, I know, but nothing too marked). No Alps, no Saharas, no Wallace Lines anywhere. Not even a permeable low mountain Zomia-like area. <br /><br />"Up till now I have regarded O2a2c [O3a2c] as a single haplogroup. But its downstream mutation O3a2c1 is also evenly spread throughout the three regions of China".<br /><br />Both clades were determined by Hong Shi 2005 to have spread from South to North. Judging by frequency alone may be very much misleading. <br /><br />So yeah: that's the problem here: that you ignore structure and almost hysterically insist once and again on judgments (or rather wishful thinking) based only on frequency. <br /><br />Stop it. You are in denial: look at Hong Shi's structure analysis and you'll realize (as soon as you can put your faith to the side) that these two haplogroups expanded from South to North.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-32683636793760246472011-04-29T10:25:41.932+02:002011-04-29T10:25:41.932+02:00"I actually think that there is no anything &..."I actually think that there is no anything 'Australoid' besides the Australian Aborigines and that all those peoples you claim 'Australoid' are actually a large number of unique phenotypes and genetic pools on their own right". <br /><br />To some extent there are 'a large number of unique phenotypes and genetic pools'. But those phenotypes do form a cline. From Australia the cline runs north to Papua/New Guinea, then turns east through the Bismark Archipelago, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu/New Caledonia, Fiji, Tonga/Samoa and, finally, Polynesia. It is usually possible to tell reasonably accurately where on that cline most individuals you come across lie. Then the cline swings back west, but there is a break in it. As the Austronesians moved east from Southeast Asia the 'purer' form of the Papua/New Guinea phenotype followed along behind, and that movement has broken the cline. But it has contributed to the steady, gradual west/east change. Various haplogroups support the existence of that cline. <br /><br />"what you see is that they are more related (genetically, mind you) to some 'Mongoloids' (or even others) than among each other" <br /><br />Exactly. The Polynesians are more related genetically to Mongoloids than are the other members of this part of the cline. And we could regard the Polynesians as being halfway along the cline between the Australians and the northeast Asians 'Mongoloids'. <br /><br />As I said, the cline swings back. The other half of the cline jumps back to people who look a lot like Polynesians: filipinos/Indonesians/Malays. Then to Mainland SE Asia, South China, North China/Japan/Korea and finally northeast Asia.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-27963149163462311652011-04-29T09:55:29.133+02:002011-04-29T09:55:29.133+02:00"There is nothing clear on how this blade tec..."There is nothing clear on how this blade technocomplex expanded to the South - if it did at all". <br /><br />Most actually involved with studying it agree with a northern origin and southward spread. But of course you have your belief and try to fit the evidence to that belief rather than look at the evidence and then form an explanation. This allows you to ignore any other possibilities. <br /><br />"The paper anyhow only deals with a single site in a single period in North Vietnam, what is alone of limited informative value" <br /><br />Again everybody involved in actually studying the region agrees that Vietnam is mich more 'Sinicised' than are the other regions of mainland SE Asia. The linked paper explains when this happened. <br /><br />"a haplogroup can coalesce where it is rare" <br /><br />Yes, but according to your argument N would not have been 'rare' in South China. <br /><br />"Q looks like coalescing in West Asia and it's rare there" <br /><br />More likely Central Asia I'd say, where it is still common amoung the Ket and Selkup. <br /><br />"Yes it is: look at that atlas yourself: only rivers are 'obstacles' between Hanoi and Beijing". <br /><br />Rubbish. If that were so why is the population so concentrated in just a few regions? Apart from the Yangtze River Basin and pockets along the coast much of southern China is mountainous and quite sparsely populated. <br /><br />"We must look at diversity, not frequency". <br /><br />Well, that's the problem here. Up till now I have regarded O2a2c as a single haplogroup. But its downstream mutation O3a2c1 is also evenly spread throughout the three regions of China. Surely that is enough to show that O3a2c did not expand until O3a2c1 had appeared, then they both spread together.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-8146284309134410772011-04-28T10:42:37.083+02:002011-04-28T10:42:37.083+02:00"Did you not read the link?"
Very diffi..."Did you not read the link?"<br /><br />Very difficult to know what link with such brief one-liners, but I believe I did read all links you posted, at least to some extent. I you at least cared to be more specific...<br /><br />"Otherwise we'd surely find N to be reasonably common there".<br /><br />It has nothing to do: a haplogroup can coalesce where it is rare: Q looks like coalescing in West Asia and it's rare there, while very common in America. There are many other examples. We must look at diversity, not frequency. <br /><br />If you want to insist on arguing based on frequency alone, I'd ask you to do it elsewhere - because it's pointless and annoying. <br /><br />"We're ultimately discussing the southward movement of the Mongoloid phenotype through China and on into SE Asia".<br /><br />I'm not. I have not until this very moment or the last post when I tried to address some of your issues. <br /><br />This paper actually does not mention any other part of SE Asia than what is within the borders of China, so you are diverting the debate to a quite off-topic issue. I have nothing against well placed or otherwise necessary off-topics but when you just claim that the off-topic is the center of the discussion... sorry but nope.<br /><br />""Archaeologist Peter Bellwood claims that the 'vast majority' of people in Southeast Asia, the region he calls the 'clinal Mongoloid-Australoid zone', are 'Southern Mongoloids' but have a 'high degree' of Australoid admixture.[17] Ainus are considered Southern Mongoloids even though they live in East Asia".<br /><br />So South Chinese lie on a cline between North Chinese and Se Asians."<br /><br />That's what Bellwood and you believe. I do not have to agree at all. I actually think that there is no anything "Australoid" besides the Australian Aborigines and that all those peoples you claim "Australoid" are actually a large number of unique phenotypes and genetic pools on their own right. <br /><br />I fail to see what relation can have Ainu with Australian Aborigines, but I also fail to see what relation can have the Onge with the Papuans or... each of those "residual" populations is unique and illustrates a different kind of local isolate. Some may be related with each other in very deep time-frames but often what you see is that they are more related (genetically, mind you) to some "Mongoloids" (or even others) than among each other. <br /><br />I would even challenge the idea that there is a unique "Mongoloid" phenotype: Dienekes certainly failed to find it, and instead produced a number of diverse phenotype clusters, while at the same time Thor Heyerdal and Hosni Mubarak insisted in being clustered together. So there is No "Mongoloid" anything in the same sense that there is a "Caucasoid" type, ranging from Norway to Egypt. <br /><br />This means probably that the various "Mongoloid" phenotypes, as well as the various "Australoid" (senso lato) phenotypes coalesced probably before the "Caucasoid" type did, c. 40 Ka ago. <br /><br />But it's difficult to demonstrate because this is the study of the highly irregular and individualized shapes of nature and we don't even know for sure what part is played by genes and what by environment. Or if some skull type implies "slanted eyes" or not, what in the end is what rings in our minds when we think "Mongoloid", all other traits being secondary. <br /><br />"Geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza claims that there is a genetic division between East and Southeast Asians".<br /><br />Obsolete unreproducible data, sorry. Most if not all modern comparable researches fail to produce that duality. C-V failed in that (because his range of gene markers was limited).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com