tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post3371998371701607201..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Mitochondrial DNA revision and the Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence (RSRS)Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-70964383217241223502012-05-17T05:02:29.616+02:002012-05-17T05:02:29.616+02:00Mousterian in Australia? Neanderthals in Australia...Mousterian in Australia? Neanderthals in Australia? Aurignacian in Australia?<br /><br />NOPE!<br /><br />You know that perfectly well. Nothing of what is found in Altai has any direct relation with Australia!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-38589415265687657812012-05-17T03:20:23.671+02:002012-05-17T03:20:23.671+02:00"It's you who is trying to dodge the issu..."It's you who is trying to dodge the issue by calling up Australia" <br /><br />No Maju. You are dodging the issue by choosing to ignore Australia. <br /><br />"where neither Mousterian nor Aurignacian of any kind have ever existed". <br /><br />Nor anything that can be called diagnostic of classic Upper Paleolithic. And yet the people surely cannot be considered other than being genetically 'modern' humans. <br /><br />"in your case it's obvious that you are just fooling me" <br /><br />No, you are fooling yourself. For example: <br /><br />"As for the rest, it is molecular-clock-o-logy of the kind I can't accept (M must be 80-74 Ka old, being the most clear calibration point in the human mtDNA phylogeny per our current archaeological knowledge)". <br /><br />The only reason you disagree with the dates provided in the paper is because those dates cannot be made to fit your belief. Surely it is time for you to step back and reconsider your belief. The dates fit perfectly with what we know of Australia and neighbouring regions. For example dates of 52,053 and 53,483 years for O and S fit very well what seems to be the most likely dating for the entry into Australia. But of course acceptance of the dates fails to fit what you think you know of South Asia. On the other hand if you were prepared to accept the dates given you would come to quite a different conclusion regarding human expansions. <br /><br />"Oddly enough, in spite of M being closer to the root than N and having on average more mutations to present day sequences, the authors manage to somehow assign a younger age to this haplogroup than to its sister N". <br /><br />Why are you unable to accept that? Makes sense to me.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-10475028284524160522012-05-16T09:42:10.203+02:002012-05-16T09:42:10.203+02:00It's you who is trying to dodge the issue by c...It's you who is trying to dodge the issue by calling up Australia, where neither Mousterian nor Aurignacian of any kind have ever existed. <br /><br />If that would be the slip of a less knowledgeable person who is not an annoying arrogant prick, I'd have no problem in explaining it again, but in your case it's obvious that you are just fooling me, whoever other readers and maybe yourself with ill intent. <br /><br />_|_Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-35228082739069240232012-05-16T05:20:33.547+02:002012-05-16T05:20:33.547+02:00"1. N1'5 is just one of several short-ste..."1. N1'5 is just one of several short-stem basal derivates from N: you can't finish a puzzle with just one piece". <br /><br />But that is exactly what you were trying to do. I have consistently been trying to get you to look at all the evidence. I find it interesting that you have for so long accepted Behar (and the other authors of the current paper) as experts for so long, but now that they have provided fairly convincing dates in their molecular clockology you dismiss them. The dates they offer for the several of the basal N haplogroups are particularly interesting. N at 58,859 years, N1'5 at 56,547 years (even N1 at 51,642 years), N2 (with a 4 mutation tail) at 44,477 years, N9 at 45,709 years, N10 (with a 2 mutation tail) at 50,443 years, N11 at 56,272 years, O (with a 2 mutation tail) at 52,053 years, S at 53,483 years and R at 56,523 years. So we can be sure that N had reached India/SW Asia, South China and Australia before the hiatus in the Altai, and before the appearance of anything that could be considered Upper Paleolithic. <br /><br />"2. Don't you know what Mousterian is? Or are you rather just being insultingly cynic?" <br /><br />You are obviously trying to avoid the issue here. The Australian Aborigines did not have a culture that could in any way be termed Upper Paleolithic, however you might wish to define such a technology. <br /><br />"3. I do not 'consider 'blades' as defing modern human technology'. You're making things up with a long shot of hypocrisy and circular reasoning". <br /><br />You seem to have changed your mind then. What do you now regard as the defining characteristic of modern humans? <br /><br />"4. I do think that Australian Aborigines are modern humans like you or me". <br /><br />Thank you. <br /><br />"Your resort to gratuitous accusations of 'racism' <br /><br />And you've just demonstrated that I have been correct in those accustaions. You've just suggested that the Australian Aborigines cannot be considered modern humans. I've been trying to tell you for some time now that technology is not the defining characteristic of modern humans but, your obstinate insistence on maintaining otherwise has led you to this ridiculous situation.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-13831876308424464112012-05-15T12:33:26.151+02:002012-05-15T12:33:26.151+02:00I'm going to try to save my time when discussi...I'm going to try to save my time when discussing with you so, sythetically:<br /><br />1. N1'5 is just one of several short-stem basal derivates from N: you can't finish a puzzle with just one piece. <br /><br />2. Don't you know what Mousterian is? Or are you rather just being insultingly cynic?<br /><br />3. I do not "consider 'blades' as defing modern human technology". You're making things up with a long shot of hypocrisy and circular reasoning.<br /><br />4. I do think that Australian Aborigines are modern humans like you or me. Your resort to gratuitous accusations of "racism" (twice in the day, twice made up and false and only to underline an equally false pseudo-logic of you) is not acceptable. I'd punch your nose at this time or at least throw a beer to your face. <br /><br />4.b. As soon as I migrate to Wordpress (which I'm more and more determined to do), I'll have the ability to individually censor commenters and, unless you radically change your manners soon you will be in that list. <br /><br />5. You obviously misunderstood me at least once but it'd take too long and would be too useless to dispel your confusion and I cannot care anymore.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-91113137830221961262012-05-15T06:07:15.663+02:002012-05-15T06:07:15.663+02:00"you are a cheater and not any honest debate ..."you are a cheater and not any honest debate partner". <br /><br />Not true. How about this: <br /><br />"Australia was surely colonized soon after N expanded... in SE Asia. You can't take the evidence and the model by parts at your convenience". <br /><br />It is you who is taking evidence apart at your own convenience. N1'5 is also only one mutation from basal N so must have arrived somewhere in northwest India/SW Asia soon after N expanded. And the same holds for N2 and X even though they have long stems. N must have expanded widely at roughly the same time as it reached Australia. <br /><br />"your intellectual cheating really annoys me: I say 'Mousterian' and you say 'no blades'. Why do you think that you can deceive me with such lowly petty discursive tricks?" <br /><br />I'm doing no such thing. I'm merely relying on your previous distinctions such as: <br /><br />"one is Mousterian (MP tech, no blades) and the other Aurignacoid (UP tech on blade and bladelet largely). Mode 3 and mode 4". <br /><br />And this one: <br /><br />"The quote is about blades (mode 4: not Mousterian!), which the author considers somehow transitional between MP and UP techs, what is typical of Aurignacoid techs anyhow". <br /><br />So you obviously consider 'blades' as defing modern human technology. And claim modern humans cannot have been present in any region before blades appear. <br /><br />"Associating Mousterian with Homo sapiens is not really acceptable unless you'd have some evidence, which you do not, much less in this case which is so clear-cut. The cultural sequence in Eastern Asia and Australasia is different but there is no Mousterian either, so your attempt of comparison is just another attempt at falsifying the terms of the discussion - something that I do not have to put up with". <br /><br />I know you prefer to ignore the difference in Eastern Asia and Australasia because it doesn't fit your belief, but how about this quote in a textbook from my university days (may be dated, but I don't think it's disputed): <br /><br />"In territories relatively remote from those in which innovations first appeared old forms of technology might survive from the mere fact that they remained without challenge. Industries in mode 1, which must have been practised over an immensely long period of time, are found over the whole territory occupied by early man. Mode 2 industries on the other hand failed to reach south-east Asia or China. Mode 3 industries still did not penetrate these regions in the Far East, but on the other hand extended northwards into European Russia and Inner Asia. This makes it less of a surprise that when for example men first spread into Australia by way of Indonesia they should have carried with them a lithic tradition in mode 1." <br /><br />So do yoy still believe either that the Australian Aborigines are not 'modern human', or that modern humans cannot be associated with anything before the Aurignacoid UP? <br /><br />"Comparing with Australia is pointless when everything points to being part of the same processes that we see in Europe and West Asia (and not any other)". <br /><br />That statement is obviously incorrect. N's expansion has to be older than the Aurignacoid UP.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-14268217674533353372012-05-14T10:20:26.870+02:002012-05-14T10:20:26.870+02:00You know: your intellectual cheating really annoys...You know: your intellectual cheating really annoys me: I say "Mousterian" and you say "no blades". Why do you think that you can deceive me with such lowly petty discursive tricks? <br /><br />That's why I'm getting to dislike you more and more: you are a cheater and not any honest debate partner.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-43662053842620420072012-05-14T10:18:49.893+02:002012-05-14T10:18:49.893+02:00Australia was surely colonized soon after N expand...Australia was surely colonized soon after N expanded... <b>in SE Asia</b>. You can't take the evidence and the model by parts at your convenience. <br /><br />In Altai we have:<br />1. Mousterian with Neanderthal/Denisovan skeletal remains<br />2. Aurignacoid UP with Homo sapiens' skeletal remains<br /><br />Plus the process is linked conceptually and chronologically to a very similar one in Europe and West Asia. <br /><br />Barring some strange surprise (let's see it first), the conclusions are very straightforward.<br /><br />Associating Mousterian with Homo sapiens is not really acceptable unless you'd have some evidence, which you do not, much less in this case which is so clear-cut.<br /><br />The cultural sequence in Eastern Asia and Australasia is different but there is no Mousterian either, so your attempt of comparison is just another attempt at falsifying the terms of the discussion - something that I do not have to put up with. <br /><br />Both the Mousterian MP with Neanderthals and the Aurignacoid UP with Sapiens that we find in Altai are totally consistent, even in chronology, with the processes we see elsewhere in West Eurasia (but not in other regions like Southern Africa or Australia, logically). Similarly is the genetic that we find even today, for the largest part. <br /><br />Comparing with Australia is pointless when everything points to being part of the same processes that we see in Europe and West Asia (and not any other).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-73953656992254850072012-05-14T05:15:46.633+02:002012-05-14T05:15:46.633+02:00You're definitely rambling here:
"N-cla...You're definitely rambling here: <br /><br />"N-clan black people wandering in the snow... but then arriving to Australia with the most perfect Afro-tan after millennia of negating Evolution" <br /><br />Isn't the haplogroup evidence reasonably convincing that people arrived in Australia relatively rapidly after N began to expand? <br /><br />"Derevianko 2007 considers this layer to be still Middle Paleolithic. This can mean two things: (1) Neanderthals developing on their own or importing the blade concept from neighboring H. sapiens" <br /><br />'Middle Paleolithic' does not define 'not modern human'. <br /><br />"But, in addition to all that, there is another problem: there is no such blank: the region is full of archaeological remains that are fully consistent with a Neanderthal (and Denisovan) occupation but not a single one suggesting the presence of Homo sapiens until much later". <br /><br />On what grounds do you claim that to be so? The absence of blades? If so you need a rethink. <br /><br />"I'm claiming that the Middle Paleolithic (no blades) of the region is Neanderthal/Denisovan and the Upper Paleolithic is Homo sapiens". <br /><br />So the Australian Aborigines are not 'modern humans' by your definition. They did not have a blade technology until some 6000 years ago. <br /><br />http://une-au.academia.edu/MarkMoore/Papers/454683/Australian_Aboriginal_blade_production_methods_on_the_Georgina_River_Camooweal_Queensland<br /><br />And: <br /><br />http://www.janesoceania.com/australia_aboriginal_arrivalofthedingo/index1.htm<br /><br />Quote from the last: <br /><br />"Included within the small tool tradition are backed blades, points, tulas and burren adzes. These tool types vary considerably, both in terms of geographic location and the timing of their appearance. It is generally agreed that these small tools were added to the existing Australian tool kit some time between about 6000 and 4000 BP, but there is much debate about the exact chronology, distribution and origin of each type".terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-24985577613650406702012-05-12T11:42:55.952+02:002012-05-12T11:42:55.952+02:00... "even further back before the hiatus you ...... "even further back before the hiatus you claim destroyed all humans in the Altai".<br /><br />I don't "claim" that.<br /><br />The hiatus clearly marks in the relevant caves a lack of occupation in the MP-UP transition. Apparently some Neanderthals survived at the northernmost cave, Okladnikov, until after Sapiens occupation.<br /><br />Your usage of the ambiguous "all humans" is only intended to confuse the matter so you can cling to some straws. Or fantasize that you can: you are not deceiving anyone but yourself with this, Terry.<br /><br />"If you accept that N's expansion was some 70,000 years ago that leaves plenty of time for plenty to happen".<br /><br />Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows... :D<br /><br />Sorry but that's what comes to my mind when I read this kind of elusive fantasies in which even elves and goblins and what not could be included... it's all up to claim that there is a blank of knowledge and fill it up with whatever one wishes: God, dragons... N-clan black people wandering in the snow... but then arriving to Australia with the most perfect Afro-tan after millennia of negating Evolution its right to exist in the name of Terry's stubborn beliefs. Darwin's worst nightmare.<br /><br />But, in addition to all that, there is another problem: there is no such blank: the region is full of archaeological remains that are fully consistent with a Neanderthal (and Denisovan) occupation but not a single one suggesting the presence of Homo sapiens until much later.<br /><br />So you are mercilessly and quite dishonestly bending the evidence in order to make a hole large enough to push your dragons through.<br /><br />Sorry, not credible.<br /><br />"They don't need to use the Altai route. They do not have to be anywhere near as far north as that to be able to move east during periods of climate amelioration".<br /><br />First, the period between c. 74 Ka and c. 60 Ka was one of the coldest in the recent geological history (because of Toba surely).<br /><br />Second, the area between the Altai corridor and the Hymalayas is barely able to support life even today, much less in the dry and cold spell of the Ice Age, when Tibet was complete covered in ice and the deserts of Uyghuristan and Mongolia were even more arid than now.<br /><br />Third, further south in your hypothetical "Paleolithic Silk Route", in Uzbekistan, the inhabitants were also Neanderthals.<br /><br />Fourth, your grasping for straws is becoming quite pathetic. Why don't you put the cart behind the horses for once and stop assuming things without any evidence?<br /><br />"But he states very clearly that the Initial Upper Paleolithic is dated at more than 40,000 years ago. Read the abstract"...<br /><br />You may be right in this. I will have to check the details because Derevianko 2007 considers this layer to be still Middle Paleolithic. This can mean two things: (1) Neanderthals developing on their own or importing the blade concept from neighboring H. sapiens (just as in Europe in the same period) or (2) the earliest tentative arrival of H. sapiens to the region.<br /><br />"Kara-Bom OH5 and 6 can be seen as resulting from a series of human occupations taking place around 43 ka 14C BP."<br /><br />It does not really make a big difference and still cannot support your hypothesis either. It would just push the H. sapiens penetration earlier, more in accordance to what we know of the colonization of Europe nowadays, which is even older than that probably, at least in is first stages.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-55926290876706535042012-05-12T04:20:46.717+02:002012-05-12T04:20:46.717+02:00"Anyhow I can't agree with those estimate..."Anyhow I can't agree with those estimates: N must be c. 70 Ka old and R surely older than 60 Ka". <br /><br />That places N's expansion even further back before the hiatus you claim destroyed all humans in the Altai. <br /><br />"But this disagreement is not that important for the matter at hand". <br /><br />It is really. If you accept that N's expansion was some 70,000 years ago that leaves plenty of time for plenty to happen. What regions were Upper Paleolithic that long ago? And what was N doing all those years that provides no trace through Eastern South Asia? <br /><br />"I'm claiming that the Middle Paleolithic (no blades) of the region is Neanderthal/Denisovan and the Upper Paleolithic is Homo sapiens". <br /><br />But blades appear in the Initial Upper Paleolithic, and that occurrs before the hiatus, at least according to the 2011 paper. <br /><br />"Assuming that would be correct, they could have never used the Altai route, which only has Neanderthal/Denisovan evidence so early". <br /><br />They don't need to use the Altai route. They do not have to be anywhere near as far north as that to be able to move east during periods of climate amelioration. In adverse conditions they can move south as far as Afghanistan. But you just carry on believing what you want to believe. <br /><br />"but Zwynn 2011 argues for more recent dates. I'm taking Zwynn as reference here because he's more recent and he states very clearly that there is a sterile layer between the MP and UP and a hiatus of c. 10 Ka between the two occupations". <br /><br />But he states very clearly that the Initial Upper Paleolithic is dated at more than 40,000 years ago. Read the abstract: <br /><br />Using a taphonomic and techno-economic approach, we describe the laminar reduction sequences from levels 5 and 6 of Kara-Bom, Gorny Altai, Siberia. The reconstructed technological system includes the production of large laminar blanks, convergent laminarflakes, and small laminar blanks, transcending analytic categories such as blades and bladelets. The burin-core technology is integrated into the general knapping strategy using byproducts from the large blade production as core blanks. The Kara-Bom Initial Upper Paleolithic is associated with the production of ornamental items such as perforated ungulate teeth and is dated around 43 ka uncal. BP." <br /><br />And in the conclusion : <br /><br />"Kara-Bom OH5 and 6 can be seen as resulting from a series of human occupations taking place around 43 ka 14C BP." <br /><br />So we can be sure 'modern humans' were in the region by then? <br /><br />"So we have a quite apparent first UP (and surely Homo sapiens) occupation of Altai sites c. 34-37 Ka BP (C14)". <br /><br />Wrong.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-15286746189618777902012-05-11T11:25:43.838+02:002012-05-11T11:25:43.838+02:00"... you are claiming that the Initial Upper ..."... you are claiming that the Initial Upper Paleolithic of the region was made by Neanderthals/Denisovans"...<br /><br />Not at all. I'm claiming that the <b>Middle Paleolithic</b> (no blades) of the region is Neanderthal/Denisovan and the Upper Paleolithic is Homo sapiens. <br /><br />(Note: in other contexts Neanderthals have also made blade industries, like Chatelperronian, but in Altai it does not seem to be the case). <br /><br />"But they are saying that the Initial Upper Paleolithic appears before this hiatus, 'taking place around 43 ka 14C BP'".<br /><br />The only site with dates like that in Derevianko 2007 is Kara Bom but Zwynn 2011 argues for more recent dates. I'm taking Zwynn as reference here because he's more recent and he states very clearly that there is a sterile layer between the MP and UP and a hiatus of c. 10 Ka between the two occupations. <br /><br />Got that? It's very important.<br /><br />"N expanded 58,859 years ago. It presumably began to break up into its subclades soon after as R had formed by 56,523 years ago".<br /><br />Assuming that would be correct, they could have never used the Altai route, which only has Neanderthal/Denisovan evidence so early.<br /><br />Anyhow I can't agree with those estimates: N must be c. 70 Ka old and R surely older than 60 Ka. But this disagreement is not that important for the matter at hand.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-13162874248893170182012-05-11T06:03:20.694+02:002012-05-11T06:03:20.694+02:00"What they are saying is that the local UP Au..."What they are saying is that the local UP Aurignacoid tech shows 'archaisms', what is just normal: it is an early UP tech, you can easily consider it 'transitional' just as happens with other Aurigancoid industries in Europe and elsewhere". <br /><br />Not so very long ago you were claiming that 'blades' were an indication of 'modern' humans. So now, when that doesn't suit your belief, you are claiming that the Initial Upper Paleolithic of the region was made by Neanderthals/Denisovans even though it contains blades. Your inconsistency again shines brightly. <br /><br />"There are also Neanderthals associated with Mousterian in Uzbekistan and then we have the "Denisovan" hybrids (partly Neanderthal, partly erectus surely) in Denisova. But not a single hint of our species: neither suggestive technology, nor bones nor DNA!" <br /><br />Only blades. <br /><br />"But critically they are saying that there is NO continuity between this early UP tech, which is surely of Sapiens manufacture (from overall context) and the pre-existent MP Mousterian one (Neanderthal and 'Denisovan' made)". <br /><br />But they are saying that the Initial Upper Paleolithic appears before this hiatus, 'taking place around 43 ka 14C BP'. At this stage I think it's valuable to remember that the paper that is the subject of this blog claims N expanded 58,859 years ago. It presumably began to break up into its subclades soon after as R had formed by 56,523 years ago. I realise you refer to the paper as 'molecular-clockology' but your disagreement is usually that the time is too short. So that places N's expansion and diversification considerably before the hiatus in Central Asia.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-1021255814945085702012-05-10T12:07:15.918+02:002012-05-10T12:07:15.918+02:00Just in case:
"Why would the possibility tha...Just in case:<br /><br />"Why would the possibility that it might be transitional between the Late Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic if the separation was as clear-cut as you like to believe?" <br /><br />The MP features are not necessarily (nor likely) locally rooted: our species also used MP techs (Levallois, MSA and others surely, even Mousterian in the Palestinian case!) Europe early "Aurignacoid" UP also shows such transitional features, as do many other early UP techs. It's absolutely normal and does not indicate transition from Mousterian, much less from the Mousterian made by Neanderthals.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-73468640876177315032012-05-10T12:00:19.031+02:002012-05-10T12:00:19.031+02:00What they are saying is that the local UP Aurignac...What they are saying is that the local UP Aurignacoid tech shows "archaisms", what is just normal: it is an early UP tech, you can easily consider it "transitional" just as happens with other Aurigancoid industries in Europe and elsewhere. <br /><br />But critically they are saying that there is NO continuity between this early UP tech, which is surely of Sapiens manufacture (from overall context) and the pre-existent MP Mousterian one (Neanderthal and "Denisovan" made). They emphasize that an sterile layer, of almost 10 millennia thickness, separates both, so they are not really related: they can't be, not in that particular cave certainly. <br /><br />From the other paper you mention (<a href="http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/article/viewFile/84/75" rel="nofollow">Derevianko 2007</a>), table 1:<br /><br />Denisova cave: <br />> latest MP: 46 Ka (entrance's L9, C14)<br />> earliest UP: 37 Ka (main chamber's L11, C14)<br />Hiatus: c. 9 Ka<br /><br />Okladnikov cave (farthest North site):<br />> latest MP: 33.5 Ka (layer 1, C14) or 28.5 Ka (layer 3, C14)<br />> earliest UP: none<br /><br />Ust Karakol 1:<br />> latest MP: 90 Ka (layer 18A, RTL)<br />> earliest MP: 50 Ka? (layer 9C, RTL) or more likely 35 Ka (layer 10 C14)<br />Hiatus: 40-55 Ka.<br /><br />Kara Bom: data overriden by Zwynns 2011, who states a clear hiatus of c. 10 Ka. as described above.<br /><br />So we have a quite apparent first UP (and surely Homo sapiens) occupation of Altai sites c. 34-37 Ka BP (C14). Okladnikov cave could well be a late persistence of Neanderthals but otherwise the archaic species seem to vanish some 10 Ka. before the arrival or consolidation of our species some 40 Ka ago (after calibration). This arrival is too late to represent either migration eastwards or back-migration westwards (there are sites in Europe that approach the 50 Ka calBP dates and in Palestine of RTL 55 Ka with modern human remains). <br /><br />"So you believe it was not made by 'modern humans?"<br /><br />There are <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7164/full/nature06193.html" rel="nofollow">genetically</a> <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08976.html" rel="nofollow">described</a> Neanderthal and "Denisovan" remains in those caves, please!<br /><br />Krause 2010: "... individuals carrying Neanderthal mtDNA were present less than 100 km away from Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains". <br /><br />That's Okladnikov:<br /><br />Zwynn 2011: ... "it seems clear that Neanderthal fossils are associated<br />with the Mousterian assemblage from Okladnikov Cave (Krause<br />et al., 2007)"...<br /><br />There are also Neanderthals associated with Mousterian in Uzbekistan and then we have the "Denisovan" hybrids (partly Neanderthal, partly erectus surely) in Denisova. But not a single hint of our species: neither suggestive technology, nor bones nor DNA!<br /> <br />Not before UP, that is.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-83711696800478112472012-05-10T10:48:49.231+02:002012-05-10T10:48:49.231+02:00"Why am I not getting a reply from you here, ..."Why am I not getting a reply from you here, Terry?" <br /><br />I had very limited time yesterday as I had to go up north for a gig. <br /><br />"It is a good paper on Altaian early UP (or local Aurignacoid technology) and it emphasizes that there is a marked hiatus with the Middle Paleolithic, which collapsed c. 44Ka BP (C14) at the latest (what, once calibrated is c. 47 Ka in calendar years)". <br /><br />The hiatus is at 47,000 years and perhaps lasts until 34,000 years ago. Now, how long ago did mt-DNAs M and N expand? Surely some time before 47,000 years ago. And isn't it generally accepted that mt-DNA has basically an eastern and a western set of haplogroups? I think you've just pin-pointed the timing of that separation. <br /><br />"There is NO 'continuity of technology', unless you consider all stone tools to be the same: one is Mousterian (MP tech, no blades) and the other Aurignacoid (UP tech on blade and bladelet largely)". <br /><br />The authors of all three papers are definite that the later technology was basically an add-on to the earlier one, as shown by the lines you quote: <br /><br />"First, it seems that the technological features observed in both OH5 and 6 are not a result of mixture with the underlying Middle Paleolithic levels. The presence of sterile strata in between OH6 and MPH1 is reinforced by the occurrence of a sterile layer between the two". <br /><br />The authors stress that the similarities are not 'a result of mixture with the underlying Middle Paleolithic levels'. Why would they mention that if they didn't think it was important in the context? You are intent on ignoring the fact that the technology before and after the hiatus is much the same, similar to the situation in India pre- and post- Toba. Surely that indicates that the people were most likely the same. They had simply adopted elements of blade technology while they were not able to occupy the region. I'll remind you of the comment in the paper: <br /><br />"Regarding the overall character of the assemblage,there is a mix of features usually considered typical of Middle Paleolithic (i.e.morphology of the blade core in their final stage of reduction, technique of percussion, pointed laminar blank production) and Upper Paleolithic (i.e. volumetric reduction of blade cores, use of crested elements at various stages of reduction,occurrence of small elements from a ramified reduction sequence, ornament items)". <br /><br />And further: <br /><br />"Therefore, it is not relevant to consider OH5 and 6 as a Transitional or Late Middle Paleolithic assemblage. Rather, the data set presented here supports the attribution to an Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP)assemblage" <br /><br />Why would the possibility that it might be transitional between the Late Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic if the separation was as clear-cut as you like to believe? <br /><br />"Regarding the overall assem-blage, it seems to illustrate one of the oldest sets of Upper Paleo-lithic features in this area, however, it also shows some techno-typological aspects more commonly associated with the MiddlePaleolithic. This evidence suggests that Kara-Bom OH5 and 6should be considered as Initial Upper Paleolithic". <br /><br />Seems that it is very difficult to decide. The Upper Paleolithic and the Middle Paleolithic overlap considerably in the region, just as the human types do. You are surely aware that Neandertahls in the region are for more 'modern-looking' than are contemporary Neanderthals from further west. What was happening in Central Asia was fairly complicated, not the simple story you would like it to be. <br /><br />"Kara-Bom OH5 and 6 can be seen as resulting from a series of human occupations taking place around 43 ka 14C BP". <br /><br />So you believe it was not made by 'modern humans?'terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-61401319093551145262012-05-09T06:45:56.799+02:002012-05-09T06:45:56.799+02:00Why am I not getting a reply from you here, Terry?...Why am I not getting a reply from you here, Terry? Because I know what you do: drop the matter, "forget" and then charge again months later with the same tired argumentation that has been demonstrated wrong. <br /><br />Are doing the red marker thing or what?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-49415176624154240412012-05-08T07:20:49.157+02:002012-05-08T07:20:49.157+02:00There is NO "continuity of technology", ...There is NO "continuity of technology", unless you consider all stone tools to be the same: one is Mousterian (MP tech, no blades) and the other Aurignacoid (UP tech on blade and bladelet largely). Mode 3 and mode 4.<br /><br />"you obviously haven't noticed"...<br /><br />No. It tires me to read your chaotic and ideological nagging every single day, sorry for existing and having emotions: in my next life I'll be an emotionless robot. <br /><br />"the quote is from a 2011 paper"...<br /><br />The quote is about <b>blades</b> (mode 4: not Mousterian!), which the author considers somehow transitional between MP and UP techs, what is typical of Aurignacoid techs anyhow.<br /><br />Did you even read the paper? From the discussion:<br /><br />(...) <i>First, it seems that the technological features observed in both OH5 and 6 are not a result of mixture with the underlying Middle Paleolithic levels. The presence of <b>sterile strata</b> in between OH6 and MPH1 is reinforced by the occurrence of <b>a sterile layer</b> between the two. The 14C results obtained from MPH1 indicate a minimal age circa 44 ka 14C BP, and a maximal age of 62.2 ka calendar years. When calibrated, using both IntCal09 and Marine09 curves (Reimer et al., 2009), the 14C results obtained for OH5 and 6 still show, at two sigma, <b>a 10 ka gap</b> with the first EPR results which were sampled just below MPH1, in a similar sediment matrix</i> (...).<br /><br />It is a good paper on Altaian early UP (or local Aurignacoid technology) and it emphasizes that there is a marked hiatus with the Middle Paleolithic, which collapsed c. 44Ka BP (C14) at the latest (what, once calibrated is c. 47 Ka in calendar years). <br /><br />The local UP is not older than 34 Ka BP (C14), what is c. 39 Ka in calendar years. There is a hiatus of many millennia, corroborated by archaeologically sterile sediments. <br /><br />Now, please take a sheet of paper a thick red marker and write: ALTAI: HIATUS MP-UP CONFIRMED, then nail it above your work desk or somewhere where it's very visible so you do not forget. <br /><br />And do not bother me again with this, please.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-80622555052686527922012-05-08T05:46:56.236+02:002012-05-08T05:46:56.236+02:00"We have discussed this before".
Very..."We have discussed this before". <br /><br />Very inconclusively. With absolutely no solution offered on your part. <br /><br />"Today the evidence is that there is an hiatus in Altai between the Neanderthal-Musterian remains, all them dated before 50 Ka (beyond the power of C14 dating) and Sapiens-Aurignacoid ones from c. 40 Ka (or less) onwards". <br /><br />No hiatus, yet continuity of technology? And when you write 'these days' you obviously haven't noticed that the first paper is from 2007 and the quote is from a 2011 paper, near enough to 'these days'. I'll admit that the last peper is from 2001. Also, as far as I'm aware the Denisovan fossil is dated at just 40,000 years ago. And I haven't been able to find the dating of the Neanderthals referred to in the Krause paper. If they are round 40-50 Kya we have at least two Homo sprecies in the Altai region at the same time. A third in the mix would hardly be surprising.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-44790381193016428962012-05-07T09:33:27.212+02:002012-05-07T09:33:27.212+02:00We have also debated all this in the past. Today t...We have also debated all this in the past. Today the evidence is that there is an hiatus in Altai between the Neanderthal-Musterian remains, all them dated before 50 Ka (beyond the power of C14 dating) and Sapiens-Aurignacoid ones from c. 40 Ka (or less) onwards. <br /><br />Neanderthals w/ Mousterian in Central Asia are before the C14 dating boundary of c. 50 Ka uncalibrated. H. sapiens is quite later and there is a hiatus.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-87724602183241898432012-05-07T09:30:08.259+02:002012-05-07T09:30:08.259+02:00We have discussed this before.We have discussed this before.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-18242579781822728112012-05-07T05:31:01.298+02:002012-05-07T05:31:01.298+02:00"To determine how far to the east Neanderthal..."To determine how far to the east Neanderthals ranged, we determined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from hominid remains found in Uzbekistan and in the Altai region of southern Siberia. Here we show that the DNA sequences from these fossils fall within the European Neanderthal mtDNA variation".<br /><br />So? I know you won't bother reading this, but here goes anyway: <br /><br />http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/article/viewFile/84/75<br /><br />Seems generally accepted by Russian scientists that there was no sharp separation between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic in Central Asia. What's more, until 100,000 years ago the climate in the region was actually more inviting than it is at present. So if you're going to have 'modern humans' emerging from Africa some 100,000 years ago they would have had no problem living as far north as Altai. The presence of Neanderthals in the region more recently than that period looks likely to be explained as replacement, just as in the Levant. <br /><br />This too is interesting: <br /><br />http://creap.academia.edu/NicolasZwyns/Papers/619857/Burin-Core_technology_and_Laminar_Reduction_sequence_in_the_Initial_Upper_Paleolithic_from_Kara-Bom_Gorny-Altai_Siberia_<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"Regardingtheoverallcharacterof theassemblage,thereisamixof features usually considered typical of Middle Paleolithic (i.e.morphology of the blade core in theirfinal stage of reduction,technique of percussion, pointed laminar blank production) andUpper Paleolithic (i.e. volumetric reduction of blade cores, use of crestedelements atvariousstagesofreduction,occurrenceofsmallelements from a ramified reduction sequence, ornament items)". <br /><br />And this one claims the same: <br /><br />http://paleo.sscnet.ucla.edu/BrantCA2001.pdfterrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-75092027486964796452012-05-07T03:59:25.226+02:002012-05-07T03:59:25.226+02:00"Let's settle this for good"
OK. ..."Let's settle this for good" <br /><br />OK. <br /><br />"I have been proposing a SE Asian origin for N for decades (or a Bengali one in some cases)". <br /><br />So which are the basal N haplogroups that demonstrate N originated in Bengal?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-73820529996325792812012-05-06T07:50:09.031+02:002012-05-06T07:50:09.031+02:00Krause et al. 2007. 'Neanderthals in central A...<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7164/full/nature06193.html" rel="nofollow">Krause et al. 2007. 'Neanderthals in central Asia and Siberia' (ppv)</a>.<br /><br />From the abstract:<br /><br />"To determine how far to the east Neanderthals ranged, we determined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from hominid remains found in Uzbekistan and in the Altai region of southern Siberia. Here we show that the DNA sequences from these fossils fall within the European Neanderthal mtDNA variation".<br /><br />I hope you can remember this in the future. <br /><br />I also hope that your mind is not as stale as I suspect, and that you can finally accept, from this and other complementary data, that the Altai corridor played no role in the spread of H. sapiens before the Upper Paleolithic. <br /><br />Let's settle this for good.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-65085960264295232072012-05-06T06:30:49.330+02:002012-05-06T06:30:49.330+02:00"A moment ago you were (mistakenly, deviously..."A moment ago you were (mistakenly, deviously, confusedly?) cheering that I claimed a SE Asian origin for N" <br /><br />You don't read peoples' comments very carefully. I was cheering because, like you, I had misread what you actually wrote. I thought you had written, 'I do [not] think that N coalesced in or near SE Asia, [just] because the basal diversity is highest there'. Certainly it is impossible to claim that N's basal diversity is in any way 'highest' in South Asia, and especially not in Bengal. And on the other hand how can you claim that R's basal diversity is highest in South Asia? Three R haplogroups in western India (R5, R30 and R31), three in eastern India (R6, R7 and R8), and five either side of and in Wallacea (P, R12'21, R14, R22 and R23) with two more within spitting distance of it (R11'b and R9). Why is basal diversity not relevant in the case of mt-DNA R? Surely it is only your eurocentric bias that necessitates your pushing R as far to the west as possible. <br /><br />"We are sure and you know it: H. neanderthalensis and "Denisovans" (in the Northernmost caves) with Mousterian tech. You have read the relevant papers: you know it!" <br /><br />I have read the relevant papers, and surely you are aware of the fact that technology does not equal species.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com