tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post4943848345293731248..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Drawing the ancestorsMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-90292113550450841032011-08-16T09:34:10.491+02:002011-08-16T09:34:10.491+02:00"The authors treat Sai as an island and talk ..."The authors treat Sai as an island and talk of river banks (shores), so there was a river around the island. They never say that the island stopped being such thing". <br /><br />But they certainly seem to assume that people walked to the island, otherwise they would hardly bother suggesting they reached the island 'during times when the river regime changed to low-energy, perhaps seasonal, activity'. <br /><br />"But then they could not even cross the Dordogne!" <br /><br />I'm not familiar with the Dordogne but I assume that for much of its length it is quite possible to wade across it at times during most years. See here: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dordogne_(river)<br /><br />Look at the photographs. The river looks quite easily waded in all photographs except the bottom one (Altillac). The photographs from the Perigord look very easy to cross. <br /><br />"I strongly demand that either you back them with data or refrain from posting them. There is no reason for the rest of us, beginning with myself, to waste our time reading and replying to such ill-conceived and ill organized comments (one-liners' list, a clear sign of lack of reflexion)". <br /><br />Your obstinacy is admirable but you still seem to insist that the flow in the Nile has always been constant. So, to satisfy your demand for yet more evidence of variation in Nile flow (although I'm sure you will not accept it as such): <br /><br />http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/4/343<br /><br />And section 13.4 of this is relevant: <br /><br />http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=gXgyHLT_hwIC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=nile+pleistocene&source=bl&ots=7Mf09jjcHh&sig=3vGpqmGAxX201wghnTAA6LZzmts&hl=en&ei=3xRKTueTNY75mAXhk5iECA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=nile%20pleistocene&f=false<br /><br />Your assumption that humans reached the island in the Nile by boat is completely unwarranted. And you still haven't explained why the Ebro should have been so sparsely inhabited at a time when you claim boats were widespread and efficient.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-89577088037724784272011-08-15T10:57:45.045+02:002011-08-15T10:57:45.045+02:00"Before [Neolithic] the larger rivers tended ..."Before [Neolithic] the larger rivers tended to be borders". <br /><br />False, as the Danube, Rhine, Rhône, Dniepr, Don... show in the best studied case, which is Europe. I have no reason to think it was otherwise in Asia or Africa.<br /><br />You are becoming very annoying with your unjustified proclamations of subjective faith. I strongly demand that either you back them with data or refrain from posting them. There is no reason for the rest of us, beginning with myself, to waste our time reading and replying to such ill-conceived and ill organized comments (one-liners' list, a clear sign of lack of reflexion). <br /><br />"'Human occupations took place on the channel banks"...<br /><br />According to Wikitionary ("An edge of river, lake, or other watercourse"). and any other resource I know of a river bank is the lands that lay OUTSIDE the river itself: the shores. It is the same as Basque ibar or Spanish vega, rivera.<br /><br />"That takes the changes in the Nile up until the Neolithic".<br /><br />Doesn't seem to be much clear but whatever. The authors treat Sai as an island and talk of river banks (shores), so there was a river around the island. They never say that the island stopped being such thing. <br /><br />"The fact they are the same people (the same haplogroups anyway) goes a long wayto supporting the idea that they carried boating with them". <br /><br />But then they could not even cross the Dordogne! Can you make up your mind? It can be boat or no boat but not both at the same time!!!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-69384244840517257982011-08-15T05:18:55.003+02:002011-08-15T05:18:55.003+02:00"IMO that rivers are borders is a pure produc..."IMO that rivers are borders is a pure product of 19th century thought when countries like France sought for natural borders. If anything rivers are highways". <br /><br />They became 'highways' only with the development of the Neolithic. Before that time the larger rivers tended to be borders. <br /><br />"never a river has been a border in France except for the two large estuaries of the Gironde and the Loire rivers (which are interior seas)". <br /><br />Exactly. The major rivers were borders until efficient boating was developed. <br /><br />"The reality is that, according to archaeological data, nobody lived in the Ebro valley" <br /><br />That's what I've bben trying to draw your attention to. <br /><br />"I've mantained that the authors of the Sai paper treat Sai as if it was always an island and never claim otherwise". <br /><br />No. They wrote, 'Human occupations took place on the channel banks, apparently at times when the river regime changed to low-energy, perhaps seasonal, activity'. So they seem to believe thast humans walked to the islands at a time of lowered flow. No need for boats. <br /><br />"You have not brought any evidence of changes in the Nile - well you did... for the age of Dinosaurs or something, not for the last 200,000 years or so". <br /><br />Try this: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"The Sudd swamps which form the central part of the basin may still be subsiding. The White Nile Rift System, although shallower than the Bahr el Arab rift, is about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) deep. Geophysical exploration of the Blue Nile Rift System estimated the depth of the sediments to be 5–9 kilometres (3.1–5.6 mi). These basins were not interconnected until their subsidence ceased, and the rate of sediment deposition was enough to fill and connect them. The Egyptian Nile connected to the Sudanese Nile, which captures the Ethiopian and Equatorial headwaters during the current stages of tectonic activity in the Eastern, Central and Sudanese Rift Systems.[21] The connection of the different Niles occurred during cyclic wet periods. The River Atbara overflowed its closed basin during the wet periods that occurred about 100,000 to 120,000 years ago. The Blue Nile connected to the main Nile during the 70,000–80,000 years B.P. wet period. The White Nile system in Bahr El Arab and White Nile Rifts remained a closed lake until the connection of the Victoria Nile to the main system some 12,500 years ago". <br /><br />That takes the changes in the Nile up until the Neolithic. <br /><br />"Dams are built at permanent rivers, believe me". <br /><br />And they're also built on seasonal rivers, believe me. <br /><br />"Yet they were the same people (by Y-DNA MNOPS, mtDNA N and R) who were at Sundaland and Wallacea. Something in your narrative falters". <br /><br />On the contrary. The fact they are the same people (the same haplogroups anyway) goes a long wayto supporting the idea that they carried boating with them. <br /><br />"For me it's nonsense: you boats model is nonsense, your crossing the rivers by the mountains is nonsense, your ideas about F sublineages are nonsense". <br /><br />You think it's nonsense because you have this strange idea that the earth has always been as it is at present.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-16964957286056463602011-08-14T15:21:10.327+02:002011-08-14T15:21:10.327+02:00A very innocent comment just to state that never a...A very innocent comment just to state that never a river has been a border in France except for the two large estuaries of the Gironde and the Loire rivers (which are interior seas). And actually it's not that true about the Loire river as the Duchy of Brittany succeeded in conquering the southern bank formerly a possession of Poitou (and populated by ethnic Poitevins : dialects and surnames are quite clear) hence why Breton placenames can be found in the area. As for the Gironde estuary, only in its greatest extension does it become a border as Gascon people inhabited both banks up to the fortress of Blaye. Then as it gets too large, both banks do diverge.<br /><br />The Dordogne river never was a border : both banks always belonged to the very same entities it crossed, be it Limousin, Périgord or Bordelais. In Périgord, both banks speak the very same dialectal variant of Guyennais, the border is just in the North of the valley, on the crests separating the Dordogne valley from the Isle valley (which indeed speaks Limousin and is quite distinct in many aspects such as vernacular architecture). BTW already in Paleolithic times, neither the Dordogne nor the Vézère rivers were border for people inhabiting the country. Both banks of the Dordogne river in Bordelais do speak Gascon as well, the border with Oïlic Saintongeais in some kilometers in the North.<br /><br />The Rhine clearly is not a border at least in Alsace ! Once more, the natural border is the Vosges which separate the Germanic world from the Romance world.<br /><br />The Rhône is not a border either : the very same language is spoken on both banks, be it Provençal around Nîmes and Arles or Gavot around Valence. The differenciation is more of a North/South one with contradictory influences coming from Provence and Lyonnais propagated by the river valley.<br /><br />IMO that rivers are borders is a pure product of 19th century thought when countries like France sought for natural borders. If anything rivers are highways.Heraushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07032921971763481466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-76206796801359296462011-08-14T13:03:18.049+02:002011-08-14T13:03:18.049+02:00The reality is that, according to archaeological d...The reality is that, according to archaeological data, nobody lived in the Ebro valley, including the piedmont. People lived north of the Pyrenees and south of it only in specific areas, notably the Iberian coast, what implies crossing the Ebro (and other rivers) near their mouths. <br /><br />Get over it! Crossing rivers was normal. Otherwise we'd see them (in the archaeological record) as barriers and not centers of life as we actually do.<br /><br />"And haven't you maintained that what are islands today have always been islands? Or does that only apply to the Nile?"<br /><br />I've mantained that the authors of the Sai paper treat Sai as if it was always an island and never claim otherwise. You have not brought any evidence of changes in the Nile - well you did... for the age of Dinosaurs or something, not for the last 200,000 years or so. <br /><br />You are the one imagining things in order for your cards castle not to collapse: now you blow to the right, now to the left... but it's falling down as we speak no matter what. <br /><br />"The authors of the paper make no claim that boats were needed to reach the island". <br /><br />They also make no claim about people peeing... draw your own conclusions. <br /><br />"Dams catch runoff for times when there is no precipitation". <br /><br />Dams are built at permanent rivers, believe me. In fact the main use of dams is to control floods and generate electricity. They can help against seasonal drought too but only that much. <br /><br />"Yes, but obviously [boats] incapable of navigating the larger rivers or the sea". <br /><br />Yet they were the same people (by Y-DNA MNOPS, mtDNA N and R) who were at Sundaland and Wallacea. Something in your narrative falters. <br /><br />Well, more like everything. <br /><br />I'm tired: you have your own ideas, which I disagree with almost universally. You should start your own blog and see if anyone thinks that what you say actually makes any sense at all. <br /><br />For me it's nonsense: you boats model is nonsense, your crossing the rivers by the mountains is nonsense, your ideas about F sublineages are nonsense. <br /><br />Got it?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-34924505284924386072011-08-14T11:49:21.776+02:002011-08-14T11:49:21.776+02:00"They followed them most of the time! They li..."They followed them most of the time! They lived by them!" <br /><br />That's not what your own data says. <br /><br />"Forget about the cold Ebro valley, ok? Think about the Tisza, the Danube, the Rhine, the Rhône, the Dordogne, the Dniepr, the Don..." <br /><br />So the Ebro is colder than the surrounding piedmont? And most of the rivers you mention have been barriers to migration through most of our history. <br /><br />"Admittedly river sediments may have hidden archaeological treasuries in many such valleys" <br /><br />You're making things up now to suit your theory. And haven't you maintained that what are islands today have always been islands? Or does that only apply to the Nile? <br /><br />"No date is provided here but all the figures at the beginning are of several million years". <br /><br />Climate always fluctuates. And the river doesn't actually have to 'dry up' before you don't need boats to cross it. The authors of the paper make no claim that boats were needed to reach the island. <br /><br />"It's a window to our origins as Homo sapiens and a window that strongly implies boats". <br /><br />Only in your imagination. <br /><br />"Today we have technical problems about exploring the planets and stars but we are, at least some are, anxiously thinking on how to overcome those problems" <br /><br />And Paleolithic humans presumably had the same problems regarding wide expanses of water. <br /><br />"You can't dam a dry river, only permanent ones. But first of all you need a river". <br /><br />Do you know nothing about hydrology? I thought you worked as a gardener. Dams catch runoff for times when there is no precipitation. <br /><br />"I know most of those rivers and they have bridges on them for a reason". <br /><br />Bridges allow crossings to be more than just seasonal. <br /><br />"Also didn't you say that by that time they already had boats?" <br /><br />Yes, but obviously incapable of navigating the larger rivers or the sea. <br /><br />"most 'sons' stay by the 'father', so basal diversity tells us what happened". <br /><br />Rubbish. No-one would ever move if that was the case. <br /><br />"I did not say that but it can well be, there's nothing impeding it". <br /><br />And there's nothing impeding G being older than the other F haplogroups. <br /><br />"There's always the possibility that IJ and G were in 'larval' stages (private lineages) at the time and had not yet coalesced as such finished, clear cut, haplogroups". <br /><br />In fact I think that is quite likely. But they most likely lived in the region where they later coalesced.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-64792999046994581722011-08-13T12:03:11.998+02:002011-08-13T12:03:11.998+02:00"If all your aquaintances lived on your side ..."If all your aquaintances lived on your side of the estuary and upstream of it you would live quite comfortably without crossing it". <br /><br />Maybe your kind of psychology can do that, not mine. If there is another side we must explore it and know it and maybe also take possession and use it (unless strong opposition from someone else arises). You do not stop at a river or sea shore when you can see the other side: you go and explore. If not today, then tomorrow, if not you, then your son. <br /><br />We are humans: we explore. Today we have technical problems about exploring the planets and stars but we are, at least some are, anxiously thinking on how to overcome those problems and reach out there. And you bet that reaching out to Mars is a lot harder to figure out than crossing a stupid river. <br /><br />"Other things seem to have been invented once"...<br /><br />Actually most things have been invented several times, often almost simultaneously (as pre-conditions for the key discovery had accumulated) or in other cases discovered, abandoned, re-invented... <br /><br />"And where the rivers could be waded". <br /><br />I know most of those rivers and they have bridges on them for a reason. Also didn't you say that by that time they already had boats? <br /><br />They even do yearly contests of river descent on logs, so they are certainly "navigable". <br /><br />"And not based around any major river valley. And what about your own map of the Aurignacian"...<br /><br />Danube, Rhine, Garonne, Dordogne, Rhône, Dniepr, Don... all those are big rivers. Admittedly river sediments may have hidden archaeological treasuries in many such valleys but still the evidence for their use is overwhelming. <br /><br />"I think I begin to see a pattern here. These people seem to be dodging the major rivers".<br /><br />Are you kidding me? They followed them most of the time! They lived by them! <br /><br />"So the Ebro..."<br /><br />Forget about the cold Ebro valley, ok? Think about the Tisza, the Danube, the Rhine, the Rhône, the Dordogne, the Dniepr, the Don...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-28673392518053739342011-08-13T11:48:02.801+02:002011-08-13T11:48:02.801+02:00Can you quote to the letter and abide to what the ...Can you quote to the letter and abide to what the papers say? Because you say that: <br /><br />"The Nile is quite capable of ceasing to flow during extreme drought". <br /><br />And the source says:<br /><br />"They [the dunes found today in East Sudan] crossed the Nile, which was probably dried up at the time of their formation".<br /><br />No date is provided here but all the figures at the beginning are of several million years. What is a geological and NOT prehistorical (human) time frame. <br /><br />Later, when they discuss lakes, they do talk of Pleistocene and Holocene time frames but that is not the Nile. <br /><br />The Nile does not get dry. It has never done in all human (pre-)history. <br /><br />Besides the Sai settlement is much longer than any possible drought spell: it's almost a permanent site for evolving Humankind at the very root of our species. It's a window to our origins as Homo sapiens and a window that strongly implies boats. <br /><br />"... and dams".<br /><br />You can't dam a dry river, only permanent ones. But first of all you need a river. <br /><br />Also you do not really know where the water comes from. You're guessing. <br /><br />"Makran is much more a 'desert' than is the Kalahari". <br /><br />The Kalahari desert is said "desert", even if it's only such thing seasonally, and Makran is NEVER said to be a desert. So it is NOT any desert, only a dry or semi-arid zone (take your Alexander dreams down that pedestal). <br /><br />"To carry on your illustration using 'generations' it is far more likely that G and is the son that stayed behind, along with his 'nephew' IJ".<br /><br />That does not respond to any logic. Because of the "random flea effect", most "sons" stay by the "father", so basal diversity tells us what happened. <br /><br />"And MNOPS cannot really be older than IJ, or even LT".<br /><br />I did not say that but it can well be, there's nothing impeding it. I'd guess that Q and R1b (<MNOPS) arrived to West Asia after IJ and G but the opposite is not impossible at all. There's always the possibility that IJ and G were in "larval" stages (private lineages) at the time and had not yet coalesced as such finished, clear cut, haplogroups. <br /><br />Just because something is higher in the phylogeny it does not mean that it is older automatically. Not at all. <br /><br />"Presumably G and IJ replaced those haplogroups in the region they had earlier inhabited".<br /><br />Presumably J* did but only after "touching base" first in South Asia as F (etc.)<br /><br />G and the rest of IJ colonized the Neanderthal region, so they do not apply.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-58872214235449469242011-08-13T10:42:53.770+02:002011-08-13T10:42:53.770+02:00"That's what I'm saying: that even if..."That's what I'm saying: that even if headwaters are 10 or 20 km upstream (it's a very short river), you do not want to do all that journey: you want to cross the estuary at whim because the boars or the seafood or your semi-incestuous cousin-lover may be at the other side of that water strip". <br /><br />And if they're not you have no reason to cross the estuary. If all your aquaintances lived on your side of the estuary and upstream of it you would live quite comfortably without crossing it. <br /><br />"I do not see why boats could only be invented once in Sundaland". <br /><br />Why not? Other things seem to have been invented once, and then spread and been improved, or at least altered, as they spread. <br /><br />"People did not live in the high mountains but at the piedmont, where several habitats converged, guaranteeing food all seasons". <br /><br />And where the rivers could be waded. <br /><br />"Dordogne was much better, as the many remains show. It was also the 'metropolis' of Paleolithic Europe, where most techno-cultural advances happened first". <br /><br />And not based around any major river valley. And what about your own map of the Aurignacian here: <br /><br />http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-homo-sapiens-outnumber-neanderthals.html<br /><br />I think I begin to see a pattern here. These people seem to be dodging the major rivers. Don't you find it a little surprising that if the people had efficient boats, as you claim, and the rivers would have been such a good source of food, as you claim, that people should have been so reluctant to utilize that habitat? <br /><br />"The fact is that most of the Ebro valley is empty of Paleolithic sites, as is most of inland Iberia (Plateau)... but then there are some minor exceptions". <br /><br />So the Ebro was occupied only once humans had managed to reach most of the Mediterranean islands? Do you think it possible that there is a connection?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-22364450969655771382011-08-13T10:25:37.116+02:002011-08-13T10:25:37.116+02:00"The Nile does not run dry ever, mind you&quo..."The Nile does not run dry ever, mind you". <br /><br />http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Cairo/pdf/STATISTICAL_ANALYSIS_OF_DRY_PERIODS.pdf<br /><br />And: <br /><br />http://www.earthtimes.org/climate/ice-melt-arctic-dry-nile-H1-megadrought/333/<br /><br />The Nile is quite capable of ceasing to flow during extreme drought. And you may find this interesting: <br /><br />http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/3418/Tropical-Climate-Change.html<br /><br />"I do not care if they are 'irrigated': the water comes from somewhere and was available to hunter-gatherers too (who, btw, don't need to 'irrigate' anything - that's something farmers do). <br /><br />You lack some basic understandi ng here. The irrigation water comes from artificial bores and dams. <br /><br />"You talk like if it was a true desert, when it's just an arid area. It's obvious that you cannot figure out the difference between deep desert, mild desert, semi-desert and mere arid areas". <br /><br />No Maju. It is you who is suffering delusions here. <br /><br />"I quoted that previously myself: it is inhabited, wow!" <br /><br />Don't be an idiot. It is NOW. <br /><br />"You don't think Kalahari is dry enough" <br /><br />I'll remind you: <br /><br />"The Kalahari Desert is not a true desert in the sense that it is well vegetated and receives copious but very unpredictable rainfall". <br /><br />Makran: <br /><br />""The area possesses a very dry climate with very low rainfall". <br /><br />Makran is much more a 'desert' than is the Kalahari. <br /><br />"It does make sense because LT and K1 are 'the sons who stayed at home'. <br /><br />To carry on your illustration using 'generations' it is far more likely that G and is the son that stayed behind, along with his 'nephew' IJ. As the 'father' and the 'grandson' K(xIJ) moved east another 'son' H and IJ's son LT stayed behind. Others carried on and eventually the 'greatgrandson' MNOPS reached SE Asia, along with several of his 'uncles'. <br /><br />"G could still be younger than MNOPS (for instance), even if G is a grand-uncle of MNOPS (happens when the pseudo-generations have no limited time-span)". <br /><br />True, but you have no evidence for that. And MNOPS cannot really be older than IJ, or even LT. Unless you're blindly committed to your Indian garden of Eden belief. <br /><br />"In any case we should not see G but CF* or CDEF*" <br /><br />Why? Especially when you've just written, 'in places of low demographic intensity like Southern Arabia, full Y-DNA replacement is possible and happened'. Presumably G and IJ replaced those haplogroups in the region they had earlier inhabitedterrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-2303954225128981902011-08-12T08:56:00.652+02:002011-08-12T08:56:00.652+02:00...
"Low tide? That's hardly 'headwa......<br /><br />"Low tide? That's hardly 'headwaters'".<br /><br />That's what I'm saying: that even if headwaters are 10 or 20 km upstream (it's a very short river), you do not want to do all that journey: you want to cross the estuary at whim because the boars or the seafood or your semi-incestuous cousin-lover may be at the other side of that water strip. And also because you can move faster up and downstream or reach difficult coastal spots or organize a water rescue with a raft or boat. <br /><br />I find simply unthinkable to live by the water being human and not having boats/rafts. Other animals do not have our intelligence or crafting skills, so that justifies they do not, but in our case it is simply unthinkable. <br /><br />"And any primitive boat would not be much easier than swimming". <br /><br />A lot easier if you want to carry things and keep them safe and dry. The risk is also much smaller (you can always swim if the boat wrecks). <br /><br />"I'm sure you are well aware that has long been my position". <br /><br />Ok. But I do not agree - not at all. I do not see why boats could only be invented once in Sundaland. Even if Wallacea and Philippines are island countries that truly seem to demand boats and boating skills... in order to reach them boats had to exist before. Otherwise the Wallace Line and such would have applied to H. sapiens and we would have never reached Wallacea, at least not in a long time. <br /><br />Instead we did almost as soon as we reached Sundaland, as we can appreciate from the genetic data (you know well this is my stand).<br /><br />"The Kalahari?"<br /><br />The Kalahari also includes seasonal swamps (check up Okawango delta). But anyhow I said "most" not "all".<br /><br />"And when were such boats invented?"<br /><br />Probably in the H. ergaster period. It is very likely that they crossed Gibraltar in northwards direction in fact. <br /><br />"The Ebro valley was colder than the surrounding mountains?"<br /><br />People did not live in the high mountains but at the piedmont, where several habitats converged, guaranteeing food all seasons. The fact is that most of the Ebro valley is empty of Paleolithic sites, as is most of inland Iberia (Plateau)... but then there are some minor exceptions. <br /><br />Similarly North France was almost empty then but the more Northernly Rhine basin was not most of the time. Why? Because of specifics that are not so easy to grasp: the Rhine-Danube and the Dniepr-Don basins were loess steppe, which were rich, while the Seine basin or the Balcans were dry steppe, of very low interest for our kind because they surely hosted much less hunt.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-67011577820108601212011-08-12T08:55:53.580+02:002011-08-12T08:55:53.580+02:00"G is under F in the same way that IJK is und..."G is under F in the same way that IJK is under F. As are H, F1, F2, F3, F4"...<br /><br />Yes, bravo!<br /><br />"... and MNOPS".<br /><br />No, not at all. MNOPS is under K, which is under IJK.<br /><br />"And, like IJ, its presence far to the west of India is a problem for your belief". <br /><br />I do not understand this sentence. <br /><br />"It is difficult to make a convincing case for IJK to have coalesced further east than did IJ".<br /><br />That was the point I was trying to make, and it is all because no K sublineage seems to have coalesced West of Pakistan, so the centroid of K is surely in India (in the Federal Republic of India) and hence the centroid of K and IJ (i.e. IJK) is roughly at Balochistan or otherwise in Pakistan. <br /><br />This is also consistent with what we could call 'Southern Asian model of human expansion beyond Africa' (aka 'coastal model') that I spouse based on the facts of population genetics (and also some very interesting rather recent archaeology). <br /><br />"So you finish up with IJK in the same region as LT when it had branched off earlier from the other two doesn't make sense".<br /><br />It does make sense because LT and K1 are "the sons who stayed at home" (of K, grandsons of IJK), while IJ and MNOPS are "the wayward sons/grandsons" who went around the world looking for adventure. (Or maybe were kicked out or whatever). In any case in all or most lineages we can see this: homely and wayward sons/daughters of sorts: those who stay at the homeland and coalesce into certain lineages and those who move away and coalesce into others. In this case it's quite clear:<br /><br />1. First "generation" (F-derived): F1, F3, F4, H and surely IJK are homely; F2 and G are wayward. <br /><br />2. Second "generation" (IJK-derived): K is homely, IJ is wayward. <br /><br />3. Third "generation" (K-derived): TL, K1 are homely, MNOPS is wayward. <br /><br />Etc. <br /><br />Notice that the notion of "generations" is just to illustrate the phylogenetic hierarchy and does not imply a timeline: G could still be younger than MNOPS (for instance), even if G is a grand-uncle of MNOPS (happens when the pseudo-generations have no limited time-span). <br /><br />So in the end I posit a homeland, a demographic pool, in Pakistan/NW India for F, IJK and K (and TL as well), which sent successive or parallel waves through much of Asia, some of which made a really huge impact (IJ, MNOPS). <br /><br />"Doesn't it make some sort of sense to you that we should see much of the trail that Y-hap F took from Africa to India".<br /><br />Nope, because F did not exist probably before South Asia and because in places of low demographic intensity like Southern Arabia, full Y-DNA replacement is possible and happened. <br /><br />In any case we should not see G but CF* or CDEF* That stuff does not exist anymore: it has been erased by drift or whatever. DE* has been located instead (at extremely low frequencies), as you know, but it's another story altogether. <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-41727339500019871582011-08-12T08:02:48.385+02:002011-08-12T08:02:48.385+02:00The Nile does not run dry ever, mind you. It is no...The Nile does not run dry ever, mind you. It is normal or huge depending on the season, but never small, much less dry. <br /><br />"the populated regions of Baluchistan are irrigated"...<br /><br />I do not care if they are "irrigated": the water comes from somewhere and was available to hunter-gatherers too (who, btw, don't need to "irrigate" anything - that's something farmers do). <br /><br />You talk like if it was a true desert, when it's just an arid area. It's obvious that you cannot figure out the difference between deep desert, mild desert, semi-desert and mere arid areas. For you it's all just like Takla Makan - but in reality it is not. <br /><br />Not to mention that the migration happened almost for sure in the Pluvial period anyhow. <br /><br />"Makran is very sparsely inhabited"...<br /><br />I quoted that previously myself: it is inhabited, wow! Takla Makan or Rub al Khali are not, mind you. <br /><br />You don't think Kalahari is dry enough, then look at Central Australia! Haven't people lived there for "ever"? Yes, they have.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-19854130153262468132011-08-12T06:21:52.391+02:002011-08-12T06:21:52.391+02:00"Only, it seems, if it is convenient to your ..."Only, it seems, if it is convenient to your preconceptions - sarcasm meant". <br /><br />It is you who is altering your perspective depending on what point you are trying to make. My interpretations of the evidence are at least consistent. <br /><br />"G is under F and was not the matter of discussion". <br /><br />G is under F in the same way that IJK is under F. As are H, F1, F2, F3, F4 and MNOPS. And, like IJ, its presence far to the west of India is a problem for your belief. <br /><br />"It should read IJK. I had earlier argued that IJ coalesced in West Asia (Zagros?), I meant to deal with its 'father' IJK at that point". <br /><br />It is difficult to make a convincing case for IJK to have coalesced further east than did IJ. Especially seeing we have LT in Pakistan and MNOPS in SE Asia. So you finish up with IJK in the same region as LT when it had branched off earlier from the other two doesn't make sense. However MNOPS coalescing in SE Asia after its ancestor moved from South Asia does make sense. And we have that remnant F haplogroup G in Anatolia which you insist arrived there from some Indian garden of Eden. Doesn't it make some sort of sense to you that we should see much of the trail that Y-hap F took from Africa to India. G, IJK, H, F1, F4, F2, F3, K1, MNOPS, K3, K4, K2. They stretch out in a line with a widening in India. Certainly makes sense to me. <br /><br />"I have also in the past used mild corrections (1/4 or 1/3 the distance) toward the upstream centroid to best estimate the most realistic (IMO) true coalescence place" <br /><br />Correction: to where you wish to place the coalescence place. <br /><br />"You can swim across in low tide (if healthy and knowing the strong currents) but that's quite useless if you need to do it daily and maybe bring supplies and less able people like young children". <br /><br />Low tide? That's hardly 'headwaters'. And any primitive boat would not be much easier than swimming. <br /><br />"You can indeed walk 10 km upstream to where it can be waded (it's a small river) but that's wasting a full day or more if your goal is just to cross the estuary". <br /><br />But not a waste of time if you actually live upstream. <br /><br />"It's totally absurd: those people needed and indeed used boats of some sort daily". <br /><br />And you are able to claim that only because you wish it to be so. <br /><br />"Sure but why did not you admit to that before?" <br /><br />I have never claimed otherwise. People had reached Australia some time before the Perigordian and so I have always presumed the required technology had begun spreading around the world about 50,000 years ago. And it has always seemed very likely to me that at least the modern human European Y-chromosome line began in SE Asia, so presumably they carried the technology as they moved back west. I'm sure you are well aware that has long been my position. <br /><br />"Most hunting grounds are river/swamp areas for a reason" <br /><br />The Kalahari? <br /><br />"Dordogne was much better, as the many remains show". <br /><br />I think you're beginning to see reason. <br /><br />"they had good quality boats for sure, maybe those so typical of the high latitudes made of leather and branches". <br /><br />And when were such boats invented? <br /><br />"But ancient peoples did not mostly live in the Ebro valley, which was mostly colonized in the Epipaleolithic period, it seems. It was too cold or whatever". <br /><br />More seeing reason. The Ebro valley was colder than the surrounding mountains? I don't think so. There is another reason why the Ebro valley was not populated. The invention of boats? Before then people had simply been wading across the rivers where they could, usually near the headwaters.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-31211090463610923042011-08-12T05:50:25.082+02:002011-08-12T05:50:25.082+02:00"But maybe this is enough for you to claim th..."But maybe this is enough for you to claim that Panthera is a single species? Most biologists would disagree however". <br /><br />Possibly. However fertility is rare, and even hybrids between horses and donkeys are occcasionally fertile. And the hybrids are not fertile with each other. They have to be bred back with a member of one of the original species. So I guess both pairs can justifiably be called separate species. <br /><br />"I do not gather that". <br /><br />You obviously didn't read it correctly. <br /><br />"Possibly the island was not so interesting (smaller) in the floods season". <br /><br />In most arid regions rivers occasionally run dry and just a series of pools remain. And remember, we're talking about what is now an island so just one branch of the Nile needs to dry up for it to be accessible by walking. <br /><br />"Do you learn modern geography in ancient 'history' books? That sounds quite unlikely. <br /><br />I learned my geology at university and on my job when I graduated. So I have a very long time perspective. <br /><br />"you can't get the correct impression on how a 15 people huntergatherer band would perform based on what an Iron Age imperialist army does". <br /><br />But it does give one a very good idea as to how easy or difficult it is to survive in any particular region. And 'a 15 people huntergatherer band' is likely to suffer inbreeding depression within a few generations and then die out. <br /><br />"Really? Then why does it have much lower population densities?" <br /><br />Because the populated regions of Baluchistan are irrigated, even though the coast receives less rainfall than does the Kalahari. Concerning Makran: <br /><br />http://www.geocities.ws/pasnionline/Makran_History.html<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"The area possesses a very dry climate with very low rainfall. Makran is very sparsely inhabited, with much of the population being concentrated in a string of small ports including Chah Bahar, Gwatar, Jiwani, Gwadar (not to be confused with Gwatar), Pasni, Ormara and many smaller fishing villages. The total length of the coastline is about 1,000 km (of which 750 km is in Pakistan)". <br /><br />That length of coastline is far greater than that along the Mediterranean coast of the Sinai. And: <br /><br />http://www.lycos.com/info/kalahari-desert--rainfall.html<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"The Kalahari Desert is not a true desert in the sense that it is well vegetated and receives copious but very unpredictable rainfall". <br /><br />And: <br /><br />"Although called a desert, the Kalahari Desert is not in fact a desert at all! At least not by the normal standards for classifying a desert. A more correct term would be a 'thirstland', as no-where in the Kalahari Desert sands is the rainfall less than 150mm a year". <br /><br />So, as I said, it is not as arid as the Makran coast. And look at the strip of relatively healthy rainfall along the northern strip of Iran: <br /><br />http://www.atozmapsdata.com/zoomify.asp?name=Country/Modern/Z_Iran_Precipterrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-45289476432570318682011-08-11T11:45:23.636+02:002011-08-11T11:45:23.636+02:00"Basal diversity does not automatically equal..."Basal diversity does not automatically equal region of coalescence".<br /><br />Only, it seems, if it is convenient to your preconceptions - sarcasm meant. <br /><br />"Excuse me. G?"<br /><br />G is under F and was not the matter of discussion. <br /><br />I wrote: "··> IJ should have coalesced in Pakistan (half way between Zagros mts. and Narmada river - Baluchistan?)"<br /><br />There was a typo here. It should read <b>IJK</b>. I had earlier argued that IJ coalesced in West Asia (Zagros?), I meant to deal with its "father" IJK at that point. <br /><br />"I've noticed you're very selective in when you use the centroid as indicating coalescence. C's centroid is actually in East Asia, as is D's". <br /><br />I was estimating the centroid of CF (i.e. C+F), not C alone. I have also in the past used mild corrections (1/4 or 1/3 the distance) toward the upstream centroid to best estimate the most realistic (IMO) true coalescence place: to add some holistic coherence to the resulting narrative.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-9744084958080099492011-08-11T11:37:20.681+02:002011-08-11T11:37:20.681+02:00...
"They could wade any of the rivers in th......<br /><br />"They could wade any of the rivers in that region, at least in places and seasonally".<br /><br />No. You cannot. And that's not enough anyhow for normal needs. <br /><br />For example I know well the stuary of Urdaibai, near Santimamiñe and where my father's line family roots are. You can swim across in low tide (if healthy and knowing the strong currents) but that's quite useless if you need to do it daily and maybe bring supplies and less able people like young children. Also there's always a risk because any error and the current will carry you to the open sea, where you will probably die. <br /><br />You can indeed walk 10 km upstream to where it can be waded (it's a small river) but that's wasting a full day or more if your goal is just to cross the estuary. It's totally absurd: those people needed and indeed used boats of some sort daily. <br /><br />Most hunting grounds are river/swamp areas for a reason (and yes, Urdaibai is a marsh, and was surely in Paleolithic times a wonderful hunting and fishing territory to live in). <br /><br />Dordogne was much better, as the many remains show. It was also the "metropolis" of Paleolithic Europe, where most techno-cultural advances happened first. If they could pain the constellations and keep calendars, if they were chasing whales... they had good quality boats for sure, maybe those so typical of the high latitudes made of leather and branches. <br /><br />"Whether Basques have been pushed upstream by later arrivals or they have always lived in the headwaters is a problem you are in a better position to answer than I am".<br /><br />Basque identity is probably are a modern, post-Celtic or post-Roman construct. But ancient peoples did not mostly live in the Ebro valley, which was mostly colonized in the Epipaleolithic period, it seems. It was too cold or whatever. <br /><br />"the Perigordian humans definitely had boats". <br /><br />Sure but why did not you admit to that before?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-11517515389819224332011-08-11T11:37:01.638+02:002011-08-11T11:37:01.638+02:00Ligers: "The fertility of hybrid big cat fema...Ligers: "The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids".<br /><br />Tiglons: <br /><br />"a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an "Island" tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, although of delicate health, was raised to adulthood".<br /><br />"At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tiglon named Rudhrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic Lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon (pronounced /ˌlaɪˈtaɪɡən/). Rudhrani produced seven litigons in her lifetime.".<br /><br />But maybe this is enough for you to claim that Panthera is a single species? Most biologists would disagree however. <br /><br />"So the authors suggest the people walked to what is now the island". <br /><br />I do not gather that. Remember that, seasonal or not, the Nile is the longest river on Earth and carries a lot of water, even in the "dry" season. And this is in Nubia, virtually in Egypt! Possibly the island was not so interesting (smaller) in the floods season. <br /><br />Also remember that the Nile Crocodile gets that name for something: you'll better not swim or walk in the Nile or any other African water body, because you are risking your life. <br /><br />...<br /><br />Do you learn modern geography in ancient "history" books? That sounds quite unlikely. <br /><br />Anyhow, you can't get the correct impression on how a 15 people huntergatherer band would perform based on what an Iron Age imperialist army does. That's why Vietnam was lost: the war-o-copter is not necessarily mightier than the bicycle. <br /><br />..<br /><br />"A region of closely spaced islands is the most obvious region to learn the required skills".<br /><br />Your prejudice. It may even be a good idea but it does not matter because it would delay the invention of boating for too long. It is highly unrealistic to imagine that humans did not need and use boats to cross the Nile, exploit lake Chad or lake Victoria, etc. <br /><br />"Where the Bushmen live is nowhere near as arid as the coastl region of Baluchistan".<br /><br />Really? Then why does it have much lower population densities? C'mon! If it'd be such a nice place, the Bantu or the Whites would have taken it long ago. They live there in part because everywhere else has been grabbed by more powerful nations. <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-13186810155747241642011-08-11T10:39:34.208+02:002011-08-11T10:39:34.208+02:00"That approach is fundamentally wrong: the ba..."That approach is fundamentally wrong: the basal diversity of F is highest in SA, what means that F coalesced in SA almost without any doubt". <br /><br />It is your approach that is 'fundamentally wrong'. Basal diversity does not automatically equal region of coalescence. <br /><br />"We have:<br /><br />1. F in South Asia (Sindh/Gujarat?)<br />2. IJK is a bit of a mystery (see below)<br />3a. IJ in West Asia (Zagros?)<br />3b. K is again a mystery (see below)<br />4a. MNOPS in SE Asia<br />4b. LT in Pakistan<br />4c. K1 reported in SA (your own notes)" <br /><br />Excuse me. G? Otherwise I agree with all the above. I'll turn to the mysteries. <br /><br />"but we do not know where it [IJ] 'branched off', i.e. the intermediate human links between the IJK and the IJ node lived. Probably the first ones still lived in South Asia and the coalescence of this haplogroup is in fact a signature of their westward expansion". <br /><br />You're going about it in the wrong order. You're making an assumption and then postulating a theory as to how the evidence might fit that theory. It is just as likely that IJ 'branched off' exactly within the region where the two haplogroups are found today. It was the remainder of K that moved east into the Indian subcontinent. <br /><br />"··> K should have coalesced in South Asia (Narmada?)" <br /><br />Quite possibly. Especially K1. <br /><br />"··> IJ should have coalesced in Pakistan (half way between Zagros mts. and Narmada river - Baluchistan?)" <br /><br />I dont think so. See above. <br /><br />"Also the immediate ancestor of F is not from Africa: it is CF and it is from Asia". <br /><br />But where in Asia? You assume South Asia and that CF flew there. <br /><br />"If C coalesced in SE Asia, you can estimate where the centroid falls" <br /><br />I've noticed you're very selective in when you use the centroid as indicating coalescence. C's centroid is actually in East Asia, as is D's.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-67588258043828061522011-08-11T10:25:24.591+02:002011-08-11T10:25:24.591+02:00"That's not a definition. It could apply ..."That's not a definition. It could apply to lions and tigers, go figure!" <br /><br />You are wrong there. The hybrid offspring are infertile. So they are separate species. <br /><br />"They probably think it is not necessary to demonstrate. They were surely never confronted by someone like you in the peer review process". <br /><br />They didn't have to be. They thought of it themselves: <br /><br />"Human occupations took place on the channel banks, apparently at times when the river regime changed to low-energy, perhaps seasonal, activity." <br /><br />So the authors suggest the people walked to what is now the island. <br /><br />"The Red Sea maybe?" <br /><br />A region of closely spaced islands is the most obvious region to learn the required skills. <br /><br />"I'm not claiming anything because I have not admittedly studied in such details the campaigns of Alexander, nor I will". <br /><br />I'm sure you won't. You're afraid you might learn something about the geography of the region that proves your theory wrong. <br /><br />"And I'm sure that before them, hunter-gatherers managed as well. Remember the Bushmen, please". <br /><br />Where the Bushmen live is nowhere near as arid as the coastl region of Baluchistan. And remember that the Bushmen were pushed into the semi-arid region they now occupy. <br /><br />"Why don't you make a search for hydrographic studies of both areas, or better, paleo-hydrographic ones?" <br /><br />I will. I'll let you know how I get on. <br /><br />"Whatever the case, just think Perigord and its many rivers (Dordogne, etc.) Do you really think that Neanderthals, or Sapiens after them, walked all the way to the Massif Central each time they needed to cross them?" <br /><br />They could wade any of the rivers in that region, at least in places and seasonally. I had a look at the Ebro. Guess what? The upper catchment, where the rivers would be easily waded in places, is precisely the Basque region. Whether Basques have been pushed upstream by later arrivals or they have always lived in the headwaters is a problem you are in a better position to answer than I am. I'll go back and look at your haplogroup maps and see if any are centred on the Ebro. But anyway, by the Perigordian humans definitely had boats.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-1917036152439949012011-08-10T11:12:23.625+02:002011-08-10T11:12:23.625+02:00"And IJ brached off IJK somewhere west of Ind..."And IJ brached off IJK somewhere west of India".<br /><br />Well, IJ coalesced in West Asia, but we do not know where it "branched off", i.e. the intermediate human links between the IJK and the IJ node lived. Probably the first ones still lived in South Asia and the coalescence of this haplogroup is in fact a signature of their westward expansion. <br /><br />"So presumably IJK itself originated west of India".<br /><br />Very possibly in Pakistan, maybe even in the Baluchistan you detest so much. <br /><br />We have:<br /><br />1. F in South Asia (Sindh/Gujarat?)<br />2. IJK is a bit of a mystery (see below)<br />3a. IJ in West Asia (Zagros?)<br />3b. K is again a mystery (see below)<br />4a. MNOPS in SE Asia<br />4b. LT in Pakistan<br />4c. K1 reported in SA (your own notes)<br /><br />So, solving the equation from the bottom:<br /><br />··> K should have coalesced in South Asia (Narmada?)<br />··> IJ should have coalesced in Pakistan (half way between Zagros mts. and Narmada river - Baluchistan?) <br /><br />There's always some uncertainty but that's what we can say. <br /><br />"Besides which we know for sure that F or its ancestor moved from Africa. Surely we should look for evidence of the route it took rather than simply assume it flew to India".<br /><br />That approach is fundamentally wrong: the basal diversity of F is highest in SA, what means that F coalesced in SA almost without any doubt. <br /><br />Also the immediate ancestor of F is not from Africa: it is CF and it is from Asia. If C coalesced in SE Asia, you can estimate where the centroid falls: North Central India or maybe even as far East as Bihar-Bengal. But here it may be wise to apply a correction towards the common African origin, i.e. to the West.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-60874230637293466652011-08-10T10:59:47.198+02:002011-08-10T10:59:47.198+02:00"OK. Kilometres from the source".
Pleas..."OK. Kilometres from the source".<br /><br />Please, I did not mean that you use the same vagueness with metric units. I meant that "miles" (or "kilometers") is utterly vague. <br /><br />"I'll bet that does not involve getting 'high into the mountains, which are snowed 1/3 of the year'". <br /><br />I would say so, specially in the Ice Age, when the snow line was lower. <br /><br />Whatever the case, just think Perigord and its many rivers (Dordogne, etc.) Do you really think that Neanderthals, or Sapiens after them, walked all the way to the Massif Central each time they needed to cross them? That would be absurd and some sort of raft would have been built very soon as solution to such an annoying problem, even without any prior experience. <br /><br />We do not have that big think over our shoulders just to style a pretty face or wear fashionable hats, you know.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-40246521085308871462011-08-10T10:54:55.414+02:002011-08-10T10:54:55.414+02:00"the fact that the two populations produced f..."the fact that the two populations produced fertile offspring shows, by definition, that they belonged to the same species". <br /><br />That's not a definition. It could apply to lions and tigers, go figure! We don't even know what constraints interbreeding between the two species existed; if there are claims that Asian women pregnant of European men have some delivery problems (because of worse relation baby size - pelvis hole) you can imagine what could be the case with a wholly different species, even if related enough not to have lost all interfertility. Surely the limited amount of Neanderthal influence and the fact that we were not simply absorbed into Neanderthal populations in so many millennia means that we are different species and that we could not interbreed easily anymore. <br /><br />"The authors provide no evidence whatsoever that it was an island at the time". <br /><br />They probably think it is not necessary to demonstrate. They were surely never confronted by someone like you in the peer review process. <br /><br />"There are far better places to 'practice boating skills' than on a barren coast exposed to the open ocean". <br /><br />The Red Sea maybe? ;)<br /><br />"Just because Darius claimed it doesn't mean he used it extensively".<br /><br />LOL, you want reality to bend to your ideas instead of, logically, bending your ideas to reality.<br /><br />"Presumably the produce of the 'fishing villages' is used as trade items".<br /><br />Fishing villages used to be self-sustained or almost. You get nearly all the food from the sea, all you need is fresh water and the occasional vegetable. And I'm sure that they have fresh water, or those villages would not exist at all. <br /><br />I understand that you have an inland cattle herder mentality but the sea can provide nearly all, look at Aleuts. I'd mention also your neighbors, the Maori people, but you'd say that they have pigs and batatas... what is just a diversion. <br /><br />"So the Paleolithic people used such irrigation methods?"<br /><br />Balochistan is at the core of the South Asian Neolithic. I am sure that those early farmers managed in spite of not having the engineering works of the Mykians. <br /><br />And I'm sure that before them, hunter-gatherers managed as well. Remember the Bushmen, please.<br /><br />"... they are never going to move far from fresh water".<br /><br />Not more than Bushmen probably, yes. But I'm sure that Makran, like South Arabia, has fresh water. You just like to exaggerate the dryness of semi-desertic areas (emphasis in "semi") but that is unsustainable, practically a lie that you tell yourself (and me) once and again. <br /><br />"You're claiming, in effect, that Alexander and his army had huge difficulty following a particularly bountiful coastal route when just a couple of years before he had, very easily, followed a desolate, barren, inhospitable, inland route all the way to the Indus. Doesn't make sense". <br /><br />I'm not claiming anything because I have not admittedly studied in such details the campaigns of Alexander, nor I will. I think it is irrelevant because a water pool can keep a band of people (and some of their game) alive for a long time, while it would not be able to quench the thirst of even one of the many phalanxes that Alexander walked across the globe.<br /><br />Why don't you make a search for hydrographic studies of both areas, or better, paleo-hydrographic ones?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-8516868783643453982011-08-10T06:40:49.409+02:002011-08-10T06:40:49.409+02:00Sorry. I missed this:
"Why are you so gree...Sorry. I missed this: <br /><br />"Why are you so greedy about the information you personally share?" <br /><br />I'm not greedy. I just don't keep the links. I expect anyone who is interested to remember the conclusions. <br /><br />"'Miles'? That's not an informative figure". <br /><br />OK. Kilometres from the source. <br /><br />"you cannot wade the Ebro but very close to its source at the Cantabrian Range". <br /><br />I'll bet that does not involve getting 'high into the mountains, which are snowed 1/3 of the year'. <br /><br />"NO! I'm talking of F as a whole and these are only one branch under F (IJK actually)". <br /><br />And IJ brached off IJK somewhere west of India. So presumably IJK itself originated west of India. So presumably F itself was at one time west of India. Besides which we know for sure that F or its ancestor moved from Africa. Surely we should look for evidence of the route it took rather than simply assume it flew to India.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-83797406221247131162011-08-10T06:26:40.652+02:002011-08-10T06:26:40.652+02:00"Yes. War and love can coexist in long spans ..."Yes. War and love can coexist in long spans of time. What's the problem? (Assuming it was not rape)". <br /><br />Even if it was rape the fact that the two populations produced fertile offspring shows, by definition, that they belonged to the same species. <br /><br />"And they went to an island. in the middle of the Nile without problems". <br /><br />The authors provide no evidence whatsoever that it was an island at the time. It could quite easily have been connected to the bank of the Nile. <br /><br />"Sparsely but populated and heavily reliant on sea resources. A good place to practice boating skills - although there are others". <br /><br />Your link claims: <br /><br />"The coast of Makran possesses only one island, Astola Island, near Pasni, and several insignificant islets". <br /><br />There are far better places to 'practice boating skills' than on a barren coast exposed to the open ocean. <br /><br />"It seems you've never seen a map of Darius' empire, see WP: Makran". <br /><br />Of course I've seen a map of the empire. Just because Darius claimed it doesn't mean he used it extensively. And look at the photograph of the Makran Highway. I'm sure that Paleolithicc humans would easily have survived in the surrounding hills (not). Quote: <br /><br />"The climate is very dry with very little rainfall. Makran is very sparsely inhabited, with much of the population being concentrated in a string of small ports including Chabahar, Gwatar, Jiwani, Gwadar (not to be confused with Gwatar), Pasni, Ormara and many smaller fishing villages". <br /><br />Presumably the produce of the 'fishing villages' is used as trade items. Those small ports would have been extremely useful to Paleolithic humans as trading a fishing villages I'm sure (not). Another quote: <br /><br />"The harsh desert path is often mistaken as the whole of Makran region". So the coast is actually the least desirable part of Makran. Back to you: <br /><br />"Balochistan's landscape is composed of barren, rugged mountains and fertile land". <br /><br />And that fertile land is absolutely unproductive without irrigation. Another quote from your link: <br /><br />"The Mykians are also thought to be responsible for many inventions like qanats and underground drainage galleries that bring water from an aquifer on the piedmont to the gardens or palm groves on the plains. These inventions were very important reasons behind the success of the empire". <br /><br />So the Paleolithic people used such irrigation methods? <br /><br />"They migrated very slowly for sure". <br /><br />Very slowly, and not all the way, because they are never going to move far from fresh water. What is ideal habitat today was surely ideal habitat during the Paleolithic. <br /><br />"He made the crossing with 1/3 (???), so it's possible to make it even for a prick like Alexander". <br /><br />You're claiming, in effect, that Alexander and his army had huge difficulty following a particularly bountiful coastal route when just a couple of years before he had, very easily, followed a desolate, barren, inhospitable, inland route all the way to the Indus. Doesn't make sense.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com