tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post8715274073367981905..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Asian Homo erectus in the spotlightMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-18762148150632843932011-07-25T11:46:49.977+02:002011-07-25T11:46:49.977+02:00Look, Terry: I don't know for sure but I'm...Look, Terry: I don't know for sure but I'm not going to judge the possible routes and habitats of humans in the past just because you have a theory of sorts on ecological constraints that sounds very much ad-hoc and implausible. <br /><br />I'll judge for what the hard data says.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-65951075183001080042011-07-25T11:38:02.522+02:002011-07-25T11:38:02.522+02:00"Dry forest is jungle and not savanna. They a..."Dry forest is jungle and not savanna. They are not the least easier than the jungle, posing the extra challenge of seasonality (food is not equally available all year round)". <br /><br />You may find this wikipedia entry interesting then: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_and_subtropical_dry_broadleaf_forests<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"Though less biologically diverse than rainforests, tropical dry forests are home to a wide variety of wildlife including monkeys, deer, large cats, parrots, various rodents, and ground dwelling birds. Mammalian biomass tends to be higher in dry forests than in rain forests, especially in Asian and African dry forests". <br /><br />Note: 'Mammalian biomass tends to be higher in dry forests than in rain forests'. Given that they are easier to move through than are rainforests they are much more suitable as human habitat.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-46018726252953955292011-07-22T04:20:58.543+02:002011-07-22T04:20:58.543+02:00"Crossing the Red Sea or the Sundarbans or......"Crossing the Red Sea or the Sundarbans or... so many other interesting but narrow water bodies is not the same as adventuring for 40 or 80 km into the Ocean once and again in order to reach to Sahul". <br /><br />Many Mediterranean islands are nowhere near as remote from the mainland as 40 or 80 km, yet most were uninhabited until near the Neolithic. <br /><br />"So far I can think in the Eritrea site showing use of coastal resources, the fact that they used Mediterranean areas (not savanna), Persian Gulf oasis' swamps, South African Mediterranean coastal climate... At least they exploited Mediterranean and coastal areas (all before the OoA)". <br /><br />But the people were by no means confined to just the coast, and it is very unlikely that they simply walked all the way along it. They would have exploited inland regions as well as the coast, and inland would provide an easier expansion route. <br /><br />"As for the jungle, we have the Sangoan/Lupemban culture which may or not be modern human (H. sapiens) but it's human (Homo sp.) for sure in any case". <br /><br />I see no information concerning the surrounding environment at the time. Deep jungle? I doubt it. <br /><br />"Must I remind you that every tropical African river and even water spot has deadly crocodiles in them?" <br /><br />Trees often fall across rivers, and can make an easy method for crossing. And crocodiles are less of a problem in very shallow water or when the river dries out in places. <br /><br />"In fact islands of the Nile were used by pre-OoA peoples, who surely did not swim to them". <br /><br />And rivers change course. The particular 'islands' may not have been islands at the time.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-87055076759753310372011-07-22T04:04:04.523+02:002011-07-22T04:04:04.523+02:00(continued)
Spreading the net wider:
But the mo...(continued)<br /><br />Spreading the net wider: <br /><br />But the more open savannah became a more useful habitat as humans adapted to living in it. Another ‘socio-cultural adaptation’. L3’s spread suggests a very successful adaptation to such an environment. It looks to have spread across the whole Sahel zone, even more so than did L2. Y-hap E looks also to have originally belonged to a Sahel population. Savannah opens a much more ideal habitat for rapid expansion than does the extremely narrow coastal zone, with all its hazards and obstructions. So to me it’s reasonable to assume that the people who left Africa at the same time as L3 was spreading through the Sahel would also have favoured a fairly open habitat. Not forest. Not coast. But they could only move as far from fresh water as any containers they possessed allowed them to. <br /><br />And Y-hap E, with its apparent association with the Sahel, at one time was part of a single population that included D (possibly only in the form of DE however). We have a huge geographic spread of the DE Y-hap, although it has largely died out in the region between where the two descendant haplogroups are found today. Possibly through increased aridity and consequent desert expansion. To me it is only possible to explain such a spread as being the product of a very rapid expansion. Such a rapid expansion can only occur when it is through a single ecological niche. There is insufficient time to allow specialization for a series of environments along the way. <br /><br />D is not coastal except for the two separate islands groups: the Andamans and Japan. The haplogroup looks to have entered the two island groups separately, from the mainland. It didn’t move from one island group to the other via the coast. D is also not a Negrito, or rainforest, haplogroup. So DE was originally an inland haplogroup, not a coastal one. Or a rainforest one. <br /><br />Savannah grassland is the only ecological niche that spreads from North Africa, through Southwest Asia, Northeast India, Central Asia, and as far as East Asia. Surviving the cold of Central Asia is no problem if you’re prepared to learn the required socio-cultural adaptation off the people who are already there.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-10275023950178011682011-07-22T04:02:54.794+02:002011-07-22T04:02:54.794+02:00"Dry forest is jungle and not savanna". ..."Dry forest is jungle and not savanna". <br /><br />Idiotic statement. Of course dry forest is not jungle. <br /><br />"the strictly coastal migration model is still perfectly valid" <br /><br />I disagree completely. To demonstrate I'll go back to a statement you made several days ago. And I suggest that the Pygmies’ development may explain a great deal about our wider origins, even though the information from Africa may not be complete: <br /><br />"There are no Pygmies in Asia. Negritos are not Pygmies: they are not by far that short". <br /><br />Irrelevant. Both groups have made a ‘socio-cultural adaptation’ (as you call it) to living in tropical rainforest. And, what's more, they became independently adapted to it. The latest evidence suggests that even within Africa the Pygmies two groups may have made independent socio-cultural adaptations to living in rainforest, although members of Y-hap B2 are associated with both groups. <br /><br />Firstly, in the Cameroon/Congo/Central African Republic region northwest of the Congo River, the Baka, Aka and Bongo. Perhaps originally mtDNA L1c1a and Y-hap A1b. <br /><br />The second group, the Eastern Pygmies, are spread around the eastern and southern margins of the Congo River Basin tropical rainforest. In the headwaters of the Congo, at the northeastern edge of the tropical rainforest, we find the Mbuti and, along the tropical rainforest's southern margin, we find the Cwa and Twa. Did these two groups become separately adapted to the rainforest or are they the product of a single population that migrated around the edge of the jungle? <br /><br />Mitochondrial DNA L5a1c looks like a late arrival, but it would have come from the northeast. As well as being present in the eastern Pygmies L2a2 is spread from Chad, through the Sudan and south to the Khoisan. But as a whole L2a managed to spread further west than had L1. This may indicate the exploitation of more open habitats although the haplogroup is not actually widespread in Southern Africa. L0a2b also has close relations northeast of the Congo Basin, in Ethiopia and Kenya. <br /><br />So the Eastern Pygmies probably developed as part of a population that spread south along the eastern margin between the savannah and the Congo Basin tropical rainforest. But this population never used the Congo River itself for any form of travel. They never came close to it really. So in Africa the tropical rainforest of the Congo Basin was not useful human habitat until the development of slash and burn farming. <br /><br />(continued)terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-71934010550896454322011-07-21T07:51:55.673+02:002011-07-21T07:51:55.673+02:00Dry forest is jungle and not savanna. They are not...Dry forest is jungle and not savanna. They are not the least easier than the jungle, posing the extra challenge of seasonality (food is not equally available all year round). The most famous dry forest (at least for me) is the Matto Grosso, which is part of the Amazon jungle. <br /><br />"You obviouls didn't read all the paper"...<br /><br />I obviously did. What's your problem?<br /><br />"The argument is not whether on not humans lived in the north, it is only that occupation was unlikely to have been continuous"...<br /><br />Eh, eh! Spooooky forest with scary nocturnal noises... Game Master Terry says you can't cross.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-52626105867234805202011-07-21T07:45:37.885+02:002011-07-21T07:45:37.885+02:00...
"Your recent blog showed that we cannot ......<br /><br />"Your recent blog showed that we cannot rely on mutation rate as a proxy for time".<br /><br />I still think that for mtDNA, mutation rate counted from the root gives an approximate notion. Enough for our discussion here. We can debate on many details and fine tunning but certain apportion is surely true. <br /><br />It's nearly impossible to argue that so many haplogroups have seen their "molecular clock" altered all at the same time, just because you prefer to think that people waited for long before crossing to Sahul. <br /><br />Whatever you choose to believe, the facts quite clearly point in a different direction. <br /><br />"Only if you're going to insist that people crossed the Bab al Mandab and then moved all the way to Oz/NG along the coast"...<br /><br />I'm not going to "insist" on that because I keep my mind as open as I can and there are also semi-inland/riverine plausible scenarios but the strictly coastal migration model is still perfectly valid, even if it may have sinned of excessively simplistic. <br /><br />In any case I am going to insist that had been people usins boats and exploiting water resources including sea shores since before ever crossing into Asia, probably across the Red Sea indeed. <br /><br />"It would have been most likely that if such was the case they would have reached all the islands in the Mediterranean long before they actually did so".<br /><br />Boating does not imply high seas capability. That is a very "Wallacean" innovation indeed, it seems to me. Crossing the Red Sea or the Sundarbans or... so many other interesting but narrow water bodies is not the same as adventuring for 40 or 80 km into the Ocean once and again in order to reach to Sahul. <br /><br />That feat was accomplished early on, it seems, but it's a feat at least a bit above human normal capabilities before the development of sails. Nobody denies the extraordinary navigation skills of the ancestors of pre-Austronesian Wallaceans, Filipino Negritos, Melanesians and Australian Aborigines. All them must have been quite good boaters and very brave people in any case.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-4643589508773130752011-07-21T07:45:30.704+02:002011-07-21T07:45:30.704+02:00"... you have provided no evidence that early..."... you have provided no evidence that early modern humans were anything other than savannah-adapted".<br /><br />So far I can think in the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10811218?dopt=Abstract" rel="nofollow">Eritrea</a> site showing use of coastal resources, the fact that they used Mediterranean areas (not savanna), Persian Gulf oasis' swamps, South African Mediterranean coastal climate... At least they exploited Mediterranean and coastal areas (all before the OoA). <br /><br />As for the jungle, we have the Sangoan/Lupemban culture which may or not be modern human (H. sapiens) but it's human (Homo sp.) for sure in any case. See <a href="http://www.liv.ac.uk/sace/research/pg_posters/Taylor_Nick.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Whatever the case where you talk of biological adaption, I see socio-cultural adaption, which is an ability that our species has developed like no other. As long as it does not kill us, we adapt quickly. And the jungle may be spooky but it's not so deadly.<br /><br />You have talked about some mysterious tech that would have allowed people to use the jungle, but I can't think of one. I can think of techs that help but not one that is strictly necessary, unlike what happens with cold climates. <br /><br />"It's prefectly possible to move between East and Central Africa without going anywhere near the Nile, except the headwaters south of the Sudd".<br /><br />In the jungle of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luvironza_River" rel="nofollow">Burundi</a>? Must I remind you that every tropical African river and even water spot has deadly crocodiles in them? You don't swim in those rivers unless your boat capsizes and you are fighting for your life. <br /><br />You need boats in Africa, you do nearly all the time in nearly all circumstances. <br /><br />With your prejudices the Nile and the jungle together divide Africa in two. This division is not apparent at all in genetics or, AFAIK, in archaeology. In fact <a href="https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/77329/1/JHE8-B-11.pdf" rel="nofollow">islands of the Nile</a> were used by pre-OoA peoples, who surely did not swim to them.<br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-15130310653098028312011-07-21T05:58:00.339+02:002011-07-21T05:58:00.339+02:00"Instead the freezing cold of Siberia is '..."Instead the freezing cold of Siberia is 'no problem' for your 'Nordicist' way of thinking". <br /><br />You obviouls didn't read all the paper, or didn't read it properly. Have a read of 5, 'Preferred Human Paleoenvironments during the early and Middle Pleistocene?' The argument is not whether on not humans lived in the north, it is only that occupation was unlikely to have been continuous. Again they're commenting on H. erectus but that species being, as you say, 'an intelligent animal and a close relative but not yet people like us' H. sapiens should have had no trouble surviving there at times either.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-35812617186125105022011-07-21T05:42:19.563+02:002011-07-21T05:42:19.563+02:00"however you still have the Kra isthmus and e..."however you still have the Kra isthmus and even all mainland SE Asia, which in all the paleoclimate maps I know of appears as jungle (example)". <br /><br />I've just looked at the link and you are completely wrong. Sunda is shown as mostly either 'monsoon or dry forest' or 'tropical grassland', neither of which pose any problem for human habitat. Jungle ('tropical rainforest') is shown only in what is now Borneo, Sulawesi and the Southern Philippines.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-50129917325931558972011-07-21T05:34:28.479+02:002011-07-21T05:34:28.479+02:00"It's an interesting paper but they are t..."It's an interesting paper but they are talking of H. erectus, a species with a much more limited intelligence than ours" <br /><br />But the data on the vegetation changes during the Pleistocene is still relevant. And there you have provided no evidence that early modern humans were anything other than savannah-adapted. <br /><br />"we can adapt ourselves and our way of life to so many different conditions". <br /><br />When pushed to do so through population pressure. <br /><br />"you still have the Kra isthmus and even all mainland SE Asia, which in all the paleoclimate maps I know of appears as jungle" <br /><br />And both regions would have been surrounded by the greatest expanse of land during lowered sea level, so your jungle claim is irelevant. <br /><br />"There would have been no connections between East and Central Africa through the Nile River without knowing of boats for example". <br /><br />Rubbish. It's prefectly possible to move between East and Central Africa without going anywhere near the Nile, except the headwaters south of the Sudd. <br /><br />"We know that this two regions show absolutely no indication of having been separated from each other". <br /><br />As they wouldn't be, irrespective of boats. <br /><br />"Homo sapiens would have been unable to travel between Ethiopia and Morocco and then back to Palestine or Southern Africa without knowing of boats". <br /><br />All those regions are connected by land so boats are not at all necessary to move between them, except for your rather strange belief. <br /><br />"They had to cross the Nile, the Zambezi and other water bodies like the Ubangi, Niger, Congo, large lakes... ". <br /><br />The Pygmies certainly seem not to have crossed the Congo. That river marks the boundary between eastern and western Pygmy groups. As for the others: crossing the headwaters would not require boats of any sort. <br /><br />"the leap between Africa and Australia was not more than 20 Ka., of which 75-80% corresponds to the migration between Africa and Pakistan" <br /><br />Your recent blog showed that we cannot rely on mutation rate as a proxy for time. The parent/offspring haplogroup replacement rate depends on a whole range of factors. <br /><br />"You are, with no evidence at all, claiming that boats were invented in almost a specific millennium" <br /><br />And you are, with no evidence at all, claiming 'we have got boats or similar since always'. <br /><br />"feat that would have been largely helped if boats were available all the time". <br /><br />Only if you're going to insist that people crossed the Bab al Mandab and then moved all the way to Oz/NG along the coast, a most unlikely scenario. <br /><br />"boats were surely first tried in a 'pool' (lake, river, lagoon) and not the open sea". <br /><br />I agree. But there are plenty of pools in SE Asia. And to claim that 'they used tech they were carrying from Bengal, from Guajrat, from the Persian Gulf marshes, from the turquoise waters of the Red Sea and from even inland Africa' is to stretch credibility. It would have been most likely that if such was the case they would have reached all the islands in the Mediterranean long before they actually did so. <br /><br />"It is so extremely logical" <br /><br />No it isn't. It's all supposition on your part.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-77934721409037352582011-07-20T06:21:52.265+02:002011-07-20T06:21:52.265+02:00"Do you really believe that the knowledge to ..."Do you really believe that the knowledge to build firearms, for example, 'was magically brought from Olympus by some archaic Prometheus'? How about automobiles? Aeroplanes? Space ships?"<br /><br />It's you who claims so. I say that we have a problem and we solve it. Maybe not the first day but eventually. So if we live by a river, lake or seashore we invent boats or equivalent. And we almost always live by a river, lake or seashore, so we have got boats or similar since always. <br /><br />There would have been no connections between East and Central Africa through the Nile River without knowing of boats for example. We know that this two regions show absolutely no indication of having been separated from each other. Homo sapiens would have been unable to travel between Ethiopia and Morocco and then back to Palestine or Southern Africa without knowing of boats. They had to cross the Nile, the Zambezi and other water bodies like the Ubangi, Niger, Congo, large lakes... They surely relied on them in many cases for fishing and transport. <br /><br />Boats or equivalent (rafts?) must have been with us since we first settled by a river, lake or sea.<br /><br />"... it seems you believe that humans have made no technogical improvements since they first left Africa".<br /><br />No, please. But since they left Africa till they arrived to Sahul there are 4-5 mutations only of a total of 50 or so (depending what line you measure), so if Homo sapiens has existed for 200,000 years, the leap between Africa and Australia was not more than 20 Ka., of which 75-80% corresponds to the migration between Africa and Pakistan (leaving 4-5 Ka, at most, for the journey between South Asia and Sahul). <br /><br />And you are denying this and insisting that in all those 200,000 years of (AMH) human history, boats were only invented in a narrow parenthesis within that narrow parenthesis of 4-5 Ka (at the most)! You are, <b>with no evidence at all</b>, claiming that boats were invented in almost a specific millennium: earlier would be too soon (for your narrow mind) and later would be too late (indeed, they would have needed to swim a lot). <br /><br />Instead all is a lot easier if boats were part of the quotidian experience of peoples through the world in at least much of the maybe 130 or 140 millennia before that epic migratory feat took place, feat that would have been largely helped if boats were available all the time. <br /><br />It is so extremely logical, what you do is like claiming that Columbus invented the sail and astronomy. No, he just used what was already available to him, albeit in a somewhat unique and daring way. And so did the anonymous sailors that crossed into Wallacea and beyond: they used tech they were carrying from Bengal, from Guajrat, from the Persian Gulf marshes, from the turquoise waters of the Red Sea and from even inland Africa because boats were surely first tried in a "pool" (lake, river, lagoon) and not the open sea.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-37562881111059968952011-07-20T06:00:45.090+02:002011-07-20T06:00:45.090+02:00It's an interesting paper but they are talking...It's an interesting paper but they are talking of H. erectus, a species with a much more limited intelligence than ours (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranial_capacity" rel="nofollow">closer to chimpanzee than to us</a>). They were an intelligent animal and a close relative but not yet people like us. <br /><br />Instead H. sapiens since the very beginning c. 190 Ka ago are just like us in all things biological. And the so-called modern behavior is at least 130 Ka old (I mention just in case). <br /><br />I say because one thing is clear about us: that, whatever our original biological preferences, which is indeed for warm tropical environments, savanna of course but not only, we can adapt ourselves and our way of life to so many different conditions. If we can live in Siberia, we can definitely live in the tropical jungle, the tropical swamps and the tropical coastal environments of all sorts. Neither provides such a challenge as a freezing winter (or even year-round cold) does. <br /><br />Because we do not have fur nor are adapted to cold in any way whatsoever. Only our ingenuity can overcome that.<br /><br />Back to the issue of Sundaland. Ok, maybe there was some patches that were savanna in some undefined periods, however you still have the Kra isthmus and even all mainland SE Asia, which in all the paleoclimate maps I know of appears as jungle (<a href="http://images.wikia.com/althistory/images/e/e4/Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png" rel="nofollow">example</a>).<br /><br />Notice that the example includes the alleged savanna corridor but it is fully surrounded by jungle (dry tropical forest or tropical raiforest) or the sea, both or which are no-no for you. <br /><br />"You are obviously deliberately misinterpreting my rules".<br /><br />I am not: you insist a lot in both of them: no jungle, no coastal boating and of course no mangles, which are like a mixture of both. Instead the freezing cold of Siberia is "no problem" for your "Nordicist" way of thinking. <br /><br />C'mon!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-60440449673510578552011-07-20T05:16:39.980+02:002011-07-20T05:16:39.980+02:00"you say that we must wait for Australia to b..."you say that we must wait for Australia to be colonized until the knowledge of boats was magically brought from Olympus by some archaic Prometheus" <br /><br />Do you really believe that the knowledge to build firearms, for example, 'was magically brought from Olympus by some archaic Prometheus'? How about automobiles? Aeroplanes? Space ships? From your comment it certainly looks very much as if you do believe it to be so. In fact it seems you believe that humans have made no technogical improvements since they first left Africa. Surely that's a ridiculous position to take.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-758826741375042112011-07-20T04:36:58.927+02:002011-07-20T04:36:58.927+02:00"My point is that you claim that humans could..."My point is that you claim that humans could not enter the jungle (spooky or whatever) and could no exploit the coast (no boats), so how could they even travel through SE Asia, specially Sundaland?" <br /><br />There is actually no need for them to enter the spooky jungle in SE Asia on the way to Oz. I remember a paper someone linked to recently concerning the Pleistocene vegetation in Sunda. Much of it was open woodland during arid periods, as this paper also says: <br /><br />http://queenslandmuseum.academia.edu/JulienLouys/Papers/691178/Environment_preferred_habitats_and_potential_refugia_for_Pleistocene_Homo_in_Southeast_Asia<br /><br />It deals specifically with pre-modern humans but the author states: <br /><br />"What we have attempted to show here is the potential of Southeast Asia, and in particular the increased land area of Sundaland, to act as a refugium for savannah-adapted species, and particularly hominims, during the periods of lowered sea level and environmental changes that characterised so much of the Pleistocene". <br /><br />And there is more in the paper, which I'm sure you'll find interesting. Particularly section 4, 'Sundaland as a Hominim refugium', where they argue the genus Homo is sanannah-adapted. Of course I realise you know far more about the subject that they do. <br /><br />"So your rules are wrong. Q.E.D." <br /><br />You are obviously deliberately misinterpreting my rules.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-35567150732173770762011-07-19T07:41:02.147+02:002011-07-19T07:41:02.147+02:00The fire proposal is not a belief, just a reasonab...The fire proposal is not a belief, just a reasonable hypothesis, specially considering that using fires to modify the environment is a local Australian anomaly, which may have needed some time to evolve. <br /><br />"We know that the Pygmies of Africa are unrelated to the Pygmies of SE Asia, so it is more than just probable that adaptation to a jungle environmeny happened twice, independently". <br /><br />There are no Pygmies in Asia. Negritos are not Pygmies: they are not by far that short. The reduction in size of (some) Pygmies is unique (surely meaning a longer time of adaption). <br /><br />I agree that reduction in size happened in several locations independently (there are some "Maya" peoples that are also extremely small) but that was not my point at all. <br /><br />My point is that you claim that humans could not enter the jungle (spooky or whatever) and could no exploit the coast (no boats), so how could they even travel through SE Asia, specially Sundaland? How could they ever reach not to Australia but to Wallacea, Philippines or even what is now the Malay Peninsula? With your "rules" they could not. <br /><br />So your rules are wrong. Q.E.D.<br /><br />But you will avoid this central point and argue something asymptotically, right?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-19107182587920409042011-07-19T07:21:04.446+02:002011-07-19T07:21:04.446+02:00"I'd expect people to be in New Guinea al..."I'd expect people to be in New Guinea almost at the same time as in South China". <br /><br />I'd very very surprised if that was in fact the case. <br /><br />"people may have arrived earlier and only begun using fires thousands of years after that". <br /><br />That could certainly only be described as a 'belief'. The only reason you would concoct such a belief is becuase 'because you have those preconceived ideas'. 'You have a faith problem: you believe too much and too strongly and you doubt too little'. <br /><br />"My whole point is that, following your prejudices, nobody would ever have reached even the Malay Peninsula at all because they either had to go through the jungle or they had to coast (or both)". <br /><br />We know that the Pygmies of Africa are unrelated to the Pygmies of SE Asia, so it is more than just probable that adaptation to a jungle environmeny happened twice, independently. <br /><br />"If the mtDNA evidence, the skulls, the tools... contradict your beliefs, then too bad for the facts" <br /><br />The evidence does not contradict my beliefs. It fits perfectly. <br /><br />"Ok, you are just dribbling the hard facts again because you have those preconceived ideas". <br /><br />Maju. It is you who is ignoring the hard facts concerning the Pygmies, and insisting on your preconceived ideas. Wake up.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-12750066839522340532011-07-19T04:57:12.833+02:002011-07-19T04:57:12.833+02:00Ok, you are just dribbling the hard facts again be...Ok, you are just dribbling the hard facts again because you have those preconceived ideas. <br /><br />I must tell you again also that I am not interested in what you think unless it is backed by hard data. Sadly you put much emphasis on the fact that you have a quite immutable opinion and no emphasis at all on the hard facts. <br /><br />If the mtDNA evidence, the skulls, the tools... contradict your beliefs, then too bad for the facts, it seems to me. You have a faith problem: you believe too much and too strongly and you doubt too little. <br /><br />"Someone obviously invented, or improved, boats in the islands of SE Asia before they could cross the open sea".<br /><br />They could not reach the islands without boats - and they could not even enter SE Asia almost at all because of your postulated jungle-phobia. <br /><br />My whole point is that, following your prejudices, nobody would ever have reached even the Malay Peninsula at all because they either had to go through the jungle or they had to coast (or both). Not to mention crossing to Wallacea! <br /><br />"You claim, and I agree, that the OoA may have been close to 100,000 years ago, and humans arrived in India somewhere around that time. Yet humans reached Australia at most 60,000 years ago".<br /><br />I do not "claim" either thing with any certainty. I am quite certain however that at least 80 Ka for the arrival to South Asia is pretty safe (cf. Petraglia), though we may want to delay the explosion to after Toba (c. 74 Ka). I'd say that, on such grounds, a SE Asian arrival of c. 70 Ka (foot bone of Philippines, Liujiang skull). That means probable arrival to New Guinea c. 70 Ka. and to Australia c. 66 Ka., assuming 4 Ka. per mutation. <br /><br />Whatever the case, I'd expect people to be in New Guinea almost at the same time as in South China. <br /><br />But the fossil record is not yet informative enough for Asia and Oceania. You claim "at most 60 Ka" in Australia based on wildfires, but people may have arrived earlier and only begun using fires thousands of years after that. Fossil evidence can only define the most recent possible date, not the oldest possible one.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-68237541103701116382011-07-18T23:32:19.803+02:002011-07-18T23:32:19.803+02:00"your comparison is clearly demeaning" ..."your comparison is clearly demeaning" <br /><br />Maju. Get your facts right before you start accusing anyone of anything. It was a quote from Wikipedia, not my statement. Although I have no problem with it. <br /><br />"Instead wild animal comparisons usually elicit much better feelings". <br /><br />What is the difference? Most wild animals in the deep forest are also smaller than are their relations in more open habitats anyway. <br /><br />"For you instead they arrived to SE Asia, where they could not progress towards Wallacea because they did not know of boats nor they could even step in the spooooooky jungle at all. And there they remained stuck for millennia and millennia until somehow they developed the technology of boats". <br /><br />That's pretty much how I see it. <br /><br />"That would require a clear gap between the M star and the lineages that expand in Australia/New Guinea". <br /><br />I've said at times that more work needs to be done concerning the relationship between the M haplogroups. I strongly suspect they will be shown to be related to SE Asian haplogroups, just as Australian M42 is now shown to be related to Chinese M74. <br /><br />"Yet M29'Q is just one mutation downstream of M and M14 and M42 are two (and also M17 in Philippines). Etc" <br /><br />We've seen recently that simple mutation numbers is not necessarily a representation of age. <br /><br />"they had been coasting and following the rivers since at least the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean coasts of Africa. This is coherent with the genetic data (and any other data I know of)". <br /><br />Sounds like the logic of 'a Jesuit theologian'. It is 'coherent with the genetic data' only if you have decided in advance that it happened that way. Other interpretations are certainly possible, and more likely. <br /><br />"I say that the rapid coastal colonization of Australia and New Guinea was possible because people necessarily had boats and a quite advanced familiarity with them when they crossed into Australia". <br /><br />I totally agree. <br /><br />"you say that we must wait for Australia to be colonized until the knowledge of boats was magically brought from Olympus by some archaic Prometheus" <br /><br />Someone obviously invented, or improved, boats in the islands of SE Asia before they could cross the open sea. Nothing magic about it. And we have the evidence of a really substantial back movement from SE Asia in the form of Y-hap P and mtDNA R. Some new development must have made such a huge expansion possible. <br /><br />"Basically you have people getting out of Africa, briefly pausing in India and then arriving to Australia". <br /><br />Rubbish. You claim, and I agree, that the OoA may have been close to 100,000 years ago, and humans arrived in India somewhere around that time. Yet humans reached Australia at most 60,000 years ago. Forty thousand years is hardly 'briefly pausing'. <br /><br />"But all that happened in any case after the Pygmy-concentrated lineages coalesced in Africa". <br /><br />But not before those lineages had become specifically 'Pygmy'. Even the Western Pygmy L1c lineages are shared with non-Pygmies (look back at your diagram of the L haplogroups). As for the Eastern Pygmies, their specific haplogroups don't appear until long after M and N formed. <br /><br />"I thought you said they were NOT in the deeper jungle at all". <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"Most Pygmy communities are partially hunter-gatherers, living partially but not exclusively on the wild products of their environment. They trade with neighbouring farmers to acquire cultivated foods and other material items; no group lives deep in the forest without access to agricultural products". <br /><br />Note: 'no group lives deep in the forest without access to agricultural products'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-52776123002731770712011-07-18T07:52:27.023+02:002011-07-18T07:52:27.023+02:00"... they don't actually move very far fr..."... they don't actually move very far from the farming groups".<br /><br />Who live all through the Congo. A characteristic of Bantu expansion was the colonization of the jungle thanks to steel tools. <br /><br />"... their arrival in the deeper jungle (such as it is) is a recent phenomenon".<br /><br />I thought you said they were NOT in the deeper jungle at all. It's circular logic: whatever the data says you'll find some detail that looks like it could support what you think a priori. A Jesuit theologian could not do better (in their wronging). <br /><br />"You know as well as I do that Australia was settled late in human history"...<br /><br />I know that Australia provides the first confirmed material evidence (excepting Galilee) of presence of our species outside of Africa. So not "late". <br /><br />Also all genetic data points to Australia (and its Papua peninsula, now an island) being colonized soon within the Eurasian expansion process, quite earlier than Europe or North Asia in any case. <br /><br />Basically you have people getting out of Africa, briefly pausing in India and then arriving to Australia. But all that happened in any case after the Pygmy-concentrated lineages coalesced in Africa. <br /><br />"Such settlement was not possible until the development of boats".<br /><br />What means that boats had to exist before it happened. Not just boats IMO because the crossing to Australia is very challenging but a whole "refined" boater culture. <br /><br />But notice the difference: you say that we must wait for Australia to be colonized until the knowledge of boats was magically brought from Olympus by some archaic Prometheus, which has an exact timing in your head (regardless of what reality says); instead I say that the rapid coastal colonization of Australia and New Guinea was possible because people necessarily had boats and a quite advanced familiarity with them when they crossed into Australia. For me they did not need to wait or at most just for the occasion for the crossing beyond the line of the horizon because they arrived with the technology fully developed, as they had been coasting and following the rivers since at least the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean coasts of Africa. This is coherent with the genetic data (and any other data I know of). <br /><br />For you instead they arrived to SE Asia, where they could not progress towards Wallacea because they did not know of boats nor they could even step in the <i>spooooooky</i> jungle at all. And there they remained stuck for millennia and millennia until somehow they developed the technology of boats. That would require a clear gap between the M star and the lineages that expand in Australia/New Guinea. Yet M29'Q is just one mutation downstream of M and M14 and M42 are two (and also M17 in Philippines). Etc. <br /><br />Basically they went straight away from India to New Guinea and with just a small pause to Australia. Y-DNA is consistent with this also. <br /><br />"How is comparing humans to other animals 'insulting'?"<br /><br />It is, notably domestic, slave animals that have lost their dignity: pig, dog, bitch, donkey, sheep... all those terms are insulting and for a reason: you are calling them mindless slaves, tools of someone else. <br /><br />Instead wild animal comparisons usually elicit much better feelings. Whatever the case your comparison is clearly demeaning and anyhow not in agreement with reality, as Pygmies have lived in the area long before Bantu arrived and degraded them with their corrupting trades.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-75303831681829800702011-07-18T05:09:03.396+02:002011-07-18T05:09:03.396+02:00"As for the Twa the article also says that th..."As for the Twa the article also says that they are scattered through all the tropical jungle area" <br /><br />I've looked for that comment in the article and have failed to find it. The nearest I found was: <br /><br />"Twa live scattered throughout the Congo". <br /><br />That is a different claim. It is by no means true that all of the Congo is tropical jungle. A few more comments that I did find though: <br /><br />"Regardless of the environment, the Twa spend part of the year in the otherwise uninhabited region hunting game, and being provided with agricultural food while they do so" <br /><br />Implies they don't actually move very far from the farming groups. <br /><br />"As the Twa caste developed into full-time hunter-gatherers, the words were conflated, and the ritual role of the absorbed aboriginal peoples[4] was transferred to the Twa". <br /><br />So the Twa may have been pushed into the forest as farming groups expanded. <br />In other words their arrival in the deeper jungle (such as it is) is a recent phenomenon. <br /><br />"With your taboos on where people could live, Australia would have never been settled at all, because between Asia and Oceania there was and there is a belt of jungle and coasts, all areas that cannot be inhabited according to your narrow mindedness". <br /><br />You know as well as I do that Australia was settled late in human history, and Oceania even later. Such settlement was not possible until the development of boats. That is what makes the region a rather fascinating study. Humans had developed a technology that allowed them to move beyond their original habitat. <br /><br />"comparing them to Bantu cattle. It's so insulting and you do not even notice... Very sad". <br /><br />How is comparing humans to other animals 'insulting'? Are you one of those who believes humans are somehow superior to all other life forms, and are in no way comparable? A product of your Christian upbringing? Or perhaps you're just ignoring the influence of ecology, presumably because you know very little about the subject.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-24632019049303858322011-07-16T15:33:34.343+02:002011-07-16T15:33:34.343+02:00Whatever.
I said that Pygmies do not live anymor...Whatever. <br /><br />I said that Pygmies do <b>not</b> live anymore by Kisangani, which is a "urban" rather deforested area. Not that the do live...<br /><br />As for the Twa the article also says that they are scattered through <b>all the tropical jungle area</b>, plus some southern areas near the Kalahari where they get confused with the Bushmen. <br /><br />But whatever you prefer to think that there are taboo areas where people cannot enter, not because of cold (a real problem, two people just died in the Pyrenees this week... in the middle of the summer of hypothermia) but "just because". <br /><br />With your taboos on where people could live, Australia would have never been settled at all, because between Asia and Oceania there was and there is a belt of jungle and coasts, all areas that cannot be inhabited according to your narrow mindedness. <br /><br />You also make Pygmies non-existant, non-jungle dwellers and even non-Pygmies, comparing them to Bantu cattle. It's so insulting and you do not even notice... Very sad.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-7314332267849709542011-07-16T10:24:46.709+02:002011-07-16T10:24:46.709+02:00"You seem to think that because Pygmies do no..."You seem to think that because Pygmies do not live near the largely deforested areas of Kisangani anymore, they are not in the 'deepest jungle'". <br /><br />I happen to know a reasonable amount about the Congo. In the 1980s I became very interested in the music. On what grounds do you claim that the Pygmies have ever lived anywhere near the region of modern Kisangani? Certainly your link makes no such claim. You should actually read the links you provide. From your link: <br /><br />"Some of the many African ethnic groups in Kisangani are: Bamanga, Popoi, Boa, Lokele, Turumbu, Mbola, Kumu, Wagenia, Rega, Topoke, Lokele, Turumbu, Basoko, Lendu, Budu, Bangetu, Logo, Alur, Hema, Nande and Yira ethnic group also have a notable presence". <br /><br />You will no doubt notice the prominence of Pygmy ethnic groups in that list. <br /><br />"The Cwa (or Kwa) specially are located all around the 'deepest jungle' (another map)". <br /><br />'Deepest jungle'? Take a look at any other map of the geography and natural vegetation of the Congo and surroundings. The Baka and Aka live deepest into the jungle, but actually just inside the northern edge of the Congo jungle. The Mongo Cwa live near Lake Mai-Ndombe, and probably in the region of semi-savanah south of the lake. And the Kasai Cwa also live very near the southern margin of the Congo jungle, around the Sankuru River. Other Cwa are further south and certainly nowhere near any deepest jungle. So, again, no Pygmies in the deepest jungle.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-7666992487019547692011-07-16T10:01:52.829+02:002011-07-16T10:01:52.829+02:00"You have not presented any such 'evidenc..."You have not presented any such 'evidence', you are just happily interpreting your own way data that says nothing about 'the deepest jungle'". <br /><br /><br />Have another look at the earlier map you were kind enough to link to. You will see that, in spite of your belief, that the OoA movement had boats no Pygmy population is found anywhere near the course of the lower Congo River. In fact the Congo basically splits the eastern and western Pygmy populations. A very surprising situation for a people supposedly well-adapted to life in the deep forest and having boats able to navigate calm stretches of waterways. <br /><br />"but actually indicates that Pygmy ethnicities are scattered in such way that they must have crossed the jungle once and again". <br /><br />Wrong again. A link concerning the Twa, the main group for which you could claim ' must have crossed the jungle once and again': <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twa_peoples<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"The term Twa is generally translated as 'Pygmy'. However, in the Western conception 'Pygmies' are short forest people, whereas southern Twa populations do not live in the forest and they may not be much shorter than the farming/village population, generally not reaching the anthropological definition of 'Pygmy' of males < 150 cm". <br /><br />And: <br /><br />"Outside of the rainforest, the the Twa may be taller than the classic Pygmy, and there may be less difference in physical appearance—in some cases none". <br /><br />Yet more: <br /><br />"The short stature of the "forest people" could have developed in the few millennia since the Bantu expansion, as also happened with Bantu domestic animals in the rainforest" <br /><br />So you see there is absolutely no need to postulate any movement through forest at all. This appears to be yet another example of your 'projecting your phobias and prejudices into a debate that you have stirred only out of them'. And it is you who is 'misreading the data shallowly as you, sadly, do so often. <br /><br />"all forest peoples hunt largely monkeys for what I know (not only anyhow)". <br /><br />And monkeys (in fact any tree-living mammals) are very difficult to hunt.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-61214947304698333842011-07-15T08:15:36.912+02:002011-07-15T08:15:36.912+02:00"I'm saying that the evidence suggests th..."I'm saying that the evidence suggests they don't actually exploit the deepest jungle".<br /><br />You have not presented any such "evidence", you are just happily interpreting your own way data that says nothing about "the deepest jungle" but actually indicates that Pygmy ethnicities are scattered in such way that they must have crossed the jungle once and again. <br /><br />The Cwa (or Kwa) specially are located all around the "deepest jungle" (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pygmy_languages_%28Bahuchet%29.png" rel="nofollow">another map</a>). <br /><br />You seem to think that because Pygmies do not live near the largely deforested areas of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisangani" rel="nofollow">Kisangani</a> anymore, they are not in the "deepest jungle". You are misreading the data shallowly as you, sadly, do so often. <br /><br />"However most of that diversity is in the form of invertebrates".<br /><br />There is still a lot of other diversity, not to mention that invertebrates are eaten anyhow (spiders, worms, locusts, caterpillars, ants). Monkeys, birds, reptiles and of course mammals are eaten as well. <br /><br />What do the Hadza hunt largely in the savanna? Monkeys (baboons to be precise), what do Pygmies hunt? I do not know (yet) but all forest peoples hunt largely monkeys for what I know (not only anyhow).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com