tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post2290518855020303900..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Ancient Homo sapiens from Laos (46-63,000 years ago)Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger153125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-85410999964591298242012-10-27T04:52:29.478+02:002012-10-27T04:52:29.478+02:00"I think this case of Fiji is a 'true'..."I think this case of Fiji is a 'true' founder effect". <br /><br />As I've said in the other post, not so. <br /><br />"But in any case it is you who must take note because you're always assuming pops. to be single-haplogroup, when they almost never are such thing in real life and, at best, come to be so only after long periods of isolation-cum-drift". <br /><br />I agree 'isolation-cum-drift' is far more common than are true 'founder effects'. Settlement of new regions is usually preceded by a period of isolation-cum-drift before the expansion. If that were not so the 'original' population would have simply kept going. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-56741498494231080562012-10-26T09:02:47.283+02:002012-10-26T09:02:47.283+02:00B4a is massively dominant (>80% or >90%) alr...B4a is massively dominant (>80% or >90%) already at Fiji. That's the essence of the matter, the rest is just complicating things unnecessarily because minority clades are subject to drift and similar stochastic negative effects in further founder effects, as we can see in NZ. <br /><br />"True 'founder effects'"...<br /><br />I think this case of Fiji is a "true" founder effect. But in any case it is you who must take note because you're always assuming pops. to be single-haplogroup, when they almost never are such thing in real life and, at best, come to be so only after long periods of isolation-cum-drift. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-63766786247509764022012-10-26T05:04:22.759+02:002012-10-26T05:04:22.759+02:00"Which is a founder effect at the Fiji stage ..."Which is a founder effect at the Fiji stage (I understand)". <br /><br />Most likely not. The non-B4a haplogroups from Fiji are all Melanesian, so the didn't leave SE Asia with B4a. Haplogroups involved include P1, P2, Q1, Q2 and M28. The general consensus is that their presence is a product of later movement east from Melanesia, not from SE Asia. We know from archeology that new waves of humans have several times reached Fiji from both Vanuatu and New Caledonia. It is therefore most probable that just B4a made it into the wider Pacific. The 'founder effect' therefore occurred long before humans reached Fiji. Unless you're going to suggest that each of those Melanesian haplogroups represents a separate 'founder effect' within the Pacific population. A position I can agree with, but it would then mean that every single haplogroup expansion is the product of a founder effect. <br /><br />"So what?" <br /><br />True 'founder effects' are very rare in human pre-history. We cannot invoke the expression as an explanation when the evidence fails to fit a belief. Founder populations are usually simply a representative sample of the people available, not a subset of the people available. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-18577360231657897542012-10-24T06:50:28.756+02:002012-10-24T06:50:28.756+02:00Yeah, it's open access. I'll write a short...Yeah, it's open access. I'll write a short note later on. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-2423376105804757962012-10-24T06:43:05.438+02:002012-10-24T06:43:05.438+02:00Here says that:
... "included families that ...Here says that:<br /><br />... "included families that were not directly maternally related".<br /><br />...<br /><br />... "most of the women HAD the Polynesian motif".<br /><br />Which is a founder effect at the Fiji stage (I understand). <br /><br />"it is extremely easy to construct a scenario for the Polynesian expansion involving just a single founder effect. That occured only at the departure of mt-DNA B4a1 and Y-DNA C2 from somewhere between the Bird's Head and the Philippines".<br /><br />So what?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-47879390292449440832012-10-24T04:37:25.775+02:002012-10-24T04:37:25.775+02:00Sorry. I haven't pointed you in the direction...Sorry. I haven't pointed you in the direction of the original article: <br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10/17/1209896109.abstract<br /><br />I've had it brought to my attention that it is free access. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-53848164232129256422012-10-24T04:14:06.672+02:002012-10-24T04:14:06.672+02:00"The only thing your quote says is that the g..."The only thing your quote says is that the group was patrilocal, not any novelty". <br /><br />Where does it say that? <br /><br />"You don't seem to understand the notion of founder effect and you are not providing any specific data that says otherwise (for example that most those women had not the Polynesian motif, which is a founder effect since Thaiti at the very least)". <br /><br />Maju, most of the women HAD the Polynesian motif. The article actually explains that they had a surprising level of diversity within that motif. In fact the article basically claims they were possibly a representative sampling of the Central Polynesian population of the time. As for understanding the notion of founder effects, it is extremely easy to construct a scenario for the Polynesian expansion involving just a single founder effect. That occured only at the departure of mt-DNA B4a1 and Y-DNA C2 from somewhere between the Bird's Head and the Philippines. The presence through the wider Pacific of all other haplogroups, both mt-DNA and Y-DNA, is most easily explained as other haplogroups having joined along the way or having followed along behind. C2 and B4a1 are the only ones to have made it all the way. Others made it only some of the way, or were picked up from Melanesia or New Guinea and again carried part of the way. One founder effect, not multiple founder effects. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-48429123553466145832012-10-23T06:24:23.728+02:002012-10-23T06:24:23.728+02:00I never meant that a single man and woman founded ...I never meant that a single man and woman founded anything. You don't seem to understand the notion of founder effect and you are not providing any specific data that says otherwise (for example that most those women had not the Polynesian motif, which is a founder effect since Thaiti at the very least). <br /><br />The only thing your quote says is that the group was patrilocal, not any novelty. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-26847898973603877902012-10-23T05:36:43.974+02:002012-10-23T05:36:43.974+02:00"That's a diversion tactic: we know well ..."That's a diversion tactic: we know well that the Polynesian island territories are a product of recent founder effects and of no help when dealing with older consolidated populations". <br /><br />To which I replied: <br /><br />"On the contrary. This is another example of your Garden of Eden syndrome. The Polynesian 'founder effects' did not involve just a single man and a single woman. Besides which there were no more than three or four founder effects involved". <br /><br />Research just released: <br /><br />http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/september-2012/article/dna-study-of-ancient-new-zealanders-yields-surprising-results<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"We found that three of the four individuals had no recent maternal ancestor in common, indicating that these pioneers were not simply from one tight-knit kin group, but instead included families that were not directly maternally related. This gives a fascinating new glimpse into the social structure of the first New Zealanders and others taking part in the final phases of the great Polynesian migration across the Pacific." <br /><br />Four may not sound like very many, but the study involved: <br /><br />"Of the 19 burials screened for DNA preservation, four provided sufficient sequence data for inclusion in the current study. These included the remains of two young to middle-aged females, a young adult male and a young adult female". <br /><br />Not much of a founder effect apparently. As an aside, you may find this observation mildly interesting: <br /><br />"Intriguingly, they also discovered that at least one of the settlers carried a genetic mutation associated with insulin resistance, which leads to Type 2 diabetes". <br /><br />Seems that the Polynesians may provide us with more information about prehistoric human migrations than you have been prepared to admit. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-38823895755671820952012-10-19T05:49:03.934+02:002012-10-19T05:49:03.934+02:00"If you're uncomfortable with the word &#..."If you're uncomfortable with the word 'hybrid' I'm quite happy to use anther term. What do you suggest?" <br /><br />I am extremely unhappy with it being used for admixture within the species Homo sapiens, as I already told to some other commented who was stubborn enough to be invited to leave. You witnessed that. <br /><br />The primary meaning of hybridization is that of admixture between different species, maybe some people use it in other contexts but when applied to humans (H. sapiens) it sounds like having a plural, multirracial or multiethnic ancestry would be borderline, unnatural, so it is definitely offensive. <br /><br />"What the hell is 'Asian-Nordicist'?"<br /><br />I already told you that all these old-school obsolete hypothesis about widespread migrations from the North belong to a time when weird conjectures like the claim of cold weather favoring intelligence were popular (hence Hitler but also all the rest of Eurocentric imperialism, with NE Asian mirror offshoots). Those were racist models designed by Nordics to "demonstrate" Nordic superiority and, as I say, had offshoots in East Asia, where traditionally the Han or more recently the Japanese found it useful to justify their alleged superiority and imperialism.<br /><br />That is it. I suggest that you make a note because I'd hate to explain it thrice. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-70482704094040053992012-10-19T04:46:00.616+02:002012-10-19T04:46:00.616+02:00"By the moment I'm not in the mood to eve..."By the moment I'm not in the mood to even read anymore of your dogmatic Asian-Nordicist nonsense". <br /><br />What the hell is 'Asian-Nordicist'? <br /><br />"There are no human 'hybrids'". <br /><br />Even you agree that there are admixed populations, as shown here: <br /><br />"Also in Hui Li 2009 (discussed here), a 'Tibeto-Burman' or Western China component was located". <br /><br />And an SE Asian centre and an expansion centred on the Sea of Japan. You wrote there: <br /><br />"It is noticeable that three quite distinct populations emerge in East Asia: inland, coastal and south". <br /><br />So, 'three quite distinct populations'. And note that both Cambodians and Javanese are part of the SE Asian population, not Mongoloid. Regarding two of the populations you wrote: <br /><br />"Further down in the Eastern branch, it seems a division happened between NE Asians and SE Asians with the 'border' running through modern China". <br /><br />That accounts for the cline between north and south we see in China. But the two have become mixed. If you're uncomfortable with the word 'hybrid' I'm quite happy to use anther term. What do you suggest? terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-36313578311354174382012-10-18T03:40:17.930+02:002012-10-18T03:40:17.930+02:00"Cambodians and Javanese are not 'Mongolo..."Cambodians and Javanese are not 'Mongoloid', they are hybrids"...<br /><br />There are no human "hybrids". You already participated in a discussion in which I kicked a commenter for using such a racist terminology (racist against mixed-blood people, let's be clear). You know that I do not tolerate even the slightest racism and that I consider such usage to be racist. <br /><br />It's your last warning. <br /><br />By the moment I'm not in the mood to even read anymore of your dogmatic Asian-Nordicist nonsense. <br /><br />Seriously: I spend one hour almost everyday reading and answering to your nonsense. Don't even try to bend the rules a bit because you're much more work than you're worth. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-80599259401542533692012-10-18T02:49:53.723+02:002012-10-18T02:49:53.723+02:00Sorry. One more thing:
"Not really so. Jus...Sorry. One more thing: <br /><br />"Not really so. Just that authors have the bad habit of oversimplifying ethnic reality into linguistic families [Almost any paper you might be prepared to read on the subject claims a reasonably close connection in East Asia between language and genetics]". <br /><br />Quote from the HUGO paper you linked to: <br /><br />"Our results show that genetic ancestry is strongly correlated with linguistic affiliations as well as geography. Most populations show relatedness within ethnic/linguistic groups, despite prevalent gene flow among populations". terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-17529951316774121272012-10-18T02:44:49.887+02:002012-10-18T02:44:49.887+02:00"What I don't understand why would you ex..."What I don't understand why would you expect WL to be 'invisible' for humans but then the less dramatic bio-borders dividing Wallacea from Sahul be most active instead". <br /><br />You're forgetting that humans have boats. Kangaroos don't. The islands of Sahul were large, so they supported a large population, able to absorb newcomers. The islands of Wallacea and SE Asia had smaller populations, easily overwhelmed. <br /><br />"Most likely there was no cline back then but a sharp biological border between those who crossed originally and those who remained behind". <br /><br />Why would you expect that? Or are you again imagining that just one man and one woman crossed WL? <br /><br />"Thanks for the explanation (bolded), the rest is clearly in excess". <br /><br />I apologise for the excess. At the time I didn't realise you were not aware of the substance of the claim. <br /><br />"Cline indicates a gradual change between two extremes. And one extreme of the gradation in that paper is made up by Cantonese (which incidentally are oversampled, while other Southern Chinese are undersampled)". <br /><br />The cline actually continues south beyond China through SE Asia. The southern extreme of the cline is therefore the 'The original Wallaceans' who, as you say, 'most likely ... clustered with Papuans and Australian Aboriginals'. <br /><br />"There is at least one obvious E-W cline between China and Japan" <br /><br />'Japan' is not 'China'. And that cline is simply the northward extension of the north/south cline within China, as is obvious in the map. So in this example we have a representative of the northern extreme of the cline that stretches right through China south to Wallacea. <br /><br />"There are also other clines that can be interpreted as such in the South". <br /><br />I agree there is a cline between Chinese and Tibetans. Remember, though, that at the border between China and Tibet we find a concentration of Y-DNA O3a2c, exactly where I am sure it originated. Another male-mediated cline? <br /><br />"This explains why Hongbin Li 2010 found that Southern Han cluster apart from Northern Han in autosomal (general) genetics: some of their male lineages may well be from the North but the overall genetic makeup is mostly generated by the female (and other male) ancestry, which is native". <br /><br />I explained the pattern of Y-DNA O's expansion into the Pacific some days ago. My comments there still stand. Y-DNA O came from at least as far north as the Yangtze. Even Austro-Asiatic O2a is just the southern version of O2. Yet O2b seems virtually unknown in China. It is Manchurian, Korean and Japanese. The Ryukyu Island chain provides a tenuous geographic connection for O2b's slight presence in the south. It used to be claimed that elements of the 'Austronesian' toolkit arrived in SE Asia from Japan. O2b's presence in the south may be supportive evidence for that old idea. Certainly any group capable of moving through the Ryukyus, even at times of lowered sea level, would have to have had a reasonably competent boating technology. <br /><br />The population of SE Asia is the product of a virtually continuous whole series of population movements from the Paleolithic to the present. The same presumably holds for most other regions of the world. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-87849368880811531712012-10-18T01:56:43.658+02:002012-10-18T01:56:43.658+02:00"Only if you accept Cambodian and Javanese as..."Only if you accept Cambodian and Javanese as such (what you do or do not at your caprice, it seems). They were not Mongol nor Northern Chinese if that's what you mean". <br /><br />Cambodians and Javanese are not 'Mongoloid', they are hybrids, as I will explain. <br /><br />"Why not? Perplex: we're talking of one of the sharpest biological divides on Earth" <br /><br />Which humans have crossed numerous times. I've worked out why you are unable to understand East Asian genetics. A few days ago you wrote: <br /><br />"That's a diversion tactic: we know well that the Polynesian island territories are a product of recent founder effects and of no help when dealing with older consolidated populations". <br /><br />On the contrary. This is another example of your Garden of Eden syndrome. The Polynesian 'founder effects' did not involve just a single man and a single woman. Besides which there were no more than three or four founder effects involved. At each stage it was most likely that the majority haplogroups at the source provided the majority of the next founder population. Through genetic studies it has been calculated that at least 200 people reached New Zealand for example. It's possible that the East Polynesians provide us with a proxy for the SE Asian population at the time they departed. <br /><br />The most recent 'founder effect' (around 1600 years ago) was that between Central and East Polynesia. Y-DNA C2a1 and mt-DNA B4a1a1a are basically the only haplogroups to reach Eastern Polynesia. We can be reasonably sure that these haplogroups were the most common ones in Central Polynesia when Eastern Polynesia was settled. We can possibly also assume that the ancestors of these two haplogroups were prominent in the source SE Asian population. <br /><br />C2 is originally from Southern Wallacea, probably including Timor, although by the time C2a moved into the Pacific it had established itself on the Bird's Head of Irian Jaya. B4a is from Taiwan/Philippines. The two haplogroups are not from the same region. The two met somewhere between the Bird's Head and the Philippines, and set out into the Pacific. C2 was presumably Papuan-looking. B4a's expansion into the islands looks to be associated with that of O1, probably Mongoloid-looking. <br /><br />So, going back to Onur's original argument, we have a hybrid population moving out into the Pacific. Not separate species, but definitely different-looking. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-62052106210820357322012-10-17T06:35:20.754+02:002012-10-17T06:35:20.754+02:00...
"How on earth could it be 'sharper e......<br /><br />"How on earth could it be 'sharper earlier'?"<br /><br />Why not? Perplex: we're talking of one of the sharpest biological divides on Earth, nothing less than Wallace Line!<br /><br />"Surely there is no conceivable reason why the original people east of Wallacea would look any different from the people west of the line at the time. Unless you're now claiming the people who crossed Wallace's Line did so by aircraft from somewhere miles away".<br /><br />Why? After the first founder effects the natives just drifted away in relative isolation. WL is a major biogeographical divide and it applied through all the Ice Age, with Sundaland physically united to Indochina by a thick isthmus.<br /><br />What I don't understand why would you expect WL to be "invisible" for humans but then the less dramatic bio-borders dividing Wallacea from Sahul be most active instead. Or the non-existant bio-borders within contiguous Eastern Asia, only present in your mind (if at all, because often it's impossible to know what's in your mind). <br /><br />"Exactly. And those Neolithic people were ... Mongoloid".<br /><br />Only if you accept Cambodian and Javanese as such (what you do or do not at your caprice, it seems). They were not Mongol nor Northern Chinese if that's what you mean. <br /><br />"And presumably [the Timorese] are the remnant of the cline that originally spread right across both sides of Wallace's Line". <br /><br />Most likely there was no cline back then but a sharp biological border between those who crossed originally and those who remained behind. Those two populations drifted away sharply. The original Wallaceans were most likely not clinal at all but clustered with Papuans and Australian Aboriginals, as their "Denisovan" admixture index and other genetics tell quite clearly. Clinality was only achieved with the Asian immigration since Neolithic. <br /><br />"I can't find the whole paper anywhere but in the link I provided yesterday".<br /><br />It works now (still you should avoid Google search links because they are way too long: if I get redirected to a regular link, I don't see why you would not - using Chrome or IE maybe?)<br /><br />The letter (not a formal paper) suggests that the Southern Han are sometimes akin in Y-DNA to Northern Han (but not in mtDNA and not in about half the cases for Y-DNA either). This explains why <a rel="nofollow">Hongbin Li 2010</a> found that Southern Han cluster apart from Northern Han in autosomal (general) genetics: some of their male lineages may well be from the North but the overall genetic makeup is mostly generated by the female (and other male) ancestry, which is native. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-20196486186382872162012-10-17T06:35:01.957+02:002012-10-17T06:35:01.957+02:00"For God's sake Maju (and that coming fro..."For God's sake Maju (and that coming from an atheist). <b>The paper specifies male mediated gene flow as the explanation</b>. So you're now trying to claim that male-mediated gene flow cannot possibly involve Y-DNA. Ridiculous. Anything to avoid facing facts". <br /><br />I just asked why. Thanks for the explanation (bolded), the rest is clearly in excess. <br /><br />I would probably do not mind to discuss why you think this or that lineage is associated but it's obvious that if I dare to ask you will pour on me a host of undeserved accusations, so I'll rather pass. <br /><br />" 'No major genetic similitude'? The whole paper deals with the CLINE, note: THE CLINE, between north and south". <br /><br />Cline indicates a gradual change between two extremes. And one extreme of the gradation in that paper is made up by Cantonese (which incidentally are oversampled, while other Southern Chinese are undersampled). They did not show Admixture/Structure levels other than those desired by them (K=3 and K=4) and otherwise they used PCA in ways not too informative. So, yes, there is some sort of cline but we know very little about what the extremes are made of or whether there are further transversal clines. We know nothing about the role played by pre-Sinitic populations also because they were simply ignored altogether. <br /><br />(Although it was evidenced in the past that Cantonese "Han" generally <a rel="nofollow">cluster</a> with pre-Han populations and NOT with Northern Han). <br /><br />"The authors actually comment that there is a complete lack of evidence for any major east/west cline". <br /><br />I don't see anything in their analysis that could suggest that and instead I know of other studies which do. As you should know by now: if it's not in the graphs and tables, don't even bother: it's a mere opinion, often unwarranted. <br /><br />There is at least one obvious E-W cline between China and Japan, also noted in <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5959/1541" rel="nofollow">the HUGO paper</a>. There are also other clines that can be interpreted as such in the South. <br /><br />Also in Hui Li 2009 (discussed <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com.es/2010/07/central-eurasian-genetic-specifity.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>), a "Tibeto-Burman" or Western China component was located. <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-63542301468465217822012-10-17T05:12:23.796+02:002012-10-17T05:12:23.796+02:00"The paper specifies male mediated gene flow ..."The paper specifies male mediated gene flow as the explanation". <br /><br />Sorry. That comment is in the paper you seem unable to access. But my comment still holds. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-10126838267409827082012-10-17T04:33:53.659+02:002012-10-17T04:33:53.659+02:00""No mystery here - why are we even disc...""No mystery here - why are we even discussing this?" <br /><br />Because you are determined to deny Neolithic enhancement of any population, anywhere, in spite of evidence to the contrary. <br /><br />"As far as I can see the study does not discuss Y-DNA, so why are you making Y-DNA claims ("The 'Han' migration may have been mainly O3a1c-002611"...) when it has no obvious relation?" <br /><br />For God's sake Maju (and that coming from an atheist). The paper specifies male mediated gene flow as the explanation. So you're now trying to claim that male-mediated gene flow cannot possibly involve Y-DNA. Ridiculous. Anything to avoid facing facts. <br /><br />"it'd suggest that Cantonese and probably also Hunanese have no major genetic similitude (within the context of East Asia) with Northern Chinese". <br /><br />Another of your ridiculous claims. 'No major genetic similitude'? The whole paper deals with the CLINE, note: THE CLINE, between north and south. <br /><br />"so there may well be a lot of hidden structure" <br /><br />Obviously that is what you hope for. The authors actually comment that there is a complete lack of evidence for any major east/west cline. <br /><br />"Against your N>S flow I claim S<>S flows instead". <br /><br />Another desperate attempt to avoid facing facts. Made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. In fact in the face of evidence to the contrary. <br /><br />"Anyhow, the reason why the cline is so sharp is, IMO, that it was even sharper earlier, and was at Wallace Line". <br /><br />How on earth could it be 'sharper earlier'? Surely there is no conceivable reason why the original people east of Wallacea would look any different from the people west of the line at the time. Unless you're now claiming the people who crossed Wallace's Line did so by aircraft from somewhere miles away. Unlikely, I think. Could be wrong, of course. <br /><br />"Since Neolithic SE Asian peoples have penetrated in Wallacea blurring the line a bit into an still quite abrupt cline". <br /><br />Exactly. And those Neolithic people were ... Mongoloid. And although their immediate ancestors were from SE Asia their more distant ancestors were from the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers. The reason why we see a cline from north to south right through China and into SE Asia is that the Neolithic people from the north mixed with the southerners along the way. <br /><br />"This is an example of your lack of consistency: the Timorese are in the same side of WL as Papuans or Australian Aborigines". <br /><br />And presumably they are the remnant of the cline that originally spread right across both sides of Wallace's Line. The Timorese are in the process of being diluted by the expansion of the Mongoloid phenotype from further west in Indonesia. The Papuan phenotype has been largely lost, or greatly diluted, further west and north. <br /><br />"It does not work however because the server at that IP does not seem to be active at all hours. I can't link to the paper either way". <br /><br />I have no trouble copying over the link I gave, but here is the abstract: <br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15372031<br /><br />I can't find the whole paper anywhere but in the link I provided yesterday. The paper is earlier than the other one so it just reinforces the concept of a north to south cline established at least partly as late as the Han expansion. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-20833988524941255272012-10-16T08:36:13.152+02:002012-10-16T08:36:13.152+02:00Erratum not "all Northern Neolithic cultures&...Erratum not "all Northern Neolithic cultures" would be Sinitic, but those of the Yellow River only. Further North they may well be Koreanic or whatever. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-54220155339624692582012-10-16T08:35:03.350+02:002012-10-16T08:35:03.350+02:00Also I have no problem with O1, O2a and O3a2b bein...Also I have no problem with O1, O2a and O3a2b being "pre-Han". Han colonization is not important for your claims of a N>S migration before the historical Han imperialism. Actually, as you accept that all Northern Neolithic cultures are Sinitic (as I do), they cannot be the source of hypothetical pre-Sinitic migrations, which if anything, must have been initiated in the South of the region (or not exist at all as such migrations). <br /><br />Against your N>S flow I claim S<>S flows instead. With the North being not influential in SE Asia (South China included) before the Chinese Empire as such. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-51825545424726105022012-10-16T08:29:12.146+02:002012-10-16T08:29:12.146+02:00Why don't you use a proper link instead of a g...Why don't you use a proper link instead of a google link? For example: http://159.226.149.45/compgenegroup/paper/wenbo%20han%20culture%20paper%20%282004%29.pdf<br /><br />It does not work however because the server at that IP does not seem to be active at all hours. I can't link to the paper either way. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-41034345376985620722012-10-16T08:25:49.687+02:002012-10-16T08:25:49.687+02:00The study is somewhat interesting but fails to pro...The study is somewhat interesting but fails to provide K=4 and higher for the Structure analysis (not even in the supp. materials), or alternatively partial PC analyses of reduced samples, so there may well be a lot of hidden structure (probably an East-West cline or also clines within the rather undersampled South China - lots of Cantonese but little more).<br /><br />As far as I can see the study does not discuss Y-DNA, so why are you making Y-DNA claims ("The 'Han' migration may have been mainly O3a1c-002611"...) when it has no obvious relation?<br /><br />"Although the observed trend can be explained by a myriad of population models, such as isolation by distance"...<br /><br />For example. In fact taken as it is it'd suggest that Cantonese and probably also Hunanese have no major genetic similitude (within the context of East Asia) with Northern Chinese. <br /><br />On the other hand the area of Shanghai might well have been colonized by the Han in large numbers.<br /><br />Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-31552166654793085852012-10-16T08:09:46.688+02:002012-10-16T08:09:46.688+02:00"Maju, I am asking you to explain why that is..."Maju, I am asking you to explain why that is so, not merely to state the fact".<br /><br />You make debating with you almost impossible: first you claim clinality between SE Asia and Aboriginal Australasia and when I say it's not really such thing then you say that you knew it already and that I should explain you why. <br /><br />It would be a lot easier if you could keep some pretense of rational consistency. <br /><br />Anyhow, the reason why the cline is so sharp is, IMO, that it was even sharper earlier, and was at Wallace Line. Since Neolithic SE Asian peoples have penetrated in Wallacea blurring the line a bit into an still quite abrupt cline. <br /><br />"Until that later migration humans on either side of Wallace's Line would surely have looked much the same as each other. That such is a fact is demonstrated by the Timorese".<br /><br />This is an example of your lack of consistency: the Timorese are in the same side of WL as Papuans or Australian Aborigines. It would not be me who claims that all those peoples are the same thing, as you dare to oversimplify, but, regardless, it is the current affinity with SE Asia, ex-Sundaland and Philippines specially, which has been gained since Neolithic. No mystery here - why are we even discussing this?<br /><br />"Another point is that the cline is not actually so 'sharp and abrupt' if you're prepared to look out into the Pacific".<br /><br />That's a diversion tactic: we know well that the Polynesian island territories are a product of recent founder effects and of no help when dealing with older consolidated populations. That you have a fetish with them is of no help, really. <br /><br />"The 'Papuan' phenotype becomes progressively diluted as you move east. In Polynesia the people look more like those found today in SE Asia".<br /><br />Different founder effects: the peoples who colonized Island Melanesia are not exactly the same as those who colonized Polynesia proper, who began their route in Fiji after an obvious <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4PMOW8rWfMg/T1IG5dTfyFI/AAAAAAAAALU/9-RIDL58T2I/s1600/Slide1.jpg" rel="nofollow">founder effect</a>. <br /><br />But it's a distraction and a waste of my time. <br /><br />"Almost any paper you might be prepared to read on the subject claims a reasonably close connection in East Asia between language and genetics"...<br /><br />Not really so. Just that authors have the bad habit of oversimplifying ethnic reality into linguistic families. You just have to explore a few distinct "Tibeto-Burman" populations, for example, to see that they have almost nothing in common genetically. <br /><br />"Doesn't it make complete sense that they would be [TB peoples who cluster with Austroasiatics]?"<br /><br />Only if you are prepared to admit that the TB linguistic expansion was not so much genetic, what you apparently are not.<br />Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-82770421585086761422012-10-16T05:50:46.883+02:002012-10-16T05:50:46.883+02:00Han demic diffusion:
http://www.google.co.nz/url...Han demic diffusion: <br /><br />http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2F159.226.149.45%2Fcompgenegroup%2Fpaper%2Fwenbo%2520han%2520culture%2520paper%2520%282004%29.pdf&ei=7NZ8UNesCcnoiAes7YHwDw&usg=AFQjCNFMSm139XOLZ17FdBqIUrZwD8egSw<br /><br />Note that the boundary between 'northern' and 'southern' Han is the Yangtze, precisely where it seems Y-DNA's O1, O2a and O3a2b originated. It is therefore no wonder that these haplogroups represent pre-Han populations south of the Yangtze. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com