tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post149725365103701421..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Can we retire the 60,000-year old coastal Out of Africa?Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43550183115888131022012-07-13T11:33:32.080+03:002012-07-13T11:33:32.080+03:00F1, F3, F4, H and IJK are South Asian (F3 and IJK ...<i>F1, F3, F4, H and IJK are South Asian (F3 and IJK shared with other areas)</i><br /><br />Already explained that according to your "logic" IJK is West Eurasian since West Eurasia has both IJ and K, while all other regions have only K. Even if you don't take it as West Eurasian, saying that it is "South Asian" and shared with other regions is to stretch the evidence by a great amount.<br /><br />It was already explained to you that counting "basal" clades is irrelevant, since the full bifurcating structure of F remains to be determined.<br /><br />But, hey, flexible logic is a good way to prop up a bad argument.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41672129313214507132012-07-13T08:57:48.938+03:002012-07-13T08:57:48.938+03:00F1, F3, F4, H and IJK are South Asian (F3 and IJK ...F1, F3, F4, H and IJK are South Asian (F3 and IJK shared with other areas), and also most of the paraphyletic F* (which you must count as well). The only "not South Asian" lineages are G and F2, one to each side. <br /><br />Denial is not scientific.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65056665419790682922012-07-13T08:51:07.722+03:002012-07-13T08:51:07.722+03:00overwhelmingly looking South Asian
Learn to count...<i>overwhelmingly looking South Asian</i><br /><br />Learn to count. Even going by your own reckoning, 3 of 7 sublineages are "South Asian", 4 of 7 are not South Asian. F is overwhelmingly nothing.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-87825226593339144122012-07-13T08:39:41.455+03:002012-07-13T08:39:41.455+03:00"The true phylogeny is nearly always bifurcat..."The true phylogeny is nearly always bifurcating"...<br /><br />In full agreement here, Dienekes, at least for Y-DNA where we can well expect mutations to happen in every single generation (it would not be the case in mtDNA however because the DNA chain is too short and the mutation tic-toc probably corresponds to more than one millennium on average). <br /><br />But we do not know for a fact, as of now, how exactly F bifurcates before those mentioned subhaplogroups. We have to work with that we have, and what we have is overwhelmingly looking South Asian (and also in the mtDNA side).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5536929771411288512012-07-13T07:32:21.873+03:002012-07-13T07:32:21.873+03:00The last part of your statement ignores earlier co...<i>The last part of your statement ignores earlier comments disconnecting the earliest 'modern' human expansion from the Upper Paleolithic. Apart from that, I agree. </i><br /><br />The point is that anything that could be tied to an expansion across large swathes of Eurasia originated or passed through West Asia.<br /><br />India is a population sink, not source, and the Indian population is the result of fairly recent admixture; even one of the haplogroups listed by Maju as "Indian" is limited to Austroasiatic tribes, and the bulk of Indian Y-chromosomes that exist in India must have accompanied the majority Caucasoid component in that population.<br /><br /><i>However the number of basal branches to consider is very small, causing error margins to grow considerably.</i><br /><br />The true phylogeny is nearly always bifurcating, except for the unlikely case that one man had 3+ sons who all happen to have descendants today. <br /><br />Counting basal clades is no way to determine a haplogroup's origin, until the phylogeny is resolved in its binary structure. A few years ago, when IJK was I, J, K one would argue that there were +2 basal clades of F in West Eurasia.<br /><br />So, when the tree is resolved through FGS we may perhaps know where F is likely to have originated, but India is an unlikely candidate as there are no known processes emanating from it and the current population is of recent tri-racial origin.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7449679992230186482012-07-13T06:48:19.005+03:002012-07-13T06:48:19.005+03:00"The evidence as it is does not really allow ..."The evidence as it is does not really allow us to determine where F originated, although the most obvious candidate is West Asia, since that is where the ancestral bottleneck leading to Eurasians from Africans must have happened, where the earliest Homo sapiens outside Africa is found, and where the Upper Paleolithic probably originated". <br /><br />The last part of your statement ignores earlier comments disconnecting the earliest 'modern' human expansion from the Upper Paleolithic. Apart from that, I agree. <br /><br />"F1 belongs to the H lineage (Karafet et al. 2008); it is not an independent basal clade of F". <br /><br />Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. <br /><br />"If we are to follow your 'logic' then we will conclude that IJK is West Eurasian, since West Eurasia is the only region harboring both IJ and K". <br /><br />I think that logic is correct. At least 'West Asia'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8138698312467514622012-07-13T02:16:43.923+03:002012-07-13T02:16:43.923+03:00Re. H and F1, there's a mention in Karafet abo...Re. H and F1, there's a mention in Karafet about the mutation M69:<br /><br />"The Apt polymorphism has the derived state at M69 and defines the H-Apt (H2) branch, not the F1 branch as previously reported (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2003)".<br /><br />But this is distinct from the Haplogroup F1 as defined in either ISOGG or Karafet 2008, which is defined by mutations P91 and P104. No changes between then and today (or even before, as I checked the ISOGG builds up to 2006). <br /><br />I think it's convenient to clarify this even if it's just one of many clades relevant.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80436226879275320212012-07-13T01:20:02.621+03:002012-07-13T01:20:02.621+03:00@Dienekes:
"You list 7 subclades, not 8"...@Dienekes:<br /><br />"You list 7 subclades, not 8".<br /><br />Fair enough. F* could be other 7 clades however we do not know for sure. Whatever the case it should be counted as the equivalent of at least one clade (because it's clearly not within any of the rest).<br /><br />"If we are to follow your "logic" then we will conclude that IJK is West Eurasian, since West Eurasia is the only region harboring both IJ and K".<br /><br />It can well be argued. However the number of basal branches to consider is very small, causing error margins to grow considerably. Considering what is upstream (F) and downstream by the K side, I'd rather suspect a Pakistani or generic NW South Asian origin instead. But debatable, of course. <br /><br />"F1 belongs to the H lineage (Karafet et al. 2008)"...<br /><br />ISOGG still lists it (with the same markers as in 2006, 2007) as hanging from the F basal node. I doubt that ISOGG is in such a flagrant error and, would be the case, you should notify them. <br /><br />I'll check the matter myself later anyhow.<br /><br />"The minor subclades which you refer to as "Indian" are rarely studied in European samples, although such samples are often assigned to F* as indeed have been prehistoric Europeans".<br /><br />Well, we always work with the data we have, right? I'm open to be amended in this but I would ask for clear data. This data has failed to show up and instead has rather mounted in support of a South Asian coalescence scenario.<br /><br />This would be consistent with the mtDNA data, if we consider that Y-DNA F and mtDNA M were the main lineages of early Eurasians expanding from South Asia. (MtDNA N and Y-DNA C and D appear to have Eastern Asian origins to my eye but are less important excepted mtDNA R, which IMO flowed back westward with Y-DNA MNOPS (P in the West), which ISOGG now calls, confusingly K(xLT)). <br /><br />It's a long complicated debate and I would not like to hijack the thread with it... but that's how I see it in any case (based on repeated observation and geographical evaluation of the available data, both in the mtDNA and Y-DNA sides).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48656245478067835582012-07-12T20:30:34.700+03:002012-07-12T20:30:34.700+03:00So 6/8 basal subclades of F are from South Asia (m...<i>So 6/8 basal subclades of F are from South Asia (many of them very specifically so). No other continental region even approaches such high levels of basal diversity of Y-DNA F. </i><br /><br />You list 7 subclades, not 8.<br /><br />If we are to follow your "logic" then we will conclude that IJK is West Eurasian, since West Eurasia is the only region harboring both IJ and K.<br /><br />F1 belongs to the H lineage (Karafet et al. 2008); it is not an independent basal clade of F.<br /><br />The minor subclades which you refer to as "Indian" are rarely studied in European samples, although such samples are often assigned to F* as indeed have been prehistoric Europeans.<br /><br />In short, there is absolutely no strong evidence that Y-haplogroup F emerged in South Asia. The evidence as it is does not really allow us to determine where F originated, although the most obvious candidate is West Asia, since that is where the ancestral bottleneck leading to Eurasians from Africans must have happened, where the earliest Homo sapiens outside Africa is found, and where the Upper Paleolithic probably originated.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77796099749284798402012-07-12T17:36:22.917+03:002012-07-12T17:36:22.917+03:00@Mousterian:
"do you mean back flow from Sou...@Mousterian:<br /><br />"do you mean back flow from South Asia into Arabia?"<br /><br />Into West Eurasia in general (West and Central Asia, Europe) with overflow into parts of Africa, notably the North but also the East (via Arabia). <br /><br />I have not yet read Fernandes 2012 (it's PPV until two weeks from now if I'm correct) but I'm actually considering L(xM,N) lineages mentioned by Behar 2008 - and which I have personally looked at with some interest reaching to similar conclusions. My methods and Behar's are somewhat different but my independent conclusions on his data are very similar to his, so I'd say it's quite unquestionable, both the mtDNA cradle in the Upper Nile (not necessarily Ethiopia as he claims) and the presence of very old L(xM,N) lineages in Arabia and North Africa that can't be explained by the slave trade (they are very rare lineages or do not exist in Africa at all anymore). <br /><br />However I look forward to read the Fernandes paper mostly to see if it really brings new data on the sometimes hotly debated origins of mtDNA N, which I would consider as SE Asian, based on the scatter of "her" basal descendants (but new evidence might change that - or not). <br /><br />"... archaeologically, the Gulf folks are distinct from MIS 4/MIS 3 groups in South Asia".<br /><br />We still do not know all (actually most of what we are discussing here is less than five or even two years old by date of publication). Jebel Faya looks a bit too old to be directly related to Jawalpuram and such. <br /><br />Also Jawalpuram appears (per Petraglia 2007) to be almost identical typologically to Southern African MSA (and not East African one, quite intriguingly) so maybe there was a rapid coastal migration after all and most of the evidence is underwater nowadays. <br /><br />"Hmm...maybe those sites are somewhere off Qatar, submerged under 40m of water?"<br /><br />We can't discard that on light to the present evidence. Actually there should be sites under the Persian Gulf and lots of sediments but finding them is more than just your normal archaeo-challenge, right?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20536008146829063982012-07-12T17:19:06.465+03:002012-07-12T17:19:06.465+03:00@Dienekes: I should have written "most basall...@Dienekes: I should have written "most basally diverse" but otherwise haplogroup F is divided into:<br /><br />· F* (paraphyletic clade found in various areas but notably in India)<br />· F1 (Sri Lanka)<br />· F2 (SE Asia)<br />· F3 (India and West Eurasia)<br />· F4 (India)<br />· G (West Eurasia)<br />· H (South Asia)<br />· IJK (across Eurasia)<br /><br />So 6/8 basal subclades of F are from South Asia (many of them very specifically so). No other continental region even approaches such high levels of basal diversity of Y-DNA F. <br /><br />Let's get real, please: F looks very much as coalesced in South Asia.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80793644045052397532012-07-12T14:48:42.318+03:002012-07-12T14:48:42.318+03:00@Maju do you mean back flow from South Asia into A...@Maju do you mean back flow from South Asia into Arabia? If so, my concern is that there are so few inhabitants of Arabia left from the Late Pleistocene. And, based on Fernandes et al. (2012), the few mtDNA signatures that have been detected bear traces of N.<br /><br />You touched upon a major conundrum in the archaeological record. The Middle Palaeolithic sites around the Gulf (Jebel Barakah, Jebel Faya, & Fili surface scatters) are predominantly radial core technologies with trace Levallois elements, in conjunction with bifacial foliates. I agree with you, this doesn't bear a shred of resemblance to South Asia post-MIS 5. Moreover, Assemblages B and A at Faya, linked to MIS 3, suggest an isolated community that has wandered off on its own unique technological trajectory. Thus, archaeologically, the Gulf folks are distinct from MIS 4/MIS 3 groups in South Asia.<br /><br />Note, however, that the Wadi Surdud sites, dated between 60 - 40 ka BP, ARE dominated almost exclusively by blade reduction. Albeit undated, Dhofar is absolutely covered in similar blade sites. More so even than Nubian Levallois, this is the most common type of lithic technology encountered there. If then, for arguments sake, these blade technologies in Arabia and India are somehow linked, why doesn't this show up around the Gulf? Hmm...maybe those sites are somewhere off Qatar, submerged under 40m of water?mousterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01255823018355386498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27033574311615593142012-07-12T14:21:56.697+03:002012-07-12T14:21:56.697+03:00I see no obvious surviving "Fayan" patri...<i> I see no obvious surviving "Fayan" patrilineages, all of which derive from macro-haplogroup F, <b>which is most diverse in South Asia</b> and hence most likely original from the subcontinent). </i><br /><br />That is inaccurate.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38519239194426041092012-07-12T13:53:09.345+03:002012-07-12T13:53:09.345+03:00@Mousterian: What you say about a 60-50 Ka BP &quo...@Mousterian: What you say about a 60-50 Ka BP "pluvial signal" is interesting and, if confirmed, could certainly explain partly how AMHs became enticed by the Western Eurasian regions again, which, in the contact zone, are and were rather arid and inhospitable. <br /><br />But, from the genetic data, I perceive as quite strong the signal of a backflow from South Asia (and in some cases maybe from as far as SE Asia ultimately) and instead no obvious signal of "Fayan" re-expansion (although there are indeed remnant matrilineages, I see no obvious surviving "Fayan" patrilineages, all of which derive from macro-haplogroup F, which is most diverse in South Asia and hence most likely original from the subcontinent). <br /><br />Also the archaeology of late MP India, for the little I know of it, is full of mentions to "blades" in the toolkits, what is at least suggestive of evolution towards the UP/mode 4 techno-cultural phenomenon, tightly associated with the expansion of H. sapiens in "the Neanderlands" of the West. These sites (Patpara, Patne, Bhimbetka) are all in the North. In general the transition to UP technological modes in South Asia is at the very least not later than in West Eurasia and can well be older. This requires more research but is consistent with what I think is quite self-evident in the genetic patterns.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67175647023421197702012-07-12T12:09:11.544+03:002012-07-12T12:09:11.544+03:00@andrew
"During what windows of time express...@andrew<br /><br />"During what windows of time expressed in terms of years ago, would Arabia have been habitable for terrestrial Paleolithic hunter-gathers? Was there more than one in the last 150,000 years or so?"<br /><br />There are several episodes of varying magnitude that have left a "pluvial" imprint on the landscape (e.g., speleothem growth, lacustrine sediments, wadi aggradation, etc...). Perhaps most surprisingly, an ancient lake deposit in Sharjah, of several meters accumulation, has recently been dated to the middle of MIS 6 (~160 - 150 ka BP). This may have been the initial priming of the pump that drew the first AMH wave of Fayans into Arabia (pardon the term, couldn't think of anything else to call these ambiguous people).<br /><br />Easily the clearest and strongest pluvial signal comes during the Last Interglacial, ~130 - 120 ka BP. Although not pronounced, the section at Aybut Auwal shows subsequent wadi activation around MIS 5c (~110 - 100 ka BP). MIS 5a (~85 - 75 ka BP) is the last gasp of heightened precipitation before the onset of rapidly deteriorating conditions associated with MIS 4.<br /><br />There is new evidence about to be published for a return to wetter conditions between roughly 60 - 55 ka BP. From my perspective, this period is particularly important by enabling bottlenecked communities within Arabian refugia to re-expand. In particular, there may be cultural connections between South Arabia and the southern Levant around this time. What is so attractive about this explanation (imo) is that it would finally explain from where the mysterious Initial Upper Palaeolithic in the Levant actually came. Since its discovery in the late 70s, nobody has ever sufficiently explained the origins of the core reduction technology seen at Boker Tachtit or Ain Difla. Why, suddenly, the emphasis on distal preparation of Levallois point cores? Sounds kind of Nubian-ish to me...<br /><br />Continuing with the pluvial chronology: it used to be accepted that there was another wet phase in the middle of MIS 3 (~40 - 30 ka BP); however, there is now doubt about these old C14 dates. The verdict is still out for this timeframe.<br /><br />Finally, rainfall begins to picks up again around 12 ka BP, at the onset of the Holocene Climatic Optimum. So, there are several windows of opportunity for expansion into Arabia (see Rosenberg et al. 2011). It is important to keep in mind that there were probably demographic expansions during every one of these windows, and not necessarily only coming from one source in East Africa. Imagine groups moving every which way, coming and going from all directions. After all, these are highly mobile hunter-gatheres we are talking about. Moving is what they do best.mousterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01255823018355386498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64026967203246453682012-07-12T06:30:10.707+03:002012-07-12T06:30:10.707+03:00"What we are dancing around here is an issue ..."What we are dancing around here is an issue more fundamental than simply coastal vs. interior, early vs. late. If it was an expansion (or wave of expansions) during MIS 5 through the interior, these are hunter-gatherers tracking a known ecosystem. If a late expansion during MIS 4 or early MIS 3 along the coast, these represents some innovative cultural adaptation that has enabled them to exploit a new ecosystem and rapidly disperse through it (i.e. the rim of the Indian Ocean)."<br /><br />During what windows of time expressed in terms of years ago, would Arabia have been habitable for terrestrial Paleolithic hunter-gathers? Was there more than one in the last 150,000 years or so? <br /><br />I've seen some chronologies for the Sahara fleshed out with statements about fauna and flora in those time periods, but I am much more fuzzy about how that translates into Arabian habitability at particular times and the current terrain is so bleak it is hard to project back.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44340453614459983212012-07-11T13:59:04.910+03:002012-07-11T13:59:04.910+03:00This indicates that stone tools are a poor indicat...<i>This indicates that stone tools are a poor indicator of the species of the hominin that made them: changes in hominin type did not necessarily result in changes in lithic technology<br /><br />Perhaps the pre-100ky wave went much further to the east, to India and Southeast Asia.</i><br /><br />I agree with both points.<br /><br /><i>Not only (also early Neanderthals and Sapiens). In India it's associated to the big brained Narmada hominin which could well be a Heidelbergensis or Neanderthal.</i><br /><br />Maju,<br /><br />I agree - but would definitely link this to heidelbergensis-like, for many reasons.<br /><br /><i>So the basic premise of the Out Of Africa theory remains intact: the ancestors of anatomically modern humans originally came from Africa. </i><br /><br />formerjerseyboy, <br />That may not be correct. Firstly, even ignoring older gene flow, since about 800,000 ya, there appears to be co-evolution in Europe, West Asia, and Africa - until about 350,000 ya when gene transfer was cut off due to climatic reasons. So, ooA is post 350,000 ya, but likely pre-100,000 ya. A very narrow window. And it then involved documented admixture with at least two of the former European/Asian groups.<br /><br /><i>What we are dancing around here is an issue more fundamental than simply coastal vs. interior, early vs. late. If it was an expansion (or wave of expansions) during MIS 5 through the interior, these are hunter-gatherers tracking a known ecosystem. If a late expansion during MIS 4 or early MIS 3 along the coast, these represents some innovative cultural adaptation that has enabled them to exploit a new ecosystem and rapidly disperse through it (i.e. the rim of the Indian Ocean). In other words, were we lucky hunter-gatherers in the right place at the right time during the Last Interglacial, or crafty beachcombers struggling for survival across the post-apocalyptic post-Toba landscape? Pushed out of Africa, or pulled into Arabia? In my mind, this is the real disparity between the two models. </i><br /><br />mousterian, <br />I fully agree - and I take the view that <i>many</i> modern humans during a climatically advantageous period surely agree more with Occam's razor than a few lucky ones that, by all means, should never have made it.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13434787458800626042012-07-11T02:27:22.044+03:002012-07-11T02:27:22.044+03:00"But, why isn't there mainland archaic ad..."But, why isn't there mainland archaic admixture in addition to Neanderthal admixture in SE Asia/East Asia?" <br /><br />My guess is that there is. We just haven't found it yet. <br /><br />"Why isn't there megafauna extinction there when modern humans arrive?" <br /><br />There have been extinctions but the megafauna was primarily rainforest-adapted, and humans have only recently been able to move into much of it. The megafauna is now rapidly disappearing. <br /><br />"Why aren't there some hominin remains or hominin tools that allow the timelines to be filled in a bit more precisely?" <br /><br />Evidence of sparse settlement? I think the main reason is that humans were not too common in the region. The whole region is largely tropical rainforest and so less that ideal habitat.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48013632650169060722012-07-11T02:26:26.373+03:002012-07-11T02:26:26.373+03:00"One day, it may be worth for someone to char..."One day, it may be worth for someone to chart how this idea came to prominence and wide acceptance, despite having very little in its favor". <br /><br />I'm old enough to remember the time before the theory first appeared. I first saw it on a TV program by Spenser Wells. His argument was full of holes and seems to have been concocted to combine the development of the Upper Paleolithic with the near simultaneous human arrival in Australia. This comment from Dienekes' post sums the problem up: <br /><br />"There is a widespread belief in the simultaneous spread of Upper Paleolithic technology and modern human populations in Eurasia. But, this is not what the actual evidence shows us. However, the evidence for an earlier appearance of UP industries in the Levant than either Arabia or India makes this hypothesis problematic. It renders the coastal migration hypothesis doubly so, because if modern humans with new technology followed the coast all the way to Australia then it is troublesome that the MP stone tools persist in the regions most adjacent to this migration route. A better explanation may be that the UP revolution should be decoupled from the migration paths of modern humans, and that it was a cultural phenomenon which originated probably in the Levant, rather than being part and parcel of the early migrating humans wherever they were found". <br /><br />This follows from that: <br /><br />"This indicates that stone tools are a poor indicator of the species of the hominin that made them: changes in hominin type did not necessarily result in changes in lithic technology". <br /><br />I have been trying to point that out to a regular blogger for some years now. <br /><br />"unless you think coastal migration means nobody go farther from the coast that 200m for 5 thousand years". <br /><br />But how distant from the coast are you prepared to go? Before long the term 'coastal' becomes meaningless. <br /><br />"Coastal migrations make a lot of sense. There is a good source of food for gatherers (and hunters), it (the coast) can be navigated reproducibly and it is a path of least resistance at a time when this was important". <br /><br />Not really. Large stretches of the coast would be completely unsuitable habitat, and impassable. <br /><br />"After all, River people were among the most ancient Humans, weren't they, in addition to seacoast people?" <br /><br />Unlikely. It is true that humans need fresh water but that need not necessarily be supplied by a river. My guess is that the preferred human habitat has always been the margin between forest and grassland. Humans have not moved far into forest and did not venture far out into the open grassland until pushed. <br /><br />"If it was an expansion (or wave of expansions) during MIS 5 through the interior, these are hunter-gatherers tracking a known ecosystem". <br /><br />Agreed. By far the most likely scenario. <br /><br />"All we can say for sure is that the L3-bearing population had moved in and beyond Arabia by 60 kya. As we argue in an upcoming manuscript, the Nubian culture group forms the base of the N expansion northward". <br /><br />I have become involved in endless argument whenever I have proposed such a northward movement, but it makes a lot of sense to me. <br /><br />"I propose a fast expansion from South Asia towards the East" <br /><br />There is another option, but I won't argue with Maju here. Although from Dienekes' post: <br /><br />"Perhaps the pre-100ky wave went much further to the east, to India and Southeast Asia". <br /><br />And/or further north?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10882365698917906952012-07-10T14:22:15.092+03:002012-07-10T14:22:15.092+03:00@Maju - you raise one of the most vexing issues to...@Maju - you raise one of the most vexing issues to come out of the Dhofar Nubian discovery: how and why did they cross the Red Sea?<br /><br />My team has now mapped 260 Nubian sites across Dhofar, and every single one of them is on the Nejd Plateau. This is an interior-draining scabland that is separated from the coastal plain by the Jebel Qara mountain range. We do not find Nubians in Jebel Qara or on the Salalah plain. We've scoured the coastal plain for years looking for sites, they simply aren't there and we can no longer invoke the "haven't found it yet" explanation. There is no shelf, so they are not underwater. The Nubian toolkit seems specialized for hunting of savanna ungulates. No question, they are not marine adapted and have no interest in the coast. Yet...the Nubians didn't come down from Sinai, they crossed from the Horn (at least, that's what the known site distribution tells us so far). While I have the sneaking suspicion we'll soon learn about Nubians in Saudi, it is clear they were never in Sinai. So, while I am 100% against coastal adaptation, I have to acknowledge that it is most likely they crossed the Red Sea by boat (or swum across).<br /><br />I agree with you as well that the inhabitants of Faya likely exploited the Gulf Oasis. I do not think they would traveled across the Musandam peninsula to the Gulf of Oman. There is a large, daunting mountain range just east of Faya that would have made transhumance across this zone difficult, to say the least. Moreover, the chert deposits end at the foothills of the Hajar mountains near Faya, and there is no knappable material on the eastern side of the range. Not to mention the lack of freshwater on the west side of the Hajar range. I have to admit, I don't necessarily buy the explanation that the Faya toolmakers were AMH. It is just as plausible they were an archaic holdover from pre-MIS 5 that survived around the Gulf refugium. Yes, ultimately from Africa, but perhaps the Fayan's ancestors came to Arabia 150+ kya.<br /><br />Abdur Reef (the Walter 2000 article) seems to have been another red herring. The site is in secondary position and the faunal material recovered was primarily terrestrial mammals. Although the researchers initially reported bivalve exploitation, it was later discovered that the shellfish all died natural deaths and were not part of an ancient midden. The lithic toolkit, again, suggests terrestrial hunting. No fish hooks, no microliths, no harpoons.mousterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01255823018355386498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61381701589883431182012-07-10T12:58:10.716+03:002012-07-10T12:58:10.716+03:00Alright Mousterian, obviously you know what you...Alright Mousterian, obviously you know what you're talking about, but:<br /><br />(1) should not we consider Jebel Faya in relation with the Arabian Sea rather than the Gulf Oasis?<br /><br />(2) should not we ponder how that site shows up, ONLY 50 km away from shore (a day's walk for active people - we're talking nomadic hunter-gatherers not sedentary bureaucrats), with no other known inland connection? There's the Nubian culture of Dhofar but in principle it's not the same thing at all. And otherwise we must go to Africa for any relation. <br /><br />Until further data shows up clarifying the matter, there's a good chance IMO that Jebel Faya correlates with a coastal now hidden by changing sea levels and limited research. There are indications of inland migrations later on, c. 90 Ka. but not so early (even the Dhofar case is rather close to coast even if no specific coastal findings have been located yet). <br /><br />"were we lucky hunter-gatherers in the right place at the right time during the Last Interglacial, or crafty beachcombers struggling for survival across the post-apocalyptic post-Toba landscape?"<br /><br />The first. I don't see much evidence of a "Toba apocalypse" (it must have been short-term dramatic for some groups but the general data suggests continuity, not radical disruption). Also the data suggests pre-Toba migration not post-Toba one. <br /><br />But while you may be interested in this aspect, for many others it's a matter of whether humans were already making and using some kind of boats/rafts (like those made of three trunks or six bamboos) or were rather like chimpanzees scared of the water. I think it's the first but some people is obsessed with denying boating capacity to migrant hunter-gatherers and favoring a purely walker model instead that I find highly unlikely (not only they needed to exploit and overcome coasts but also rivers, lakes, swamps...) <br /><br />Incidentally there is a strictly coastal site in Eritrea (<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6782/full/405065a0.html" rel="nofollow">Walter 2000</a>), dated to c. 125 Ka ago.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30369088025174100732012-07-10T12:02:12.223+03:002012-07-10T12:02:12.223+03:00@Maju regarding Jebel Faya - I would disagree as t...@Maju regarding Jebel Faya - I would disagree as to this being a coastal site. I've worked there; not only is it 50 km from the current shoreline, but during the Late Pleistocene it was at the periphery of the Gulf Oasis freshwater marshlands.<br /><br />What we are dancing around here is an issue more fundamental than simply coastal vs. interior, early vs. late. If it was an expansion (or wave of expansions) during MIS 5 through the interior, these are hunter-gatherers tracking a known ecosystem. If a late expansion during MIS 4 or early MIS 3 along the coast, these represents some innovative cultural adaptation that has enabled them to exploit a new ecosystem and rapidly disperse through it (i.e. the rim of the Indian Ocean). In other words, were we lucky hunter-gatherers in the right place at the right time during the Last Interglacial, or crafty beachcombers struggling for survival across the post-apocalyptic post-Toba landscape? Pushed out of Africa, or pulled into Arabia? In my mind, this is the real disparity between the two models.<br /><br />Interestingly, all of the Palaeolithic archaeologists working in Arabia unanimously agree on the "lucky hunter-gatherers" MIS 5 scenario. Granted, it’s not as sexy as believing we are somehow fundamentally different, new, and improved. That’s the problem with fact versus fiction.mousterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01255823018355386498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22593450798310465362012-07-10T02:17:14.300+03:002012-07-10T02:17:14.300+03:00@Andrew: Absence of evidence is not evidence of ab...@Andrew: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Andrew, and besides a possible 60+ Ka for Tianyuan (Liujiang) man and a similar safer date for a foot bone from Luzon (Philippines) could well conspire against your constructions.<br /><br />Also we have evidence of what are probably AMH tools in highland New Guinea c. 50 Ka., arguable AMH presence in Australia since maybe c. 60 Ka. and two human jaws (unknown species) in NE Asia (Japan, North China) dated to c. 110 Ka ago, plus stone industry in Japan of similar age.<br /><br />There is no full unmistakable skull (unless you trust the first dating of Liujiang rather than the modern one of c. 40 Ka. - both are similarly dubious) but "so what?" <br /><br />There is a problem in SE Asia of relative lack of archaeological research, aggravated by humid tropical conditions that are very bad for this kind of work. While in the latest years we have witnessed a renewed interest in Arabia and South Asia, with most interesting results, in SE Asia this new wave of research has been smaller and therefore less productive. <br /><br />Still what you say can also be said for South Asia, Arabia, etc. There are no skulls anywhere for huge periods. But toolkits (and hence some kind of people) there are indeed. <br /><br />"it seems pretty clear that Neanderthals never made it as far along the Southern route as Bangladesh"...<br /><br />Don't be so sure: the closest thing to the Narmada (or Hathnora) hominin's vault is a Neanderthal vault. And the location is not really far from Bangla Desh.<br /><br />"Do we have the Western Eurasians in an Arabian river basin and the Eastern Eurasians in India?"<br /><br />No! South Asians are closest to West Eurasians no matter how you look at it. South Asia and SE Asia makes much better sense but the division does not need to have been "complete" until c. 50-60 Ka, because some "Eastern" lineages like Y-DNA MNOPS must have played an important role in the colonization of West Eurasia (Y-DNA P). <br /><br />I propose a fast expansion from South Asia towards the East followed by some counterflows eventually culminating in the colonization of West Eurasia and NE Asia (North of Beijing) after the "Tropical/Subtropical Asian zone" became "crowded". This 1st Eurasian Expansion phase would be between c. 80-55 Ka. and would include flows and counterflows until it eventually overflowed to less desirable regions in the Western "Neanderlands" and the cold areas of the North.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12455276852194836322012-07-10T01:29:34.373+03:002012-07-10T01:29:34.373+03:00The most curious gap is the absence of any real so...The most curious gap is the absence of any real solid evidence of SE Asia/Melanesian/East Asian hominins at all from about 100kya to 45 kya, with the possible exception of Flores. This is a huge geographic area and a huge time frames to be devoid of evidence and Toba's geographic range was far too narrow, by itself anyway, to affect all of it. All of these regions (except Melanesia) have some evidence of archaic hominins earlier and evidence of modern humans later. <br /><br />But, it is startling to compare the very high resolution of data on the Neanderthal v. modern human contact from ca. 100kya to 29kya with the total absence of evidence, apart from Denisovian admixture in Melanesians, for what was going on in this period in Asia (excluding South Asia).<br /><br />One can argue the fine details, put it seems pretty clear that Neanderthals never made it as far along the Southern route as Bangladesh, and certainly not as far as Burma. I've considered the likelihood that Asian archaics may have been thin on the ground relative to modern humans or Neanderthals and that they could have thinned out in the wake of Toba opening the door to modern humans to flood in. But, why isn't there mainland archaic admixture in addition to Neanderthal admixture in SE Asia/East Asia? Why isn't there megafauna extinction there when modern humans arrive? Why aren't there some hominin remains or hominin tools that allow the timelines to be filled in a bit more precisely?<br /><br />Genetic evidence points to a very early split of proto-Eurasians into Eastern and Western branches. So where does each group live until ca. 45,000 years ago (when the break out into Europe, Australia, Melanesia, and Siberia begins)? Do we have the Western Eurasians in an Arabian river basin and the Eastern Eurasians in India? Whose in Iran?andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73371762205072683312012-07-10T00:27:19.668+03:002012-07-10T00:27:19.668+03:00So the basic premise of the Out Of Africa theory r...So the basic premise of the Out Of Africa theory remains intact: the ancestors of anatomically modern humans originally came from Africa. What the new research shows is that the dating should be pushed farter back into antiquity, and that there are alternative routes and separate migration dates for the (presumed) different OOA migrations as well. <br /><br />Anatomically modern humans still had to travel through Arabia and the Middle East on their way to India, this accident of geography had obviously nothing to do with the cliches associated with so-called "Abrahamic" ideology.formerjerseyboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12359486237718341127noreply@blogger.com