tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post2482888955524442374..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: More on geographical divide between Asian and Melanesian types in Indonesia (Cox et al. 2010)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30299879439423261812010-05-01T00:01:29.609+03:002010-05-01T00:01:29.609+03:00"So obviously Eurasians are in no way a subse..."So obviously Eurasians are in no way a subset of Africans. The two groups are completely separate".<br /><br />No. That's an illusion of statistical approaches. Simplified:<br /><br />Stage 1: Africans > Eurasians (Eurasians are a subset with reduced genetic diversity).<br /><br />Stage 2: Africans homogenize, Eurasians diversify as they expand (various subsets)<br /><br />Result: Eurasians are still a subset of Africans and have several subsets within them. Africans appear as more homgoeneous than they used to be because of persistent intra-continental gene flow. <br /><br />So you get various clusters but that doesn't mean that one cluster is not a subset of the other. It is. <br /><br />Just that if Eurasians have allele A in apportion of 90% and Africans have it in 10%, then Statistics will consider it an "Eurasian" gene but it's ancestrally African anyhow. Same for all other bottlenecked alleles. <br /><br />"By the way. I remember you and Ebizur commenting on the separate genetic nature between northwestern and southeastern Borneo. Can you remeber the main points of differentiation?"<br /><br />No, sorry.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26046955084674619162010-04-30T12:50:57.631+03:002010-04-30T12:50:57.631+03:00"You will notice that all those categories ar..."You will notice that all those categories are higher than species, excepting 'subspecies' of course". <br /><br />True. But there's a problem. Many of the species are easily capable of forming fertile hybrids. And, in some cases even members of different superspecies can do so. <br /><br />"No, because ML trees don't describe (approach) variation but closeness. Get your facts straight". <br /><br />So obviously Eurasians are in no way a subset of Africans. The two groups are completely separate. <br /><br />By the way. I remember you and Ebizur commenting on the separate genetic nature between northwestern and southeastern Borneo. Can you remeber the main points of differentiation?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-4638358475519706902010-04-29T08:33:34.803+03:002010-04-29T08:33:34.803+03:00No, because ML trees don't describe (approach)...No, because ML trees don't describe (approach) variation but closeness. Get your facts straight.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22088523934622980702010-04-29T05:42:31.277+03:002010-04-29T05:42:31.277+03:00"But when you make a ML tree they cluster tog..."But when you make a ML tree they cluster together vs. Eurasians (excepting North Africans, of course). So the high level division within Humankind, if any, should be that one". <br /><br />Now that's very convincing evidence in favour of the concept that non-African humans are just a small subset of Africans, not a representative cross-section. So the original OoA is unlikely to have carried the whole human variation we see today. <br /><br />"But gray wolves are a more mobile species than humans and anyhow are a subspecies themselves (of Canis lupus)". <br /><br />A race? Thanks for the link.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34251095839889932552010-04-28T14:06:11.759+03:002010-04-28T14:06:11.759+03:00You're Turkish right?
Yes. As far as I know, ...<i>You're Turkish right?</i><br /><br />Yes. As far as I know, during my known family history (as I told you, it doesn't go back even 200 years), all of my ancestors were Turks (i.e., Turkish-speaking Muslim). I say "as far as I know" because even my 19th century and early 20th century family past is somewhat blurry in both of my parents' lines (especially my mother's line as they came to the territory of modern Turkey as refugees from the Balkans in the early 20th century) because of the turbulent events and migrations (mostly forced) within and in the environs of the Ottoman Empire in those times.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41560656488162422382010-04-28T13:41:22.455+03:002010-04-28T13:41:22.455+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-79279814269395682862010-04-28T08:40:31.508+03:002010-04-28T08:40:31.508+03:00"But what about mammal subspecies?"
For..."But what about mammal subspecies?"<br /><br />For what I could understand it seems to be higher in most cases (0.25 or higher). 0.15 was mentioned as pretty low, 0.10 as clearly substandard, with no comparable case.<br /><br />But you tell me. I'm not the one so interested in subspecies. <br /><br />"I've actually read a paper on dabbling ducks that divides then into 'species', 'subspecies', 'superspecies', 'allospecies', 'subgenus', 'supergenus' and 'infragenus'".<br /><br />You will notice that all those categories are higher than species, excepting 'subspecies' of course. <br /><br />"African vary geographically a great deal over the continent".<br /><br />Sure. But when you make a ML tree they cluster together vs. Eurasians (excepting North Africans, of course). So the high level division within Humankind, if any, should be that one. Fst is still too low though. <br /><br />African Hunter-Gatherers vs. Bantus have one of the highest inter-group Fst (0.11 if I'm correct). But it's still very low and anyhow we are always talking of present populations, as it'd be a lot harder to judge fossil ones. <br /><br />"And I agree that this sort of migration is unusual in other species".<br /><br />Maybe not so unusual. In the latest PLoS ONE there's a paper on European wolf genetics and how the North American haplotype has apparently spread over the native European one. But gray wolves are a more mobile species than humans and anyhow are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_Lupus" rel="nofollow">a subspecies themselves</a> (of Canis lupus).<br /><br />Btw, domestic dogs, with all their colorful diversity, are just one subspecies by all standards (Canis lupus familiaris). So visible phenotype and classification as subspecies are not so simplistically linked as some have suggested.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74186942271828819212010-04-28T07:56:06.440+03:002010-04-28T07:56:06.440+03:00"In a European or any White context, it might..."In a European or any White context, it might matter if all or part of your "non-Basque admixture" is from a non-White (cultural and/or biological) population".<br /><br />In the USA they wanted to classify me as "Hispanic" just because my passport reads "Spain". I was so outraged at the very fact that they classified people by race that I would not really dispute the matter. Eventually the bureaucrat (a High School teacher who should know better - but, well, their level of HS is like our levels of primary school or almost) realized that Spain is not some place south of Mexico.<br /><br />Anyhow, among Basques, it's primarily language what matters for identification purposes. The world is divided between euskaldunak (Basque speakers or "those who have the Basque way" - 'euskal-' possibly 'holding or supporting way/language') and erdeldunak (half speakers or "those who have the half way"). We and them, like everywhere, but it is not a matter of mere ancestry but of language and identity. <br /><br />"That is why I am especially curious about your non-Basque ethnic and racial origins".<br /><br />From northern Spain and northern Italy. You're Turkish right?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65813684128973155972010-04-28T06:33:44.896+03:002010-04-28T06:33:44.896+03:00"In any case, the use of the subspecies categ..."In any case, the use of the subspecies category is arbitrary and not really regulated nor systematic, unlike higher taxons". <br /><br />Yes. I've actually read a paper on dabbling ducks that divides then into 'species', 'subspecies', 'superspecies', 'allospecies', 'subgenus', 'supergenus' and 'infragenus'. Wow. <br /><br />"That's a good reason to doubt the validity of the subspecies category". <br /><br />Not really, because that's probably the case with other subspecies as well. <br /><br />"Fst index, which is 0.15 for interpopulation variation and only 0.1 for intercontinental variation among humans, much lower than among most mammal species". <br /><br />But what about mammal subspecies? <br /><br />"Considering only point 2, we would have only two subspecies: H. sapiens africanus and H. sapiens asiaticus (if anything)". <br /><br />African vary geographically a great deal over the continent. The variation has been diminished by the recent migration of Bantu people of course. And I agree that this sort of migration is unusual in other species.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55114205294240169082010-04-28T06:19:24.388+03:002010-04-28T06:19:24.388+03:00"Your link does not seem to contradict this (..."Your link does not seem to contradict this (no images)". <br /><br />Just google 'Mentawai people'- images, and have a look. Pages of them. They're as close to Polynesians as any people I've seen outside Polynesia. <br /><br />"the ancestral Austronesian urheimat was not at Sumatra but in the Taiwan-Philippines area". <br /><br />I don't think anyone has ever claimed Sumatra as a place of origin. Sumatra is part of ancient Sunda so it has a different history. I think you'll find the following link to be an excellent summary of Pacific settlement: <br /><br />http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0040019#pgen-0040019-sg001<br /><br />"For our purposes it can be considered roughly the same as Sahul (and you can save us your misplaced Kiwi pride)". <br /><br />Surely 'Sahul' is a far better word for what we're talking about here. Australasia includes far too big a region to be useful in this context. And 'Australasia' is in fact much more often used just for NZ and Australia. Nothing to do with 'pride'. Note, further on in the Wiki article: 'Geopolitically, Australasia is sometimes used as a term for Australia and New Zealand together, in the absence of another word limited to those two countries. Sometimes the Island of New Guinea (including Papua New Guinea and the Indonesian part of the island) is encompassed by the term'. <br /><br />"All I know is that in Wallacea the native Melanesian blood survived well". <br /><br />Not so, evidently. I'm sure I put this link up somewhere: <br /><br />http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=4obAfGBGKY0C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=bellwood+wallacea&source=bl&ots=qPhsWd1pja&sig=CWtI_oGbrMz3u0AyhykHQzP8efY&hl=en&ei=4aLXS6SSDoTCsgOTuK3rBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bellwood%20wallacea&f=false<br /><br />It's a long extract but I'm sure you'll find most of it informative. Several comments he makes in the book suggest a very sparsely inhabited pre-Austronesian Wallacea (which suggestion I've also seen made over the years). Bellwood claims that even the large island of Borneo was sparsely inhabited (if inhabited at all) before the Austronesians arrived. He attributes this to the heavy jungle cover, and has some interesting comments to make on the subject. He also mentions the fact that, apart from parts of the Philippines, no Negrito groups are found in Wallacea (or in Borneo for that matter). Further, he shows that linguistic evidence indicates that the Papuan languages scattered through Eastern Wallacea diverged from the New Guinea languages relatively recently, possibly even post-Austronesian expansion. So the 'native Melanesian blood' in Wallacea hardly represents ancient survival. <br /><br />The fact that the Austronesian languages are spread widely through previously uninhabited islands, from the Central Pacific to Madagascar, indicates they had developed a superior boating technology enabling them to finally reach such islands. The suddenness of their expansion suggests to me they had already discovered the benefits of exploiting such uninhabited islands. <br /><br />As to the possibility of human extinction on islands. The phenomenon is certainly accepted for many Pacific islands, notably Norfolk, Pitcairn and many of the Phoenix and Line islands (along with many others). I've also seen it claimed for Indonesian islands but I don't know which particular ones.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32600454024891722192010-04-28T05:04:27.671+03:002010-04-28T05:04:27.671+03:00And sure: I'm not "purebreed Basque"...<i>And sure: I'm not "purebreed Basque", though I doubt it matters at all.</i><br /><br />In a European or any White context, it might matter <b>if</b> all or part of your "non-Basque admixture" is from a non-White (cultural and/or biological) population. That is why I am especially curious about your non-Basque ethnic and racial origins.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82178971017443758212010-04-28T04:33:57.334+03:002010-04-28T04:33:57.334+03:00Well, there are very serious concerns about privac...Well, there are very serious concerns about privacy on the net. Not just government agencies can spy on you but a host of unscrupulous private organizations can do as well in order to steal your money and other dangerous stuff. <br /><br />You are very free to broadcast your own private data to the universe but I wish to keep some privacy and I also think it's something everybody should at least consider. <br /><br />And sure: I'm not "purebreed Basque", though I doubt it matters at all.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37205387316452229212010-04-28T02:33:31.907+03:002010-04-28T02:33:31.907+03:00I have diverse ancestry but not by my father's...<i>I have diverse ancestry but not by my father's line.</i><br /><br />So if I understand you correctly, you aren't "pure" Basque in your known family history, right? <br /><br /><i>Anyhow, I don't know why my private data should be subject to scrutiny here.</i><br /><br />Like Gioiello, I don't think there is anything to hide in the Internet unless of course it might <b>really</b> harm you or someone else. I see no harm for you or anyone else in your revealing of your family history and ethnic and racial origins.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56155979553004984772010-04-28T02:10:51.248+03:002010-04-28T02:10:51.248+03:00There are many surnames and toponyms that begin or...There are many surnames and toponyms that begin or end with alde/alda, which means 'zone, area, part' or, when suffixed, also 'near, surrounding area' in Basque: Aldaiturriaga, Aldekoa, Aldonza, Aldama, Aldaitz... Errekalde (often hispanized as Recalde), Olalde, Elizalde or Elexalde...<br /><br />My surname is as Basque as can be. I have diverse ancestry but not by my father's line. <br /><br />Anyhow, I don't know why my private data should be subject to scrutiny here. I'm rather wary of spreading personal information through the net, and that's why I use a pseudonym.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63948419815790113362010-04-28T01:36:13.275+03:002010-04-28T01:36:13.275+03:00Correction: "is it because your ancestors wer...<b>Correction:</b> "is it because your ancestors were Arabic-speaking"<br /><br />I should have written "<b>some</b> of your ancestors", especially as most European surnames, because of their ancientness, represent only an extremely minuscule fraction of ancestry.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52907319950774684422010-04-28T01:19:23.519+03:002010-04-28T01:19:23.519+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54192997544976735792010-04-27T23:53:26.454+03:002010-04-27T23:53:26.454+03:00Luis, I already read that Wikipedia article. I sug...Luis, I already read that Wikipedia article. I suggest you to read (if you haven't already) "The Race FAQ" article of John Goodrum, "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" paper of A.W.F. Edwards and "Race: a social destruction of a biological concept" paper of Neven Sesardic (all of them freely available in the Internet).Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56507266351254924822010-04-27T23:33:45.646+03:002010-04-27T23:33:45.646+03:00Btw, we have Ottoman tax registers beginning from ...Btw, we have Ottoman tax registers beginning from the late 15th century, but they don't contain any personal or familial information, not even the number of people in a given region, they only contain information about the number of taxable "households" (unfortunately not a household strictly speaking, but a unit of taxable community somewhat vague and difficult to explain), their religion and information about whether they are sedentary (most of the time) or nomad (much less and limited to certain territories).<br /><br />As I told in my previous post, these all changed with the adoption of Western style registers, which included personal, familial and even occupational information, by the Ottomans sometime during the first decades of the 19th century.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40008768138275598672010-04-27T22:56:55.961+03:002010-04-27T22:56:55.961+03:00Luis, your surname sounds Arabic (starting with &#...Luis, your surname sounds Arabic (starting with 'al-' like "Alhambra"), is it because your ancestors were Arabic-speaking (and very probably also Muslim, but most probably from the native genetic stock) during the Muslim rule of Iberia? Do you have any info about your medieval roots? Maybe you have Banu Qasi (a Basque Muslim emirate from the early Muslim era of Iberia) roots. Alternatively you may have medieval non-Basque roots from the much more Islamized (both in numbers and duration) central and/or southern part of medieval Iberia.<br /><br />If you ask my roots, I can't go beyond even the 19th century, as, unlike Catholic/Protestant Europeans, who have had ecclesiastical birth, baptismal, marriage and death/burial registers for centuries (going to the medieval times in some places), Muslims (as far as I know also Orthodox Christians and Oriental Orthodox, though Dienekes and Marnie should know them better) never had any similar (even remotely) personal registers (whether secular or religious, or whether for taxation purposes or not) until the beginning of the eastern and southern Mediterranean modernization during the 19th century.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86473054852795660582010-04-27T22:17:07.891+03:002010-04-27T22:17:07.891+03:00"I don't think you have objection to the ..."I don't think you have objection to the existence of subspecies in other mammals, do you?"<br /><br />No and yes. It's not a consistent, clearly defined, concept. <br /><br />According to your criteria there is something like "Homo sapiens caucasicus" or "Homo sapiens mongolicus" but I've never seen such taxonomy anywhere. At most the, now abandoned, "H. sapiens sapiens" and "H. sapiens neanderthalensis" dichotomy. <br /><br />In any case, the use of the subspecies category is arbitrary and not really regulated nor systematic, unlike higher taxons. <br /><br />"It is true that most human phenotypes pre-date modern human races"...<br /><br />That's a good reason to doubt the validity of the subspecies category. <br /><br />"I will always use the word "subrace", or in the case of biological archetypical hybrids, "hybrid race" or "racial hybrid"".<br /><br />There's no biological concept of "subrace" or "sub-subspecies". The scale ends at the subspecies level, which in itself is not a rigid category but one of mere convenience and subjective usage. <br /><br />All this issue is discussed at length at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)#Morphological_subspecies" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia-Race-Subspecies</a>, where there are two contention points:<br /><br />1. Fst index, which is 0.15 for interpopulation variation and only 0.1 for intercontinental variation among humans, much lower than among most mammal species.<br /><br />2. The Russian doll structure of the human genome, with Africans holding all or nearly all the diversity (not a subspecies) and extremely peripheral populations having as little as 70% of it maybe. <br /><br />Considering only point 2, we would have only two subspecies: H. sapiens africanus and H. sapiens asiaticus (if anything). But the latter is a subset of the former and not really a bifurcation in equal terms and, in turn, it's divided in several commonly accepted "races". <br /><br />The weight on whether one accepts or rejects "races" as "real" is not an objective measure, that is clearly most elusive, but subjective factors. For example, people raised in a racially stratified society such as the USA are more likely to believe in the reality of race. It is therefore largely a social, ideological and political construct.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24570177617427428132010-04-27T19:38:37.129+03:002010-04-27T19:38:37.129+03:00To onur, I think, who responded to me that the peo...<i>To onur, I think, who responded to me that the people of Wallacea can't be anything other than a mix between Australasians and East Asians.</i><br /><br />I don't remember to have said such a thing (but of course that doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with that statement), so it should be someone else.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51633736732809003272010-04-27T19:26:27.481+03:002010-04-27T19:26:27.481+03:00Correction: "From now on I will always use th...<b>Correction:</b> "From now on I will always use the word "race" only for biological archetyp<b>ic</b>al races (human or not), i.e., subspecies; for lesser biological races (again human or not) I will always use the word "subrace", or in the case of biological archetyp<b>ic</b>al hybrids, "hybrid race" or "racial hybrid"."<br /><br />I should have written "archetypal", not "archetypical" (I am sure Marnie will now get angry with me :-D).Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68791110947573515662010-04-27T19:23:30.825+03:002010-04-27T19:23:30.825+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33507056689213464122010-04-27T19:21:45.942+03:002010-04-27T19:21:45.942+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14447432004484004992010-04-27T19:15:25.791+03:002010-04-27T19:15:25.791+03:00Onur: "Surely all races and subraces, or with...<i>Onur: "Surely all races and subraces, or with your terminology, human groups formed somewhere, didn't they?"<br /><br />Luis: "What I say is that the formed and are still forming as we speak (they don't remain static but change) within pretty much separated world regions by means of "stirring up" these pots once and again. Each "race" is a homogenized puree of as many ingredients as you can imagine, not the product of the expansion of a single imaginary group living once in some mythical Land of the Hyperboreans or whatever."</i><br /><br />Even you yourself admit that the human races are pretty much confined (leaving aside the long distance migrations within the last few thousand years with the advances in mobility and transportation) to specific regions. So what is all the fuss?<br /><br /><i>Onur: "In conclusion, our main point of contention is our different terminological preferences. But this is no less a significant issue, as the biological human races (subspecies) are scientifically valid entities."<br /><br />Luis: "They have only statistical value. You can easily find a zillion of those averaged components that cross all "racial borders" or at least many of them. And this is not because of admixture between "pure races" (at least not in most cases) but because those phenotypes pre-date the process of homogenization and remain within them at higher or lower frequencies, the same that the onion in the lentils puree is the same as the onion in the pumpkin one, regardless that the overall purees are different."</i><br /><br />It is true that most human phenotypes pre-date modern human races (that is very normal when we compare the ages of modern human races with the age of our species, also many phenotypical differences you speak of pre-date our species). Even these common phenotypes in a great many cases have significant frequency and even genotypical differences between races (sure, also within races, but intraracial differences are most of the time (in genotypical differences, in the overwhelming majority of the cases) less (in a great many cases, much less) than interracial differences).Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.com