tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5761206111956692798..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Genome-wide STRs and American prehistoryDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84435565801524723722009-09-10T06:41:44.743+03:002009-09-10T06:41:44.743+03:00"the point of divergence should be around whe..."the point of divergence should be around when H. erectus migrated out of Africa, that is: c. 900,000 years ago". <br /><br />I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that H. erectus, or something similar, migrated out of Africa a lot earlier than that. Georgia and Java have more ancient fossils for a start. <br /><br />"Acheulean Levallois may be of African origin in fact". <br /><br />In which case it's a third migration out of Africa; between H. erectus and H. sapiens.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35242330646756718222009-09-09T11:29:39.543+03:002009-09-09T11:29:39.543+03:00Acheulean Levallois may be of African origin in fa...Acheulean Levallois may be of African origin in fact. AFAIK it should be derived from the Sangoan/Fauresmith culture(s) of East/South Africa (early Middle Stone Age), which are apparently related with H. rhodesiensis remains, probably transitional between H. erectus and H. sapiens, the same that H. heidelbergensis/antecessor is for Neanderthals. <br /><br />Regarding the divergence time, I understand that, lacking any other evidence (and rather having substantial evidence of local evolution of Neanderthals in Europe from local H. erectus and transitional forms), the point of divergence should be around when H. erectus migrated out of Africa, that is: c. 900,000 years ago. <br /><br />If you have substantial evidence of the opposite, I'll be glad to change my opinion.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90456520181407449012009-09-09T07:24:52.359+03:002009-09-09T07:24:52.359+03:00"the morphological differences between Neande..."the morphological differences between Neanderthals and us are too wide". <br /><br />Surely no wider than that between us and H. heidelbergensis, or any Africans of the period. <br /><br />"There's not evidence of that migration I know of". <br /><br />I'm pretty sure the Levallois made it into Africa. <br /><br />"I'd say we have been diverging for longer, more in the million years range". <br /><br />The only times I've hear of such an ancient separation is when I read your comments. Does anyone else accept such a date?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26656572815523709012009-09-08T15:55:15.131+03:002009-09-08T15:55:15.131+03:00Well, it's not something I agree with. I canno...Well, it's not something I agree with. I cannot fully discard it either, of course.<br /><br />From c. 1000 cc it's "easy" that both Human species could have evolved in parallel to the 1300-plus we have now. There's not evidence of that migration I know of and the morphological differences between Neanderthals and us are too wide (chest, legs, face... even the shape of the skull) so I'd say we have been diverging for longer, more in the million years range than in just the 600,000 of this hypothetical back-migration. For me the H. erectus that migrated to Europe, either via Gibraltar or West Asia, were the ancestor of Neanderthal, while some of the H. erectus who remained in Africa evolved into us. Other groups would have been less successful, I guess.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-1627364853206726592009-09-08T11:16:04.996+03:002009-09-08T11:16:04.996+03:00"I was thinking in the alleged increase of br..."I was thinking in the alleged increase of brain size that happened c. 600-300,000 years ago with the rise of H. heidelbergensis/antecessor in Europe". <br /><br />And interestingly that is a date commonly accepted for the separation of the lines leading to Neanderthals and moderns. If the dating is correct it sort of suggests that modern humans descend from a migration INTO Africa about that time. Quite possible, of course.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-50682891665974394292009-09-07T17:45:35.792+03:002009-09-07T17:45:35.792+03:00By critical leap I was thinking in the alleged inc...By critical leap I was thinking in the alleged increase of brain size that happened c. 600-300,000 years ago with the rise of H. heidelbergensis/antecessor in Europe. Some have argued that around those dates (not sure which) there is a general increase in cranial capacity/intelligence of maybe some 100-200 cc (nothing compared with the leap from Chimpanzee, 350 cc, to H. erectus, almost 1000 cc).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14479246818404675952009-09-07T11:43:04.302+03:002009-09-07T11:43:04.302+03:00"There may have been some 'critical leaps..."There may have been some 'critical leaps' at some moments (?) but the general trend is to increase the cranial capacity and therefore (at least potentially) the overall inteligence". <br /><br />I agree. But it is a mistake to equate the expansion of 'modern' humans with the expansion of the Upper Paleolithic. Modern humans had spread through much of Eurasia, including Australia, well before the Upper Paleolithic's appearance. So, in this case, 'modern' humans does not mean a sudden leap into the Upper Paleolithic. I'm not sure what the development of modern humans does mean though, but probably not a 'critical leap'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61834228108730040272009-09-05T16:36:21.200+03:002009-09-05T16:36:21.200+03:00But what is increasingly becoming obvious is that ...<i>But what is increasingly becoming obvious is that it was no simple transition between 'primitive' and 'advanced' humans</i>.<br /><br />It's not a terminology I'd use but AFAIK, once H. erectus began having a bigger brain (i.e. significatively bigger than other apes), the trend continued in a rapid fashion and the late H. erectus are already close to our cranial volumes. There may have been some "critical leaps" at some moments (?) but the general trend is to increase the cranial capacity and therefore (at least potentially) the overall inteligence. Anyhow some 1.8 million years ago, H. erectus already had brains of c. 800-900 cc., so the trend towards increased brains (and intelligence) was already going on so long ago and was surely a trait (weakly?) selected for. <br /><br /><i>That is an extremely wide definition of 'coastal'. In fact it hardly warrants the term</i>.<br /><br />Fair enough but that's what the issue is about in fact. <br /><br /><i>The original argument in its favour was that it did involve boats, but we can leave that argument now if you wish</i>. <br /><br />I think it involved the use of boats, sure: people has always needed some sort of boats and they make foraging much more efficient under most conditions. Additionally they may also help for a faster "strictly coastal" (or riverine) migration but this last is not a crucial point, nor one that is fully clear at the moment. For me it's clear that people has "always" used some sort of boats for crossing rivers, lakes, swamps and, why not?, small stretches of sea in good weather. <br /><br /><i>Am I the only one who can see an inconsistency in this reasoning?</i> - <br /><br />I don't see any inconsistency.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70750902905801436132009-09-05T11:19:50.462+03:002009-09-05T11:19:50.462+03:00"The sad fact is that we don't know enoug..."The sad fact is that we don't know enough about the transition between H. erectus and H. sapiens". <br /><br />But what is increasingly becoming obvious is that it was no simple transition between 'primitive' and 'advanced' humans. <br /><br />"coastal migration" just means along the (very wide) coastal strips of the Eurasian continent. Pakistan and Iran included, or at least their southern halves". <br /><br />That is an extremely wide definition of 'coastal'. In fact it hardly warrants the term. <br /><br />"the model does not imply a strict boating migration". <br /><br />The original argument in its favour was that it did involve boats, but we can leave that argument now if you wish. <br /><br />"just the one that, quite accidentally, managed to have her mtDNA preserved after drift". <br /><br />And: <br /><br />"all human maternal and paternal lineages are traced to common ancestors and that is part of the evidence indicating a single shared origin for all Humankind". <br /><br />And: <br /><br />"Inbred or not, at some point H. sapiens were not too many and were a single population living surely in East (or maybe Southern) Africa". <br /><br />Am I the only one who can see an inconsistency in this reasoning?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-23820071455984748972009-09-04T12:40:46.076+03:002009-09-04T12:40:46.076+03:00But people move first through an environment they ...<i>But people move first through an environment they are familiar with before venturing into what, to them, are less desirable environments. First option for humans all through the Paleolithic would have been grassland containg clumps of trees</i>. <br /><br />Or first option would be warm climates...<br /><br />I'd say temperature (not to mention the issue of solar radiation and vitamin D) was a much more important barrier than vegetation types. We are quite flexible and inventive but we are clearly adapted for warm climates (I still "miss" the tropics every single winter). Even as far south as Palestine, winters can be a challenge for the naked ape (and more in the Ice Age) - Siberia was obviously a much more daunting challenge. It is even today! <br /><br /><i>I realise you are very wary of accepting DNA dating at face value but mtDNA suggests the separation was more like half a million years ago. That date does fit the spread of the Levallois which seems to be shared between Neanderthals and western elements of H. erectus, although it doesn't spread to the east</i>.<br /><br />Well, it's a possibility but hardly proven. The sad fact is that we don't know enough about the transition between H. erectus and H. sapiens. <br /><br /><i>What's interesting here is the level of continuity through Mongolia, and into the Lake Baikal and East Asian regions across the period of its introduction. The same for Palestine and India. This suggests very strongly that the bearers of the UP were not the first genetically 'modern' humans in the region. 'Modern' humans not yet possesssing the UP (and probably not yet possessing Y-hap Q) had already reached the Altai Mountains and Mongolia long before the UP's evolution</i>. <br /><br />It's a possibility but all remains of West/Central Asia for around 60,000 BP are Neanderthals. It would seem that H. sapiens only pushed effectively in that area since c. 50,000 BP. Blade technology is anyhow much older than UP in South Asia (and briefly in Palestine, though apparently associated with Neanderthals) and East Asian UP often lacks blades instead. We should be wary of a too rigid association between blade tech and UP, though they are certainly related in West and Central Eurasia. <br /><br /><i>Do we actually know of any people to have come into Western India by sea, apart from traders? </i> - <br /><br />I don't know what you're talking about. "coastal migration" just means along the (very wide) coastal strips of the Eurasian continent. Pakistan and Iran included, or at least their southern halves. As in contrast with "continental migration" via the steppes. The coast is suggestive because it provides food and resources in almost all circumstances but the model does not imply a strict boating migration: that's just an extremist distortion you do. <br /><br /><i>I still say the 'Southern Coastal Route' is rubbish. A myth. A fairytale concocted to accomodate the Australian Aborigines within another myth: "All humans derive from a relatively recent, suddenly superior, single, small, inbred population; preferably consisting of just a single woman and a single man"</i>. <br /><br />That's just not true. It is widely known that "mithocondrial Eve" was not the only woman of her time, just the one that, quite accidentally, managed to have her mtDNA preserved after drift. You like to caricaturize these issues like if they were mere pseudo-scientific copies of biblical legends but they have nothing to do, even if the name "Eve" is borrowed from that mythology (a mere anecdote). <br /><br />What is clear is that, genetics dixit, all human maternal and paternal lineages are traced to common ancestors and that is part of the evidence indicating a single shared origin for all Humankind. Inbred or not, at some point H. sapiens were not too many and were a single population living surely in East (or maybe Southern) Africa.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44369423360768468842009-09-04T02:53:55.544+03:002009-09-04T02:53:55.544+03:00"They moved only slowly: generation after gen..."They moved only slowly: generation after generation, when the local resources became unable to feed the growing population". <br /><br />Yes. But people move first through an environment they are familiar with before venturing into what, to them, are less desirable environments. First option for humans all through the Paleolithic would have been grassland containg clumps of trees. Only once the population outstripped resources would they have been forced into the dense jungle. <br /><br />"For what we can tell from the archaeological record, the lineages of Neanderthals and Humans diverge at H. erectus, almost a million years ago". <br /><br />I realise you are very wary of accepting DNA dating at face value but mtDNA suggests the separation was more like half a million years ago. That date does fit the spread of the Levallois which seems to be shared between Neanderthals and western elements of H. erectus, although it doesn't spread to the east. <br /><br />"(though I lean towards thinking that UP blade tech was mostly spread by AMHs)". <br /><br />I think most would accept that. <br /><br />"there are other areas where there is an apparent non-abrupt MP-UP transition (Palestine, India). This is very difficult to interpret". <br /><br />What's interesting here is the level of continuity through Mongolia, and into the Lake Baikal and East Asian regions across the period of its introduction. The same for Palestine and India. This suggests very strongly that the bearers of the UP were not the first genetically 'modern' humans in the region. 'Modern' humans not yet possesssing the UP (and probably not yet possessing Y-hap Q) had already reached the Altai Mountains and Mongolia long before the UP's evolution. How much further had they gone? And before the UP evolved the supposedly superior 'modern' humans seem to have actually adopted the previous residents' lithic technology. <br /><br />Presumably these pre-UP Central Asian 'modern' humans had not arrived from Africa via any 'Southern Coastal Route', but had probably come through Iran. Along the way they seem to have mixed with the even earlier locals. Ultimately they probably became part of a continuum that reached into Northwest India (and back to Palestine). <br /><br />So, is it likely that these first 'modern' humans had entered India via a 'Southern Coastal Route'? We can be fairly sure that the Indo-European language entered India from the northwest, via Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Neolithic, including possibly the Dravidian language, also probably entered via the same route. Do we actually know of any people to have come into Western India by sea, apart from traders? <br /><br />I still say the 'Southern Coastal Route' is rubbish. A myth. A fairytale concocted to accomodate the Australian Aborigines within another myth: "All humans derive from a relatively recent, suddenly superior, single, small, inbred population; preferably consisting of just a single woman and a single man". In fact most of us appear to believe that each separate species descends from just such single, small, inbred populations. Rubbish.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37888452699408379232009-09-02T22:31:15.404+03:002009-09-02T22:31:15.404+03:00The jungles of South and SE Asia by no means provi...<i>The jungles of South and SE Asia by no means provide an easy route</i>.<br /><br />People was not trying to trek through the World but to survive. They moved only slowly: generation after generation, when the local resources became unable to feed the growing population. From our viewpoint it may seem "fast" but they were in no hurry most of the time. Several, many millennia of the deep past may seem little time for us but, if we think about it all, our written history has not more than a few thousand years in the best case (and a lot of things have happened in such a "short" span). <br /><br /><i>Not just Neanderthal of course. Probably modern humans too</i>.<br /><br />That's a controversial opinion at least. For what we can tell from the archaeological record, the lineages of Neanderthals and Humans diverge at H. erectus, almost a million years ago, when some H. erectus began their own OOA adventure. <br /><br /><i>Regarding your doubts concerning the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Mogolia. All studies on the subject admit to a fairly large level of continuity across the transition</i>.<br /><br />Well, I am not too knowledgeable on the matter but there are other areas where there is an apparent non-abrupt MP-UP transition (Palestine, India). This is very difficult to interpret and may mean that for a time H. sapiens used Mousterian tools or, alternatively, that Neanderthals (who existed at Altai) were the ones making the transition. <br /><br />A major issue is the appearence of stone blade tech (that does not derive from Mousterian) but, like in Europe, it may be the case in Asia too that Neanderthals just adopted it and that Sapiens used some Mousterian toolkits too). It's not fully clear at this stage (though I lean towards thinking that UP blade tech was mostly spread by AMHs). <br /><br />This flow anyhow is very much "Aurignacoid" (some even claim that prto-Aurignacian arose in Altai or otherwise in Central Asia), you just have to look at the tools and you immediately notice that Aurignacian-like style. And the dates are also within the frame of arrival of Aurignacian to Europe, so it seems to reflect a flow connected to the colonization of West Eurasia. Maybe it was the time when Y-DNA Q became consolidated in North Asia (though I guess for many this is way "too old", it does resemble the spread of macrogroup P, which may have been related to this Aurignacoid culture and the spread of blade toolkits). <br /><br />Anyhow, thanks for the links. They are very interesting.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91434176314071314052009-09-02T13:32:08.483+03:002009-09-02T13:32:08.483+03:00Another paper emphasising the continuity across th...Another paper emphasising the continuity across the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition, this time in Northeast Asia: <br /><br />http://paleo.sscnet.ucla.edu/BrantCA2001.pdf<br /><br />So again no intimate connection between the Upper Paleolithic and the first modern humans into the region.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65541783336393684612009-09-02T13:08:07.275+03:002009-09-02T13:08:07.275+03:00"The steppary corridor offers some possibilit..."The steppary corridor offers some possibilities but is 'bad' in comparison with tropical/subtropical Asia". <br /><br />Not necessarily so. The jungles of South and SE Asia by no means provide an easy route. Most paleo-anthropologists agree that the prefered ancient human environment was semi-open savanah grassland. Anyway we can be sure that humans of one sort or another have been widespread across, and north of, the Iranian Plateau for a very long time. <br /><br />"H. Heidelbergensis (aka H. Antecessor) is just an evolved erectus in the line to Neanderthal". <br /><br />Not just Neanderthal of course. Probably modern humans too. <br /><br />Regarding your doubts concerning the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Mogolia. All studies on the subject admit to a fairly large level of continuity across the transition. For example this (admittedly 10 year old) link dealing specifically with the Altai: <br /><br />http://www.geology.cz/sbornik/antropozoikum/no23/23-17-the%20middle%20and%20upper...pdf<br /><br />From the link, 'According to available material, the process of formation of the new cultural stage [Upper Paleolithic] in the region was characterised by a gradual transformation of the Mousterian tradition by introduction of the more progressive Late Paleolithic elements. Presence of the Mousterian and Levallois forms points to the local origin of the Upper Paleolithic industries from the variants of the Altai Mousterian.' <br /><br />And this link: <br /><br />http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9850.php<br /><br />contains the following, 'Until recently, most of the available evidence for this revolution derived from Western European archaeological contexts that suggested an abrupt replacement of Mousterian Middle Paleolithic with Aurignacian Upper Paleolithic adaptations. In the absence of fossil association, the behavioral transition was thought to reflect the biological replacement of archaic hominid populations by intrusive modern humans'. <br /><br />It continues, 'The contributors present new archaeological evidence that tells a very different story: The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transitions in areas as diverse as the Levant, Eastern-Central Europe, and Central and Eastern Asia are characterized both by substantial behavioral continuity over the period 45,000-25,000 years ago and by a mosaic-like pattern of shifting adaptations. Together these essays will enliven and enrich the discussion of the shift from archaic to modern behavioral adaptations'. <br /><br />So outside Europe the transition was no simple matter. The Upper Paleolithic is not at all an indicator of the first modern human arrival. It's just that Europe, being better studied that anywhere else, has influenced the general perception. <br /><br />Finally you may find these extracts (from the same book) regarding the problem of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic interesting: <br /><br />http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=ST6TRNuWmHsC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=middle+upper+paleolithic+mongolia&source=bl&ots=xOE88kNYtz&sig=0lvHPPKvW8Cgw0G5zYSHROdkbJE&hl=en&ei=8zOeSvCJDobSsQPE4P0l&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=middle%20upper%20paleolithic%20mongolia&f=false<br /><br />http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=sYW3ChXeyIEC&pg=RA1-PA243&lpg=RA1-PA243&dq=middle+upper+paleolithic+mongolia&source=bl&ots=0IsQmHn3s4&sig=bi21enPFbwASsujEnfrkxsZw1NM&hl=en&ei=8zOeSvCJDobSsQPE4P0l&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=middle%20upper%20paleolithic%20mongolia&f=falseterrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67070800532345261832009-09-01T17:09:39.962+03:002009-09-01T17:09:39.962+03:00H. Heidelbergensis (aka H. Antecessor) is just an ...H. Heidelbergensis (aka H. Antecessor) is just an evolved erectus in the line to Neanderthal. It says nothing about AMHs. <br /><br />The steppary corridor offers some possibilities but is "bad" in comparison with tropical/subtropical Asia. Anyhow I must remind you that the area is also crossed by many great rivers, too cold to swim, and that people used to live by those rivers. Even H. erectus may have got some grasp of boating (there's some evidence that they crossed Gibraltar some 600 kya, btw - albeit in a low sea level context).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52422015746487353612009-09-01T07:01:37.912+03:002009-09-01T07:01:37.912+03:00The paper actually covers the Middle Paleolithic a...The paper actually covers the Middle Paleolithic as well. That's moving away from H. erectus times and the paper even mentions H. heidelbergensis. One of the links claims that the Levallois is earlier in the Mongolian region than it is anywhere else. Possibly originated somewhere near there? <br /><br />A few days ago I actually found another link dealing with the continuity from the Lower Paleolithic right through to the Upper Paleolithic, but unfortunately I was interupted at short notice and have been unable to find it again. I'll keep looking. Obviously the region has always been ' a marginal area hard to adequate to' but humans seem to have survived in parts of it continuously. They have been able to expand rapidly from those refuges during more moderate times.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45558769005048043512009-08-31T14:20:43.820+03:002009-08-31T14:20:43.820+03:00Very interesting but the paper deals with Lower Pa...Very interesting but the paper deals with Lower Paleolithic: H. erectus in other words. <br /><br />The earliest possible dates for the presence of Homo spp. in the area is of 450 kya and more likely 300 kya. This is a late date for the expansion of H. erectus in Eurasia, dating to c. 900 kya and on (600 kya for Europe, for another reference).<br /><br />So for Erectus that was also a marginal area hard to adequate to.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35189707419250057852009-08-31T12:47:04.295+03:002009-08-31T12:47:04.295+03:00Maju. I think you're going to have to change ...Maju. I think you're going to have to change your mind regarding the impossibility of a Central Asian Paleolithic migration route. Turns out that humans and/or their close relatives have occupied Mongolia, from the Altai mountains in the west to the upper Amur River in the east, virtually continuously since the Lower Paleolithic. Controversial evidence suggests that at times they even moved as far as 60 degrees north, certainly to the region around Lake Baikal. Hopefully Dienekes will be inspired to search out some recent Russian research on the region. <br /><br />http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/article/viewFile/85/76<br /><br />http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=ST6TRNuWmHsC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=lower+paleolithic+mongolia&source=bl&ots=xOE87cRYtB&sig=V6x1i_U9bKxmdNXyJKI3-eqHEz8&hl=en&ei=dYSbSqvXNIjuswOnq9iUDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=lower%20paleolithic%20mongolia&f=false<br /><br />So mtDNA N and Y-hap C could easily have moved through mongolia. I'll grant that the Upper Paleolithic arrived late to the region. But it doesn't necessarily follow at all that the arrival of the first 'modern' humans there coincides with the technology's arrival. Technically the Upper Paleolithic never reached Australia anyway, so we actually have evidence supporting the separation of technology and genes. And we know that language and genes are remarkably independent. <br /><br />A couple of Dienekes' recent posts, and the discussions there, on the spread of languages and the several lactose-tolerant genes may be relevant. Both have largely spread by introgression through a pre-existing population. Regarding lactose-tolerance Dienekes wrote, 'Its presence in Ireland or India does not strictly require any population movements from Central Europe'. And you said yourself, 'It's just a single allele highly favored by selection: a typical case of introgression: the gene moves and expands where it's selected for but regardless of any population move'. It's advantageous for some populations to possess the lactose-tolerant gene,and individual languages have spread because it became advantageous to learn to speak them. <br /><br />I'm quite certain you will argue that these two cases are special, but I'm not so sure. Geneticists have been claiming for years that each individual gene behaves in a similar manner to these two cases. <br /><br />Ultimately perhaps we could think of both Y-haps and mtDNAs behaving in the manner of single genes. They have introgressed into pre-existing populations. The extremely inbred selection of genes that modern humans are often claimed to possess is actually the result of migration, introgression, hybridisation and subsequent selection. To me it's the only explantion that makes sense.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16151968556644878752009-08-25T12:53:08.984+03:002009-08-25T12:53:08.984+03:00I understand that the population that gave origin ...I understand that the population that gave origin to Eurasians was basically (or maybe only) L3 because of drift and all that. I also understand that they might have been the most sea-goers of all, if they lived near Djibuti (H. sapiens idaltu did). The arid lands of Greater Somalia and Eritrea basically invite people to live off the sea and the islands of the southern Red Sea to explore them for resources. <br /><br />Notice that around Bab-el-Mandeb most of the seafloor is above 200 m depth, what means it was largely firm land in the Ice Ages. <br /><br />If other peoples used boats at the Congo or Zambezi rivers, lake Tanganyka or wherever, that would have no repercussions regarding Eurasian colonization. <br /><br />And a bottleneck is a brutal massacre, killing most of the population, not a founder effect. The effects (reduction of genetic diversity) may be similar but the concept is not.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83040059629166967552009-08-25T06:53:22.949+03:002009-08-25T06:53:22.949+03:00"just the usual founder effect. 2/7 L3 sublin..."just the usual founder effect. 2/7 L3 sublineages is a significative apportion in fact". <br /><br />2/7 of just the L3s. What about all the other mtDNA lines in Africa at the time? I count at least 15 other lines, and that's just of the ones that survive until today. Two from twenty-two is more like the correct proportion. If humans had possessed boats and were exploiting the supposedly huge resources of the coastal region we would expect there to have been a relatively large and diverse proportion of mtDNA lines to have emerged. Instead we find just two. If that's not a bottleneck I can't imagine what is.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47551464953685506052009-08-24T13:15:32.210+03:002009-08-24T13:15:32.210+03:00So the Nile basically separates lions to this day....<i>So the Nile basically separates lions to this day</i>.<br /><br />Hmmm, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Rift_Valley" rel="nofollow">Rift Valley</a> is not the Nile. In fact it has nothing to do with it, except maybe at its sources. <br /><br /><i>But we do know that the emergence from Africa was an extreme bottleneck</i>.<br /><br />I don't see it as "extreme", just the usual founder effect. 2/7 L3 sublineages is a significative apportion in fact (28.5% of all L3 diversity at that level). The situation at the Y-DNA level could be even more diverse (50% of the DE or even 75% of the CF'DE). <br /><br /><i>Another assumption</i>.<br /><br />No. It is archaeologically documented. <br /><br /><i>I'm very tempted to call you an idiot again. You don't need to 'go up to the brave and frozen waterways of the Hymalayas' to cross the many rivers running into the Ganges. Humans have presumably been capable of swimming for quite some time</i>. <br /><br />I'm not going to say what I'm tempted to do because forms do matter. Please research the sources of the Ganges a bit before you make such absurd claims.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47147522533579783722009-08-24T12:26:28.543+03:002009-08-24T12:26:28.543+03:00"that we would see clear indications of the N..."that we would see clear indications of the Nile or other great rivers as genetic and cultural barriers. We do not". <br /><br />Of course we don't now. People in the region have aquired boats. <br /><br />Your link regarding lion subspecies contains the following: <br /><br />"which suggests that all sub-Saharan lions could be considered a single subspecies, possibly divided in two main clades: one to the west of the Great Rift Valley and the other to the east". <br /><br />So the Nile basically separates lions to this day. Admittedly lions don't have boats but you're making the assumption that humans had them before they'd left Africa. But we do know that the emergence from Africa was an extreme bottleneck. Just two surviving mtDNA lines and possibly as few as just one Y-hap. <br /><br />"Humans seem to have followed the Narmada-Son route to reach the Ganges". <br /><br />Another assumption. <br /><br />"Even if they would have go up to the brave and frozen waterways of the Hymalayas to cross not one but dozens of rivers that feed the Ganges". <br /><br />I'm very tempted to call you an idiot again. You don't need to 'go up to the brave and frozen waterways of the Hymalayas' to cross the many rivers running into the Ganges. Humans have presumably been capable of swimming for quite some time.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28884646679123721162009-08-23T11:24:54.905+03:002009-08-23T11:24:54.905+03:00Maju. You comment regarding a tsunami was stupid a...<i>Maju. You comment regarding a tsunami was stupid and deserved a suitably sarcastic comment in return</i>.<br /><br />A storm or tsunami is a perfectly valid idea, worth considering. And if your concept of "sarcasm" is bluntly calling someone "stupid" and "idiot", then you need to re-learn what sarcasm means.<br /><br /><i>Not really. They were quite capable of moving up the eastern side if the Nile, although it's not impossible that they were able to cross at times without boats of any sort anyway</i>.<br /><br />That would mean:<br /><br />1. to renounce to exploit all the resources at the other bank<br />2. that we would see clear indications of the Nile or other great rivers as genetic and cultural barriers. We do not.<br /><br /><i>Same with the Euphrates, Tigris, Indus and Brahmaputra. Humans seem to have occupied Pakistan and the eastern foothills of the Himalayas quite early and so there is no need to cross the Ganges at all in order to reach SE Asia</i><br /><br />Humans seem to have followed the Narmada-Son route to reach the Ganges and they inhabited both banks of these rivers (and of every other river I can think of). <br /><br />Even if they would have go up to the brave and frozen waterways of the Hymalayas to cross not one but dozens of rivers that feed the Ganges, in order to reach SE Asia they would still need to cross the Brahamputra and Irrawady or (if they went via the arid steppes) a good deal of other rivers like the Yangtze, Mekong, etc. <br /><br />You are defending a lost cause: people needed to cross rivers all the time unless they chose to stay in a very limited area (and hope they never suffer a flood). You may not notice now how many rivers and waterways you cross every day you travel, because it's all full of bridges and canalizations, but there was nothing like that in the Paleolithic. <br /><br /><i>There is no need to postulate any sort of basic boating until humans were able to cross Wallacea</i>.<br /><br />Your confusion of basic and advanced really never stops surprising me.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20710856659000172132009-08-23T04:22:35.015+03:002009-08-23T04:22:35.015+03:00I forgot. I noticed the other day that in the sou...I forgot. I noticed the other day that in the southern summer the prevailing wind in Wallacea is to the southeast, towards New Guinea and Australia.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-76578279943635789492009-08-23T00:26:19.333+03:002009-08-23T00:26:19.333+03:00Maju. You comment regarding a tsunami was stupid ...Maju. You comment regarding a tsunami was stupid and deserved a suitably sarcastic comment in return. <br /><br />"they needed to cross rivers like the Nile." <br /><br />Not really. They were quite capable of moving up the eastern side if the Nile, although it's not impossible that they were able to cross at times without boats of any sort anyway. Same with the Euphrates, Tigris, Indus and Brahmaputra. Humans seem to have occupied Pakistan and the eastern foothills of the Himalayas quite early and so there is no need to cross the Ganges at all in order to reach SE Asia. <br /><br />From the comments at other Dienekes sites it seems obvious that surviving Y-haps in the Arabian Peninsular are not remnants of any 'great coastal migration', but rather more recent arrivals. And it also seems obvious that ancient IJ was present early along the Zagros and into Anatolia. They may not derive from an Indian haplogroup but have evolved from,and ultimately replaced, an F haplogroup that eventually entered India. So no need for the postulated 'great coastal migration' at all. There is no need to postulate any sort of basic boating until humans were able to cross Wallacea. <br /><br />Regarding the tsunami. It's quite on the cards that humans in their boats crossed Wallacea by accident. Boats are frequently blown far from their island of origin in the Pacific. These days the geography of the Pacific is widely known so these castaways can usually return home but in ancient times this was often impossible.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com