tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post6883805172155008435..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Three-stage expansion of humans across Eurasia and into the AmericasDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-4134024943069227632010-10-16T05:13:23.628+03:002010-10-16T05:13:23.628+03:00Further to my comment yesterday:
Perhaps it woul...Further to my comment yesterday: <br /><br />Perhaps it would be productive to look at the development of the Chinese Neolithic. As far as I know it began with the Yang-Shao about 7000 years ago, confined originally to the deciduous forest region of the loess-clad hill country of the middle Yellow River valley: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangshao_culture<br /><br />Later, as it expanded onto the loess plains further east, it developed into the Lung-Shan which, according to an old Grahame Clark book I have, then expanded 'from the deciduous into the evergreen zone', and 'spread into Szechwan and south into the coastal provinces from Chekiang to Kuangsi and beyond into south-east Asia. In the coastal zone settlement was concentrated on the lower courses of rivers and on adjacent islands'. <br /><br />This coastal element fits extremely well with the distribution of haplogroup O2a. Especially when we consider that O2b is also somewhat coastal, but to the north: North China, Korea and Japan (admittedly with traces down to Vietnam and Thailand). <br /><br />And the Szechwan element fits a postulated centre of dispersal for haplogroup O3 very well. The haplogroup would then have spread overland down into SE Asia, and eventually out into the Pacific with the Austronesian-speaking people. It has become the most widespread and common East Asian Y-haplogroup. <br /><br />Haplogroup O1 is especially common in Taiwan, the Philippines and Wallacea. But it's extremely unlikely it originated anywhere in that region. Most probably it is an immigrant to Taiwan, and spread from there at the origin of the Austronesians. To me it seems most likely that O1 originated in the middle Yangtze region, Kiangsi or Hunan, moving through Fukien and across the Formosa Strait to Taiwan. <br /><br />The big population expansion in the Chinese Neolithic homeland didn't happen until the Shang state was established there. Until that time haplogropup diversity would have been progressivley reduced in the homeland. <br /><br />I'm not aware of any possible scenario for the pattern of origin and expansion that fits a Southeast Asian origin for haplogroup O. Just general beliefs.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90535726080705083722010-10-15T05:55:11.579+03:002010-10-15T05:55:11.579+03:00"if you can explain why haplo O have the bigg..."if you can explain why haplo O have the biggest diversity on south-east Asia and not on neolithic Yangtze river as normally should be, please share whit us" <br /><br />Leaving aside the diversity factor for a while, we find it very difficult to postulate any possible scenario for regiona of origin, or pattern of the thre O haplogroups' movement north. On the other hand it is quite easy to postulate a pattern for their movement south. All basal O haplogroups are present round the region of the Yangtze, or nearby. O2 looks to have moved both north and south from the eastern end of the Neolithic region, O3 from the western end, and O1 from the south-central neolithic region. <br /><br />Now, diversity. The Yangtze Neolithic region is relatively small, fairly long established, and numbers probably did not expand much locally for some time after the Neolithic expansion south. In such regions with stable population numbers haplogroup diversity tends to become reduced with time. But as the basal O haplogroups moved south through the mountains and valleys of South China, and population numbers through the region increased, diversity would also increase. We know that diversity is great in mountainous regions with each valley finishing up with its own haplogroup. In such regions we normally assume that diversity does not equate with origin, yet, for some unknown reason, in mountainous South China and east Asia most of us assume that diversity means 'region of origin'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31695070841441540992010-10-14T15:05:32.857+03:002010-10-14T15:05:32.857+03:00if you can explain why haplo O have the biggest di...if you can explain why haplo O have the biggest diversity on south-east Asia and not on neolithic Yangtze river as normally should be, please share whit us.Or maybe you can prove that haplo O doesn't have the biggest diversity on south-east Asia after all.lllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058891251637242345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85907186245145120272010-10-14T11:49:17.051+03:002010-10-14T11:49:17.051+03:00"An is prety sure that it didn't receive ..."An is prety sure that it didn't receive the haplo O from India(O make the bulk of haplos there)". <br /><br />To nme O seems the only possible candidate for Neolithic move south from the Yangtze/Yellow river agricultura expansion. So it originated in that region. <br /><br />"Now there are 2 theories of how mongoloid race developed.One say that they adapt to cold(small eyes,layer of fat,short limbs)". <br /><br />That's the one I think is most likely, and at a relatively high altitude. Especially as they also have other adaptations to a high light-intensity environment.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27711817617285555212010-10-13T20:49:34.728+03:002010-10-13T20:49:34.728+03:00Maybe diversity doesn't point the origin alway...Maybe diversity doesn't point the origin always ,but surely the law of probability point the origin in the region of highest diversity.Other fact s must be check.How old are the mutations,how big was population etc.<br />And yes ,for example central asia or turkey receive genes from all directions,but south-east asia is not in a central position,so its unlikely that it receive genes from other places. An is prety sure that it didn't receive the haplo O from India(O make the bulk of haplos there).<br />By ''australoids'' i didnt mean the native australians but the asian people that resemble the africans(negritos,papuans,andamans)<br />Now there are 2 theories of how mongoloid race developed.One say that they adapt to cold(small eyes,layer of fat,short limbs).Second theory suggest a proces of neoteeny-sation (child -like).Humans look child-like comparative whit other apes.Mongoloids look child-like comparative whit caucasoids and africans.Not only physical but also the time of learning is bigger in mongoloids(and is posible that they are smarter then Caucasoids for this reason).<br />These 2 theories are not mutually incompatible but if only the second is true the a stage of proto-mongoloid is possible even in a warm climate.lllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058891251637242345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52424615963462643702010-10-11T05:22:25.816+03:002010-10-11T05:22:25.816+03:00"So this is the paradox of mongoloid race.The..."So this is the paradox of mongoloid race.Their features seem adaptation of a cold climate,yet the genetic show a more genetic diversity among southern mongoloids". <br /><br />As I've tried to point out many times, there are many reasons why 'diversity' does not necessarily equal 'origin'. <br /><br />"people from Bhutan look very mongoloid except those mixed whit indians". <br /><br />Have you considered the possibility that it's the other way round? The Mongoloid people in Bhutan, Nepal and Assam may be relatively recent arrivals. In fact that is the usual explanation. <br /><br />"if you can show evidence that diversity of south eats Asia is from mixing whit pre-existing genes(including haplo O and N) ,a Bhutan-Nepal origin is plausible". <br /><br />But the Bhutanese-Nepalese are themselves probably a relatively recent mix of Indian and Mongoloid. Many groups of them have myths of having come through the Himalayas from the north or northeast. <br /><br />"Maybe they look proto-mongoloid and become more and more mongoloid as they reach new colder regions". <br /><br />To me that seems unlikely. What we see in other species is adaptation to the environment and then expansion of that phenotype. <br /><br />"What is for sure is that mongoloids spread also whit neolithic rice culture,replacing the hunter-gatherers,an least on chinese and indonesian area". <br /><br />Exactly. So what haplogroups might have been involved? <br /><br />"Do you propose a back migration of O and N?" <br /><br />How about those haplogroups as candidates? <br /><br />"we see that amerindians are not so mongoloid". <br /><br />Not 'so' mongoloid, but a little bit. It seems likely that they originally moved across Eurasia to the north of the Mongolian plateau, although they picked up more southerly mtDNAs along the way. <br /><br />"How can you know which haplos are pre-existing australoid?" <br /><br />Australia has unique haplogroups in the form of Y-hap C4 and mtDNA S. The other Australian haplogroups are shared with New Guinea, and are almost certainly more recent arrivals in Australia.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84011364601789547822010-10-11T01:12:26.363+03:002010-10-11T01:12:26.363+03:00Beringian Isolation does not take into account Hol...Beringian Isolation does not take into account Holocene back migration by Amerindians into northeast Asia. Many studies have shown that Amerindian mtDNAs require much greater time while the A,B,C, and D haplotypes need not be "founding lineages or the result of "founding Effects." <br /><br />Invited Editorial, Emoke Szathmary; Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1993b pg. 796<br /><br /> <br /><br />"If Chakraborty and Weiss's (1991) findings apply in general to the Americas, it means that not only is there no evidence for the presence of major bottlenecks in the evolutionary history of the mtDNA in the New World but also that it is not possible to establish the evolutionary source of mtDNA mutations. They are as likely to be the product of new mutations as of ancient founder effects." <br /><br /> <br /><br /> The only cladistic evidence of an Asian/Amerindian affinity is to be found in the discovery of the four rare Asian mtDNAs. These proposed founding Amerindian lineages (see Schurr et al. 1990; Torroni et al. 1993a), are not descendent of the derived (post-nodal) Asian lineages, those described in the trees generated by Cann et al. (1987); Johnson et al. (1983) and Excoffier and Langaney (1989). The two subgroups common to Central and Southeast Asian populations are found in 36.1% of the Siberians studied while "surprisingly" they are not found in Native Americans. Contrarily, the presence of rare Asia mtDNA in the Americas does not specifically identify that their origin must be Asian in that admixture from the Americas could be suggested for some populations inhabiting Siberia (Hicks, in submission). An alternative explanation could be proposed in the movements of Amerindians into northeast Asia following or during the formation of contemporary Circumpolar peoples in post glacial times (Boas 1905; 1910, his "Eskimo wedge theory"). Should this be the case, then any evidence for an Asian (or for that matter, African or European), origin for the Eskimos, Na-Dene, and/or Amerindian would be, cladistically, unsustainable.Boasianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425347590679079690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73550906500194944932010-10-09T16:19:30.612+03:002010-10-09T16:19:30.612+03:00How do you know which haplos are pre-existent if a...How do you know which haplos are pre-existent if any?<br />As far as i know,mongoloid haplos O and N have the origin in south-east Asia.Do you propose a back migration of O and N?<br />people from Bhutan look very mongoloid except those mixed whit indians.<br />Maybe they look proto-mongoloid and become more and more mongoloid as they reach new colder regions.we see that amerindians are not so mongoloid.Maybe they preserve proto-mongoloid features at the time of migration,or they lost that features in adaptation in the new american climate.<br />How can you know which haplos are pre-existing australoid?<br />What is for sure is that mongoloids spread also whit neolithic rice culture,replacing the hunter-gatherers,an least on chinese and indonesian area.<br /><br />So this is the paradox of mongoloid race.Their features seem adaptation of a cold climate,yet the genetic show a more genetic diversity among southern mongoloids.An least if you can show evidence that diversity of south eats Asia is from mixing whit pre-existing genes(including haplo O and N) ,a Bhutan-Nepal origin is plausible.lllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058891251637242345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54808788405353718042010-10-08T10:22:52.670+03:002010-10-08T10:22:52.670+03:00"How do you explain then,the fact that southe..."How do you explain then,the fact that southern mongoloids have bigger genetic diversity comparative whit nordic ones?" <br /><br />The southern ones have considerable admixture with pre-existing SE Asian populations. <br /><br />"I suggested that south Himalaya was the first cold region ,near Nepal and Bhutan, that was reach by humans". <br /><br />Possibly so. But people in that region are nowhere near as Mongoloid-looking as those to the north of the Himalayas.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80044964082039008702010-10-05T23:16:18.681+03:002010-10-05T23:16:18.681+03:00How do you explain then,the fact that southern mon...How do you explain then,the fact that southern mongoloids have bigger genetic diversity comparative whit nordic ones?I suggested that south Himalaya was the first cold region ,near Nepal and Bhutan, that was reach by humans.lllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058891251637242345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43909402735449075762010-10-05T23:09:23.920+03:002010-10-05T23:09:23.920+03:00south himalayasouth himalayalllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058891251637242345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16443772993626512252010-10-01T23:56:07.626+03:002010-10-01T23:56:07.626+03:00"My opinion is that mongoloid race was formed..."My opinion is that mongoloid race was formed in Himalaya region". <br /><br />I'd place it a little north of there. Perhaps as far north as the southern sides of the mountains south of Lake Baikal.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7267370537480371552010-10-01T04:10:28.903+03:002010-10-01T04:10:28.903+03:00My opinion is that mongoloid race was formed in Hi...My opinion is that mongoloid race was formed in Himalaya region.It was the first cold region inhabited by humans.It explain the ancient haplo D in tibetans.It explain the bigger diversity of southern mongoloids(if the mongoloids came from central Asia or Siberia,the diversity should be bigger in the north).<br />It doesnt contradict the agricultural migration of mongoloids from north to Indonesialllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058891251637242345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62310509002667293782010-09-11T17:39:34.234+03:002010-09-11T17:39:34.234+03:00More skulls from African Late Stone Age are of cou...<i>More skulls from African Late Stone Age are of course needed.</i><br /><br />Yes, of course. Until then, the Hofmeyr Skull is hard to interpret.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48979683411676849102010-09-11T17:34:04.557+03:002010-09-11T17:34:04.557+03:00"it seems to me that physical racial morpholo..."it seems to me that physical racial morphologies of Homo sapiens sapiens were throughout most of their Palaeolithic history were in general less distinct from each other than in the Holocene and the relatively late periods of the Upper Palaeolithic."<br /><br />This is true. However, the Hofmeyer skull doesn't show any special continuities with "anatomically modern humans" from African Middle Stone Age (that should further manifest themselves in either Khoisans, Negroids or Pygmies in some form), but in fact clusters with Eurasians of the same period. So the gap is there craniologically as well.<br /><br />But what I find fascinating is that archaeologists use the Hofmeyer skull - arguably the worst candidate from either your perspective or mine - as "evidence" for an out-of-Africa to patch up the gaps in their own evidence. More skulls from African Late Stone Age are of course needed.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12488293031351533652010-09-11T17:24:26.207+03:002010-09-11T17:24:26.207+03:00German,
As I said earlier, the archaeological rec...German,<br /><br />As I said earlier, the archaeological record (including skeletal remains) is usually very fragmentary for so ancient times. So your conclusions aren't justified by the archaeological record. As to the Hofmeyr Skull, it seems to me that physical racial morphologies of Homo sapiens sapiens were throughout most of their Palaeolithic history in general less distinct from each other than in the Holocene and the relatively late periods of the Upper Palaeolithic. Though the sparseness and also the incomplete nature of human skull remains in many regions of the world from so ancient times can also explain this situation to some extent.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21565355525555928522010-09-11T16:50:27.030+03:002010-09-11T16:50:27.030+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6477262402192823692010-09-11T04:19:31.771+03:002010-09-11T04:19:31.771+03:00Onur,
Here's a great quote that, in a nutshel...Onur,<br /><br />Here's a great quote that, in a nutshell, illustrates the serious problems with the mainstream human origins story. "The case for dispersal of projectile-using humans to the Levant suffers from some of the same weaknesses as the diffusion hypothesis; namely, the lack of an artifactual “trail” linking the EUP of the Levant to another region. Fortunately, artifacts are not the only evidence for population dispersal. The hominin fossil and recent human genetic records (Grine et al. 2007; Kivisild 2007) strongly support the hypothesis that there was a dispersal of Homo sapiens populations from Africa and southern Asia to western Eurasia at around the same time as EUP assemblages began to be deposited. That the specific forms EUP projectile armatures took do not replicate African precursors does run counter to models for detecting “migration” derived from recent contexts (Clark 1994), but this is not necessarily a crucial flaw. Populations dispersing into new territories do develop novel artifact forms unknown in their donor region. For example, it is beyond serious scientific dispute that the Americas were first populated by humans dispersing there from northeastern Asia, and yet few specific artifact-types connect these two regions (Meltzer 2009)." Shea. Sisk, "Complex Projectile Technology and Homo sapiens Dispersal into Western Eurasia" // PaleoAnthropology 2010.<br /><br />There's clearly no archaeological evidence for an out-of-Africa migration. Scholars acknowledge it. But, lo and behold, they use nothing else but the peopling of the New World as the justification for this lack of archaeological evidence for an out of African migration. In a perverse logic, they absolve archaeology from the need to provide material evidence for the peopling of the Americas and rely on a speculative but firm consensus that this peopling event somehow happened. This speculative consensus is then made to look like "science" and is exported back as a yardstick for the archaeological standard needed to prove the out-of-Africa model. Seeing the gap in the archaeological record, they nod in the direction of craniology and genetics. But the study of the Hofmeyer skull that they quoted actually showed that this 35,000-year-old South African specimen looks nothing like modern Khoisans, Pygmies or Negroids. It looks fully Eurasian (!) just like a bunch of Cromagnon skulls from the same period that are in fact related to modern European through straightforward morphological continuities. The genetic data they invoke, again, shows exactly the same biogeographic gap between African and Eurasian haplotypes with no "trail" connecting the two (see above). So we have a perfect match between archaeology and genetics but the one that doesn't support the out-of-Africa model but in fact directly contradicts it.<br /><br />You can now see that the cross-disciplinary support for the out of Africa model is completely bogus and betrays that the whole model is patched together with rumors and not facts. This, in turn, opens up a window of opportunity for an alternative model that is based on facts such as the fact that there's no archaeological evidence for the peopling of the Americas and there's no archaeological trail for an out of Africa migration.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58379854736029528092010-09-10T15:29:29.955+03:002010-09-10T15:29:29.955+03:00"your attitude is often self-righteous and ri..."your attitude is often self-righteous and rigid."<br /><br />No, Onur, people just interpret it this way because I give an informed pushback against those aspects of their thinking that they are used to freely run with without facing any criticism and without providing any proof.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-49550653523109713122010-09-10T13:52:25.510+03:002010-09-10T13:52:25.510+03:00I just debunked this stereotype of massive Old Wor...<i>I just debunked this stereotype of massive Old World language and kinship extinctions on Razib's site.</i><br /><br />That is a quite presumptuous statement. For this and other similarly presumptuous statements of yours, German, I have decided not to respond to your comments so often as your attitude is often self-righteous and rigid.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-1325616030522482612010-09-10T07:40:41.963+03:002010-09-10T07:40:41.963+03:00"Interestingly those regions are basically ma..."Interestingly those regions are basically marginal to the Eurasian human habitat. So it's quite possible that ancient kinship systems have been swept aside through Africa and much of Eurasia with the expansion of more recent systems."<br /><br />Why? On what grounds, Terry? I just debunked this stereotype of massive Old World language and kinship extinctions on Razib's site. African and European kinship systems were transformed away from the ancestral forms precisely because these areas were colonized from Asia. Even Khoisan systems have identifiable antecedents in Asia, Australia and America, and the Khoisans are the clear outliers in Africa.<br /><br />Also, if there was no strong gene flow between an original departing population and a population that stayed behind isolation must be the strongest for the autochthonous population. If humans departed from Africa, we would have seen the survival of ancestral kinship forms in Africa and their stepwise transformation outside of Africa. Increasing population size is one of the main drivers behind the changes in kinship systems. As human populations grew in size, under the pressure to colonize the wide expanses of Eurasia and Africa, their kinship systems transformed. It's very simple, Terry. The serial bottleneck idea, on the other hand, assumes the progressive loss of genetic diversity in the face of the adaptive pressure to colonize the whole globe, and the corresponding accrual of linguistic and cultural diversity, plus the preservation of the ancestral types of kinship organization in the opposite corner of the world from Africa. This is total nonsense. Dienekes just wrote about it, but he, of course, has a different explanation from mine.<br /><br />"Possibly. But it's greater diversity in Yemen and Oman is quite likely to be product of its arrival there from both of the regions it is found in Africa: Egypt and Ethiopia."<br /><br />It's possible, just like every other reading of genetic phylogenies and diversity estimates.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28136009954046905402010-09-10T07:09:54.581+03:002010-09-10T07:09:54.581+03:00"Yes, it has been found in Egypt and Ethiopia..."Yes, it has been found in Egypt and Ethiopia. But it's lower frequency and lower diversity in Africa suggests that it could've come from Yemen or Oman in the course of the migration of Semitic-speakers into Africa". <br /><br />Possibly. But it's greater diversity in Yemen and Oman is quite likely to be product of its arrival there from both of the regions it is found in Africa: Egypt and Ethiopia. That would also explain its apparent lower diversity in Africa. Is its diversity lower if we include both regions? <br /><br />"African kinship systems are lacking in all the ancestral patterns attested in parts of Asia, Australia, Oceania and, most importantly, America". <br /><br />Interestingly those regions are basically marginal to the Eurasian human habitat. So it's quite possible that ancient kinship systems have been swept aside through Africa and much of Eurasia with the expansion of more recent systems.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30730036561409216152010-09-09T04:39:36.990+03:002010-09-09T04:39:36.990+03:00"BTW, L6 also exists in East Africa and proba..."BTW, L6 also exists in East Africa and probably originated there."<br /><br />Yes, it has been found in Egypt and Ethiopia. But it's lower frequency and lower diversity in Africa suggests that it could've come from Yemen or Oman in the course of the migration of Semitic-speakers into Africa.<br /><br />"I will only say that the last two decades of research has only strengthened the scientific validity of the general Africa-rooted phylogenetic framework."<br /><br />I just criticized it using the facts that have come to light in the last 10 years. <br /><br />"which sometimes makes bold claims about language histories."<br /><br />I hear you. Just stay away from long range comparison a la Greenberg, which creates artificial groupings such as Amerind and then dates them using shaky dates derived from archaeology.<br /><br />"assumptions and unknowns become too excessive making it practically impossible to make scientifically valid inferences."<br /><br />I don't think these assumptions and unknowns are greater in linguistics than in archaeology or genetics. It's precisely because these assumptions and unknowns are real that we have to compare what different disciplines have to say, without falling in love with one or two disciplines. In kinship studies, for instance, the patterns of evolutionary transformations within kinship vocabularies (see "My Genius of Kinship") have been tested against large samples and within many well-established language families. And it's been known for the past 150 years that African kinship systems are lacking in all the ancestral patterns attested in parts of Asia, Australia, Oceania and, most importantly, America.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53420764181567886972010-09-09T03:53:04.895+03:002010-09-09T03:53:04.895+03:00German, I was talking about historical linguistics...German, I was talking about historical linguistics, which sometimes makes bold claims about language histories. I think historical linguistics works to some extent for the last several thousand years at most, but becomes useless beyond that as at that point assumptions and unknowns become too excessive making it practically impossible to make scientifically valid inferences.<br /><br />Regarding haplogroup phylogenies, I will only say that the last two decades of research has only strengthened the scientific validity of the general Africa-rooted phylogenetic framework, not weakened it. BTW, L6 also exists in East Africa and probably originated there.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56057425002088823512010-09-08T17:10:05.866+03:002010-09-08T17:10:05.866+03:00"Genetic phylogenies tell us that all non-Afr..."Genetic phylogenies tell us that all non-African haplogroups are ultimately derived from just a relatively small subset of African haplogroups."<br /><br />"Historical (including prehistory) linguistics is a too speculative discipline (I say discipline as I don't think it is a science)."<br /><br />These two statements are good indicators that you simply believe in the "powers" of genetic evidence and berate linguistics as a substandard pursuit. This an absolutely unprofessional attitude. Linguistics as a science is older than genetics, has larger databases (mine alone, for instance, encompasses kinship vocabularies from 2500 languages) and describes our critical differentiator from apes and hominins. Geneticists even routinely use languages and language families in their analyses (e.g., they say "Bantu" and not geographically defined population A). Not to mention the curious historical fact that Darwin was fascinated with linguistic phylogenies (so nascent in those days) as the way to arrive at subspecific classifications.<br /><br />As for genetic phylogenies, they are unproblematic only on paper (or computer screen). Phylogeographically, their ability to support the out of Africa model borders on absurdity. For instance, mtDNA macrohaplogroup N is not indigenous in Africa, it expands in East Asia and shows up in Africa only in the form of derived clades such as N1 and U6. So we have a huge geographic gap between a putative African ancestor and the first non-African descendants. mtDNA macrohaplogroup M shows virtually the same pattern: it's not indigenous in Africa, it expands in South/East Asia and it's attested in Africa only in the form of a derived clade, namely M1. mTDNA L6 haplogroup, which is the most divergent lineage within the L3'4'5'6 clade is attested only outside of Africa, namely in West Asia. Y-DNA C haplogroup, which covers a huge geographic terrain from Australia to North America, is not attested in Africa. Y-DNA E haplogroup that accounts of more than half of Sub-Saharan African chromosomes is nested within a non-African CDEF clade and is directly related to only haplogroup D, which is a non-African haplogroup. So, what phylogeography tells us is that there're non-African clades (such as mtDNA M and N, or Y-DNA C, D, F) and there're African clades (mtDNA L0, L1, L2, Y-DNA A and B). How they are related to each other is unclear. But what we know in the very least is that the non-African clades moved into SS Africa at 40-45K and possibly admixed with the pre-existing African lineages. Unless those pre-existing African lineages are simply misclassified descendants of those incoming non-African lineages.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.com