tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5858278402101203856..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Ancient mtDNA and craniometric evolution of AmerindiansDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45474669763681845792009-07-10T00:09:56.567+03:002009-07-10T00:09:56.567+03:00B is descended from R, whose other descendents are...B is descended from R, whose other descendents are mostly Caucasoid, so if B was not originally Caucasoid (and it may not be) its ancestors were.<br />MtDNA C is not Australian, but, among Asians, it is strongest among the northern Tungus, and the strongest Y haplotype among them is C, which is strong in Australia. And the ancestor of C is M, which is strong among Negritoids and Veddoids, and the latter are usually counted as Australoid. As to C3, Maju, I said nothing about it, and it is a subtype of C.<br />As to essentialism, I am philosophical what is sometimes called an 'essentialist', but in biology essentialists are concerned mainly with phenotype, and if the take account of genotype they assume it corresponds with phenotype--and that is not my view. Nor did I say anything that logically implied that. Did you think I did, Maju?<br />As to your comment about Amerind leaving the area before the process of formation of Mongoloids is finished, that is just what I was saying--except I did not say that the process "finished".Gregory76https://www.blogger.com/profile/16796327568266234469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-9599594430085185642009-07-10T00:02:16.248+03:002009-07-10T00:02:16.248+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gregory76https://www.blogger.com/profile/16796327568266234469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-428632304570108092009-07-09T16:35:19.716+03:002009-07-09T16:35:19.716+03:00Gregory: nonsense. C3 is associated with Mogoloids...Gregory: nonsense. C3 is associated with Mogoloids. The process of racialization cannot be simplified as you did: it's more a process of phenotype homogeneization in geographic areas than any essentialist anything. <br /><br />Amerindians just migrated before the Mongoloid type or types were "finished" (does this process ever finish?), same as Ainus, Andamanese, etc. - but at a later stage.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25296652406562570762009-07-09T12:32:52.097+03:002009-07-09T12:32:52.097+03:00"I think that the original phenotypes were as..."I think that the original phenotypes were as follows: D--Negritoid, C--Australoid, and B and A--Caucasoid on the way to Mongoloid". <br /><br />I could perhaps be persuaded you might be correct regarding A and D. But there's not a hell of a lot of mtDNA C in Australia, or New Guinea. None to be exact, except perhaps for some modern Chinese. And B seems closely associated with Eastern Asia, perhaps originally SE Asia and so maybe not strictly Mongoloid, but certainly not Caucasoid.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16096276486154241962009-07-09T08:06:31.888+03:002009-07-09T08:06:31.888+03:00I think the Mongoloid and Amerind phenotypes both ...I think the Mongoloid and Amerind phenotypes both originated in Siberia as adaptations to extreme cold, but the Amerinds left this climate zone sooner and so did not move as far in the direction of adaptation to cold.<br />In America the Amerinds of the western part of the continents usually had more nearly Mongoloid features than those to their eastern. I think the cause was a combination of two things: (1) the westerners arrive later (and so left the cold ancestral homeland later) and (2) the western regions have many highlands, some of which are so high that they have a signifcantly colder climate than the east.<br />Regarding mtDNA haplotypes, I think that the original phenotypes were as follows: D--Negritoid, C--Australoid, and B and A--Caucasoid on the way to Mongoloid (via Amerind)--which last I would also say about the Y haplotype Q.Gregory76https://www.blogger.com/profile/16796327568266234469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-23130221663100256412009-06-07T13:33:59.190+03:002009-06-07T13:33:59.190+03:00Some final thoughts on the spread of the Mongoloid...Some final thoughts on the spread of the Mongoloid phenotype. <br /><br />I think most of us agree that the phenotype is centred on Central, Northern and East Asia, and its influence tails off towards its geographic extremities: America, the Russian steppes and in the wider Pacific. Polynesians, for example, display some influence of the Mongoloid phenotype but it is there mixed with another phenotype, the Melanesian. So where did the Mongoloid phenotype originate? <br /><br />We should start with the assumption that the absence of mtDNA A in the South American sample (the subject of this post) is actual and significant. Onur mentioned that "The extent of haplogroup A is very limited among East Asians". But all groups with a proportion of the mtDNA A definitely have Mongoloid features, usually strikingly so. And mtDNA A is certainly well represented in Eskimos, the most Mongoloid-looking Native Americans. In fact mtDNA A basically forms a cline within America from north to south. The phenotype is not just associated with mtDNA A's presence in Asia though. If the phenotype actually originated with mtDNA A it has certainly spread to other mtDNA haplogroups. <br /><br />What about Y-haps? Y-hap C3 is certainly associated with the Mongoloid phenotype through Central Eurasia, and may have been connected to its introduction to America. But in Japan its relative, C1, is usually accepted to be Ainu, not Mongoloid. <br /><br />Anyway mtDNA A and Y-hap C3 barely enter SE Asia, so clearly the Mongoloid phenotype cannot be associated only with these haplogroups. <br /><br />The authors of the link I provided claim male gene flow southward in China, so the southern expansion of the phenotype must be linked to a Y-hap. Really the only credible candidate is some member, or members, of the O Y-hap group. In the far east Y-haps N and O are both closely associated with the phenotype. Perhaps they too originated near Central Asia. Y-haps C3, N and O certainly share Central Asia today. Y-hap Os may therefore have carried the Mongoloid phenotype south as far as SE Asia, and even a little way out into the Pacific. <br /><br />Back to mtDNA. Haplogroup B is very interesting. In the Pacific it is associated with the Mongoloid element of the Polynesian ancestry. And mtDNA B is common in America, especially along the western, or Pacific, side. But if Dienekes' original post is correct the haplogroup is not there associated with the Mongoloid phenotype. <br /><br />We therefore have the interesting situation that in Polynesia the Mongoloid part of the mix has probably come in with a mtDNA haplogroup not at all associated with that phenotype in America (B). And a Y-hap associated with the Mongoloid phenotype in America is, in Polynesia, associated with the New Guinea/Melanesian part of the ancestry (C2). <br /><br />We can draw the conclusion that haplogroups are not necessarily closely associated with genes for particular phenotype. Each individual gene is independent to a surprising extent.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8177004503871537402009-06-06T13:55:10.887+03:002009-06-06T13:55:10.887+03:00Some of you may find this paper interesting: "...Some of you may find this paper interesting: "A spatial analysis of genetic structure of human populations in China reveals distinct difference between maternal and paternal lineages". <br /><br />From the abstract: <br /><br />"In this study, we systematically explored the spatial genetic structure and the boundary of north–south division of human populations using mtDNA data in 91 populations and Y-chromosome data in 143 populations. Our results highlight a distinct difference between spatial genetic structures of maternal and paternal lineages". <br /><br />http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n6/full/5201998a.html<br /><br />From the paper: <br /><br />"In the past two millennia, there have been major population movements toward the south in China.8, 29, 30, 31, 32 In particular, Wen et al7 showed that such movements were sex-biased and mostly involving much more males than the females. These sex-biased gene flows, therefore, constituted a great deal of impact on the genetic structures of the extant populations and led to the differential structures of the populations between the maternal and paternal lineages as seen in this study". <br /><br />Of course this is after any Hoabinhian movement. So there has been movement north and south, and all around, in Eastern Eurasia since humans first arrived there.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15621550482015098042009-06-06T08:25:48.472+03:002009-06-06T08:25:48.472+03:00"He basically states that Hoabinian is at the..."He basically states that Hoabinian is at the origin of agriculture, at least in East Asia. So I find surprising youd agree with that, as it contradicts everything you're claiming elsewhere". <br /><br /><br />I'm afraid that is exactly what I suggested in the series of essays at remotecentral I called "Pacific Population", under the section 'Hoabinhian', and in the essay "The Last Point", in the section 'Pottery'. And in "Into Australia", 'Kow Swamp', I mention the 20,000 year date for the introduction of ground-edged stone tools to that continent. In fact what got you so worked up to start with was my essay "MtEve", 'The Branches', where I suggested there had been an expansion from around Wallace's Line, a position very close to that of your third link. <br /><br />"Human remains that have been diagnosed as Mongoloid ... first appear in northwestern/north-central China". And "earlier diagnosably Mongoloid remains have been found in isolated sites in America and Siberia". <br /><br />Those comments actually fit very well the idea that the Mongoloid phenotype originated in the high country of Northwest China, my original position. And that's where we find the most extreme examples of the phenotype today. And that is totally independent of any claim 'That is only because it was arbitrarily defined that way'. It just is so, however you like to define the Mongoloid phenotype.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33744322630995033622009-06-05T19:12:18.078+03:002009-06-05T19:12:18.078+03:00Maju said,
"Ok. Let's assume it's th...Maju said,<br /><br />"Ok. Let's assume it's the case (others think otherwise but wahtever), then where and when did the modern "Mongoloid" phenotype appeared? What does the archaeological record say?"<br /><br />Human remains that have been diagnosed as Mongoloid and that are associated with a well-described archaeological culture first appear in northwestern/north-central China (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baoji) in the Neolithic of about 7000 years BP. This coincides, both geographically and temporally, with the incipient Yangshao culture (AKA "Yellow River Neolithic"), which many researchers have associated (on what grounds, I do not know) with either the proto-Han Chinese ethnic group or the proto-Sino-Tibetan language family.<br /><br />However, earlier diagnosably Mongoloid remains have been found in isolated sites in America and Siberia, which might suggest that the appearance of Mongoloid morphology in Neolithic north-central/northwestern China has been caused by the migration of a population from a source in Siberia (or America, if you want to be even more speculative).Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51086666680395476462009-06-05T12:22:17.154+03:002009-06-05T12:22:17.154+03:00Is the border between Spain and France 'arbitr...<i>Is the border between Spain and France 'arbitrary'?</i>.<br /><br />Absolutely: it divides two ethnicities and, fyi, in the Basque part at least it does not even follow the mountains for the most part, but a minor river and other capricious features. <br /><br />You could choose other examples as the broder between Moldova and Ukraine or that between Poland and any of its neighbours or soo many others (Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary...), like the border between the USA and Canada: a mere line on a map. Modern political borders are in most cases arbitrary lines drawn for mere historical accident and political convenience, often ignoring the inhabitants. <br /><br /><i>Nepal and Tibet?</i>.<br /><br />There is no such thing as "Tibet" if we talk political borders. Tibet is like the Basque Country or Palestine: a stateless nation. <br /><br />But anyhow, you picked the highest mountain range of the World, hardly comparable with what we are discussing here. Why don't you study the border between Nepal and India instead? That is a good example of a totally accidental border with no ethnic or physical barrier. Most political borders of Earth today are that way. <br /><br /><i>The border between Vietnam and Southern China is hardly arbitrary</i>. <br /><br />It is. It's a modern convention. It does follow some hills and has certain historical consolidation (specially if you compare with the borders of the USA or Congo) but that's about it. <br /><br /><i>You would hardly use any SE Asians as an example of mongoloid phenotype. The phenotype reaches it's extreme way to the north</i>. <br /><br />That is only because it was arbitrarily defined that way. If Caucasoids would have described using a Swedish skull instead of a Daghestani one that would be also the case in West Eurasia. But if they would have been described using a Moroccan skull, it would be different too. And so on. <br /><br /><i>"These results only account for 15% of ISEA mtDNA lineages"</i>.<br /><br />Again a good example of your chosy tendentious self-satisfying style of discussion. Immediately after that sentence they explain that it is also probably the case for many other lineages, just that study is focused on Y-DNA E. <br /><br /><i>The second link stresses the difference between the pebble, or Hoabinhian, culture of the south and the microlithic of North China</i>.<br /><br />With the flake industries of North China, Indonesia and Sahul, if I'm correct. <br /><br /><i>It has long been understood that the expansion into the Pacific from Taiwan/Philippines was preceded by the arrival of a microlithic culture. The only disagreement is whether it came from the north or from the west (india). My vote has tended to favour the north although obviously you'd favour India</i>.<br /><br />IMO microlithism is a industrial trend, not a culture. Whoever thinks that microlithism means population migrations and even total replacements, should just scrap whatever happened before and should start considering why people is so different if after all we just diverged some 10 kya. (Sarcasm intended). Forget about OOA, all began with microlithism and all what happened before was just rolled over (sarcasm intended again). <br /><br /><i>I actually agree with virtually everything the author has written in the section</i>...<br /><br />He basically states that Hoabinian is at the origin of agriculture, at least in East Asia. So I find surprising youd agree with that, as it contradicts everything you're claiming elsewhere.<br /><br /><i>But I remember you arguing vehemently against me when I suggested exactly those points(well, to be honest I didn't include bronze)</i>.<br /><br />Well, I'd suggest you to join his forum and enjoy his style instead. <br /><br />I cannot remember what discussion you mean here anyhow but I understand I am entitled to change opinion, right? Though most probably it's just you misinterpretating me. <br /><br /><i>I quote: "There is nothing particularly East Asian about the facial skeleton of Liujiang"</i>. <br /><br />Ok. Let's assume it's the case (others think otherwise but wahtever), then where and when did the modern "Mongoloid" phenotype appeared? What does the archaeological record say?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33029598323353409132009-06-05T11:58:22.358+03:002009-06-05T11:58:22.358+03:00Sorry. It's me again. try this:
http://www...Sorry. It's me again. try this: <br /><br />http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/Liujiang.html<br /><br />I quote: "There is nothing particularly East Asian about the facial skeleton of Liujiang".terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39135003794763390022009-06-05T11:37:14.524+03:002009-06-05T11:37:14.524+03:00Maju. There's not much all that surprising to...Maju. There's not much all that surprising to me in those references. After all I have been following developments in understanding Polynesian origins, including genetic developments, for more than thirty years. <br /><br />Regarding your first reference. "These results only account for 15% of ISEA mtDNA lineages". <br /><br />For a start the article emphasises that it deals with the period before the Austronesian expansion, which many people associate with the arrival of the Mongoloid phenotype in SE Asia. E is obviously indigenous, and surely no-one (except you) doubts that there has been considerable human movement backwards and forwards since the time some Australopithecus/Homo species first left Africa. So the conclusions in the article are hardly earth-shattering. <br /><br />The second link stresses the difference between the pebble, or Hoabinhian, culture of the south and the microlithic of North China. It has long been understood that the expansion into the Pacific from Taiwan/Philippines was preceded by the arrival of a microlithic culture. The only disagreement is whether it came from the north or from the west (india). My vote has tended to favour the north although obviously you'd favour India. <br /><br />The third link: <br /><br />"Material excavated and analyzed during the past five years suggests that men were cultivating plants there, making pottery, and casting bronze implements as early as anywhere on earth". <br /><br />I actually agree with virtually everything the author has written in the section, "Puzzle Begins to Fit Together". But I remember you arguing vehemently against me when I suggested exactly those points(well, to be honest I didn't include bronze). So when Ren says, "debating with Maju is a waste of your resources" I'm very inclined to agree with him.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-732450425276809522009-06-05T10:42:44.526+03:002009-06-05T10:42:44.526+03:00"It would mean that the arbitrary modern poli..."It would mean that the arbitrary modern political border was also an ancient ecological one, what is most dubious, IMO". <br /><br />Many modern political borders coincide with ecological borders. That's where they derive from. Is the border between Spain and France 'arbitrary'? Italy and France? Nepal and Tibet? The border between Vietnam and Southern China is hardly arbitrary. <br /><br />"Incoming SE Asians in fact". <br /><br />You would hardly use any SE Asians as an example of mongoloid phenotype. The phenotype reaches it's extreme way to the north. <br /><br />Ebizur. Thanks for those links. <br /><br />"As far as I know, there is nothing diagnosably 'Mongoloid' about Liujiang". <br /><br />That doesn't surprise me at all.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21554676001530329902009-06-05T06:42:26.479+03:002009-06-05T06:42:26.479+03:00terryt, debating with Maju is a waste of your reso...terryt, debating with Maju is a waste of your resources, because it often is about irrelevant issues. Take your protracted debate with him about Liujiang.<br /><br />As far as I know, there is nothing diagnosably "Mongoloid" about Liujiang. The only diagnostic analysis, besides the limited glance by Wu and Suzuki, is the detailed analysis by Brown, which place the cranium closer to Austro-Melanesian forms. It's size is pygmy. <br /><br />References to it as "Mongoloid" has been arbitrarily passed down from Mao-era Chinese anthropologists into Western multi-regionalists' mouths (such as Wolpoff and Stringer). By their reasoning all humans discovered in China have indigenous-non-African "Mongoloid" traits, going back to Asian Homo erectus. <br /><br />The facial morphology of Liujiang is actually closer to Australo-Melanesians, and for that matter UP Europeans, Africans, Ainu, etc.<br /><br />For a more detailed description of Liujiang, I might make a post on my blog.renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53450662011193328972009-06-04T21:34:36.230+03:002009-06-04T21:34:36.230+03:00I have been reading some more on Hoabinian and Eas...I have been reading some more on Hoabinian and East/SE Asian prehistory and it seems that this mainland SE Asian culture (with offshots in China and other places) may have been central in the developements after the LGM in the whole region. Some even argue it was at the origin of East Asian Neolithic and were the first bronze casters ever. <br /><br />My references are:<br />1. <a href="http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/6/1209" rel="nofollow">P. Soares et al., 'Climate Change and Postglacial Human Dispersals in Southeast Asia'. MBE 2008</a>. (PDF)<br />2. <a href="http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf29/29chi.pdf" rel="nofollow">Zhang Chi, The Discovery of Early Pottery in China</a>. (PDF)<br />3. <a href="http://www.vlink.com/culture/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1193293707&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&" rel="nofollow">W.G. Solheim, 'New Light On A Forgotten Past' (not a research paper but a synthesis on the most daring claims for SE Asian importance in the prehistory of Eastern Eurasia)</a>. <br /><br />...<br /><br />And, btw, Ebizur's digression on epicanthic fold being maybe derived from an ancestral African genetic pool makes sense, after all this trait is found not just in East Asia but also (normally in partial incomplete form) in West Eurasia and, of course, among many Africans.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17592362269283803042009-06-04T21:29:18.057+03:002009-06-04T21:29:18.057+03:00This looks like another photograph of the same Dat...This looks like another photograph of the same Datoga woman as above:<br />http://image46.webshots.com/47/4/49/26/375544926ACdYjy_ph.jpg<br /><br />Fully formed eyefolds seem to be common among the Khoisan groups (and maybe also among the Sandawe and Hadza, although I have not seen many of these folks in photographs or otherwise) in Africa, but this trait is at least moderately expressed among many Nilotic folks in Sudan and elsewhere in East Africa. I think it is unlikely that this trait has been introduced into East African populations via gene flow from the Khoisan populations of Southern Africa, so the trait must have already existed in an ancestral population that has contributed genetically both to the present Khoisan peoples and to the present Nilotic peoples. However, I suppose it should also be possible that the trait has been introduced into the Southern African Khoisan via East Africa together with the initial spread of pastoralism in these parts of Africa, and it has subsequently been diluted in East Africa.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55388599436690885992009-06-04T21:16:50.488+03:002009-06-04T21:16:50.488+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19235039738687105952009-06-04T19:06:15.450+03:002009-06-04T19:06:15.450+03:00terryt,
Here's a close-up portrait that has b...terryt,<br /><br />Here's a close-up portrait that has been labeled as being of a woman of the Datoga, a Southern Nilotic people who live very close to the Hadza in Tanzania: <br /><br />http://wanderlustandlipstick.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/africa_datogawoman.jpg<br /><br />This photographic portrait clearly shows that she has folds over the inner corners of her eyes, like Mongoloids.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56414424672000975392009-06-04T17:29:34.925+03:002009-06-04T17:29:34.925+03:00Maju. Here are some comments regarding the Hoabinh...<i>Maju. Here are some comments regarding the Hoabinhian (p. 86). The people are regarded as being Australo-Melanesian, not Mongoloid</i>.<br /><br />Hold on. It reads: "... many skulls from Hoabinian sites have been accorded <b>a degree</b> of Australo-Melanesian affinity ..."<br /><br />This is extremely ambiguous, notably considering the typical riff-raffs regarding such classifications. <br /><br />The eponym province of Hòa Bình, in North Vietnam, is certainly not far from Liujiang in any case, so I would be rather surprised if these claims could be confirmed after serious research. It would mean that the arbitrary modern political border was also an ancient ecological one, what is most dubious, IMO. <br /><br /><i>And this one says:<br /><br />"These comparisons demonstrate that the Moh Khiew specimen resembles the Late Pleistocene series from Coobool Creek, Australia in both cranial and dental measurements. These results suggest that the Moh Khiew skeleton, as well as other fossil remains from the Tabon, Niah and Gua Gunung sites, represents a member of the Sundaland population during the Late Pleistocene, who may share common ancestry with the present-day Australian Aborigines and Melanesians"</i>.<br /><br />This is more clear maybe but still I find difficult to see how these remains can be both similar to Australian Aborigines and Melanesians. You have long argued that these two populations are clearly distinct in fact (something I agree more and more, and make further distinctions between Island Melanesians and Papuans and then Negritos as well). I must remind you that Ainus were in the past considered "Australoid" in spite of being quite different. <br /><br />I have already argued that SE Asia surely preserved higher typological diversity, so finding "some affinities" with other groups does not surprise me the least. I look at Zhokoudian skulls and I also find them vaguely "Australoid" if you push me a bit. This is just because they are archaic Eurasians. <br /><br />You have much of the same problem in a much better researched area as is Europe: in the course of milennia you find different individuals that can be argued to make up different types (Aurignacoid, Cromagnoid and modern/Magdalenian basically). For some this evolution represent population replacements, even if there is no obvious source nor cultural vehicle for the replacing peoples, while for others it is mostly in situ evolution, phenotypic drift. <br /><br />I am, mostly, with the second explanation but cannot fully discard some influence from random migrants. And I think that the same applies to Eastern Eurasia.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41746509125361844772009-06-04T17:29:24.623+03:002009-06-04T17:29:24.623+03:00I'm talking about SE Asia here, not mainland C...<i>I'm talking about SE Asia here, not mainland China</i>.<br /><br />Liujiang county is part of the Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region of China, just north of Vietnam and Laos. Using modern political borders is of no help here, moreso whe there is widespread consensus that Southern China is more akin anthropologically to SE Asia than to Northern China.<br /><br />In any case Guangxi Zhuang is much closer to, say, Bangkok than your arbitrary Timorese example.<br /><br /><i>As Ren said, "agriculture and 'Mongoloid' skeletal types start showing up around 3,500 years ago in SE Asia"</i>...<br /><br />The Liujiang skull proves him wrong. <br /><br /><i>And why would they now be confined to just those regions? Isolated by incoming East Asians perhaps?</i>.<br /><br />Incoming SE Asians in fact: Austronesian expansion. But that is not what pushed them, AFAIK, south of Kraa Isthmus but what pushed them to marginal areas within the Malay (Austronesian) region. <br /><br /><i>And why do the pre-European inhabitants of New Guinea, Australia and Melanesia look different from those in SE Asia?</i>. <br /><br />Probably because these are two distinct regions with little contact with each other, much like Papuans and Australian Aborigines also look pretty different. <br /><br /><i>Not unless they were all from the same population and subject to exactly the same selection pressure</i>.<br /><br />Ok, so we agree that evolution works with what it already has: it can't make a lion out of a zebra, right?<br /><br /><i>You have many times pointed out that highest genetic diversity does not necessarily indicate place of origin</i>.<br /><br />And I have many times insisted as well that you need a very good explanation to counter the argument of highest genetic diversity. <br /><br />Anyhow, you tend to confuse diversity in general with diversity within a clade and these two with diversity at some genealogical level within the clade. These are three distinct phenomenons in fact and cannot be put under a single simplistic umprella term like "highest diversity". <br /><br />The devil is in the detail. Pay attention to details, please. <br /><br /><i>So where from?</i>.<br /><br />SE Asia, via the coast. Alternatively maybe you prefer an explanation that includes a UFO from Uranus but personally I think it's rather far fetched.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21709512102162351082009-06-04T11:49:22.611+03:002009-06-04T11:49:22.611+03:00Maju. Here are some comments regarding the Hoabin...Maju. Here are some comments regarding the Hoabinhian (p. 86). The people are regarded as being Australo-Melanesian, not Mongoloid. <br /><br />http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Bt6V63pL0b4C&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=hoabinhian+skull&source=bl&ots=LEN7HyeDhQ&sig=96RWLscYVA4CV5CnW63qMA4DU8Y&hl=en&ei=cYcnSreiNpmKtgP_4pFH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1<br /><br />And this one says: <br /><br />"These comparisons demonstrate that the Moh Khiew specimen resembles the Late Pleistocene series from Coobool Creek, Australia in both cranial and dental measurements. These results suggest that the Moh Khiew skeleton, as well as other fossil remains from the Tabon, Niah and Gua Gunung sites, represents a member of the Sundaland population during the Late Pleistocene, who may share common ancestry with the present-day Australian Aborigines and Melanesians". <br /><br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GW4-4GH49YF-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=196502c5e0ccd91f2b7374685cc9d461<br /><br />I'm sure you will find some problem with the reasoning, but reading them 'should be a very interesing excersise and may even prevent you from falling in the same trap again (who knows?)".terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48593475840405171652009-06-04T11:24:42.419+03:002009-06-04T11:24:42.419+03:00"don't you think that this woman and chil..."don't you think that this woman and child look pretty similar to Khoisans?" <br /><br />Yes. But they could well be Hadza. I've remembered that the main difference between East Asian and Khoi-San eyefolds is that the Mongolian fold is on the inside of the eye and the African one on the outside. Tends to hold up in the examples you've linked to.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-330439286791910102009-06-04T11:15:05.053+03:002009-06-04T11:15:05.053+03:00"More importantly, have the causative genes b..."More importantly, have the causative genes been identified?" <br /><br />Not as far as I know. I'll look at your examples later. Thanks. <br /><br />"What about the Liujiang skull?" <br /><br />I'm talking about SE Asia here, not mainland China. As Ren said, "agriculture and 'Mongoloid' skeletal types start showing up around 3,500 years ago in SE Asia", although I understand it is more like 3,500 BC, i.e. 5,500 years ago. Until then what was going on further north is irelevant for SE Asia. <br /><br />"Now I'd like you to document the alleged 'Papuan' SE Asians in the limited archaeological record of SE Asia. Thanks in advance". <br /><br />It was certainly widely accepted from the 1960s on, so most of the evidence is in books from around then and ancient articles rather than modern ones on the Internet, but I'll have a look. <br /><br />"Modern Negritos, AFAIK, live only south of the Kraa isthmus (and in Philippines), not in mainland SE Asia". <br /><br />And why would they now be confined to just those regions? Isolated by incoming East Asians perhaps? And why do the pre-European inhabitants of New Guinea, Australia and Melanesia look different from those in SE Asia? <br /><br />"Would it be that way all species would be identical and would have converged towards the same narrow range of phenotypes". <br /><br />Not unless they were all from the same population and subject to exactly the same selection pressure. <br /><br />"The genetic diversity is for nearly all clades highest in SE Asia or at most southern China". <br /><br />You have many times pointed out that highest genetic diversity does not necessarily indicate place of origin. And I agree. Less genetic diversity casn be a product of bottleneck, founder effect or selection. <br /><br />"Maybe Japan is an exception but seems to have been populated since long ago". <br /><br />So where from? <br /><br />"They are the same, excepting the oddballs like Ainu". <br /><br />Not really. Mongolians look different (more extremely Mongoloid?) than do Chinese for example. SE Asians look even less 'Mongoloid'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68826314251001820842009-06-04T09:26:14.156+03:002009-06-04T09:26:14.156+03:00Maju, "West Eurasian" is rather a geneti...<i>Maju, "West Eurasian" is rather a genetic grouping that would include various groups in Europe that survive into the Neolithic with morphologically "un-Caucasoid" faces. The two terms are quite different</i>.<br /><br />Like?<br /><br /><i>Anyway..<br />I'm surprised to find that 13% of Spaniards have concave noses and are thus Mongoloids</i>.<br /><br />Hey, I do intuitively agree that concave noses are Oriental (Mongolid-related if you wish) and that they massively increase towards Eastern Europe. I'm glad that for a change we are in some agreement, Ren. <br /><br />Still, I'd say that <b>prominent</b> concave noses are very much un-Mongoloid, as much as the prominent convex noses of Andeans (and so many other Native Americans).<br /><br />This brings us to the interesting issue of what is a "race": a vague trend approaching an archetype or just those that are almost identical to the archetype. In the first case, races soverlap and are very much clinal, in the second cases, races are just a handful of specimens and the vast majority of the people are non-racial (or maybe each one his/her own different race). <br /><br />But well, I'd like you to explain me how southern Liujiang and northern Zhoukoudien specimens (I fear there's not much more to study in mainland East Asia) approach better or worse the Mongoloid craniometric archetype. <br /><br />I know the result: Zhoukudian is not Mongoloid or just very vaguely so (eyebrows) while Liujiang is almost a perfect modern fit. <br /><br />Now, after doing this excercise of archaeo-anthropometry, please try to ratify yourself in the old rotten hypothesis that Mongoloids "invaded" the south from the north and not exactly the opposite. I know you will, but have no idea how. Please describe the process using an old semi-scientific tehnique called introspection, where the writer tries tod escribe his psychological process as objectively as he/she can. This should be a very interesing excersise and may even prevent you from falling in the same trap again (who knows?).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14924765770589723452009-06-04T01:03:56.017+03:002009-06-04T01:03:56.017+03:00Maju, "West Eurasian" is rather a geneti...Maju, "West Eurasian" is rather a genetic grouping that would include various groups in Europe that survive into the Neolithic with morphologically "un-Caucasoid" faces. The two terms are quite different.<br /><br />---<br /><br />Anyway..<br />I'm surprised to find that 13% of Spaniards have concave noses and are thus Mongoloids.<br /><br />"The nasal profiles of some 120.000 Spaniards are convex in 15 per cent of cases, straight in 72 per cent, and concave in 13 per cent. In Arabia and North Africa east of Morocco, the commonest profile form is usually convex, and concaves are very rare."<br />http://www.geocities.com/refuting_kemp/coon_spain.htmlrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.com