Posts
I'm feeling intellectually saturated right now and don't feel like writing or even reading too much at the moment. However there are some interesting news I think I should mention. Therefore I'll just make a quick reference here... by the moment.
Genes:
Some of these news come from the new PLoS ONE issue:
D. López Herráez et al. have found several evolutionary markers that seem to define short height in Pygmies (as an adaptative response to low iodine diet) and cartilaginous tissue that may correlate with "racial" differences as shown in facial traits (facial features are largely defined by cartilages).
G. Resink et al. explore the parallels and differences between genetic structure in Sahul and language families. This report is also discussed at Dienekes' blog.
Also I have been reading Subramanian's paper on Penguin DNA and molecular clock (thanks to German again) but, sadly, it is not as clarifying as the press release would suggest. I need to re-read it in order to make up my mind.
Brains:
At Science Daily we are informed of the fact that larger brains are not necessarily correlated with greater cognitive power, that bees and dogs can essentially understand the same things about their surroundings.
Also at SD, it is mentioned that IBM has managed to recreate with supercomputers the wiring complexity of a cat-like brain.
Chaos:
For those interested in Chaos theory and fractal geometries (I love it but also beats me), New Scientist deals with the three dimensionalization of the classical Mandelbrot Set, gallery included.
.
62 comments:
Regarding Sahul:
"Although we cannot specify how many different migrations have colonized Sahul since the first settlement approximately 50,000 years ago, our results indicate ancient splits into seven major plausible groups".
And that's not counting Austronesian. Still convinced that Wallacea was crossed just once?
I don't think that it was crossed "just once". But I do think that essentially Sahul was colonized in the early period and that has practically nothing to do with Austronesians, who originated further north and in a totally different era.
Also, "ancient splits into seven major plausible groups" can perfectly be read as these major groups being created after a single colonization. Not that I argue for it but it is within the scope of the sentence.
"that has practically nothing to do with Austronesians".
Correct. But I wrote, 'And that's not counting Austronesian'. So why did you mention them in your reply?
"Also, 'ancient splits into seven major plausible groups' can perfectly be read as these major groups being created after a single colonization".
Again, I agree. But we don't know what languages people spoke through SE Asia before the Austronesian expansion, who, as yoy say, 'originated further north and in a totally different era'. It's quite possible that the seven major haplogroups don't indicate as many as seven major crossings, but it's quite likely they represent at least several. So that further suggests that Y-hap C and K-derived haplogroups represent separate crossings. They didn't arrive together. Their current distributions further support the idea.
Correct. But I wrote, 'And that's not counting Austronesian'. So why did you mention them in your reply? -
Just in case. I thought you'd still continue with that. I'm glad you don't.
It's quite possible that the seven major haplogroups don't indicate as many as seven major crossings, but it's quite likely they represent at least several.
If they would be working with genes, then the result would not be haplogroups (from haploid) but "diplogroups" (from diploid, just made it up), if anything:
The Structure algorithm [12] is a Bayesian clustering technique used to infer population structure from recombining genes (i.e., genes that are inherited from more than one parent).
Any population that has some structure will show them after running the program/algorithm. Europeans do too.
These diploid (autosomal DNA) clusters are in my opinion more likely to signal "recent" endogamy within the cluster than anything too deep in time. What the clusters say: is this individual is genetically more akin to this and that other, etc. Normally they will cluster with their community and neighbors, unless there's been some sort of "apartheid barrier".
But anyhow, Resnik at all analyzed linguistic units, not genes.
So the most you get is a likelihood of linguistic affinity.
It is interesting, in any case, to see that some communities have linguistic elements from others, that sprachbund and substrate/superstrate influence do affect languages.
I'd be interesting to make something of the like in Eurasia. It's not essentially different than the Greenberg's method but it's more automatic and neutral.
And anyhow my apologies if my post caused you any confusion in this aspect. My excuse is that I was not really paying too much attention to what I wrote that day:
I'm feeling intellectually saturated right now and don't feel like writing or even reading too much at the moment.
"If they would be working with genes, then the result would not be haplogroups (from haploid) but 'diplogroups' (from diploid, just made it up)".
There is not really such a thing as 'diplogroups' because any one individual can very easily have two different genes for a given characteristic. Anyway haplogroups behave pretty much the same as dominant genes as they spread through a population.
"Any population that has some structure will show them after running the program/algorithm. Europeans do too".
And obviously there was more than just one migration into Europe.
I agree that isolation and endogamy 'could' be the cause. But I see no reason to assume humans crossed Wallacea just once. Surely once they'd developed the technology capable of crossing there would have been some degree of to and fro movement. elements of technology certainly seem to have crossed at various times.
There is not really such a thing as 'diplogroups'...
I know: it was some sort of silly joke.
"Any population that has some structure will show them after running the program/algorithm. Europeans do too".
And obviously there was more than just one migration into Europe.
Maybe or maybe not. Much of the structure does not seem migrational but rather the product of regional homogenization.
Anyhow, my point was and is that if you'd run Structure or a similar K-means algorithm in a Basque or Maori sample it would produce clusters, because that's what the algorithm does. The clusters may or not reflect the underlying structure perfectly but I presume that these programs are refined in order to give the best possible results.
I agree that isolation and endogamy 'could' be the cause.
It's probably the main cause behind all haploid clusters, as well as in phenotype ones (aka "races"). Endogamous homogenization is surely one of the main process in action after a population is established, making it to end up somewhat different than other groups.
A founder effect or hypothetical bottleneck alone should not produce this kind of whole-genome differences. For example, the HapMap CEU sample (whites from Utah, with mostly English ascendancy) are not really different from true English. They have surely been subject to a number of founder effects too. But in order to show up as something different they should have been isolated and endogamous for many millennia probably.
That's what I think.
But I see no reason to assume humans crossed Wallacea just once.
I don't really know. It doesn't need to be just once but I do have the impression that migration into Sahul stopped after a while. With the peoples of Australia, Melanesia and even the Negritos of Sundaland and Wallacea (and to an extent each group from each other) being essentially isolated from both East Asians and South Asians - until probably the Neolithic period. Otherwise they'd be more similar genetically to their neighbors of the mainland.
Much of the structure does not seem migrational but rather the product of regional homogenization.
May I extend into what I mean with this? Guess so.
For example there is one Spanish (or probably Iberian - but not Basque) cluster in Bauchet'07. It is so marked that shows up at K=3 even if Spaniards are not oversampled. What kind of migration would explain this Iberia-only dominant cluster?
Notice that Iberians do have a secondary component that is East Mediterranean (and probably also a North African one, though this one does not appear in Bauchet'07 for reasons of sampling strategy) and that can be attributed to Neolithic and post-Neolithic migrations.
So what kind of migration could explain that Iberian dominant cluster? None I can imagine. But, when you consider the possibility of regional homogenization, then the Iberia(xBasques) cluster makes total sense because it was a region with its own personality through all the Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic period, and that is what the clusters appear to indicate.
The East Mediterranean (red) cluster is not different, even if it shows signal of expansion: it has a clear early Neolithic ("Anatolian") affinity, including most of the structure of Greeks, Armenians and Ashkenazim. Same can be said of the Central-North European cluster, which would seem to represent the Rhin-Danube Paleolithic province, while the Basque cluster surely represents the remnants of the Franco-Cantabrian province (not enough data from France to judge but check this post by Herauscorritse, where a South-SW genetic cluster is shown to appear in France, with Basques having the greatest values).
So yes, I do think that K-means haploid DNA clusters seem to show processes of regional convergence in genotype (and surely also in phenotype, naturally).
PS- here is the link for Bauchet'07, because I'm sure you will ask... :)
Thanks for all those ideas. I largely agree, but I'll just go back to one comment regarding Sahul.
"Otherwise they'd be more similar genetically to their neighbors of the mainland".
The reason they're not very similar at all is that the mainland, and especially the islands west of Wallacea, has been subject to considerable Neolithic immigration from further north, the Austronesian-speaking people. This has resulted in the population of SE Asia being more East Asian looking. I suspect the Austronesians were able to replace the Papuan-looking people through South China and island SE Asia because their technology allowed denser population. The people of Timor, in the extreme south of the region in question, display more Papuan ancestry than do most others through the region. The populations of New Guinea and Australia were large enough to prevent intensive settled farming, although people in New Guinea presumably already had agriculture to some degree.
"With the peoples of Australia, Melanesia and even the Negritos of Sundaland and Wallacea (and to an extent each group from each other) being essentially isolated from both East Asians and South Asians - until probably the Neolithic period".
The Austronesians are the Neolithic people obviously. But the other three groups all look different from each other. Possibly through 'regional homogenization' but even more likely through largely separate migration flows. Even within Australia the people from Northern Queensland look more like people from New Guinea than they do to other Aborigines, so are probably relatively more recent arrivals.
I mean the mainland north of the Kraa isthmus (or wherever the Negrito-Mongoloid divide used to be, maybe further north). There is a clear difference between the peoples who went south and those who went north at SE Asia. These two clusters of people have not significatively interacted with each other in many millennia. I also meant the peoples of South Asia, for the same reason.
I suspect the Austronesians were able to replace the Papuan-looking people through South China and island SE Asia...
Why do you place "Papuan-looking" people in South China? Any evidence of it?
Anyhow the Papuan look is probably somewhat recent, part of the process of convergence among some peoples living in the same area (New Guinea) and interacting with each other much more intensely than with other groups.
... because their technology allowed denser population.
You are implying that the Mongoloid type only migrated to SE Asia with Neolithic. I suspect that is too late but I might be wrong. Austronesians are of course Neolithic but what about Austroasiatics, who seem much older in the region?
The populations of New Guinea and Australia were large enough to prevent intensive settled farming...
Can't agree. Papuans were/are Neolithic themselves, so guess this applies but only because they adopted farming. Anyhow, their territory is marginal (remote muddy jungle) and they used to be very hostile to outsiders. Other melanesians also managed to divert Austronesians in other directions, probably by adopting farming themselves as well.
But Australian Aborigins were never many precisely because they were not agriculturalists. My guess is that the island continent is too remote and the lands easily reachable from Asia are hostile (jungle or desert), rather dissuading colonization.
If Austronesians would have found East/SE Australia, they would probably have colonized it without major problems other than securing some sort of migrational flow (Polynesian colonization at least seems to have been done by a spat of small pioneering groups, so not sure if this would have worked in such a huge "island" as Australia).
But the other three groups all look different from each other. Possibly through 'regional homogenization' but even more likely through largely separate migration flows. Even within Australia the people from Northern Queensland look more like people from New Guinea than they do to other Aborigines, so are probably relatively more recent arrivals.
Maybe just areal homogenization, but from before the sea level rise (though the Torres Strait Islanders seem to have been trading with New Guinea historically).
I don't think this diverse migrations' hypothesis explains much. Of course there may be an influence of founder effects but these are more clearly detected at the haploid level than at the autosomal one, IMO.
Let me be more clear about the "Papuan look". I don't think that Australian Aborigines, island Melanesians (at least largely) or Philippines' or Malaysia's Negritos look at all like Papuans. They are totally different groups, at least in looks.
This is another reason why I feel that these diverse populations, even if maybe sharing a common origin at the time of colonization of SE Asia and continental Australasia, have lead very different histories with each group converging into their own "genotype" and morphotype. In Eurasia this was less extreme because the various peoples were not so extremely isolated for the most part, with some exceptions, like the Ainu or the Andamanese.
"These two clusters of people have not significatively interacted with each other in many millennia".
Not true. It's universally considered that the 'East Asian' phenotype is relatively recent in SE Asia, so it must have come from elsewhere. Presumably from further north. I'll try to find a link tomorrow. All the information I have on the subject is in books.
"Why do you place 'Papuan-looking' people in South China? Any evidence of it?"
It was generally accepted right from the 1960s, although it is little mentioned these days. Skulls in the region before about 5000-7000 years ago are considered to be 'Papuan' rather than 'East Asian'. Through much of the region in question these 'Papuan-looking' people are associated with the Hoabinhian, or variations of it.
You are implying that the Mongoloid type only migrated to SE Asia with Neolithic".
That's generally accepted to be so. And probably the reason for the genetic division between North and South China Dienekes recently posted about.
"what about Austroasiatics, who seem much older in the region?"
Austronesians are probably just the branch of Austoasiatics who moved south by sea rather than by land. So they're roughly contemporary with each other.
"and they used to be very hostile to outsiders".
Agreed. That may be the main reason for the relative lack of Austronesian settlement there. On the other hand Austronesians may, until then, have been moving into what had become pretty much uninhabited smaller islands, as they were to do as they moved further out into the Pacific. So they habitually bypassed inhabited ones.
"I don't think that Australian Aborigines, island Melanesians (at least largely) or Philippines' or Malaysia's Negritos look at all like Papuans".
I agree. 'They are [all] totally different groups, at least in looks'. And that's my main point. That's why I doubt very much that they are a product of 'maybe sharing a common origin at the time of colonization of SE Asia and continental Australasia'. They basically have separate origins from way back in time.
"(or wherever the Negrito-Mongoloid divide used to be, maybe further north)".
According to Dienekes' post on the modern north/south genetic division in China: way north.
It's universally considered that the 'East Asian' phenotype is relatively recent in SE Asia, so it must have come from elsewhere.
I'm not so sure. Whatever the case, the other "Australoids" are not true Australoids (Australian Aborigines) but something else. The Ainu case is very clear.
For the rest, it's such a big thematic that it would take me long. Just say that while I have many doubts, I don't think I can agree easily with much of what you say.
Just this issue: I agree. 'They are [all] totally different groups, at least in looks'. And that's my main point. That's why I doubt very much that they are a product of 'maybe sharing a common origin at the time of colonization of SE Asia and continental Australasia'. They basically have separate origins from way back in time.
The time of colonization of SE Asia and continental Australasia is way back in time: it is almost the same as that of human spread in Eurasia (at least by the short count).
I recall from one of Cavalli-Sforza's books of the 90s, a graph that represented a possible genetic phylogeny of all humankind. In it, there was a Sahulian branch and short after its node, it got split between Papuans and Australian Aborigines. And both branches were extremely long.
I'm not claiming the validity of the whole tree but I do think that this deep division between Papuans and Australian Aborigines is for real and is from the time of the colonization of either Sahul or Wallacea, soon after Eurasians began to split.
It wasn't this tree but one quite similar.
Notice how Negritos cluster with SE Asians and not with Sahulians.
It was this tree, I'm pretty sure (it did not have the racial terms though).
"I don't think I can agree easily with much of what you say".
Because you know very little about the region.
"In it, there was a Sahulian branch and short after its node, it got split between Papuans and Australian Aborigines. And both branches were extremely long".
I'm familiar with the Cavalli-Sforza diagram. Thanks for the other one. The two are very similar. I'll come back to Australia/New Guinea.
"Notice how Negritos cluster with SE Asians and not with Sahulians".
In the first tree Negritos clump with Filipinos, Indonesians and Thais: modern SE Asians. That coincides with the linguistic data. Anthropologists in this part of the world have been arguing for years over whether Negritos speak an introduced language (are genetically pre-Austro-Asiatic) or whether they are survivors of the early Austro-Asiatic expansion. This diagram suggests the latter. That's why they don't cluster with Sahulians. Australia/New Guinea forms an outgroup to all these East Asians and so it seems their ancestors in SE Asia are now extinct. They have been obliterated by a more recent expansion from somewhere.
The first diagram further links the Austro-Asiatic/SE Asians to Northeast Asians: Tibetans, Mongolians, Koreans etc. This has been generally accepted by anthroplogists in this part of the world for 50 years but has obviously not caught on in your part of it.
I admit Cavalli-Sforza diagram is slightly different. He includes Northeast Asians and Indigenous American in a West Eurasian clade rather than with the SE Asians. And places Australia/New Guinea more towards the South China/SE Asia clade. This uncertainty is probably a result of ancient hybridism between several of the groups.
"this deep division between Papuans and Australian Aborigines is for real".
Definitely.
"and is from the time of the colonization of either Sahul or Wallacea".
Just as likely to be the result of separate ancient movements. Perhaps of originally fairly closely related people, but again not necessarily so.
"soon after Eurasians began to split".
And you believe that simply because you are totally committed to India as being a source population.
You have said in the past that you're not interested in this part of the world, but if you change your mind you will find I have covered it in my essays at remotecentral (in which I provide numerous widely respected references). Presumably you haven't realised that several well-respected geneticists from this part of the world working on SE Asia and the Pacific have read them, and agree with my observations. You may have already read the essays but you will bring a new understanding if you try again.
Here they are in order:
http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/2008/05/human-evolution-on-trial-eastern.html
http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/2008/02/human-evolution-on-trial-polynesian.html
http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/2007/12/human-evolution-on-trial-pacific.html
And finally one on Australia/New Guinea. We can easily discern more than just the two language groups, and perhaps migrations, I was able to recognise from the evidence available at the time:
http://remotecentral.blogspot.com/2007/12/human-evolution-on-trial-into-australia.html
Because you know very little about the region.
More than most in any case.
You have said in the past that you're not interested in this part of the world...
I don't think I said that, not that way. I have a greater interest in West Eurasia but Australasia is interesting too - just that less so for me.
In the first tree Negritos clump with Filipinos, Indonesians and Thais: modern SE Asians.
And Southern Chinese, Polynesians. They are SE Asians like the rest. At least by these parameters.
Anthropologists in this part of the world have been arguing for years over whether Negritos speak an introduced language (are genetically pre-Austro-Asiatic) or whether they are survivors of the early Austro-Asiatic expansion. This diagram suggests the latter.
AFAIK, only some mainland SE Asian Negritos (Semang, Mani) speak Austroasiatic (Mon-Khmer, specifically). And anyhow, being AA a well-defined linguistic family it probably has not much more than 10,000 of antiquity (20,000 if you push it a lot, that would be Hoabinhian maybe). Negritos are certainly in the area since long long long earlier. Andamanese speak their own languages (one or two distinct families) and all other Negritos speak Austronesian in fact.
They have been obliterated by a more recent expansion from somewhere.
I don't think so. I think that they just diverged independently in their various geographic niches.
The first diagram further links the Austro-Asiatic/SE Asians to Northeast Asians: Tibetans, Mongolians, Koreans etc. This has been generally accepted by anthroplogists in this part of the world for 50 years but has obviously not caught on in your part of it.
I do think this is more correct than the other graph. But notice that there is still a quite sharp distinction between NE Asians and SE Asians. Not all Mongoloids are the same, obviously.
And you believe that simply because you are totally committed to India as being a source population.
To India and SE Asia. Southern Asia in a loose sense.
It's not "commitment" (I don't get paid for that, believe me). It's rather conviction based on real data.
And finally one on Australia/New Guinea. We can easily discern more than just the two language groups, and perhaps migrations, I was able to recognise from the evidence available at the time...
I insist: discernible language families must be recent, in the most optimistic case, I could consider a Late Paleolithic origin. In most cases they are Neolithic or post-Neolithic. You can't discuss what happened 60,000 years ago based on language families.
Craniologically, they cluster with Caucasoids (at least Andamanese do). This does not surprise me the least. It's not just their common blondism but specially their facial traits and curly hair that remind a lot of some Mediterranean types often. I see some Negritos, specially from Philippines, and thing intuitively: "one of us" (though of course they are also different... but less than one would expect).
Genetically they are considered to be one (or various) early offshoots of Eurasian dispersal, with age estimates of c. 60,000 years ago.
Erratum:
The paragraph that begins with "Craniologically, they cluster with Caucasoids..." and the following one should be above, in the section I discuss Negrito origins.
Sorry, somehow they got scrambled, when I copy-pasted your quotations.
"And Southern Chinese, Polynesians. They are SE Asians like the rest".
Yes. They are SE Asians now. But when did they arrive there?
"only some mainland SE Asian Negritos (Semang, Mani) speak Austroasiatic (Mon-Khmer, specifically)".
And as you say, 'all other Negritos speak Austronesian in fact'. A single branch of AA, and even more recent in origin.
"being AA a well-defined linguistic family it probably has not much more than 10,000 of antiquity (20,000 if you push it a lot, that would be Hoabinhian maybe)".
And 10,000 years ago is about when AA speakers began arriving in SE Asia. The bulk of them arriving even more recently than that. Which makes it highly unlikely the Hoabinhian people spoke AA languages. Or that 'Negritos are certainly in the area since long long long earlier'. Unless this is relevant:
"Andamanese speak their own languages".
And they show connections to the Hoabinhian. So Negritos may be pre-AA, but they have adopted AA languages. Most, specifically of the Austronesian branch. The fact their languages can be classed as Austronesian should ring alarm bells for your theory of indigenous origin. The Austronesian languages are hardly older than about 6-7000 years.
"But notice that there is still a quite sharp distinction between NE Asians and SE Asians. Not all Mongoloids are the same, obviously".
Exactly. The southern ones are mixed with Papuan-type genes. So they didn't 'just diverged independently in their various geographic niches'. Which is an extremely unlikely scenario anyway. Surely we can assume that the first people to enter, and then cross, Wallacea would have looked almost exactly the same as their contemporaries in mainland SE Asia. So why are SE Asians so different now? And why do modern Wallaceans and mainland SE Asians show such a resemblance to modern NE Asians? Is it really possible to argue that the East Asian phenotype originated in SE Asia?
In fact the scattered modern SE Asian phenotype and languages in India are almost certainly a result of much the same expansion, originating from somewhere near the Hwang Ho River in China. The Han expansion is simply the latest in a long series.
"It's rather conviction based on real data".
But ignoring large amounts of other data.
"In most cases they are Neolithic or post-Neolithic".
That's each individual language, yes. But they a hardly all classified into a single family so your comment, 'discernible language families must be recent, in the most optimistic case' is irelevant. We're not talking about a single language family.
But when did they arrive there? -
Austronesias probably coalesced in Taiwan (SE Asia) "since always". South Chinese, excepting some historical input from the north, too (they were not "Chinese" then of course).
And 10,000 years ago is about when AA speakers began arriving in SE Asia.
How do you know?
"Andamanese speak their own languages".
And they show connections to the Hoabinhian.
First time I heard such thing. Can you document this claim?
So Negritos may be pre-AA, but they have adopted AA languages. Most, specifically of the Austronesian branch.
Austroasiatic and Austronesian are distinct language families with different histories and probably origins.You must be dwelling on one of those fringe hypothesis on super-families, that are so far only speculations.
Please do not present such fringe speculations as factual data: they are not.
The fact their languages can be classed as Austronesian should ring alarm bells for your theory of indigenous origin. The Austronesian languages are hardly older than about 6-7000 years.
They adopted their neighbors' languages, just like Pygmies adopted Bantu. What the heck?!
Exactly. The southern ones are mixed with Papuan-type genes.
Doubt it. Where is the evidence?
This old-fashioned hypothesis that places the origin of the Mongoloid type in NE Asia is for me as far fetched as the classical proto-Nazi hypothesis that placed the origins of Caucasoids in Scandinavia.
The populations all the time were much more dense towards the south, naturally, and most of the regional morphological convergence processes took probably place there, both in West and East Eurasia. Native Americans illustrate some of the diversity that existed before this morphotype had time to fully coalesce, and they are clearly original from NE Asia (and yet more similar often to SE Asians).
All phylogenies, even that of Y-DNA N (spread essentially through North Eurasia), appear to have a southern origin (the northernmost one being N, that might have coalesced near modern Shanghai). The general pattern must have been a south-to-north one, though there was an inversion with Neolithic (specially Austronesians).
Surely we can assume that the first people to enter, and then cross, Wallacea would have looked almost exactly the same as their contemporaries in mainland SE Asia. So why are SE Asians so different now? And why do modern Wallaceans and mainland SE Asians show such a resemblance to modern NE Asians? Is it really possible to argue that the East Asian phenotype originated in SE Asia? -
Yes, because SE Asia is much larger than island SE Asia. South China for instance, including the Taiwanese origin of Austronesians or the surely mainland SE Asian origin of Austroasiatics were surely more in contact with NE Asia all the time and they probably gave origin to the Mongoloid phenotype.
Meanwhile Negritos and their distant Australian and Melanesian cousins continued their different and differentiating evolution in isolation most likely, south of the Kraa isthmus.
That is my opinion.
"In most cases they are Neolithic or post-Neolithic".
That's each individual language, yes.
No. The families are. For reference Afroasiatic might have 10 Ky (or even up to 20 by some accounts), Indoeuropean is about 6000 years old, etc. Individual languages like English or Tagalog may have something like 1000 years: they are recent evolutions.
The consensus among many knowledgeable linguists is that somewhere around 10 Ky there is barrier that makes almost impossible to discern linguistic affinities. Of course, there are a handful that are more adventurous but we must take their highly speculative conclusions with a good dose of salt.
... so your comment, 'discernible language families must be recent, in the most optimistic case' is irelevant. We're not talking about a single language family.
It is very relevant. And anyhow it's so obvious that neither Austroasiatic nor Austronesian are the original Negrito languages that it doesn't really matter. It's not different than if they spoke Latin or English because it's not their ancestral language in any case.
"Austronesias probably coalesced in Taiwan (SE Asia) 'since always'".
Rubbish. Some of their ancestors were probably ther a long time. But the original Austronesians-speaking people were most likely a combination of several different groups.
"How do you know?"
The archeology of the region indicates a new people and technology moving into Indo-China from about then. The consensus is they came from further north. The Thais' own myths and legends even claim that to be so.
"First time I heard such thing. Can you document this claim?"
I provided you with a link some time back. You obviously didn't read it then, so why would things be different now? It doesn't fit your theory.
"Austroasiatic and Austronesian are distinct language families with different histories and probably origins".
Austronesian is usually considered to be a branch of Austro-Asiatic. The connection is obviously tenuous, and denied by those for whom it doesn't fit their theory. It's certainly not a 'fringe hypothesis'. We can be sure that Austronesian didn't spring up magically out of nothing.
"This old-fashioned hypothesis that places the origin of the Mongoloid type in NE Asia is for me as far fetched as the classical proto-Nazi hypothesis that placed the origins of Caucasoids in Scandinavia".
So where do you believe the Mongoloid type first appeared? India, I presume.
"Native Americans illustrate some of the diversity that existed before this morphotype had time to fully coalesce, and they are clearly original from NE Asia (and yet more similar often to SE Asians)".
I doubt if you'd find anyone who agrees that Native Americans are similar to SE Asians. They may look it to you of course.
And do you really believe that the regional variation that presently exists within the human species has all developed within the short time humans have been in America? What intense selection pressure could possibly have acted in each separate region over just that period? A post at anthropology.net claims even H. erectus didn't vary regionally, and they were around for close to a million years.
(continued)
"the surely mainland SE Asian origin of Austroasiatics were surely more in contact with NE Asia all the time and they probably gave origin to the Mongoloid phenotype".
And what on earth would possibly cause the Mongolian phenotype to arise in SE Asia? A founder effect from India? Your theory demands an almost continuous series of founder effects and extreme inbreeding. Most unlikely.
"Meanwhile Negritos and their distant Australian and Melanesian cousins continued their different and differentiating evolution in isolation most likely, south of the Kraa isthmus".
I see now why you've chosen the Kraa isthmus as your dividing point. It can be easily manipulated to fit your theory. India as origin. You are able to postulate Papuans/Negritos south of it (where they survive today) and Mongolians north of it. Unfortunately the evidence doesn't fit your theory. The dividing line is well north of the peninsular. Possibly as far north as the Tsin Ling Mountains. Of course the Papuan/Mongoloid boundary may lie somewhere near the latitude of Taiwan. Anyway your Kraa theory actually falls down completely when we realise the Hoabinhian and the Papuan-phenotype were at one time spread way up into Vietnam and even South China. The Mongolian phenotype in Indo-China is no more than about 7000 years old.
"It is very relevant".
No, it's not. We're talking about several individual language families. If I remember correctly we have up to seven language families in New Guinea. Each individual language family may have started diversifying 10Kya but that tells us nothing about ancient separations between the families, or even if they are indeed connected. You go to the trouble of saying, 'The consensus among many knowledgeable linguists is that somewhere around 10 Ky there is barrier that makes almost impossible to discern linguistic affinities'. Agreed, but what's that got to do with any connection between the separate New Guinea language families and movement across Wallacea?
It does have everything to do with the expansion of Austronesian, however. It places the origin, and expansion, of the language family at less that 10K, and probably nearer 7K. But where did it come from? Even if it's indigenous to Taiwan it's origianl connections lie further north, not to the south.
"It's not different than if they spoke Latin or English because it's not their ancestral language in any case".
It's possible they are related to the original Papuan-type people who inhabited the region before the Austronesian expansion. But some anthropologists believe they're actually rather recent in the region and are a remnant of the advance wave of Austronesian-speaking immigrants. I wouldn't commit to either scenarion at this stage.
Sorry, I had to come back.
"They adopted their neighbors' languages, just like Pygmies adopted Bantu. What the heck?!"
That should tell you that the Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian languages were brought in by immigrants. The Negritos, who may or may not be related to Papuans or Hoabinhians, are today found only in isolated jungles or jungle-covered islands. How could we explain this disjointed distribution?
Surely the obvious conclusion we must come to is that they were once more widespread and have been replaced by other people through much of their previous geographic range. Who are the obvious candidates to have been responsible for such a replacement? And where did they come from?
The Thais' own myths and legends even claim that to be so.
Daic and Burmic are attested almost historically. But they come from other regions of SE Asia, namely Southern China.
But, anyhow, what about Austroasiatics? They must be at least from Neolithic, maybe older. The Munda, whatever Wikipedia says, are probably the introductors of rice farming into India. And rice farming is for sure a SE Asian development (whether Thai, Cambodian or South Chinese, I don't know for sure).
And what on earth would possibly cause the Mongolian phenotype to arise in SE Asia? -
No idea. I don't think that looks are adaptative but just family traits that tend to diverge along time... except where they converge: in endogamic regions. East Asia as a whole is an endogamic region, Australia is another and West Eurasia yet another. Even Africa is to a large extent. That's how morphotypes (races) were formed: by almost exclusive regional interaction through thousands of generations.
As Dienekes more or less demonstrated recently neither Polynesians nor "true Mongloids" (Mongols, Inuits) cluster well with Chinese and the like in morphology. They are different (sub-)clusters.
I see now why you've chosen the Kraa isthmus as your dividing point. It can be easily manipulated to fit your theory. India as origin. You are able to postulate Papuans/Negritos south of it (where they survive today) and Mongolians north of it.
Mongoloids. Mongolians have always lived north of the Kraa isthmus but too far north to mean anything.
But sure, that's the main reason: it make sense.
The dividing line is well north of the peninsular. Possibly as far north as the Tsin Ling Mountains.
Reference?
The Quinling mountains are in Northern China anyhow. That's a brutality! You're basically saying that a bunch of seminomadic farmers totally annihilated the whole population of a quarter of all Asia or so. It's worse than the Bantu expansion in the midst of Iron Age or the colonization of Australia in Modern Age. In other words: it's impossible.
Also phylogenetics clearly point once and again to the South when looking for roots. O is most diverse in the South, C too, D as well and has probably a root in Thailand or somehwere nearby. Even mtDNA looks like branching out from SE Asia.
It's a total nonsense!
Each individual language family may have started diversifying 10Kya but that tells us nothing about ancient separations between the families, or even if they are indeed connected.
Exactly. That's why linguistics can't tell us anything about the Paleolithic.
but what's that got to do with any connection between the separate New Guinea language families and movement across Wallacea?-
It means that you can't say anything about what happened between, say, 60,000 and 10,000 years ago by looking at languages. Logically, there will be more families where the population is oldest and has not been shattered by recent migrations but that's about it.
But where did it come from? Even if it's indigenous to Taiwan it's origianl connections lie further north, not to the south.
Austronesian is a distinct language family and to have no proven connections with any other anywhere.
Tentative proposals include a Daic connection (that is not "further north", as Daics are from Southern China) and the Austric hypothesis, with Daic and Hmnong-Mien. All are southern but mainland, as opposed to Negritos: southern but (pen-)insular.
I wouldn't commit to either scenarion at this stage.
I would: they took off from Taiwan, where they still exist with huge diversity (though endangered by Chinese expansion) and, yes, they picked up all kind of other peoples' individuals or even groups at SE Asia and elsewhere but essentially they did that migration from Taiwan (and later from other islands).
That should tell you that the Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian languages were brought in by immigrants.
Yes: immigrants from mainland SE Asia.
How could we explain this disjointed distribution?.
Where's the mystery? They are refugia.
Who are the obvious candidates to have been responsible for such a replacement? And where did they come from?
Austroasiatics first, from SE Asia. Austronesians later, from SE Asia.
This has gone on far too long but I'll make a few comments.
"But, anyhow, what about Austroasiatics? They must be at least from Neolithic, maybe older. The Munda, whatever Wikipedia says, are probably the introductors of rice farming into India".
Probably correct. But rice cultivation is not Paleolithic.
"I don't think that looks are adaptative but just family traits"
So white skin in Europe has nothing to do with vitamin D? I agree, it probably doesn't. But I thought you claimed it did.
"neither Polynesians nor 'true Mongloids' (Mongols, Inuits) cluster well with Chinese and the like in morphology. They are different (sub-)clusters".
Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along. 'True Mongoloids' are a northern people. Southern Chinese are even different from Northern Chinese. As you move south through China, and ultimately to the Indonesians and Polynesians, you get less of the Mongoloid phenotype. It becomes mixed with something else, presumably an older layer of 'Papuan' (in the widest sense, even Negrito) phenotype.
"Reference?"
A Peter Bellwood book, I'm afraid. If you're genuinely interested I'll try to find a link somewhere.
"Mongolians have always lived north of the Kraa isthmus but too far north to mean anything".
Rubbish. They have only lived as far south as the Kraa Isthmus in the last few thousand years.
"You're basically saying that a bunch of seminomadic farmers totally annihilated the whole population of a quarter of all Asia or so".
The heavily forested hill country of Southwestern China was probably virtually uninhabited until people capable of clearing the land and farming it arrived. Possibly much like the Neolithic movement into Europe, only the hill country in China is less inviting for hunter/gatherers. Many argue that the European Neolithic virtually replaced earlier people, so why would China be so different?
"O is most diverse in the South, C too, D as well"
People, including you, are constantly pointing out that 'greatest diversity' does not equate with 'origin'. We can assume populations numbers in the north have mostly been few, leading to reduced diversity anyway.
"they took off from Taiwan"
The Negritos? I don't think so. Not unless you're sure they are remnants of the first Austronesian expansion. I thought you disagreed with that hypothesis. You believed Negritos are older.
Obviously agriculture is not Paleolithic by definition. What's your point? I'm just saying that Austroasiatics surely experienced a migration from SE Asia to parts of South Asia after Neolithic. Hence they should be in SE Asia at and probably before the start of Neolithic.
Rice may have been first cultivated in Burma, Thailand or South China (all in SE Asia). It might have got two or one domestication events.
So white skin in Europe has nothing to do with vitamin D? I agree, it probably doesn't. But I thought you claimed it did.
The pigmentation evolution of East Asians in general is mostly independent of that of West Asians. They are parallel but not directly related. The evolutionary solutions were different and affect different genes, however the pigment system of East Eurasians is not well understood yet. Anyhow, SE Asians are quite dark, the ones that compare well with Europeans in this aspect are NE Asians (and not always).
This different pigmentation evolution is one of the reasons why I think that Eurasians spread in a U pattern, with two main branches: East (older) and West (younger), plus an array of tropical groups who did not have to face the pigmentation/vit. D problem and hence remained mostly dark (though with many variants).
Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along. 'True Mongoloids' are a northern people. Southern Chinese are even different from Northern Chinese.
Yes but they are not Papuans nor anything of the like. And they are most closely related to NE Asians (haplogroup O, etc.)
It becomes mixed with something else, presumably an older layer of 'Papuan' (in the widest sense, even Negrito) phenotype.
So you think that if you mix a Mongol with a Papuan or Negrito you get a Cambodian? I can't but disagree. If you mix a South Chinese (Taiwan Austronesian for instance) with a Melanesian, you may get what is sometimes found among Polynesians. Cambodians and the like are much more like Taiwan Austronesians and this is what I think existed in mainland SE Asia in the late Paleolithic, more or less.
Northern Mongoloids are derived from this SE Asian population. They may have been diverging for long but also converging again at various times and that's why the basic phenotype has been kept through all the subcontinental region.
"Reference?"
A Peter Bellwood book, I'm afraid. If you're genuinely interested I'll try to find a link somewhere.
I'm genuinely interested in knowing who claims such brutality and specially why. So I can judge after reviewing all the archaeological data in detail.
This is Peter Bellwood's university homepage, with several links to various of his papers. Maybe you can point to me where he deals with that (I prefer online materials).
Whatever the case he has recently collaborated with Colin Renfrew, what is suggestive that he has a bias in favor of massive Neolithic migrations and their association with modern language families. A bias I don't like much in principle (I consider Renfrew a bad prehistorian that has caused much confusion with no basis).
"Mongolians have always lived north of the Kraa isthmus but too far north to mean anything".
Rubbish. They have only lived as far south as the Kraa Isthmus in the last few thousand years.
Again: references, please.
The heavily forested hill country of Southwestern China was probably virtually uninhabited until people capable of clearing the land and farming it arrived.
That's just an speculation you have, the oldest (arguably) human remain of all East Eurasia is Liujiang, which may not be a modern Mongoloid but is not so distant anyhow. Then it comes Minatogawa (who looks like a proto-Mongoloid to me but has been argued to be something else), from Okinawa, and then the bunch of archaic (and quite non-Mongoloid) Upper Cave remains. There's nothing else before Neolithic.
Sadly the archaeology of SE Asia is very poor, so we can't judge from it too much.
People, including you, are constantly pointing out that 'greatest diversity' does not equate with 'origin'.
Do you understand the issues with diversity? I say that greatest diversity may be caused in some cases by migration from different origins but that doesn't mean that greater diversity has nothing to do with origin necessarily. In principle, when a single population expands, diversity should accumulate near the origin of that expansion and less top level diversity should reach the extremes. It's like a bunch of fleas jumping at random: most should end not too far from the origin, only few will go far away in a finite lapse of time.
So in-clade diversity is a clue, even if not definitive evidence for all cases, pointing to the possible origin of the clade.
"they took off from Taiwan"
The Negritos?.
No, the Austronesians! LOL.
"I'm just saying that Austroasiatics surely experienced a migration from SE Asia to parts of South Asia after Neolithic".
At the same time as various Austro-Asiatic groups were moving overland south into Indo-China and west into India. And you can still claim that Austronesian is unrelated to any Austro-Asiatic languages?
"The pigmentation evolution of East Asians in general is mostly independent of that of West Asians".
So what? Surely we're not just talking pigment. East Asians don't just have a different skin colour from Europeans, you know. Do you really have trouble distinguishing the two phenotypes?
"Northern Mongoloids are derived from this SE Asian population".
Are you actually telling me that, as humans moved north from Indo-China through China, they developed the features that would be able to help them so much in the snow-covered grassland that was to become their new home, Mongolia? Most extreme example of pre-adaptation I've ever heard of.
"Yes but they are not Papuans nor anything of the like".
Of course they're not, now. I'd like to return to your earlier dismissive comments regarding the Tsin Ling Shan. That geographic marker fits extremely well with the boundary you offered as separating 'True Mongoloids' from 'Chinese Mongoloids'. Still don't believe me?
"So you think that if you mix a Mongol with a Papuan or Negrito you get a Cambodian?"
Basically yes. But a Mongol/Papuan mix would give something more like a Polynesian. Cambodians are more probably a mix of Indian and Mongolian, with a little bit of Papuan or Negrito thrown in. Have you actually met any Cambodians? I regularly have coffee at a shop run by some.
"If you mix a South Chinese (Taiwan Austronesian for instance) with a Melanesian, you may get what is sometimes found among Polynesians".
As I said, Polynesians are basically a mix of Mongoloid and Melanesian.
"I'm genuinely interested in knowing who claims such brutality and specially why".
It's not brutality. There was hardly anyone there.
"the oldest (arguably) human remain of all East Eurasia is Liujiang"
And what was the climate in the region like at the time? Open forest and grassland. Ideal habitat. Jungle closed in as the climate changed. The same for other early East Asian and SE Asian occupation sites.
"(who looks like a proto-Mongoloid to me but has been argued to be something else), from Okinawa"
We usually assume the Ancient Japanese, the Ainu, did not originally look particularly Mongoloid. More recently introduced genotypes have altered the Ainu phenotype toward Mongolian.
"In principle, when a single population expands, diversity should accumulate near the origin of that expansion"
Not necessarily. Surely it would diversify AS it expanded. Especially if it originally consisted of just a few men or women.
"No, the Austronesians! LOL".
There is virtually no doubt that the Austronesians came from Taiwan. But they derive from a mix of people who had made it to that island over a period of time. They hadn't always been 'Austronesians'. There is some evidence that the final ingredient in the recipe was a group who carried a microlithic technology south from Japan.
The Bellwood references In this first one he takes for granted that the Neolithic travelled south from the Yantse Basin to Island SE Asia. And it has a nice map:
http://arts.anu.edu.au/AandA/people/staff/pdfs/bellwood2001.pdf
This one starts with Australia and Tasmania but later has some stuff on the Austronesian language and expansion. It then goes on to the Lapita:
http://arts.anu.edu.au/AandA/people/staff/pdfs/bellwood_hiscock.pdf
And this deals with the Taiwan/Philippines movement, but doesn't go back much further. However it does stress that this original Austronesian expansion is the immediate product of several movements into Taiwan:
http://arts.anu.edu.au/AandA/people/staff/pdfs/bellwood_geneva_paper2008.pdf
I can't prove that AN and AA are unrelated. Nobody can. In fact they are surely related at some prehistoric point of divergence, as are all human languages surely.
But anyhow, linguists can't prove they are related and most of them prefer therefore to treat them as separate unrelated families. And that means that they were different languages (or language fmailies) already by Neolithic.
All the rest you say is nothing but speculation.
East Asians don't just have a different skin colour from Europeans, you know. Do you really have trouble distinguishing the two phenotypes? -
As far as I can tell, pigmentation genetics are different among the two groups (and when they are coincident, they are at pan-Eurasian level, not at any "North-Eurasian" level that does not seem to exist anywhere in the genetic pool).
East Asian pigmentation alleles, for what I could read, are highly effective in skin cancer protection, what the Western depigmentation system is not. They have some regional evolutionary uniqueness we just don't (and vice versa, of course).
Are you actually telling me that, as humans moved north from Indo-China through China, they developed the features that would be able to help them so much in the snow-covered grassland that was to become their new home, Mongolia? Most extreme example of pre-adaptation I've ever heard of.
I don't share that "classical" explanation of Mongoloid features anymore. Actually Siberia and surroundings was not snow-covered grassland in the Ice-Age for the most part but permafrosted rock semi-deserts. It seems that the humidity of the area was too low to allow any sort of ice or snow covering, just like happens today in some parts of Antarctica. It was very cold but there was little ice/snow.
Mongoloid features are surely just a random result among other possible ones. They surely have no adaptative value whatsoever, except pigmentation (of course), which is very much clinal.
... regarding the Tsin Ling Shan. That geographic marker fits extremely well with the boundary you offered as separating 'True Mongoloids' from 'Chinese Mongoloids'.
Actually Northern Chinese clustered in Dienekes' study with South Chinese and not Mongols. I called that cluster "Sinoid" in fact.
However I also have many reserves on the genetic and pylogenetic predictive value of phenotype. It's too plastic and, as Dienekes demonstrated (accidentally and against his own beliefs), there is wide and unexpected phenotype variability among the so-called Mongoloids, when sufficiently sampled. Instead Caucasoids cluster very tightly in morphology (he could not find any divergence between Norwegians and Egyptians for instance - even if he dug quite deep), what may be a sign of a more recent common origin (maybe).
It may mean that we can't talk anymore of any Mongoloid phenotype cluster but several (even if related).
Have you actually met any Cambodians? -
No that I know but in this age of TV and Internet that doesn't matter.
"So you think that if you mix a Mongol with a Papuan or Negrito you get a Cambodian?"
Basically yes. But a Mongol/Papuan mix would give something more like a Polynesian. Cambodians are more probably a mix of Indian and Mongolian, with a little bit of Papuan or Negrito thrown in.
I think this is highly speculative, like the infamous "Australoid" tag used for so many different peoples from Yemen or Europe to Japan historically.
As I said, Polynesians are basically a mix of Mongoloid and Melanesian.
Do you recall that study that demonstrated that morphologically Mexicans (mestizos) are not just a mix of Europeans and Native Americans but a novel "race" (morphotype) on their own right? I don't have the link anymore but maybe you can recall or find it.
In biology 1+1=2 is not always true. Maybe just remember the extreme case of the black and white twin girls (from a mixed couple) just a year or two ago.
Anyhow, there must have been an Austronesian variant of the "Mongoloid" phenotype and not just a basic ideal and abstract "Mongoloid" one, which does not seem to exist south of Mongolia.
Things are more complex than your 19th century style hyper-simplistic anthropometry seems to imply. In fact, I'd ignore anthropometry altogether because of its massive uncertainties.
And what was the climate in the region like at the time? -
I don't know. Do you?
This seems another fetish of you. I understand that Homo sapiens can perfectly live in any habitat that has a more or less stable and warm subtropical temperature. Jungle or savanna is less important.
We usually assume the Ancient Japanese, the Ainu, did not originally look particularly Mongoloid. More recently introduced genotypes have altered the Ainu phenotype toward Mongolian.
Admixture is brutal. The Ainu of today are often much more Yayoi (Japanese) than Ainu. However you can still see some of the old phenotypes (specially in old photos).
But anyhow it serves me to illustrate the process of phenotype convergence. Because the Yayoi have also historically incorporated some of that Ainu (and a different one: Okinawan) phenotype.
My thesis would be:
1. Neighbor interacting (as opposed to isolated) peoples will eventually converge in phenotype in rather short time.
2. Phenotypes are anything but static, they change all the time, diverging and converging by social and biological separation and interatcion respectively.
3. A mixed phenotype is not just the sum of the parts but something else. However it illustrates thesis no. 2 in both ways: convergence and divergence.
Surely it would diversify AS it expanded.
Not if you consider diversity in a hierarchic manner. I mean: at the genetic top tier it must almost necessarily behave as I said.
What you say would be valid for diversity at a lower phylogenetic levels but never for the top one.
However back-migrations, multiple-origin immigration and the like can throw mud on the overall picture and we should be very careful when analyzing and judging, trying always to keep our mind open and aware of the evidence brought by other disciplines such as archaeology.
I'm reading your links right now but your phrasing suggests that I will not find any proof or indication that it is that way:
... he takes for granted that the Neolithic travelled south from the Yantse Basin to Island SE Asia.
That's my problem: taking for granted anything without any clear evidence. Looks a belief rather than anything scientific.
In much of this region, small flake industries often continue apparently without a break from Preceramic into Neolithic assemblages, but since such flake tools are virtually universal prior to the common use of iron, this need mean little. Such a circumstance can only be taken to imply continuity if it is supported by other data sets.
He's dribbling the evidence, rationalizing his beliefs. He should at least explore the fine detail of this evidence, which is obviously crucial to the case.
As happens in Cardial Neolithic, continuity in tool assemblages is crucial to determine whether the newly appearing farmer site is product of colonization or local continuity through economic transformation (and possibly cultural assimilation).
When he analyzes hunter-gatherer resistence to "agriculturation" he disdains the fact that, in the past, as could still be observed in America, many transitional cultures also existed and that many hunter-gatherers no doubt adopted farming gradually, first as dietary complement, etc.
This situation must have existed in the Old World as well in very large areas in the (now so distant) Neolithic expansion process and I think it is detectable in the archaeological record (Pitted Ware for example). It may even have been in many places (Northern Europe for instance) the actual balance reached for a while after the sharp early farmers' expansion, which declined even more sharply a few centuries after beginning.
Still reading. It's interesting but I do think he's biased in favor of migrationism without any reason.
Also,checking now for the current understanding of Neolithic development in East Asia. It seems that the two oldest farming cultures are in Hunan (South China, Pengtoushan culture since 7500 BCE) and Henan (North China, Peiligang culture since 7000 BCE). This speaks volumes against the classical (but false) concept of a Neolithic migration of Mongoloids from North China.
I wonder if the Hunan farmers spoke proto-Austroasiatic or what? The area is now homeland of Daic peoples instead.
Thanks for following it all up and providing that multitude of
links. I'm a bit busy at the moment. We have little chickens, ducklings and pheasant chicks. They take fairly constant attention. A few observations:
"East Asian pigmentation alleles, for what I could read, are highly effective in skin cancer protection".
Probably indicating they evolved and became selected for in a high light intensity environment, perhaps at high altitude. For example, Mongolia.
"Mongoloid features are surely just a random result among other possible ones".
I doubt that very much. And I would have thought the shape of their eyes is one of their most obvious characteristics. Nothing to do with skin pigmentation, and also possibly a product of a high light intensity environment.
"Actually Northern Chinese clustered in Dienekes' study with South Chinese and not Mongols".
Well. That further supports the separation being at the Tsin Ling Shan.
"there is wide and unexpected phenotype variability among the so-called Mongoloids, when sufficiently sampled".
But surely that's because Chinese and SE Asians are usually lumped in with them. In that case it's hardly surprising they display 'phenotype variability'. Your comment, 'It may mean that we can't talk anymore of any Mongoloid phenotype cluster but several' is therefore exactly correct.
"Do you recall that study that demonstrated that morphologically Mexicans (mestizos) are not just a mix of Europeans and Native Americans but a novel 'race' (morphotype) on their own right?"
That's basically what I'm saying. Many 'races', such as the Polynesians, are actually hybrid populations. Humans, as is the case with most species, show the greatest divergence from the majority at the geographic extremes. But members of the geographic extremes have moved around and mixed. Probably more so for humans than is the case with most other species.
"there must have been an Austronesian variant of the 'Mongoloid' phenotype and not just a basic ideal and abstract 'Mongoloid' one, which does not seem to exist south of Mongolia".
I keep telling you that the 'ideal Mongoloid' phenotype doesn't exist south of Mongolia. The 'Austronesian variant', and any other seemingly 'Mongoloid' phenotypes to the south, is the result of hybridism or introgression, call it what you will. You're not comfortable with the idea of hybridism, are you?
(continued)
"Things are more complex than your 19th century style hyper-simplistic anthropometry seems to imply".
And far more complicated than what you believe. Humans didn't come out of Africa in a single group, settle in India for a time and then move to their assigned places, to remain settled there until anthropology developed. As you wrote, 'However back-migrations, multiple-origin immigration and the like can throw mud on the overall picture'.
"1. Neighbor interacting (as opposed to isolated) peoples will eventually converge in phenotype in rather short time".
As did the Austronesians, for example. And the Ainu.
"2. Phenotypes are anything but static, they change all the time, diverging and converging by social and biological separation and interatcion respectively".
And selection, as did the Mongoloids. And so did populations in tropical regions.
"3. A mixed phenotype is not just the sum of the parts but something else".
Because the hybrid itself then undergoes selection. And the hybrid phenotype will depend to a large extent on the relative contributions of the two, or more, populations involved. Basic animal breeding actually. In fact that's how new breeds have been formed for the last 150 years, at least. And still are.
"It's interesting but I do think he's biased in favor of migrationism without any reason".
Probaly the main reason he assumes migrationism in the region is because it's been fundamentally accepted as contributing substantially to Polynesian origins for so long. The Bellwood book I mentioned earlier was published in 1978, so he's obviously seen no evidence that would lead him to alter his view. Nor has anyone else in this part of the world.
"It seems that the two oldest farming cultures are in Hunan (South China, Pengtoushan culture since 7500 BCE) and Henan (North China, Peiligang culture since 7000 BCE). This speaks volumes against the classical (but false) concept of a Neolithic migration of Mongoloids from North China".
I'm afraid your final sentence doesn't follow at all from the first. The South China culture was almost certainly related to Hoabinhian, which has remote connections as far as New Guinea, where some type of farming may be 10K years old. The North China culture could well be at least partly Mongoloid.
Sorry. Correction. Both the Chinese cultures you reference are too far north to be Hoabinhian. By the time they appear the people in the region could well have had a 'Mongolian' input. So perhaps the people did speak an Austro-Asiatic language by then.
Some Internet sites re. Hoabinhian. I remember when I first mentioned the Hoabinian at Dienekes I went looking for links. I couldn't find a single one. Now there are pages of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoabinhian
Quote, "Beyond this core area some archaeologists argue that there are isolated inventories of stone artifacts displaying Hoabinhian elements in Nepal, South China, Taiwan and Australia (Moser 2001)".
And this:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/116/3/116_201/_article
Quote:
"The results suggest that the Hang Cho skeleton, as well as other early or pre-Holocene remains in Southeast Asia, represent descendants of colonizing populations of late Pleistocene Sundaland, who may share a common ancestry with present-day Australian Aboriginal and Melanesian people".
And this short extract from a book claims the same thing:
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=aEQ4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=hoabinhian+south+china&source=bl&ots=OH8doZ14dM&sig=77tGKr_WMF2_HoUbpkKVNDnge6k&hl=en&ei=d14jS8q6FIWYsgO8-YXhDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDIQ6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=hoabinhian%20south%20china&f=false
Man: Mongolia is not particularly high nor there is more solar radiation at high altitudes. This goes basically with latitude, not altitude.
You can argue all the theoretically you want but nothing of the Mongoloid phenotype is proven to serve to any particular purpose.
Northern Chinese live North of those Qinling mts., at least partly.
Selection must be proven. Selection anyhow only means normally weak preference for one out of several pre-existing geno-/phenotypes.
Etc.
Anyhow, some novel quite definitive evidence comes via Dienekes again (much against his preferences). I have commented in this post, a more proper forum probably.
I'm afraid your final sentence doesn't follow at all from the first. The South China culture was almost certainly related to Hoabinhian, which has remote connections as far as New Guinea, where some type of farming may be 10K years old. The North China culture could well be at least partly Mongoloid.
If they were related to Hoabinhian, only found in fact in Mainland SE Asia since c. 20,000 BP, that makes no connection with New Guinea, sorry.
If, as you sustain, they were not Mongoloids but they are the origin of Neolithic elsewhere, then your migrationist paradigm crumbles to dust.
Sincerely I don't care if they were Mongoloids, Sinoids or Negritoids, what I know is that Neolithic spread from Southern China and with it went whichever genes and phenotypes we find today widespread through Eastern Asia. Call them Hunanoids.
What type we find in Hunan? Negritos? Papuans? Eskimos? No! This is the type.
The Hang Cho guy of Vietnam is interesting anyhow. He's clearly dolicocephalous and in line with archaic types. Clusters well with Liujiang but it's pre-Mongoloid clearly.
Guess that with this evidence you can argue your positin better maybe but I can't agree on the extreme north origin of the dominant morphotype (Sinoid). It must have coalesced at South China then.
"Mongolia is not particularly high nor there is more solar radiation at high altitudes".
Most of Mongolia is over 1000 metres, and much of it more than 2000 metres in altitude. That's pretty high. And I'm afraid there is more solar radiation at high altitudes.
"what I know is that Neolithic spread from Southern China and with it went whichever genes and phenotypes we find today widespread through Eastern Asia".
Interesting you say that. Let's look at a recent paper you are so keen to show me. Leaving aside the argument over one migration to the east, or more, in the 'voluminous (and free) supplementary materials' Dienekes has kindly provided at his blog we find the following comment, in section 2.11.5:
"Subsequently, and particularly with the development of agriculture as a stimulus, populations in northern and central east Asia may have expanded southwards, altering the physical characteristics of the original inhabitants".
In another of Dienekes' posts you wrote:
"It's not any trekking contest, just a matter of population survival. Those areas provide resources and are passable by primitive barefooted humans"
Perhaps you've never been hiking in rainforest covered hills. So you may be intersted in this paper called "The Hoabinhian and their Island contemporaries".
http://epress.anu.edu.au/pima/pdf/ch06.pdf
In it we find the comment, 'An increasing density of vegetation in these areas would have affected hunting populations through a dimunition in mammal biomass, which decreases as one moves from optimal savanna conditions, through parkland, towards rainforest'. And it goes on about the difficulties encountered in rainforest. Interesting, don't you think?
"It must have coalesced at South China then".
You believe that only because it can be more easily made to fit your theory. You have no evidence for the statement at all.
"Selection anyhow only means normally weak preference for one out of several pre-existing geno-/phenotypes".
Ever heard of mutations?
And I'm afraid there is more solar radiation at high altitudes.
No (or not meaningfully in any case). See: Wikipedia-Insolation.
The main factor regulating insolation is latitude, and then obstacles such as cloudiness or forests.
we find the following comment, in section 2.11.5:
"Subsequently, and particularly with the development of agriculture as a stimulus, populations in northern and central east Asia may have expanded southwards, altering the physical characteristics of the original inhabitants".
Without further evidence this is nothing but a cliché founded on rather obsolete anthropometric speculation and/or also obsolete notions that agriculture was first in Northern China (not Mongolia in any case).
In it we find the comment, 'An increasing density of vegetation in these areas would have affected hunting populations through a dimunition in mammal biomass, which decreases as one moves from optimal savanna conditions, through parkland, towards rainforest'. And it goes on about the difficulties encountered in rainforest. Interesting, don't you think? -
So do you think this issues makes life impossible in the jungle or just less productive?
People could easily live in such jungles and it was just a matter of time until some group adopted them as their hunting grounds and homeland. With the signs of exploding population we percieve in early Eurasian genetic data, this colonization happened surely sooner than later.
The gentic evidence also suggests a strong South/SE Asia demic interaction early on. Whether it was through the swamps of Bengal or through the highlands of the Brahmaputra and Irrawady, or through both, I can't say for sure but happened.
Anyhow I think it was through both paths: one leading to highland SE Asia (and then to NE Asia) and the other to Sundaland and beyond maybe. These paths anyhow must have converged at mainland SE Asia somehow.
You develop too rigid and extreme conclussions from rather inconclusive comments, don't you?
You have no evidence for the statement at all.
The damn genetic diversity issue! That's the evidence - and pretty much the only one available, AFAIK.
"Selection anyhow only means normally weak preference for one out of several pre-existing geno-/phenotypes".
Ever heard of mutations? -
Mutations are random and don't drive selection. Selection picks (with some randomness too) among what is available at the moment it happens.
Nature does not guarantee that the best solution to a new problem is available when needed but often finds a patch that works more or less. It's more like amateur bricolage than rocket engineering, you know. Selective pressures also are normally weak and accept a wide, maybe infinite, gradient of adaptations often.
While the endless repetition of this highly imperfect, random and rather weak selection does produce some sophisticated and impressive systems in the long run, this is not something you should take for granted in the short or even run, specially among large animals like ourselves, of which numbers (available diversity) are necessarily small normally.
Adaptative evolution is not all what is going on with evolution. Diversity arises from Chaos and anyhow there's nothing but Chaos, even in the most elaborate of illusory orders.
Anyhow, the PDF on Hoabinhian is quite interesting. Still reading it...
But, look, when the author says what you quoted before, he's actually talking of the ambiguous but maybe adverse effects for local populations of the climatic warming at the end of the Ice Age, when jungles may have expanded, specially in the areas of "seasonal climate" (i.e. towards the north, relatively far away from the Equator).
In other words: vegetation may have been more favorable for humans in mainland SE Asia in the Ice Age, with "monsoon forests and parkland vegetation", as the climate was somewhat cooler.
"No (or not meaningfully in any case). See: Wikipedia-Insolation".
Perhaps I should have specified UV radiation:
http://www.who.int/uv/uv_and_health/en/
Quote:
"at higher altitudes, a thinner atmosphere filters less UV radiation. With every 1000 metres increase in altitude, UV levels increase by 10% to 12%".
"Without further evidence this is nothing but a cliché founded on rather obsolete anthropometric speculation and/or also obsolete notions that agriculture was first in Northern China (not Mongolia in any case)".
The problem is, Maju, that the evidence has been taken for granted for so long the authors feel it is not necessary to go over it all again. Their position in no way necessitates agriculture as having begun in Northern China. The evidence does indicate agriculture began in the south and presumably spread north, where people adopted and improved it, then moved south.
"So do you think this issues makes life impossible in the jungle or just less productive?"
Basically the only people who live in jungle today are those who've become phenotypically adapted to it (such as Pygmies and Negritos) or those who've set fire to it, cleared it and now farm it. It's not an environment people readily and willingly move into. Even the NZ Maori, to some extent a non-ceramic Neolithic people, did not inhabit the deep forest. They did occasionally set fire to it and then farm any more gently sloping denuded land.
"The damn genetic diversity issue! That's the evidence - and pretty much the only one available, AFAIK".
Not the only evidence. Consider the giant panda's distribution:
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/GiantPandas/PandaHabitat/default.cfm
And this:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/8/1801
Quote:
"However, the giant panda had a much wider range in the Pleistocene, with fossil records from Zhoukoudian, near Beijing to southern China, and into northern Myanmar, northern Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand (Wen and He 1981; Zhu and Long 1983; Hu et al. 1985; Wei et al. 1990; Hu 2001)".
Quote, "Recent demographic inference using microsatellite markers demonstrated a clear genetic signature for population decline starting several thousands years ago or even futher back in the past, and being accelerated and enhanced by the expansion of human populations".
Do you think the panda's survival in the mountains that you persistently claim people moved through so readily is because these early humans were considerate enough not to hunt it? I would guess the timing of its range contraction would tell us precisely when humans moved into its historical range.
So:
"Whether it was through the swamps of Bengal or through the highlands of the Brahmaputra and Irrawady, or through both, I can't say for sure but happened".
Probably through the jungle and mountains, but very slowly and not very far to the north. I agree that Y-hap O's origin lies further south than in Mongolia, but Y-haps are not necessarily closely associated with phenotype. I'm prepared to go further, though, and suggest that Y-hap NO came from even further south than Taiwan. Guess where from?
"Mutations are random and don't drive selection".
Of course not. But selection relies on mutations. And not all selection is 'weak'.
"vegetation may have been more favorable for humans in mainland SE Asia in the Ice Age, with "monsoon forests and parkland vegetation", as the climate was somewhat cooler".
I agree. And that probably helped humans survive in SE Asia before they were able to cross Wallacea. But at such cool times the mountains of Southwest China would be even less inviting.
Oh. I'd agree that Y-hap D was probably sparsely spread through the Southwest Chinese mountains at an early date. Its centroid is right at their eastern edge after all. The opposite poles of its geographic distribution are Japan in the north and the Andamans in the south. It's also found in Tibet. Mysteriously Y-hap D is basically not found in India at all, a subcontinent with a huge variety of surviving haplogroups. How could we explain that? Drift? Bottleneck? Founder effect? Selection?
"at higher altitudes, a thinner atmosphere filters less UV radiation. With every 1000 metres increase in altitude, UV levels increase by 10% to 12%".
Ok. Still pretty much irrelvant, I understand, specially considering all the other factors.
The problem is, Maju, that the evidence has been taken for granted for so long the authors feel it is not necessary to go over it all again.
The problem is that the evidence was weak in the past and is even weaker now.
Basically the only people who live in jungle today are those who've become phenotypically adapted to it (such as Pygmies and Negritos) or those who've set fire to it, cleared it and now farm it. It's not an environment people readily and willingly move into. Even the NZ Maori, to some extent a non-ceramic Neolithic people, did not inhabit the deep forest.
Maoris are irrelevant because they are a seafaring people with no experience of the forest.
It is possible that forests tend to make people adapt to them (apparently to prevent iodine deficiency - at least it seems what is behind Pygmies' small size) but that doesn't mean that they are as extremely hostile as you pretend. It does seem that people has inhabited in forests always, as far as I can tell. Deserts (hot or cold) and cold steppes are true barriers instead for "the naked ape" that require of very intense techno-cultural adaptation, adaptation that was not available early on. The first evidence of needles, and hence good isolating clothes, only exists at Kostenki (early European UP), what suggests it's a UP development and that, as the archaeological record seems to confirm, the high latitudes were impossible to colonize before the MP-UP transition.
It is curious that I get the same approximate dates for the colonization of West Eurasia and NE Asia when looking at the genetic evidence (however from two different genetic pools).
Do you think the panda's survival in the mountains that you persistently claim people moved through so readily is because these early humans were considerate enough not to hunt it? I would guess the timing of its range contraction would tell us precisely when humans moved into its historical range.
It's possible. Or it's possible that has to do with increased human densities due to farming (which is also destructive for the forests normally).
Anyhow, the pandas don't survive in the areas we are discussing Burma, Yunnan, Guangxi...). I did not just ever mention Sichuan (much less the Tibetan plateau, where pandas survive today).
I agree that Y-hap O's origin lies further south than in Mongolia, but Y-haps are not necessarily closely associated with phenotype.
Maybe but they are typically associated with "recent" demic expansions as the one you propose, if they are not older, of course.
Anyhow mtDNA tells the same story.
I agree. And that probably helped humans survive in SE Asia before they were able to cross Wallacea. But at such cool times the mountains of Southwest China would be even less inviting.
You have mountain-phobia. And also coast-phobia. So what's left for your narrow-mindness? The extremely cold and uninviting Siberian steppes... please!
Horses-cart, not the other way around.
I'd agree that Y-hap D was probably sparsely spread through the Southwest Chinese mountains at an early date. Its centroid is right at their eastern edge after all.
Remember the discussion on Y-DNA D? The phylogenetic root appears to be in Thailand (though most of the rest of SE Asia was not sampled) and Andamanese hang almost directly from there.
Mysteriously Y-hap D is basically not found in India at all, a subcontinent with a huge variety of surviving haplogroups. How could we explain that? Drift? Bottleneck? Founder effect? Selection? -
Founder effect in my opinion. Same as C. In mtDNA we see (I do at least) two centers: South and SE Asia (M and N respectively), the latter weaker at first. Similarly in Y-DNA we see those two centers: F from South Asia and D and C from SE Asia. This is the phylogenetic signature of the earliest macro-Eurasian fraction of Humankind, the "OoA people".
An alternative reading could make Y-DNA C'F parallel to mtDNA M.
In any case, derived Y-DNA K or the novel MNOPS maybe must have brought back mtDNA N sublineages to South Asia and specially to the incipient West Eurasian colonization process, including mtDNA R of course.
"Anyhow, the pandas don't survive in the areas we are discussing Burma, Yunnan, Guangxi...)".
Why not, and when did they become extinct there? That was the point I was making. The dating of their extinction in each region will tell us pretty much exactly when humans first entered that region.
"Anyhow mtDNA tells the same story".
You'll be interested in this then. A little more information for you to absorb, "Phylogeography and Ethnogenesis of Aboriginal Southeast Asians". The situation is far from simple:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/23/12/2480
"The Senoi appear to be a composite group, with approximately half of the maternal lineages tracing back to the ancestors of the Semang and about half to Indochina. This is in agreement with the suggestion that they represent the descendants of early Austroasiatic speaking agriculturalists, who brought both their language and their technology to the southern part of the peninsula 4,000 years ago and coalesced with the indigenous population".
"Gene flow from the outside world has been by no means negligible: all 3 groups have seen the Holocene arrival of N9a lineages; the Senoi have a substantial Holocene component from Indochina in F1a1a; the Batek Semang have B5b, probably from island Southeast Asia; and in addition to N21 and N22, the Aboriginal Malays have lineages, such as M7c1c, indicating recent arrivals from offshore, perhaps associated with the arrival of Austronesian-speaking people".
"Most importantly, none of the Semang resemble the Andamanese who have their own indigenous haplogroup M mtDNAs (Endicott et al. 2003; Thangaraj et al. 2003). Based on these considerations, and classical marker data on the Philippine Aeta (Omoto 1995), the genetic evidence refutes the notion of a specific shared ancestry between the Negrito groups of the Andaman Islands, Malay Peninsula, and Philippines".
"This suggests that almost half of the maternal lineages of the Senoi may trace back to an origin in Indochina at some point within the last 7,000 years or so. This is consistent with the view of Bellwood (1993) that the Neolithic was brought into Peninsular Malaysia by groups from central Thailand (associated with the Ban Kao Neolithic culture), which intermarried with indigenous groups to create the ancestors of modern Senoi. These people may also, as Bellwood (1993) suggests, have brought the Austroasiatic languages to the Malay Peninsula".
"Phylogeographic analysis suggests at least 4 detectable colonization events that affected the Orang Asli, respectively dated to over 50,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, the middle Holocene, and the late Holocene. Although this brings to mind the traditional layer-cake theory, the latter's assumption of unchanged relicts of earlier population waves is completely unfounded. All 3 Orang Asli groups have local roots that reach back to 50,000 years ago, and all have been affected to a greater or lesser extent by subsequent migrations to the Peninsula".
The dating of their extinction in each region will tell us pretty much exactly when humans first entered that region.
No. It will tell us at best when human densities became unbearable for that particular species, what, for what I know could be even in Neolithic.
Humans can have very low impact, specially foragers.
the genetic evidence refutes the notion of a specific shared ancestry between the Negrito groups of the Andaman Islands, Malay Peninsula, and Philippines.
What is precisely what my position: their shared ancestry goes back, roughly, to the early colonization of Sundaland and beyond, just as Papuans, Australian Aborignes and other Melanesians (excepting the apportions that are due to recent, post-Neolithic, admixture). "Negrito" is just a catch-all term for the natives of southern SE Asia, who have no other relation among each other than being descendants of early Eurasians.
... Senoi. These people may also, as Bellwood (1993) suggests, have brought the Austroasiatic languages to the Malay Peninsula...
Fair enough.
Phylogeographic analysis suggests at least 4 detectable colonization events that affected the Orang Asli, respectively dated to over 50,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, the middle Holocene, and the late Holocene.
That would be, roughly:
1. First colonization (proto-Semang, Eurasian expansion)
2. proto-Senoi/Hoabinhian arrival (pre-Neolithic probably, at least if it has to derivate from East Asia, which is much more recent by all accounts)
3. Proto-Malay or Austroasiatic arrival with Neolithic
4. Malay arrival with metallurgy
Is that correct?
Notice that there is no signal of any migration between the early colonization c. 50 Kya (probably more, I'd add 10 Ky maybe) and the early Holocene, so maybe they stood still all that time in the same familiar area and did not migrate over and over as you were suggesting some posts ago.
From my point of view, it's a rather peripheral area which could perfectly have stayed isolated, like all the Sunda-Wallacea-Sahul area for all that time. At the initial Eurasian expansion, there seems to be a high grade of mobility, specially between South and SE Asia but later a barrier arises (and I don't mean a physical barrier but rather demic pressure stability most likely) and the flow seems to stop. This probably was that way not just between South and Eastern Asia but also between mainland East Asia and Sundaland.
However then the pressure went westwards (from South Asia, also in NW direction) and northwards (from East Asia), into less inviting areas because of climate and the presence of efficient competitors (Neanderthals).
"Humans can have very low impact, specially foragers".
Not so. Megafauna extinctions closely follow modern human expansion in most parts of the world, and not just on islands.
"Is that correct?"
Possibly.
"their shared ancestry goes back, roughly, to the early colonization of Sundaland and beyond"
But hang on. The article actually says:
"Based on these considerations, and classical marker data on the Philippine Aeta (Omoto 1995), the genetic evidence refutes the notion of a specific shared ancestry between the Negrito groups of the Andaman Islands, Malay Peninsula, and Philippines".
So they don't have an ancient 'shared ancestry' at all. And that suggests there was plenty of movement within the region between 50K and 10K. They basically each have separate origins.
"However then the pressure went westwards (from South Asia, also in NW direction) and northwards (from East Asia)"
You don't think it's possible that both movements started from around the same place, assisted by some improved technology?
Some other comments I quoted from the article that you seem to have overlooked:
"all 3 groups have seen the Holocene arrival of N9a lineages"
Holocene? I thought you claimed it expanded from India into SE Asia long before then.
"Most importantly, none of the Semang resemble the Andamanese who have their own indigenous haplogroup M mtDNAs (Endicott et al. 2003; Thangaraj et al. 2003)".
How would that happen if the Andamanese represented the first migration along the southern Eurasian shore? Or are you forced back onto using the all-explaining Drift, Bottleneck and Founder effect?
I'll make this my last comment here, but I'll be interested in any further comment you wish to make. It concerns the relevance of panda range contraction.
Unless they are too inbred to be able to reproduce very effectively the first arrivals into any previously unexploited environment are going to fill it rapidly. And that's true for all species.
I'll admit that there is often a delay, as the species' numbers build up in a relatively small region within the habitat. But this period is usually only a few generations, say twenty. Even for humans that's only a few hundred years.
And that's also why introduced species often have such a huge impact on the local ecology. And we get extinctions occurring in other species within that habitat.
That's why I believe that if we can find the date at which pandas became extinct in various parts of their range we will have a good estimate of when humans arrived there. A margin of error of perhaps one or two thousand years.
If the jungle-covered mountains of South China, Burma and Vietnam were habitable for eary modern humans they would have over-exploited the resources, as usual, and we would see evidence of their presence. If the mountains were not habitable for humans they would not even have entered them.
Megafauna extinctions put humans in Australia by 46,000 years ago. I suspect panda extinction through the hill country of Burma, Vietnam and South China is more recent than this.
Thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts on the subject.
Megafauna extinctions closely follow modern human expansion in most parts of the world...
Megafauna (bisons, horses and other wild cattle) persisted here for some 30,000 years after H. sapiens colonization.
I think it's another of your clichés. The reasons of extinction must vary in different areas but whatever the case the pressure of neolithic (intensive use of the territory) is the worst.
So they don't have an ancient 'shared ancestry' at all.
Are they L3? They have shared ancestry at that level.
What I mean is that their roots are at the Great Eurasian Expansion (GEE hereafter): they have at least the same common ancestry as they share with us.
And that suggests there was plenty of movement within the region between 50K and 10K.
No. It means isolation.
I know that this will be hard to swallow to you because it threatens your central tenet or expansion from Wallacea into Eurasia thanks to their "unique" seafaraing abilities (aka rafts and canoes).
But actually it's the most demolishing evidence against any menaingful Paleolithic migration between the mainland and the Sunda-Sahul dual continent since the early Eurasian expansion I have ever read.
Thanks for cutting the grass under your own dialectic feet with that smashing evidence against your own thesis. Hopefully it will save our neurones some unnecessary work in the future, as we have now clearly established this fact.
You don't think it's possible that both movements started from around the same place, assisted by some improved technology? -
I don't know. I read the genetic data on the map, I don't speculate too much on what might have driven such flows. I'm satisfied with the usual human tendency to explore and exploit new niches. As Victor Grauer posted recently at Music000001, foragers often vote with their feet... assuming they have somewhere else to go.
However I am rather intrigued at the possible meaning of the novel Y-DNA MNOPS, that has only one western branch: P (or more precisely a quarter of it: R1). I ponder that this MNOPS expansion may be related to the expansion of mtDNA R (but with many local variations: differential founder effects). It's possible that the "MNOPS clan" could have some sort of improved technology but it could also be an improved social working or whatever else: it does not need to be something material. It was not blade tech in any case, as blades are absent from SE Asia and Sahul before Neolithic or nearly so. I don't think it was boating either because they needed boats to travel through rivers and swamps (and possibly coasts too) before reaching Indonesia, and also because there appear to be flows to Wallacea/Sahul (and Japan and Andaman) that pre-date the expansion of mtDNA R and Y-DNA MNOPS, flows that needed of some pretty decent pre-existing boating skills.
"all 3 groups have seen the Holocene arrival of N9a lineages"
Holocene? I thought you claimed it expanded from India into SE Asia long before then.
Where is the origin? In SE Asia. Malaysia is a peripheral tip in SE Asia and actually belonged to the Sundaland subcontinent.
How would that happen if the Andamanese represented the first migration along the southern Eurasian shore? Or are you forced back onto using the all-explaining Drift, Bottleneck and Founder effect? -
They do not represent that. They are probably an early branch of that migration. M and N as such (in mtDNA) represent that migration (F, C and D in Y-DNA).
Whatever the case, you can't disdain drift and founder effect (I never claim "bottlenecks" anywhere). Drift, FE and their byproduct, fixation, are normal demic/genetic processes, specially in Paleolithic conditions. You can't spit on them: they are central to all we know about population genetics (and biological evolution as well).
Erratum:
... as blades are absent from SE Asia and Sahul before Neolithic or nearly so.
Should read:
... as blades are absent from Sundaland and Sahul before Neolithic or nearly so.
I am aware that Hoabinhian has blades but that it only affects mainland SE Asia before the Holocene.
It concerns the relevance of panda range contraction.
Not my area of expertise.
Unless they are too inbred to be able to reproduce very effectively the first arrivals into any previously unexploited environment are going to fill it rapidly. And that's true for all species.
Foragers rely largely on hunt and they don't follow productivist doctrines. They just hunt what they need and leave the rest as some sort of living store. They may in some cases destroy some type of large animals who are too sensible to hunting pressure but mostly they don't cause mass extinctions.
In most cases it is this availability of hunt which conditions the possible population densities itself. And obviously for an animal to be hunt, there must be a herd or some other type of larger population around. Most foraging activities are sustainable, though there can be exceptions, of course.
The extinction in America, the most (in)famous one, happened surely many thousand years after colonization and in direct relation with climate change, a possible meteorite and the expansion of a novel culture: Clovis. This is not the usual scenario we see in early migrations but an exceptional one.
That's why I believe that if we can find the date at which pandas became extinct in various parts of their range we will have a good estimate of when humans arrived there.
We would know the date of extinction of pandas locally. We won't still know why. I'd bet that most of their local extinctions happened since Neolithic anyhow.
If the jungle-covered mountains of South China, Burma and Vietnam were habitable for eary modern humans they would have over-exploited the resources, as usual, and we would see evidence of their presence.
Liujiang man, for instance. There is no lack of evidence for human activity in mainland SE Asia, however the region is irregularly researched (and Burma is a huge blank, for political reasons, and possibly a crucial place to document early migrations).
Maybe you keep the link of that fascinating paper on the structure of Y-DNA D (I have lost it). In it it was mentioned that some colonization of the Tibetan plateau was now thought (on novel archaeological data) to have happened rather early (can't recall the dates but early UP chronology surely).
There are two possibilities: that there were two routes into the East: coast and hills or that there was only one, coastal, with a later expansion to the hill country. They don't make much difference for me but I'm inclined for the existence of the two because I see absolutely no reason to discard or even doubt either one.
Post a Comment