Posts
Found via Science Daily.
Stephan C. Schuster, Web Miller et al., Complete Khoisan and Bantu genomes from southern Africa. Nature 2010. Open access.
Four Khoi-San elders and archbishop Desmond Tutu (representing the rest of humankind and in particular South African Bantus) were scanned for their full genomes in order to overcome the limitations of the HapMap samples. The fact that any two Khoi-San are more different among them than any two Eurasians underlines the great importance of this extension to the human genetic database.
Most of the interesting details are available at the supplementary material (PDF). Among them, what most called my attention was the age estimates for mitochondrial DNA lineages (table 5).
They use a calibration point at the MRCA of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis, which is estimated at 660 Ka ago, with CI of 520-800 Ka (following Green 2008), however Noonan 2006 had an older estimate of 706 Ka ago (CI: 468-1015 Ka) and I have good archaeological reasons to consider an age of c. 900 Ka ago.
Hence I will review here Schuster's and Miller's median estimates but also emphasize the oldest CI dates, which I believe are closer to reality:
The Human MRCA ("mitochondrial Eve") is now dated to 205 Ka ago (or 296 Ka with the oldest CI, whch I think is best).
For the particular mtDNA lineages, the dates are:
- L0 159 (232) Ka
- L0d 107 (170) Ka
- L0a'b'f'k 148 Ka (no CI)
- L0k 79 (122) Ka
- L0a'b'f 119 (176) Ka
- L0f 94 (140) Ka
- L0a 61 (95) Ka
- L1''6 173 (250) Ka
- L3 96 (137) Ka
Dates in parenthesis are all oldest CIs, which I fear could still be slightly younger than archaeological realism demands.
The latter date, L3, is particularly important because it signals the beginning of the Out of Africa episode. A date of c. 137 Ka ago (or even older) would be roughly coincident with the colonization of some of Palestine by H. sapiens (Skhul, Qafzeh) and could be speaking of such an old migrational event, maybe ratified by some unclear elements in the archaeology of India (see also Petraglia 2007), China and Japan (and also Crete maybe but this one without continuity).
The latter date, L3, is particularly important because it signals the beginning of the Out of Africa episode. A date of c. 137 Ka ago (or even older) would be roughly coincident with the colonization of some of Palestine by H. sapiens (Skhul, Qafzeh) and could be speaking of such an old migrational event, maybe ratified by some unclear elements in the archaeology of India (see also Petraglia 2007), China and Japan (and also Crete maybe but this one without continuity).
49 comments:
"The latter date, L3, is particularly important because it signals the beginning of the Out of Africa episode. A date of c. 137 Ka ago (or even older) would be roughly coincident with the colonization of some of Palestine by H. sapiens (Skhul, Qafzeh) and could be speaking of such an old migrational event"
I've been trying to suggest we consider that possibility for years. Most won't accept the idea because Y-hap dating appears to be much younger, and people like to believe there was a single, Moses-like OoA. So they make up a theory that the population from Skhul and Qafzeh left no descendants outside Africa. They were forced to retreat by advancing cold, and advancing Neanderthals.
I've always been considering that possibility, Terry. But I'm not making a crusade of it either and I also think that the rapid coastal migration model makes sense.
I can live with such contradiction. I don't need to have a single unique possible model.
But remember Crete. ;)
On second thought, this is the first time I estimate mtDNA ages in Eurasia with coding region mutations only and based on age(L3)=130 Ka (roughly).
Making age(H)=40 Ka, I get 9 Ka (aprox.) per mutation and curious dates:
- M star: 103 Ka (exactly the age for the first blade stone tools in India... and anywhere on Earth)
- N star: 85 Ka
- R star: 76 Ka (very approximate to the Toba event)
Do you think it'd make sense this way, making R (and IJK) the main post-Toba recovery actor?
I'm chewing on it.
I'll get back to you. Unfortunately I'm in a hurry just now. But nhave you seen the mtDNA diagram for L? It fits most of your dates.
Here it is. I have more time than I thought:
http://images.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/simplified-human-mtdna-phylogeny.jpg&imgrefurl=http://anthropology.net/2008/04/25/on-mtdna-diversity-within-africa-before-the-out-of-africa-migrations/&usg=__Vjs0waSALx0_rcxRH26cwHk8mfQ=&h=653&w=449&sz=76&hl=en&start=2&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=eASm0JJ0yiyHjM:&tbnh=138&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmitochondrial%2Bdna%2Bhaplogroup%2Bl%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1R2GGLL_enNZ360%26tbs%3Disch:1
"Do you think it'd make sense this way, making R (and IJK) the main post-Toba recovery actor?"
There's no need for them to have entered India straight after they'd left Africa. I'd assume some delay. To me it still looks like mtDNA M and Y-hap F were first into India, perhaps after, but maybe before, Toba. Perhaps members of IJK* accompanied them, as I've mentioned elsewhere. To me it certainly looks as though mtDNA R entered India from the east, in spite of all your arguments to the contrary.
Have you any distributions for the various L clades? I don't have information for L3a or L3c but I have in my notes L3e as Berber, L3b and L3d as West African, L3g as East African, L3f as Chad and Central African. I can't actually see which are basal clades on the diagram but is it possible that mtDNA L3 was the first mtDNA able to cross the Sahara and reach the North African coast? If this possibility is correct it would argue against mtDNAs M and N having emerged from Africa via the Bab al Mandab. It fits with the modern human presence in the Levant 100K though.
I don't understand half of what you say, Terry, and what I think I understand sounds like it's totally wrong.
"There's no need for them to have entered India straight after they'd left Africa".
27,000 years (in the above tentative count) is not "straight after".
"... the modern human presence in the Levant 100K though".
130,000 BP by all accounts, though just by stratigraphic methods. Some wanted to revise it down because of later dates for Aterian but I see such claim very weak.
Also if we have to account for stuff that looks like H. sapiens in India (103 Ka), Crete (130 Ka) and East Asia (110 Ka) and speculate it might be related to the Skhul/Qafzeh people somehow, 100 Ka is too late. More as L3 could be as old as 137 Ka (which I think is still too recent).
Still you have to consider the possibility that people reached South Asia (and therefore East Asia) via Southern Arabia (remember the typological identity with South African MSA that Petraglia found) even if they belonged to the same macro-population (L3 or L3'4'6) that also reached Palestine and maybe Crete.
Well, you don't have to but you should. And I do consider it certainly, because crossing the Iranian deserts looks like too difficult, specially under Neanderthal pressure. And also because I have never heard of any Mousterian in India and that's the technology that the ancient Palestinians adopted upon contact with Neanderthals, it seems.
"To me it certainly looks as though mtDNA R entered India from the east, in spite of all your arguments to the contrary".
Can you explain why? Saying "to me it looks like" reminds me to my Christian relatives saying "to me it looks like there must be a God"... You can't argue with that, you know.
On second or fifth thought, what I said above about R expanding in a post-Toba scenario, does not match.
I need a chronology that has N1, R0, etc. expanding c. 50 Ka ago and H, U6, U8, etc. expanding probably c. 40 Ka ago. There are 4 CR mutations between the two nodes, what gives an effective mutation rate in that segment of one per c. 2500 years. Even if we push R0 to 55 Ka and H to 30 Ka (Gravettian, can't be later than that), we still get 1 mutation per 6-7000 years and no remnants of the Aurignacian and pre-Aurignacian colonization (but we know that Kostenki people included U2!)
So with a CR mutation per 2500 years and fixating age(R0) at 50 Ka, we get an age for N of c. 60 Ka, for M (in parallelized count) of c. 70 Ka. and for L3 of c. 85 Ka. It doesn't change too much if I push age(R0) to 55 Ka. without changing age(H).
That's why each time I try to "demonstrate" an early colonization of Eurasia related to Skhul/Qafzeh, I clash with the hard facts and have to go back to the coastal migration model, which fits better with the age estimates I can muster.
"27,000 years (in the above tentative count) is not 'straight after'".
So where did they live all those years?
"Still you have to consider the possibility that people reached South Asia (and therefore East Asia) via Southern Arabia"
But it's a very unlikely possibility. To make it fir it's necessary to make up a whole lot of 'ifs', 'buts', 'possiblys' and 'maybes'.
"crossing the Iranian deserts looks like too difficult, specially under Neanderthal pressure".
I agree with the 'Neanderthal pressure' but we have no idea what the vegetation on the Iranian Platea was like at the time. It has almost certainly been less desert-like at times.
"Can you explain why?"
Because then you don't have to make up different mutation rates just to suit your belief and you don't have problems like:
"I need a chronology that has N1, R0, etc. expanding c. 50 Ka ago and H, U6, U8, etc. expanding probably c. 40 Ka ago. There are 4 CR mutations between the two nodes, what gives an effective mutation rate in that segment of one per c. 2500 years. Even if we push R0 to 55 Ka and H to 30 Ka (Gravettian, can't be later than that), we still get 1 mutation per 6-7000 years and no remnants of the Aurignacian and pre-Aurignacian colonization (but we know that Kostenki people included U2!)"
R is then just another haplogroup within the N star-like expansion, minor though it is. So N1 is finishes up nowhere near R0, so there is no need to postulate that they expanded together. There's no problem having R0, H, U6, U8, etc. all reaching western Asia by c. 40 Ka ago if R* left SE Asia 50 Kya. And it fits the Y-hap MNOPS* evidence, with or without including the Ks.
"It doesn't change too much if I push age(R0) to 55 Ka. without changing age(H)".
Push it where-ever you like, but you've still got problems.
Terry asked in relation to a possible Fertile Crescent migratory route that would have taken many milennia:
"So where did they live all those years?"
Which the answer to Terry's objection to the South Arabian route:
"But it's a very unlikely possibility. To make it fit it's necessary to make up a whole lot of 'ifs', 'buts', 'possiblys' and 'maybes'".
Curious how a question can become the answer for a non-question, right. And not in separate commentaries but one after the other, just that in the wrong order.
""Can you explain why?"
Because then you don't have to make up different mutation rates just to suit your belief and you don't have problems like..."
You have other problems and solve none of those.
And I'm not making up different mutation rates anyhow. I'm using the same mutation rates for all lines all along (even if only because it's easier). If you push the expansion of N ahead, then you'd be using two distinct mutation rates for the M and N lines.
However I don't know which is the value in time of the universal mutation=time unit I'm using in all my little home-made research.
"R is then just another haplogroup within the N star-like expansion"...
Did I ever say otherwise? I'm sure I did not, except that before coalescence into R it was not yet a haplogroup and after coalescence (star-like explosion) it was not "just another" haplogroup anymore.
"So N1 is finishes up nowhere near R0".
It does:
N>>R0
N>>>N1
Where ">" means one CR mutation.
For comparison:
N>>>>>U
N>>>>X
N>>>JT
N>N9
So R0 is very much early in the N tree and that means that the R expansion (and therefore the N one too) only happened not too long before the colonization of West Eurasia.
"There's no problem having R0, H, U6, U8, etc. all reaching western Asia by c. 40 Ka ago"
The problem is that between R0 and H there are three CR mutations, more than between R0 and N.
So it is:
N>R
N>>R0
N>>>>>H
And for U:
N>>>>U
N>>>>>>>U5
N>>>>>U6 (same number as with H)
N>>>>>>U8
And for the other major western N subclades see above.
So we get the R0 node very very early, just after the R explosion (I estimate, counting from L3 that same age as M1), then we get N1, U and its main subclades, HV, H, V, JT and X al in rapid sequence, between 4 and 7 mutations downstream of N (add 5 more to get to the L3 node).
One could maybe argue that the R0 and M1 nodes were still only peripheral in West Eurasia, maybe in the Irano-Arabian fringes... but three mutations downstream, it's already happening at the heart of Europe (H) and North Africa (U6).
So that's what you have to explain the West Eurasian expansion: the time span of 4 mutations, beginning one mutation downstream of R and two of N.
If each mutation means 5 Ka (arbitrary but reasonable, as I have been stumbling upon a range between 2500 and 9000 years), then:
H, U6: 40 Ka
U, X: 45 Ka
HV, N1: 50 Ka
R0: 55 Ka
R: 60 Ka
N: 65 Ka
L3: 90 Ka
That would make age(M)=75 Ka (around Toba).
"Push it where-ever you like, but you've still got problems".
Of course, free thinking, science, is that way: you always stumble upon further contradictions, new problems to solve.
I have no problem with that, do you?
So you agree that they emerged from the Levant? Doesn't that wave bye-bye to any 'coastal migration'? Your selective use of evidence is actually amusing. You're quite content to postulate humans living in NW South Asia (Baluchistan specifically) ignoring the fact that Baluchistan is geographically and ecologically part of the Iranian Plateau anyway.
"N>>R0
N>>>N1"
But N1 doesn't derive from R0. I understand the pattern is more like this (with your dates added, which fit perfectly):
N*(65 Ka)---N1(50 Ka)
and N*---- X(45 Ka)
and N* -? N9/Y
and N* -? A
and: N* -? N2/W
and N* -? N12
and N* -? N13
and N* -? N14
and N* -? N21
and N* -? N22
and N* -? S
and N*-R*(60 Ka)
Then we get:
R*(60 Ka)--JT
and: R*-R0(55 Ka)---H(40 Ka)
and R* -? P
and R* -? R11/B
and R* -? R9/F/R21/R22
and R* -? R23
and R* -? R1
and R* -? R5
and R* -? R6/7
and R* -? R8
and R* -? R12
and R* -? R30
and R* -? R31
and: R*----U*(45 Ka)
Then we get: U*---U5
and: U*--U6(40 Ka)
and:U*-U8
In order to have N moving through India you're forced to postulate four 'private lineages' moving huge distances from India before they expand (X, A, Y/N9, S), five 'private lineages' moving huge distances from India and then surprisingly not expanding any further at all (N12, N13, N14, N12, N22) and two that could well have moved into India (N1, N2/W). That leaves just R. So why must R* have coalesced in India?
"So we get the R0 node very very early, just after the R explosion"
And the R explosion occurs after the N explosion (such as it is).
"So that's what you have to explain the West Eurasian expansion: the time span of 4 mutations, beginning one mutation downstream of R and two of N".
There is no need to postulate they all moved together at all.
"You have other problems and solve none of those".
Such as?
"So you agree that they emerged from the Levant?"
I thought you'd get it: "where were those people between Africa and India?" is the answer to your claim that you are sure that they went this way and not that one.
Apart of that, considering the distribution of the Arabian Desert, it's very reasonable that "the same people" (grossly) could have arrived to Palestine by one branch and to Yemen by another, both originating at the NE Africa. In fact what joins Yemen to Palestine is the Red Sea... unless you own a camel.
So they could be two branches of the same L3'4'6 bunch.
"But N1 doesn't derive from R0".
But both are derived from N. They are "1st degree cousins" in fact.
"I understand the pattern is more like this".
It doesn't matter: the phylogeny is at PhyloTree. No need to be redundant. I'm just considering the number of CR mutations from a shared ancestor, in the case argued here N (or L3 when comparing with M).
"In order to have N moving through India you're forced to postulate four 'private lineages' moving huge distances from India before they expand (X, A, Y/N9, S), five 'private lineages' moving huge distances from India and then surprisingly not expanding any further at all (N12, N13, N14, N12, N22) and two that could well have moved into India (N1, N2/W). That leaves just R. So why must R* have coalesced in India?"
No, I'm not saying that at all!
I'm saying:
1. L3(pre-N) migrates to SE Asia
2. N explodes (begins existing as haploGROUP).
3. Some N back-migrates to South Asia (the rest does not, stays put in SE Asia or migrates in North or South directions).
4. This "Western" N soon coalesces into N1'5 (node where these two lineages split), R (star-like node where nothing less than 16 lineages are rooted) and, later, into N2 (node from which W and N2a'b'c'd would branch). Not considering X atm because it left no trace in SA, it seems.
So I need three or so women of recent N ancestry going back to "India" (even one would do as long as she did not accumulate any CR mutation). Of course they were more but a single tribe or clan would do nicely.
This is the same process that happens with all the migrations we are tracing, so I really don't make any sense of why you keep considering such complicated and erroneous ideas (much less attributing them to me).
So why do I think R coalesced in South Asia? Because the location of the N node is irrelevant to the R node, which must be judged on its own merits, which are: highest diversity is in SA and the migrating sublineages go to East and West in similar amounts (3-4 each).
There is no reasonable doubt: R coalesced (and exploded) in South Asia.
"There is no need to postulate they all moved together at all".
Well, they migrated in the same direction at about the same time. With all evidence being just a few mutations, each one estimated to cover maybe 5000 years, we can't describe their family life in detail, can we? It's like spanning from earliest historical Sumer to Saddam Hussein in a single step.
But for the purposes of my reconstruction, they participated in the same overall trend or flow, and I can't see any particular differences, except as they keep dividing and colonizing further mutations downstream.
"Such as?"
Man, you are all the time making claims that do not fit the real data but what you wish to believe, like the one you just made about R. Do your homework first, and, please, do it without any preconceptions about boats or that mythical land called Wallacea.
"Man, you are all the time making claims that do not fit the real data but what you wish to believe"
Maju. It's you who have the pre-conceived ideas that are influencing your interpretation of the data.
"So I need three or so women of recent N ancestry going back to 'India'"
I agree. You 'need' it to support your belief. You're not actually looking at the evidence. Certainly not objectively.
"I'm saying:
1. L3(pre-N) migrates to SE Asia"
That's far more extreme than what I'm proposing. You have the whole of N in SE Asia. I only have some of it. I would guess that N is simply one of the two L3 lines that left Africa. So it was basically N as soon as it left.
"2. N explodes (begins existing as haploGROUP)".
From SE Asia? Wallacea, I presume. How did it get there?
"Because the location of the N node is irrelevant to the R node"
I agree that 'the N node is irrelevant', but the distribution of the various different N-derived sister haplogroups to R is very relevant.
"Not considering X atm because it left no trace in SA, it seems"
Surely it's most probable that X formed somewhere along N*'s route to SE Asia. So it's unlikely that N* moved east through India.
"Well, they migrated in the same direction at about the same time".
The problems you encounter are a result of your trying to squeeze the probable many early haplogroup expansions into just one. You want humans to belong to some suddenly superior inbred species already possessing the full Upper Paleolithic technological, cultural and genetic suite of characteristics. From that assumption you then assume members of this population must all have emerged from a single location. I'll grant you're prepared to concede two expansions: an early one from Africa, and then a sudden later one all around Eurasia at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic.
The only region that Occam's razor can effectivley place all three non-African haplogroups (Y-hap CDEF*, mtDNA M ans mtDNA N) together in one place is somewhere within, or spread across, the Iranian Plateau from the Levant to Baluchistan, almost certainly including the Zagros Mountains and possibly as far north as the Caucasus.
But there is a gap between any possible combined presence in that region and the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic. The three haplogroups can only really been together no more recently that 60Kya. (and probably much earlier). The Upper Paleolithic can perhaps be dated to as long ago as 50Kya., but is probably more recent.
The evidence suggests very strongly that the Y-haps (especially) have moved huge distances backwards and forwards through Eurasia since they first emerged as Y-hap CDEF*. Y-hap E has even made it back into Africa, and is well on the way to replacing Y-haps A and B.
1.
"That's far more extreme than what I'm proposing".
L3->N, Africa->Asia is "extreme"?!
I thought it's rather BASIC. So again no idea what you're talking about.
"I would guess that N is simply one of the two L3 lines that left Africa. So it was basically N as soon as it left".
That's wrong. There was no N before the N node, by definition. One of the L3 braces leads to N (eventually) but it's not yet it.
Calling this "L3 leading to N" something like pre-N may be useful but N only begins when the last mutation leading to it happened, just before the next mutation (R, N9, S, N1'5) comes. N is a set.
2.
"From SE Asia? Wallacea, I presume. How did it get there?"
Not Wallacea, more like Burma, IMO. I don't care how it got there: I don't analyze population genetics based on transport methods, like you do.
3.
"I agree that 'the N node is irrelevant', but the distribution of the various different N-derived sister haplogroups to R is very relevant".
Not more than the "sister groups" of N (all other L3 clades) are relevant to it.
"Surely it's most probable that X formed somewhere along N*'s route to SE Asia"...
No again. There's a single N star-like node, not a gradually bifurcating tree: N expanded from a single place.
"The problems you encounter are a result of your trying to squeeze the probable many early haplogroup expansions into just one".
I don't think I have so many problems. If I have any it's because I look at things in depth and from various angles, bother working out maps and tentative chronologies for blind and deaf readers like you, etc.
I don't see you do anything of the like, much less in such detail. Your reasonings are all reactive and sketchy, failing to structure anything coherent other than the holy name of Wallacea once and again.
You are even unable to understand the meaning of a starl-like node.
Which is precisely what you fail to see when you articulate this nonsense sentence: "trying to squeeze the probable many early haplogroup expansions into just one".
Which in reference to N makes no sense whatsoever (it's outragingly ignorant!), because it has a long stem (5 mutations, all CR) and then a starlike node: so N lurked as minor lineage for the time equivalent to 5 CR mutations and then in the short time of less than 1 mutation, expanded into some 12 sublineages, which appear at the next step (mutation) scattered all around Asia and Oceania.
"You want humans to belong to some suddenly superior inbred species already possessing the full Upper Paleolithic technological, cultural and genetic suite of characteristics".
That's an interpretation you make. AFAIK nobody considers Mousterian, Aterian or the most common archaic technology of Homo sapiens, the MSA, as "Upper Paleolithic". In fact the whole concept of MP/UP transition is probably wrong, except maybe in West Eurasia, where it can still make some sense (Mousterian vs. blade technologies). The real transition happened c. 600 or 400,000 years ago, when H. erectus became even brainier, leading to big headed (and Middle Paleolithic) H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis.
Whatever the case you are again judging the genetic data on the basis of your preconceptions. I do NOT want to make anything happen: I read the genetic trail and that's what I get. Boats? Sure, why not? I'm not Wallaceanist.
"From that assumption you then assume members of this population must all have emerged from a single location. I'll grant you're prepared to concede two expansions"...
And extremely wide "locations": South-East-plus Africa first and South and SE Asia then.
You say that because the thief thinks all are of his trade: Wallacea is a really small single location, which is abusive and absurd.
"The only region that Occam's razor can effectivley place all three non-African haplogroups (Y-hap CDEF*, mtDNA M ans mtDNA N) together in one place is somewhere within, or spread across, the Iranian Plateau from the Levant to Baluchistan, almost certainly including the Zagros Mountains and possibly as far north as the Caucasus".
That's not what I see. You need to sharpen your razor, it seems. There's absolutely no evidence supporting mtDNA lineages M or N ever being West of Pakistan and East of Africa early on. Iran doesn't help at all, much less when all the good areas were then Neanderthal.
"But there is a gap between any possible combined presence in that region and the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic".
I don't believe in the Upper Paleolithic except as chronological measure beginning (roughly) 48-40 Ka ago.
"The evidence suggests very strongly that the Y-haps (especially) have moved"...
That's part of your problem: you focuse too much on Y-DNA, what is not helpful. My method, and seemingly what geneticists appreciate the most too, is to understand mtDNA first, because it's more conservative and hence gives a better picture of the overall process. Then, and only then, I try to see how to fit Y-DNA in the picture.
And it's a method that is working, in spite of what you want to believe.
"My method, and seemingly what geneticists appreciate the most too, is to understand mtDNA first, because it's more conservative and hence gives a better picture of the overall process".
OK.
"L3->N, Africa->Asia is 'extreme'?!"
All N to SE Asia direct from Africa is certainly extreme.
"There's absolutely no evidence supporting mtDNA lineages M or N ever being West of Pakistan and East of Africa early on".
They got to India and SE Asia by spaceship?
"Not Wallacea, more like Burma, IMO. I don't care how it got there: I don't analyze population genetics based on transport methods, like you do".
Another spaceship? or the same one as above, but at a different time?
"There was no N before the N node, by definition. One of the L3 braces leads to N (eventually) but it's not yet it".
That's a very subtle distinction. Are you going to make up a new name for the L3 haplogroup that 'leads to N (eventually)', something like L3n, or just for convenience call it N straight away?
"N is a set".
And it's already a fairly widespread set by the time R forms, even though R is just one mutation away. N* has already broken into the lines that lead to 'R, N9, S, N1'5', and eight others.
"Not more than the 'sister groups' of N (all other L3 clades) are relevant to it".
But only M and N made it OoA, or survived to tell the tale. So I guess we can ignore all those L3s that remained behind. But you consistently ignore any 'sister groups' that don't support you belief.
"There's a single N star-like node, not a gradually bifurcating tree: N expanded from a single place".
Exactly. And the evidence suggests rapidly.
"Which in reference to N makes no sense whatsoever (it's outragingly ignorant!), because it has a long stem (5 mutations, all CR) and then a starlike node: so N lurked as minor lineage for the time equivalent to 5 CR mutations and then in the short time of less than 1 mutation, expanded into some 12 sublineages, which appear at the next step (mutation) scattered all around Asia and Oceania".
I see that you do understand that N's expansion was rapid, although delayed somewhat after its initial emergence from Africa. But where did it expand from? Somewhere between Africa and India seems to be the obvious choice. And by what route did it expand? It seems from N's immediate descendants that it's very unlikely that India was involved at all in the early stages.
"All N to SE Asia direct from Africa is certainly extreme".
There was not "all N" yet, not even N as such. Just one woman with that L3(pre-N) lineage was enough.
Of course, she was a highly successful matriarch but we already know that, don't we?
"They got to India and SE Asia by spaceship?"
Sure, why not?
Seriously, what I mean is that we don't know and will most likely never know from the genetic data. The track has been totally erased (so it was probably quite shallow anyhow).
Just trace a straight dotted line between (say) Juba and Karachi... that's all we can say. For N trace that dotted line between Juba and Rangoon, for example. That's what we can do.
"That's a very subtle distinction. Are you going to make up a new name for the L3 haplogroup that 'leads to N (eventually)', something like L3n, or just for convenience call it N straight away?"
For me it's not a matter of subtlety but of rigor. I won't call it N because it was not yet N. When the ancestor of the matriarch at the N node had only accumulated 4 of those 5 mutations she was not yet N. You can use pre-N if you wish, or whatever (L3n, L3* leading to N) but it was not yet N.
Most importantly, it was, for what we know, just a small private lineage until N coalesced and exploded (star-like node), already in SE Asia probably. Maybe there were other branches in the way (which, if detected now, would be surely classified as L3*) which went extinct. Probably those existed but had no real, durable, impact anyhow.
"But only M and N made it OoA, or survived to tell the tale".
Actually only L3 made it (unless we consider also the Yemeni L6, a quite curious related lineage). But fair enough: only M and N survived, sure. But we are already talking of Tropical Asia and the Great Eurasian Expansion. Between L3 and M/N we just know nothing.
""There's a single N star-like node, not a gradually bifurcating tree: N expanded from a single place".
Exactly. And the evidence suggests rapidly".
Man, yesterday you were saying the opposite. Remember that the above sentence is a reply to your claim about X:
"Surely it's most probable that X formed somewhere along N*'s route to SE Asia"...
So make up your mind before quarreling, ok?
"I see that you do understand that N's expansion was rapid, although delayed somewhat after its initial emergence from Africa".
Yes. The story of N is as follows:
1. For the lapse of 5 "time units" (mutations) pre-N (L3) somehow migrated between East Africa and Indochina. We can't know the exact route but the "coastal" one is the shortest one, except maybe through South Asia, where the Narmada-Son-Ganges route is shorter.
2. At that time (in less that one "time unit") N experienced a rapid demic spread (star-like node) producing 12 distinct branches, possibly each one (or several) heading in a different direction.
3. One "time unit" after point 2, four of those branches show sings of some expansion: N1'5 and R in South Asia, N9 in SE Asia and S in Oceania. All are weak expansions except that of R, which is a whole story on its own. The other 8 N sublineages don't show yet any sign of expansion.
4. Two "time units" after the N node, we also see another branch expanding timidly: O, again in Oceania.
5. Four "time units" after the N node, N2 also shows signs of mild expansion in South/West Asia.
6. Five "time units" after the N node (that is: approximately the same time as it took pre-N to reach Indochina), X and A also show signs of expansion. X expanded in West Asia and A (quite vigorously, star-like node again) in NE Asia.
The other four linages: N21 and N22 (SEA), N13 and N14 (Aus) show no signs of expansion whatsoever. They are good examples of how a lineage can remain very small for many many millennia without ever expanding significatly. We could well talk of N* in these four cases in fact.
To be honest, O is not much more impressive, while N1'5 and N2 only achieved some relevance because of the branches (N1 and W respectively) that colonized West Eurasia. Probably that's also the case of X, just that this one did not leave a perdurable South Asian branch (something totally random) or this one has not yet been detected. A can also be compared with all this bunch because it remained small and "invisible" until it suddenly expanded in NE Asia, long after the N node. Only N9, S and specially R show clear signs of early dynamism within N.
"But where did it expand from? Somewhere between Africa and India seems to be the obvious choice".
That would posit way too many problems, specially because we have mtDNA S and N9 expanding in the Far East right after the N node, while, instead, there's no sign of West Asian expansion yet. At least in South Asia, though I favor SE Asia for reasons of basal diversity (South/West Asia only have 4/12 N sublineages).
"The track has been totally erased (so it was probably quite shallow anyhow)".
I'm not so sure. It seems strange that there seems to be no evidence of any route between Africa and India. We're forced to postulate a 'rapid coastal migration', with no evidence to support such a belief in spite of about ten years searching. We're forced to make up excuses like sea level rise. But perhaps we've been looking in the wrong place. When we look at Y-chromosomes we actually see possible evidence for a route. Y-haps G and IJ are found basically around the Caucasus and Zagros Mountains, both part of the F* group. The 'rapid coastal migration' theory postulates they represent a back-migration from India. But there's really no need to assume such. F obviously moved into India from somewhere to the northwest, as did mtDNA M. The problem remains of Y-hap C (for which there is no evidence for an early presence in India apart from the northwest), and D (for which there is no evidence for any presence in India ever). The evidence for N* in India is equivocal at least. We do have mtDNA R expanding through India but it leaves huge traces in SE Asia as well.
"That would posit way too many problems, specially because we have mtDNA S and N9 expanding in the Far East right after the N node, while, instead, there's no sign of West Asian expansion yet".
But we have N1'5 in Western Eurasia (not necessarily from India), N2/W also probably lurking somewhere in the region, X possibly somewhere in Central Asia, and A too possibly. They don't actually have to 'expand' individually till later. They could have survived for years as 'private lineages'.
"Most importantly, it was, for what we know, just a small private lineage until N coalesced and exploded (star-like node), already in SE Asia probably".
I think there are other options than SE Asia. Certainly it became very prominent there.
"Between L3 and M/N we just know nothing".
It's quite possible early expansion was not rapid for some time. We know from the introduction or arrival of new species in a region they spend quite some time building up numbers in just a small part of the wider region before expanding. The expansion can then be surprisingly rapid. As a friend always says, 'Why should we assume that humans are so different?'
"So make up your mind before quarreling, ok?"
I've always said that 'X formed somewhere along N*'s route to SE Asia'. It's just that we disagree on what that route was.
"It seems strange that there seems to be no evidence of any route between Africa and India".
Between Africa and anywhere, excepting the Yemeni L6 arguably.
"We're forced to postulate a 'rapid coastal migration', with no evidence to support such a belief in spite of about ten years searching".
The theory is at most 6 years old. Whatever the case, that's what we have.
"But perhaps we've been looking in the wrong place. When we look at Y-chromosomes we actually see possible evidence for a route".
F still has its greatest basal diversity in South Asia, just like M. So nope.
"But we have N1'5 in Western Eurasia (not necessarily from India)".
N5 only exists in South Asia. Same with N2(xW) and with most of R basal sublineages.
"It's quite possible early expansion was not rapid for some time. We know from the introduction or arrival of new species in a region they spend quite some time building up numbers in just a small part of the wider region before expanding. The expansion can then be surprisingly rapid".
It would not make any difference because what we see is the expansion signal. You make too many conjectures and look with little interest at the factual data.
"I've always said that 'X formed somewhere along N*'s route to SE Asia'. It's just that we disagree on what that route was".
But then you admit that the expansion of the N node was FAST, which is in total contradiction with letting haplogroup seeds along the way, which would no doubt create a structure very different from a star-like node, but more like a series of successively branching nodes. This is important evidence that you keep on ignoring.
[Also the center of expansion of X is not in Central Asia but clearly in the Levant, having a timeframe that must be more recent than the R, N1 and M1 expansions there].
"But then you admit that the expansion of the N node was FAST, which is in total contradiction with letting haplogroup seeds along the way"
Rubbish. It's extremely unlikely that all members hypothetical haplogroup Z* (for example) would, each and every one, move some huge distance from its place of origin, and its descendants Z1, Z2, Z3 etc. then expand separately from that new region. But that's consistently what you propose. Once you start doing that it becomes possible to manipulate the evidence sufficiently to have haplogroups arising where-ever you wish to place them, even having them all originating in America. Surely it's far more likely that haplogrouop Z* would expand from some region near its own ancestors (perhaps quite rapidly, perhaps not so until some elapse of time), scattering its members along the route. Then each remnant population would subsequently develop into Z1, Z2, Z3 etc., with completely different expansion times for each new haplogroup.
"N5 only exists in South Asia".
But N5 is not the basal haplogroup. N1'5 is. You can't draw conclusions about N1'5's distribution from a downstream haplogroup without considering its 'sister' haplogroups. I realise you consistently do so though.
"It would not make any difference because what we see is the expansion signal".
Almost anything can happen before 'the expansion signal', except that huge distances of travel are unlikely.
"Also the center of expansion of X is not in Central Asia but clearly in the Levant, having a timeframe that must be more recent than the R, N1 and M1 expansions there"
So? In which case it probably remained there from the time that mtDNA pre-N* first left Africa. Its own expansion can be quite independent of any original R, N1 and M1 expansions.
"The theory is at most 6 years old".
It's certainly older than that. The first I knew of it was years ago when I saw a documentry on TV where Spencer Wells claimed to have found evidence for such a migration. He hadn't of course. Just made it up.
We know that the Khoi-San have been retreating in the face of the Bantu advance, and they were previously more widespread. But it seems very unlikely that even at their widest distribution any Khoi-San populations were committed coastal dwellers. Seasonal exploitation by local populations is far more likely.
So a coastal African exit is not particularly likely. The members of the 'modern' human migration out of Africa are much more likely to have been savannah/lightly forested hunter/gatherers rather than committed coastal dwellers. The Levant coast fits the bill far better than does a crossing of the Bab al Mandab. Once a savannah-adapted population reached the Levant they would find savannah/steppe vegetation stretching all the way north to Anatolia and the Iranian Plateau, all the way east into northwest India, and even further east to the headwaters of the Amur and Hwang Ho Rivers. After a short spell just outside Africa their expansion over the whole region could have been very rapid, even taking into account the presence of Neanderthals and such.
Terry: between N and R (1 CR mutation) there was something between 80 to 300 generations. More not of what separates you from your British ancestors but what separates you from your ancestors of the time of Plato... or from times so antique that there's no name recorded anywhere.
The evidence (basal diversity) says that they expanded in SE Asia and South Asia respectively. However you can believe what you wish.
"The first I knew of it was years ago when I saw a documentry on TV where Spencer Wells claimed to have found evidence for such a migration. He hadn't of course. Just made it up".
Isn't Spencer Wells your Wallaceanist prophet? A prophet that makes up things and then hides data too? Really, IDK who is that guy but he seems to stink.
Whatever the case, I believe that the theory was first outlined by McAulay in 2005 and then refined by someone else in 2007 (soon before I began this blog, so may be even as late as 2008).
Before that, people was very confused with Underhill's and National Geographic's early estimates about a continental migration through Central Asia and West Asia. And McAulay's model still falls to that trap somewhat.
Gotta find that 2007 paper...
"... it seems very unlikely that even at their widest distribution any Khoi-San populations were committed coastal dwellers".
Blombos cave. Khoi or not Khoi but South African in any case.
"So a coastal African exit is not particularly likely".
It's what you choose to believe. And I don't care anymore about that: we re discussing in circles and gets boring.
Anyhow South Africa, considering the relatively late dates of Blombos, at least for the Nassarius materials, might have got the MSA from further North. I have found a solid fossil reference for coastal exploitation in Eritrea c. 125,000 BP.
Let's remember that regardless of techno-cultures, the OoA people were L3'4'6 or simply L3, lineages that are not found among Khoisan peoples. L4 is common among click-speakers of East Africa, L6 is typical of the Bab-el-Mandeb area and L3... well is brutally widespread but seems to have a Horner or Sudanese origin. That area is also where one of the oldest fossil H. sapiens is found.
"between N and R (1 CR mutation) there was something between 80 to 300 generations".
Somewhere between 1600 and 6000 years, at 20 years a generation. Plenty of time to travel right around the world, if they'd had the ability to do so. But R* probably first appeared within a region that N* had already reached.
"Isn't Spencer Wells your Wallaceanist prophet?"
Far from it. He's convinced, like you, that humans emerged from Africa in one group, and then rapidly expanded east through India, rapidly reaching Australia.
"Blombos cave. Khoi or not Khoi but South African in any case".
Blombos cave is hardly evidence of a committed coastal exploitation to the exclusion of more generalised hunter/gathering. Localised coastal exploitation at the most. And certainly not evidence for possession of any sort of boats.
"and L3... well is brutally widespread but seems to have a Horner or Sudanese origin. That area is also where one of the oldest fossil H. sapiens is found".
For a start the fact that L3 is present in the same place as 'the oldest fossil H. sapiens' is hardly relevant, unless you're claiming that the carriers of L0, L1, L2 and L4 were not H. sapiens. The evidence is fairly overwhelming that these haplogroups were already widespread through Africa by the time L3 appeared. I'll grant L6 is problematic, but we have no idea how old it is.
Secondly. On what grounds do you claim L3 'to have a Horner or Sudanese origin'? I make it seven L3 lineages: L3a, L3b'f, L3c'd'j, L3e'i'k'x, L3h, M and N. Of these M and N are extra-African, so we can't use them as evidence. I'm not sure about L3a but both L3b and L3f are West African, so L3b'f is not 'Horner or Sudanese'. Of the next haplogroup (L3c'd'j) L3d, at least, is also West African (I don't know about L3c and L3j, but it seems unlikely we can prove an East African origin for the whole clade). Ah, hello. With the next haplogroup we definitely begin to find 'Horner or Sudanese' haplogroups: L3x (Ethiopian) and L3i (East African). Unfortunately, muddying the waters, we find that sister haplogroup L3e is actually widespread in Africa, so again the clade could originate anywhere in Africa. L3x and L3i could easily be immigrants to East Africa. I know nothing about L3h, perhaps it's East African, but that still leaves the ultimate origin of L3 very undecided. And I believe some L3s even made it across the Sahara to populate the African Mediterranean coast.
So, instead of making up things and hiding data let's actually look at the evidence.
"Somewhere between 1600 and 6000 years, at 20 years a generation".
I counted 2500-9000 years (the figures appeared so far in this discussion) and 30 years per generations that is generally considered much more realistic.
"Plenty of time to travel right around the world, if they'd had the ability to do so".
Like that one said about the Neanderthal of Greece: they are people, not trees!
Even trees travel in form of seeds.
"But R* probably first appeared within a region that N* had already reached".
I don't care: pre-R and N* are the same thing. Nobody would be able to tell the difference until the key mutation happened.
"Blombos cave is hardly evidence of a committed coastal exploitation to the exclusion of more generalised hunter/gathering".
Nobody claims that both lifestyles are exclusive. You eat what you can: one day you go fishing and the next one you go hunting... or even different individuals take care of each role, or goes seasonally, or whatever. I'm too used to have all economic sectors in each valley and town: hyper-specialization is not the natural thing in humans, that's just capitalism.
"And certainly not evidence for possession of any sort of boats".
Indirect evidence (coastal exploitation) is better than your lack of evidence. Logically whoever was grabbing all those shells from the tidal zone, from 130,000 BP in Palestine to 75,000 BP in South Africa, knew what a boat was (or was not human). Even someone as stubborn as you woul have invented and highly improved boats after 45,000 years foraging in beaches.
Thinking otherwise is simply dumb.
"For a start the fact that L3 is present in the same place as 'the oldest fossil H. sapiens' is hardly relevant"...
It is not just present: it is also most diverse.
"unless you're claiming that the carriers of L0, L1, L2 and L4 were not H. sapiens".
Not at all (don't be abusive). L0 is also found in that area (L0a, L0b, L0f). The real division might be at the L1/L2''6 split: the latter looks clearly "Horner" but L1 looks more like Pygmy/Bushmen specific, with some extension into West Africa and very rare findings in The Horn.
L4 is a close relative of L6 and, specially, L3, within the L3'4'6 and the L4'6 haplogroups. It can well be said that the closest relatives of Eurasians in Africa, after the other L3 peoples, are those with L4 (notably click-speakers of Tanzania, who provide a "living fossil" of early proto-Eurasians).
It can be argued that L0 and L1 have highest diversity in Southern Africa. Fair enough. But I'm not restricting the origins of humankind to The Horn, but rather to, most likely, an arch between South Africa and Sudan, where East Africa is central and particularly for the northern branch (L2''6).
L3 has 7 branches:
- L3a
- L3b'f
- L3c'd'j
- L3e'i'k'x
- L3h
- M
- N
Apart of M and N, which have clearly Asian coalescence homelands, none of the rest looks like West African or anything that is not East/NE African. L3b, L3d and L3e are clearly West/Middle African but these are not basal subclades of L3, just large sublineages of various sublineages within L3.
All the rest is concentrated in NE Africa (or sometimes in North Africa):
- L3j (Sudan)
- L3c (Ethiopia, Yemen)
- L3i (Ethiopia, Yemen, Oman, Algeria)
- L3x (Ethiopia, Algeria, Israel, Kuwait, Oman)
- L3k (Lybia, Tunisia)
- L3f (Ethiopia, Chad, Southern Africa, Egypt, West Africa, Levant, Chad, Oman - all three L3f sublineages are present in Ethiopia)
- L3h (Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Tunisia, Chad, G. Bissau)
- L3a (Ethiopia)
See Behar 2008 for the reference (download figure S1). Wikipedia is obviously incomplete.
The basal diversity of L3 is clearly concentrated in Sudan/Ethiopia (I'd dare say Ethiopia specifically). Additionally its closest relatives, L4 and L6, are also found essentially around The Horn (L4 in Tanzanian click-speakers basically and L6 across Bab-el-Mandeb). If there is any scatter of L3(xM,N) it is as much to West Africa as to North Africa/West Asia, often with derived lineages only found in this last region.
"So, instead of making up things and hiding data let's actually look at the evidence".
Exactly my point.
Check my latest post on this matter of African mtDNA, in particular the last one, which deals with L3'4'6.
It's crystal clear that L3 and the overall L3'4'6 originated at Ethiopia or Sudan or not far away. Furthermore, all upstream lineages have strong presence in the area, so it looks like NE Africa was launching batches of people in all directions all the time.
First off, thanks for all the additional information regarding L3.
"but L1 looks more like Pygmy/Bushmen specific, with some extension into West Africa and very rare findings in The Horn".
Yes, and you don't mention another pre-L3 lien: L2. Also found mainly in West Africa. So you'd have to include West Africa in your 'But I'm not restricting the origins of humankind to The Horn, but rather to, most likely, an arch between South Africa and Sudan, where East Africa is central and particularly for the northern branch (L2''6)'. So, ultimately, the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa.
"The basal diversity of L3 is clearly concentrated in Sudan/Ethiopia (I'd dare say Ethiopia specifically)".
Your information doesn't entirely bear that out. L3 is spread widely through the northern half of Africa, although perhaps more diverse in Ethiopia. But many L3s are found right through North Africa from Algeria to Egypt and out into the Levant, so leaving very much open a Levant exit rather than a Bab-al-Mandab one:
L3a (Ethiopia)
L3b'f
L3b (West/Middle African),
L3f (Ethiopia, Chad, Southern Africa, Egypt, West Africa, Levant, Chad, Oman - all three L3f sublineages are present in Ethiopia). So both haplogroups are found right across Africa, although L3b seems west and L3f seems east, including the Levant and beyond.
L3c'd'j
L3c (Ethiopia, Yemen)
L3d (West/Middle African)
L3j (Sudan). Again, widespread across the Sahel, although seemingly concentrated in the east. And when did L3c reach Yemen?
L3e'i'k'x
L3e (West/Middle African)
L3i (Ethiopia, Yemen, Oman, Algeria)
L3k (Lybia, Tunisia)
L3x (Ethiopia, Algeria, Israel, Kuwait, Oman). Interesting. Algeria, Tunisia, Israel and points beyond, and south, including Ethiopia.
L3h (Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Tunisia, Chad, G. Bissau). Again: along the northern coast and out into The Levant. Although Guinea Bissau is a bit out of the way.
"Even trees travel in form of seeds".
But generally not too far away. And I very much suspect that if you have a huge distance between any postulated origin of a haplogroup and its ancestors you've got something seriously wrong with your theory.
"hyper-specialization is not the natural thing in humans, that's just capitalism".
I agree totally. But unless you're going to postulate coastal specialization in ancient humans you can wave bye-bye to any coastal migration.
"Indirect evidence (coastal exploitation) is better than your lack of evidence".
There is not even 'indirect evidence' for boats at Blombos. And are you claiming a 'lack of evidence' for boats in Wallacea 50,000 years ago?
"Logically whoever was grabbing all those shells from the tidal zone, from 130,000 BP in Palestine to 75,000 BP in South Africa, knew what a boat was (or was not human)".
Boats are completely un-necessary for that sort of exploitation. Have you never collected shellfish?
""The basal diversity of L3 is clearly concentrated in Sudan/Ethiopia (I'd dare say Ethiopia specifically)".
Your information doesn't entirely bear that out. L3 is spread widely through the northern half of Africa, although perhaps more diverse in Ethiopia. But many L3s are found right through North Africa from Algeria to Egypt and out into the Levant, so leaving very much open a Levant exit rather than a Bab-al-Mandab one".
That says absolutely nothing against L3 expanding from the area of Ethiopia. They could have boated to Palestine and Egypt, either through the Red Sea or the Nile or both.
In fact, they probably did that.
"So you'd have to include West Africa"...
Sure. But only for some lineages, arguably L2 among the large ones, and then some smaller ones downstream ones too.
"And I very much suspect that if you have a huge distance between any postulated origin of a haplogroup and its ancestors you've got something seriously wrong with your theory".
Your choice. I see no problem whatsoever, as there were thousands of years in between. If each generation migrates 100 km, it's 10,000 after 100 generations (3000 years). Just as an example.
It's not only possible but in fact very likely in the scenario of an uninhabited land, as was most of Asia back then.
Got a quarrel with uncle Jack? Let's get moving (with some more friendly people) a little bit upstream/downstream/across the hills, to that idyllic district where nobody lives yet.
Voting with the feet is a characteristic of hunter-gatherer societies and surely a primary engine for human migration wherever population was low. Additionally, as hunter-gatherers they had to migrate at least seasonally, even if only or mostly within an area.
"... unless you're going to postulate coastal specialization in ancient humans you can wave bye-bye to any coastal migration".
Why? Couldn't they fish now, hunt then and gather dates that other day? Logically they did.
Maybe there were some more specialized groups but I don't really need them. And, anyhow, they'd change their strategies depending on their circumstances.
"There is not even 'indirect evidence' for boats at Blombos".
There is evidence for boats at Crete, 130,000 years ago, 45,000 years before Blombos' shells.
"And are you claiming a 'lack of evidence' for boats in Wallacea 50,000 years ago?"
No. I'm saying that you lack evidence for lack of boats before that. It's a mayor claim that you base on nothing but your imagination.
"Boats are completely un-necessary for that sort of exploitation. Have you never collected shellfish?"
Yes. You may need boats and even getting to very difficult spots depending what you are looking for. People die collecting seafood. In any case, they are a most convenient tool if you live at the coast, at a swamp, at a river or by a lake. Boats are just sooo necessary for everything!
"They could have boated to Palestine and Egypt, either through the Red Sea or the Nile or both".
Doubtful.
"It's not only possible but in fact very likely in the scenario of an uninhabited land, as was most of Asia back then".
If it was uninhabited they would almost certainly leave populations behind. Even if they'd had 'a quarrel with uncle Jack' and moved on uncle Jack would remain behind. So as a population expanded we would expect to see the same, or closely related, haplogroups scattered along the way. So even 'If each generation migrates 100 km, it's 10,000 after 100 generations (3000 years)' we'd still expect to see more than just a trace of their passing.
"You may need boats and even getting to very difficult spots"
If you don't have boats you just leave the difficult spots.
"Boats are just sooo necessary for everything!"
But not for collecting shellfish.
You are ignoring drift and fixation. So if at the time of "uncle Jack" the small population had haplogroups A, B and C, centuries later there can perfectly be a dozen scattered populations, some with only A, some with only B, some with only C and some maybe still with several lineages.
Only if all were initially A, then we'd see the track for sure, because all derived colonies would be A-something. But if they had some initial diversity, as it's most likely, then the track will appear blurry and randomly "erased", as is the case.
"If you don't have boats you just leave the difficult spots".
Lol, tell that to your Wallaceans. Obviously, if you don't have boats, you invent them. Humans are creators, natural born masters of the elements. If you can make fire, you can make a boat and whatever else you may need.
Maju said,
"Lol, tell that to your Wallaceans. Obviously, if you don't have boats, you invent them. Humans are creators, natural born masters of the elements. If you can make fire, you can make a boat and whatever else you may need."
I do not understand Maju's fascination with firestriking. Has he never instinctively rubbed his palms together on a cold day to warm them up?
Have you ever made a fire with such primitive tools? Also conceptually it's quite challenging: though animals may occasionally use logs as rafts and understand that concept easily, no other animal but humans uses fire, much less makes it happen artificially.
Fire making is a conceptual creative challenge at least as complex as building a raft or canoe if not more. Yet humans everywhere (except in Andaman islands it seems) master it. And it seems it's been the case since H. erectus.
So why would they not be able to create a simple raft or canoe (and even to reinvent the concept once and again as need be). I really do not understand the objections in this regard, specially when it seems so extremely useful in all circumstances but maybe some highlands and deserts (not our favorite habitat).
"Yet humans everywhere (except in Andaman islands it seems) master it".
And probably Tasmania. They carried fire around with them and if it died out they were introuble, unless they could borrow some from another group. So to claim, 'it seems it's been the case since H. erectus' is obviously doubtful.
"So if at the time of 'uncle Jack' the small population had haplogroups A, B and C"
If! And it's a big IF. I think we're talking about populations on the advancing edge of human expansion. In which case they're likely to be inbred, at least to some extent. It's therefore quite possible to ahve populations containing just a single male and a single female haplogroup.
"Only if all were initially A, then we'd see the track for sure, because all derived colonies would be A-something".
And I believe that's precisely what we do see for the early expansion.
I understand that those rare insular cases seem ones of loss of knowledge, maybe associated to humid conditions. I may be wrong but people has been using fire since H. erectus or H. habilis, what to me implies the ability to produce it.
"If! And it's a big IF".
Fixation needs time. I do expect the group(s) leaving Africa to have got some haplogroup variability in them, surely greater than the one we can perceive now.
"And I believe that's precisely what we do see for the early expansion".
No. We see at least two distinct L3 lineages, split already at the next step under L3, and we see three distinct CDEF lineages, also separated from each other very early on. So, unless you think that L3 migrated to South Asia in the time of a single mutation (and the stood there idle for two mutations more before showing any signs of expansion) and CDEF did the same (and then what happens with E and DE*: backmigration?), we must assume that the original Eurasian population had at least two female lineages and two or three male ones.
"I understand that those rare insular cases seem ones of loss of knowledge"
Almost certainly correct. But you mentioned the Andamans as not having fire.
"I do expect the group(s) leaving Africa to have got some haplogroup variability in them, surely greater than the one we can perceive now".
Perhaps not though.
"We see at least two distinct L3 lineages, split already at the next step under L3"
Yes. And very soon after that split. No early branches remain in Africa which is not what we'd expect if they'd hung around within that continent for any length of time.
"and we see three distinct CDEF lineages, also separated from each other very early on".
Possibly just one, and one of the subsequent lineages moved back.
"So, unless you think that L3 migrated to South Asia in the time of a single mutation"
Very doubtful. Didn't we agree that they lived in the Levant for some time, and spread to India from there via some route as yet unknown?
"But you mentioned the Andamans as not having fire".
As not making fire. For what I've read they do use fire, which they keep always alive. When they lose it for whichever reason they ask their neighbors for replacement.
However I have only read once on that and I can't recall where. So I wouldn't mind confirmation or refutation.
In any case Andaman is an "insular case".
Just imagine how hard it'd be going through Siberia with your nuclear family and maybe another "support" family, hundreds or thousands of kilometers away from anybody else in such conditions, specially in winter. You need to be able to make your own fire in non-tropical conditions: it seems fairly clear to me. In tropical conditions instead you may go without fire for a while and still survive fairly well.
"Yes. And very soon after that split. No early branches remain in Africa which is not what we'd expect if they'd hung around within that continent for any length of time".
Are you talking of L3 in general or of M and N here? I think that the latter. So I'd agree that L3 leading to M and N surely crossed the Red Sea and moved eastward quite fast.
However it still took M three mutations (15,000 years?) to find a suitable place to expand (South Asia) and they still left no traces. What to me means that either they went extinct or that the L3 lineages were replaced by others in a drift and fixation process that involved not just L3 people (we don't see L3 exclusive to Arabia that appears so old) but other lineages (as mentioned in the other thread: L0a1b2, L0f2b, L4b1 and L6 specially). So I'd suggest that the OoA people included all these haplogroups: L3'4'6* (leading to L6), L4b* (leading to L4b1), L0a1b* (leading to L0a1b2), L0f2* (leading to L0f2b) and L3* (leading to M and N)... at least.
Such diversity probably implied a frequent crossing of the Red Sea by peoples of the Sudan-Ethiopia-Eritrea area. However we see no signal of crossing before the L3 node, so maybe they only began daring to cross the sea at about that time (however I still have the Crete issue troubling my mind, which would seem older).
If so, the L3* (leading to M and N) people might have been pioneers (or among them) and hence moved fast ahead of others (or maybe pushed by them), eventually reaching a much better place beyond Hormuz, where they thrived.
"Possibly just one, and one of the subsequent lineages moved back".
Doesn't make sense: DE* exists in Africa and Africa is surely the homeland of DE as a whole. Also I tend to associate Y-DNA E with mtDNA L3, as both seem to have expanded from the same area.
I don't accept the E backmigration hypothesis. I can't.
"Very doubtful. Didn't we agree that they lived in the Levant for some time, and spread to India from there via some route as yet unknown?"
Did we? I keep my mind open about the two possible routes (South Arabia and Fertile Crescent). Whatever the case the coastal route is almost a must from the Gulf on. That's what the GIS simulations say, even if starting in Kurdistan.
Now I happen to see way too many L lineages with deep pedigree in Saudia (Hedjaz), Yemen and Oman and not really so many in the Levant... so I'm leaning towards the South Arabian route.
Keep your eyes open and the track will tell you what happened... or not (but in this case, no conclusion can be reached).
"So I'd suggest that the OoA people included all these haplogroups: L3'4'6* (leading to L6), L4b* (leading to L4b1), L0a1b* (leading to L0a1b2), L0f2* (leading to L0f2b) and L3* (leading to M and N)... at least".
I printed off all your great diagrams a few days ago and have now had time to look at them at my leisure.
I've noticed that by the time the two L3 haplogroups, M and N, emerged from Africa at the 23 mutation level more than 30 other haplogroups had already become spread through and across Africa, including the ones you mention. Some of these do seem to have spread at the 23 mutation level, but almost certainly confined to Africa. There seems also to be evidence for at least two subsequent expansions within Africa. The first at the 31/32 mutation level, the second at the 36/37 mutation level. It is only during these two later expansions that branches of L haplogroups (other than M and N) become established outside Africa, at such places as the Levant, Jordan, Syria, Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Yemen.
Most of the haplogroups already present at the 23 mut. level have become too widespread to draw conclusions about their origin but some seem to have remained localised from the time of their origin.
L1 had diversified at 9 mutations. L1c became spread widely through Africa, presumably from West or Central Africa, at the 19 mut. level (L1c, L1c2'4, L1c6 and L1c3). L1b remained a private lineage until expanding widely through Africa at the 30 mut. level, reaching Ethiopia at that time.
L0 had diversified at 11 mut. and spread throughout South and East Africa. My guess is from the south, because L0d is almost exclusively South African. As is L0k, with a mysterious member present in Yemen at 32 mut. (also L0d3 in Kuwait, presumably arriving there around the same time). Various L0as and L0fs became scattered all round and across Africa about the 23 mut. level, reaching Ethiopia at that time.
L5 separated into L5a and L5c at 13 mutations. The latter East African (reaching Ethiopia at 27 mut.), the former expanding much later from two regions: South Africa (L5a2) and East/Central Africa (L5a1).
L2 had first appeared at the 16 mut. level but broke into L2a and L2b at the 23 mut. level. So that split is probably connected to the movement that took M and N out. Both L2a and L2b spread widely through Africa, reaching Ethiopia at 31 mutations.
L6 formed at 18 mutations. Again it was a private lineage until the 37 mut. level. It is an East African lineage.
L4 appears just a little before the 23 mut. expansion and is also East African.
So that's the situation when M and N emerged from Africa. L3 may have originated in Ethiopia but L3a is the only clade placed there close to the 23 mut. level. In fact L3 seems to be spread very early through the Sahel, from Birkina Faso to Kenya, and reaching into North Africa.
Don't know. You are talking of different things than I do. Different lineages in most cases. I have noticed some further spread to Asia after the 30 mut. timeline but I am not dwelling into it (yet) because it may be related to the backmigration from South Asia at that same time.
But I have detected several nodes that split into an Africa and an Asian lineage before that line, one of them is L3'4'6 (L6 Asian, L3'4 African).
Another issue is that the Asian lineages have long stems but they are still not found in Africa at all or, in a few cases, like L6 retain the greatest diversity in Asia.
"L6 formed at 18 mutations. Again it was a private lineage until the 37 mut. level. It is an East African lineage".
At 18 mutations it's not yet L6 but L3'4'6* or pre-L6. But the crucial thing is that L6 is not an "East African" lineage at basal level: clearly not. You can argue that of L6b but not of L6 as a whole.
But whatever.
"But the crucial thing is that L6 is not an 'East African' lineage at basal level: clearly not. You can argue that of L6b but not of L6 as a whole".
It's difficult to argue anything other than it being an East African lineage. Are you suggesting that L6 originated in Yemen? That means that L6a must have moved from Yemen to Egypt and L6b moved from Yemen to Ethiopia. Did each haplogroup have a different coloured ear tag to make draughting easier? Isn't it far more likely that L6a formed in Egypt and L6b formed in Ethiopia, and that they both moved to Yemen at some later time? That's why L6 retains its greatest diversity in Asia: L6 came from two different places.
"But I have detected several nodes that split into an Africa and an Asian lineage before that line, one of them is L3'4'6 (L6 Asian, L3'4 African)".
Not so if L6 is actually Egyptian/Ethiopian. I can't actually see any lineages that are 'exclusively' Asian from any time before the 29-31 mutation level.
Another rather interesting thing I've noticed about your diagram: it's actually rather difficult to make a case that L0''6 originated in Ethiopia. Rather than demonstrating a South and East African L0/L1''6 split your diagram suggests a South and West African split. L1 certainly appears to be primarily West/Central African, as does L2 (less certainly). L4, L5 and L6 do seem to be East African, but are probably outliers from the main Sudan/Sahel L1''6 population. Nothing is definitely Ethiopian until after M and N moved out of Africa, at 23 mutations. The diversity in Ethiopia is indicative of multiple immigrations, not origin.
"I have noticed some further spread to Asia after the 30 mut. timeline but I am not dwelling into it (yet) because it may be related to the backmigration from South Asia at that same time".
That's probably true. But that doesn't prove any L lines backmigrated to Africa. It's more likely to indicate that once humans had the ability to cross the Red Sea movement was in both directions, M and several Rs in, and several Ls out.
"Are you suggesting that L6 originated in Yemen?"
I think that it's the most likely scenario.
"That means that L6a must have moved from Yemen to Egypt and L6b moved from Yemen to Ethiopia".
And if it coalesced in Egypt it means that L6a must have moved to Yemen and L6b to both Ethiopia and Yemen (and gone extinct in Egypt). And if it coalesced in Ethiopia it means that L6a must have moved to both Egypt and Yemen (and gone extinct in Ethiopia) and L6b to Yemen as well.
So the simplest answer, on light of the available data, seems to be that L6 as a whole coalesced in Yemen (where it never went extinct), with branches migrating to Egypt and Ethiopia (distinct sublineages, what makes also good sense, as these are distinct migrations).
"Isn't it far more likely that L6a formed in Egypt and L6b formed in Ethiopia, and that they both moved to Yemen at some later time?"
It would be an extreme coincidence and I don't believe in coincidences. However the data is limited and all options remain open. Believe what you prefer.
"Not so if L6 is actually Egyptian/Ethiopian".
But I see it as Yemeni (both sublineages are found there), the same that I see its major sister, L3'4, as African (both sublineages are primarily found there as well).
"I can't actually see any lineages that are 'exclusively' Asian from any time before the 29-31 mutation level".
Not sure anymore. I'm bored of browsing the phylogenetic graphs once and again only to rebuke a vague assertion as this one. Anyhow, even at the 29 mutation level, it is still before any signal of any Eurasian presence in West Asia (surely at Iran-Iraq first of all, a whole desert away from the Red Sea), so even at that level they would not be interacting yet most likely.
"... it's actually rather difficult to make a case that L0''6 originated in Ethiopia".
L0''6 is "mitochondrial Eve". I don't think I ever went as far as to state a likely origin for such an early ancestor.
What I said was:
"Hence, with the branching and scatter of L0 and L1 we are probably "witnessing" the first expansion of humankind, with one branch heading south (L0d), another heading west into the jungle (L1c), another heading towards the Ethiopian highlands (L0a'b'f'k or at least L0a'b'f) and yet another heading maybe towards West Africa (L1b). The remaining macro-lineage (L2''6), which is the major one by raw numbers today, probably represents a second expansion".
As we know, L2"6 looks also pretty much East African ("Ethiopian" if you wish) with the likely exception of L2 (and L6 if Yemeni - but just across the Red Sea, not big deal).
"Rather than demonstrating a South and East African L0/L1''6 split your diagram suggests a South and West African split. L1 certainly appears to be primarily West/Central African, as does L2 (less certainly)".
Yah, but the structure is as follows (> means node, not mutation, here):
>L0
_>L0a'b'f'k (EA)
_>L0d (SA)
>L1"6
_>L1
__>L1b (WA)
__>L2c (CA)
_>L2"6
__>L5 (EA)
__>L2'3'4'6
___>L2 (WA?, CA?, EA?)
___>L3'4'6 (EA)
____>L6 (Yemen?)
____>L3'4 (EA)
_____>L4 (EA)
_____>L3 (EA)
So, if we have L2"6 and L0a'b'f'k as East African lineages, we have a case similar to that of L6 and Yemen: both basal sublineages (L0 and L1"6) are found in the core region, while they are also found elsewhere but at different localities each.
It's not totally conclusive but it follows the maximum likelihood logic. And archaeology probably supports such scenario as well (though not sure how strongly right now).
"L4, L5 and L6 do seem to be East African, but are probably outliers from the main Sudan/Sahel L1''6 population".
I consider Sudan part of East Africa and in fact it plays a major role, along with The Horn and the Uganda-Kenya-Tanzania area in that province.
In any case L4, L5, L6 and L3 are almost all L1"6 and certainly L2"6. L1"6 split in two: L1 went West and L2"6 surely remained at/went to East Africa (Sudan if you wish), where most of its sublineages are found.
"And if it coalesced in Egypt it means that L6a must have moved to Yemen and L6b to both Ethiopia and Yemen (and gone extinct in Egypt). And if it coalesced in Ethiopia it means that L6a must have moved to both Egypt and Yemen (and gone extinct in Ethiopia) and L6b to Yemen as well".
The simplest explanation (Occam's razor) is that L6* coalesced somewhere between Egypt and Ethiopia (Sudan?) and spread to both places. Whereupon L6a coalesced in Egypt and L6b coalesced in Ethiopia. The two separate haplogroups made it to Yemen after effective boating arrived in the Red Sea. That's why 'both sublineages are found there'. Hardly 'an extreme coincidence'. After all, they're hardly the only lineages found there.
"we are probably 'witnessing' the first expansion of humankind, with one branch heading south (L0d)"
It could well be that L0 was in South Africa and it was L0a'b'f that moved north, possibly with L1''6.
"As we know, L2"6 looks also pretty much East African"
Not so. L1 is West African with no representatives in East Africa until relatively late. As you say: 'L1
__>L1b (WA)
__>L2c (CA)'. L2 is also quite likely to have its origin in West Africa, so that places L2''6 in West Africa at an early date, but not in East Africa quite so early.
"So, if we have L2"6 and L0a'b'f'k as East African lineages"
You're ignoring their representatives in West Africa. Only downstream lines (mostly after the 23 mut. level) are definitely confined to East Africa. The basal lines are often widespread through West Africa and the Sahel.
"L1 went West and L2"6 surely remained at/went to East Africa (Sudan if you wish), where most of its sublineages are found".
It's just as possible (and probably more likely) that L1''6 went to West Africa (perhaps via Sudan) and the reason most lineages are found in East Africa is because of long-term back migration. Even L3 is not unequivocally East African (except for L3a). You just claim it so because it suits your belief. L3 has representatives spread right across the Sahel so could have originated anywhere within it.
"I consider Sudan part of East Africa and in fact it plays a major role, along with The Horn and the Uganda-Kenya-Tanzania area in that province".
I agree that Sudan has been important, as have Uganda-Kenya-Tanzania, but I believe you over-rate the importance of the Horn. Especially when we consider that Y-hap T, presumably a back migration from Asis, is so widespread there. Suggests the Horn was relatively empty when Y-hap T arrived.
"The simplest explanation (Occam's razor) is that L6* coalesced somewhere between Egypt and Ethiopia (Sudan?)"
On a canoe on the Red Sea seems more likely.
There's no known L6 in Sudan and the one in Ethiopia fits well with a Yemeni ultimate origin (Semitic from the North, not tribal from near Sudan).
"Whereupon L6a coalesced in Egypt and L6b coalesced in Ethiopia".
Just because it fits best with your dogma? Sorry, no: too much of a coincidence.
"The two separate haplogroups made it to Yemen after effective boating arrived in the Red Sea. That's why 'both sublineages are found there'. Hardly 'an extreme coincidence'".
To me it does seem an extremely unlikely coincidence: of all scattered lineages of NE and East Africa, the ones heading to Yemen were precisely the two L6 "sisters"? One from here and the other from there.
C'mon! Your resistence is growing ridiculously far fetched. You are going to explode in a logic impossibility hypercurl at any moment.
Relax and accept the facts.
"It could well be that L0 was in South Africa and it was L0a'b'f that moved north, possibly with L1''6".
It could be but that's like 80% of all earliest lineages migrating, Fray Occam would say otherwise.
""As we know, L2"6 looks also pretty much East African"
Not so. L1 is West African".
I don't care: I'm not discussing L1 but L2"6. And I would not call Gabon and Chad "West Africa" in any case but Equatorial, Middle or Central Africa. West Africa begins at Mt. Cameroon more or less.
"You're ignoring their representatives in West Africa".
I'm leaning to where majority of top level lineages seems to dictate. It's not me: it's just vectorial maths.
"The basal lines are often widespread through West Africa and the Sahel".
"The Sahel" means for you Chad and Sudan? Or does it mean Senegal and Mauritania?
Whatever the case, the basal lines are mostly concentrated around the Upper Nile, which I suspect it's the core area of humankind, holding massive diversity at all levels, with the others being offshoots (less diverse, even at basal levels).
You are free to disagree but I see no merit in your protests.
"It's just as possible (and probably more likely) that L1''6 went to West Africa (perhaps via Sudan) and the reason most lineages are found in East Africa is because of long-term back migration".
No. It's the anti-Occam kind of pseudo-logic I detest (with good reason).
"Even L3 is not unequivocally East African (except for L3a)".
Uh?
L3a: Ethiopia, L3b'f: Upper Nile, L3c'd'j: Upper Nile, L3e'i'k'x: Nile, L3h: Ethiopia, M: South Asia, N SE Asia.
For me it's quite clear: the Upper Nile. But again you are free to disagree.
"L3 has representatives spread right across the Sahel so could have originated anywhere within it".
Not just across the Sahel but also across Asia and all Earth. But you would not place its origin in France, Bangla Desh or even your darling Wallacea, right? I would not certainly.
"I agree that Sudan has been important, as have Uganda-Kenya-Tanzania, but I believe you over-rate the importance of the Horn".
I don't think I do. However the very high variance of Ethiopian lineages suggests this country did play an important role, along with its neighbors.
Whatever the case I am very much aware of Sudanese diversity and I have always been talking of the Nile and Upper Nile. All the rest is your imagination.
However Behar et al. did emphasize Ethiopia and they have clearly some good reasons to do so.
"'The Sahel' means for you Chad and Sudan? Or does it mean Senegal and Mauritania?"
All of them. Right across the savanah region. And that's where most haplogroups appear to have originated.
"To me it does seem an extremely unlikely coincidence: of all scattered lineages of NE and East Africa, the ones heading to Yemen were precisely the two L6 'sisters'? One from here and the other from there".
Again you're ignoring relevant evidence. What about L0a1d, L0k2, L2d, L4a2, L3f1b2, L3i1b and L3x1? All present in Yemen but you fail to include them. Why?
"And I would not call Gabon and Chad 'West Africa' in any case but Equatorial, Middle or Central Africa. West Africa begins at Mt. Cameroon more or less".
I'd check your map. There's something wrong with it. Cameroon actually reaches Lake Chad and Gabon is directly south of Mount Cameroon.
"All of them. Right across the savanah region".
That's a too wide description for me. I acknowledge that the Sahel was surely a migration corridor, as was the East African savanna, but it's not the same Mauritania than Sudan, and they have wildly different genetics.
"And that's where most haplogroups appear to have originated".
I'm working on more detailed localizations of likely origins and I have so far gone through L0, L1 and L2.
L0 seems essentially South/East African (the savanna corridor) and mostly unrelated to West or North Africa (but has lineages that pop up at Arabia). I'd say it may have originated near Lake Tanganyika, with a branch (essentially L0d) heading south and another branch (essentially L0a'b'f'k) heading north along the Rift Valley.
L1 seems fundamentally Central-West African, with a posible origin south of Lake Chad. L1c headed south to the Jungle (which may have used as specialists' corridor to reach Guinea Bissau in one case) and L1b north to the steppe, where essentially remained put.
L2 is tricky because a single individual with basal lineage L2e (one of two basal lineages) pulls the composite centroid to the west a lot, making it look as original from the area of Niamey (Niger) or NW Nigeria. Otherwise, its main branch, L2a-d, seems centered in Eastern Chad, not far from Darfur (and most sublineages appear centered around that Chad-Sudan-CAR area too).
I have not yet dealt with L5, L6 and L3 but I have already said that they look original from the Upper Nile area. When I finish I also want to estimate likely origins (composite centroids) for the various nodes in L1"6 and then also for "mtDNA Eve".
But I'm already guessing that around Lake Victoria.
"What about L0a1d, L0k2, L2d, L4a2, L3f1b2, L3i1b and L3x1? All present in Yemen but you fail to include them. Why?"
Because I was talking about L6! And also because my brain only has a limited capacity, WTF!
You are extremely on the defensive. Relax and meditate, seriously.
"I'd check your map. There's something wrong with it. Cameroon actually reaches Lake Chad and Gabon is directly south of Mount Cameroon".
Mt. Cameroon is in SW Cameroon, near the border with Nigeria. The divide between West and Middle Africa goes since modern border exists, i.e. since the colonial period, between Cameroon and Chad at the east and Nigeria and Niger at the west. It's of course an arbitrary border but it's also convenient to have it in mind.
At least I do make that difference when talking: Cameroon is Middle Africa and Nigeria is West Africa. Same for Chad and Niger.
"I'm working on more detailed localizations of likely origins and I have so far gone through L0, L1 and L2".
I keep looking at your work too. Thanks. This is what I've come up with. Some agrees with your assessment:
The first split seems to be simply a north/south one with L0 in the south and L1''6 slightly to the north. But the south and north of what? My guess is somewhere in the grassy savannah in the southern Congo Basin. Y-haps A and B have their centroids there, so we have a possible connection.
There seems next to be several expansions around the 9 mut. level. By then L1''6 had already diverged into L2''6 and L1. L1 had even diverged into L1b and L1c, and L5 had appeared. L1 seems to have moved north, then west along the northern edge of the Congo Basin savannah zone. L1c forming in 'Middle Africa' and L1b perhaps not quite so far west.
At 9 mut in the south L0d managed to move further south from the Congo Basin, possibly into the drier savannah. L0a,b,f,k started its move north, possibly through a similar habitat. L5 may have moved beyond the grassland savannah of the northeast Congo Basin.
Where was L1'2'3'6? I don't know, but there seems to have been another general expansion beginning just before the 16 mut and carrying on to 23 mut. In the south L0a'b'f'k began breaking up as it moved north over the period: L0k in the south, then L0f, then L0a (which began its own expansion at 23 mut, presumably along with L3). In fact L5 had split at 13 mut into a northeastern haplogroup (beyond the Congo Basin, L5c), and a southwestern one (L5a) within the Congo Basin. It wasn't until long after 23 mut that the two separate L5 lines expanded again, along the eastern savannah. Meanwhile, further north, L2 had appeared at 16 mut and it too has its own little expansion at 23 mut. L6 appeared at 18 mut and L1c started moving north into the Sahel and south into the jungle. This last movement carried on past 23 mut.
I've looked at L4 and L3 too, but I'll quit now.
I think I have addressed as well as possible all these issues in my latest post.
Not sure if you are commenting on it. If so you may want to post there.
I'm replying to your questions on topic. Because otherwise I'll get lost. I'd like you'd reply also in the relevant article.
Post a Comment