Posts
I have been working for some time in yet another attempt of reconstruction of the mtDNA spread in Eurasia, this time focusing only on coding region mutations, because the hyper-variable or control region (also D-loop) is much less reliable. What follows is the result until I got bored of checking the regional adscription of the most rare lineages.
The maps are a plausible sequence of the Eurasian mtDNA spread, based on how many CR mutations separates them from the most common recent ancestor: L3. Each map represents one coding region mutation further away from L3.
1. The M explosion:
Macro-haplogroup M has right now 43 basal sublineages (per PhyloTree), being the largest starlike structure in all humankind. This is the signature of a brutal expansion that probably happened upon the arrival of the first Homo sapiens to South Asia, where this lineage has its highest diversity by far.
.gif)
2. The M explosion (cont.):
Not only M as such shows clear signs of expansiveness early on, many of its sublineages bi-/multifurcated just after it. Most did in South Asia itself but a handful expanded in Eastern Eurasia (i.e. everything that is East of Bangladesh), reaching already as far as Melanesia and maybe Japan, it seems. It was no doubt the time of the rapid coastal migration.
3. The N explosion:
For centrality and diversity reasons, mainly, I have decided that the only surviving "sister" clade of M probably expanded at SE Asia. I am not 100% sure but makes better sense than other options anyhow. In comparison with the huge starlike structure of M, the one of N is quite modest. It is still pretty large.
.gif)
I am not sure either that the N explosion only happened this late. I have not been able to properly apportionate all lineages and hence I'm using only the mutation count to the parental node (L3) but the impression exists that, on average, N-derived lineages host more mutations than M-derived ones. So it's possible that the molcular clock has been ticking slightly faster for N than for N (but large starlike lineages within N, like H, are definitively out of this conjectural rule, so I really can't say for sure).
Whatever the case, if the premises are correct, at this third phase, while N explodes, there is still a host of M sublineages (in italic type those that are not basal) showing their own signatures of expansion in Southern and Eastern Eurasia.
Notable maybe are M60 (found in NE India tribes) and M17 (Philippines). It's also notable that at this phase Australia is already being colonized.
4. The R explosion:
If N was said to be "modest", its daughter R would ammend that. Again we are not in front of any massive starlike spread of the type of M (only H approaches such dimensions, R has 16 basal sublineages) but the success of mtDNA R is unusual in spite of that.
.gif)
At the time of the R "bang", other lineages also show signals of expansion in South Asia, notably M4''64, which already began expanding in the previous phase. In the East, the flow of diverse lineages to Melanesia continues, while the expansion in NE Asia seems to slow down (a signal of a cold period?)
Notice how it is still M the macro-lineage dominating the scene, as N subclades show only scattered signs of expansion, with many just lurking for their opportunity (later).
5. The R explosion (cont.):
As happened with M early on (but unlike N), the explosion of R is followed just one mutation downstream by signatures of expansion of almost half of its basal sublineages. The dynamism is again very strong and it's also geographically, with expansion in all directions: West Asia (having to face the extremely strong Neanderthals, as well as some very arid regions), SE Asia, Melanesia, and of course in South Asia itself.
M sublineages are still expanding and it's notable that the dynamism seems to return to NE Asia and that the first signature of expansion in Andaman islands appears now.
Notice that R2'JT may be considered a West Eurasian lineage: the center of gravity of R2 seems to be at Balochistan, while that of JT is further west. But it doesn't change things too much.
6. Slow down:
I had to stop at some point and I decided to do it here, mostly because nothing too interesting seems to happen anymore. Sure, would I have continued with two more maps, I could have placed the defining nodes of some important lineages like U, H, V, F, X, A or Z. But R9 is already the ancestor of F and the outline of the colonization of West Eurasia and NE Asia has already been visible. Maybe tomorrow (stay tuned for possible updates).
So maybe the most important feature in this map is precisely the signature of expansion of R9, which together with B (see previous map) makes about all East Asian R. This is important in my opinion because I suspect that the expansion of mtDNA R may have been associated in the East with that of Y-DNA MNOPS. It's quite speculative at the moment, I admit, when we still know so little about this newly proposed patrilineage.(Update: Feb 19) - I just noticed that the expansion D4 and D5 would correspond with this last episode. They are important because D, as D4 after it, have star-like structures: signals of rapid demic expansion.
15 comments:
"This is the signature of a brutal expansion that probably happened upon the arrival of the first Homo sapiens to South Asia"
Indicates to me that India was probably uninhabited, or virtually so, when mtDNA M arrived.
"It was no doubt the time of the rapid coastal migration".
No need to postulate anything 'coastal' about it.
"I am not sure either that the N explosion only happened this late".
Probably didn't. It was earlier.
"but the impression exists that, on average, N-derived lineages host more mutations than M-derived ones. So it's possible that the molcular clock has been ticking slightly faster for N than for N"
You can make up anything you wish, but why refuse to accept that N is at least as old as M?
"It's also notable that at this phase Australia is already being colonized".
And had almost certainly already 'been' colonised, by mtDNA N.
"Again we are not in front of any massive starlike spread of the type of M"
Not on the same scale, but in much the same manner.
"R has 16 basal sublineages) but the success of mtDNA R is unusual in spite of that".
And you're really struggling to explain that success. Or its place of origin.
"as N subclades show only scattered signs of expansion"
But the N lineage is already spread around much of the world by this stage.
"the explosion of R is followed just one mutation downstream by signatures of expansion of almost half of its basal sublineages".
Hmmm. Now that really does suggest a small region of origin, rather than the widespread origin you postulate elsewhere.
"the first signature of expansion in Andaman islands appears now".
So what's happened to the Andamans being a marker of the Great Southern coastal migration?
"I suspect that the expansion of mtDNA R may have been associated in the East with that of Y-DNA MNOPS".
Agreed. But I suspect that its expansion in the west is also associated with Y-DNA MNOPS, specifically Y-hap R.
"Indicates to me that India was probably uninhabited, or virtually so, when mtDNA M arrived".
When M was formed. When pre-M arrived if you wish.
And pre-M (L3) migrated from Africa.
"No need to postulate anything 'coastal' about it".
Actually yes. The fact that in step 2 we find people already landing in New Guinea, for example, and probably also Japan says that.
"... but why refuse to accept that N is at least as old as M?"
My main reason is that it's separated from L3 by almost double of mutations (by CR count):
L3>>>M
L3>>>>>N
Graphic, right?
The other reason is that the dimensions of the N explosion are much more timid than those of M, what to me means that it only spread when there was already some population around, limiting, even if only somewhat, that expansion.
"And had almost certainly already 'been' colonised, by mtDNA N".
Why?
"And you're really struggling to explain that success. Or its place of origin".
I have no doubts about R place of coalescence: South Asia.
I don't have an explanation for its success. But I have not struggled the least about that either. Would I, I'd probably had some tentative explanations around. I have not looked for them: first the facts, then the causes.
"But the N lineage is already spread around much of the world by this stage".
We don't know. Until its sublineages expand we know nothing about its actual spread.
In any case, lineages that don't show early signs of expansion, that were lurking in "private" form, were not spread around the world: they existed only as minor lineages most likely. So N1'5, N9 and S can be considered within the very expansive drive of N itself. But all the rest were just lurking for a long time: they show no signs of expansion until later (and in many cases, they don't show any signs of expansion at all).
In this N is different from M and R, whose basal sublineages do in most cases show clear signs of secondary expansion immediatly after the starlike "bang".
"Hmmm. Now that really does suggest a small region of origin, rather than the widespread origin you postulate elsewhere".
I have not postulated such thing ever. Don't make up stuff about what I said: it's really annoying. :(
"So what's happened to the Andamans being a marker of the Great Southern coastal migration?"
Dunno. Who said that?
"Agreed. But I suspect that its expansion in the west is also associated with Y-DNA MNOPS, specifically Y-hap R".
For me it's rather associated with a varied array of lineages (IJ, G, T and maybe R1(b) too). The spread westward from South Asia probably happened in the same process for all or most of these lineages, including also some mtDNA that is not related to R, like M1 and N1.
"When pre-M arrived if you wish".
Yes, that's better.
"The fact that in step 2 we find people already landing in New Guinea, for example, and probably also Japan says that".
There is absolutely no reason at all why it need have been anywhere near the coast before they set out for New Guinea and Japan, even if that occurrs as early as step 2.
"Graphic, right?"
Thanks for that excellent illustration.
"Why?"
Australia was first settled around 50,000 years ago. That makes it very likely that mtDNA N beat M across Wallacea because nearly two thirds of Aborigine mtDNA is N, in the form of S (and N12, N13 and N14). And what is not basal N is virtually all R-derived P. M didn't make it to Australia except as a very minor component. So unless something really strange has happened in Australia mtDNA N was there before mtDNA M had crossed Wallacea.
"lineages that don't show early signs of expansion, that were lurking in 'private' form, were not spread around the world"
Maybe. But S almost certainly developed within Australia from N*, and was present by 50k, N1'5 probably developed in SW Asia from N* and N9/Y developed in NE Eurasia from N*. That leaves us with a very widespraed distribution for mtDNA N by at least 50,000 years ago. And that's before the expansion of N-derived mtDNA R. So although they were 'private' lineages they were widely scattered. It's just that it was a long time before they were able to expand individually, which they each did independently.
"So N1'5, N9 and S can be considered within the very expansive drive of N itself".
But as I said, that original N expansion was probably before, and independent of, M's. M was probably still expanding in India and mainland SE Asia at the time.
"whose basal sublineages do in most cases show clear signs of secondary expansion immediatly after the starlike 'bang'".
Lineages can obviously be present in a region long before they undergo a secondary expansion, especially if they don't form a particularly large population when they first arrive. Living conditions may have been marginal.
"I have not postulated such thing ever".
You claimed elsewhere that 'pre mtDNA R' had moved east into SE Asia with MNOPS and also moved west into SW Asia with G and IJ. After which both became mtDNA R. That sounds like a fairly widespread region to me.
"Dunno. Who said that?"
Many other people have claimed it as such, and I was sure you'd claimed it to be so. Sorry if you haven't.
"The spread westward from South Asia probably happened in the same process for all or most of these lineages, including also some mtDNA that is not related to R, like M1 and N1".
I readily accept M1 moved with Y-hap T for example, but I have difficulty accepting N1 is anything other than a comparatively recent immigrant into India.
"There is absolutely no reason at all why it need have been anywhere near the coast before they set out for New Guinea and Japan, even if that occurrs as early as step 2".
Of course not: we all know that the main transport today in New Guinea is the airplane and in Japan the high speed train. (Sarcastic).
"That makes it very likely that mtDNA N beat M across Wallacea because nearly two thirds of Aborigine mtDNA is N, in the form of S (and N12, N13 and N14). And what is not basal N is virtually all R-derived P. M didn't make it to Australia except as a very minor component. So unless something really strange has happened in Australia mtDNA N was there before mtDNA M had crossed Wallacea".
It may make sense. It's anyhow all relative to the timing of S (which seems I misplaced in New Guinea - ouch!) and two M sublineages. The difference is small so it fits well with normal uncertainty.
"So although they were 'private' lineages they were widely scattered".
It's possible but we just can't know. All we can do is to estimate the most likely areas of expansion at each node and trace a dotted line with arrow between them.
For example, take mtDNA S: only one CR mutation separates it from N, hence S clearly spread fast after the N expansion and did so in Australia, right? Now take mtDNA A, there are 5 CR mutations and greatest diversity in East Siberia. Hence we can trace a dotted line between "Bangkok" and "Okhotsk" (approximate locations) and we can also imagine it divided in five segments. That way, hypothetically, pre-A would have been maybe successively at Yunnan, Hunan, Beijing, Manchuria and Okhotsk. Or it could have been all the time lurking at the edge of Siberia or at the outskirts of Bangkok... or whatever.
Making claims in this regard is beyond what we can say with any certainty.
"But as I said, that original N expansion was probably before, and independent of, M's. M was probably still expanding in India and mainland SE Asia at the time".
But why? Just because it pleases you is no valid reason. The data contradicts that: at the M+1 step, we find 6 M sublineages showing signs of expansion in SE Asia (3), NE Asia (2) and Melanesia (1).
M is the Great Eurasian Expansion as such, regardless that there was another secondary expansion with N.
"Lineages can obviously be present in a region long before they undergo a secondary expansion, especially if they don't form a particularly large population when they first arrive. Living conditions may have been marginal".
Maybe but it's most unlikely, specially in the tropical and subtropical belt and specially if they are the first arrivals (no competence).
"You claimed elsewhere that 'pre mtDNA R' had moved east into SE Asia with MNOPS"...
No! I said the opposite: that undefined mtDNA R (not pre-R) moved into SE Asia with Y-DNA pre-MNOPS (K leading to MNOPS but not MNOPS yet, which obviously coalesced already in SE Asia).
"... but I have difficulty accepting N1 is anything other than a comparatively recent immigrant into India".
Not N1 but N1'5. N5 is a South Asian lineage and N1 a West Asian one but both were the same thing for a time (N1'5) and logic (parsimony, Occam's razor) tells us that that stage was in South Asia and not West Asia.
"we all know that the main transport today in New Guinea is the airplane and in Japan the high speed train. (Sarcastic)".
What I was getting at was that there was no need for them to have boats UNTIL they first arrived on the mainland shore opposite those islands.
"which seems I misplaced in New Guinea - ouch!)"
Wasn't it Y-hap S that you placed in Australia? It's confusing that mtDNA S is only in Australia and Y-hap S is only in New Guinea, especially for someone not familiar with the region in any way.
"Or it could have been all the time lurking at the edge of Siberia or at the outskirts of Bangkok".
I think the former more likely. The only mtDNA N common in India is R. What I suspect is that it too is an immigrant to India. It entered India and diversified there, after M had already diversified i n the subcontinent. It was able to do so because it exploited a new environment.
"But why? Just because it pleases you is no valid reason. The data contradicts that: at the M+1 step, we find 6 M sublineages showing signs of expansion in SE Asia (3), NE Asia (2) and Melanesia (1)".
But only the Melanesian one actually requires a boat to get there. I'll concede that mtDNA M may have been widespread through India and mainland SE Asia by the time mtDNA N reached Australia about 50k. But that means that mtDNA N must have bypassed mtDNA M somehow.
"Maybe but it's most unlikely, specially in the tropical and subtropical belt"
But outside that belt expansion would be slow and difficult. I know very well that you're unwilling to accept any ancient modern humans were able to live outside that belt, but evidence shows that some sort of humans have been living across Central Eurasia almost continuously for more than 100,000 years. Admittedly not necessarily humans possessing blades, but can you be sure that all early modern humans had such technology?
"both were the same thing for a time (N1'5) and logic (parsimony, Occam's razor) tells us that that stage was in South Asia and not West Asia".
I wouldn't be prepared to assume that. I strongly suspect that Y-hap G was never, at any stage of its ancestry, anywhere near South Asia. It would need at least one mtDNA haplogroup with it to survive.
By the way. What are you doing up so early? I'd guess it was about 6 o'clock there. 4.30 on a hot humid unpleasant afternoon here.
I've just realised another thing that is rather interesting. We have mtDNA S in Australia about 50,000 years ago, and mtDNA Y/N9 in East Asia, probably about the same time (plus or minus), but no mtDNA N in between (apart from some N21 and N22 in the Malays). Surely there should be some geographically intermediate mtDNA N haplogroup, especially seeing as how we're dealing with the 'tropical and subtropical belt'.
So what's the explanation? Drifted out? Or perhaps there is one: mtDNA R.
"I strongly suspect that Y-hap G was never, at any stage of its ancestry, anywhere near South Asia. It would need at least one mtDNA haplogroup with it to survive".
No. Because it did not yet exist as haplogroup: it was not G, just F*. The expansion of G happened surely in West Asia but pre-G was not expanding, just lurking as minor F*. The "lucky" F* that joined other clades in the adventure of colonizing West Asia became G, the "unlucky" ones remained as F* till this day.
You need to do some homework in this regard, because you really miss some crucial concepts.
"... evidence shows that some sort of humans have been living across Central Eurasia almost continuously for more than 100,000 years".
You are mixing Neanderthals and Sapiens, just in order to make some annoying statement and force me to waste one minute replying to such nonsense.
Annoying.
"What I was getting at was that there was no need for them to have boats UNTIL they first arrived on the mainland shore opposite those islands".
"But only the Melanesian one actually requires a boat to get there".
Why people would need boats: the Earth is just a flat dusty desert like the Moon, there's no water anywhere: you just get out the cave and walk through asphalt roads... Meh!
Never mind that rivers, for instance, allow for much faster movement and transport of goods than mere walking and that they have been used that way since always, specially as no roads used to exist. No, boats are useless and people swam across the figid waters of the Siberian lakes... after all the human brain can't understand that, if a log floats, a raft can be made... nah, 1350 cc. of brain don't serve even to crack nuts, never mind making fire or whatever that requires a couple of minutes of thought...
I can't believe anyone can be so insistent about that nonsense.
"It's confusing that mtDNA S is only in Australia and Y-hap S is only in New Guinea".
It is.
"The only mtDNA N common in India is R. What I suspect is that it too is an immigrant to India. It entered India and diversified there, after M had already diversified i n the subcontinent".
It did as N*. When it diversified it became R but only then.
"It was able to do so because it exploited a new environment".
Who knows?
What I think it's reasonable to think is that mtDNA R, together with Y-DNA IJK, and some other less important lineages (Y-DNA G, mtDNA M1, N1 and probably X too) spread very dynamically since then. In South Asia they caused only some smaller impact (so they were surely not that different from other South Asians), in Eastern Eurasia some more important one (here there might have been some greater difference) and in West Eurasia they just took over and drove the Neanderthals to extinction (the difference is total but we're talking of another species altogether).
So I hypothesize that this "ethnos" [IJK/R in simplistic terms] that starred the last chapter of the Great Eurasian Expansion was probably very much South Asian culturally, that it had some small advantage over East Eurasians and a greater one over Neanderthals. In neither case it seems it was boating the key.
However I still can't explain how these male/female lineages converged, how N back-migrated to South Asia in order to produce R and N1'5 (as well as N2, but this lineage expanded only later). We have to assume that these N* private lineages migrated with random fluctuations not preserved in the Y-DNA (could it be with C5?).
However it's possible that the N "matriarchs" might have carried some oriental cultural elements with them that, together with the South Asian ones of the "patriarchs", could have produced some cosmopolitan "alchemy" leading to that hypothetical cultural advantage.
"it was not G, just F*".
Call it what you like. It was still there.
"for instance, allow for much faster movement and transport of goods than mere walking"
But not until you're able to exploit that fact.
"last chapter of the Great Eurasian Expansion was probably very much South Asian culturally"
I agree. But a lot had been going on long before then.
"However I still can't explain how these male/female lineages converged, how N back-migrated to South Asia in order to produce R and N1'5"
The reason you can't explain it is because that's not how it happened. From you original post:
"Macro-haplogroup M has right now 43 basal sublineages (per PhyloTree), being the largest starlike structure in all humankind".
When just 36 of those haplogroups had been recognised I spent some time trying to track their distribution. I think I was reasonably succesful, especially thanks to you and your links. So we now have 7 more. I'll bet they're found in relatively small isolated communities.
The diversity of the mtDNA M haplogroup may owe much to its being a product of each jungle-clad river valley rapidly becoming very isolated and drifting to the fixation of a single M subclade. Some have since expanded further, but we shouldn't ignore the 'minor' haplogroups. The mtDNA M* haplogroup certainly doesn't seem to have simply diversified as it moved along the coast.
Of my original 36 haplogroups just the Andaman line (M31/M32), the two indigenous Australians (M15 and M42) and the three lines indigenous to Australia, New Guinea and Northwest Melanesia (M27, M28 and M29/Q) needed boats to get to where they've finished up. All are what you'd call 'minor' haplogroups. Whatever, they may have arrived relatively recently. Alternatively they may have crossed Wallacea at the same time as mtDNA P*. If, in fact, P actually crossed the water at all. That haplogroup may have evolved directly from R* within the New Guinea/Australia region, rather than having crossed Wallacea as fully formed P.
The fact that Australia shares mtDNA M lines with SW Asia (M14) and East Asia (M10) also argues for a more recent mtDNA M* Wallacean crossing than that of mtDNA N*. The fact that one of the branches of the M31/M32 Andaman mtDNA has a connection to eastern India may also be significant.
So mtDNA N* was almost certainly already spread all around Wallacea by the time mtDNA M arrived. Where had the R* branch of mtDNA N become established? We can presume the eastern Wallacean shore formed part of its geographic range. So too did the western shore presumably.
"So we now have 7 more. I'll bet they're found in relatively small isolated communities".
All I know is that all or most are South Asian (again). At least that was the case with the ones I had to check in order to create these maps.
"The mtDNA M* haplogroup certainly doesn't seem to have simply diversified as it moved along the coast".
You know that my reading of the "coastal migration" is not strictly coastal but coastal and riverine (and maybe other routes too).
Whatever the case, we have 16 of those 43 sublineages expanding again at M+1 (10 in SA and 6 in the East), 8 more do in M+2 and 5 in M+3 (only counting basal sublineages here, because there are also second level expansions intermingled). 29/43 basal M sublineages expanded soon after the M "bang", so it's pretty much a sustained process, a process with greatest density and diversity in South Asia and secondarily in the East.
At the moment of the R explosion, the situation was almost everywhere dominated by M, excepted probably Australia and maybe SE Asia. Even if you push N back in time, the situation should not change that much, because N(xR) sublineages are not too important anyhwere except in Australia and most expanded only rather late.
"The diversity of the mtDNA M haplogroup may owe much to its being a product of each jungle-clad river valley rapidly becoming very isolated and drifting to the fixation of a single M subclade".
Well, more or less, many different groups in many different places... sure. But the fact that they kept on expanding fast doesn't suggest marginal isolation (which can be the case for those lineages without bifurcations) but rather chain expansiveness. This is most noticeable again in South Asia early on, particularly the M4''64 lineage, which has a quite decent starlike structure on its own (7 basal sublineages). No other top level M sublineage is so expansive. And only M itself, N and R are larger at such high phylogenetic level, at such early stage in human expansion.
However, as its spread is limited to South Asia, geneticists have not paid too much attention to it and it doesn't even have a proper name worth its significance.
"The fact that Australia shares mtDNA M lines with SW Asia (M14)"...
I am not aware of such correlation. Can you provide a source?
"So mtDNA N* was almost certainly already spread all around Wallacea by the time mtDNA M arrived".
I don't see any clear support for that claim.
"Where had the R* branch of mtDNA N become established?"
In South Asia. If some undifferentiated N (leading to S) was already in Wallacea, it does not affect directly the homeland of the N ancestors of R or N1'5 - nor vice versa. Maybe there's just one mutation but that means many many generations most likely anyhow.
"29/43 basal M sublineages expanded soon after the M 'bang', so it's pretty much a sustained process, a process with greatest density and diversity in South Asia and secondarily in the East".
I've never had any problem accepting that mtDNA M filled up India, and later moved into SE and East Asia. And Y-hap F also filled up India, and later moved to SE Asia.
"At the moment of the R explosion, the situation was almost everywhere dominated by M, excepted probably Australia and maybe SE Asia".
And you believe that has no significance at all?
"I am not aware of such correlation. Can you provide a source?"
Sorry I can't remember where I got that from, possibly Wikipedia. I've hand-written it on my mtDNA diagram. M14 shared between Australia and SW Asia and M10 shared between Australia and East Asia. But mtDNA N2/W is shared between Australia and SW Asia, as you've often pointed out.
"I don't see any clear support for that claim".
I think we have to assume that the first immigrants to Australia 50,000 years ago were mtDNA N* and Y-hap C*. For many reasons they're unlikely to be mtDNA M of any sort and only slightly less likely to be any member of Y-hap F.
"I've never had any problem accepting that mtDNA M filled up India, and later moved into SE and East Asia".
That is not what the structure seems to say: it rather says it migrated to Eastern Eurasia before India was "full". That the process of expansion in South Asia continued after a good deal of lineages were already East of Bengal, even at very distant places like Japan, New Guinea and Australia.
"And you believe that has no significance at all?"
Stupid question. If I'm saying it was that way, why would I think it has no significance?
"Sorry I can't remember where I got that from, possibly Wikipedia. I've hand-written it on my mtDNA diagram. M14 shared between Australia and SW Asia and M10 shared between Australia and East Asia. But mtDNA N2/W is shared between Australia and SW Asia, as you've often pointed out".
If Wikipedia says that then it's keeping an error I myself introduced accidentally many months ago based on Ian Logan's faulty graphs. Funny, eh?
"it rather says it migrated to Eastern Eurasia before India was 'full'".
OK. So it wasn't 'full'. There were certainly already a lot of people there. And M makes up such a small proportion of Aborigine mtDNAs it seems likely that Australia was already 'full' by the time M got there.
"At the moment of the R explosion, the situation was almost everywhere dominated by M, excepted probably Australia and maybe SE Asia".
And it's significant because that's somewhere near where the R explosion began?
"If Wikipedia says that then it's keeping an error I myself introduced accidentally many months ago based on Ian Logan's faulty graphs. Funny, eh?"
That's very interesting. At the time you made much of the connection as being evidence of a rapid southern coastal migration. I must confess I have always been suspicious that it was wrong. But, again, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. What about the Ms? Do their connections still hold?
"What about the Ms? Do their connections still hold?"
Not sure. All I could find on M14 on this occasion refers to Australia. Haven't looked at M10.
I'm considering to create a Wiki of Population Genetics, as I'm not anymore collaborating with Wikipedia (because they are controlled in practical terms by the CIA-Mossad).
...
Also:
1. MtDNA R spread from South Asia. Don't insist in making it SE Asian just because. It's simply not the way you want it to be.
2. If you see mtDNA lineages popping up all around in India as anywhere else, just after the M moment, then there was no particular demic pressure driving M to the East: they probably did just because... just because they had boats and moved fast along the coast and rivers, exploiting only the best spots of vast areas. Behaving more like a gas than a fluid.
"then there was no particular demic pressure driving M to the East"
Perhaps they were entering previously uninhabited jungle-covered hill country. Unexploited environments are always very attractive to the first immigrants.
"just because they had boats and moved fast along the coast and rivers, exploiting only the best spots of vast areas".
The evidence is pretty overwhelming that they didn't move along the coast and rivers. M is spread very much through the jungle-clad hill country.
"Behaving more like a gas than a fluid".
Very much so. Mountains, deserts, jungles and large rivers divert the fluid. That's how I've always considered genetic, cultural and technological movements.
Anyway. Another visitor. Must away.
"Perhaps they were entering previously uninhabited jungle-covered hill country. Unexploited environments are always very attractive to the first immigrants".
I agree with the last sentence. But I think that just everything was uninhabited back then (except maybe a handful of last remnants of H. erectus?)
"The evidence is pretty overwhelming that they didn't move along the coast and rivers".
Instead of making such arrogant baseless claims, why don't you bother providing that "overwhelming evidence"?
Because it does not exist. The archaeological evidence in South Asia fits almost perfectly with the GIS models for the most effortless migrations... along rivers and coasts.
Post a Comment