Posts
In my recent review of mtDNA L(xM,N), following mostly Behar 2008, I noticed that some of those lineages have distributions that either partly or totally do not seem to correspond with Africa South of the Sahara, but clearly penetrate since old times into West Asia, North Africa or both.
So I wonder: aren't some of them remnants of the migration Out of Africa, which never really made it to South Asia?
Let's see. The mutation count between "mitochondrial Eve" and the L3 node is of 23 (coding region only), to M is of 26 and to N of 28. This is roughly the "time frame" of the Out of Africa. By the "time" of 30 CR mutations the backflow of Eurasian mtDNA to West Asia was already beginning (mostly in form of R derivatives but also M1 and N1, and later some other N subclades too) and this became a clearly dominant flow. Also since M1 specially, scattered into East Africa, it's possible that there was a second flow from Africa in that period of colonization of West Asia that was, no doubt, coincident with the early Mousterian Puvial, when the region became less arid.
I find that the following lineages, normally tagged as "African", should have been involved in the Out of Africa episode:
L4b: at 24 mutations appears to have almost the same age as L3. It has two basal lineages: L4b1, which is only found in Yemen, and L4b2, typical of the Hadza and Sandawe, and found also among Ethiopians (with offshoots in Southern Africa and Arabia) and the Lisango of DR Congo and/or CAR.
L0f2: at 24 CR mutations looks only slightly younger than L3 and surely older than M. One of its sublineages (L0f2a) is only found at Oman, while the other is at Ethiopia (L0f2b).
L0a1b: at 26 CR mutations should have the same age as M. One of its sublineages is only found in Arabia Peninsula (L0a1b2), while the other is shared between Morocco and Southern Africa (L0a1b1).
L5c: at 28 CR mutations appears to be as old as N. One of its sublineages is found at Egypt (L5c2) and the other at Ethiopia (L5c1).
L3e2: at 29 CR mutations appears of the same age as R. L3e2a is shared by West and North Africa, while L3e2b has two lineages that are only found in Jordan (one of the L3e2b*) and Oman and Egypt (L3e2b2).
L6 shows 38 mutations, however the root of its very long stem is necessarily older than L3 (as it's the oldest branch of L3'4'6). Today it looks like Yemen harbors the highest diversity, with offshoots at Ethiopia and Egypt.
There are others but seem younger than the 30 mutations that I decided as limit and may represent other flows, maybe related to the arrival of M1 to East Africa.
It's quite striking, to say the least, that these lineages have been overlooked, they really appear to my eyes as participants of the OoA at a more modest scale, never reaching South Asia or beyond.
Also notice that Yemen and Oman appear insistently in this list. All mentioned lineages, except L5c and possibly L3e2 should represent local fixation processes when people took the coastal route via southern Arabia.
Update (Mar 14): corrected error re. L0f2 (nomenclature and mutation count).
I'd like also to add L3i to the list. It looks to me as centered at coastal Yemen and of similar age (slightly younger, 2 mutations downstream from L3, 25 from "Eve") as M.
Update (Mar 21): Browsing through the East Asian mtDNA data at Tanaka 2004, I just spotted 1/20 (5%) L2 among the Sakai (Semang Negritos) of southern Thailand (Trang province). Not sure what to think but it is odd indeed. Another unlikely survival?
Update (May 5): Map of a plausible Abbassia Pluvial (120-90,000 years ago) Out of Africa migration with the candidate mtDNA lineages to have participated in it (red: L3, purple: other):
18 comments:
You've done a great deal of very useful work here Maju. Thanks.
"So I wonder: aren't some of them remnants of the migration Out of Africa, which never really made it to South Asia?".
I think that seems to be very true, especially of some members of basal L3. And what's more the exit seems likely to have been the Levant.
"Also since M1 specially, scattered into East Africa, it's possible that there was a second flow from Africa in that period of colonization of West Asia"
Isn't M1 more likely to indicate a migration INTO Africa? I agree that the other L haplogroups you mention are migrations OoA, and probably across the Bab, but much too recent to have been part of any original M/N migration OoA. For example:
"L4b: at 24 mutations appears to have almost the same age as L3. It has two basal lineages: L4b1, which is only found in Yemen, and L4b2, typical of the Hadza and Sandawe, and found also among Ethiopians"
L4b may be about as old as L3, but the separation of L4b1 and L4b2 would be much more recent. Not part of any original OoA but a more recent crossing of the Bab. The same applies to the downstream mutaions L0f2/L0f1 and L0a1b2/L0a1b1.
"they really appear to my eyes as participants of the OoA at a more modest scale, never reaching South Asia or beyond".
I think more recent than original OoA.
"Also notice that Yemen and Oman appear insistently in this list. All mentioned lineages, except L5c and possibly L3e2 should represent local fixation processes when people took the coastal route via southern Arabia".
To me they seem much more recent than any possible M and N 'coastal route' (and you know what I think of that). They represent later movement across the Red Sea, possibly once Y-hap J had reached the region.
"I think that seems to be very true, especially of some members of basal L3. And what's more the exit seems likely to have been the Levant".
Psah. I don't see that clear, specially as Oman is also in the menu and all the other lineages are found further south.
"Isn't M1 more likely to indicate a migration INTO Africa?"
Or rather the signature of a bidirectional flow, taken contextually, a persistent contact between Africa and West Asia. There's no particular signal of expansion of M1 upon arrival to Africa, just some scatter of the lineage by the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean coastal regions.
"L4b may be about as old as L3, but the separation of L4b1 and L4b2 would be much more recent".
No: it's exactly the same node. What are you talking about? What part of L4b don't you understand?
Another thing is that L4b1 has a long stem but that's like your favorite haplogroup: A. Or like L6.
"To me they seem much more recent..."
L0a1b and L0f are very clear to me.
The ones which look more recent (of the time of M1 maybe) I have not listed them here. Stuff like L1c2b, L2a1, L2c, L2d, L4a, L3d, L3e1a1a, L3i1b, L3i2, L3k, L3x1, L3x2 and L3h1a. These are in the 30-35 CR mutations zone and hence look somewhat more recent.
The line is anyhow arbitrary, or rather determined by the timeline of Eurasia and not that of Africa, hence we could well be talking of a continuous flow to, Southern Arabia, North Africa and the Levant in all the period.
"The mutation count between 'mitochondrial Eve' and the L3 node is of 23 (coding region only), to M is of 26 and to N of 28".
I'd bet a large sum of money on M and N having emerged from Africa as L3*, so the mutations beyond 23 happened outside Africa. So look for haplogroups across the Red Sea with 23 mutations for any significant remnant of an OoA Red Sea crossing.
"specially as Oman is also in the menu and all the other lineages are found further south".
There are very few L lineages found exclusively outside Africa. Most share their range with African lineages. This implies very strongly that their members are relativle recent emigrants from Africa. They haven't had time to differentiate. The only exceptions I see are L0k2, L1c2b, L4b1, L3f1b2, L3d1a, L3d3 and L3e1a1. All these have more than 30 mutation counts, so are unlikely to be ancient emigrants.
"What part of L4b don't you understand?"
L4b derives from L4. Both L4 and L3 derive from L3'4 but L4 has one mutation from L3'4 and L3 has two. So L4 almost certainly arose arose before L3. L4 then gave rise to L4a and L4b. L4b1 and L4b2 must have arisen after L4b appeared. So L4b1 becomes reasonably distant from L3.
"Another thing is that L4b1 has a long stem but that's like your favorite haplogroup: A. Or like L6".
I agree that L4b1 probably didn't move far from its point of origin. Members of its closest relation, L4b2, are very common just across the Red Sea in East Africa, so we can be reasonably sure that it came from there originally. But 'when' is the question. Any time along its long stem is possible. The same with L6. L6a is found in both Egypt and Yemen so is probably recently shared. But L6b is just one mutation away so probably derives from African L6 relatively recently. MtDNA haplogroup A's relations are spread far and wide but it too probably originated somewhere within, or at least very close to, the region where it is now found.
"L0a1b and L0f are very clear to me".
I'm assuming you mean L0a1b2 with 27 mutations, in Arabia according to your diagram (could quite easily have entered from further north), and L0f2b with 40 or so mutations.
"hence we could well be talking of a continuous flow to, Southern Arabia, North Africa and the Levant in all the period".
Quite possibly. However I consider the Levant to have had the longer history. All the haplogroups found east of the Red Sea, that are likely to have actually crossed it, seem to be more recent than the M and N exit.
"I'd bet a large sum of money on M and N having emerged from Africa as L3*, so the mutations beyond 23 happened outside Africa. So look for haplogroups across the Red Sea with 23 mutations for any significant remnant of an OoA Red Sea crossing".
It's possible but we don't know (no indications left behind that we know of). So it's between 23 (L3 in NE Africa) and 26 (the M bang in South Asia).
And anyhow the 30 mut. mark signals clearly the beginning of the backmigration from South Asia (R0, M1). So between 26 and 29 is still unrelated to that backmigration and surely part of the OoA flows.
Of course there's always some uncertainty, as mutations might have happened at somewhat different rythms, etc.
But it's meaningful that no haplogroup appears to exist in North Africa or Asia before the mutation number 23, so this seems to ratify that the L3 node marks the earliest possible time for any sustained presence in Asia/North Africa.
I have to check in more detail the exact data. This is just a preliminary work but it seems to me that there may have been some flow across the Red Sea, apart of pre-M and pre-N at that time.
"There are very few L lineages found exclusively outside Africa".
There are a lot. Check figure S1, please. Too many to list them here. Many have no name but that doesn't make less distinct lineages, as they have their own set of defining mutations.
"L4b derives from L4. Both L4 and L3 derive from L3'4 but L4 has one mutation from L3'4 and L3 has two. So L4 almost certainly arose arose before L3. L4 then gave rise to L4a and L4b. L4b1 and L4b2 must have arisen after L4b appeared. So L4b1 becomes reasonably distant from L3".
Count the mutations leading to L4b please:
L4'3>>L3
L4'3>L4
____>>L4b
L4b1 is distant because it has many many mutations at its stem. But L4b is not. L4b is shared between East Africa (L4b2) and Yemen (L4b1), the same that L3 is shared between Africa and Eurasia. The parallel is striking.
Considering that the conditions of Arabia did not stimulate demic growth, the long stem makes total sense. We also see the same long stem leading to L6 and curiously both lineages are found primarily in Yemen.
But, of course, it's not evidence, just my interpretation. They could have also been in the proverbial UFO lab all that time.
But look at the big L3'4'6 picture:
1. Oldest branch (L6) seems original from Yemen (even if it has a very long stem before expansion).
2. The other two branches (L3 and L4) are highly parallel in their distribution: partly in Africa and partly in Asia.
So I make total sense of not considering L3 alone but rather all L3'4'6 participating in the OoA somehow. Additionally other L lineages, notably some L0 ones, also seem implicated.
However the details are somewhat blurry (and this should be no surprise considering what we know about West Asian aridity, etc.)
"But 'when' is the question. Any time along its long stem is possible".
I agree with that. Same for L6.
But I make good sense of a long stem in the difficult conditions of Yemen.
"I'm assuming you mean L0a1b2 with 27 mutations, in Arabia according to your diagram (could quite easily have entered from further north)".
Not easily. Saudi Arabia (where this lineage is found) can be simplified to SE Saudi Arabia for Paleolithic conditions without domestic camel. The desert parts the West Asian region in two... unless you go by boat.
"All the haplogroups found east of the Red Sea, that are likely to have actually crossed it, seem to be more recent than the M and N exit".
Their expansion signals may be more recent but their ancestral nodes linking them to Africa are often older than the CRM timeframe of the M explosion and specially the N and R expansions. So contemporary migration with L3* (leading to M and N) can't be ruled out and is highly suspicious.
And that's my point. Nothing else.
You make many valid points but I'll comment on a few.
"There are a lot. Check figure S1, please".
'Exclusively' outside Africa? I make it no more than nine. The shortest mutation lines are on L0a1b2 (27, a good candidate), L3e1a1 (31) and L1c2b (32).
"And anyhow the 30 mut. mark signals clearly the beginning of the backmigration from South Asia (R0, M1)".
So M and N must have emerged from Africa before the '30 mut. mark'. So any haplogroups with more mutations are probably not associated with the original OoA, presumably at, or very soon after the 23 mut. mark.
"So between 26 and 29 is still unrelated to that backmigration and surely part of the OoA flows".
But most non-M/N haplogroups found exclusively outside Africa (including any L6 or L4 haplogroups) have even more mutations than the three haplogroups I've mentioned above.
"Count the mutations leading to L4b please:
L4'3>>L3
L4'3>L4"
But they're three different mutations, so L4 is actually separated from L3 by three mutations.
"L4b1 is distant because it has many many mutations at its stem. But L4b is not. L4b is shared between East Africa (L4b2) and Yemen (L4b1), the same that L3 is shared between Africa and Eurasia. The parallel is striking".
Striking? Not really. Two L3 lines are not found in Africa at all until some members move back. They're either virtually exclusively African or virtually exclusively non-African. And L4b2 is found through much of East Africa and, even though L4b2a2 is Arabian, it is also found in the Khoisan and Ethiopians. Hard to argue an extra-African origin. And L4b1, although found exclusively in Yemen, could have arrived there at almost any time. Same with L6. Both the L6s are found in both Africa and SW Asia (Yemen). We can be sure that boating arrived in The Red Sea at some stage. The two of us simply disagree on how early that was.
"Oldest branch (L6) seems original from Yemen (even if it has a very long stem before expansion)".
I believe the evidence for a Yemen origin is very shakey.
"'Exclusively' outside Africa? I make it no more than nine".
I have many more.
Notes: "+" means unnamed derived clades, number of "+" means number of lineages. Not counting North African lineages as OoA, nor USA lineages as African. Also ignoring Negev Bedouins and Makrani.
In L0 (11 lineages): L0k2, L0d3+, L0f2b, L0a1b2, L0a1c+, L0a1d++, L0a2a2+++
In L1 (4 lineages): L1b1a5+, L1b1a*++, L1c2b*+
In L5 (1 lineage): L5a1a+
In L2 (16 lineages): L2d1+, L2b1*+, L2c2*+, L2a1*+, L2a1h+, L2a1j+, L2a1*+++++++, L2a1a*+, L2a1f*, L2a1b+,
In L6 (two lineages, highest diversity): L6a+, L6b+,
In L4 (8 lineages): L4a2+, L4a1++, L4b1, L4b2a2+++
In L3 (29 lineages): L3b1a++++, L3c+, L3d1a*+, L3d1a1++, L3d3+, L3e1*+, L3e1a1, L3e1a3+, L3e1c+, L3e1b+, L3e2b*+, L3e2b2+, L3e3a++, L3e4+, L3i1b+, L3i2+, L3x2a+, L3x1+, L3f1b*++, L3f1b2, L3f1b4+, L3h1a2*+, L3h1a2a+
I count 71 lineages. Though some may be due to the Indian Ocean slave trade, most don't look like that.
"But they're three different mutations, so L4 is actually separated from L3 by three mutations".
Then M and N are separated by 8 mutations. I always count that way, in parallel, and it should not make any difference. Do you prefer to double-count, to count both branches? I prefer not to but rather display the lineages in parallel from the basal node. That's my choice and so far you had no problem with it.
Anyhow, for me that means that L4 is separated from L4'3 by one mutation and L3 by two, hence L4 is likely older (though one mutation of difference alone is not too safe, admittedly).
"Striking? Not really. Two L3 lines are not found in Africa at all until some members move back. They're either virtually exclusively African or virtually exclusively non-African".
Exactly as L4b. That's my point. Just that while L3 is just 2/7 Eurasian and 5/7 African, L4b is 1/2 each.
"And L4b2 is found through much of East Africa...".
My point is on L4b1, which is not found in Africa at all. L4b2 can be all the African you wish, but L4b1, the other basal lineage is not. So L4b as a whole is 50-50 African and Asian (at basal level, of course). It's even "more Asian" than L3.
"Hard to argue an extra-African origin".
I do not argue for any extra-African origin (woot?). Just for a mix of African and Asian spread in parallel to that of L3, which is also African by origin, right?
"And L4b1, although found exclusively in Yemen, could have arrived there at almost any time. Same with L6".
But, if you assume the coastal migration model, they make total sense as "leftovers" of that migration, along with L0f2 and L0a1b2.
If you don't, they won't just make any sense. So arguing is futile.
"I believe the evidence for a Yemen origin is very shakey".
Highest basal diversity in Yemen (both basal subclades there and nowhere else), all other L6 lineages found only in Ethiopia (L6b) and Egypt (L6a). You could argue, I guess, that L6b could be Ethiopian but it's only found among Semitic speakers from the North anyhow (1 Amhara and another from a rare militarist ethnicity also with roots in the North - from memory). It's not the typical rare Ethiopian lineage from the tribal areas of the SW: it's in any case a Red Sea haplogroup.
"I prefer not to but rather display the lineages in parallel from the basal node. That's my choice and so far you had no problem with it".
You're correct. I have no problem with it. But just because two L3 lines emerged from Africa early doesn't mean that they all did. Or that L4 emerged at the same time.
"In L0 (11 lineages): L0k2, L0d3+, L0f2b, L0a1b2, L0a1c+, L0a1d++, L0a2a2+++"
You have L0d3 as 'Khoisan, Kuwait', L0a1c as 'Ethiopia, Iran', L0a1d as 'Ethiopia, Yemen' and L0a2a2 as 'SA, Arabia, Sindh'. Exclusively African? And the exclusivley extra-African lineages (L0k2, L0f2b, and even L0a1b2, are very much longer than the M or N. The same goes for your L1, L4 and most of your L3 examples. For example:
"In L6 (two lineages, highest diversity): L6a+, L6b+"
In your diagram you have L06a as being found in Egypt as well as Yemen and L6b as 'Ethiopia, Yemen'. So neither are exclusively African, they have long mutation lines and could easily have a much later emergence from Africa than either M or N (and almost certainly do have). Comparing the lines to M and N is instructive though. Most would assume than because the M and N lines in Africa are downstream they represent later immigrants to Africa. So why, when the non-African L lineages are all downstream, would they not represent later migrations from Africa? So although L6 is 'in any case a Red Sea haplogroup' it by no means represents an ancient haplogroup outside Africa. Even L6* lies 38 mutations from L1''6.
"You could argue, I guess, that L6b could be Ethiopian but it's only found among Semitic speakers from the North anyhow"
So it's probably Egyptian, and crossed the Red Sea during a later expansion from there.
"But, if you assume the coastal migration model, they make total sense as 'leftovers' of that migration, along with L0f2 and L0a1b2".
It seems to be the case that you've made up your mind and then manipulate the evidence accordingly.
"You have L0d3 as 'Khoisan, Kuwait', L0a1c as 'Ethiopia, Iran', L0a1d as 'Ethiopia, Yemen' and L0a2a2 as 'SA, Arabia, Sindh'. Exclusively African?"
Look at fig. S1, each of those is split in unnamed lineages: it's those unnamed lineages I mean and which I signaled with "+" symbols. So "Ethiopia, Iran" may mean that there is one lineage in Ethiopia and another in Iran, just that without a name, I can't describe those sublineages properly in text, unless I list all the unique mutations, what I won't.
But the lineages are there and often seem quite deep.
"In your diagram you have L6a as being found in Egypt as well as Yemen and L6b as 'Ethiopia, Yemen'. So neither are exclusively African, they have long mutation lines"...
It's L6, which has a long stem. At L6 the two branches are short: L6b has only one CR mutation and what defines, L6a is all HVR mutations. So I understand that L6a and L6b formed "quickly" after L6.
"Comparing the lines to M and N is instructive though".
It is indeed. Though I also compare with the L3 node, which is at the root of OoA: M and N represent the Great Eurasian Expansion, after the OoA. I even consider the L3'4'6 node because I think that L6 looks more Yemeni that properly African, as both basal lineages are found in Yemen (and nowhere else).
"So why, when the non-African L lineages are all downstream, would they not represent later migrations from Africa?"
They do represent that. But using the mutation count I see some lineages, mentioned above and in the main post, as splitting into an African and an Asian (or North African) branch more or less at the same time as L3, or just after it to be more exact.
This I consider very interesting because they can well mean that other lineages also participated in the OoA into Arabia Peninsula.
L0a1b2 is at 27 mutations and only found in Saudi Arabia (and USA). To me this means that it had probably crossed the Red Sea before the N explosion (and maybe before the M one).
However if it would be located in mainland Africa... then I would have to change my mind somewhat. Still the Arabian-specific sublineage is only three mutations away: at 30 mutations. It seems very old, of a time before M1 reached Africa and when it had just reached West Asia for the first time.
To me this, and the other evidence of the other Afro-Arabian lineages, strongly suggest a more or less continuous flow of people from Africa to Arabia in parallel to the Great Eurasian Expansion, since very early moments, probably since the OoA itself (and then they would not be different processes but the same one).
"So it's probably Egyptian, and crossed the Red Sea during a later expansion from there".
There's nothing that suggests L6 is particularly Egyptian: only one of two L6a lineages is found in Egypt. Basal diversity suggests a Yemeni origin (both L6a and L6b) with two distinct migrations: to Ethiopia (L6b) and Egypt (L6a). However with two basal lineages only, it's not 100% conclusive.
"It seems to be the case that you've made up your mind and then manipulate the evidence accordingly".
The evidence is there for all to see. It's not my raw data but Behar's.
"Basal diversity suggests a Yemeni origin (both L6a and L6b) with two distinct migrations: to Ethiopia (L6b) and Egypt (L6a)".
Sorry to repeat myself, but isn't it much more likely that the two migrations were INTO Yemen from two different regions in East Africa? Hence the greater diversity in Yemen rather than in the African regions where it originated.
"splitting into an African and an Asian (or North African) branch more or less at the same time as L3, or just after it to be more exact".
Quite. And in most cases long after it.
"L0a1b2 is at 27 mutations and only found in Saudi Arabia (and USA). To me this means that it had probably crossed the Red Sea before the N explosion"
Before the explosion, yes. But at least 4 mutations after N had left Africa. And there's nothing to suggest L0a1b2 crossed the Red Sea to Arabia. Other L0a1bs are spread from the Nile to Morocco, and through the Sudan, Chad, Burkina Faso, and Guinea Bissau. None in Ethiopia, although one lineage does make it to South Africa.
"The evidence is there for all to see".
But you don't seem to be seeing some of it. Just the bits that suit your belief.
"Sorry to repeat myself, but isn't it much more likely that the two migrations were INTO Yemen from two different regions in East Africa?"
Sorry to repeat myself but that would be an extreme coincidence for such a tiny and rare lineage. It's forcing everything.
"And in most cases long after it".
I'm not interested here in "most cases" but specially in that minority of cases that, curiously enough, follow a time frame almost identical to that of L3.
"Before the explosion, yes. But at least 4 mutations after N had left Africa".
Pre-N! And many more after pre-L6 did (using the same logic as for N you just applied). Whatever the case it's long before any back-migration from further in Asia was possible, so they crossed on their own knowledge.
Check mate.
"And there's nothing to suggest L0a1b2 crossed the Red Sea to Arabia".
They took the UFO airlines then, I guess.
"Other L0a1bs are spread from the Nile to Morocco, and through the Sudan, Chad, Burkina Faso, and Guinea Bissau. None in Ethiopia, although one lineage does make it to South Africa".
>L0a1
_>L0a1a [Nile, Burkina, scattered, Bissau, Chad]
_>>L0a1b [L0a1b*: Sudan, Chad]
___>L0a1b1 [S. Africa, Morocco]
___>L0a1b2 [Arabia]
_>>L0a1c [Ethiopia, Iran]
_>L0a1d [Ethiopia, Yemen]
I gather that the L0a1 clan as a whole had strong ties with the Upper Nile. Family ties that are also present at other L0a and L0a'b'f'k branches. I also don't know why do you insist in making a difference between Sudan and Ethiopia, except because you are trying desperate lines of defense.
Check mate, I insist.
"But you don't seem to be seeing some of it. Just the bits that suit your belief".
I'm focusing on the bits that are most relevant for the problem, the ones that provide circumstantial but strong evidence in favor of a Red Sea crossing at the time of the OoA. Crossing that you seem to be the only one to doubt, not just of its reality but even of its technical feasibility, on mere dogmatic grounds.
I'm demolishing that dogma. And you should thank me for that, because it's taking me a good dose of hard work (even if some has been gratifying and productive, it has also been tiresome and boringly repetitive at many other times).
So don't be so stubborn and, damnit, open your mind to the quite reasonable possibility to people having boats long before reaching anywhere near your Wallacean fetish!
What further evidence you need? Even if I could summon some guy in his canoe from right in the act of crossing the Red Sea some 70 or whatever thousand years ago, you would reject it. And that's because you have damn faith and that's not fair game.
Check mate, give up, you damn stubborn Anglosaxon cowboy!
"I'm focusing on the bits that are most relevant for the problem, the ones that provide circumstantial but strong evidence in favor of a Red Sea crossing at the time of the OoA".
Not even circumstantial evidence I'm afraid. Instead of actually looking at the evidence objectively you start with an assumption, and then proceed to manipulate the evidence to support that assumption. You, like many others, assume there is some ancient connection between Ethiopia and Yemen. But that perticular assumption is based on a whole pyramid of other assumptions.
The original assumption was that the spread of H.sapiens was closely connected to the spread of the Upper Paleolithic. Unfortunately there was a problem. The UP can be dated no earlier than 50Kya but H. sapiens was in Australia by then, if not before.
So another assumption was required: a rapid expansion from Africa all the way to Australia. The next assumption was that it had most likely been via the South Eurasian coast. Because no evidence exists for ancient coastal exploitation along the coast of Yemen, Oman, Iran or India the evidence for coastal exploitaion in South and East Africa was assumed to provide evidence for the previous assumption.
A further assumption was then required: rising sea level has obliterated the evidence. This in spite of the fact that such evidence survives reasonably extensively in Africa. So a further assumption was required: extraordinary uplift or extraordinary sinking in one place or the other.
So go ahead and make up your circumstantial evidence.
"Instead of actually looking at the evidence objectively you start with an assumption, and then proceed to manipulate the evidence to support that assumption".
Oh, really?
You are obviously not in my mind and can't know the logical process happening in it. The fact that I stylistically (or for simplicity) chose to outline the apparent answer in the title (after thinking about it for a while) does not invalidate the rest.
You have to look at the evidence on its own value, not on the value of convenience or inconvenience that it has for your dogma. That's the difference between a scientist and priest.
"The original assumption was that the spread of H.sapiens was closely connected to the spread of the Upper Paleolithic".
Really? Makes no sense to me.
All that you say is ok if you want to argue with some dead Prehistorian from the 1960s or so. But that's not the issue today: today the issue is genetic evidence (as well as any other evidence we can muster).
But the issue is not if the coastal route was possible or not. It was obviously possible and is a likely candidate.
However you dogmatically reject its mere possibility, what is a waste of energies that could be better spent in some constructive endeavor.
It's a pity.
But it's tiresome that you choose me as the target of your dogmatic tirades every single day.
Why don't you relax and meditate for some time?
"But it's tiresome that you choose me as the target of your dogmatic tirades every single day".
Because you make claims that are not supported by evidence. For example:
"But the issue is not if the coastal route was possible or not. It was obviously possible and is a likely candidate".
But the Levant is far more possible and even more likely than the coastal route. The argument is used that extreme dessication made the Levant route impassable. Hoe much more impassable would the coastal route be if dessication was extreme in the Levant?
"You have to look at the evidence on its own value, not on the value of convenience or inconvenience that it has for your dogma".
So why don't you? Your diagram shows 11 L haplogroups in Yemen. Just 3 are found only there, so the other 8 could have arrived at any time. L4b1 appeared at 23 mutations so is the only one that might be connected to any OoA. The other two appear at 31/32 muatations. But other L4bs are Ethiopian, Hadza, Sandawe Khoisan and Central African Republic (as well as Arabia). And although L4b1 is found only in Yemen it has a very long tail, so actually could have arrived quite late and been drifted out in Africa. So even that haplogroup is hardly convincing evidence for any 'signature of the Out of Africa'.
The coastal route is fairly supported by reasonable evidence and only your stubborn dogmatism makes you feel otherwise.
This does not necessarily makes it the correct answer but it's a very reasonable theory in any case.
I don't see any clear argument in favor of the Crescent Fertile route either. And the fact that there is a wide scatter of old L lineages in Arabia and particularly in Yemen and Oman (and not so many in the Levant for what I can see, specially not so top level ones) may well support even further the coastal route.
I have no problem with it on other grounds. You do because you hypothesize (and have become highly dogmatic about it) that boats were invented in Wallacea and only there and then. But I think this idea is plainly stupid and baseless, so I have absolutely no problem with the coastal route.
And you would not either if you dropped your stubborn meaningless dogma and accepted boating in Africa as the highly reasonable probability it is.
Late update today with a possible OoA map.
Onde está o mapa?
Here after getting my L0a1b2 info back from 23&me. Thank you for posting your research, giving me information to follow up on. Being a "Black" American and not knowing where to track your lineage and origin can be difficult.
Post a Comment