tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post6364939279272427082..comments2023-05-15T07:11:30.874+02:00Comments on Leherensuge: Indonesian Y-DNA is mostly PaleolithicMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger200125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-68788089115654206762010-07-16T02:51:41.298+02:002010-07-16T02:51:41.298+02:00"We don't know that for sure".
What..."We don't know that for sure".<br /><br />What?! Are you now denying the existence of Sundaland?<br /><br />"My conclusion at the time was that the low-lying region northeast of Sumatra was impassable at the time. Again probably being mangrove swamp".<br /><br />Mangrove only lives in the tidal zone, not hundreds of kilometers inland. <br /><br />In <a href="http://cmtt.tori.org.tw/data/App_map/Maps_pdf/7_05_Outer_Southeast_Asia_Seas.pdf" rel="nofollow">this map</a> the blue line means 100 m under sea level (today), what in most of the Pleistocene was some 20 m above sea level. No mangrove can live there. <br /><br />"It's unlikely they shared Java though, especially as there is as yet no evidence modern humans were there at the time".<br /><br />There's no direct evidence of AMHs anywhere in the whole SE Asian region before 20 Ka or so. So?<br /><br />"A 'wild hunch' that I believe to be quite likely".<br /><br />I'm already repenting. You '<b>believe</b>'? I panic at such kind of statements. You <b>believe</b> too much too early without due consideration. <br /><br />Actually, unless Neanderthals were themselves admixed with Erectus intensely, this would make no sense. We should not detect Erectus genes by mere comparison between two H. ergaster derivatives. <br /><br />"I invite you to go out into the forest and try to make a dugout using the method you propose. An axe and fire is certainly sufficient to cut the tree down in the first place. But try the next step with just those tools".<br /><br />Actually, I'd say that it should be easier to hollow the trunk with a hand axe (no fire) than to pull down a tree with it. <br /><br />I don't know how to use fire in this so I'm just thinking in getting an axe and start carving the log. It's a matter of patience and doing it while the wood is still fresh. <br /><br />I (very roughly) estimate a month of 4 hrs. journeys. You can positivize your stubbornness into such things. Wood is workable.<br /><br />"On my fairly accurate map that crossing is more like 125 kms"<br /><br />Does your "fairly accurate" map even include a bathymetry? Or are you looking at modern day coasts? I can't tell. <br /><br />Why don't you upload a scanned copy online so we can judge?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-67459563018921354642010-07-16T02:51:23.972+02:002010-07-16T02:51:23.972+02:00"And did you even bother to look at those hou..."And did you even bother to look at those houses? Surely Paleolithic people didn't have the technology to build them". <br /><br />Erm? I know they are a more modern type of home but what's your point anyhow? There's a wide variety of options, including living on "docked" rafts/barges, whose lines you can take off at any moment to go to another such spot if there's trouble at home or whatever other reason (seasonal changes, whatever). <br /><br />Of course this kind of lifestyle can't be proven... nor disproved either. <br /><br />They could also build homes similar to those in the picture, except that using logs, branches and palm leaves instead of "modern" boards. It's not that complicated, is it? <br /><br />"Maju, don't be stupid. The Magdalenian arose long after humans had reached Australia, let alone SE Asia".<br /><br />It is still an Upper Paleolithic culture and one that has its roots in the Early UP of West Eurasia (Aurignacian and related cultures). <br /><br />You are in denial: first Inuits are not a valid example because they are recent, then Magdalenians are not a valid example because they are not sufficiently old, no matter these two cultures are from cold waters, which need high specialization and that our knowledge of what preceded them is limited (we know that Solutreans had fishing hooks and that early European Homo sapiens had a diet rich in fish). <br /><br />What are you asking for a time machine and a photo. You would question that too because you are a fanatic.<br /><br />What have you to say in regards to the abundant evidence of inhabitation at coastal sites already in Africa, long before the OoA? Nothing will serve as evidence for your stubborn rejection of evidence and your lack of anything of the like. <br /><br />You are wrong and you are anti-scientific. I'm fed up!<br /><br />"Again. Stop being stupid. Boating in SE Asia goes back long before the Austronesians first formed".<br /><br />Really? Evidence?<br /><br />"That's obviously a very inaccurate map"...<br /><br />It is not and I have produced consistent bathymetries that you can check, your map seems the one to be wrong if anything. <br /><br />You are producing no evidence and demanding more and more. Stop that!<br /><br />"And even that is certainly a lot easier than going through Lombok and Flores".<br /><br />"Stop being stupid", as you say. <br /><br />Just because you can repeat your idiotic claims once and again, that does not make them more real. Not at all. It just makes you less and less credible. <br /><br />You are bordering troll-ism. Produce some data or give up. I'm fed up!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-86889066672605465742010-07-16T00:01:34.682+02:002010-07-16T00:01:34.682+02:00"Since then, I've found that the local pe..."Since then, I've found that the local people actually choose to build their homes right in the middle of them, and that mangroves are far more productive than I imagined". <br /><br />And did you even bother to look at those houses? Surely Paleolithic people didn't have the technology to build them. <br /><br />"we know of many other coastal dwelling, boater, cultures historical and prehistorical, some of them, like Magdalenian" <br /><br />Maju, don't be stupid. The Magdalenian arose long after humans had reached Australia, let alone SE Asia. <br /><br />"How many? Please don't tell me about late Neolithic Austronesians again, ok, as they are not comparable at all". <br /><br />Again. Stop being stupid. Boating in SE Asia goes back long before the Austronesians first formed. Austronesians were simply the product of a long period of gradually improved boating in the region. <br /><br />"The shortest route between Borneo and Sulawesi by far is via the southern part of the Makassar strait, which used to measure some 15 km (10-20, the scale does not have enough detail) in the Ice Age". <br /><br />That's obviously a very inaccurate map to give that distance. my map shows more like 60 kms, certainly still not an impoosible distance I agree. <br /><br />"my problem is about reaching Sulawesi from Mindanao, as you propose, when directly from Borneo is a lot easier". <br /><br />And even that is certainly a lot easier than going through Lombok and Flores. <br /><br />"Java was not an island back then". <br /><br />We don't know that for sure. The land between Borneo and Java may have been low-lying mangrove forest rather than open plain. And I remember seeing something recently that strongly suggested modern humans moved originally from the Malay Peninsular to Borneo, rather than to Sumatra. My conclusion at the time was that the low-lying region northeast of Sumatra was impassable at the time. Again probably being mangrove swamp. <br /> <br />"There's no special reason why the two species could not have shared the Sundaland peninsula, is it?" <br /><br />It's unlikely they shared Java though, especially as there is as yet no evidence modern humans were there at the time. <br /><br />"Could it be after all that our 'Neanderthal' genes are in fact Erectus? Just a wild hunch". <br /><br />A 'wild hunch' that I believe to be quite likely. Especially seeing we both now agree that Y-hap KMNOP began somewhere in SE Asia (although we still disagree as to exactly where in that region). <br /><br />"While adzes may have made dugout canoes easier, they are not a strict requirement, you can perfectly use a regular axe for instance, always aided by fire, of course, which makes most of the job". <br /><br />I invite you to go out into the forest and try to make a dugout using the method you propose. An axe and fire is certainly sufficient to cut the tree down in the first place. But try the next step with just those tools. <br /><br />"Southern route's widest strictly necessary crossing is some 50 km wide between Leti island and what was then the coast of Australia" <br /><br />On my fairly accurate map that crossing is more like 125 kms. And the crossing from Timor is about the same. <br /><br />"My hunch is two routes, mostly because the Papuan and Australian gene pools are quite different but who knows?" <br /><br />I agree that scenario is quite likely. In fact one of the links I posted mentions a movement around 30,000 years ago, presumably by people with improved boats, who moved out beyong New Guinea and took the cuscus to the Admiralty Islands (amoung other places). But note: that is many years after Australia was first settled. And I also suspect that people from New Guinea are largely made up of people from this second movement. They were jungle-adapted people.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-55635231538129438782010-07-14T04:07:16.881+02:002010-07-14T04:07:16.881+02:00Erratum: "as would island-hopping through Aru...Erratum: "as would island-hopping through Aru islands into Sahul platform from Timor". <br /><br />I mean "through Tanimbar island into Sahul platform near modern Aru".Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-84636529741419785882010-07-14T04:00:45.723+02:002010-07-14T04:00:45.723+02:00PS- I have been refining the measures of the strai...PS- I have been refining the measures of the straits to be crossed by either route at Pleistocene sea levels, per Hills' map, and I get:<br /><br />1. Northern route includes crossings of as much as 40-45 km between Sula and Buru and Ambon and Misool, then part of the Sahul continent by connection with Bird's Head peninsula in modern New Guinea island. <br /><br />2. Southern route's widest strictly necessary crossing is some 50 km wide between Leti island and what was then the coast of Australia, NW of modern Darwin. <br /><br />Crossing directly from Timor would require a navigation of some 65 km. but if they previously hopped to Leti the crossing is some 15 km shorter. <br /><br />The southern route's first crossing is at Lombok and the northern one is at southern Makassar strait, both with some 15 km width across the Wallace Line. Island hopping between North and South Malukku would imply longer crossings, as would island-hopping through Aru islands into Sahul platform from Timor. <br /><br />So, I gather that either the scenario implies two routes, branching at Sundaland or a single migration through, somewhat more likely, the northern route. <br /><br />My hunch is two routes, mostly because the Papuan and Australian gene pools are quite different but who knows?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-46487548540634197032010-07-14T03:19:30.926+02:002010-07-14T03:19:30.926+02:00About John Hawks' opinions, they are just his ...About John Hawks' opinions, they are just his opinions. You two agree? Fine, now try to write a comment in his enlightened blog. ;)<br /><br />While it's perfectly possible that the migration route went through Sulawesi-Malukku-New Guinea, this does not mean anything in favor of Midnanao being in it. The shortest route between Borneo and Sulawesi by far is via the southern part of the Makassar strait, which used to measure some 15 km (10-20, the scale does not have enough detail) in the Ice Age. The Bor-Sul-Mal-NG route simply <b>must</b> go through Makassar strait.<br /><br />"Note: miles, not kilometres".<br /><br />55 miles (some 90-100 km) is much more than I can measure in the map at Hill's paper. <br /><br />Whatever the case, I have nothing against the Sulawesi route, my problem is about reaching Sulawesi from Mindanao, as you propose, when directly from Borneo is a lot easier. <br /><br />"Perhaps 25,000 is a bit recent, but 35,000 seems accepted these days. But it again suggests that modern humans didn't arrive there till around that time. Unless they bypassed that island too".<br /><br />Java was not an island back then. There's no special reason why the two species could not have shared the Sundaland peninsula, is it?<br /><br />Could it be after all that our "Neanderthal" genes are in fact Erectus? Just a wild hunch.<br /><br />"These adzes suggest that manufacture of dugout canoes was technically possible by 13,000 years ago"<br /><br />I don't know for sure but you seem to lack imagination. While adzes may have made dugout canoes easier, they are not a strict requirement, you can perfectly use a regular axe for instance, always aided by fire, of course, which makes most of the job. <br /><br />Also there are other alternatives to the popular dugout canoes: rafts and leather boats are the most commonly known ones.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-74959325910867494972010-07-14T02:56:52.725+02:002010-07-14T02:56:52.725+02:00About the distance needed to cross the various str...About the distance needed to cross the various straits into Australia, I'd suggest you do the following:<br /><br />1. Open the previous link you posted<br /><br />2. Open the map at fig. 1<br /><br />3. Take a piece of paper and copy the scale carefully, possibly marking also 50 km marks.<br /><br />4. Measure the straits. <br /><br />I did and I don't see a single strait measuring more than 65 km in the usual routes. The strait south of Mindanao is still at least 80 km wide instead. <br /><br />You are proposing the hardest of all possible routes!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-40748421364839111602010-07-14T02:50:58.770+02:002010-07-14T02:50:58.770+02:00Mangrove usability.
"I first wrote this pag...<a href="http://www.coconutstudio.com/Mangroves.htm" rel="nofollow">Mangrove usability</a>. <br /><br />"I first wrote this page a year ago, in early 2005, after my first real, searching visit into the mangroves, when I was, frankly, intimidated by the very idea of visiting a noisome swamp. <br /><br />Since then, I've found that the local people actually choose to build their homes right in the middle of them, and that mangroves are far more productive than I imagined".<br /><br />Yemen: we know that there have been Y-DNA swaps in other regions. We have mtDNA evidence in North Africa indicating colonization from Europe but if you look at Y-DNA you see almost nothing of that. Same with Yemen. <br /><br />Was Java settled after Borneo? I don't know. There was no Java nor Borneo anyhow when <b>Sundaland</b> was settled.<br /><br />Inuits expanded indeed in the last two millennia. It's irrelevant because they are just an example: we know of many other coastal dwelling, boater, cultures historical and prehistorical, some of them, like Magdalenian, with striking technological similitudes with Inuits (those proto-harpoons are not for picking the nose). <br /><br />You claim:<br /><br />"However we do know that in island SE Asia fairly effective boating technology goes back many thousands of years". <br /><br />How many? Please don't tell me about late Neolithic Austronesians again, ok, as they are not comparable at all.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-46567330673305189982010-07-14T01:59:09.218+02:002010-07-14T01:59:09.218+02:00Some older interesting observations on the subject...Some older interesting observations on the subject at John Hawks' site: <br /><br />http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/upper/jerimalai_press_report_timor_2006.html<br /><br />"The article discusses the significance in terms of a possible demonstration that the Timor route was taken by early Australian colonists, rather than the northern route via Sulawesi -- although it by no means rules out the northern route". <br /><br />But: <br /><br />"The find, however, raised big questions, such as why modern humans appeared to have bypassed Flores on their way to Timor". <br /><br />So the survival of the dragons is significant, and you can see I'm not the only one who has a wider perspective on the subject. <br /><br />More on the subject: <br /><br />http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/upper/australia/australia_seafaring_conference_balter_2007.html<br /><br />From that one: <br /><br />"The article begins with a suggestion that the first inhabitants of Flores floated there on vegetation rafts by accident -- channel crossings being otherwise impossible for Lower Paleolithic hominids" <br /><br />And another link, this one by Peter Bellwood, even older I'm afraid: <br /><br />http://www.archaeology.org/9703/etc/specialreport.html<br /><br />From it: <br /><br />"If Australia was first reached from Timor, as seems likely, then a final sea crossing of about 55 miles, involving movement out of sight of land, would also have been required". <br /><br />Note: miles, not kilometres. That's why I strongly suspect that the crossing to Sahul wasn't made from Timor, but from Halmahera to what is now New Guinea. And also from that link: <br /><br />"Indeed, on Java new dates from the Ngandong and Sambungmacan sites suggest that Homo erectus may have survived far longer than previously believed, perhaps to as recently as 25,000 years ago" <br /><br />Perhaps 25,000 is a bit recent, but 35,000 seems accepted these days. But it again suggests that modern humans didn't arrive there till around that time. Unless they bypassed that island too. And another interesting comment: <br /><br />"These adzes suggest that manufacture of dugout canoes was technically possible by 13,000 years ago" <br /><br />So Peter Bellwood obviously doesn't accept an ancient date for dugout canoes.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-31724963618350448242010-07-14T01:22:00.089+02:002010-07-14T01:22:00.089+02:00"Why would us have to destroy the dragon?&quo..."Why would us have to destroy the dragon?" <br /><br />I don't know why. But it seems that as the first people spread through Indonesia to Australia they did so. <br /><br />"Comparisons of the productivity of mangroves from different latitudes worldwide suggest that productivity and plant biomass decreases with increasing latitude". <br /><br />So? I could have told you myself that even in New Zealand mangroves are highly productive ecosystems. They are highly productive precisely because they are so well protected. Nowhere in that article does it mention human exploitation of mangroves. Just destruction, and the need for their protection. <br /><br />"Furthermore, all the coastal strip between Yemen proper and Oman, which is semi-arid, is anyhow habitable and has always been so". <br /><br />And that's why the most common Y-hap there is the derived J? Not a basic haplogroup? <br /><br />"You realize that the previous quote is a periphrasis for Wallace Line in all its extension, right?" <br /><br />Quite. And they draw attention to the sharp 'boundary running between the islands of Bali and Flores' in contrast to the more diffuse boundary further north. Although the Austronesian expansion has clouded the issue I'm sure you will find this link interesting: <br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876738/<br /><br />From the link: <br /><br />"All the ISEA populations studied have high levels of diversity, suggesting that they have maintained a comparatively large size over time and have not undergone substantial amounts of drift. The most diverse group is from Banjarmasin in Borneo (haplotype diversity 0.979), and the least diverse is the Tenggerese from Java (0.904)". <br /><br />Strongly suggests that Java was settled later than Borneo. And: <br /><br />"Haplogroup Q is most common in the easternmost locations studied (reaching 29% in Alor, where Papuan as well as Austronesian languages are spoken76), but, at 3% of the sample as a whole, it is found as far west as Borneo, indicating long-range gene flow from Near Oceania into ISEA. This may suggest traces of the voyaging corridor proposed by Terrell and Welsch,77 although it is unclear how far back in time this influence extends.9 It is worth considering the possibility that this may be a genetic trace of a conduit into ISEA for the root and tuber crops, perhaps of New Guinean origin,9 that arguably contributed far more to a change in subsistence in the Neolithic period of the region than did the introduction of rice farming from the north or west". <br /><br />Settlement of Nusa Tenggara may even date to that time. <br /><br />"You should better look at huntergatherer boaters such as Inuits". <br /><br />But those 'huntergatherer boaters' spread no more than 3-4000 years ago, presumably because around that time they developed their boats. <br /><br />"It seems obvious to me that, considering these processes happened across many generations (millennia), peoples acquired and lost technologies according to their needs". <br /><br />I agree with that 100%, certainly must be so in the case of the Aborigines. Yet you also claim: <br /><br />"we must accept that either God exists and moves people around at whim (most unlikely) or they once had greater boating abilities than the ones we have been able to observe and record". <br /><br />We have very little way of knowing how advanced the boating technology was that allowed people to reach Australia. However we do know that in island SE Asia fairly effective boating technology goes back many thousands of years. <br /><br />"You were claiming a few days ago 150km!!!" <br /><br />We don't know what route the author is postulating. It's my understanding that the direct route from Java to New Guinea requires crossings of 150 kms, even at times of lowered sea level.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-45959474504121007062010-07-13T04:07:01.489+02:002010-07-13T04:07:01.489+02:00"We find that the paternal gene pool is sharp..."We find that the paternal gene pool is sharply subdivided between western and eastern locations, with a boundary running between the islands of Bali and Flores".<br /><br />Terry added: "Exactly where we find the Komodo dragon survived".<br /><br />You realize that the previous quote is a periphrasis for Wallace Line in all its extension, right?<br /><br />Or maybe you don't?<br /><br />As for the link you provide, it's interesting, of course, but what does it mean?<br /><br />To me it means, first of all, that Paleolithic huntergatherers were never oceangoing sailors as Austronesians. There's a whole Era of difference between these two realities and I hope some day you realize that: you can't compare high seas Neolithic/Metal Ages' sailors such as Austronesians with huntergatherers. <br /><br />You should better look at huntergatherer boaters such as Inuits. <br /><br />It seems obvious to me that, considering these processes happened across many generations (millennia), peoples acquired and lost technologies according to their needs. Considering the many "stranded" peoples with alleged low boating abilities, as mentioned before, we must accept that either God exists and moves people around at whim (most unlikely) or they once had greater boating abilities than the ones we have been able to observe and record. <br /><br />A quote from that link: "Some 40,000 years ago or more, ancestral Aborigines negotiated water barriers up to 65km to populate Greater Australia".<br /><br />You were claiming a few days ago 150km!!!<br /><br />65 km is already a major feat: much greater than any other known or suspected Paleolithic crossing (unless you believe in the Solutrean-Clovis hypothesis). <br /><br />But it is smaller than your claims of 80km between Mindanao and the small islands north of Sulawesi. That's why most people discard that route.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-23067812258484144822010-07-13T03:45:48.915+02:002010-07-13T03:45:48.915+02:00Why would us have to destroy the dragon? AFAIK the...Why would us have to destroy the dragon? AFAIK the natives live in harmony with it, at least in some islands. <br /><br />"A belief held by many natives of Komodo Island is that Komodo dragons are actually the reincarnation of fellow kinspeople and should thus be treated with reverence".<br /><br />They don't kill the dragons but offer them sacrifices. <br /><br />"And most SE Asian Negritos are not noted for their extensive use of boats either".<br /><br />That's a reasonable argumentation but it must be said that neither Australian Aborigines nor Tasmanian ones nor even the Guanches of the Canary islands are famous for their boating skills. Hoewever they must have arrived to all their historical destinations using boats or rafts (unless you believe in systematic divine intervention). <br /><br />"The NZ Maoris, surely an accomplished boating people, rarely used mangroves".<br /><br />From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_values_of_mangrove" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: Ecological value of mangroves</a>:<br /><br />"Comparisons of the productivity of mangroves from different latitudes worldwide suggest that productivity and plant biomass decreases with increasing latitude. From this global pattern it is expected that mangroves in New Zealand, near their southern geographical limit would have relatively low productivity compared to their tropical equivalents".<br /><br />"I assume you've never seen a mangrove forest up close. It's virtually impossible to travel far into one by boat. Or even walk through one".<br /><br />You assume right: I have never seen a mangrove in real life. <br /><br />However I have seen many documentaries of people living in coastal areas by mangroves and exploiting them with the help of boats, either in high tide (fishing) or, maybe more commonly, in low tide (seafood foraging). <br /><br />"Near enough to desert as far as I'm concerned. And if it's as productive as you claim how come it's not densely populated today?"<br /><br />Yemen and Asir were known as Arabia Felix (Happy Arabia) in Antiquity for a reason. The highest densities of population by far in all the region were there. <br /><br />Even today Yemen is a populated country, with some 24 million people, almost as may as the huge and oil-rich Saudi Arabia (that would not be able to support as many people without the oil-derived wealth). In Antiquity it was the only really important region of all Arabia Peninsula. <br /><br />No kidding: what do you know of Yemen?<br /><br />"Its relatively fertile land and adequate rainfall in a moister climate helped sustain a stable population, a feature recognized by the ancient Greek geographer Ptolemy, who described Yemen as Eudaimon Arabia (better known in its Latin translation, Arabia Felix) meaning "fortunate Arabia" or Happy Arabia".<br /><br />Yemen is not and has never been a desert. It's likely that in some periods at least it was even more hospitable than today but seldom worse. <br /><br />Furthermore, all the coastal strip between Yemen proper and Oman, which is semi-arid, is anyhow habitable and has always been so. <br /><br />And it had an advantage that may had promoted expansion: that it did not have any Neanderthals who would have dissuaded our ancestors from going farther. <br /><br />Even if migrant Homo sapiens would have gone through the Crescent Fertile, somehow dribbling the Neanderthal hold of the territory, they would have been forced to cross desertic zones upon arrival to Iran, again having the best options of survival if they took the coastal route, where they could always find seafood and temperatures are generally warm/hot, that is: adequate to our species' natural nakedness without need of dramatic innovations such as rather sophisticated clothing and needles, which are a much greater technological barrier than mere boats, in my opinion.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-22895333219377340512010-07-13T01:45:31.073+02:002010-07-13T01:45:31.073+02:00Interesting comment in the original abstract you q...Interesting comment in the original abstract you quoted: <br /><br />"We find that the paternal gene pool is sharply subdivided between western and eastern locations, with a boundary running between the islands of Bali and Flores". <br /><br />Exactly where we find the Komodo dragon survived. Presumably the boundray is not so well-defined further north. And you may find this link concerning boats in pre-European Australia interesting. Especially considering it's universally accepted the Australian Aborigines must have reached Australia by boat: <br /><br />http://www.archaeology.arts.uwa.edu.au/about/research/bowdler/offshore_islands_&_maritime_explorationsterrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-71404857506154353022010-07-13T01:13:16.667+02:002010-07-13T01:13:16.667+02:00"It's not 'my' theory but the mai..."It's not 'my' theory but the mainstream 'coastal migration model'". <br /><br />And it's obviously wrong. The Komodo dragon's survival tell's us so: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon<br /><br />From the article: <br /><br />"Their unusual size has been attributed to island gigantism, since there are no other carnivorous animals to fill the niche on the islands where they live.[4][5] However, recent research suggests that the large size of komodo dragons may be better understood as representative of a relic population of very large varanid lizards that once lived across Indonesia and Australia, most of which, along with other megafauna,[6] died out after contact with modern humans". <br /><br />Interesting, isn't it. So their survival 'in the Indonesian islands of Komodo, Rinca, Flores, and Gili Motang' surely indicates that modern humans didn't arrive in those islands until relatively recently. Therefore it's extremely unlikely the route humans took to Australia was through Nusa Tenggara. Of course I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some convoluted (and completely unbelievable) tale to account for the Komodo dragon's selective survival on just those islands. <br /><br />"Once you have rivers, boats come naturally. You don't need to be Einstein to invent the boat, just some real persons with the need". <br /><br />I've spent some time searching and can find no reference to African Pygmies using boats. Surely if boats were an advantage to anyone they'd be useful to Pygmies as they moved through the dense jungle. And most SE Asian Negritos are not noted for their extensive use of boats either. Besides, you don't need to be an Einstein to invent the horse and cart, but surely you're not going to tell me that it was used in the Paleolithic? <br /><br />"Mangroves are excellent for hunter-gatherers (mostly fishers in fact), specially if they have boats to move around quickly". <br /><br />The NZ Maoris, surely an accomplished boating people, rarely used mangroves. I assume you've never seen a mangrove forest up close. It's virtually impossible to travel far into one by boat. Or even walk through one. <br /><br />"Yemen is not desert nor is nearby Asir. In fact the South Arabian coastal zone is not desert" <br /><br />Near enough to desert as far as I'm concerned. And if it's as productive as you claim how come it's not densely populated today?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-20016924074738078872010-07-12T03:15:01.531+02:002010-07-12T03:15:01.531+02:00"And generally speaking mangroves are not a v..."And generally speaking mangroves are not a very productive human habitat". <br /><br />Mangroves are excellent for hunter-gatherers (mostly fishers in fact), specially if they have boats to move around quickly. <br /><br />"... but your theory certainly makes no sense at all".<br /><br />It's not "my" theory but the mainstream "coastal migration model". <br /><br />"Agreed. Once you have them".<br /><br />Once you have rivers, boats come naturally. You don't need to be Einstein to invent the boat, just some real persons with the need. <br /><br />"Nothing to do with boats. We need to drink water".<br /><br />It's not only us who need the water but animals and plants too, which we eat and use for everyday needs. <br /><br />Also using rivers and other waterways to move around can increase the range of potential hunting zones a lot with the same effort. <br /><br />"And desert on both sides. Prime human habitat, I'm sure".<br /><br />Not desert: Yemen is not desert nor is nearby Asir. In fact the South Arabian coastal zone is not desert, the desert is further inland and north. <br /><br />Coast is a prime, highly productive, human habitat and it is attested by archaeology as being used since long ago in the particular case of Eritrea.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-52245393821910013562010-07-12T00:53:43.093+02:002010-07-12T00:53:43.093+02:00"The whole point of the 'coastal migratio..."The whole point of the 'coastal migration' theory is that lineages that clearly coalesced in East Eurasia but seem to have arrived there 'miraculously' (Y-DNA C and D, mtDNA N), did that because they were specialist coast dwellers and, sure, boaters, who were 'all the time' canoeing from mangrove to beach and then again to another mangrove, as need or whim dictated". <br /><br />The second part of that is completely guesswork on your part. And generally speaking mangroves are not a very productive human habitat. My own guess is that there was nothing 'miraculous' about Y-DNA C and D, and mtDNA N's arrival in the east. They arrived by land. By what route we are yet to discover. Anyway it's impossible to believe that 'They did not exploit initially other environments'. So I agree that 'It's arguable in the details, which we cannot really get to know easily', but your theory certainly makes no sense at all. <br /><br />"Often boating is faster than walking and if you live by the coast or wide rivers you sure need boats for everyday life". <br /><br />Agreed. Once you have them. <br /><br />"people lives almost exclusively by coasts and rivers and not on top of the mountains or the middle of deserts". <br /><br />Yes. And it's obvious why. Well, it is to me if not to you. Nothing to do with boats. We need to drink water. That's why 'Waterways are almost never borders (nor in the archaeological record either) but often arteries, cultural and life centers'. <br /><br />"And btw, look at the bathymetry of the Red Sea (blue line is 100 m). Bab, el Mandeb was nothing in the Ice Age and there was another strait north (Hanish islands, which was a peninsula in that time) not wider at all. It was like the Bosporus and the Dardanelles even with a 'Marmara Sea' of sorts in between them too!" <br /><br />And desert on both sides. Prime human habitat, I'm sure.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-43403880965619012952010-07-12T00:53:02.292+02:002010-07-12T00:53:02.292+02:00"You may be being inaccurate".
Do you..."You may be being inaccurate". <br /><br />Do you mean to say it's not the Mokohinau Islands I can see? Don't forget that very few islands, apart from coral atolls, are actually flat. <br /><br />"What's wrong with that? It's obvious that they could do it, as demonstrated by the presence of Homo sp. in Crete and Flores before the arrival of our species". <br /><br />There is no indication whatsoever that those humans arrived in either region by boat. Other animals made the same crossing, at the same time, and it's doubtful those other animals arrived by boat. <br /><br />"or, in other words: they were dumb because they had been living in the Eritrean coasts for many millennia already and had crossed the Nile and the Sudd swamps and surely many other broad rivers, lakes and waterways populated by dangerous animals like crocodiles impeding swmming". <br /><br />I've certainly never claimed they were 'dumb'. Besides which it seems that, until relatively recently, the Nile and the Sud were actually obstacles to human expansion, not main highways. And any sort of boating on rivers and swamps is a totally different activity that salt-water boating. <br /><br />"How could people cross the Nile without boats? What about the Zambezee? And in Asia already, how could people cross the Ganges, the Mekong, the Obi, the Bosphorus channel (which has always been a waterway) the Euphrates without some sort of efficient boat or raft?" <br /><br />And what evidence do you have that they actually did cross those waterways by boat before about 10,000 years ago? <br /><br />"That is reasonable but remember that people were living at the coast since some 100,000 years ago or more (can't recall exact date), just that not in Borneo but in Eritrea". <br /><br />It's quite possible to live on a coastline and not use boats. Of course it's unlikely to happen these days because the knowledge of boating is so widespread. But that knowledge had to start somewhere. And that somewhere is almost certain to have been where the knowledge provided a huge advantage for those with it, and able to perfect the tecnique. Which rules out the Eritrean coast. Use boats once, and that's it. Whereas strings of islands is a perfect environment to develop the technique.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-67976301955251998732010-07-09T04:30:14.063+02:002010-07-09T04:30:14.063+02:00And btw, look at the bathymetry of the Red Sea (bl...And btw, look at <a href="http://cmtt.tori.org.tw/data/App_map/Maps_pdf/6_10_Red_Sea.pdf" rel="nofollow">the bathymetry of the Red Sea</a> (blue line is 100 m). Bab, el Mandeb was nothing in the Ice Age and there was another strait north (Hanish islands, which was a peninsula in that time) not wider at all. It was like the Bosporus and the Dardanelles even with a "Marmara Sea" of sorts in between them too!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-35088499204468569912010-07-09T04:14:16.837+02:002010-07-09T04:14:16.837+02:00"The Mokohinau Islands are clearly visible (o..."The Mokohinau Islands are clearly visible (on a clear day) from a friend's house at an altitude of much less than 200 metres. They are 70km away from the house. So either your calculation is out or Wiki is wrong".<br /><br />You may be being inaccurate. <br /><br />The approximate formula is d=√12.7xh (where h is in meters and d in kilometers), so the height at which you can see d=80 km is:<br /><br />h=(80)²/12.7=504 m.<br /><br />And for d=70, h=386 m, which fits quite well with my experience of being able to see the coast from Zugarramurdi mountains, which are over 300 m high and some 50 or 60 km from the coast. <br /><br />So either your friend's home is higher or the islands are closer or you are looking at the wrong islands. <br /><br />"And we can be fairly sure that any crossing from Mindanao to Sulawesi would not have been made by people new to salt-water boating". <br /><br />That is reasonable but remember that people were living at the coast since some 100,000 years ago or more (can't recall exact date), just that not in Borneo but in Eritrea. Maybe they improved their skills in SE Asia but that's not too important. <br /><br />The whole point of the "coastal migration" theory is that lineages that clearly coalesced in East Eurasia but seem to have arrived there "miraculously" (Y-DNA C and D, mtDNA N), did that because they were specialist coast dwellers and, sure, boaters, who were "all the time" canoeing from mangrove to beach and then again to another mangrove, as need or whim dictated. They did not exploit initially other environments and other groups did instead (Y-DNA F, mtDNA M). <br /><br />It's arguable in the details, which we cannot really get to know easily, but it makes some good sense. <br /><br />"The reason I'm doubtful about OoA boating is that neither the Bab al Mandab or Gibraltar are close to any islands suitable for perfecting the technique".<br /><br />You can consider Arabia peninsula "an island" (and there are also smaller islands along Bab-el-Mandeb and along the Eastern coast of Africa. <br /><br />I don't know why would you need islands anyhow. Often boating is faster than walking and if you live by the coast or wide rivers you sure need boats for everyday life. Waterways are the "roads" of the time when there were no roads (nor bridges!). It was that way all the time till recently. Waterways are almost never borders (nor in the archaeological record either) but often arteries, cultural and life centers. <br /><br />You can see that today too: people lives almost exclusively by coasts and rivers and not on top of the mountains or the middle of deserts. That's for a reason: food and communication. <br /><br />But for you it's a fetish to think that they did not have boats. Well, what can I say: you can believe what you wish but if you are going to insist again on your theory, the least you could do is to work humbly for some time in the details, the why of that belief if any. You can persuade anyone with arguments such as "I doubt that..." or "I don't think so". You need evidence of some sort and I see it nowhere.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-57794206881103443962010-07-09T04:14:03.150+02:002010-07-09T04:14:03.150+02:00"Your belief that humans crossed the Bab al M..."Your belief that humans crossed the Bab al Mandab by boat, travelled all the way to SE Asia with boats, and then moved along the Sunda Islands to New Guinea and Australia by boat".<br /><br />What's wrong with that? It's obvious that they could do it, as demonstrated by the presence of Homo sp. in Crete and Flores before the arrival of our species. That's not a "pet theory" but a quite reasonable conjecture, which is quite mainstream. <br /><br />What I have quite clear is that in all this time you have provided absolutely no evidence against it, just hammering once and again around fuzzy "Wallacean" conjectures that don't even make much sense most of the time. <br /><br />You are the one making the rather unbelievable claim that our kin could never have crossed such a narrow passage as the Red Sea because they had no boats or, in other words: they were dumb because they had been living in the Eritrean coasts for many millennia already and had crossed the Nile and the Sudd swamps and surely many other broad rivers, lakes and waterways populated by dangerous animals like crocodiles impeding swmming. <br /><br />It is you who is claiming that people "could fly" over the waterways and you are doing so against all available evidence. <br /><br />When I draw a map of Africa I normally skip the rivers and even lakes, but they are there. How could people cross the Nile without boats? What about the Zambezee? And in Asia already, how could people cross the Ganges, the Mekong, the Obi, the Bosphorus channel (which has always been a waterway) the Euphrates without some sort of efficient boat or raft?<br /><br />And how could sufficient numbers of Homo sp. arrive to Flores or Crete in order to establish a viable population that lasted tens of thousands of years? Swimming across the open sea with pregnant women and small children? <br /><br />No kidding please! <br /><br />"Try looking at bathymetry between those islands".<br /><br />I have POSTED several links to bathymetries between those islands already and the Makassar strait was narrow in the Ice Age by the southern extreme! <br /><br />And you still have the Lombok way anyhow.<br /><br />"But Borneo to the Philippines is reasonably easy, via the Sulu Archipeligo".<br /><br />It's not clearly true but, anyhow, it doesn't matter because that only brings you further away from Sulawesi, not closer.<br /><br />"That's pretty much the distance often mentioned".<br /><br />Why don't you look at actual bathymetries? Check the useful link I posted before and that is again available.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-36976430129657977982010-07-09T02:00:36.501+02:002010-07-09T02:00:36.501+02:00"'My pet-theory'? Which one?"
..."'My pet-theory'? Which one?" <br /><br />Your belief that humans crossed the Bab al Mandab by boat, travelled all the way to SE Asia with boats, and then moved along the Sunda Islands to New Guinea and Australia by boat. <br /><br />"I suspect that you are measuring distances without consideration of Ice Age actual land and sea sizes". <br /><br />Yet you can claim: <br /><br />"you can always cross to Sulawesi directly from Borneo, which is necessarily a lot easier than doing from Philippines". <br /><br />Definitely not true. Try looking at bathymetry between those islands. But Borneo to the Philippines is reasonably easy, via the Sulu Archipeligo. <br /><br />"150 km does not seem realistic. Nobody would have ever crossed into New Guinea or Australia if that would be the case". <br /><br />That's pretty much the distance often mentioned. Yet humans did manage to reach Australia. So perhaps they didn't go via that route. <br /><br />"So I estimated that for 80 km it'd be something like 700m. But it's in fact more like 600 m". <br /><br />The Mokohinau Islands are clearly visible (on a clear day) from a friend's house at an altitude of much less than 200 metres. They are 70km away from the house. So either your calculation is out or Wiki is wrong. <br /><br />"Whatever the case you won't spot the 'tiny' island (by effect of the distance) in the huge ocean unless you know what you are looking for". <br /><br />You're obviously not a practical person are you. Do you have a job? You certainly won't spot a little island from sea level until you're fairly close. But if you've already seen it in the distance you will know in which direction it lies. Besides which it's probably less important to know where a particular new island is than it being useful to be able to see your home island once you've reached it accidently. You can then go home and tell your relations that you've found an uninhabited tropical island. A situation that has been described as equivalent to winning the lottery these days. <br /><br />And we can be fairly sure that any crossing from Mindanao to Sulawesi would not have been made by people new to salt-water boating. As well as the main islands of Mindanao and Luzon the Philippines consist of more than 7000 islands. Plenty of places to practice salt-water boating. And we can probably assume that humans had moved through the Sulu Archipeligo by boat. So even if humans did leave Africa with boats (which I think is doubtful) we can be fairly sure they greatly improved them in the Philippines, a region ideal for perfecting open water boating. <br /><br />The reason I'm doubtful about OoA boating is that neither the Bab al Mandab or Gibraltar are close to any islands suitable for perfecting the technique. And the islands near Crete seem not to have been inhabited at the same time as Crete. Unlikely if the humans that reached Crete had efficient boats.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-76635498856240265482010-07-05T00:39:22.226+02:002010-07-05T00:39:22.226+02:00"And I give up. You're obviously so commi..."And I give up. You're obviously so committed to your pet theory you refuse to consider any other possibilities".<br /><br />"My pet-theory"? Which one?<br /><br />Here we have a saying about thieves believing all to be like them, if you know what I mean.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-48025948321900009532010-07-05T00:38:05.303+02:002010-07-05T00:38:05.303+02:00See: Wikipedia: Horizon.
At 828 m over sea level ...See: Wikipedia: Horizon.<br /><br />At 828 m over sea level (one of the examples) you can see the horizon at 103.75 km<br /><br />So I estimated that for 80 km it'd be something like 700m. But it's in fact more like 600 m. <br /><br />Whatever the case you won't spot the "tiny" island (by effect of the distance) in the huge ocean unless you know what you are looking for. <br /><br />"Getting to Lombok is again just the first step. Several crossings beyond Lombok involve gaps of more than 150 kms". <br /><br />It doesn't matter because you can always cross to Sulawesi directly from Borneo, which is necessarily a lot easier than doing from Philippines. <br /><br />Anyhow I'd check that claim of you but right now the link to the maps site is not responding. 150 km does not seem realistic. Nobody would have ever crossed into New Guinea or Australia if that would be the case. I suspect that you are measuring distances without consideration of Ice Age actual land and sea sizes.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-17666328634622081472010-07-04T23:23:47.484+02:002010-07-04T23:23:47.484+02:00"I measured the whole strait and it's 2 l..."I measured the whole strait and it's 2 latitude degrees wide, what is 120 nautical miles or 222 km". <br /><br />But no individual island is more than 80km from it's nearest neighbour. <br /><br />"80 km is just too wide ... Actually you'd be able to see the horizon south of the northernmost Sangihe is. from a good height (like 700 m., perfect weather)" <br /><br />Not just the horizon. It is really easy to see very small islands 80km away from less than 700 metres altitude. I do it every day. I agree that is only the first step, but: <br /><br />"Once you are in Sulawesi or Lombok things then we are not comparing access to Wallacea but which route across Wallacea" <br /><br />Getting to Lombok is again just the first step. Several crossings beyond Lombok involve gaps of more than 150 kms. <br /><br />"Repeating the same song once and again is not any reasoning and it's boring". <br /><br />And I give up. You're obviously so committed to your pet theory you refuse to consider any other possibilities. 'Pig-headed' we call it.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-31646103238332918802010-07-04T16:57:18.464+02:002010-07-04T16:57:18.464+02:00About the name of the "strait" between M...About the name of the "strait" between Mindanao and Sulawesi, I can't find any name anywhere. Sulawesi Sea refers to the area west of this passage and Sarangahi Arc refers to the islands, not the water body. <br /><br />It doesn't seem to have a name nor be considered any strait nor sea on its own right.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com