tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post4510774597219003659..comments2023-05-15T07:11:30.874+02:00Comments on Leherensuge: Full Khoi-San genomes publishedMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-7839379186944864262010-03-11T05:42:06.174+01:002010-03-11T05:42:06.174+01:00I'm replying to your questions on topic. Becau...I'm replying to your questions on topic. Because otherwise I'll get lost. I'd like you'd reply also in the relevant article.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-16790366287908256012010-03-11T05:24:28.741+01:002010-03-11T05:24:28.741+01:00I think I have addressed as well as possible all t...I think I have addressed as well as possible all these issues <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/03/early-expansion-of-h-sapiens-in-africa.html" rel="nofollow">in my latest post</a>. <br /><br />Not sure if you are commenting on it. If so you may want to post there.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-52660680797623443422010-03-11T05:04:58.997+01:002010-03-11T05:04:58.997+01:00"I'm working on more detailed localizatio..."I'm working on more detailed localizations of likely origins and I have so far gone through L0, L1 and L2". <br /><br />I keep looking at your work too. Thanks. This is what I've come up with. Some agrees with your assessment: <br /><br />The first split seems to be simply a north/south one with L0 in the south and L1''6 slightly to the north. But the south and north of what? My guess is somewhere in the grassy savannah in the southern Congo Basin. Y-haps A and B have their centroids there, so we have a possible connection. <br /><br />There seems next to be several expansions around the 9 mut. level. By then L1''6 had already diverged into L2''6 and L1. L1 had even diverged into L1b and L1c, and L5 had appeared. L1 seems to have moved north, then west along the northern edge of the Congo Basin savannah zone. L1c forming in 'Middle Africa' and L1b perhaps not quite so far west. <br /><br />At 9 mut in the south L0d managed to move further south from the Congo Basin, possibly into the drier savannah. L0a,b,f,k started its move north, possibly through a similar habitat. L5 may have moved beyond the grassland savannah of the northeast Congo Basin. <br /><br />Where was L1'2'3'6? I don't know, but there seems to have been another general expansion beginning just before the 16 mut and carrying on to 23 mut. In the south L0a'b'f'k began breaking up as it moved north over the period: L0k in the south, then L0f, then L0a (which began its own expansion at 23 mut, presumably along with L3). In fact L5 had split at 13 mut into a northeastern haplogroup (beyond the Congo Basin, L5c), and a southwestern one (L5a) within the Congo Basin. It wasn't until long after 23 mut that the two separate L5 lines expanded again, along the eastern savannah. Meanwhile, further north, L2 had appeared at 16 mut and it too has its own little expansion at 23 mut. L6 appeared at 18 mut and L1c started moving north into the Sahel and south into the jungle. This last movement carried on past 23 mut. <br /><br />I've looked at L4 and L3 too, but I'll quit now.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-35115334113632636672010-03-09T06:09:41.182+01:002010-03-09T06:09:41.182+01:00"All of them. Right across the savanah region..."All of them. Right across the savanah region".<br /><br />That's a too wide description for me. I acknowledge that the Sahel was surely a migration corridor, as was the East African savanna, but it's not the same Mauritania than Sudan, and they have wildly different genetics. <br /><br />"And that's where most haplogroups appear to have originated".<br /><br />I'm working on more detailed localizations of likely origins and I have so far gone through L0, L1 and L2. <br /><br />L0 seems essentially South/East African (the savanna corridor) and mostly unrelated to West or North Africa (but has lineages that pop up at Arabia). I'd say it may have originated near Lake Tanganyika, with a branch (essentially L0d) heading south and another branch (essentially L0a'b'f'k) heading north along the Rift Valley.<br /><br />L1 seems fundamentally Central-West African, with a posible origin south of Lake Chad. L1c headed south to the Jungle (which may have used as specialists' corridor to reach Guinea Bissau in one case) and L1b north to the steppe, where essentially remained put. <br /><br />L2 is tricky because a single individual with basal lineage L2e (one of two basal lineages) pulls the composite centroid to the west a lot, making it look as original from the area of Niamey (Niger) or NW Nigeria. Otherwise, its main branch, L2a-d, seems centered in Eastern Chad, not far from Darfur (and most sublineages appear centered around that Chad-Sudan-CAR area too). <br /><br />I have not yet dealt with L5, L6 and L3 but I have already said that they look original from the Upper Nile area. When I finish I also want to estimate likely origins (composite centroids) for the various nodes in L1"6 and then also for "mtDNA Eve". <br /><br />But I'm already guessing that around Lake Victoria. <br /><br />"What about L0a1d, L0k2, L2d, L4a2, L3f1b2, L3i1b and L3x1? All present in Yemen but you fail to include them. Why?"<br /><br />Because I was talking about L6! And also because my brain only has a limited capacity, WTF!<br /><br />You are extremely on the defensive. Relax and meditate, seriously. <br /><br />"I'd check your map. There's something wrong with it. Cameroon actually reaches Lake Chad and Gabon is directly south of Mount Cameroon".<br /><br />Mt. Cameroon is in SW Cameroon, near the border with Nigeria. The divide between West and Middle Africa goes since modern border exists, i.e. since the colonial period, between Cameroon and Chad at the east and Nigeria and Niger at the west. It's of course an arbitrary border but it's also convenient to have it in mind. <br /><br />At least I do make that difference when talking: Cameroon is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Africa" rel="nofollow">Middle Africa</a> and Nigeria is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa" rel="nofollow">West Africa</a>. Same for Chad and Niger.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-43855834819372792142010-03-09T05:11:14.073+01:002010-03-09T05:11:14.073+01:00"'The Sahel' means for you Chad and S..."'The Sahel' means for you Chad and Sudan? Or does it mean Senegal and Mauritania?" <br /><br />All of them. Right across the savanah region. And that's where most haplogroups appear to have originated. <br /><br />"To me it does seem an extremely unlikely coincidence: of all scattered lineages of NE and East Africa, the ones heading to Yemen were precisely the two L6 'sisters'? One from here and the other from there". <br /><br />Again you're ignoring relevant evidence. What about L0a1d, L0k2, L2d, L4a2, L3f1b2, L3i1b and L3x1? All present in Yemen but you fail to include them. Why? <br /><br />"And I would not call Gabon and Chad 'West Africa' in any case but Equatorial, Middle or Central Africa. West Africa begins at Mt. Cameroon more or less". <br /><br />I'd check your map. There's something wrong with it. Cameroon actually reaches Lake Chad and Gabon is directly south of Mount Cameroon.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-50366007974301396322010-03-08T16:15:55.856+01:002010-03-08T16:15:55.856+01:00"The simplest explanation (Occam's razor)..."The simplest explanation (Occam's razor) is that L6* coalesced somewhere between Egypt and Ethiopia (Sudan?)"<br /><br />On a canoe on the Red Sea seems more likely. <br /><br />There's no known L6 in Sudan and the one in Ethiopia fits well with a Yemeni ultimate origin (Semitic from the North, not tribal from near Sudan). <br /><br />"Whereupon L6a coalesced in Egypt and L6b coalesced in Ethiopia". <br /><br />Just because it fits best with your dogma? Sorry, no: too much of a coincidence. <br /><br />"The two separate haplogroups made it to Yemen after effective boating arrived in the Red Sea. That's why 'both sublineages are found there'. Hardly 'an extreme coincidence'".<br /><br />To me it does seem an extremely unlikely coincidence: of all scattered lineages of NE and East Africa, the ones heading to Yemen were precisely the two L6 "sisters"? One from here and the other from there.<br /><br />C'mon! Your resistence is growing ridiculously far fetched. You are going to explode in a logic impossibility hypercurl at any moment. <br /><br />Relax and accept the facts. <br /><br />"It could well be that L0 was in South Africa and it was L0a'b'f that moved north, possibly with L1''6".<br /><br />It could be but that's like 80% of all earliest lineages migrating, Fray Occam would say otherwise. <br /><br />""As we know, L2"6 looks also pretty much East African"<br /><br />Not so. L1 is West African".<br /><br />I don't care: I'm not discussing L1 but L2"6. And I would not call Gabon and Chad "West Africa" in any case but Equatorial, Middle or Central Africa. West Africa begins at Mt. Cameroon more or less. <br /><br />"You're ignoring their representatives in West Africa". <br /><br />I'm leaning to where majority of top level lineages seems to dictate. It's not me: it's just vectorial maths.<br /><br />"The basal lines are often widespread through West Africa and the Sahel".<br /><br />"The Sahel" means for you Chad and Sudan? Or does it mean Senegal and Mauritania?<br /><br />Whatever the case, the basal lines are mostly concentrated around the Upper Nile, which I suspect it's the core area of humankind, holding massive diversity at all levels, with the others being offshoots (less diverse, even at basal levels). <br /><br />You are free to disagree but I see no merit in your protests. <br /><br />"It's just as possible (and probably more likely) that L1''6 went to West Africa (perhaps via Sudan) and the reason most lineages are found in East Africa is because of long-term back migration".<br /><br />No. It's the anti-Occam kind of pseudo-logic I detest (with good reason). <br /><br />"Even L3 is not unequivocally East African (except for L3a)".<br /><br />Uh?<br /><br />L3a: Ethiopia, L3b'f: Upper Nile, L3c'd'j: Upper Nile, L3e'i'k'x: Nile, L3h: Ethiopia, M: South Asia, N SE Asia. <br /><br />For me it's quite clear: the Upper Nile. But again you are free to disagree. <br /><br />"L3 has representatives spread right across the Sahel so could have originated anywhere within it".<br /><br />Not just across the Sahel but also across Asia and all Earth. But you would not place its origin in France, Bangla Desh or even your darling Wallacea, right? I would not certainly. <br /><br />"I agree that Sudan has been important, as have Uganda-Kenya-Tanzania, but I believe you over-rate the importance of the Horn".<br /><br />I don't think I do. However the very high variance of Ethiopian lineages suggests this country did play an important role, along with its neighbors.<br /><br />Whatever the case I am very much aware of Sudanese diversity and I have always been talking of the Nile and Upper Nile. All the rest is your imagination. <br /><br />However Behar et al. did emphasize Ethiopia and they have clearly some good reasons to do so.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-78678869536678963082010-03-08T05:59:52.205+01:002010-03-08T05:59:52.205+01:00"And if it coalesced in Egypt it means that L..."And if it coalesced in Egypt it means that L6a must have moved to Yemen and L6b to both Ethiopia and Yemen (and gone extinct in Egypt). And if it coalesced in Ethiopia it means that L6a must have moved to both Egypt and Yemen (and gone extinct in Ethiopia) and L6b to Yemen as well". <br /><br />The simplest explanation (Occam's razor) is that L6* coalesced somewhere between Egypt and Ethiopia (Sudan?) and spread to both places. Whereupon L6a coalesced in Egypt and L6b coalesced in Ethiopia. The two separate haplogroups made it to Yemen after effective boating arrived in the Red Sea. That's why 'both sublineages are found there'. Hardly 'an extreme coincidence'. After all, they're hardly the only lineages found there. <br /><br />"we are probably 'witnessing' the first expansion of humankind, with one branch heading south (L0d)" <br /><br />It could well be that L0 was in South Africa and it was L0a'b'f that moved north, possibly with L1''6. <br /><br />"As we know, L2"6 looks also pretty much East African" <br /><br />Not so. L1 is West African with no representatives in East Africa until relatively late. As you say: 'L1<br />__>L1b (WA)<br />__>L2c (CA)'. L2 is also quite likely to have its origin in West Africa, so that places L2''6 in West Africa at an early date, but not in East Africa quite so early. <br /><br />"So, if we have L2"6 and L0a'b'f'k as East African lineages" <br /><br />You're ignoring their representatives in West Africa. Only downstream lines (mostly after the 23 mut. level) are definitely confined to East Africa. The basal lines are often widespread through West Africa and the Sahel. <br /><br />"L1 went West and L2"6 surely remained at/went to East Africa (Sudan if you wish), where most of its sublineages are found". <br /><br />It's just as possible (and probably more likely) that L1''6 went to West Africa (perhaps via Sudan) and the reason most lineages are found in East Africa is because of long-term back migration. Even L3 is not unequivocally East African (except for L3a). You just claim it so because it suits your belief. L3 has representatives spread right across the Sahel so could have originated anywhere within it. <br /><br />"I consider Sudan part of East Africa and in fact it plays a major role, along with The Horn and the Uganda-Kenya-Tanzania area in that province". <br /><br />I agree that Sudan has been important, as have Uganda-Kenya-Tanzania, but I believe you over-rate the importance of the Horn. Especially when we consider that Y-hap T, presumably a back migration from Asis, is so widespread there. Suggests the Horn was relatively empty when Y-hap T arrived.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-14293141299985607392010-03-08T05:15:58.331+01:002010-03-08T05:15:58.331+01:00"... it's actually rather difficult to ma..."... it's actually rather difficult to make a case that L0''6 originated in Ethiopia".<br /><br />L0''6 is "mitochondrial Eve". I don't think I ever went as far as to state a likely origin for such an early ancestor.<br /><br />What I said was:<br /><br />"Hence, with the branching and scatter of L0 and L1 we are probably "witnessing" the first expansion of humankind, with one branch heading south (L0d), another heading west into the jungle (L1c), another heading towards the Ethiopian highlands (L0a'b'f'k or at least L0a'b'f) and yet another heading maybe towards West Africa (L1b). The remaining macro-lineage (L2''6), which is the major one by raw numbers today, probably represents a second expansion".<br /><br />As we know, L2"6 looks also pretty much East African ("Ethiopian" if you wish) with the likely exception of L2 (and L6 if Yemeni - but just across the Red Sea, not big deal). <br /><br />"Rather than demonstrating a South and East African L0/L1''6 split your diagram suggests a South and West African split. L1 certainly appears to be primarily West/Central African, as does L2 (less certainly)".<br /><br />Yah, but the structure is as follows (> means node, not mutation, here):<br /><br />>L0<br />_>L0a'b'f'k (EA)<br />_>L0d (SA)<br />>L1"6<br />_>L1<br />__>L1b (WA)<br />__>L2c (CA)<br />_>L2"6<br />__>L5 (EA)<br />__>L2'3'4'6<br />___>L2 (WA?, CA?, EA?)<br />___>L3'4'6 (EA)<br />____>L6 (Yemen?)<br />____>L3'4 (EA)<br />_____>L4 (EA)<br />_____>L3 (EA)<br /><br />So, if we have L2"6 and L0a'b'f'k as East African lineages, we have a case similar to that of L6 and Yemen: both basal sublineages (L0 and L1"6) are found in the core region, while they are also found elsewhere but at different localities each. <br /><br />It's not totally conclusive but it follows the maximum likelihood logic. And archaeology probably supports such scenario as well (though not sure how strongly right now). <br /><br />"L4, L5 and L6 do seem to be East African, but are probably outliers from the main Sudan/Sahel L1''6 population".<br /><br />I consider Sudan part of East Africa and in fact it plays a major role, along with The Horn and the Uganda-Kenya-Tanzania area in that province. <br /><br />In any case L4, L5, L6 and L3 are almost all L1"6 and certainly L2"6. L1"6 split in two: L1 went West and L2"6 surely remained at/went to East Africa (Sudan if you wish), where most of its sublineages are found.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-83940144448787346102010-03-08T05:15:52.519+01:002010-03-08T05:15:52.519+01:00"Are you suggesting that L6 originated in Yem..."Are you suggesting that L6 originated in Yemen?"<br /><br />I think that it's the most likely scenario.<br /><br />"That means that L6a must have moved from Yemen to Egypt and L6b moved from Yemen to Ethiopia".<br /><br />And if it coalesced in Egypt it means that L6a must have moved to Yemen and L6b to both Ethiopia and Yemen (and gone extinct in Egypt). And if it coalesced in Ethiopia it means that L6a must have moved to both Egypt and Yemen (and gone extinct in Ethiopia) and L6b to Yemen as well. <br /><br />So the simplest answer, on light of the available data, seems to be that L6 as a whole coalesced in Yemen (where it never went extinct), with branches migrating to Egypt and Ethiopia (distinct sublineages, what makes also good sense, as these are distinct migrations). <br /><br />"Isn't it far more likely that L6a formed in Egypt and L6b formed in Ethiopia, and that they both moved to Yemen at some later time?"<br /><br />It would be an extreme coincidence and I don't believe in coincidences. However the data is limited and all options remain open. Believe what you prefer. <br /><br />"Not so if L6 is actually Egyptian/Ethiopian".<br /><br />But I see it as Yemeni (both sublineages are found there), the same that I see its major sister, L3'4, as African (both sublineages are primarily found there as well). <br /><br />"I can't actually see any lineages that are 'exclusively' Asian from any time before the 29-31 mutation level". <br /><br />Not sure anymore. I'm bored of browsing the phylogenetic graphs once and again only to rebuke a vague assertion as this one. Anyhow, even at the 29 mutation level, it is still before any signal of any Eurasian presence in West Asia (surely at Iran-Iraq first of all, a whole desert away from the Red Sea), so even at that level they would not be interacting yet most likely.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-15127315705417006072010-03-08T04:12:59.921+01:002010-03-08T04:12:59.921+01:00"But the crucial thing is that L6 is not an &..."But the crucial thing is that L6 is not an 'East African' lineage at basal level: clearly not. You can argue that of L6b but not of L6 as a whole". <br /><br />It's difficult to argue anything other than it being an East African lineage. Are you suggesting that L6 originated in Yemen? That means that L6a must have moved from Yemen to Egypt and L6b moved from Yemen to Ethiopia. Did each haplogroup have a different coloured ear tag to make draughting easier? Isn't it far more likely that L6a formed in Egypt and L6b formed in Ethiopia, and that they both moved to Yemen at some later time? That's why L6 retains its greatest diversity in Asia: L6 came from two different places. <br /><br />"But I have detected several nodes that split into an Africa and an Asian lineage before that line, one of them is L3'4'6 (L6 Asian, L3'4 African)". <br /><br />Not so if L6 is actually Egyptian/Ethiopian. I can't actually see any lineages that are 'exclusively' Asian from any time before the 29-31 mutation level. <br /><br />Another rather interesting thing I've noticed about your diagram: it's actually rather difficult to make a case that L0''6 originated in Ethiopia. Rather than demonstrating a South and East African L0/L1''6 split your diagram suggests a South and West African split. L1 certainly appears to be primarily West/Central African, as does L2 (less certainly). L4, L5 and L6 do seem to be East African, but are probably outliers from the main Sudan/Sahel L1''6 population. Nothing is definitely Ethiopian until after M and N moved out of Africa, at 23 mutations. The diversity in Ethiopia is indicative of multiple immigrations, not origin. <br /><br />"I have noticed some further spread to Asia after the 30 mut. timeline but I am not dwelling into it (yet) because it may be related to the backmigration from South Asia at that same time". <br /><br />That's probably true. But that doesn't prove any L lines backmigrated to Africa. It's more likely to indicate that once humans had the ability to cross the Red Sea movement was in both directions, M and several Rs in, and several Ls out.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-16513427426069770332010-03-06T03:01:37.276+01:002010-03-06T03:01:37.276+01:00Don't know. You are talking of different thing...Don't know. You are talking of different things than I do. Different lineages in most cases. I have noticed some further spread to Asia after the 30 mut. timeline but I am not dwelling into it (yet) because it may be related to the backmigration from South Asia at that same time. <br /><br />But I have detected several nodes that split into an Africa and an Asian lineage before that line, one of them is L3'4'6 (L6 Asian, L3'4 African). <br /><br />Another issue is that the Asian lineages have long stems but they are still not found in Africa at all or, in a few cases, like L6 retain the greatest diversity in Asia. <br /><br />"L6 formed at 18 mutations. Again it was a private lineage until the 37 mut. level. It is an East African lineage".<br /><br />At 18 mutations it's not yet L6 but L3'4'6* or pre-L6. But the crucial thing is that L6 is not an "East African" lineage at basal level: clearly not. You can argue that of L6b but not of L6 as a whole. <br /><br />But whatever.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-69507964259156423222010-03-06T02:31:02.627+01:002010-03-06T02:31:02.627+01:00"So I'd suggest that the OoA people inclu..."So I'd suggest that the OoA people included all these haplogroups: L3'4'6* (leading to L6), L4b* (leading to L4b1), L0a1b* (leading to L0a1b2), L0f2* (leading to L0f2b) and L3* (leading to M and N)... at least". <br /><br />I printed off all your great diagrams a few days ago and have now had time to look at them at my leisure. <br /><br />I've noticed that by the time the two L3 haplogroups, M and N, emerged from Africa at the 23 mutation level more than 30 other haplogroups had already become spread through and across Africa, including the ones you mention. Some of these do seem to have spread at the 23 mutation level, but almost certainly confined to Africa. There seems also to be evidence for at least two subsequent expansions within Africa. The first at the 31/32 mutation level, the second at the 36/37 mutation level. It is only during these two later expansions that branches of L haplogroups (other than M and N) become established outside Africa, at such places as the Levant, Jordan, Syria, Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Yemen. <br /><br />Most of the haplogroups already present at the 23 mut. level have become too widespread to draw conclusions about their origin but some seem to have remained localised from the time of their origin. <br /><br />L1 had diversified at 9 mutations. L1c became spread widely through Africa, presumably from West or Central Africa, at the 19 mut. level (L1c, L1c2'4, L1c6 and L1c3). L1b remained a private lineage until expanding widely through Africa at the 30 mut. level, reaching Ethiopia at that time. <br /><br />L0 had diversified at 11 mut. and spread throughout South and East Africa. My guess is from the south, because L0d is almost exclusively South African. As is L0k, with a mysterious member present in Yemen at 32 mut. (also L0d3 in Kuwait, presumably arriving there around the same time). Various L0as and L0fs became scattered all round and across Africa about the 23 mut. level, reaching Ethiopia at that time. <br /><br />L5 separated into L5a and L5c at 13 mutations. The latter East African (reaching Ethiopia at 27 mut.), the former expanding much later from two regions: South Africa (L5a2) and East/Central Africa (L5a1). <br /><br />L2 had first appeared at the 16 mut. level but broke into L2a and L2b at the 23 mut. level. So that split is probably connected to the movement that took M and N out. Both L2a and L2b spread widely through Africa, reaching Ethiopia at 31 mutations. <br /><br />L6 formed at 18 mutations. Again it was a private lineage until the 37 mut. level. It is an East African lineage. <br /><br />L4 appears just a little before the 23 mut. expansion and is also East African. <br /><br />So that's the situation when M and N emerged from Africa. L3 may have originated in Ethiopia but L3a is the only clade placed there close to the 23 mut. level. In fact L3 seems to be spread very early through the Sahel, from Birkina Faso to Kenya, and reaching into North Africa.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-65683847075739456982010-03-05T14:59:13.930+01:002010-03-05T14:59:13.930+01:00"But you mentioned the Andamans as not having..."But you mentioned the Andamans as not having fire".<br /><br />As not making fire. For what I've read they do use fire, which they keep always alive. When they lose it for whichever reason they ask their neighbors for replacement. <br /><br />However I have only read once on that and I can't recall where. So I wouldn't mind confirmation or refutation. <br /><br />In any case Andaman is an "insular case". <br /><br />Just imagine how hard it'd be going through Siberia with your nuclear family and maybe another "support" family, hundreds or thousands of kilometers away from anybody else in such conditions, specially in winter. You need to be able to make your own fire in non-tropical conditions: it seems fairly clear to me. In tropical conditions instead you may go without fire for a while and still survive fairly well. <br /><br />"Yes. And very soon after that split. No early branches remain in Africa which is not what we'd expect if they'd hung around within that continent for any length of time".<br /><br />Are you talking of L3 in general or of M and N here? I think that the latter. So I'd agree that L3 leading to M and N surely crossed the Red Sea and moved eastward quite fast. <br /><br />However it still took M three mutations (15,000 years?) to find a suitable place to expand (South Asia) and they still left no traces. What to me means that either they went extinct or that the L3 lineages were replaced by others in a drift and fixation process that involved not just L3 people (we don't see L3 exclusive to Arabia that appears so old) but other lineages (as mentioned in the other thread: L0a1b2, L0f2b, L4b1 and L6 specially). So I'd suggest that the OoA people included all these haplogroups: L3'4'6* (leading to L6), L4b* (leading to L4b1), L0a1b* (leading to L0a1b2), L0f2* (leading to L0f2b) and L3* (leading to M and N)... at least. <br /><br />Such diversity probably implied a frequent crossing of the Red Sea by peoples of the Sudan-Ethiopia-Eritrea area. However we see no signal of crossing before the L3 node, so maybe they only began daring to cross the sea at about that time (however I still have the Crete issue troubling my mind, which would seem older). <br /><br />If so, the L3* (leading to M and N) people might have been pioneers (or among them) and hence moved fast ahead of others (or maybe pushed by them), eventually reaching a much better place beyond Hormuz, where they thrived. <br /><br />"Possibly just one, and one of the subsequent lineages moved back".<br /><br />Doesn't make sense: DE* exists in Africa and Africa is surely the homeland of DE as a whole. Also I tend to associate Y-DNA E with mtDNA L3, as both seem to have expanded from the same area. <br /><br />I don't accept the E backmigration hypothesis. I can't. <br /><br />"Very doubtful. Didn't we agree that they lived in the Levant for some time, and spread to India from there via some route as yet unknown?"<br /><br />Did we? I keep my mind open about the two possible routes (South Arabia and Fertile Crescent). Whatever the case the coastal route is almost a must from the Gulf on. That's what the GIS simulations say, even if starting in Kurdistan. <br /><br />Now I happen to see way too many L lineages with deep pedigree in Saudia (Hedjaz), Yemen and Oman and not really so many in the Levant... so I'm leaning towards the South Arabian route. <br /><br />Keep your eyes open and the track will tell you what happened... or not (but in this case, no conclusion can be reached).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-13313829926496197602010-03-05T08:44:26.107+01:002010-03-05T08:44:26.107+01:00"I understand that those rare insular cases s..."I understand that those rare insular cases seem ones of loss of knowledge" <br /><br />Almost certainly correct. But you mentioned the Andamans as not having fire. <br /><br />"I do expect the group(s) leaving Africa to have got some haplogroup variability in them, surely greater than the one we can perceive now". <br /><br />Perhaps not though. <br /><br />"We see at least two distinct L3 lineages, split already at the next step under L3" <br /><br />Yes. And very soon after that split. No early branches remain in Africa which is not what we'd expect if they'd hung around within that continent for any length of time. <br /><br />"and we see three distinct CDEF lineages, also separated from each other very early on". <br /><br />Possibly just one, and one of the subsequent lineages moved back. <br /><br />"So, unless you think that L3 migrated to South Asia in the time of a single mutation" <br /><br />Very doubtful. Didn't we agree that they lived in the Levant for some time, and spread to India from there via some route as yet unknown?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-67350580689374856932010-03-04T15:48:33.616+01:002010-03-04T15:48:33.616+01:00I understand that those rare insular cases seem on...I understand that those rare insular cases seem ones of loss of knowledge, maybe associated to humid conditions. I may be wrong but people has been using fire since H. erectus or H. habilis, what to me implies the ability to produce it.<br /><br />"If! And it's a big IF".<br /><br />Fixation needs time. I do expect the group(s) leaving Africa to have got some haplogroup variability in them, surely greater than the one we can perceive now. <br /><br />"And I believe that's precisely what we do see for the early expansion".<br /><br />No. We see at least two distinct L3 lineages, split already at the next step under L3, and we see three distinct CDEF lineages, also separated from each other very early on. So, unless you think that L3 migrated to South Asia in the time of a single mutation (and the stood there idle for two mutations more before showing any signs of expansion) and CDEF did the same (and then what happens with E and DE*: backmigration?), we must assume that the original Eurasian population had at least two female lineages and two or three male ones.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-80472729918153093782010-03-04T09:13:58.391+01:002010-03-04T09:13:58.391+01:00"Yet humans everywhere (except in Andaman isl..."Yet humans everywhere (except in Andaman islands it seems) master it". <br /><br />And probably Tasmania. They carried fire around with them and if it died out they were introuble, unless they could borrow some from another group. So to claim, 'it seems it's been the case since H. erectus' is obviously doubtful. <br /><br />"So if at the time of 'uncle Jack' the small population had haplogroups A, B and C" <br /><br />If! And it's a big IF. I think we're talking about populations on the advancing edge of human expansion. In which case they're likely to be inbred, at least to some extent. It's therefore quite possible to ahve populations containing just a single male and a single female haplogroup. <br /><br />"Only if all were initially A, then we'd see the track for sure, because all derived colonies would be A-something". <br /><br />And I believe that's precisely what we do see for the early expansion.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-68798208107048083842010-03-03T22:10:18.299+01:002010-03-03T22:10:18.299+01:00Have you ever made a fire with such primitive tool...Have you ever made a fire with such primitive tools? Also conceptually it's quite challenging: though animals may occasionally use logs as rafts and understand that concept easily, no other animal but humans uses fire, much less makes it happen artificially. <br /><br />Fire making is a conceptual creative challenge at least as complex as building a raft or canoe if not more. Yet humans everywhere (except in Andaman islands it seems) master it. And it seems it's been the case since H. erectus. <br /><br />So why would they not be able to create a simple raft or canoe (and even to reinvent the concept once and again as need be). I really do not understand the objections in this regard, specially when it seems so extremely useful in all circumstances but maybe some highlands and deserts (not our favorite habitat).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-56102733930887733882010-03-03T21:36:54.588+01:002010-03-03T21:36:54.588+01:00Maju said,
"Lol, tell that to your Wallacean...Maju said,<br /><br />"Lol, tell that to your Wallaceans. Obviously, if you don't have boats, you invent them. Humans are creators, natural born masters of the elements. If you can make fire, you can make a boat and whatever else you may need."<br /><br />I do not understand Maju's fascination with firestriking. Has he never instinctively rubbed his palms together on a cold day to warm them up?Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-18912014836200253112010-03-03T14:07:44.748+01:002010-03-03T14:07:44.748+01:00You are ignoring drift and fixation. So if at the ...You are ignoring drift and fixation. So if at the time of "uncle Jack" the small population had haplogroups A, B and C, centuries later there can perfectly be a dozen scattered populations, some with only A, some with only B, some with only C and some maybe still with several lineages. <br /><br />Only if all were initially A, then we'd see the track for sure, because all derived colonies would be A-something. But if they had some initial diversity, as it's most likely, then the track will appear blurry and randomly "erased", as is the case. <br /><br />"If you don't have boats you just leave the difficult spots".<br /><br />Lol, tell that to your Wallaceans. Obviously, if you don't have boats, you invent them. Humans are creators, natural born masters of the elements. If you can make fire, you can make a boat and whatever else you may need.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-60896729901392926062010-03-03T05:08:45.897+01:002010-03-03T05:08:45.897+01:00"They could have boated to Palestine and Egyp..."They could have boated to Palestine and Egypt, either through the Red Sea or the Nile or both". <br /><br />Doubtful. <br /><br />"It's not only possible but in fact very likely in the scenario of an uninhabited land, as was most of Asia back then". <br /><br />If it was uninhabited they would almost certainly leave populations behind. Even if they'd had 'a quarrel with uncle Jack' and moved on uncle Jack would remain behind. So as a population expanded we would expect to see the same, or closely related, haplogroups scattered along the way. So even 'If each generation migrates 100 km, it's 10,000 after 100 generations (3000 years)' we'd still expect to see more than just a trace of their passing. <br /><br />"You may need boats and even getting to very difficult spots" <br /><br />If you don't have boats you just leave the difficult spots. <br /><br />"Boats are just sooo necessary for everything!" <br /><br />But not for collecting shellfish.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-26976880189719636302010-03-02T12:41:10.743+01:002010-03-02T12:41:10.743+01:00""The basal diversity of L3 is clearly c...""The basal diversity of L3 is clearly concentrated in Sudan/Ethiopia (I'd dare say Ethiopia specifically)".<br /><br />Your information doesn't entirely bear that out. L3 is spread widely through the northern half of Africa, although perhaps more diverse in Ethiopia. But many L3s are found right through North Africa from Algeria to Egypt and out into the Levant, so leaving very much open a Levant exit rather than a Bab-al-Mandab one".<br /><br />That says absolutely nothing against L3 expanding from the area of Ethiopia. They could have boated to Palestine and Egypt, either through the Red Sea or the Nile or both.<br /><br />In fact, they probably did that. <br /><br />"So you'd have to include West Africa"...<br /><br />Sure. But only for some lineages, arguably L2 among the large ones, and then some smaller ones downstream ones too. <br /><br />"And I very much suspect that if you have a huge distance between any postulated origin of a haplogroup and its ancestors you've got something seriously wrong with your theory".<br /><br />Your choice. I see no problem whatsoever, as there were thousands of years in between. If each generation migrates 100 km, it's 10,000 after 100 generations (3000 years). Just as an example. <br /><br />It's not only possible but in fact very likely in the scenario of an uninhabited land, as was most of Asia back then. <br /><br />Got a quarrel with uncle Jack? Let's get moving (with some more friendly people) a little bit upstream/downstream/across the hills, to that idyllic district where nobody lives yet. <br /><br />Voting with the feet is a characteristic of hunter-gatherer societies and surely a primary engine for human migration wherever population was low. Additionally, as hunter-gatherers they had to migrate at least seasonally, even if only or mostly within an area. <br /><br />"... unless you're going to postulate coastal specialization in ancient humans you can wave bye-bye to any coastal migration".<br /><br />Why? Couldn't they fish now, hunt then and gather dates that other day? Logically they did. <br /><br />Maybe there were some more specialized groups but I don't really need them. And, anyhow, they'd change their strategies depending on their circumstances. <br /><br />"There is not even 'indirect evidence' for boats at Blombos".<br /><br />There is evidence for boats at Crete, 130,000 years ago, 45,000 years before Blombos' shells. <br /><br />"And are you claiming a 'lack of evidence' for boats in Wallacea 50,000 years ago?"<br /><br />No. I'm saying that you lack evidence for lack of boats before that. It's a mayor claim that you base on nothing but your imagination. <br /><br />"Boats are completely un-necessary for that sort of exploitation. Have you never collected shellfish?"<br /><br />Yes. You may need boats and even getting to very difficult spots depending what you are looking for. People die collecting seafood. In any case, they are a most convenient tool if you live at the coast, at a swamp, at a river or by a lake. Boats are just sooo necessary for everything!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-49932464347043299532010-03-02T04:18:07.774+01:002010-03-02T04:18:07.774+01:00First off, thanks for all the additional informati...First off, thanks for all the additional information regarding L3. <br /><br />"but L1 looks more like Pygmy/Bushmen specific, with some extension into West Africa and very rare findings in The Horn". <br /><br />Yes, and you don't mention another pre-L3 lien: L2. Also found mainly in West Africa. So you'd have to include West Africa in your 'But I'm not restricting the origins of humankind to The Horn, but rather to, most likely, an arch between South Africa and Sudan, where East Africa is central and particularly for the northern branch (L2''6)'. So, ultimately, the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa. <br /><br />"The basal diversity of L3 is clearly concentrated in Sudan/Ethiopia (I'd dare say Ethiopia specifically)". <br /><br />Your information doesn't entirely bear that out. L3 is spread widely through the northern half of Africa, although perhaps more diverse in Ethiopia. But many L3s are found right through North Africa from Algeria to Egypt and out into the Levant, so leaving very much open a Levant exit rather than a Bab-al-Mandab one: <br /><br />L3a (Ethiopia)<br /><br />L3b'f <br />L3b (West/Middle African), <br />L3f (Ethiopia, Chad, Southern Africa, Egypt, West Africa, Levant, Chad, Oman - all three L3f sublineages are present in Ethiopia). So both haplogroups are found right across Africa, although L3b seems west and L3f seems east, including the Levant and beyond. <br /><br />L3c'd'j<br />L3c (Ethiopia, Yemen)<br />L3d (West/Middle African) <br />L3j (Sudan). Again, widespread across the Sahel, although seemingly concentrated in the east. And when did L3c reach Yemen? <br /><br />L3e'i'k'x<br />L3e (West/Middle African) <br />L3i (Ethiopia, Yemen, Oman, Algeria)<br />L3k (Lybia, Tunisia)<br />L3x (Ethiopia, Algeria, Israel, Kuwait, Oman). Interesting. Algeria, Tunisia, Israel and points beyond, and south, including Ethiopia. <br /><br />L3h (Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Tunisia, Chad, G. Bissau). Again: along the northern coast and out into The Levant. Although Guinea Bissau is a bit out of the way. <br /><br />"Even trees travel in form of seeds". <br /><br />But generally not too far away. And I very much suspect that if you have a huge distance between any postulated origin of a haplogroup and its ancestors you've got something seriously wrong with your theory. <br /><br />"hyper-specialization is not the natural thing in humans, that's just capitalism". <br /><br />I agree totally. But unless you're going to postulate coastal specialization in ancient humans you can wave bye-bye to any coastal migration. <br /><br />"Indirect evidence (coastal exploitation) is better than your lack of evidence". <br /><br />There is not even 'indirect evidence' for boats at Blombos. And are you claiming a 'lack of evidence' for boats in Wallacea 50,000 years ago? <br /><br />"Logically whoever was grabbing all those shells from the tidal zone, from 130,000 BP in Palestine to 75,000 BP in South Africa, knew what a boat was (or was not human)". <br /><br />Boats are completely un-necessary for that sort of exploitation. Have you never collected shellfish?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-60854721463811788062010-03-01T19:45:13.762+01:002010-03-01T19:45:13.762+01:00Check my latest post on this matter of African mtD...Check my latest post on this matter of African mtDNA, in particular <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/03/reviewing-mtdna-l-lineages-notes-l3-l4.html" rel="nofollow">the last one</a>, which deals with L3'4'6.<br /><br />It's crystal clear that L3 and the overall L3'4'6 originated at Ethiopia or Sudan or not far away. Furthermore, all upstream lineages have strong presence in the area, so it looks like NE Africa was launching batches of people in all directions all the time.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-42638417797040987952010-03-01T11:12:32.637+01:002010-03-01T11:12:32.637+01:00"unless you're claiming that the carriers..."unless you're claiming that the carriers of L0, L1, L2 and L4 were not H. sapiens".<br /><br />Not at all (don't be abusive). L0 is also found in that area (L0a, L0b, L0f). The real division might be at the L1/L2''6 split: the latter looks clearly "Horner" but L1 looks more like Pygmy/Bushmen specific, with some extension into West Africa and very rare findings in The Horn. <br /><br />L4 is a close relative of L6 and, specially, L3, within the L3'4'6 and the L4'6 haplogroups. It can well be said that the closest relatives of Eurasians in Africa, after the other L3 peoples, are those with L4 (notably click-speakers of Tanzania, who provide a "living fossil" of early proto-Eurasians).<br /><br />It can be argued that L0 and L1 have highest diversity in Southern Africa. Fair enough. But I'm not restricting the origins of humankind to The Horn, but rather to, most likely, an arch between South Africa and Sudan, where East Africa is central and particularly for the northern branch (L2''6). <br /><br />L3 has 7 branches:<br /><br />- L3a<br />- L3b'f<br />- L3c'd'j<br />- L3e'i'k'x<br />- L3h<br />- M<br />- N<br /><br />Apart of M and N, which have clearly Asian coalescence homelands, none of the rest looks like West African or anything that is not East/NE African. L3b, L3d and L3e are clearly West/Middle African but these are not basal subclades of L3, just large sublineages of various sublineages within L3. <br /><br />All the rest is concentrated in NE Africa (or sometimes in North Africa):<br />- L3j (Sudan)<br />- L3c (Ethiopia, Yemen)<br />- L3i (Ethiopia, Yemen, Oman, Algeria)<br />- L3x (Ethiopia, Algeria, Israel, Kuwait, Oman)<br />- L3k (Lybia, Tunisia)<br />- L3f (Ethiopia, Chad, Southern Africa, Egypt, West Africa, Levant, Chad, Oman - all three L3f sublineages are present in Ethiopia)<br />- L3h (Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Tunisia, Chad, G. Bissau)<br />- L3a (Ethiopia)<br /><br />See <a href="http://www.cell.com/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297(08)00255-3" rel="nofollow">Behar 2008</a> for the reference (download figure S1). Wikipedia is obviously incomplete. <br /><br />The basal diversity of L3 is clearly concentrated in Sudan/Ethiopia (I'd dare say Ethiopia specifically). Additionally its closest relatives, L4 and L6, are also found essentially around The Horn (L4 in Tanzanian click-speakers basically and L6 across Bab-el-Mandeb). If there is any scatter of L3(xM,N) it is as much to West Africa as to North Africa/West Asia, often with derived lineages only found in this last region. <br /><br />"So, instead of making up things and hiding data let's actually look at the evidence".<br /><br />Exactly my point.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-16022342052025725872010-03-01T11:12:27.638+01:002010-03-01T11:12:27.638+01:00"Somewhere between 1600 and 6000 years, at 20..."Somewhere between 1600 and 6000 years, at 20 years a generation".<br /><br />I counted 2500-9000 years (the figures appeared so far in this discussion) and 30 years per generations that is generally considered much more realistic. <br /><br />"Plenty of time to travel right around the world, if they'd had the ability to do so".<br /><br />Like that one said about the Neanderthal of Greece: they are people, not trees! <br /><br />Even trees travel in form of seeds. <br /><br />"But R* probably first appeared within a region that N* had already reached". <br /><br />I don't care: pre-R and N* are the same thing. Nobody would be able to tell the difference until the key mutation happened.<br /><br />"Blombos cave is hardly evidence of a committed coastal exploitation to the exclusion of more generalised hunter/gathering".<br /><br />Nobody claims that both lifestyles are exclusive. You eat what you can: one day you go fishing and the next one you go hunting... or even different individuals take care of each role, or goes seasonally, or whatever. I'm too used to have all economic sectors in each valley and town: hyper-specialization is not the natural thing in humans, that's just capitalism.<br /><br />"And certainly not evidence for possession of any sort of boats". <br /><br />Indirect evidence (coastal exploitation) is better than your lack of evidence. Logically whoever was grabbing all those shells from the tidal zone, from 130,000 BP in Palestine to 75,000 BP in South Africa, knew what a boat was (or was not human). Even someone as stubborn as you woul have invented and highly improved boats after 45,000 years foraging in beaches. <br /><br />Thinking otherwise is simply dumb. <br /><br />"For a start the fact that L3 is present in the same place as 'the oldest fossil H. sapiens' is hardly relevant"...<br /><br />It is not just present: it is also most diverse.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com