RSS

‘Denisovan’ admixture widespread beyond Wallace Line, non-existant elsewhere

24 Sep
Reconstructed H. erectus
Remember that last Christmas we got an unusual gift of knowledge in the finding by Reich et al. that Melanesians of all modern humans researched back in the day were the only ones to show admixture with the mysterious Denisova fingers?
Remember that I said already back then that this admixture was not with Denisovans as such but a related species (probably H. erectus) of which the Denisova hominings were just the tip of the iceberg and a Neanderthal-admixed tip actually.
I proposed therefore that the admixture shown by Melanesians but not continental Eurasians was probably the product of admixture with H. erectus solensis (or something like that) in Indonesia, while ‘Denisovans’ were hybrids of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis, possibly at near 50% levels.
I suggested then this scenario:

With the 2nd admixture representing this regional H. erectus introgression and the 1st one being that from Neanderthals or maybe a related Heidelbergensis-derived population in South Asia (Hathnora hominin).
I also said that the figures of ‘Denisovan’ admixture had to be cut by half because the authors were counting Neanderthal admixture twice in Melanesians (as ‘Denisovans’ were probably Neanderthal-Erectus hybrids). Quoting myself:

They suggest (supp. info 8) that Melanesians would have as much as 7.4% of admixture with archaic species: 4.8% Denisovan plus 2.5% Neanderthal. But, if Denisovans are hybrids of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis (as seems most likely, see above), then the real admixture with H. erectus would be an undetermined percentage but always less than 4.8%. As we know that the Neanderthal (or Heidelbergensis) component is 2.5%, it is most likely that the actual Erectus admixture in Melanesians is of only 2.3% or 2.4%, totaling 4.8%.

Now we are told that all the aboriginal peoples of Near Oceania, plus Wallacea and Filipino Negritos, show that admixture at similar or lower levels:
I could browse the paper a day or so ago, so I hoped this was an open access paper. Yet today I find it is PPV. Luckily Dienekes has published most of the relevant graphs at his blog.
In any case the relevant information is this map (from Neanderfollia[cat]):

It tells us that Papuans and Australian Aborigines share the greatest fraction of ‘Denisovan’ introgression, followed by Boungaville Melanesians, Fijians, Timorese, Alorese and Mamanwa speakers (probable Ati). These and other peoples of beyond what used to be the continental landmass of Asia in the Ice Age, retain some level of ‘Denisovan’ admixture. 
But Denisova is very far away and no admixture is known elsewhere. Why? Because the admixture surely happened in or near Indonesia and was not with the Neanderhal-hybridized Denisovans but with pure H. erectus from the region.
Papuans and Australian aborigines have probably 2.4% admixture from H. erectus, in people like the Timorese that would be 1.2% and in a group like the Roti (RO) it is of just 0.6%. That’s my interpretation of the available data. 

But from Sundaland to the West and North there is no such admixture: zero!
And that can only be explained if the admixture happened in Indonesia, maybe in Flores?
Advertisements
 

95 responses to “‘Denisovan’ admixture widespread beyond Wallace Line, non-existant elsewhere

  1. ᧞eandertalerin

    September 25, 2011 at 12:20 am

    "And that can only be explained if the admixture happened in Indonesia, maybe in Flores? "God no! They were only 1 meter tall! There's no consensus on what species do they belong to. Even some think they are more related to australopithecines.In any case, how can this be possible, for the ancestors of melanesians to mix with Floresiensis while Denisovans have no descendants alive? No, I think the most plausible scenario is that melanesians and australians arrived in Asia much earlier than the ancestors of the Chinese/Japanese/Cambodjan, etc. Maybe they admixed in India and not Indonesia, but what's clear is that the descendants of this early wave have have almost been replaced by a newer wave. You only have to look at their faces: they have nothing in common with mainland Asians.

     
  2. terryt

    September 25, 2011 at 1:55 am

    "this admixture was not with Denisovans as such but a related species (probably H. erectus) of which the Denisova hominings were just the tip of the iceberg" The chances of the widely separated Indonesian and Central Asia ancient humans being more similar to each other than either is to any other ancient group is virtually nil. "what's clear is that the descendants of this early wave have have almost been replaced by a newer wave. You only have to look at their faces: they have nothing in common with mainland Asians". To me also that is the most likely explanation. The original Papuan/Australian type in SE Asia has been replaced by a 'Mongoloid' phenotype from the north. But Maju and I have had this argument before. "followed by Boungaville Melanesians, Fijians, Timorese, Alorese and Mamanwa speakers (probable Ati)". And those groups have lesser amounts than do Papuans/Australians also because of admixture with the Mongoloid people in the form of Austronesian-speakers. "And that can only be explained if the admixture happened in Indonesia" You know very well that there is another explanation.

     
  3. eurologist

    September 25, 2011 at 3:38 am

    I also have a hard time believing Denisovans lived from the Altai to SE Asia – I would have assumed heidelbergensis-like in the North, and erectus in the South.Also, don't forget that East Asians do have "Denisovan" introgression: in the immune system coding regions.

     
  4. Joy

    September 25, 2011 at 6:55 am

    Re: "You only have to look at their faces"Agree. I have been on every major landmass x Africa, and through much of the Pacific. I have certainly met enough east, south, and west African expats to get a feel for those peoples as well.IMO, the differences between an east Asian, a west European, and a native American are superficial and trivial. Sub-Saharan Africans are more divergent in appearance compared to the OOA diaspora, but are also quite recognizable as fully anatomically modern people.I have met a few native Australians, Fijians and Papuans. I have to say, even a university engineering student from PNG in modern western dress is about as "different looking" a person as any I have seen.Ok, having two OOA waves would certainly allow people in PNG and Australia to have retained more African modern H.s. features than the second wave. But that always failed to explain why people in PNG/Australia look more like archaic Homo than their presumed ancestral source population in east Africa. Confirmation of genetic admixture with local archaic Homo is a scientific tour de force, but not a surprise at all.Agree that the admixture had to happen in SE Asia, possibly in Indonesia. Otherwise the Andaman would have Densiovan admixture and they do not.Of interest to me, Polynesians appear to have circa 20% as much "Denisovan" as people from PNG/Solomon. That fits with previous work suggesting that the Polynesians are circa 80% Taiwanese and 20% Solomon admixture.

     
  5. Maju

    September 25, 2011 at 8:43 am

    @Neanderthalerin:I generally think of H. floresiensis as a pygmy H. erectus. There are other hypothesis but all remain to be demonstrated, meanwhile Occam's razor cries: it has to be H. erectus because that's what we know to have existed in Est Asia before the arrival of H. sapiens, everything else seems speculative. But of course we can't say for sure. Just an option I pointed to because H. floresiensis is the only Wallacean hominin other than us we know of. And all the admixture is East of Wallace Line (and whatever the name of the line separating Borneo from Philippines).

     
  6. Maju

    September 25, 2011 at 8:52 am

    Terry said: "The chances of the widely separated Indonesian and Central Asia ancient humans being more similar to each other than either is to any other ancient group is virtually nil". Me: We know of H. erectus from North China to Indonesia. In fact the first known H. erectus ever came from those two places: Peking and Java men. They are the same species and we know not of any other species (except the controversial H. floresiensis) ever penetrating into East Asia.Eurologist said: "I also have a hard time believing Denisovans lived from the Altai to SE Asia – I would have assumed heidelbergensis-like in the North, and erectus in the South".There are no known Heidelbergensis/Neanderthal of any sort in NE Asia or anywhere in East Asia. Altai is a crossroads but mostly belongs to Central Asia and therefore to West Eurasia. Through all prehistory it is always more closely attached to the West than the East. For the period of our interest, we know of Neanderthals, we know of H. sapiens of Western techno-culture ('Aurignacoid') and we know of two odd fingers that have produced very strange sequences:1. mtDNA that is outside of the Neanderthal-Sapiens (H. ergaster) set and hence must be from H. erectus.2. autosomal DNA that is somewhat but not very similar to Neanderthals. The NJ/ML trees force hybrid branches exactly as the 'Denisovan' one is located: very high inside the branch of one of the relatives. So I think it is H. erectus, which is widely attested in East Asia before the arrival of AMHs.

     
  7. Maju

    September 25, 2011 at 9:06 am

    "You only have to look at their faces: they have nothing in common with mainland Asians". I must disagree with this assessment and the adhesions that followed: Australian Aboriginal faces are not that different from some South Asian ones. Papuan faces are not that different from West Asian ones (though the closest ones IMO are some Western Pygmies), Filipino Negrito look sometimes quasi-Mediterranean to me (except for the skin color and thin curly hair, which are more African-like). Overall I get the impression of an "Australo-Caucasoid" main Eurasian phenotype extending from the North Atlantic to the South Pacific (with many local variations and gradations, of course). The anomaly is the East Asian 'Mongoloid' phenotype and that's the one requiring an explanation (explanation I don't have yet). Also 2.4% or even 7% admixture would not be noticeable. "Octoroons" (people with 12.5% admixture) fall invariably inside their majority component, at most displaying very very diffuse affinities with the minority one. An example are Finnish people, who look almost invariable "Caucasoid" but are in fact slightly "Mongoloid" genetically (5-10%). 2.4% is so tiny that cannot be noticed, certainly not the way you say. Exception might be if an specific trait inherited from those archaic ancestors would be fixated early on, maybe because it was advantageous in evolutionary terms or by mere chance. I suspect that straight hair (unknown in Africa) may be such a trait but I'd rather imagine it being imported from Neanderthals than Erectus/Denisovans.

     
  8. Maju

    September 25, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Eurologist said: "Also, don't forget that East Asians do have "Denisovan" introgression: in the immune system coding regions".Me: Problem is that such introgression also exists in Uganda. So it may well be a total illusion.Joy said: "Ok, having two OOA waves"…Me: This would require another debate. I really have a problem with this: haploid DNA: the patri- and matrilineages (C and N mostly respectively) of Australian aborigines do not support two migrations. That some savants in a "hidden" PPV paper have modeled that a single Australian Aboriginal genome supports that, beats me very much. But I have not read the paper and until I do I won't be able to put up a coherent critique. In the meantime I consider the idea highly suspicious. However I must say that archaeology could support such double wave model (though in India and Arabia, not Australia) but, I insist, haploid lineages do not. Joy said: "Agree that the admixture had to happen in SE Asia, possibly in Indonesia. Otherwise the Andaman would have Densiovan admixture and they do not".In this I agree 100%.

     
  9. ᧞eandertalerin

    September 25, 2011 at 11:38 am

    "But of course we can't say for sure. Just an option I pointed to because H. floresiensis is the only Wallacean hominin other than us we know of. And all the admixture is East of Wallace Line (and whatever the name of the line separating Borneo from Philippines)."In addition to cultural and behavioural differences with modern humans, it'd have been extremely difficult to have productive sex with them. That's why I highly doubt it, maybe there are other remains of H.erectus waiting to be discovered."I suspect that straight hair (unknown in Africa) may be such a trait but I'd rather imagine it being imported from Neanderthals than Erectus/Denisovans."I've seen this suspection many times, but I think it doesn't work well with some melanesians, who have kinky hair, much like Africans."I must disagree with this assessment and the adhesions that followed: Australian Aboriginal faces are not that different from some South Asian ones."Yes, I know in India there are some "australoid"·looking groups, but precisely these types are known for their archaic features (robust mandible, big teeth, pronounced superciliar archs), but they look very different from "mongoloids", and perhaps more akin to Africans. Australian aborigines are often called "blacks" by white Australians, like African Americans.

     
  10. Maju

    September 25, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    "Yes, I know in India there are some "australoid"·looking groups, but precisely these types are known for their archaic features (robust mandible, big teeth, pronounced superciliar archs), but they look very different from "mongoloids", and perhaps more akin to Africans"."Archaic" is a judgment and in any case, to my judgment, they look much like West Eurasians in most traits. Actually there are many West Eurasians who have robust jaws, pronounced superciliary arches, etc. Big teeth: no idea if that's even correct for "Australoids". "Australian aborigines are often called "blacks" by white Australians, like African Americans". But the similitude seems to be nonexistent other than skin color (somewhat, very variable) and nasal breadth. To me they look dark, broad-nosed "Europeans" – or at least that's the closest I can compare with. Just that Europeans tended to call everybody else 'black' or 'brown', specially the English did that all the time.

     
  11. Maju

    September 25, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    Admixed Australians are interesting also in this matter of phenotype screening, for example Troy Cassar-Daley is half Aborigine and half Maltese and he looks like a dark Northern European. I have no idea of the ancestry of Alan Dargin but could not he be Andalusian or Moroccan? These two seem 100% native and they could be from Peru fro what I care. So good for the "Mongoloid" phenotype.One thing I'm sure: they do NOT look African.

     
  12. ᧞eandertalerin

    September 25, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    "One thing I'm sure: they do NOT look African."Yes, it's true some look more European, others more Asian and others more on their own way. But some resemble Africans as well. What about these ones?http://i.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-3825073020-image/People_around_the_World/Oceania/Australia/Australian_Aborigines/Australian_Aborigines-image-4.jpghttp://www.janesoceania.com/oceaniamyths_australia/AUSTRALIA%20Aboriginal.jpghttp://us.acidcow.com/pics/20101018/australian_aborigines_09.jpgHere's a comparsion with an European:http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/jaw.projection.2.jpgRecently an Aboriginal genome has been published. It is said Asians and Europeans are much more closely related to each other than neither is to A.A, and that there was more than one migration to Asia.

     
  13. Maju

    September 25, 2011 at 7:13 pm

    Guess it's a lot how each see them but to me they do not seem African-like, even if they are darker and have thick lips. The overall traits are very different.

     
  14. terryt

    September 26, 2011 at 12:56 am

    "I generally think of H. floresiensis as a pygmy H. erectus". I think there is no doubt about that, in spite of continued efforts to claim deformity as the explanation. "even a university engineering student from PNG in modern western dress is about as 'different looking' a person as any I have seen". And you're very unlikely to confuse them with an African, of any kind. "We know of H. erectus from North China to Indonesia. In fact the first known H. erectus ever came from those two places: Peking and Java men". Yes. And it is not surprising there is a relationship between the two. However any similarity between Pekin Man and Denisova is yet to be demonstrated. "There are no known Heidelbergensis/Neanderthal of any sort in NE Asia or anywhere in East Asia. Altai is a crossroads but mostly belongs to Central Asia and therefore to West Eurasia. Through all prehistory it is always more closely attached to the West than the East". Isn't that exactly what Eurologist was getting at? "Australian Aboriginal faces are not that different from some South Asian ones". True. But the two regions are today separated by people who look completely different from either of them. "Papuan faces are not that different from West Asian ones (though the closest ones IMO are some Western Pygmies)" What? I've seen many Papuans, Melanesians and Polynesians. None look remotely like anyone from West Asia, or Africa. True, some look like Africans with some European admixture. Explain that! "I really have a problem with this: haploid DNA: the patri- and matrilineages (C and N mostly respectively) of Australian aborigines do not support two migrations". It certainly doesn't support 'two migrations' but it does support 'two strands' of migration: one south of the Himalayas through South Asia and one north of the Himalayas. "Overall I get the impression of an 'Australo-Caucasoid' main Eurasian phenotype extending from the North Atlantic to the South Pacific (with many local variations and gradations, of course)". I mentioned that concept some time ago and you disagreed vehemently. But the 'Australo-Caucasoid' doesn't spread far into the South Pacific, just to Australia. Papuans are not part of it but Ainu are. "The anomaly is the East Asian 'Mongoloid' phenotype and that's the one requiring an explanation (explanation I don't have yet)". Agreed. Yet I'm inclined to predict that it will be shown to be the product of yet another 'ancient' admixture. "I suspect that straight hair (unknown in Africa) may be such a trait but I'd rather imagine it being imported from Neanderthals than Erectus/Denisovans". Or from an archaic population in Northeast Asia. After all, the trait is particularly common there.

     
  15. terryt

    September 26, 2011 at 1:07 am

    "I have no idea of the ancestry of Alan Dargin but could not he be Andalusian or Moroccan?" He could be fairly 'pure' Aborigine. Some look like him although mainly those with some European ancestry. "These two seem 100% native and they could be from Peru fro what I care". Do you really think so? The woman especially looks 'pure'. She certainly doesn't look 'Mongoloid'. "But some resemble Africans as well. What about these ones?" Surely the women in the first photograph do not look remotely 'African'. The North Queenslander looks slightly 'Papuan', as you would expect, but again hardly 'African'. "Guess it's a lot how each see them but to me they do not seem African-like, even if they are darker and have thick lips. The overall traits are very different". Agreed.

     
  16. Maju

    September 26, 2011 at 6:04 am

    "Isn't that exactly what Eurologist was getting at?"He outlined a North/South conjectured division when in fact there's a West/East one. "True, some look like Africans with some European admixture". They do not look like Africans at all, except in some generic traits (skin color, nose breadth but not flatness, hair texture). They tend to look a lot like European "caricatures", so to say (in black indeed). Their big, prominent noses, help with that. Take for example this guy, lighten his skin and give him Western clothes… he could pass unnoticed in Greece, for example. Ok, not quite but almost so. More than in Nigeria, I believe. Ok, there are others that may look more "African" (always with a strange deviation anyhow) but most look like dark prognathous West Eurasians. "I mentioned that concept some time ago and you disagreed vehemently".I can't remember, Terry. I have been toying with the idea of a basic Eurasian "Australo-Caucasoid" phenotype range for quite a while, so you must be confusing things. Another thing is that I disagree with your ideas on how the "dissident" Mongoloid phenotype spread. I think it's a Paleolithic phenomenon and not a Neolithic one and that it may be a trend rather than a finished singly distinct phenotype. "But the 'Australo-Caucasoid' doesn't spread far into the South Pacific, just to Australia".Australia amply borders the South Pacific, i.e. the Pacific south of the Equator. Why do you have to discuss even this?!"Papuans are not part of it but Ainu are".IMO Papuans and other Melanesians are part of that continuum as are Filipino Negritos, who often resemble people I know from Spain and such (and it's not Spanish 'missionary' blood, not at all, just generic phenotype continuity). …

     
  17. Maju

    September 26, 2011 at 6:05 am

    …"I'm inclined to predict that it will be shown to be the product of yet another 'ancient' admixture".With Khoisan or proto-North-Africans? Otherwise I disagree. There's no indication that Est Asians went through any other admixture episode than the ones we know already. Hence it's a local/regional founder effect, gradually amplified with time. I think this is more easily seen in Native America, where some look very "finished" Mongoloid while others sport other less "finished" looks, SE-Asian-like, diffusely Australoid or even quite unique as the Andean big-nosed phenotype, whose noses are more prominent and thinner than anything in West Eurasia probably. And all these peoples come from a single founder population most probably, some 20 Ka ago. Yet they sport such a wide range of diverse looks, more diverse than in all East Asia, I'd dare say. "Or from an archaic population in Northeast Asia. After all, the trait is particularly common there". Straight hair is also very common (clearly dominant) in South Asia and much of Europe, specially towards the NE. So rather not. Fixation does not mean origin, just internal founder effect. "She certainly doesn't look 'Mongoloid'".I don't know how familiar you are with Native American phenotypes but only a few look really "Mongoloid", most have Mongoloid affinities but would strike out in Seoul as much as you or me, and there are some groups that do not look Mongoloid at all. How does he look 'Mongoloid'? And them? Even those who look somewhat 'Mongoloid' are very distinct from East Asians, and remind more to SE Asians if anything, which you think of as "admixed" and I think of as the purer East Asian look instead (less finished "Mongoloid" precisely because it retains more of the old pan-Eurasian look).

     
  18. eurologist

    September 26, 2011 at 10:06 am

    To me, the who-looks-like-who game is both fun and dangerous. Certainly, you can find, e.g., an ancient central European/West Baltic look in persons like myself and in (image-google) Franka Potente (1/4 Italian), Katia Ebstein, or Kristina Schröder, to name a few. So, at times one may be able to select a particular group in a vast sea of faces. On the flip side, Native Americans IMO have at the minimum three contributions: (i) Coastal and (ii) internal migrants from Beringia, and (iii) Inuits. Of these, the coastal ones probably looked more like Ainu than typical Mongoloid, and the most Mongoloid were the Inuits, as today attested by NW coastal and high N native Americans.

     
  19. Va_Highlander

    September 26, 2011 at 10:59 am

    There are numerous Native Americans that look surprisingly mongoloid. The Chinese tend to hire — more-or-less — Han waiters and Mexican busboys in their US restaurants. It is often difficult to tell which are which.On the other hand, my wife is 3/4 Nicaraguan and she does not look mongoloid in the slightest, neither does anyone in her family, on either side.So, it depends. There is radical variation in phenotype and you cannot tell too much from a few photos found online, I'm afraid.

     
  20. Maju

    September 26, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Conceded that it's a slippery slope of subjectivity (admixed with some objectivity) but I must say that your Chinese "Han" of restaurants and such are almost invariably Cantonese or Hakka and not "true Han" from the north, who may approach better the ideal "Mongoloid" phenotype. Also, normally Native Americans show a distinct genetic component to East Asians, assumed sufficiently large samples and sufficiently deep analysis. They are related but they are not identical. And genetically "Mongoloid" Amerindians cluster with "non-Mongoloid" ones, and not with "Mongoloid" East Asians primarily.

     
  21. Maju

    September 26, 2011 at 11:48 am

    A problem we have when using these categories is that the people who thought in terms of races some 100 or even 50 years ago (Coon and the rest) typically thought in terms of idealized "pure races" that mixed with each other (forming admixed populations), while the reality is that "pure races" can only appear as result of loss of diversity, by fixation of traits by inbreeding.So diverse looking populations are in fact more genuine and the source of all inbred "pure races" of the racialist imaginary.

     
  22. Va_Highlander

    September 27, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Maju, point taken and after posting my comment I had considered that myself. There is a rich diversity of phenotypes in China. It isn't too terribly difficult to tell roughly northern Chinese from southern — I have known examples from both populations as such, not merely Cantonese– and the southern indeed tend to look more like some Mexicans.Also, I was reminded by my wife that her maternal grandmother had somewhat mongoloid features, but it is likely that her family was originally from Mexico and not native to Nicaragua.I don't even understand what you are trying to say about Native Americans and some "finished" or "less finished" mongoloid phenotype. Some Native Americans do not look the slightest bit mongoloid or even typically Native American. Eastern Cherokee immediately come to mind, as do some Central Americans. Is this what you mean by a "less finished" type?

     
  23. Va_Highlander

    September 27, 2011 at 10:48 am

    And for the record, Ruby Hunter and Archie Roach do not look the slightest bit Native American, not Peruvian, not from any New-World ethnicity known to me.Is it possible that living within such a racially homogeneous population your eye is not as sensitive to such differences? No offense intended, but given what you claim to see, or rather not see, in Australian Aborigines, it is tempting to consider the possibility.

     
  24. Maju

    September 27, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    "I don't even understand what you are trying to say about Native Americans and some "finished" or "less finished" mongoloid phenotype".I lost the thread a bit but I think that my point is that the concept of a "Mongoloid" phenotype is a bit misleading and that, in any case, it represents the "distillation" (inbreeding) of a more diverse background. In opposition to the classical racialist idea of "pure races" that mix, I rather defend diverse phenotype pools that are distilled occasionally by inbreeding into less diverse, more homogeneous (and hence easier to point out) populations. Then Coon and co. come and claim these "distilled" groups are "pure races" and the others "mixes" – but they are very wrong. This racialist error causes much confusion. I think that was my point. "Is it possible that living within such a racially homogeneous population your eye is not as sensitive to such differences? No offense intended"…No offense taken, though I actually do not live in any such "racially homogeneous" population. I estimate that maybe 20% of my neighbors are from diverse parts of the World, specially Africa and America (also some South Asians and the Roma, who have SA ancestry, and some East Asians as well). But I might have taken some liberties because my intent was to emphasize similitudes rather than differences. I'm normally more impressed when someone from elsewhere looks like someone I know than when they look totally different (which is the expectation). I've found "clones" of my brother from Congo to Bangla Desh even if he's blond. And my brother is not that different from myself. Other minds may work differently, so when I find that my cousin looks like Brad Pitt, other may find that he, my cousin, is dark haired and has a shorter vertical head length for example and say: "no they do not look the same at all".

     
  25. eurologist

    September 28, 2011 at 9:14 am

    "There is a rich diversity of phenotypes in China. It isn't too terribly difficult to tell roughly northern Chinese from southern…"Va_Highlander,There surely is a lot of diversity, and it goes beyond north and south. Some southern Chinese (less influenced by Han) have a very "archaic" look closer to extreme SE Asians, and some northern Chinese look decidedly less Mongoloid than Han. Part of that may be due to Caucasoid admixture (which is documented), but another part is clearly because NE Siberians were not Mongoloid to start with, even ~30,000-20,000 ya.

     
  26. terryt

    October 1, 2011 at 7:36 am

    "Another thing is that I disagree with your ideas on how the 'dissident' Mongoloid phenotype spread. I think it's a Paleolithic phenomenon and not a Neolithic one" I'd certainly accept its 'origin' as Paleolithic however it is difficult to argue a move southwards any earlier than Neolithic or near-Neolithic. "Australia amply borders the South Pacific, i.e. the Pacific south of the Equator. Why do you have to discuss even this?!" because we have very different-looking people as we move eastwards out into the Pacific. There was no simple single migration beyond SE Asia. "I think this is more easily seen in Native America, where some look very 'finished' Mongoloid while others sport other less 'finished' looks, SE-Asian-like, diffusely Australoid" Only those from the very far north look anything like 'finished Mongoloid', and are probably recent arrivals. You even contradict your self: "I don't know how familiar you are with Native American phenotypes but only a few look really 'Mongoloid', most have Mongoloid affinities but would strike out in Seoul as much as you or me, and there are some groups that do not look Mongoloid at all". So some other explanation is needed. "Straight hair is also very common (clearly dominant) in South Asia" I don't think so. Most Indians have wavy hair. "and much of Europe, specially towards the NE". Its presence in NE Europe is easily explained as having come in from NE Asia at some time. "Native Americans IMO have at the minimum three contributions: (i) Coastal and (ii) internal migrants from Beringia, and (iii) Inuits. Of these, the coastal ones probably looked more like Ainu than typical Mongoloid, and the most Mongoloid were the Inuits, as today attested by NW coastal and high N native Americans". I'm very much inclined to agree. "it goes beyond north and south. Some southern Chinese (less influenced by Han) have a very 'archaic' look closer to extreme SE Asians" What we have is basically a cline from north to south in East Asia with the 'Mongoloid' influence diluted as we move south. The cline breaks down at Wallace's line, beyond which the Mongoloid look is confined to an element within the Polynesians and Micronesians. "Part of that may be due to Caucasoid admixture (which is documented), but another part is clearly because NE Siberians were not Mongoloid to start with, even ~30,000-20,000 ya". So where did the Mongoloid phenotype develop? My guess is somewhere around the margin of the Tibetan Plateau.

     
  27. eurologist

    October 1, 2011 at 11:38 am

    "So where did the Mongoloid phenotype develop? My guess is somewhere around the margin of the Tibetan Plateau. "That's certainly a possibility, especially since the ancient NE coastal population seems less (or not at all) mongoloid. I have been trying to wrap my head around this, but simply don't have enough data/information, at this point. If you have three different phenotypes in the region 20,000 ya, you probably need fossils or ancient DNA to make sense of it. Another huge problem is the access routes. How did people get to the NE? How and why did they get to the more central Siberia first, before migrating East, inland?

     
  28. Maju

    October 1, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    "however it is difficult to argue a move southwards"…You're thinking 'Coonishly' here again: you think it as a single "pure race" that spreads and admixes, while the fact is that it is just a series of traits that are common enough, come from nowhere that we can pinpoint and migrate to nowhere. It's like blondisms in the West: maybe they are concentrated in some areas (NW Europe) but that does not mean they originated there. "Only those from the very far north look anything like 'finished Mongoloid', and are probably recent arrivals".Inuits and such do(on first look) but also many peoples of the Amazon jungle, which are probably quite older. Also Inuits do not cluster with Chinese by skull measures, as we have discussed more than once: they may look "archetypal mongoloid" but then they do not cluster with other "archetypal mongoloid" peoples like Chinese or Mongols. It's such a slippery category!"Most Indians have wavy hair". Not at all. Some do but most display straight deep black hair. Wavy and curly hair is a matter of Australo-Melanesians and West Eurasians (with the occasional exception elsewhere), precisely the two groups that also display blond hair most frequently and abundant body hair. I wonder if there is a relationship. "What we have is basically a cline from north to south in East Asia"…I do not think so: according to Dienekes's own calculations, Mongols (Buryats) and Inuits are not in the main East Asian cluster which spans from Indonesia to North China. They diverge before Native Americans do! Instead the main "Mongoloid" cluster spanning from Japan to Philippines remains homgeneous in all the run, as do the "Caucasoid" one from Norway to Egypt. No cline, no nothing. They just show homogeneity among them and differences towards others and among these others are some of your precious purebred "Mongoloid" arctic peoples. It's not a phylogeny but it demolishes the notion of a "Mogoloid race" (phenotype cluster) of any sort. "So where did the Mongoloid phenotype develop?"Nowhere, everywhere. It's no such phenotype but a series of traits like epicanthic fold, flat nose, marked cheeks and straight black hair common (but occasionally less common) in East Asia and Native America. I can imagine that these traits were already common to some extent among the peoples who colonized East Asia in the first and/or second wave (and hence they come from SE Asia s.l.) but obviously they were not as standarized as they are today. For example Upper Cave skulls display some but not other of the idealized Mongoloid phenotype traits, same for Minatogawa, etc. It's more ghostly than you want to admit with your Coonish view of phenotype.

     
  29. Maju

    October 1, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    "How did people get to the NE? How and why did they get to the more central Siberia first, before migrating East, inland?"I do not understand this. They first or simultaneously migrated to NE Asia. If genetics flowed from East Asia to Central Asia/Siberia that happened AFTER the colonization of the coastlands.

     
  30. eurologist

    October 2, 2011 at 9:09 am

    I do not understand this.I was specifically talking about Siberia, Beringia, and the Americas.There was a fairly convincing paper recently that determined the dates of settlements, and found the oldest ones in roughly central Siberia, with subsequent younger ones further eastward into Beringia. There were very few time periods during which getting into Central Siberia would have been feasible. Furthermore, these were steppe hunters – I doubt they came from the coast (leaving no trace) and then decided to make a 180 degree turn.

     
  31. Maju

    October 2, 2011 at 9:24 am

    Ah, you're thinking about Y-DNA Q mostly, right?I understand that they arrived to Altai c. 40 Ka ago (or maybe earlier) with an Aurignacoid industry related to those of West Asia, Europe and North Africa. Now, the expansion into NE Sibera was probably very thin and would be extremely hard to unveil by means of archaeology in the immensity of Siberia (almost 1/3 of all Asia). The highest diversity of Q (and mtDNA X2, in some correlation for what we are discussing now) is in West Asia and that's their origin surely.

     
  32. terryt

    October 3, 2011 at 2:16 am

    "Another huge problem is the access routes. How did people get to the NE? How and why did they get to the more central Siberia first, before migrating East, inland?" I think Maju is correct when he said, 'the expansion into NE Sibera was probably very thin'. "the oldest ones in roughly central Siberia, with subsequent younger ones further eastward into Beringia". Isn't that what we'd expect? "these were steppe hunters – I doubt they came from the coast (leaving no trace) and then decided to make a 180 degree turn". I'm sure that most American haplogroups arrived over land. The most likley exception is mtDNA B as it is spread all along the East eurasian coast and out into the Pacific. But I'm sure that A, X, C and probably D were overland migrants. "The highest diversity of Q (and mtDNA X2, in some correlation for what we are discussing now) is in West Asia and that's their origin surely". And the advancing Y-hap picked up the mtDNAs progressively as it moved through Central Siberia. "it is just a series of traits" Isn't that exactly what a 'race' is? "It's like blondisms in the West: maybe they are concentrated in some areas (NW Europe) but that does not mean they originated there". To me 'blondism' is concentrated in a reasonably narrow strip from the Eastern Baltic to the Urals. Where it is found outside that region it most likely indicates migration from the above region, so it probably originated there. "also many peoples of the Amazon jungle" I've never seen anyone from anywhere in South America that looks especially 'Mongoloid'. Any photographs? "Inuits do not cluster with Chinese by skull measures" But the Chinese themselves are less 'Mongoloid' than are people to the north of that country, so that is not surprising. "Mongols (Buryats) and Inuits are not in the main East Asian cluster which spans from Indonesia to North China". Quite. Indonesians are considerably admixed with 'Papuan' or 'Australian' people. As are Chinese, especially southern ones. "It's no such phenotype but a series of traits like epicanthic fold, flat nose, marked cheeks and straight black hair common (but occasionally less common) in East Asia and Native America". which indicates a common origin, and such clustering of characters is exactly what most of us call a 'race'. "I can imagine that these traits were already common to some extent among the peoples who colonized East Asia in the first and/or second wave (and hence they come from SE Asia s.l.)" They are much less pronounced in SE Asia than they are further north. So it is very unlikely that they originated in SE Asia. "but obviously they were not as standarized as they are today". How on earth would they become 'standarized' during a period of expanding population numbers? Surely some sort of selection is necessary, implying some level of inbreeding. "For example Upper Cave skulls display some but not other of the idealized Mongoloid phenotype traits, same for Minatogawa, etc." Quite possibly because the Mongoloid expansion was still at its early stages.

     
  33. Maju

    October 3, 2011 at 2:50 am

    Not going to enter in all the many one-liners, just:"To me 'blondism' is concentrated in a reasonably narrow strip from the Eastern Baltic to the Urals".Not at all. That's called "Russia", not "blondism". Blondisms are of course scattered from Australia (Aborigines) to Ireland, at least in what regards to hair color. Other blondisms, even if more specific of West Eurasia maybe, are anyhow wildly scattered through the region. If there's any area of greatest concentration this is around the North Sea rather than the Baltic but whatever. "ve never seen anyone from anywhere in South America that looks especially 'Mongoloid'. Any photographs?" Google for Yanomamo for example. "But the Chinese themselves are less 'Mongoloid' than are people to the north of that country, so that is not surprising". They are different types of "Mongoloid" not more or less. There is no single "Mongoloid" phenotype just because you or Coon say so, although maybe you wish to define an "Eskimoid" one only for the Inuit and a "Sinoid" one for 99% of East and SE Asians (but not Mongols). What you can't do is to define the rule by an extreme, an outlier. "Quite. Indonesians are considerably admixed with 'Papuan' or 'Australian' people".That's your "theory" but not what either skulls nor genes appear to say. The data do not seem to support your model. "which indicates a common origin"…A common origin in Africa? I can take that and that way connect the "Mongoloid" traits like epicanthic fold or marked cheekbones in Africa and East Asia (and other places like Europe itself). I don't think they indicate a common origin in the way you think. Maybe a remote common origin at the Eurasian colonization but then just drift. Drift (maybe with some help of ethnic beauty ideals??) can perfectly fixate some traits, not just haplogroups also looks. You begin with six alleles but then one or three get more and more common and these alleles are not strictly genes but phenotype traits and it still works the same. "… the Mongoloid expansion was still at its early stages".Mongoloid coalescence, not expansion. Expansion from where anyhow? What evidence do you have for that "expansion" other speculations? Nothing! It's not like we have for 20 or 10 Ka all skulls in region A with a defined Mongoloid phenotype and in regions B, C and D other clearly distinct phenotypes. Not at all: there's no region A: nowhere that we can say: from here the "Mongoloids" came from. Neither are there regions B, C and D because in all those regions we see skulls that are somewhat but only somewhat related to the idealized "Mongoloid" phenotype. That's why Kennewick man or Luzia drive people nuts: it could be Jeronimo's skull itself and people would still think "not quite Mongoloid, not the Coonish idea – it must be Caucasoid or Australoid"… All nothing but a pile of stinky bullshit: you guys create an idea in your mind and try to bend reality into such a predetermined frame… but reality is stubborn and not that flexible.

     
  34. terryt

    October 4, 2011 at 5:59 am

    "Blondisms are of course scattered from Australia (Aborigines)" Maju. If you can't tell 'blond' Aborigines from blond Europeans you need a new set of glasses. And it is certainly not representative of that group. "Google for Yanomamo for example". http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&cp=8&gs_id=4&xhr=t&q=yanomamo&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1153&bih=519&wrapid=tljp131770736960900&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wiSome look remotely SE Asian, specifically Borneo, but none look particularly 'Mongoloid'. "There is no single 'Mongoloid' phenotype just because you or Coon say so" Quite. But the Mongolod phenotype is more strongly expressed in the northern populations. "What you can't do is to define the rule by an extreme, an outlier". But that is exactly what you are attempting to do by claiming an outlier (SE Asia) is representative of the group. Most accept SE Asians as an outlier group to the Mongoloid phenotype. "you guys create an idea in your mind and try to bend reality into such a predetermined frame…" It seems to be you who has some sort of political agenda. "Drift (maybe with some help of ethnic beauty ideals??) can perfectly fixate some traits" Only with very small numbers in the population. "it could be Jeronimo's skull itself and people would still think 'not quite Mongoloid …'" It wouldn't be Mongoloid, would it?

     
  35. Maju

    October 4, 2011 at 11:22 am

    "If you can't tell 'blond' Aborigines from blond Europeans"…In hair color and texture? No I cannot take them apart. In any case it is a blondism (you can't deny that) and probably one that has a common origin in the ancient common ancestors at the Root Eurasian Population (though this would need confirmation via genetics, which seems far away in time). Yanonmami: chinky, chinky, chinky, chinky and chinky. I find some Amazon Natives as the most markedly "Mongoloid" of all Native Americans, excepted arguably the Inuit. Other random "chinky" Amazon natives: one, two, three, four, five.Sure, there are many others which look more like Filipinos and no one with white skin (they live by the Equator, so…) but the affinity with "impurely" Mongoloid groups like SE Asians, Han or Japanese (but also Siberians like the Nganasan, for example) actually reinforces my notion that the Mongoloid type is not as real as some want us to believe but a peculiar "distillation" of a wider, less precise, True East Asian (and American) range of phenotypes; range that is not as discordant with the pan-Eurasian one as the "refined Mongoloid" ideal (not too real) is.For you and all the Coonists, every Mongoloid is "admixed", "impure" and what not. And I say that is a stupid racist idea that holds not the slightest critical analysis.

     
  36. Maju

    October 4, 2011 at 11:41 am

    "But the Mongolod phenotype is more strongly expressed in the northern populations".It's always imprecise: "the northern populations", "the hyperboreans"… Be specific: because Han and Japanese cluster with Filipinos and Indonesians, while Mongols and Inuit do not (each falls in their own cluster). So either Mongols are "true Mongoloid" and then all the rest are "mixed" or the single East Asian (but excluding Mongols) cluster is the thing we are talking about and a Filipino is much better example of "Mongoloid" (or more properly "Sinoid" maybe) than a Mongol. "an outlier (SE Asia)"SE Asians are not outliers. SE Asians and "middle" East Asians (all the "O peoples" incidentally) cluster together in a single phenotype, at least following Dienekes' work (designed to prove "the reality of race", so not exactly my cup of tea). This large homogeneous area should be the reference, even if we must change the name of the type to "Sinoid". [Geronimo's skull] "wouldn't be Mongoloid, would it?"If you think that there is a phenotype said "Mongoloid" and that Native Americans form part of it, Geronimo, which is no outlier in looks in his context, should be considered "Mongoloid". Certainly he's not "Caucasoid", nor "Negroid", nor "Capoid", nor "Australoid", nor has any known admixture from those putative clusters.I guess that it is the very concept of "Mongoloid" which is to be revised and retained at most to identify the generic East Asian and Native American typology (a very loose term). Otherwise I'd propose a major and more clearly defined type in geography at least: 'Sinoid' and minor local phenotypes in North Asia and America (for example, at K=10: Mongol, Inuit, California and Peru, at K=11 you can add Ainu too; there may be more).

     
  37. terryt

    October 6, 2011 at 8:25 am

    "SE Asians are not outliers". If want to believe that Indonesians look the same as Chinese or Mongolians that's up to you, but I think you need new spectacles. "It's always imprecise: 'the northern populations', 'the hyperboreans'… " tibetans, Mongolians and Buryats look different from Americans, Malays or even Chinese as far as I can see. "So either Mongols are 'true Mongoloid' and then all the rest are 'mixed'" That's pretty close to how I see it. "a Filipino is much better example of 'Mongoloid'" Filipinos are definitely mixed. "In hair color and texture? No I cannot take them apart". Do you really mean to say that the young Melanesian in the following link is indistinguishable from Europeans? http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=blonde+aborigines&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1153&bih=519&tbm=isch&tbnid=3_EBHCO4nGZgMM:&imgrefurl=http://news.softpedia.com/news/Naturally-Blonde-Blacks-48181.shtml&docid=qCy3PAXxP7gkWM&w=300&h=200&ei=JmSNTrbMBOSAmQWGpcQJ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=125&page=1&tbnh=133&tbnw=200&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&tx=115&ty=77Aborigine children often have blond hair but it turns darker with adulthood. This child is fairly typical: http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=blonde+aborigines&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1153&bih=519&tbm=isch&tbnid=VHsLNTFV4M6P1M:&imgrefurl=http://www.nordisk.nu/showthread.php%3Ft%3D39725%26page%3D1&docid=pt-pQhc7KywyiM&w=500&h=399&ei=JmSNTrbMBOSAmQWGpcQJ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=481&vpy=198&dur=547&hovh=200&hovw=251&tx=156&ty=149&page=1&tbnh=154&tbnw=193&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0"In any case it is a blondism (you can't deny that) and probably one that has a common origin in the ancient common ancestors at the Root Eurasian Population" From the above it seems almost certain Aborigine/Melanesian blondism involves different genes from Eurpean blondism.

     
  38. terryt

    October 6, 2011 at 8:34 am

     
  39. Maju

    October 6, 2011 at 9:50 am

    "If want to believe that Indonesians look the same as Chinese or Mongolians"…Not Mongolians, only Chinese if anything. I'm not talking about looks in any case but about craniometry: measure of skulls. That's what algebra has to say in this matter, it seems. Obviously looks are also and maybe even mostly defined by soft tissue like nose, lips, skin, eyes and hair. I'm not going into that. All I say is that craniometry, as used by a stubborn racialist as Dienekes, says that: that Japanese and Han are closer to Filipinos and Indonesians in skull measures than either are to Mongols or Inuit."tibetans, Mongolians and Buryats look different from Americans, Malays or even Chinese as far as I can see"…Do they? I could say some ideas of mine but would only muddle things. Overall these are marginal populations that are somewhat distinct and in any case can't be the source of the rest. "Filipinos are definitely mixed".Evidence?"Do you really mean to say that the young Melanesian in the following link is indistinguishable from Europeans?"In hair color indeed (not in texture).I was thinking of Australian Aborigines whose hair texture and color combo, when blond, is identical to what can be find in many Europeans (adult red haired woman, blond child). Not just that: overall facial features approach those of West Eurasians to some extent, at least in some individuals. "Aborigine children often have blond hair but it turns darker with adulthood".That happens also here: blond hair is a paedomorphic trait, it seems, and tends to get darker (at least to some extent) as people age. But it may depend on individuals and hence on the genes involved (not really known as of yet). Also I have the impression that weakly melanic hairs (blond specially) tend to whiten more easily and deeply than dark ones (that take longer and adopt a grayer shade). "From the above it seems almost certain Aborigine/Melanesian blondism involves different genes from Eurpean blondism". Not that I can see, much less when also red hair is involved: we are before a shared phenotype, a phenotype that is so difficult to coalesce that it does not exist in Africa at all (except where Eurasian genes have intruded) loss of hair pigmentation in H. sapiens probably has common origins in the founding proto-Eurasian population. I'm almost certain but we'll have to wait till genetics can find which genes are actually involved (for real).

     
  40. eurologist

    October 6, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Quick post: I am one of them. I had straw-blond hair the first few years, in the teens turning into light brown (but easily blonded by light and sea water in the summer, though), then turning to brown in the late twenties, and finally to very dark brown/ almost black just before parts turned gray.Surely connected to the high Vitamin D demand at younger age – every bit helps in a darkish environment in the winter, when clothing (except for the head) is not optional.This is similar to the discussion around seasonal UV skin transmission adaptability. Obviously, it's not just about how dark your skin is, but also how much you can vary it to get vitamin D in the winter, yet protect folic acid in the summer.

     
  41. Maju

    October 6, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Actually, according to my mother, I was born with blond, "golden", hair and in few days I was black haired. As I'm too much like some of my brothers physically, I do not think this is because the baby was switched at hospital, so it must be accurate (also most of my siblings and many other relatives are blond, so it makes some sense). "Surely connected to the high Vitamin D demand at younger age"…Makes good sense.

     
  42. terryt

    October 7, 2011 at 2:35 am

    "In hair color indeed (not in texture)". Ypu included 'texture' in your original comment. Changed your mind? "Japanese and Han are closer to Filipinos and Indonesians in skull measures than either are to Mongols or Inuit". Perhaps the result of admixture with coastal inhabitants? "these are marginal populations that are somewhat distinct and in any case can't be the source of the rest". But they can easily be the source of the original 'Mongoloid' phenotype. "Evidence?" ('Filipinos are definitely mixed'). They have both 'northern' and 'Melanesian' haplogroups for a start. Most scientists who have studied Polynesian origins agree the Filipinos are an admixed population. "I was thinking of Australian Aborigines whose hair texture and color combo, when blond, is identical to what can be find in many Europeans" The woman could hardly be described as 'blond'. And the child only just so. "we are before a shared phenotype, a phenotype that is so difficult to coalesce that it does not exist in Africa at all (except where Eurasian genes have intruded)" So you envisage a shared origin for the trait? Interesting that it doesn't occur in India. Surely it could only have reached the region beyond SE Asia via Central Asia.

     
  43. Maju

    October 7, 2011 at 9:04 am

    "Changed your mind?"No. You misinterpreted me (intently?): I said Australia Aboriginals and you showed a Melanesian. "Perhaps the result of admixture with coastal inhabitants?"Or perhaps the fact that all them live to the South of Mongols and share Y-DNA O as dominant. Just perhaps. "But they can easily be the source of the original 'Mongoloid' phenotype". No. They can't. They can't in numbers, they can't archaeologically and they can't by reason that there is no such "original Mongoloid" phenotype that we know of, only finished modern phenotypes in their complex intricacy. "Pure races" are mere fantasies: they have never existed. "They have both 'northern' and 'Melanesian' haplogroups"…Following Karafet 2010, they are almost 100% MNOPS: 22/48 K*-M256 [MNOPS*], 25/48 O (largely O3a2-P201, a trait shared only in fact with Sumatra), 1/48 C3 and 1/48 S. Unless you consider MNOPS* such a sign of admixture, I do not see how can you claim that. MNOPS* it is as related to P and O as to M and S in fact and Filipinos almost totally lack M and C2, unlike Melanesians and Wallaceans. So, wherever that MNOPS* comes from, it is not a sign of admixture with Melanesians nor Wallaceans but one of their deep locally rooted origins. Of course other samples may be different but not enough to change the overall picture surely. For me both O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*) appear native of Philippines, and may have expanded to at least some extent with the Malayo-Polynesian (Austronesian) expansion, which originated in Philippines (after whatever linguistic acculturation from Taiwan in the formative period). "The woman could hardly be described as 'blond'".Didn't I write red haired? It surprised me so much to see red hair in Australian Natives that I would have expected a more comely reaction from you. But instead you just protest she is not blond. Mind you that red hair is also a blondism: a loss of pigmentation or eumelanin (but in this case pheomelanin takes over, while true blond people and many black haired people have little pheomelanin instead). "And the child only just so". The child, as the one you posted, is golden blond. What you do not find is the extreme platinum blond (white-yellow) phenotype, such as Assange's, but you don't find it here either. That's almost full albinism."Interesting that it doesn't occur in India".It does occur in India and SE Asia but it is less common and almost always restricted to children (in India, I've seen blond adults in SE Asia, very rare but they do exist). In general eumelanin dominates and more so in the tropics so the surprise is not the lack of the trait but its presence. Even in Europe it is surprising because NE Asians have found different adaption routes to low solar input that do imply white skin (and rosy cheeks) but not pigmentation loss in hair.Actually, in their rarity, hair blondism is more common in South Asia than in NE Asia (excepting Russians).

     
  44. terryt

    October 12, 2011 at 3:36 am

    "You misinterpreted me (intently?): I said Australia Aboriginals and you showed a Melanesian". You are shifting position. You originally combined the two regions thus: 'Wavy and curly hair is a matter of Australo-Melanesians and West Eurasians (with the occasional exception elsewhere), precisely the two groups that also display blond hair most frequently'. If you now want to confine the discussion to 'Australians' rather than 'Australo-Melanesians' that's OK by me. "Didn't I write red haired?" Yes, you did. But we were talking about 'blonds'. "What you do not find is the extreme platinum blond (white-yellow) phenotype" Which supports the concept that blondism in the two opposite regions of the world developed independently. "I've seen blond adults in SE Asia, very rare but they do exist" When did you visit there? "there is no such "original Mongoloid" phenotype that we know of, only finished modern phenotypes in their complex intricacy". True. But we can examine the spread for where particular phenotypes are most strongly developed, which may provide information on the spread of such phenotypes. "Following Karafet 2010, they are almost 100% MNOPS: 22/48 K*-M256 [MNOPS*], 25/48 O (largely O3a2-P201, a trait shared only in fact with Sumatra), 1/48 C3 and 1/48 S". C3 is definitely 'northern' not SE Asian. As is, most probably, O3a2, especially as you correctly state, 'a trait shared only in fact with Sumatra'. O3 could have arrived in the Philippines via Sumatra. S is almost certainly an immigrant to the Philippines from New Guinea/Melanesia. So there's you north/south hybrid fairly obviously right from the word 'go'. "Unless you consider MNOPS* such a sign of admixture, I do not see how can you claim that. MNOPS* it is as related to P and O as to M and S" MNOPS* is a SE Asian haplogroup, but unlikely to be Filipino for reasons I'll touch on soon. But you can't assume a unidirectional migration. People move backwards and forwards. O is part of NO and N is a northern haplogroup. It is quite likely that NO moved north then various Os moved back south. To me it is obvious that South China was little inhabited until the early Neolithic. All sorts of species remain there which have rapidly become extinct elsewhere with human arrival. "Filipinos almost totally lack M and C2, unlike Melanesians and Wallaceans". Which is almost impossible to account for if you're going to claim, 'both O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*) appear native of Philippines'. Both movements across Wallace's Line to New Guinea/Australia must have bypassed those islands. This implies people had crossed Wallace's Line long before the Philippines were settled. It is extremely unlikely that 'both O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*)' are native to the Philippines. They are both immigrants. "may have expanded to at least some extent with the Malayo-Polynesian (Austronesian) expansion" Almost certainly so. "which originated in Philippines (after whatever linguistic acculturation from Taiwan in the formative period)". The Philippines were certainly involved, but they may not have been occupied by 'surviving' haplogroups until that 'formative period'. It was the north/south mixing that led to the Austronesian expansion.

     
  45. Maju

    October 12, 2011 at 8:49 am

    "What you do not find is the extreme platinum blond (white-yellow) phenotype"Which supports the concept that blondism in the two opposite regions of the world developed independently. There're no platinum blonds (other than the occasional albino) in my town nor in any town in maybe two thousand kilometers around (dunno, maybe an immigrant or tourist). Platinum blond hair begins (roughly) in Friesland, in the Far North of Euorope. It is therefore a very specific "Nordic" and not generic West Eurasian (or "Caucasoid") trait: a local evolution of that area that benefited to some extent from the end of the Ice Age (and later from the heavy plow) for its expansion. We cannot compare with that extreme and quite rare trait, so clearly linked to the loss of skin pigmentation (also at extreme levels). "I've seen blond adults in SE Asia, very rare but they do exist"When did you visit there? That's a joke, right? I've seen them in pictures. "Following Karafet 2010, they are almost 100% MNOPS: 22/48 K*-M256 [MNOPS*], 25/48 O (largely O3a2-P201, a trait shared only in fact with Sumatra), 1/48 C3 and 1/48 S".C3 is definitely 'northern' not SE Asian. As is, most probably, O3a2, especially as you correctly state, 'a trait shared only in fact with Sumatra'.C3 is anecdotal (2%) but I would not so happily discard it as original from the north without seeing a haplotype NJ tree first. O3a2 is not anecdotal at all (25%) but it's extremely thin prtesence in South China overall (incl. Taiwan Aborigines) strongly suggests to me it is an insular SE Asian haplogroup (contradicting Karafet in this). Again a haplotype structre would be most informative indeed.[Re. MNOPS*] … you can't assume a unidirectional migration…I'm not assuming anything: I'm just assuming that each haplogroup "layer" migrated from where it is most diverse to where it is less diverse. Sometimes we lack the diversity figures and we work with mere frequency ones, which may be very misleading, but in any case the impression I get is that MNOPS migrated from SEA to elsewhere on Earth. People move backwards and forwards.Individual people may do that but "statistical people" (so to say) do not – at least not so easily. "Filipinos almost totally lack M and C2, unlike Melanesians and Wallaceans".Which is almost impossible to account for if you're going to claim, 'both O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*) appear native of Philippines'. They appear to be descendants of Sundaland peoples, not Wallacean nor Melanesians. What's so "impossible" about it?Both movements across Wallace's Line to New Guinea/Australia must have bypassed those islands.We have discussed that before and I do not share that opinion: IMO the migration(s) to Philippines are distinct from those to Sahul via Wallacea. The shortest crossing (in Ice Age conditions) is between Borneo and Sulawesi and overall all crossings via Sulawesi or even the Lesser Sunda islands are shorter than those using Philippines. Philippines were a different route and a different cul-de-sac (until navigation), albeit related via Sundaland."It is extremely unlikely that 'both O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*)' are native to the Philippines. They are both immigrants". I can't say if they are immigrants (when?) but I can say that, if so, they arrived from Indochina and Sundaland and not China/Taiwan. Debating this in greater detail would require also greater detail of genetic info for both Philippines and SE Asia overall. "It was the north/south mixing that led to the Austronesian expansion".Prejudice! For you all must come from the North: that is Nordicism and I'm having none of it!

     
  46. terryt

    October 13, 2011 at 7:45 am

    "Platinum blond hair begins (roughly) in Friesland, in the Far North of Euorope". And that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you. "It is therefore a very specific 'Nordic' and not generic West Eurasian (or 'Caucasoid') trait" I have never claimed otherwise. Where we possibly disagree is as to its age. "That's a joke, right? I've seen them in pictures". No, it wasn't a joke. I thought you might have seen them for yourself. There are many Indians in this country and I have certainly never seen any people of Indian origin with blond hair (of any shade). "C3 is anecdotal (2%) but I would not so happily discard it as original from the north without seeing a haplotype NJ tree first". Almost certainly the downstream C3d:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C3_(Y-DNA)Quote: "C3d (M407) Found with low frequency in Bai, Cambodian, Han Chinese, Manchu, Tujia, Uyghur, and Yakut populations" "O3a2 is not anecdotal at all (25%) but it's extremely thin prtesence in South China overall (incl. Taiwan Aborigines) strongly suggests to me it is an insular SE Asian haplogroup (contradicting Karafet in this)". And contradicting almost everyone else as well. O3a is common in Western China and Tibet amoung speakers of Tibeto-Burman languages. In my notes I've written (from somewhere) O3a2*-P201 as being Chinese Han although I have the subclade O3a2b-M7 as Daxi, Hmong Mien. Under the old classification O3a2 is M164 (now O3a1b-M164) and is 'Cambodian'. So it is very doubtful that is is 'an insular SE Asian haplogroup' even though some O3a-M324 emerged out into the Pacific. The fact it is not common in Taiwan Aborigines is irrelevant as the Austronesians had been milling about in SE Asia for some time before they ventured out east through the islands. So the Austronesian O3a-M324 could easily have come from mainland SE Asia. "the impression I get is that MNOPS migrated from SEA to elsewhere on Earth". I agree completely. But it migrated as haplogroups M, NO, P and S, not as MNOPS. The products of that migration have subsequently undergone their own independent migrations. "They [O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*)] appear to be descendants of Sundaland peoples, not Wallacean nor Melanesians. What's so 'impossible' about it?" Wallacean people are 'descendants of Sundaland peoples' as well. Presumably if it were possible to reach the Philippines at the time the Sundalanders would have done so. We can argue as to whether or not the Philippines are Wallacean or not, but the islands are certainly virtually Wallacean. "IMO the migration(s) to Philippines are distinct from those to Sahul via Wallacea". Certainly distinct. And the obvious reason for that is the the migration to the Philippines was later than the migration across Wallacea. "The shortest crossing (in Ice Age conditions) is between Borneo and Sulawesi and overall all crossings via Sulawesi or even the Lesser Sunda islands are shorter than those using Philippines". The Philippines are virtually connected to Borneo at times of low sea level, via Palawan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palawan"I can't say if they [O-P201 (O3a2) and K*-M256 (MNOPS*)] are immigrants (when?)" Quite likely part of the mixture that eventually gave rise to the Austronesian expansion. "Debating this in greater detail would require also greater detail of genetic info for both Philippines and SE Asia overall". There was a paper not so long ago dealing with exactly that. I'm sure you blogged on it. I'll see if I can find it. "Prejudice! For you all must come from the North: that is Nordicism and I'm having none of it!" So there are 'Nordics' around the Hwang Ho/Yangtse in Central China?

     
  47. terryt

    October 13, 2011 at 7:57 am

    Filipino Y-haps, Dienekes: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/09/y-chromomes-of-filipino-negritos-and.htmlThe mtDNA is also interesting: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/1/21.full"Analysis of hypervariable segment I sequence variation within individual mtDNA haplogroups indicates a general decrease in the diversity of the most frequent types (B4a1a, E1a1a, and M7c3c) from the Taiwanese aborigines to the Philippines and Sulawesi, although calculated standard error measures overlap for these populations. This finding, together with the geographical distribution of ancestral and derived haplotypes of the B4a1a subclade including the Polynesian Motif, is consistent with southward dispersal of these lineages 'Out of Taiwan' via the Philippines to Near Oceania and Polynesia. In addition to the mtDNA components shared with Taiwanese aborigines, complete sequence analyses revealed a minority of lineages in the Philippines that share their origins—possibly dating back to the Paleolithic—with haplogroups from Indonesia and New Guinea. Other rare lineages in the Philippines have no closely related types yet identified elsewhere". "Although the M7c3 clade shows several derived variants in China, subclade M7c3c is rare in the mainland. M7c3c is found at higher frequencies in ISEA and has therefore been identified as a potentially informative marker of Southeast Asian prehistory (Trejaut et al. 2005; Hill et al. 2007). An examination of the M7c3 subclade distribution shows that the Taiwanese aboriginals have both M7c3a and M7c3c types, whereas in the Philippines, Sulawesi, and other Southeast Asian populations, only M7c3c is observed".

     
  48. Maju

    October 13, 2011 at 9:29 am

    I did not say blond South Asians but blond SE Asians. Check please. There are occasional blond South Asian children (among the hyper-aboriginal Irula, for example) but that's about it as far as I know. Contrarily hair-blondism in Indochina (notably Cambodia, Laos) is rare but common enough to be noticed, not just in children but also adults. http://s6.zetaboards.com/man/topic/527712/1/In general we have hair-blondism all over Eurasia (but nowhere in Africa, except where Eurasian influence is marked). It is therefore a pan-Eurasian trait even if prevalence varies a lot. …

     
  49. Maju

    October 13, 2011 at 9:50 am

    …Regarding O3a2 I must say that, even if it's occasionally found in South China (and you're not saying otherwise), it is also found at much greater frequencies in Island SE Asia, as already mentioned. I know that for you it's conceptually impossible that any single haplogroup may have migrated from South to North but I could not care less: the haplogroup looks very much SE Asian and I could not find any info that says otherwise. At least by frequency it is centered in Sumatra and Philippines and it is rare in the mainland (shown only >3%):Sumatra: 55%Tonga: 42%Filipinos: 25%Micronesians: 19%Sulawesi: 17%Samoans (all): 17%Borneo: 16%Tujia: 14%Tahiti: 13%Malaysians: 12%Timorese: 11%Malukku: 10%Han (South): 8%Papuans-Coast*: 7%Taiwan Abor.: 6%Balinese: 5%Flores: 5%Vanuatu-Maewo: 5%Papuans-Highlands*: 3%[* single individuals amount for all the percentage]"Purebred Austronesians" like Nias: 0%!!! This population retains, unlike most modern Austronesians, almost the same Y-DNA template as Taiwan Aborigines: lots of O1a1-P203 and some O1a2-M110. The Mentawai, another island people, who are also dominated by O1a, albeit largely of the O1a* type, also have 0% O3a2-P201.It does look like an Austronesian signature but only from Philippines on, not from Taiwan. It also seems to have got some important presence in SEA, including and maybe centered in Sundaland/Philippines. This can only be (+/-) fully clarified if the internal structure and local haplotype diversity is studied. But all the evidence suggests a SE Asian haplogroup, possibly a Sundaland-originated one.

     
  50. Maju

    October 13, 2011 at 10:01 am

    Sadly Dienekes' report on that PPV paper is not very good. The image however manages to retain colors for Philippines indicating that O3 (surely almost all O3a2, following Karafet) is very common, as is K* (surely all MNOPS*). Interestingly there's much more C than reported by Karafet's small sample, specially among populations that might have Negrito influence (but not too precise on what kind of C is this: C*, C2, C4, C3?) I can imagine that C2 but who knows. Anyhow. We are way off topic. I know you'd debate on Wallacea, East Asia and Austronesians like forever but you should do that in appropriate spaces, for example your own blog – or at least on topic.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: