RSS

Ancient Homo sapiens from Laos (46-63,000 years ago)

21 Aug
Tam-Pa-Ling skull
While this is not the only nor even probably the oldest remain of the so-called anatomically modern humans (i.e. Homo sapiens, our kin) in Eastern or SE Asia, it seems to be the less controversial one so far, what should help to consolidate our knowledge of the period of colonization of the Eurasian region East of Bengal.
Fabrice Demeter et al., Anatomically modern human in Southeast Asia (Laos) by 46 ka. PNAS 2012. Pay per view (6 months embargo) ··> LINK [doi:10.1073/pnas.1208104109]
Abstract
Uncertainties surround the timing of modern human emergence and occupation in East and Southeast Asia. Although genetic and archeological data indicate a rapid migration out of Africa and into Southeast Asia by at least 60 ka, mainland Southeast Asia is notable for its absence of fossil evidence for early modern human occupation. Here we report on a modern human cranium from Tam Pa Ling, Laos, which was recovered from a secure stratigraphic context. Radiocarbon and luminescence dating of the surrounding sediments provide a minimum age of 51–46 ka, and direct U-dating of the bone indicates a maximum age of ∼63 ka. The cranium has a derived modern human morphology in features of the frontal, occipital, maxillae, and dentition. It is also differentiated from western Eurasian archaic humans in aspects of its temporal, occipital, and dental morphology. In the context of an increasingly documented archaic–modern morphological mosaic among the earliest modern humans in western Eurasia, Tam Pa Ling establishes a definitively modern population in Southeast Asia at ∼50 ka cal BP. As such, it provides the earliest skeletal evidence for fully modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia.
Some more details can be found at the press release by the University of Illinois (h/t Pileta).
There are some skulls and skull fragments from East Asia that can be actually older than this one but they may be less straightforward either in their dating or their identification as Homo sapiens:
  • Liujiang skull (at Don’s Maps, at P. Brown’s site, at Bradshaw Foundation), from Guangxi-Zhuang, is clearly a modern Homo sapiens but the exact date is not known because it was originally dug with very limited means. Recent datings of nearby sediment suggest an age of 68-139 Ka but this is hotly debated.
  • Zhirendong jaw (at this blog, at PhysOrg), also from Guangxi-Zhuang and dated to before 100,000 years ago (110,000 years ago according to first reports), is argued to be a modern Homo sapiens but its very ancient date and some unavoidable ambiguity of such limited skeletal evidence allow for some skepticism, if you are so inclined.
  • Callao cave metatarsal (foot) bone (at Leherensuge) is dated to before 67,000 years ago and comes from Luzon, the largest Filipino island, but because of its small size cannot be ascribed to any human species safely. All we can say is that they knew how to use rafts or boats – but then Homo floresiensis (H. erectus?) did too. 
  • Also some non-skeletal evidence to consider:

Whichever is your personal take, it is clear that this skull adds up in support of a very old colonization of East Asia. The question is: exactly how old?

Update: a creative reconstruction by H. Zänder:

Advertisements
 

153 responses to “Ancient Homo sapiens from Laos (46-63,000 years ago)

  1. Etyopis

    August 21, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    Whichever you look at it, there is no concrete skeletal evidence outside of Africa that would contradict an exit out of Africa of modern humans after 70 KYA, at least thus far…..

     
  2. Maju

    August 21, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    But that you say sounds like a knee-jerk position more and more, specially because there is quite clear toolkit evidence in form of Indian MSA (Petraglia 2007) dated to c. 80 Ka. Also, in what regards to Southern West Asia (Arabia, Palestine) the evidence (including skeletal evidence in the case of Palestine) is very strong for the first OoA (geographically limited?) being from c. 125,000 years ago. So it is very clear that the archealogically-founded calibration point (or rather "calibration band") for the OoA is 125-80,000 years ago. Not one minute later. The real interesting area of debate that, hopefully, new discoveries will illuminate soon, is whether there was a first wave early in that period, or even the whole Eurasian expansion process happened as early as before 100,000 years ago, or (the most conservative possible position nowadays) the whole process (beyond Arabia) took place only since c. 80 Ka, when the evidence is more consolidated. 70 Ka. or more recent is already discarded.

     
  3. Maju

    August 21, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    Updated with some extra links for the overall references that can be seen as supportive, more or less solidly, debatably, very old dates for the colonization of Eurasia. Just for reference, not trying to prove anything at all.

     
  4. Etyopis

    August 21, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    Maju, if you noticed what I said was skeletal evidence, the keyword being skeletal, tools (stone or otherwise) are nice but they are categorically NOT skeletal evidence. So from that regard the only one you have shown is Skhul-qafzeh that has the potential to 'discard' the hypothesis of a 70 KYA or later exit out of Africa, however, the issue with the Skhul-qafzeh find is that (a) they show both archaic and modern traits, unlike the finds of this post in Laos for example that shows definitive modern human traits, and (b) deteriorating climatic conditions are thought to have wiped out the people and/or hominids of skhul-qafzeh after about 80 KYA, thus greatly decreasing the possibility of population continuity from them.

     
  5. Maju

    August 21, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    What I mean is that restricting yourself to skeletal evidence is defensive, knee-jerk, excessive and unrealistic. After all there is not that much skeletal evidence in general, much less well dated before the UP. Other evidence must be considered. Also the Palestine skulls are perfectly modern with one possible exception (#5 if my memory is correct). The easily inhabitable (tropical and temperate) parts of Asia are just a very huge area, spanning most East Asia south of Manchuria and all South Asia (Australasia and Arabia should also be considered). Climate change should not have been any major problem once people arrived there, certainly not one of absolute survival (as can be in the areas subject to desertification like Arabia or North Africa, where anyhow some people must have survived as well). Even the more debatable issue of the Toba supervolcano seems to end up being a not-so-critical episode. In any case re-expansion after Toba should have been fast and made by people already living in Asia – and not any newly arrivals from Africa.Also it would seem like most of the Arabian Middle Paleolithic vanishes (or is very hard to find) after c. 74 Ka. ago, precisely the Toba "red line" (Petraglia 2009). There's no archaeological room for a post-80Ka migration into Asia, instead before there's lot of it.

     
  6. Maju

    August 21, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    Excuse my insistence, but an issue I beg you to consider is that Toba and the climate cooling (and drying) it caused actually caused a more radical closure of the "Arabian corridor", temporarily disconnecting radically Africa and Asia – until the "Aurignacoid" backflow of c. 55 Ka ago (and after).

     
  7. andrew

    August 22, 2012 at 1:55 am

    "I beg you to consider is that Toba and the climate cooling (and drying) it caused actually caused a more radical closure of the "Arabian corridor", temporarily disconnecting radically Africa and Asia" — an interesting and plausible possibility. The tricky questions is figuring out if the Arabian Middle Paleolithic really involved modern human or Neanderthals. The Nubian archaeological connections to interior Arabian sites are the best evidence that they are modern human rather than Neanderthal.In addition to potential climate impacts in Arabia, the other increasingly plausible impact of Toba consistent with all of the data points (except two disputed Chinese remains and the Japanese stone tools without a clear affiliation) is that Toba opens the door to an Out of India migration to Southeast Asia and beyond. The barrier to an Out of India migration is precisely the geographic area where Toba's ash fall was most intense. Perhaps Toba's ash temporary kills off enough of the SE Asian jungle to remove it as a barrier to modern humans in India and to encourage resident archaic hominins in the area to mostly migrated elsewhere for a little while until the jungle recovers in a century or two. Rather than an "Out of Africa all the way to China" in a single migration wave scenario, the data increasingly seem to support a "staged migration" scenario with the following first four parts:* First to the Levant (and perhaps even Crete) and interior of Arabia (wave 1.1 – Out of Africa) ca. 125,000 years ago * Then to at least two separate refugia in the region Anatolia-Afghanistan-Iran-South Asia-non-innundated Persian Gulf refugia (wave 1.2 – Out of Arabia) ca. 80,000+ years ago. Wave 1.2 migrations may reflect an avoidance strategy of settling in places that Neanderthals haven't filled because they are inferior territories for the Neanderthal way of life for some reason (explaining a lack of further Neanderthal admixture in this wave). Wave 1.2 may be held back from expanding further in Asia pre-Toba by factors including the impenetrability of the jungles of Burma and SE Asia, the barrier posed by existing archaic hominin populations at their normal population densities, and the difficulty of finding a way to cross Zomia's highlands over long distances as opposed to merely entering it via a migration up a river that drains to the ocean from the SE Asian coast.* Then to Southeast Asia-East Asia (wave 1.3 – Out of India) ca. 75,000 years ago enabled by temporary effects from the Toba eruption* Then to Papua New Guinea and Australia and Europe and Siberia (wave 1.4 – Upper Paleolithic Revolution) starting ca. 50,000 years ago. The migration to Papuan/Australian Sahul may not have happened until wave 1.3 migrants (Out of India) were supplemented and thoroughly admixed with new secondary wave 1.4 (Upper Paleolithic Revolution) migrants. In this scenario, exclusively East Eurasian haplogroups are mostly derived from wave 1.3 people, while Eurasian haplogroups found in both West Eurasia and East Eurasia enter the mix populations of East Eurasia mostly via the secondary expansion of these populations from West Eurasian into East Eurasia in wave 1.4 (Upper Paleolithic Revolution).I'm skeptical of the older dates for the Guangxi-Zhuang remains being modern human, and of the modern human affiliation of 120kya stone tools in Japan. I suspect all three of these outliers are either late archaic Asian hominin traces that predate the arrival of modern human in East Asia or actually have dates within the last 70kya which were miscalculated due to some methodological flaw. These outlier cases aren't convincing enough to overcome the inferences from the bigger picture, and are too isolated to support a genuine full fledged modern human migration wave. But all of the other dates cited fit a the coherent staged migration framework.

     
  8. Maju

    August 22, 2012 at 3:09 am

    There are several reasons to consider the Arabian MP (c. 125-75 Ka ago) to be made by H. sapiens:1. Some cultures clearly connect with Africa (where no Neanderthals are known to have existed ever): the Nubian complex is not just from Nubia but is also known in Ethiopia, for example; the Jurreru Valley toolkit is very similar, if not identical, to the Southern African MSA (although we lack here the Arabian link, any migration must have followed the coast via Arabia almost forcibly).2. The Galilee skulls, even if contextualized within a "Neanderthal tech" (Mousterian) are mostly Homo sapiens (maybe one is a hybrid). 3. No Neanderthals are known south of Galilee, nor their usual Mousterian toolkit (with an Egyptian exception???)"… Toba opens the door to an Out of India migration to Southeast Asia and beyond"…I cannot agree with this. As I see it, the genetic evidence suggests a rapid "out-of-India" into Eastern Asia and (soon after) Australasia. There're just too many basal mtDNA M subclades in the Far East. Also Y-DNA C and D suggest a fast migration to East Asia, as does mtDNA N. It is possible however that the effects of Toba were dramatic enough to erase some genetic evidence in South Asia, where the ash fell thickly. This I'd consider debatable. But the jungle should not be any solid barrier (at the most a weak buffer) nor we should imagine that the Eurasian explosion took too long to reach East Asia (and then Sahul also) once it began in South Asia. There's a lot of genetic evidence suggesting a fast Eurasian diversification into the two main groups (proto-Caucasoids in South Asia, proto-Mongoloids in SE Asia) an a host of minor pseudo-Australoid (meaning here "something else" and not any well-defined phenotype) groups in Australia, some islands and maybe once upon a time also other pockets in the mainland.We will have to wait for further evidence in Asia and Australasia before we can be reasonably certain about the chronology. I concur with you that a post-80 Ka. chronology is easier to digest but a pre-100 Ka. one is also possible.

     
  9. terryt

    August 22, 2012 at 6:30 am

    "But the jungle should not be any solid barrier (at the most a weak buffer" As you know, I disagree. It would have been a fairly significant barrier. "There's a lot of genetic evidence suggesting a fast Eurasian diversification into the two main groups (proto-Caucasoids in South Asia, proto-Mongoloids in SE Asia)" Proto-Mongoloids in SE Asia? You've got to be joking. Mongoloid presence in SE Asia is quite late. "a host of minor pseudo-Australoid (meaning here 'something else' and not any well-defined phenotype) groups in Australia, some islands and maybe once upon a time also other pockets in the mainland". That 'something else' is obviously Papuan or Australian Aborigine looking. It occurs as 'pockets in the mainland' in the form of 'Negritos'. These are almost universally considered to be pre-Mongoloid survivals. Otherwise (surprise) I agree with most of Maju's statements.

     
  10. Maju

    August 22, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    So you think "Mongoloids" arrived from Mars instead of evolving locally in East/SE Asia, right? Genetics is not suggestive of massive demographic changes, at least not after the LGM, much less of any major N->S flows in that region. Furthermore, the same that southern skulls may be somewhat different from modern ones (as happens everywhere else), that is even more true for northern ones. Whatever the case my take means more a population that is ancestral to modern East Asians than issues of phenotype and looks, which I consider slippery terrain and a secondary matter. Genetics first for me thanks, specially as we know so little about the phenotype of ancient peoples – even when skulls are available, which is rare in itself, most of what constitutes a "human type" or "race" is in the flesh, cartilages, skin, hair… Papuans, Australian Aborigines and the various Negrito populations are extremely distinct from each other, constituting not one "human type" ("race") but many different ones. Hence my use of "pseudo-Australoid" as catch-all term for "others" and not any meaningful category on its own right.

     
  11. Onur

    August 22, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians (many Melanesian populations have relatively small Austronesian admixture BTW) are both genetically and phenotypically quite close to each other. Some eastern Negrito groups might be close to them as well, but certainly not western Negritos (Andamanese, etc.). It is perfectly scientific to call Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians the Australoid race. But the various Negrito groups might really have very little to do with each other. So it is not the Australoid race (when used to mean Papuans, Australian Aborigines, Melanesians and genetically similar populations) that is artificial and unscientific, but probably the Negrito race (at least in its broadest meanings).

     
  12. Maju

    August 22, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    Not at all, Onur. Papuans and Australian Aborigines are two deeply distinct populations. They do share either a common origin or, more likely, some old admixture but we know since the times of Cavalli-Sforza that they are also deeply divergent from each other. By haploid lineages they are all but related as well. There are minor shared elements but mostly they have very different lineages in fact. It's like South Indians and NW Europeans or even more different maybe.

     
  13. Onur

    August 22, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    Not at all, Onur. Papuans and Australian Aborigines are two deeply distinct populations.not distinct enough to constitute different races

     
  14. Maju

    August 22, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    The term "race" is a human construct and therefore largely arbitrary, so it's a matter of opinion. Whatever the case the facial and hair traits of both populations look to me different enough, as do their underlying genetics. There are some Papuan peoples (Torres Strait Islanders) in Australia but otherwise the two populations are very very different and seem to have been de facto segregated for most of Prehistory, constituting two neatly different populations. Otherwise Papuans specially have very Caucasoid-like skulls, although sometimes they diverge, specially in the nose, which may be broader, more African-like.Instead, Australian Aboriginals often have very unique skull features that would seem to set them apart from everyone else in Humankind (but then not many skulls are found in an online search). But then what makes a skull "Mongoloid"? Here we have two Dayak decorated skulls: skull 1, skull 2. The latter is more archetypally "Mongoloid" (broader cheeks, central ridge) but both belong, no doubt, to equally "Mongoloid" individuals from Borneo, just that they are different in the individual range. But if the two skulls would be found in archaeological context, people like Terry would make a lot of noise about skull 1. "Australoid, blah-blah…"Look for example at all these modern Cambodian skulls. How archetypally "Mongoloid" do they look? Or are they rather more like Liujiang? I'd say the latter. There's an ideal of what is "Mongoloid" and then there is a reality, often unrelated.

     
  15. Onur

    August 23, 2012 at 12:30 am

    Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians genetically and craniofacially cluster together in a world context, and that is what matters for me to define races.

     
  16. Maju

    August 23, 2012 at 2:15 am

    I disagree: Papuans and Australian Aborigines do not cluster together well at all. Not genetically, not craniometrically and not in any other way. Papuans and Island Melanesians may do however.

     
  17. terryt

    August 23, 2012 at 9:43 am

    "So you think 'Mongoloids' arrived from Mars instead of evolving locally in East/SE Asia, right?" What a ridiculous statement. Of course they evolved in East Asia, but certainly not in Southeast Asia where they are intrusive over an earlier Papuan (or something similar) phenotype. You specifically said, 'proto-Mongoloids in SE Asia'. There have never been proto-Mongoloids in SE Asia. "Genetics is not suggestive of massive demographic changes, at least not after the LGM" Only if you choose to interpret the evidence as indicating such because of some preconception. There evidence is there if you are prepared to look. " much less of any major N->S flows in that region". What? Where do you think the Han come from? "the same that southern skulls may be somewhat different from modern ones (as happens everywhere else)" That link I've sent you twice (which I assume you have refused to read because you don't like what it claims) has no problem identifying Hoabinhian people as being the same as modern Papuan. "Papuans, Australian Aborigines and the various Negrito populations are extremely distinct from each other, constituting not one 'human type' ('race') but many different ones". I agree with that. Possibly separate ancestry, but certainly in no way 'Mongoloid'. "Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians" I agree that some Australian Aborigines look much like Papuans and Melanesians but they are mostly the northern ones. Southern Aborigines look reasonably different. In relation to which it is interesting that, as Maju pointed out, Aborigines have higher proportions of mt-DNA C and mt-DNA N that do Papuans/New Guineans. Some Melanesians have a high proportion of C2 but this is from the Austronesian expansion. "the two populations are very very different and seem to have been de facto segregated for most of Prehistory, constituting two neatly different populations". Which argues against Australia and New Guinea being connected in any meaningful way during times of lowered sea level. I would guess that the Arafura Sea was lowland tropical swamp forest rather than being dry land at such times. "But if the two skulls would be found in archaeological context, people like Terry would make a lot of noise about skull 1. 'Australoid, blah-blah…'" It si widely accepted that the people of Borneo have a much smaller level of 'Papuan' phenotype than do most people of SE Asia. The island seems to have been sparsely populated until the Austronesian expansion. The fact that no 'Negritos' are present in Borneo is revealing. "Look for example at all these modern Cambodian skulls. How archetypally 'Mongoloid' do they look? Or are they rather more like Liujiang? I'd say the latter". To me many Cambodians look far more 'Indian' than they do 'Mongoloid'. So no surprises with your conclusion.

     
  18. Onur

    August 23, 2012 at 11:57 am

    I disagree: Papuans and Australian Aborigines do not cluster together well at all. Not genetically, not craniometrically and not in any other way. Papuans and Island Melanesians may do however.Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians cluster together in every worldwide genetic or craniofacial analysis.Here is Zack Ajmal's worldwide dendrogram based on genomewide autosomal genetics ("aus" means Australian Aborigines; note that they are between Papuans and Melanesians):http://www.harappadna.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ref3_pops_dend.pngHere is a worldwide craniofacial clustering analysis by Dienekes (Tolai are Melanesians from a region very close to New Guinea, Australian Aborigine samples are from southern Australia; note that Tasmanians form their own cluster only in very high Ks while Australian Aborigines and Tolai Melanesians never separate):http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SkpelBk_lvI/AAAAAAAABwQ/vatNViyGtyc/s1600-h/k2k14.jpgIn all of the analyses, indigenous peoples of the Andamans show up quite distinct from Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians.

     
  19. Maju

    August 23, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    What you say is not consistent at all. 1. There are LOTS of genetic research that concludes that the general direction of genetic flow was from South to North. Main exception: a LGM-dated flow into Sundaland, which could also be older (everything looks much older in fact these days, although I have been arguing that for many years). You know all those papers and you are in denial – and I really hate when people is in denial just because they believe X and the facts don't fit with their faith. This is the Nth time that we discuss this. Do your homework or go somewhere else to troll. 2. The Han are irrelevant because theirs is mostly a cultural and not essentially genetic flow (Southern Han are much more like their pre-Han neighbors than like Northern Han). But also Han identity never flowed into Indochina or even some parts of China itself. You're just trying to divert the debate from DNA into Han identity, which is a cultural and political construct.3. The only papers I have read on Hoabinhian skulls indicate that most are clearly "Mongoloid" but ***one*** is claimed to be "Australoid". We can see that many SE Asian modern skulls do not fit well with the "Mongoloid" ideal, so there you have your explanation.4. Cambodians are "Mongoloid" or the "Mongoloid" phenotype does not exist. It's like saying "Greeks are not Caucasoid because I only imagine Caucasoids as big broad-faced blond blue-eyed giants with partial epicanthic fold". Get real: it is real people who you are trying to define with those categories, not the other way around. A risk of idealism is to lose contact with reality. So, talk of real "Mongoloids" like Cantonese, Cambodians or Balinese, not idealized categories that have nothing to do with reality. (In any case Cambodians have nothing of "Indian": they look very much "Chinese").

     
  20. Maju

    August 23, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    How many people were sampled? You know or you should know that when samples are tiny, the relevant populations see their personality erased. It happened even with the San when their usual sample was of only five people. The uniparental lineages of each population are very different in any case. But, as I said before, debatable: "races" are not real things but arbitrary categories.

     
  21. Hartmut Zänder

    August 23, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    sketching done!

     
  22. Onur

    August 24, 2012 at 12:00 am

    How many people were sampled? You know or you should know that when samples are tiny, the relevant populations see their personality erased. It happened even with the San when their usual sample was of only five people.All of the relevant populations were sampled sufficient enough for the analysis in question. I checked the sample sizes myself. So there is no problem of insufficient sampling.The uniparental lineages of each population are very different in any case.When overall autosomal genetics contradicts uniparental genetics, it is the former that should be trusted and used in inferring population relationships.But, as I said before, debatable: "races" are not real things but arbitrary categories.Races are not arbitrary categories.

     
  23. Maju

    August 24, 2012 at 12:32 am

    Yes, races are arbitrary divisions within the unavoidable continuum. Every time we talk of clusters (races), we have to face the reality they are not standardized issues but very irregular and with lots of grey zones. There's no absolute definition nor scientific standard for the category of race, subspecies or genetic cluster: they are just trends within a continuum. Whatever the case, I distrust your graph because I have seen much sharper differences between Papuans and Australian Aborigines and never before a tendency that would converge AAs with Island Melanesians pimarily, so I think that there must be an error. Examples: Classical 1996 Cavalli-Sforza tree.

     
  24. terryt

    August 24, 2012 at 3:58 am

    "There are LOTS of genetic research that concludes that the general direction of genetic flow was from South to North". There are a lot of papers whose authors wish that were so. I accept that Y-DNA NO must have moved north along with several mt-DNA haplogroups. However 'something' must have brought the Mongoloid phenotype back south. It is very unlikely it moved south without any comparable movement of men and women. "I really hate when people is in denial just because they believe X and the facts don't fit with their faith". That is exactly your problem. You are unable to accept that haplogroups have been periodically replaced. You believe all modern haplogroups reached the region they are now found during the Early Upper Paleolithic and everyone has remained in the region that God had decided they would live in. People have been continuously moving round: east and west, north and south. "The Han are irrelevant because theirs is mostly a cultural and not essentially genetic flow (Southern Han are much more like their pre-Han neighbors than like Northern Han)". Another example of your faith. Everyone (except you) accepts that the Han have expanded in the last few thousand years. The fact the Southern Han are very much like their non-Han neighbours merely shows that those neighbours were simply an earlier part of the same movement. "But also Han identity never flowed into Indochina or even some parts of China itself". Yes. They have not been expanding long enough to have reached those regions yet. However related cultures certainly have reached those regions.

     
  25. terryt

    August 24, 2012 at 3:59 am

    "The only papers I have read on Hoabinhian skulls indicate that most are clearly 'Mongoloid' but ***one*** is claimed to be 'Australoid'". You obviously haven't read many papers on the subject then. It is almost universally accepted that the Hoabinhian were not 'Mongoloid'. Once more I invite you to read this: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4646060/1/Quote: "In general terms, Southeast Asia is thought to have been originally occupied by indigenous people (sometimes referred to as Australo-Melanesians) that subsequently exchanged genes with immigrants from North and/or East Asia, during the Holocene, leading to the formation of present-day Southeast Asians (Callenfels, 1936; Mijsberg, 1940; Von Koenigswald, 1952; Coon, 1962; Jacob, 1967). More recent studies based on late Pleistocene and early Holocene human remains represented by specimens from Niah Cave in Borneo (Brothwell, 1960; Kennedy, 1977; Barker et al., 2007), Tabon Cave on Palawan Island, Philippines (Fox, 1970; Macintosh, 1978; Dizon et al., 2002), Gua Gunung Runtuh in Peninsular Malaysia (Zuraina, 1994, 2005; Matsumura and Zuraina, 1999) and Moh Khiew Cave in Thailand (Matsumura and Pookajorn, 2005) have provided additional support for the existence of an ‘Australo-Melanesian’ lineage in ancient Southeast Asia (for a review see also Oxenham and Tayles, 2006)". That is quite a few papers. Have you not read any of them? "Cambodians are 'Mongoloid' or the 'Mongoloid' phenotype does not exist". Rubbish. I agree that Cambodians have a level of Mongoloid admixture but they also have another element. Cambodians certainly look different from Northern Chinese, Mongolians, Evenks and Yakuts. Those groups are more noticeably Mongoloid. "talk of real 'Mongoloids' like Cantonese, Cambodians or Balinese" Those three groups are nothing like as 'Mongoloid' as are the above groups. Open your eyes. "In all of the analyses, indigenous peoples of the Andamans show up quite distinct from Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians". Interesting links. Thanks. "The uniparental lineages of each population are very different in any case". That is true. "Yes, races are arbitrary divisions within the unavoidable continuum. Every time we talk of clusters (races), we have to face the reality they are not standardized issues but very irregular and with lots of grey zones. There's no absolute definition nor scientific standard for the category of race, subspecies or genetic cluster: they are just trends within a continuum". As you point out the same holds true for many examples of 'subspecies' within other taxa, so you cannot use that as an argument against the use of such differentiation in humans.

     
  26. Maju

    August 24, 2012 at 4:24 am

    Terry: I have read that forum post and I think it's all trivial because many modern locals would cluster similarly, as illustrated by the skull images mentioned before. The skulls do not show what in fact defines a "Mongoloid" in actual life (self- and external identification): the eyes (and to lesser extent other non-bony traits). Anyhow, I have been looking for the Hang Cho cave paper and it's nowhere to be found. Never mind images of the skull. I found a paper on the archaeology of the site however: http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/article/viewFile/644/632 – but almost no mention of the human remains. "Everyone (except you) accepts that the Han have expanded in the last few thousand years".Not at all and you should know better about that. Minor genetic flow yes, population replacement at any meaningful levels nope. That's a very clear genetic fact: Southern Han are invariably much more similar to their non-Han neighbors than to Northern Han. Why would you insist on this against all evidence? Beats me. But also tires me.

     
  27. terryt

    August 24, 2012 at 4:34 am

    "Why would you insist on this against all evidence? Beats me". We're not talking 'population replacement', but perhaps 'population enhancement'. Older elements remain, as we obviously see in SE Asia and South China. Y-DNAs F and K along with several mt-DNAs are obviously older in SE Asia than is Y-DNA O. And we can be sure that something brought the Mongoloid phenotype south. Do you believe in magic?

     
  28. terryt

    August 24, 2012 at 4:54 am

    "Anyhow, I have been looking for the Hang Cho cave paper and it's nowhere to be found". Here is the abstract: http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvnu.edu.vn%2Fupload%2Fscopus%2F497.pdf&ei=dvg2UKrkCtCdiAedoIC4CA&usg=AFQjCNE2OT3zgdTnxWQXXvtx5OXqMi6T_w"The results suggest that the Hang Cho skeleton, as well as other early or pre-Holocene remains in Southeast Asia, represent descendants of colonizing populations of late Pleistocene Sundaland, who may share a common ancestry with present day Australian Aboriginal and Melanesian people." I presume the quotes in the Zetaboards paper are from the paper itself.

     
  29. Maju

    August 24, 2012 at 5:57 am

    "Do you believe in magic?"No, do you? You are talking about nothing with no photos of the alleged skulls or anything. Instead I'm saying very specific things: Liujiang is similar to modern Cambodians, and these and other modern Mongoloid skulls would cause you and the people you read to cry "Australoid!" – wrongly.Instead Zhoukoudian is not similar to modern Northern Han or other peoples from the are abut instead they'd be similar to Ainus. So I see modern (local Mongoloid) people in Liujiang and non-moderns in Zhoukoudian. Of course nothing is lineal because time passes and things change by mere normal sexual recombination and drift (maybe aesthetic selection as well?) but the trend is obvious: Liujiang is pretty much like modern locals while Zhoukoudian is not. So South to North if anything. Anything else is "magic".

     
  30. Maju

    August 24, 2012 at 7:53 am

    My take tonight at being objective with Liujiang, UC 101, Minatogawa 1 and Wadjak, which are the best preserved skulls from East Asia (excepted the "Darth Vader" skull recently found, I forgot about it completely) is the following:Closest to ideal Mongoloid: 1. Liujiang – 54% (of evaluable traits)2. Minatogawa 1 – 44%3. Wadjak – 42%4. Zhoukoudien UC 101 – 40%Most opposed to ideal Mongoloid: 1. Minatogawa 1 – 31%2. UC 101 – 30%3. Wadjak – 17%4. Liujiang – 15%However Wadjak and Liujiang score high in the less dramatic "Mongoloid rather not" category. None of the four is ideal Mongoloid but neither are something else: they are all non-ideal real people.Ref. I used for almost all at P. Brown's site: http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/palaeo.html

     
  31. Onur

    August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am

    Yes, races are arbitrary divisions within the unavoidable continuum. Every time we talk of clusters (races), we have to face the reality they are not standardized issues but very irregular and with lots of grey zones. There's no absolute definition nor scientific standard for the category of race, subspecies or genetic cluster: they are just trends within a continuum. Based on your logic, subspecies are arbitrary too. Races and subspecies are scientifically legitimate categories that are based on major clusters within species.Whatever the case, I distrust your graph because I have seen much sharper differences between Papuans and Australian Aborigines and never before a tendency that would converge AAs with Island Melanesians pimarily, so I think that there must be an error.Examples: Classical 1996 Cavalli-Sforza tree.Cavalli-Sforza's tree proves my argument, not yours. According to that tree, the divergence of Australian Aborigines and Papuans is in the same level (actually even in a bit lower level) as the divergence of South Amerindians and North Amerindians/Eskimos (it is now known that Eskimos are about 50% Amerindian-admixed). BTW, Zack's tree is much more recent and based on much more number of genetic markers than that of Cavalli-Sforza, so clearly Zack's tree is more accurate. These do not surprise me a bit, as worldwide ADMIXTURE analysis results of Australian Aborigines, Papuans and Melanesians too are quite similar to each other.

     
  32. Onur

    August 24, 2012 at 11:44 am

    BTW, the exact relationship between Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Melanesians (e.g., which ones of them are closest to each other) might not be established by the analyses I referred to (e.g., Zack's Australian Aborigine samples are insufficient in number for that), but the fact that they cluster together in a worldwide context is clear from those analyses (e.g., Zack's Australian Aborigine samples are sufficient enough in number for that).

     
  33. Maju

    August 24, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    Subspecies are indeed arbitrary. Notice that arbitrary does not mean irrational or capricious but certainly subjective. There's no scientific category in fact that would be known as subspecies: the buck stops at the species layer (and even that one is becoming blurrier as we speak). Subspecies is just a convenience, fluid and arbitrary, subdivision but it can also become inconvenient because there's nothing solid about it. Some scientists reject the notion of subspecies altogether. "The divergence of Australian Aborigines and Papuans is in the same level (actually even in a bit lower level) as the divergence of South Amerindians and North Amerindians/Eskimos"…Or well "above" all African subdivisions (except the Khoisan branch). I don't think they can compare so easily (sample size!) My point is that, in spite of millennia long adjacency, both populations are dramatically distinct. And this in fact proves my point re. subspecies (and races): they are not rigid categories but fluid ones. (And many Amerindians, notably Andean peoples, would have difficulty fitting in the idealist overly simplistic "Mongoloid" box anyhow: they are their own cluster/-s). "Zack's Australian Aborigine samples are insufficient".I thought so.

     
  34. Onur

    August 24, 2012 at 11:09 pm

    Subspecies are indeed arbitrary. Notice that arbitrary does not mean irrational or capricious but certainly subjective. There's no scientific category in fact that would be known as subspecies: the buck stops at the species layer (and even that one is becoming blurrier as we speak). Subspecies is just a convenience, fluid and arbitrary, subdivision but it can also become inconvenient because there's nothing solid about it. Some scientists reject the notion of subspecies altogether.All taxonomic categories are human constructs, but the clusters that we put into various taxonomic categories are real. So the category of race is artificial, but the clusters that we call races are real. We could call them something else rather than race and could even use a very different taxonomic system, but this would not change the fact that they are real clusters."Zack's Australian Aborigine samples are insufficient".I thought so.Zack's Australian Aborigine samples are insufficient in number to determine Australian Aborigines' exact position vis-a-vis Papuans and Melanesians but sufficient in number to determine how close they are to both Papuans and Melanesians in a worldwide context, and it is enough proof for my argument (but not the only proof as I already demonstrated).

     
  35. Maju

    August 24, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    Subspecies is NOT a taxonomic category but an extra adjective like "blond". This is very different from a true taxonomic category as is species, which is not mostly a human construct. The differences between a lion and a leopard are very much unquestionable and absolute, while the differences between a hairless lion from Tsavo or a white lion from South Africa are anecdotal.

     
  36. Onur

    August 24, 2012 at 11:35 pm

    Subspecies, like race, is a taxonomic category and is based on real population clusters. Actually the only taxonomic category that comes close to being non-artificial is species, as it is a category not just based on real clusters but also the criterion of having fertile offspring, though that criterion has its own problems and is far from perfect.

     
  37. Maju

    August 25, 2012 at 1:57 am

    Look: there is no criterion to describe subspecies: it is just any arbitrary/convenient subdivision of the meaningful unit: the species. You can make as many boxes and sub-boxes as convenient for you or none at all. I choose that Australian Aborigines are different subspecies from Papuans because I see almost nothing in common among both groups other than being humans. You can choose differently but that will only underline the unavoidable subjectivity and arbitrariness of the concept subspecies/race.

     
  38. Onur

    August 25, 2012 at 4:12 am

    I choose that Australian Aborigines are different subspecies from Papuans because I see almost nothing in common among both groups other than being humans.That is because you choose to turn a blind eye on all the evidence that connects them together in a sub-cluster of modern humans and even declare that evidence erroneous as it does not fit with your preconceived views.

     
  39. Maju

    August 25, 2012 at 5:40 am

    "… it does not fit with your preconceived views".Ok, go make a party with Terry T.What you call my "preconceived views", I call my "qualified opinion" – my opinion at the very least and therefore deserving some respect. Thanks in advance.

     
  40. terryt

    August 25, 2012 at 6:10 am

    'You are talking about nothing with no photos of the alleged skulls or anything". I am talking about what experts in the field have said. I realise you know far more about the subject that they do, but for now I'll stick with them. "I'm saying very specific things: Liujiang is similar to modern Cambodians, and these and other modern Mongoloid skulls would cause you and the people you read to cry 'Australoid!' – wrongly". And I'm saying you are completely unjustified in claiming Cambodians as typical Mongoloids. They are an admixed population (as are typical Mongoloid populations, but admixing is a function of degree). "Instead Zhoukoudian is not similar to modern Northern Han or other peoples from the are abut instead they'd be similar to Ainus". Which indicates convincingly that the Mongoloid phenotype did not originate around Zhoukoudian. Similarity to Ainu is hardly surprising. Many see a connection between Australian Aborigines and Ainu. The 'Australoid' population perhaps existed as far north as Zhoukoudian and Japan before becoming admixed with the Mongoloid type. And many have noted even that Amerindians mysteriously cluster with Australoids in some comparisons. "Zack's tree is much more recent and based on much more number of genetic markers than that of Cavalli-Sforza" And what I found really interesting in that tree is that Australian Aborigines/Melanesians branch off before Sub-Saharan Africans. Whatever their connection to each other they seem distinct from other humans. "There's no scientific category in fact that would be known as subspecies: the buck stops at the species layer (and even that one is becoming blurrier as we speak)". Exactly. In fact I remember arguing with you over whether humans and Neanderthals were actually the same species. It seems now that I was correct all along. Mind you, I had formed that opinion by looking at the evidence, not by trying to fit it preconceived views. "Some scientists reject the notion of subspecies altogether". And it sounds as though you're moving towards rejecting the idea of species. "And many Amerindians, notably Andean peoples, would have difficulty fitting in the idealist overly simplistic 'Mongoloid' box anyhow: they are their own cluster/-s" Ahaa. That's what I've been trying to tell you: the same could be said of Thais, Cambodians, Filipinos and Malays. Don't forget that we have fairly large numbers of Filipinos and Koreans living in this country. And growing numbers of Vietnamese, Thais, Cambodians and Chinese. I have seen many of each group. "Subspecies is NOT a taxonomic category" I've noticed before that you are definitely not a biologist, and you've once again provided proof of that. "That is because you choose to turn a blind eye on all the evidence" That is Maju's prerogative. It is his blog and he consistently chooses to ignore evidence that doesn't fit his faith.

     
  41. Maju

    August 25, 2012 at 6:30 am

    I don't have much respect for people who limit themselves to parrot others' ideas and then are as vocal as you are. Either you have your own ideas which you can defend yourself or you should shut up at some point (better sooner than later). Otherwise it's not different from arguing with some priest or theologian, who instead of assuming their full responsibility, send you to some "god" who "wrote" the Bible, the Quran or something.Either you think by yourself or you do not and, if you do not, don't bother me with your parroting of someone else's ideas. At least not once and again. "Which indicates convincingly that the Mongoloid phenotype did not originate around Zhoukoudian".But your whole ranting is based on the absurd idea that Mongoloids are an ideal race who arrived from the North. And in the Ice Age Zhoukoudian, near Beijing, was about the northernmost inhabited place. Notice that Beijing itself was permafrosted with LGM (just as Budapest in Europe), what implies extreme conditions and the northernmost (thinly) inhabitable areas. So if Mongoloids are not from the North, nor from the South nor from the East… there are no more places for them to have lived at: it's a fantasy like the Hyperboreans. Not only they are nowhere to be found (per your standards, by mine they'd be everywhere instead) but also you provide no mechanism by which they may have migrated from North to South (or whichever other idea you have). Never mind the genetics, of course, which almost invariably indicate S>N migrations and not N>S ones. Your hypothesis lacks work, lacks substance and lacks consistence, yet you fill your mouth and the comments section every day with offensive remarks, and only to parrot someone else's ideas. Please, don't.

     
  42. terryt

    August 25, 2012 at 7:29 am

    "I don't have much respect for people who limit themselves to parrot others' ideas and then are as vocal as you are. Either you have your own ideas which you can defend yourself or you should shut up at some point" Unlike some people I look at ALL the evidence before coming to conclusions. I also accept that many people know more about particular subjects than I do. Conversely I also accept that many people know less about particular subjects than I do. And, unlike you, I am not prepared to believe myself correct and everybody else to be under some delusion. "Not only they are nowhere to be found (per your standards, by mine they'd be everywhere instead" You talk some rubbish. It should be obvious, even to you, that the Mongoloid phenotype originated somewhere. Do you seriously believe that it somehow magically appeared instantly everywhere throughout the East? "And in the Ice Age Zhoukoudian, near Beijing, was about the northernmost inhabited place". So why do you think it absolutely essential that the Mongoloid phenotype developed north of Zhoukoudian? "Notice that Beijing itself was permafrosted with LGM (just as Budapest in Europe), what implies extreme conditions and the northernmost (thinly) inhabitable areas". I would remind you that you have consistently argued that humans have always been incapable of surviving at such latitudes. Changed you mind? "but also you provide no mechanism by which they may have migrated from North to South" It should be obvious, even to you, that any widespread subclade of a haplogroup should indicate a relatively recent spread. Y-DNA O3a2c is just such a haplogroup. Find where that originated, especially if it is somewhere near where N, C3 and D originated, and you probably have the region where the Mongoloid phenotype originated. And O3a2c presumably originated somewhere near where O as a whole originated. It is extremely unlikely that it was in SE Asia. "Your hypothesis lacks work, lacks substance and lacks consistence, yet you fill your mouth and the comments section every day with offensive remarks, and only to parrot someone else's ideas". That sentence displays very confused thinking on your part. You can't make up your mind whether I am espousing my own hypothesis or parroting someone else's ideas.

     
  43. Maju

    August 25, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Look: I don't believe in your idea of a "Mongoloid" phenotype. I believe in the "Khmeroid" one instead, so to say, whos archetype is Liujiang (and Wadjak, who is very close but has a broader nose) and the Cambodian skulls mentioned above. Mongols and others are a variant of that Khmeroid archetype. Try to see it this way, try to put the map upside down for a change. "So why do you think it absolutely essential that the Mongoloid phenotype developed north of Zhoukoudian?"I do not think so but you have once and again claimed a northern origin and a N>S flow. I'm just debunking your model."I would remind you that you have consistently argued that humans have always been incapable of surviving at such latitudes. Changed you mind?"(1) You are misinterpreting me: I argued that H. sapiens would first favor warm areas at the OoA and would take their time before developing the survival skills and even biological adaptions to live in the cold North. That affects the time before c. 40 Ka. in the case of Inner Asia but we are talking of a period long before the LGM, when it was not that cold. After developing cold-specific adaptions (first groups linked to Y-DNA Q and C3, later surely N and others), the situation changes and it's even possible that some (few) lived in very cold areas, even in the LGM.(2) The inhabitation of Zhoukoudian is before and after the LGM not in it. UC-101 and company are either from c. 30 Ka or from c. 10 Ka but not from c. 20 Ka. ago in any case."Y-DNA O3a2c is just such a haplogroup"…The vast majority of "Mongoloids" are not O3a2c. Care to outline some information on this particular lineage and why do you think it may have affected phenotype in such a wide area, from Beringia to Patagonia and Indonesia?Burning nails! Think again, why to insist on the error?"You can't make up your mind whether I am espousing my own hypothesis or parroting someone else's ideas". I think that you have no idea of what you're talking about. You have not measured any skulls in order to contrast if the "Mongoloid" phenotype is real and how much, or how it correlates with ancient skulls, you have to change the known origin of every single haplogroup (be it D or O or O3 or whatever), all to repeat a century-old Asian-Nordicist myth.Junk!

     
  44. terryt

    August 26, 2012 at 10:04 am

    "Burning nails! Think again, why to insist on the error?" I'm sorry, but I can't help it if you insist on selectively ignoring evidence. "You have not measured any skulls in order to contrast if the 'Mongoloid' phenotype is real" I'm not aware of anyone other than you denying its existence. "The vast majority of 'Mongoloids' are not O3a2c. Care to outline some information on this particular lineage and why do you think it may have affected phenotype in such a wide area, from Beringia to Patagonia and Indonesia?" Confining ourselves just to the haplogroup for now: "The Han are irrelevant because theirs is mostly a cultural and not essentially genetic flow (Southern Han are much more like their pre-Han neighbors than like Northern Han)". So, presumably, the similarities between Northern and Southern Han would be the result of the Han expansion. This paper, which you blogged on at the time, shows that many O haplogroups are evenly spread through North, South and East China. That holds especially for O3a2c1a, so presumably it was involved in the Han expansion. But others are just as evenly spread although making up a smaller proportion of Chinese haplogroups: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n9/full/ejhg201164a.htmlNote figure 1. As to the phenotype, try this paper: Quote: "we argue that the southern origin scenario for this most common Chinese Y haplogroup is not very likely. We tentatively propose a West/North origin hypothesis, suggesting that haplogroup O originated in West/North China and mainly evolved in China and thence spread further throughout East Eurasia". So that places O's origin close to where C3, N and possibly D originated. All four haplogroups are characteristic of Mongoloid phenotype. "I do not think so but you have once and again claimed a northern origin and a N>S flow. I'm just debunking your model". I'm sure you will find figure 4 in this paper interesting then: http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://159.226.149.45/compgenegroup/paper/subing%2520sino-tibetan.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm1OfkP6_YmTXGyihx2V0Z9tgCyJmg&oi=scholarr&ei=VuE5UKOHLOaviQexzYHABA&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQgAMoATAAIt shows that the Sino-Tibetan languages moved south. Presumably that included Haplogroup O, especially O3. It is presumably haplogroup NO that is represented by the early northward movement. "I believe in the 'Khmeroid' one instead, so to say" Only you accept that. The problem is that the Mongoloid phenotype basically forms a cline of decreasing phenotype from north to south. "Try to see it this way, try to put the map upside down for a change". I'm way ahead of you on that. Check out map 1 in this essay: http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.co.nz/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-human-star.htmlIn this pat of the world it is not uncommon to present maps of the world with Australia or New Zealand at the top. "The inhabitation of Zhoukoudian is before and after the LGM not in it. UC-101 and company are either from c. 30 Ka or from c. 10 Ka but not from c. 20 Ka. ago in any case". We have adequate evidence of humans of some sort or another living at latitude 50 North continuously from the Middle Paleolithic until the Neolithic.

     
  45. Maju

    August 26, 2012 at 10:52 am

    You cannot reach any conclusions on what is Han-specific without contrasting with non-Han. Just because most Han have straight, it black hair doesn't mean that it is a Han-specific attribute to the exclusion of all other peoples. Same for haplogroups. "Quote:"we argue…" "That quote does not exist. I could not find that character string ("we argue" or "We argue") in Shi Yan 2011. I'm hoping it's a honest mistake and not another of your pointless cheats. Then you send me to another paper which is from the year 2000!!!Please… As a matter of fact, I consider everything pre-2004 as mostly wrong or at the very least very confused and confusing in the field of population genetics. "The problem is that the Mongoloid phenotype basically forms a cline of decreasing phenotype from north to south". That's not true. Dienekes, who is much more of your kind of backwards mentality (but quite more scientific, at least now and then), found that no classical northern Mongoloid or American Native clustered with the main classical Mongoloid cluster but had their own. He does not admit to that with words but his craniometric data speaks volumes: http://dienekes.blogspot.com.es/2009/06/colorful-view-of-potency-of-skulls-and.htmlAnd, as you know, I care not much about what people say with words but about what data reflect about the reality. Otherwise I'd be forced to believe in God and what not… just because a lot of people does. I find that attitude quite stupid and certainly unscientific. The data does not prove the hypothesis "God" and the data does not prove the hypothesis "Mongoloid craniometric unity" either, rather the opposite. By contrast Caucasoid craniometric unity was apparently confirmed by that mini-study, which consistently kept Scandinavians and Egyptians in the same cluster from K=2 to K=14 (but maybe undersampling?)So there is no clear Mongoloid anthropometric unity but instead there is a cluster that I called back in the day "Sinoid" but can call "Khmeroid" if you prefer. This one may be associated to populations high in patrilineal haplogroups O and D, both of which have been demonstrated to originate in the South of East Asia. "We have adequate evidence of humans of some sort or another living at latitude 50 North continuously from the Middle Paleolithic until the Neolithic".In East Asia? Where? I don't reject it and specially not for Japan and other coastal areas (nor for Altai but this area belonged culturally to the West at that time). But I would like to know for sure because not much is known of the archaeology of NE Asia.

     
  46. terryt

    August 27, 2012 at 4:16 am

    "Just because most Han have straight, it black hair doesn't mean that it is a Han-specific attribute to the exclusion of all other peoples". Where have I claimed that straight black hair was Han-specific? Most Han have straight black hair but they are not the only people with such. And I have not claimed Han were responsible for carrying it into SE Asia. However I have suggested that the Han are simply part of a continuum of southward expansion of Chinese Neolithic groups. Those groups quite probably carried straight black hair into SE Asia. The process continues, and you may like to follow up and comment at your other blog: http://freewestpapua.org/"Same for haplogroups". Again where have I ever claimed that Han haplogroups are the only ones associated with the Mogoloid phenotype. "That quote does not exist. I could not find that character string ('we argue' or 'We argue') in Shi Yan 2011". Sorry I left the link out. Here it is: http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGcQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yhrd.org%2Ffiles%2Fb8ba4cd94011ce505b8a12b130b4fe240ffccd28.deng2004.pdf&ei=h946UJKoFImfiQfw_oGACw&usg=AFQjCNGTF1U4v-PGT1qyqkfRjiSJfn9dgQThe comment appears in the abstract. "Then you send me to another paper which is from the year 2000!!!" So? That doesn't make it wrong. Unless you're claiming that Galileo was wrong. Actually, knowing you I can quite believe you think he was wrong, flat earther that you are. "That's not true. Dienekes, who is much more of your kind of backwards mentality (but quite more scientific, at least now and then), found that no classical northern Mongoloid or American Native clustered with the main classical Mongoloid cluster but had their own. He does not admit to that with words but his craniometric data speaks volumes" Virtually everyone accepts a difference between Northern and southern Chinese. That they form their own cluster does not alter the fact that a cline exists across East Asia. Clines are virtually universal in biology unless interrupted by geographical features. In which case we get abrupt changes such as we have at Wallace's Line.

     
  47. terryt

    August 27, 2012 at 4:17 am

    "And, as you know, I care not much about what people say with words but about what data reflect about the reality". But your grasp on reality is fairly tenuous. "Otherwise I'd be forced to believe in God and what not…" I'm surprised you don't. Your comments display many similarities to those who do believe in God. "the data does not prove the hypothesis 'Mongoloid craniometric unity'" Why would 'Mongoloid craniometric unity' be a necessary attribute of 'Mongoloid cline'? Surely we would expact variability. "This one may be associated to populations high in patrilineal haplogroups O and D, both of which have been demonstrated to originate in the South of East Asia". A SE Asian origin for the 'Sinoid' or 'Mongoloid' phenotype does not fit the evidence, and certainly doesn't fit any aspact of biological reality. I doubt you will get anyone else to accept you term 'Khmeroid', so it is meaningless. Google the three terms and see how many links come up. None for 'Khmeroid'. But this link is interesting: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/SinoidQuote: "The term Mongoloid (or less often Sinoid) describes a proposed but easily identifiable race of humans, most of whom live in North Asia, East Asia, Oceania or the Americas as natives. Taxonomy does recognize, and has always recognized, homo sapiens as a polytypic species. The Han Chinese are by far the largest Mongoloid group; indeed, they are the largest ethnic group of any race. Other Mongoloids include many smaller groups in Central Asia and the Arctic regions such as the Yakuts, Eskimos, Tibetans, and, of course, Mongolians. The peoples of Southeast Asia, Indonesia, and the Philippines are considered Mongoloid according to the four-race theory; however, they are quite genetically distinct from their neighbors to the north and may be considered a different race. This is also true of the Amerindians". "In East Asia? Where? I don't reject it and specially not for Japan and other coastal areas (nor for Altai but this area belonged culturally to the West at that time). But I would like to know for sure because not much is known of the archaeology of NE Asia". I have sent you several papers showing uninterrupted human occupation of the region between Altai and the Upper Amur. Look them up yourself. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

     
  48. terryt

    August 27, 2012 at 4:31 am

    "Please… As a matter of fact, I consider everything pre-2004 as mostly wrong or at the very least very confused and confusing in the field of population genetics". Everything? That's a stupid stand to take. Genetics hasn't really changed much since my father first began using artificial insemination on his dairy cows around 1957.

     
  49. Maju

    August 27, 2012 at 9:24 am

    Brief reply to Terry:Genetics has indeed changed a lot since 1957. In my experience anyhow papers lose interest and, what is more important, correctness, as you go back in time. I draw a line at c. 2004 in the field of population genetics but of course there's the occasional exception, specially this side of the line (researchers still produce a lot of junk, specially when they insist in using the so-called "molecular clock"). That's why we should always consider the raw data and not the text it is wrapped in, which is essentially decoration. "But your grasp on reality is fairly tenuous".If you think so, why do you keep coming back to this blog. I'm sure you can find other sites with a firmer "grasp on reality". After all, there's no point in reading and discussing the rants of someone with such a "tenuous" "grasp on reality", right?"Why would 'Mongoloid craniometric unity' be a necessary attribute of 'Mongoloid cline'?"Should be obvious to you, specially if you wish to argue that there are skulls which are "Mongoloid" and others that are not. There's no cline in that graph: there's division: strong deep divsion and lack of unity in the very concept of Mongoloid anthropometric type itself. As I said, that does not happen among Caucasoids or even Negroids – sample size may matter but "Mongoloids" make up so many different clusters that the very essence of the phenotype must be questioned and surely dismissed altogether. In any case there is no "cline": Japanese and Malays cluster together all the time without any irregularity but they simply do not with Buryats, Inuits or any of the many different Native American clusters. You can see that yourself, why to argue against the facts?"I have sent you several papers showing uninterrupted human occupation of the region between Altai and the Upper Amur".I don't remember such thing. I remember a paper on certain Altai-related sites in Mongolia (UpperAmur also?) after 20 Ka ago (not before). I can't find them right now but I do not remember anything about "uninterrupted human occupation" but I can only imagine that they were not continuous. Anyhow those people should have got possibly a mixture of Y-DNA Q (from Altai) and C3 (from NE Asia) but it's totally impossible that they were O or O3. Even today O is very rare so far North. "Where have I claimed that straight black hair was Han-specific?"You did not. It's an example. Need vitamins or something?"you are completely unjustified in claiming Cambodians as typical Mongoloids"…As typical Khmeroids. Let's invert the center of the category altogether. Much of my point is that Mongols are not particularly representative of the East Asian phenotype(s), so why to call them Mongoloids if the archetype is Khmer, for example?And if Liujiang and modern Khmers are similar, then the archetype must be Khmer. NE Asians would be variants of this archetype, specially having lost pigmentation for reasons similar to what happened in the West (vit. D). "So? That doesn't make it wrong. Unless you're claiming that Galileo was wrong."It's wrong if there are more recent papers that say otherwise. The correct comparison is not as much Galileo but Aristotle and Ptolemy, who believed in geocentrism. I claim that these were actually wrong: you can burn me on the stake "but it moves".

     
  50. terryt

    August 28, 2012 at 5:15 am

    "If you think so, why do you keep coming back to this blog". Because you do post some very interesting stuff. "Much of my point is that Mongols are not particularly representative of the East Asian phenotype(s), so why to call them Mongoloids if the archetype is Khmer, for example?" But the 'archetype' is not Khmer. Only in your imagination. There is widespread similarity in East Asia, although I agree that the similarity may not be as close as the similarity within Western Eurasia. "There's no cline in that graph: there's division: strong deep divsion and lack of unity in the very concept of Mongoloid anthropometric type itself". Surely that would argue in favour of a very long period of occupation by differing human groups, in contrast to the relative homogeneity in Western Eurasia. And it doesn't really argue against an overall cline spreading later across those varied groups. As for the north to south movement: you are forgetting that the Upper Paleolithic in East Asia started in the north and then spread south, as you revealed yourself: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/upper-paleolithic-of-north-china-c.htmlWould you now claim that the spread of the Upper Paleolithic in East Asia did not involve the movement of any human population, or even individuals? I'm reasonably sure that you believe the Upper Paleolithic was introduced to Western Eurasia by a migration of humans, but are you now prepared to claim that the situation in East and SE Asia was completely different? You may find this paper interesting in that regard: http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpaleo.sscnet.ucla.edu%2FBrantCA2001.pdf&ei=yDQ8UPG4H9CfiAf4kYGoBQ&usg=AFQjCNFj0ameio7iq-KCFJR44OvOmHch0AAnd an interesting comment there (in the 'Discussion'): "Initial Upper Paleolithic assemblages occur stratigraphically above Middle Paleolithic industries at Kara Bom and Tsagaan Agui … but it appears that they do not replace those industries. At Kara Bom there is substantial continuity in core reduction strategies across the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic boundary …, and indeed the many similarities between Middle and Upper Paleolithic core technologies preclude any simple notion of 'replacement'". So whoever adopted the Upper Paleolithic in northern East Asia had been there for some time. Were they 'Modern' humans, do you think? "Anyhow those people should have got possibly a mixture of Y-DNA Q (from Altai) and C3 (from NE Asia)" In a way, yes. My guess is that Y-DNA Q introduced the Upper Paleolithic to a pre-existing population containing C3 and O, or perhaps NO. As well as several mt-DNAs of course. "but it's totally impossible that they were O or O3. Even today O is very rare so far North". O is certainly found in the region where the Upper Paleolithic first appears in East Asia. In fact the UP first appears near the boundary between N and O. And the following paper certainly sees the first Upper Paleolithic in northern China as having connections way to the west: http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CEMQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccsenet.org%2Fjournal%2Findex.php%2Fass%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F3719%2F3308&ei=Ej88UIbgKamUiAeItYDgBg&usg=AFQjCNFW4OcWLNV700yZDTely-UazqHyOg"This study thinks that these new Paleolithic sites belong to microblade-based micro-tool industry in final Upper Paleolithic period, lithic assemblages have close cultural relationships with many sites from Korean Peninsula, Mongolia, Far East, Trans-Baikal, Baikal and Primorskiy in Russia". And: "Present, most scholars agree that the abrupt appearance of blade-microblade artifacts in North China is the result of the immigration of or influence from populations to the north, namely Mongolia and South Siberia".

     

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: