ABSTRACT Objetives We suggest that the phylogeny and phylogeography of mtDNA macrohaplogroup M in Eurasia and Australasia is better explained supposing an out of Africa of modern humans following a northern route across the Levant than the most prevalent southern coastal route across Arabia and India proposed by others. Methods A total 206 Saudi samples belonging to macrohaplogroup M have been analyzed. In addition, 4107 published complete or nearly complete Eurasian and Australasian mtDNA genomes ascribed to the same macrohaplogroup have been included in a global phylogeographic analysis. Results Macrohaplogroup M has only historical implantation in West Eurasia including the Arabian Peninsula. Founder ages of M lineages in India are significantly younger than those in East Asia, Southeast Asia and Near Oceania. These results point to a colonization of the Indian subcontinent by modern humans carrying M lineages from the east instead the west side. Conclusions The existence of a northern route previously advanced by the phylogeography of mtDNA macrohaplogroup N is confirmed here by that of macrohaplogroup M. Taking this genetic evidence and those reported by other disciplines we have constructed a new and more conciliatory model to explain the history of modern humans out of Africa.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The is another ground breaking paper. In 2015 things were a bit slow. It seems like in 2016 things are picking up. What is the paper about and why is it ground breaking? The devil is in the details. Their premise is that mtDNA Haplogroup M exited Africa not from the Southern Route(horn of Africa) but through the Levant and over North Asia then into South Asia etc . Typical of Europeans they do the bait and switch. They used a mixture of genetics and archeology to come to that conclusion. They acknowledge that mtDNA-M is older inAfricans/ Oceania/Australians and East Asians compared to India and Arabia but then switch to Archeology to explain the migration path between China and Oceania/Australia. If you don't read carefully you will miss that trick they pulled.
But any astute reader will filter FACT from FICTION. ,.....There are some intriguing FACTS gleaned from the paper.
1. There is further confirmation that mtDNA-M is of African origin, albeit India has a higher frequency 2. M1 is older in Africa compared to European and Asia versions 3. M1 is found right across the African Sahel into SSA areas like Senegal 4. There are sub-clades of mtDNA-M that surrounds the Indian Ocean including lands off the East African coast. Madagascar and Seychelles come to mind 5. There are sub-clades of mtDNA-M found in distant populations such as Andaman Islanders, Australians and Madagascans
I don’t want to sound crazy. But the pattern is hard to ignore so I have to say it. Incredulous as it may sound. But there seem to be a land-bridge across or in the Indian Ocean. The phylogeographic pattern points to that. This is one of several studies that suggest that as the only likely scenario.
-------------------------------------
Carriers of human mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup M colonized India from southeastern Asia - Patricia Marreroa1 - April2016
posted
Xyyman, the geology is weird, volcanic islands pop up, then sink, tectonic movements combined with ice age sea-level changes.
I'm sticking with a tropical rainforest belt from West Africa to East Asia, and either AMHs floating to Papua via bowl boats (coracles = inverted dome huts) or net sacks full of coconuts, (cf. Papillon), to Papua where the sago palms there were hollowed for their starchy pith and their shells/hulls resulted in the first dug-out canoes used to back-migrate to Africa and travel elsewhere over open-water. See photos at my blog. http://the-arc-ddeden.blogspot.com/2016/11/origins.html The Arc Papillon coconut float http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JCvoLkUMYgc/hqdefault.jpgPosts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that there seemed to be a tropical belt up to East Asia. I don't buy the coastal route Theory. The genetic evidence do NOT support that....coastal route.
But "floating" to new lands is a stretch.....supplies across such great distances?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I agree that there seemed to be a tropical belt up to East Asia. I don't buy the coastal route Theory. The genetic evidence do NOT support that....coastal route.
But "floating" to new lands is a stretch.....supplies across such great distances?
Ancient Africans were probably great navigators. They had to have been great navigators to have sailed fromAfrica to Brazil 100,000 years ago. They probably gained their nautical ability sailing on the Megalakes of Middle Africa which allowed you to sail from North Africa to South Africa.
Secondly, kumarinadu, land mass connecting Africa to south india and beyond was probably the way the various African populations beginning with the Australians migrated into Asia. Kumarinadu, was last ruled by the Pandyans, so the land mass existed into historic times.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But "floating" to new lands is a stretch.....supplies across such great distances?" xyyman
They were nomadic hunting/fishing/gathering bands, they did not have the habit of carrying much water or food, but were superb at finding it, as well as extraordinarily good at surviving periods of hunger/thirst (compared to modern folk).
They did cross open ocean to Papua & Australia, island-hopping, probably when the Sunda and Sahul shelves were emergent (low sea levels). I think they crossed in woven coracles with net bags attached full of coconuts (rich in nut-meat and vital water).
Recall the Uganda harpoon dated 90ka.
- - -
Dr. Winters, the Lemuria Hypothesis died with a better understanding of plate tectonics.
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: "But "floating" to new lands is a stretch.....supplies across such great distances?" xyyman
They were nomadic hunting/fishing/gathering bands, they did not have the habit of carrying much water or food, but were superb at finding it, as well as extraordinarily good at surviving periods of hunger/thirst (compared to modern folk).
They did cross open ocean to Papua & Australia, island-hopping, probably when the Sunda and Sahul shelves were emergent (low sea levels). I think they crossed in woven coracles with net bags attached full of coconuts (rich in nut-meat and vital water).
Recall the Uganda harpoon dated 90ka.
- - -
Dr. Winters, the Lemuria Hypothesis died with a better understanding of plate tectonics.
I am not talking about the Lemuria theory. The Dravidians have documented sources claiming that Kumari nadu was present in the Indian Ocean during historic times. this means that people could have walked to Australia, India and Southeast Asia.
I don't accept everything that Europeans write as the God given answer to every question. I do accept that people in otherlands have their own histories which they know for themselves and we do no have to hypothesize on what their history was/is based on our own assumptions. If they tell us this or that about where they came from, and when they migrated to this point or that I can accept what they teach.
The whole idea that only hunter-gathers migrated out of Africa is not valid. We know that by 100,000 BC Africans were in Brazil. They could have only came by sea. This fact alone makes it clear that in very prehistoric times civilizations existed in Africa, that practiced more than hunting and gathering as their major means of sustenance.
The Megalakes which extended for thousands of miles would have made Africans navigating these lakes expert seamen since they would have been confronted by various weather patterns. Given the probable long distances between some towns they would have been familiar with stocking up on enough goods to make a successful voyage.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Source ? This interesting. This will explain the population genetics pattern observed in Madagascar , Seychelles , Soqotra and South Asia
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Origi
s
. This is based on the Dravidian tradition. Right now I am trying to think up how to discuss this in relation to the spread of hg M to Asia.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pangea and Humans certainly did not exist togther, I am not even sure if a rodent like animal existed back then, man did not walk with dinosaur for that's what the above pic would be suggesting. Hugging the coast seem a more reasonable option, traveling on water craft while improbable is not impossible.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Pangea and Humans certainly did not exist togther, I am not even sure if a rodent like animal existed back then, man did not walk with dinosaur for that's what the above pic would be suggesting. Hugging the coast seem a more reasonable option, traveling on water craft while improbable is not impossible.
I am not talking about Pangia or Lemuria. I am talking about Kumari Nadu.
The Kebra Nagast and Dravidian classics discuss the Ethiopian rule of India, where the Ethiopia were called Naga.The Dravidian literature makes it clear that the Naga were defeated by the Pandians, after Kumari Nadu sank under the sea and the Pandians invaded South India.
If the Pandians defeated the Naga after Kumari Nadu sank into the sea this continent had to have existed up to historic times. The existence of Kumari Nadu in prehistoric times would explain the expansion of haplogroup M, into Australia and 80,000 year old AMH in China.
There was no Levant exit into Eurasia. This is supported by the fact that the first AMH in Western Eurasia were the Cro-Magnons who practced the Aurignacian culture. The Aurignacian culture began in Gibraltar and only spread to the Levant 34kya, before this time Western Eurasia was controled by Neanderthals.This means that a bottleneck occurred in the Levant for AMH, which prevented them from migrating into Eurasia via a Northern route.
In my opinion haplogroups L3 (M) originated in Africa and was taken to Eurasia by the ancestors of the Australians. The Khoisan introduced macrohaplogroup N,with the derived hg U during Aurignacian times.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Pangea and Humans certainly did not exist togther, I am not even sure if a rodent like animal existed back then, man did not walk with dinosaur for that's what the above pic would be suggesting. Hugging the coast seem a more reasonable option, traveling on water craft while improbable is not impossible.
Brada it is time we take a serious look at the nautical history of African people. The idea that the first civilizations in Africa were solely hunter-gather without boat technology is groundless. We have to move away from European ideas about the origins of sailing and boat technology. Your argument about hugging the coast is a valid argument. But the varied style of crafts depicted in the Sahara indicate that Africans made seacraft that was capable of traveling in rough waters and in the Ocean.
Look at this map of the Mega lakes that formerly existed in Africa. These lakes were thousands of miles long. The weather on these inland seas given the size of the lakes would have made conditions similar to what sailors would have experienced sailing in the Ocean.
Moreover we find that by 100kya African tool kits appear in Brazil and on the island of Crete. This archaeological evidence indicates that Africans were sailing great distances at a time we believe that AMH were simply gathering seeds and berries to eat—instead of fishing for supplemental source of food.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The plant component of an Acheulian diet at Gesher Benot YaŒaqov, Israel Yoel Melamed, Mordechai E Kislev, Eli Geffen, Simcha Lev-Yadun & Naama Goren-Inbar 2016 PNAS doi 10.1073/pnas.1607872113 <http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/11/29/1607872113#>
Our knowledge of the diet of early hominins derives mainly from animal skeletal remains found in archaeological sites, leading to a bias toward a protein-based diet. We report on the earliest known archive of food plants found in the superimposed Acheulian sites excavated at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov. These remains (c 780 ka) comprise 55 taxa, incl. nuts, fruits, seeds, vegetables & plants, producing underground storage organs (USOs). They reflect - a varied plant diet, - staple plant foods, - seasonality, - hominins' environmental knowledge & - use of fire in food processing. Our results change previous notions of paleo-diet they shed light on hominin abilities to adjust to new environments & exploit different flora, facilitating population diffusion, survival & colonization beyond Africa.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic