Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 160

Thread: The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies

  1. #76
    Regular Member Anfänger's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-18
    Posts
    219

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U7a4

    Ethnic group
    Iranian
    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    hap IJ = 'common west-European'
    Dzudzuana = common west-European + basal eurasian
    EHG = ANE admixed with Dzudzuana
    CHG = Dzudzuana admixed with ANE
    steppe = EHG + CHG
    so steppe contains a lot of ANE
    "Populations genetically similar to MA-1 or Yana were an important genetic contributor to Native Americans, Europeans, Central Asians, South Asians, and some East Asian groups, in order of significance.[7] Lazaridis et al. (2016:10) note "a cline of ANE ancestry across the east-west extent of Eurasia."[7] The ancient Bronze-age-steppe Yamnaya and Afanasevo cultures were found to have a noteworthy ANE component at ~50%"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancien...orth_Eurasians

  2. #77
    Elite member holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    785


    Country: USA - Washington



    2 members found this post helpful.
    @Real Expert is right on.

    No one is saying that ANE has zero East Asian so I don't know why we're staging this argument. But the 22% "East Asian" they do have is very ancient. It was admixed shortly after the populations split 40k years ago, so it's not the same as having recent East Asian admixture. They mixed at a time when the populations were far more similar to each other.

    The fact is they're 3x more West Eurasian than East Eurasian and the skulls reflect this. This isn't some failure of physical anthropology. They have narrow pronounced noses and pronounced chins. So to compare them to modern East Asian phenotypes makes no sense and I don't know why people are compelled to do this. Considering these facts, and that they share 65% of traits with modern Khantys, it's not unreasonable to conclude that light hair was common in AG3 populations. This doesn't mean platinum blonde. It just means brown or lighter than black. Light hair is common among the Khanty who are far more closely related to Han than AG3


  3. #78
    Regular Member Anfänger's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-18
    Posts
    219

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U7a4

    Ethnic group
    Iranian
    Country: Germany



    I am not familiar with physical anthropology but someone on AG wrote this:


    I'm not too surprised.

    Looking at the mummies from a physio-anthropological perspective, one of their most striking (and consistent; almost all of them share it) traits involve the possession of sharp/pencil-thin, lengthy noses.

    I'm sure mummification plays a bit of a role here; but even then, no doubt that these people were extremely narrow-nosed.

    Furthermore, their faces were quite long... yet only moderately broad (and often, actually narrow).

    Also, the foreheads were quite small, and the browridges were somewhat smooth.

    Now, if you've read the literature on Andronovo-Sintashta, you'll immediately realize that what I described above is very much uncharacteristic of the cranial material we have of those people.

    The stereotypical Andronovons were characteristically broad-faced people, often of modest facial height. And the foreheads were by no means small.

    Furthermore, their noses were very far from being paper-thin and long like these ANE-mummies. In fact, by West Eurasian standards, some Andronovo-Sintashta crania evince rather wide nasal aperture (definitely not all of them. But a good many. And even the thin-nosed ones aren't as thin-nosed as the ANE-mummies).

    Finally, their browridges were often quite heavy.

    Definitely not saying that "all" were like that... but many, many were.

    Frankly, the only reason for thinking these mummies had anything to do with ancient Europe was the supposed fair pigmentation; craniofacial morphology-wise, I don't see any connection.

  4. #79
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,000


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anfänger View Post
    Another thread politicized... thanks to real "expert"
    I knew it would happen; just a question of time. They went to get reinforcements. :)

    Now, a population which spanned Northern Europe and Northern Asia, and was about 1/4 East Eurasian is a West Eurasian population and "Caucasoid". Furthermore, a population which got an additional whopping 28% East Asian is also Caucasoid. Last time I checked 28 and 22 equals 50% Are mulattos Caucasoid or European now too?

    Also, anyone who thinks those mummies don't show anthropological signs of East Asian admixture needs glasses, either because of a vision problem or a bias problem. Damn right to view "anthropological" analyses with extreme caution if they could make such obvious errors.

    Btw, I posted all the Tarim Basin female mummies I could find. They don't look like Northern Europeans.

    As for the Uighers, posting cherry picked photos is not helpful. The amusing thing is that the ones posted just look like East Asians with lighter hair. They don't look "CAUCASOID".

    In addition, most Uighers don't look like that. Lighter hair among them is a RARITY. Attempts to turn this into "theapricity" will fail. Fair warning.





    I suppose that those same anthropologists who "identified" the Tarim Mummies as Caucasoids would say remains of people like this were also "Caucasoid". :)

    Guess they didn't read the Sikorra et al paper, or perhaps they just prefer older, discredited papers.

    Also guess they have no interest in "this" paper either.

    The people from Dzungaria have ancestry which came from the western steppe. The Tarim Basin people sampled here do not. Period and end of story no matter who it upsets or doesn't upset.

    Other than meaningless generalities and certitude about unsupported theories I don't see any proof proffered which would put that conclusion into doubt. Where is the statistical analysis which shows this is incorrect? Where is there any hint that an ANE population existed on the western steppe and moved east to the Tarim Basin? The question is rhetorical as there is none.

    That ANE is present in populations further west on the steppe is a different issue. It exists in an admixed form, as this population in the east exists in an admixed form. It's just that the admixing populations are different. I don't see a problem here.

    I also don't see any bias on the part of the authors. What, is having high percentages of ANE some sort of prize which the dastardly scientists are trying to deprive Northern Europeans of???

    As often in this hobby, I just don't get it.

    I used to think once the genetics papers came out that the various "ists" out there would have to accept reality, whatever it might turn out to be as to particular issues. I guess that was naïve of me.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  5. #80
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,000


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Just_a_Common_Guy View Post
    That's what I feared: Nordicists now have a strong argument for continuing to link the origin of Indo-European languages to the Nordic race. According to their (false) logic: "the studied mummies were not Nordic, so it is natural that they were not Indo-European".
    That's the East Asian skin lightening snp, not one of the West Eurasian/European ones, so that would be a miss.

  6. #81
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    411


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Anfänger View Post
    The Tarim basin was inhabited by Iranics coming from the west and south. You can see that in languages like Saka Khotanese. Uyghurs also carry a lot of BMAC ancestry so does the ancient Wusun people another hint that the Tarim basin was later inhabited by Iranics which do have steppe ancestry.
    ..........

    Side note: I am not going to discuss the politics with you (real expert) but ANE isn't something particular North European. Indians carry much more ANE than Northern Europeans so does some indigenous Siberians.

    You obviously missed my point. Once again, the authors in my opinion intentionally didn't mention that Proto-Indo-Europeans had 50% ANE. Furthermore, I didn't claim that ANE is particularly Northern European but that they do have considerable ANE (25%) ancestry that can't be ignored. Thus my issue is with how the researchers try to sell Tarim folks as autochthon "East Asians"/Chinese that have no connection to Europeans, whatsoever. So tell me, why do the authors operate this way if they have no agenda? Besides, I wrote this: "Nevertheless, contrary to what the authors claim, their findings didn't refute anything about the Tocharian origin hypotheses."

    So, where did I exactly deny that Iranics lived in the Tarim Basim? Not me but the geneticists of this paper are saying that their findings “support no hypothesis involving substantial human migration from steppe or mountain agropastoralists for the origin of the Bronze Age Tarim mummies.”

    “the material culture and genetic profile of the Tarim mummies from around 2100 bc onwards call into question simplistic assumptions about the link between genetics, culture and language”
    “the greater IAMC, which spans the Hindu Kush to Altai mountains, may have alternatively functioned as a geographic arena through which cultural ideas, rather than populations, primarily moved”
    I ask you politely to read my comments more carefully.

  7. #82
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    20,000


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anfänger View Post
    I am not familiar with physical anthropology but someone on AG wrote this:


    Smart guy. Thanks for the heads up.

    There are anthropologists and then there are anthropologists. Same goes for doctors, and lawyers as well. There are some in my profession whom I wouldn't trust to go argue a traffic ticket for me.

  8. #83
    Regular Member Anfänger's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-18
    Posts
    219

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U7a4

    Ethnic group
    Iranian
    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    You obviously missed my point. Once again, the authors in my opinion intentionally didn't mention that Proto-Indo-Europeans had 50% ANE. Furthermore, I didn't claim that ANE is particularly Northern European but that they do have considerable ANE (25%) ancestry that can't be ignored. Thus my issue is with how the researchers try to sell Tarim folks as autochthon "East Asians"/Chinese that have no connection to Europeans, whatsoever. So tell me, why do the authors operate this way if they have no agenda? Besides, I wrote this: "Nevertheless, contrary to what the authors claim, their findings didn't refute anything about the Tocharian origin hypotheses."

    So, where did I exactly deny that Iranics lived in the Tarim Basim? Not me but the geneticists of this paper are saying that their findings “support no hypothesis involving substantial human migration from steppe or mountain agropastoralists for the origin of the Bronze Age Tarim mummies.”


    I ask you politely to read my comments more carefully.
    These folks are one of the most authochthons folks in Asia their ancestors lived in these region since at least 15000BC they didn't live in Europe or have any European ancestry, period.If you check the PCA in this paper you would see that ANE is in between Europe and East Asia. Why should the others say that they are connected to Europeans? Because North Europeans have ANE ? What about Indians? Should the others also say that they related to Indians? Ridiculous.

    I am going to bed. I have to get up early tomorrow. Have a nice night.

  9. #84
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    278


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anfänger View Post

    Side note: I am not going to discuss the politics with you (real expert) but ANE isn't something particular North European. Indians carry much more ANE than Northern Europeans so does some indigenous Siberians.
    Maybe I missed something, but who in this thread claimed that ANE is something particular North European?

  10. #85
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    278


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anfänger View Post
    I am not familiar with physical anthropology but someone on AG wrote this:


    did someone in this thread claim the Tarim mummies were Andronovo or Sintashta like?

  11. #86
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    411


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I knew it would happen; just a question of time. They went to get reinforcements. :)

    Now, a population which spanned Northern Europe and Northern Asia, and was about 1/4 East Eurasian is a West Eurasian population and "Caucasoid". Who the hell uses terms like that anymore? Furthermore, a population which got an additional whopping 28% East Asian is also Caucasoid. Last time I checked 28 and 22 equals 50% Are mulattos Caucasoid or European now too?

    Also, anyone who thinks those mummies don't show anthropological signs of East Asian admixture needs glasses, either because they have a vision problem or they have a bias problem. Damn right to view "anthropological" analyses with extreme caution if they could make such obvious errors.

    Btw, I posted all the Tarim Basin female mummies I could find. They don't look like Northern Europeans.

    As for the Uighers, people can post all the cherry picked photos they want. The amusing thing is that the ones posted just look like East Asians with lighter hair. They don't look "CAUCASOID".Uighers

    In addition, most don't look like that. Lighter hair among them is a RARITY. Attempts to turn this into "theapricity" will fail. Fair warning.

    You automatically get hostile and accuse me of things without trying to understand where I'm coming from. In spite of knowing me long enough, you don't even bother to give me the benefit of doubt. Thanks, Angela. By the way, show me where I said that these Uyghurs or the posted mummies look "Northern European"! Anyway, I intentionally showed cherry-picked pics of light-haired Uyghurs to make a point and to demonstrate why this paper is political, not implying that the average Uyghur looks like that. For Chinese these Uyghurs look rather more European than East Asian, it doesn't matter that the bulk of them doesn't look like that. I try to explain the mindset. The same mindset who thinks that the Cheddar man is black because of his skin tone, thus closely related to Africans. Matter of fact, not a few of Uyghurs do have visible Caucasoid affinities. Plus there are to a degree, some varieties of terms of genetics and phenotypes among Uyghurs depending on the region they live in. And nope, with or without light pigmentation, Uyghurs have their own distinct physical appearance and usually look nothing like Han Chinese. You debate with so many folks that you can't distinguish between people who read studies with a critical mind or those who just impose their pet theories. On the contrary, these light-haired Uyghurs are paraded all over the Internet as "regular Chinese" to disprove the validity of physical anthropology. Besides, I don't get why you are upset that ANE people are being classified as Caucasoid, many Ethiopians and Somalis are also classified as Caucasoid. The ANE component is 85% Western Eurasian, thus not fully Western Eurasian but overwhelmingly.

  12. #87
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    411


    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    Maybe I missed something, but who in this thread claimed that ANE is something particular North European?
    When you write things that upsets people, they accuse of being a Nordicist, a racist or a loon from theapricity. They don't try to understand what you say nor do they look at the arguments.

  13. #88
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    278


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post





    I suppose that those same anthropologists who "identified" the Tarim Mummies as Caucasoids would say remains of people like this were also "Caucasoid". :)

    Guess they didn't read the Sikorra et al paper, or perhaps they just prefer older, discredited papers.

    Also guess they have no interest in "this" paper either.

    The people from Dzungaria have ancestry which came from the western steppe. The Tarim Basin people sampled here do not. Period and end of story no matter who it upsets or doesn't upset.

    Other than meaningless generalities and certitude about unsupported theories I don't see any proof proffered which would put that conclusion into doubt. Where is the statistical analysis which shows this is incorrect? Where is there any hint that an ANE population existed on the western steppe and moved east to the Tarim Basin? The question is rhetorical as there is none.

    That ANE is present in populations further west on the steppe is a different issue. It exists in an admixed form, as this population in the east exists in an admixed form. It's just that the admixing populations are different. I don't see a problem here.

    I also don't see any bias on the part of the authors. What, is having high percentages of ANE some sort of prize which the dastardly scientists are trying to deprive Northern Europeans of???

    As often in this hobby, I just don't get it.

    I used to think once the genetics papers came out that the various "ists" out there would have to accept reality, whatever it might turn out to be as to particular issues. I guess that was naïve of me.
    for sure the Tarim Basin mummies didn't look like this
    these are Uyghurs indeed, a Turkic tribe that conquered the Tarim Basin in the 9th century after being driven out of the steppe

  14. #89
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    31-10-21
    Posts
    37


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Btw, I posted all the Tarim Basin female mummies I could find. They don't look like Northern Europeans.
    Uhm...
    I know at least two photos female mummies with blonde hair. On the web. You can find them on "mummipedia":

    they are clearly similar to Northern Europeans of cromagnonoid type (Dalo-Falish, in early literature).
    Several other photos can be found on printed books (as "In Search of the Immortals: Mummies, Death and the Afterlife")
    Last edited by jormung; 01-11-21 at 00:38. Reason: typo

  15. #90
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    31-10-21
    Posts
    37


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    However nobody seems able to explain to me how is it possibile to make compatible following two papers from chinese scientists:
    * "Evidence that a West-East admixed populationlived in the Tarim Basin as early as the earlyBronze Age" (2010)
    * "
    The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies" (2021)

    These results are clearly incompatible.

    Where is the truth in all of this?
    Last edited by jormung; 01-11-21 at 00:38. Reason: typo

  16. #91
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    278


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    When you write things that upsets people, they accuse of being a Nordicist, a racist or a loon from theapricity. They don't try to understand what you say nor do they look at the arguments.
    it's some kind of woke argumentation, and it is not the first time it happens over here
    but arguing against it is useless

  17. #92
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    278


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by jormung View Post
    However nobody seems able to explain to me how is it possibile to make compatible following two papers from chienese scientists:
    * "Evidence that a West-East admixed populationlived in the Tarim Basin as early as the earlyBronze Age" (2010)
    * "
    The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies" (2021)

    These results are clearly incompatible.

    Where is the truth in all of this?
    the truth lies in the paper discussed in this thread
    it explains a lot
    the results are surprising, but it makes sense

    also they state in the conclusion :

    'the material culture and genetic profile of the Tarim mummies from around 2100 bc onwards call into question simplistic assumptions about the link between genetics, culture and language'

    it is not the first time that anciant DNA proves archeology or linguists wrong
    there is much more to discover with DNA

  18. #93
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    The 'east-asian' input is not disputable; my thoughts is that the most of the kind of 'east-asian' ancestry that had WHSG was not an too evolved kind of 'east-asian' on the phenotypes side if we refer to most of modern East-Asians, left aside some marginal pop's.
    some features are ancient among Humans and some of them have been transmitted to "daughters" pop's whose global auDNA branched off at a high scale by time; We have Amerindians who show features far enough from the typical 'east-asian' package, compared to others "Asia sons", other Amerindian among these last ones.
    This variance in phenotypes in more than an ancient pop stroke me; some dominance of a type appeared here and there, but minor types or specific traits seem having reappeared, as if people were always trying to "taste" uncommon types when these last ones became rather rare; not all cranial features are undergoing strong selection; sure, some features came through new crossings, not by force all of them; it seems to me some were conserved at low level. Just impressions, here I need documentation for WSHG as for Botai.
    The two Tarim people I saw here are uneasy to evaluate by lack of angles, and lack of craniae radiographies; heterogenous physically at least; for ancient pop's the cheekbones breadth is not a criterium, it was so common, in Paleo-Meso Europe as well; their position at the antero-posterior level is more decisive, I think.
    Nevertheless, some so called 'mongoloid' traits seem to appear, principally on the man, so not really "pure" West-Eurasian of modern times; I would be so happy if I could have more samples!
    Just do remark I don't speak of pigmentation!

  19. #94
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by jormung View Post
    Uhm...
    I know at least two photos female mummies with blonde hair. On the web. You can find them on "mummipedia":

    they are clearly similar to Northern Europeans of cromagnonoid type (Dalo-Falish, in early literature).
    Several other photos can be found on printed books (as "In Search of the Immortals: Mummies, Death and the Afterlife")
    No offense, just:
    - one cannot rely on pigmentation of mummies, at least on a superficial look -
    - keep away these "dalo-falish" and some other too precise definitions of old anthropology; some can evok something to people, others are fuzzy and created by "scientists" who could create a type for everybody on this earth; ATW here I saw only two mummies; very few to judge, with only ONE angle.

  20. #95
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    411


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    Maybe I missed something, but who in this thread claimed that ANE is something particular North European?
    I wrote this:

    ANE populations were genetically a mix of mostly West-Eurasian/Caucasoid with minor East-Eurasian/Mongoloid affinity who most likely originated in Europe, but expanded from eastern Siberia.

    Therefore, ANE populations can also be referred to as being broadly Caucasoid. So, it makes sense that these Tarim mummies were classified as Caucasoid by anthropologists, although they surely had some East Asian/Mongoloid tendency. …



    Yet I get a warning for things I never said. SMH

  21. #96
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    278


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    This variance in phenotypes in more than an ancient pop stroke me; some dominance of a type appeared here and there, but minor types or specific traits seem having reappeared, as if people were always trying to "taste" uncommon types when these last ones became rather rare; not all cranial features are undergoing strong selection; sure, some features came through new crossings, not by force all of them; it seems to me some were conserved at low level. Just impressions
    that's why I avoid discussing phenotypes
    no hard conclusions and to much room for bias

  22. #97
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    We may speak of every kind of topic without to suspect everytime a racist/supremacist is hidden in the skin of 50% of the forumers.
    I suppose it's a reaction against someones who appears/appeared here. I prefer to give the "benefice of doubt" and to keep cool, even to practise humor when it's possible. This topics are so interesting!

  23. #98
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    278


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    I wrote this:




    Yet I get a warning for things I never said. SMH
    I don't think what you said is correct, it looks more like ANE originated in Siberia or maybe Central Asia.
    But the way some react here is over the top.

  24. #99
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur 2 View Post
    that's why I avoid discussing phenotypes
    no hard conclusions and to much room for bias
    I understand but it's a pity!
    Because phenotypes, left aside the ethnic or nationalistic aspect, are useful, not for global classification, but to show some pop's moves when their distributions change at high level in a relatively short time: it's a tool as others. Not a question of "I'm more Europoid or more Africanoid or more ... than you".
    That said, yes, focalising too much on this aspect can confuse things.

  25. #100
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    278


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    I understand but it's a pity!
    Because phenotypes, left aside the ethnic or nationalistic aspect, are useful, not for global classification, but to show some pop's moves when their distributions change at high level in a relatively short time: it's a tool as others. Not a question of "I'm more Europoid or more Africanoid or more ... than you".
    That said, yes, focalising too much on this aspect can confuse things.
    I know very little about the subject, but what I read is more confusing than illuminating.
    Sometimes 2 populations like e.g. Negritos an pygmees are very similar phenotypes but without any genetic link.
    It is supposed they both evolved in the same direction because both adapted to a similar habitat.
    Others are a mystery, like the classification of the Jomon phenotype or the origin of sinodont and sundadont.
    In a recent study it appeared that the Jomon are a genetically distinct and very old population, not a mixture of any 2 or more old populations known by any anciant DNA discovered uptill now.
    So at least, that explains something.
    I guess the origin of sinodont and sundadont will be explained when enough genetic material becomes available.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •