Cordeaux nonsensically attacked Thangaraj's finding of an Australian sojourn in S. India (cordeaux also authored a paper giving 3500 BC exact date for M17 in India. S. India very significantly contains C and basal F localized in close proximity, this finding necessitates the southern route with subsequent eurasian expansion northwards from points along the southern route (europe of course experienced a delayed migration at 40K). F was not a separate migration from Africa, otherwise, the overwhelming South Indian diversity of F (and its coincident proximity to C) cannot be explained. Just to give an idea of the meanspiritedness:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Cordaux and Stoneking (2003 [in this issue]) have argued that although there is evidence of anatomically modern humans (AMH) reaching Australia â¼60,000 years ago (see also Bowler et al. 2003), there is no convincing genetic evidence that these early migrants passed through South Asia. They see this as obviating the need for a âsouthern migrationâ route for AMH out of Africa. They suggest that the ancestors of all known non-African mtDNA lineages (haplogroups M and N) entered Eurasia via the Levant â¼45,000 years ago, prior to differentiating and dispersing to all land areas outside of Africa. Cordaux and Stoneking also seek to use estimated dates for the colonization of the Andaman Islands to lend support to their position.
The âcrucial pointsâ of evidence cited by Cordaux and Stoneking for their view on the settlement of South Asia are that âthe South Asian mtDNA gene pool does not show close affinities to either Africa or PNGâ (Papua New Guinea), and that âthe archeological record does not show evidence for the presence of modern humans in South Asia before â¼30,000 years ago.â This position is inconsistent, since they first equate âmodernâ humans with Middle Paleolithic tools in Australia at â¼50,000 years ago (Bowler et al. 2003) but later exclude South Asian settlers within the same time frame from being âmodernâ on the basis of their lithic industries. Here we re-evaluate the evidence for this position and show that link <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Cordaux and Stoneking (2003 [in this issue]) have argued that although there is evidence of anatomically modern humans (AMH) reaching Australia â¼60,000 years ago (see also Bowler et al. 2003), there is no convincing genetic evidence that these early migrants passed through South Asia. They see this as obviating the need for a âsouthern migrationâ route for AMH out of Africa. They suggest that the ancestors of all known non-African mtDNA lineages (haplogroups M and N) entered Eurasia via the Levant â¼45,000 years ago, prior to differentiating and dispersing to all land areas outside of Africa. Cordaux and Stoneking also seek to use estimated dates for the colonization of the Andaman Islands to lend support to their position.
The âcrucial pointsâ of evidence cited by Cordaux and Stoneking for their view on the settlement of South Asia are that âthe South Asian mtDNA gene pool does not show close affinities to either Africa or PNGâ (Papua New Guinea), and that âthe archeological record does not show evidence for the presence of modern humans in South Asia before â¼30,000 years ago.â This position is inconsistent, since they first equate âmodernâ humans with Middle Paleolithic tools in Australia at â¼50,000 years ago (Bowler et al. 2003) but later exclude South Asian settlers within the same time frame from being âmodernâ on the basis of their lithic industries. Here we re-evaluate the evidence for this position and show that link <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->