File talk:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg

message: this seems to be a good idea not executed very well - seems unnecessarily complicated. Saccerzd 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that no clades of mtDNA macro-haplogroup M are native to Australia. MtDNA haplogroup Q, which is derived from macro-haplogroup M, is common among Papuan and Melanesian peoples, but it is completely absent from populations of Australian aborigines. There is some evidence for a very small amount of Austronesian or Chinese admixture in certain aboriginal Australian populations (c.f. presence of Y-DNA Haplogroup O3a5-M134 in 1%~3% of aborigines in northwestern Australia), but any such contact appears to have been limited to immigrating males, because all Australian aboriginal mtDNA is derived from the root of macro-haplogroup N. MtDNA haplogroup M and its derivatives are common among South Asians, Andaman Islanders, Southeast Asians, East Asians, Siberians, Uralians, and indigenous peoples of the Americas. Its subclade M1 is also found among East Africans, peoples of the Caucasus, and Mediterranean Europeans. The greatest diversity of macro-haplogroup M derivatives is found among populations of South Asia, which suggests that the lineage probably evolved or at least rose to dominance within South Asia, with some early offshoots departing to colonize East Asia and eventually the Americas. I believe mtDNA haplogroup Q is the only derivative of macro-haplogroup M that has been found among any population of Sahul, and even there it is limited to Papuan and Melanesian populations. -Ebizur
"X" would be the Eskimo/Inuit. I am not sure if they are commonly counted as "Native American"; and their arrow seems to make a stop at Iceland, but I do not believe Iceland was ever settled prior to the Middle Ages. Baad 07:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why is this image double licensed? I thought Creative Commons and GFDL were incompatible. —ACupOfCoffee 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if they were compatible, there wouldn't be much point in using them both. :p ¦ Reisio 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the word you're looking for is "settled" rather than "colonized". A country can be colonized while already having millions of people living there. Iceland was completely void of people until about 870 (as far as we know, although a group of irish monks possibly settled there a few decades earlier). Indeed Baad is right. There has never been any evidence of any prehistoric settlement in Iceland. Dresib --130.208.155.186 (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

message: the L1 and L2 labels should be switched: L1 people (Capoids) are actually in South Africa, and L2 people in West Africa. The arrows could also be changed to make L1 diverge first (120 kya) and L2/L3 later (80 kya) dab (ᛏ) 07:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Switch labels

message: The ice sheet/tundra marker is absolutely mad. How come Scotland can be free of Ice and Italy not. Actually (with some mountainous exceptions) the ice sheet was basically something of Northern Europe: northern and central British Islands, Scandinavia and Baltic region. Italy or Greece were never frozen!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sugaar (talk • contribs)  08:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I think it was a misinterpretation / simplification on the part of the creator. 128.141.226.223 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice sheet 

message: Could this be rotated so that at least Africa and Eurasia had north pointing up?  It's rather disorienting to see everything from this perspective. -- Beland 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree: North is in the center. The perspective is just perfect to show human migrations. That north is on top in most maps is just a convention. Open your mind. --Sugaar 16:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see no reason to re-arrange it. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the problem is exactly that this map doesn't follow the convention of almost all other global maps.  That's what makes it hard to read.  It's not a matter of following a narrow style just for it's own sake; it's a matter of usability. -- Beland 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and one aspect of usability is reorganizing a common perspective in order to make it more intuitive for a specific goal.  In this case, a vast number of our ancestors travelled in a North-south/south-north direction.  Specifically on or near the polar region. So it only makes sense that any map trying to plot those migrations would be oriented with north at the CENTER.  Otherwise, you end up having to deal with the distortion that flat maps normally create in those very regions of the earth.  So then you have the new question: which do you flip upside down?  Eurasia?  Or the Americas?  In this case, a reasonable compromise was made to avoid such an issue.  And unless you can supply a sufficient answer to that question, then reorienting the map is not a helpful solution.  Indeed, I'm not even entirely sure what it would solve.  There are plenty more pressing problems and innacuracies with the map than how it's oriented. 76.93.65.34 (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (Comment copied to Commons) Okay, currently everything is more or less sideways. Note however that it's more "more" and less "less", namely Asia and the Americas are at approximately 90° off from North-up alignment, but Africa and West Europe at something like 110° off from vertical. Any little tilt would flip one of the former two even further out of "balance" - but a rotation of 180° would retain them at the same tilt (only to a different direction), while straightening Africa and Europa a little. So basically, making a better compromise. Any support? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm with Trɔpʏliʊm this map has to be change just for easier use by anyone just at a glance. -- sion (sion8) • 1:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientation 

message: This image has so many serious inaccuracies that I believe we should place it as a candidate for deletion. I can immediately see two fatal problems. First, Australian aborigines do not possess any mtDNA haplogroups derived from macro-haplogroup M; all specifically Australian mtDNA is derived from macro-haplogroup N. Second, the derivative of haplogroup X that is found among some Native Americans is not closely related to the derivative of haplogroup X that is found among some Eurasian populations; thus, Native American haplogroup X cannot represent recent or historical admixture from Eurasia, and it is rather a minor indigenous Native American haplogroup. Native American "X" is just as Native American as Eurasian "X" is Eurasian, and there is no reason to postulate a separate migration from Iceland or Scandinavia or whatever this map is trying to indicate by showing a dotted line with "X" leading from Europe to northeastern America. Ebizur 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: since this image is absolutely great in most respects, couldn't we fix this? fwiiw, the image is true enough to its source. The South Asian and Australian arrow appear to branch off M, not N, and there is, in fact, a dotted arrow connecting the European X to the American X.. But it is true that this document says Australians are mostly N and P. The X2a vs. X2b-f debate is very much open, I understand, and the dotted arrow is well justified (as long as it remains dotted) as drawing attention to the question. dab (𒁳) 11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The big problem is that the map shows two migrations out of Africa, with a southern one containing M and a northern one containing N. That was the common theory five years ago, but now we know that Australians are N, not M, which means the theory was wrong. It's now believed the southern migration out of Africa contained both M and N, and the northern migration died off near the Levant without leaving any surviving descendants. The populations attributed on this map to the northern migration actually forked off from the southern migration. (Have a look at http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ ) But visually, the map is very nice. 99.227.60.109 (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Started making another map, including some data from the Haplogroup articles. It gets difficult to mark the drifting (migrating) genetical markers on the map after getting to about 40000 BCE (from the beginning), if you try the same, make sure you use a font that's small enough. 91.155.155.65 14:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about the two X haplotypes?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 03:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

text:  Map seems to have a strong "Out of Africa" bias. --41.151.75.84 (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for deletion 

message: Is it possible that the Ms on the map have simply been accidentally muddled with the N on the map? Amandajm (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is probably "thousands of years" 190.229.115.82 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the description page says "Numbers represent thousand years before present." --Avenue (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

text: This represents the so-called Solutrian hypothesis of a direct European-American link.  It is decidedly fringe.  The predominant hypothesis is that X came across Beringia, and a recent finding of an ancient X skeleton in the Altai region supports this. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: According to this image, man arrived in Australia before Europe? Impossible? It implies that man traversed a distance roughly twice that from Africa to Europe, went island hopping and then arrived in Australia? 121.212.121.72 (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing absurd about an animal that evolved in Africa finding it easier to extend its range first across similar latitudes than to expand into areas closer to the poles. Distance is not the only factor here. --Avenue (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

text: By the articles of Monte Verde on Chile and Pedra Furada in Brazil, (both sites in South America) they found human presence for more than 14,800 and 30,000 years BP in the first, and 11,000 and 48.000 years BP in the second. So maybe the man arrived first to south america from polinesia, navigating bording the antartic, and then moves to north america, both from the south of the continent and from asia and later from europe. The Carbon-14 data is not absurd at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.141.1 (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Absurd, absolutely absurd

message: Using this map as it stands is completely unacceptable as it shows an 'X' travelling from Europe to North America - this was shown to be simply wrong quite a few years ago. Which probably explains that although it is included in a number of Haplogroup articles, it is not included in Haplogroup X (mtDNA). If it can't be changed it needs to be removed. There is also a discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Solutrean hypothesis. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map needs changing or removal from all articles