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

this seems to be a good idea not executed very well - seems unnecessarily complicated. Saccerzd 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I find this hard to follow. Specifically, the rout to Australia appears problematic. Why is it a broken line? What does the comment "Asian: A, B, C, D, E, F, G (note: M is composed of C, D, E, and G)" imply - since the advent of indigenous Australians predates C, D, and G; Furthermore there appears to be no "E"; Indeed, my understanding was that eh DNA evidence did not link Australian aboriginals to any Asian sample, but only to Africa. Banno 21:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• the mitomap does give their migration along South Asia, but it is not very clear. Maybe Dravidians? I do not think the "M" marker belongs to the Australian arrow. We'll need to look at the data underlying this map to be sure. Baad 07:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Why is this image double licensed? I thought Creative Commons and GFDL were incompatible. —ACupOfCoffee 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if they were compatible, there wouldn't be much point in using them both. :p ¦ Reisio 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

-Humans didn't originally enter Europe from Turkey. They first settled somewhere south of Kazakhstan. From there, they spread to East, West and North. That helps explain why it took longer to get to Europe than to Australia. Ancestors of Aborigines took a different route. From AFrica they went to India, then to Australia, traveling through the coast. Because of the Ice Age, the sea levels were lower, and that is why there so little archeological evidence of that journey to be found. That theory is backed up mostly by genetic analysis of isolated populations in India, Indonesia and Australia. Sources: The Journey of Man, by Spencer Wells and The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. Also, Baad is right, Iceland wasn't colonized before 870, according to Jared Diamond's "Collapse; how societies choose to fail or succeed" - by AlexisPetriMCosta

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)

Switch labels

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)

Ice sheet

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).

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)

Orientation

{{ifc}} 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)

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)

Yes, I see no reason to re-arrange it. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with the idea of rotation. It makes more sense for the map to provide recognisable shapes, at least for the origin of migration. In that way a person using the map can start from the familiar and make the perspective adjustments as required. I have no problem admitting that even though I was looking for Africa I didn't recognise it and I initially mistook America for Europe. Basically I struggled to make sense of the whole thing until I saved the map and rotated it in an image editor. Then it all became immediately clear, including my mistakes. In fact the result was "just perfect to show human migrations" - up and out. Also clear was that it would have been better, ie. no confusion and no waste of time, to have had the map showing Africa the conventional way in the first place. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia for everyone and his dog, whether they are here from mild curiosity or are doing research. It's not just for those who have "opened their mind" to an orientation that flouts convention. What is to be gained by demanding that all people accomodate an unnatural map format? What is to be gained by producing a map that accomodates people? Ferdinangus 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The map represents all land distances and areas far more accurately than conventional maps, as such it is perfectly suited to represent travel patterns. the only way a person may find it confusing is if they have a poor knowledge of geography to begin with, an example being above comment regarding the mistaking of North America for Europe. The two continents look nothing alike no matter what way you rotate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.201.24 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

I also think Africa should be turned so it is north-south. When I try to read this map I have to tilt my head because of the orientation. The line style doesn't help either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.127.172 (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Legend

Great image, but a poor legend. Could the legend be included in the image for consistency? Spiff 22:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That would make it less portable to other language Wikipedias. ¦ Reisio 07:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We have evidence for how after the global flood, and the tower of Babel, when languages were confused, people started migrating out of the region of Iraq. Then why waste time and energy trying to devise fantastic out of Africa theories? I guess it is only because researchers are scared of losing their jobs when there is nothing more to research in human migration. 1] '"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.'

Why would you say X is Eskimo/Inuit? It is obviously Anglo-Saxons (European) that came via Iceland.

2] According to the map interpretation, all people of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent are Asian (M). I am pretty sure that both these populations are of European descent.

X is a small haplogroup found specially among Eastern Europeans and Native Americans. In my opinion there's little mistery: it's something proto-Amerindians picked up early in their formation before "jumping" to America, probably in Central Asia (along with Haplogroup Q (Y-DNA)). But, as it is particularly strong among natives of NE North-America, it gives room for speculation, you know: dubious megaliths, Kennewick man, Solutrean... who knows? Iceland does seem to have been desert before Irish monks (arguably) and Norwegians arrived in the Middle Ages.

South Asia is strongly M (c. 60% in India, something less in Pakistan). Western Asia has little M but enough to justify the coastal migration theory, via southern Arabia, for this super-haplogroup. M is also present in East Africa (M1), in what is probably a back-migration.

What is rather wrong is the extension of the ice cap in Asia: it was much smaller, with huge lakes. I had a hard time understanding that but it seems that in the Ice Age Siberia was not much colder than it is now, what explains how people could migrate through it.

It's also horribly wrong in Europe: most Europe was free from Ice. Only Scandinavia, most of Britain, the northern coasts of Germany and, of course, most of Russia and the high mountain areas were iced. It's absurd that half Italy and even Turkey appear as glacial when they were not. Most people then lived (probably) in Southern France and areas of Northern Spain but other groups were in more northern regions like Rhin-Danub and Ukraine. --Sugaar 16:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The legend is missing any entry for Letter I, currently indicating some group in Europe. --Leperflesh (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion

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)

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.[1]. 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)

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)

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)

And what about the two X haplotypes? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Question

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)

What do the colors and key represent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.182.46 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The key is probably "thousands of years" 190.229.115.82 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the description page says "Numbers represent thousand years before present." --Avenue (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the origin of the dotted line from the X in Northern Europe and the X in the Ungava region of N. America? Is this a purported migration route (seems unlikely). If not, then is it some migration that predates the other migrations to N. America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSHSDad (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Absurd, absolutely absurd

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)

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)

More absurd than that is that according to the map, man arrived in South America before arriving in North America. Rhialto (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Map needs changing or removal from all articles

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)