File talk:World map of prehistoric human migrations.jpg

 

from multiple places where the image was commented:

from en:user talk:avsa

I'd like to nominate this image (note from user:avsa, he is not referring to the one here, but to another one) for FPC as well, but think it should first include some of the information in Image:Human mtDNA migration.png. Would it be possible for you to add this to your image, and possibly submit a higher resolution version? --brian0918™ 14:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

(Comming from the history of the world page)

I too think that the image is very well made. However, to my eyes, Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg is much more difficult to understand than Image:Human mtDNA migration.png. Of course, now I've rotated the glove around in my head and flattened the countries, so I can tell what's what, but it's not immediately obvious. I wonder if the elegant feel of the map could be placed on a more standard globe projection such as the one in the second image? Or are projections centered on the equator no longer the standard? — Asbestos | Talk 17:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

from en:talk:human migration

excellent map! since you ask about the letters, they are markers for individual mutations, i.e. you can trace the migrations by watching how the letters move along the arrows. for example, the B mutation occurs apparently in East Asia and travels across the Pacific and North America to South America. I think the letters are used universally, i.e. the "A" "B" "C" alleles etc. are technical terms agreed upon by geneticists, so I decided to include them in Image:Human mtDNA migration.png.

As for the temperature, I doubt there is a direct causation, at least for the first 'gap': people were still in Africa, and I don't see how a warm period would have kept them from emigrating. It just so happens that they didn't emigrate for another 60ka or so. Further phyla that were formed within Africa between 130k BP and 70k BP are probably just not shown in the diagram because they don't correspond to large movements. dab (ᛏ) 19:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I figured out that it was something like that. But without a further explanation the letters are only usefull to help you guide in a otherwise confusing map of lines. I believe the new map is better organized so this won´t be necessary - on the contrary they only add noise to the map (i tested). If we can figure out which lineage each letter refers to, so as to help someone inters]ested gather more information about each lineage (Aborigine, Asiatic, Indo-european etc) then the letters would be interesting. My theory is never add anything that cannot be univerally understood, suposing that some geneticist will understand... By the way if someone would be nice enough to manage a high resolution dymaxion map we could have a yet higher resolution version of this guy...--Alexandre Van de Sande 20:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh they are called en:Haplogroups. I just found out in this great online encyclopedia I know. There is something about that in en:Supercluster (genetic). Can somebody link the letter in 70px to the actual names?--Alexandre Van de Sande 21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the map looks better without the letters. It's just that if the en:human migration article is to discuss these haplogroups, it would be useful to have them in there, and I do hope that at some point the article will give that amount of detail. dab (ᛏ) 08:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

As you surmised, the letters represent en:haplogroups. (These are not single mutations, but groups of mutations that occur together.) I don't think that they have names. I think that they do need to be added to the image, but worry that they will make it too cluttered. Further comments on en:User talk:Avsa. Noisy | Talk 10:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

from en:User talk:Asbestos

I have to admit I have a preference for maps that do not put equator in the center or north in the upper part, that´s partly why I am attratcted to challenges where I believe such a map is not necessary, as this map and the en:oceans diagram I also did.

You may feel confused for the position of the continents but I do not. I would argue that´s because you are so much used to the mercator projection that you cannot see how distorted it can be, and how unprecise about the shape of the continents it can be. You could argue that´s a common and standard that´s easier to comunicate as we are used to it. This arguments could go forever. I for one have absolutely no difficulty in recognizing the continents.

I believe that this projection is better for the given map because:

• there is a almost no distortion on the land masses. As almost all migrations were by land (or by small jumps in primitive boats) it give us a precise measure of how far they had to walk. It show planet earth really as a walking distance tiny island.
• Africa is on top left, where our eyes are used to start reading, south america is in the bottom right, which is the farthest continent that our ancestors had to walk. This give us a nice idea of how far where the native africans from the native americans when they first met (of course I am ignoring all transoceanic theories)
• the polar cape is in the center, so that you can see the extent of the ice age in it´s real undistorted area.
• all arrows are continuous, no need for one going out of the map in one side and magically appearing on the other.

Let´s continue this talk on the image page, shall we?--Avsa 02:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

B

the "B" marker appears to reach Japan/America in 35-25 kYA here, while the number on the original mitomap is 15-12 kYA. Dbachmann 12:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What sources are used for the information in this map?

What sources are used for the information in this map?The map of human mtDNA migration (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Human_mtDNA_migration.png) shows a line from northern Scandinavia to North America about 15000 years ago. That sounds really interesting. What findings or studies do this map refer to and where do the map come from? I would welcome any information on this topic. Aprerogative Aprerogative 18:10, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Minor changes I made to the text: reasoning behind

• I specified that the map talks of Mithocondrial DNA haplogroups (purely motherly lineages). Haplogroups can refer to either MtDNA or Y-chromosome DNA (fatherly lineages) and it's important that they are diferentiated.
• I also separated haplogroups H and V from the other ones considered Northern European and labelled them General European. The reason is that H, which alone comprises 48% of European population, is widely distributed and is also strong in SW Europe, from where it is original. V, a derivate from H (or HV) is also important in SW Europe and it's also original from there. (See: http://intl.genome.org/cgi/content/full/15/1/19)

--Sugaar 18:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from image description

I ignored all data I could not understand (for example the +/- and the letters). If someone explains to me what that was and why this is important I´ll be glad to add them.

The letters are the haplogroups; the +/- refer to mtDNA polymorphisms at two locations. Noisy | Talk 10:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

This could be a kind of timeline of image versions: [1] [2] 200px

Legend

What is the difference between a solid black line and a dotted black line? How accurate are the routes? -- Beland 04:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Rotation

(Comment copied from English Wikipedia) 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? --Tropylium (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The projection of this map is very different from what most people is used to. Maybe a coordinate-grid would help the perception? /Esquilo (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Maritime routes

This is very good, but could use (at the very least) the Austronesian expansion from Taiwan into Polynesia and Madagascar (!) and the reverse settlement of the Caribbean, which seems to have occurred from the Orinoco valley rather than from the north or west. Probably but more problematically, it should also reflect the transatlantic "settlement" from Africa into the Americas, to say nothing of the Europeans. Altogether, perhaps too much clutter, but the first two seem necessary.LlywelynII (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Map looks like a chicken?

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but have you noticed something- the map looks like a chicken? TomSmithNP (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)