Translate

Guide to Patagonia's Monsters & Mysterious beings

I have written a book on this intriguing subject which has just been published.
In this blog I will post excerpts and other interesting texts on this fascinating subject.

Austin Whittall


Showing posts with label Maori. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maori. Show all posts

Sunday, January 11, 2026

Haida, Tlingit and Polynesians in a text from 1894


Continuing with research on the link between Polynesians and natives from the Northwestern coast of North America, in this post I will share an article published in 1894 (The American Antiquarian, Vol XVI, No. 1, Jan. 1894, Origin of the Indians, p. 8, Cyrus Thomas), that mentions the similarities between both groups, Polynesians and Amerindians.


An 1894 Article

The article mentions other books as refrences (underlined by me in the text, and commented further down), which widens the bibliography on this subject.


"No one has failed to remark the strong resemblance in many respects of the arts customs etc. of the people of the west coast especially of the Haida Indians and cognate tribes with those of the South Pacific islanders particularly the Melanesians and Polynesians.
If we compare the arts customs and traditions of some of the west coast tribes with those of the South Sea Islanders we shall find such striking coincidences as to render the supposition that they are accidental highly improbable.
The comparison made by Ensign AP Niblack in his recent work 'The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia', between the Maori of New Zealand and the Haida Indians of our northwest coast brings out a series of coincidences which to say the least is, remarkable. And what renders this comparison of special interest is the fact that it is not made to sustain a theory, as the author is not an advocate of the idea of relationship or even contact between these widely separated tribes. It is thus he brieflly summarizes them: "In point of physical resemblance both are of the Mongoloid type, and both live on groups of islands whose climates are remark ably similar... Their political organization of the tribe, their ownership of land, and their laws of blood revenge are similar. The men tattoo with designs intended to identity themselves with their subtribe or household and they ornament their canoes, paddles, house fronts, etc., in somewhat the same manner as on the northwest coast... Under the head of "Rain Cloaks", Dixon (1787) is quoted as saying that the cloaks of the Haida and Tlingit were the same as those worn by the New Zealanders... Also a statement [from the same authority] that a Haida fortified house on an island of the Queen Charlotte group was built exactly on the plan of the hipah of the savages of New Zealand... and that the adzes of the Tlingit and Haida made of jasper were the same as those used by the New Zealanders. The cloaks of shredded inner bark in the National Museum from New Zealand and the Queen Charlotte Islands are so much alike that it takes a close inspection to distinguish them. In plate XXXII Fig 167 a New Zealand paddle is reproduced with a few from the northwest coast. The resemblance is marked and interesting... But it is safe to say that while this is not accidental, yet the resemblances and similarities are as likely to have arisen from the like tendencies of the human mind under the same external conditions or environment to develop a long parallel line, as through contact of these tribes or through a common origin.
"


The bibliography quoted by Cyrus Thomas


This work quotes a book by Ensign Albert P. Niblack, of the U.S. Navy, his book published in 1890 "The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia." Which in its Chapter XV (General Notes: Relations and affinities of the Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and Kwakiutl —the Haida— Remarks on the Maori of New Zealand —the Kaigani- Ethnological work to be done.) starting on p.382, explores the similarities between Polynesians and NW Coast natives. The text quoted by Cyrus is found on p. 385. And the plate XXXII mentioned by Cyrus Thomas is shown below (adapted, only displaying the New Zealand and NW coast paddles).


Tlingit, Haida and Maori paddles
Fig XXXII in A.P. Niblack, E (1890), p.292

Niblack also quotes Dixon; you can see the original text by Dixon in "Voyages" (1787), p.266: "Besides their ordinary dress, the natives at this place have a peculiar kind of cloaks made purposely to defend them from the inclemency of the weather. I had no opportunity of examining them minutely, but they appear to be made of reeds sewed very closely together, and I was told by one of our gentlemen who was with Captain Cook during his last Voyage, that they are exactly the same with those wore by the inhabitants of New Zealand."


The reference to the fortified houses built by the Haida, given by Dixon can be found on p. 206 "Captain Dixon no sooner saw the fortified hut just mentioned, then this suspicion was strengthened, as it was, he said, built exactly on the plan of the hippah of the savages at New Zealand."


Captain Cook, in February of 1777, visited a hippah, a fortified village with buildings made from reeds, on Motuara Island, New Zealand. It was unoccupied at that time. John Webber drew some sketches of the huts, and they were printed as engravings after Cook's death by B. T. Pouncy. Below is the engraving (Source).


engraving of a hippah in NZ 1780s

To be continued. See my previous post on this subject.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Friday, December 26, 2025

INDEX for our Trans-Pacific Contact posts: Oceania to America


For those who are interested, this is an index linked to all of our posts about the possible trans-Pacific contact or voyages between Polynesia, Oceania, Melanesia, and America, in both directions, as it also includes American voyates to Polynesia. It will help you navigate the different posts.


Updated: 26 - Dec - 2025


Index


map of Pacific islands
The Pacific, Polynesia and Oceania.


Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025 by Austin Whittall © 

Saturday, December 20, 2025

Aboriginal New Zealand Natives (before the Maori)


The article published in 1910 that was shared in a recent post mentioned moa bones in middens that were discovered in New Zealand in the mid to late 1800s. These were attributed to a pre-Maori people. Nowadays such notions are frowned upon, having been effectively silenced by the Maori people. Let's look into this and other information about an "original" ancient population living in New Zealand. People who arrived there long before the 1600s, when the Polynesian Maori people reached these islands.


Julius von Haast in his Geology of the Provinces of Canterbury and Westland, New Zealand A Report Comprising the Results of Official Explorations, published in 1879, mentions these original people which he calls "Moa Hunters". Below is a quote starting on page 424 of his book, I highlighted some parts of the text by underlining them.


"Considering the Moa hunters from an anthropological point of view it is of the utmost difficulty at least for the present to state with any degree of exactness if they belonged to a race different to the Polynesians who according to the traditions of the natives now inhabiting these islands immigrated to New Zealand some six hundred years ago in a number of canoes from Hawaiki or if the mixed character exhibited in the Maoris has been imported with them this having been caused by intermixture with Melanesians and Negritos on their advance towards New Zealand.
It would be beyond the scope of this chapter to bring all the evidence forward which has been adduced from both sides to prove the one or the other some of the principal traditions are however here given The late Rev Richard Taylor states in the second edition of Te Ika a Maui from what he considers reliable traditions that the Hawaiki immigrants not only found when they landed on the coast of New Zealand a black Melanesian population but they also discovered kitchen middens with Moa bones and flint implements.
If these traditions can be relied upon it shows at any rate that the black race before the arrival of their successors had been hunting and probably extirpating the Moa. So, when relating the tradition of Manaia Taylor quotes from Sir George Grey: "-When he arrived at Rotuhu at the mouth of the River Waitara, he stopped there and behold there were people even the ancient inhabitants of the islands but Manaia and his followers slew them. They were killed and Manaia possessed their abode, he, his sons, and his people of those men that Manaia and his followers slew, that the place might be theirs."
According to Taylor the same is recorded of Turi who "went on shore and dwelt at Patea and slew the inhabitants thereof" (page 14). This aboriginal race was remembered as the Maero and Mohoao or wild men of the woods (page 15). Enumerating on page 290 the arrival of the original canoes in New Zealand he adds a footnote to No 12: Te Rangi ua mutu which came to Rangatapu: "On the arrival at that place they saw stones like English flints and Moa bones. It is there that I also discovered a large quantity of the bones of the Dinornis. The stones were the stone flakes used as knives which are still there found by the side of the ancient ovens a proof of their having belonged to a more ancient race than the Polynesian"
The Rev W Colenso FLS in his excellent essay 'On the Maori races of New Zealand' Vol I, Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, on page 394 answers the question, Were there autochthones? -as follows. "Possibly or rather very likely- (a) From the fact that no large island like New Zealand however distant from the nearest land is uninhabited. (b) From the fact that nearly all the numerous islands in the Pacific though vastly smaller in size teem with population. (c) From the fact of a remnant at present existing in the Chatham Islands the nearest land to New Zealand of a race which is allowed by the present New Zealander to be truly aboriginal and before them in occupation. (d) From their traditions and fear of wild men in the interior. (e) From the allusions and even direct statements in their traditionary myths of their having found inhabitants on their arrival in the country both at Waitara on the west coast of the North Island and at Rotorua in the interior. But if there were which appears very probable they have been destroyed or become amalgamated with the present race".
So far for the Northern Island. The traditions of the South Island according to the valuable researches of the Rev James W Stack, published in Vol X of the "Transactions of the New Zealand Institute" are not so distinct. but it is nevertheless evident that before the Waitaha went to dwell in this Island other tribes of people had been in existence. Mr Stack calls the traditions concerning the first fabulous and the second uncertain. He states that the Kahui Tipua or ogre band, a mythical race, are said to have been the first occupants of this land, they are described as giants and sorcerers They were succeeded by Te Rapuwai or Nga ai tanga a te Puhirire, who have left traces of their occupation in the shell heaps, found both along the coast and far inland. Then follows Waitaha one of the original immigrants from Hawaiki, the founder of the tribe who came in the canoe Arawa; he or his immediate descendants peopled the South Island. they are consequently the first inhabitants claiming to have been immigrants from Hawaiki...
To sum up the evidence as to the presence and mode of life of quaternary man in this part of New Zealand the following points may fairly be considered to have been so far proved:-
1. There existed in quaternary times an autochthone race in New Zealand having like the present inhabitants more or less strong affinities with the Melanesian type.
2. This race hunted and exterminated the Moa including in this native word all the different species of the Dinornithiae.
3. Banks Peninsula was at that time either an island or if already a Peninsula the driftsands now fringing the sea shores north of the Peninsula were in some localities several miles narrower than they are at present.
4. The quaternary population did not possess a domesticated dog.
5. A species of feral dog was contemporaneous with the Moa hunters and was killed and eaten by them. No gnawed bones of any kind were ever found in the kitchen middens.
6. The total absence of any bones of Ocydromus Australis Weka in the kitchen middens is very striking.
7. The Moa hunters used both polished and chipped stone implements.
8. They cooked their food in the same manner as the Maoris of the present day do.
9. They were not cannibals.
10. They did not possess implements of greenstone Nephrite.
11. There are some native traditions although of a mythical character that one or several races inhabited this island before the arrival of the first immigrants from Hawaiki if such an immigration is admitted
12. A considerable period of time elapsed as evidenced by an examination of the deposits in the Moa bone Point Cave and in some other localities before the shellfish eating population appeared on the scene.
13. The kitchen middens of the Shellfish eaters following a line nearly parallel to the present coast line are also ascribed to have been formed by a somewhat mythical people.
"


Maori man 1800s
Portrait of a Maori man, before 1880. Source

Genetics and the Maori People. Y-Chromosome, the male lineages


A paper published in 2006 (Manfred Kayser, et al., Melanesian and Asian Origins of Polynesians: mtDNA and Y Chromosome Gradients Across the Pacific, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 23, Issue 11, November 2006, Pages 2234–2244, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msl093) suggests an early Melanesian presence in Polynesia:


"The fact that there is extensive sharing of Asian haplotypes, but not Melanesian haplotypes, between Polynesians and Melanesians today, therefore, could indicate that Melanesian haplotypes were present earlier in Polynesia (perhaps in Fiji), leading to greater divergence between Polynesians and Melanesians for haplogroups of Melanesian origin than for haplogroups of Asian origin".


The typical Y-chromosome haplogroup found in Melanesians and also in Polyesians at high frequencies is C2a-M208, formerly known as C2b (Source).


An article published in 2022 (Tätte K, et al., Genetic characterization of populations in the Marquesas Archipelago in the context of the Austronesian expansion. Sci Rep. 2022 Mar 29;12(1):5312. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08910-w. PMID: 35351918; PMCID: PMC8964752.) confirms this genetic marker found in Polynesian men, as Melanesian:


"The most abundant Y chromosomal haplogroup in the Marquesas Islands of Nuku Hiva, Hiva Oa and Tahuata is C2a-M208 (37.9%) of Melanesian origin ... considering that C2a-M208 is the most abundant Y-chromosome haplogroup in West and East Polynesian, we performed a Median Network analysis ... In addition age estimations were generated. The Median Network exhibits a star-like topology made up of one central and two secondary major nodes from which individuals from different populations radiate-out in multiple lineages to generate the network ... No intra- or inter-population substructure is seen with the exception of the Maoris in which most of its individuals segregate distinctly into one specific sequential lineage ... The age estimations of the C2a-M208 lineage for the populations in the Network analysis provide equivalent values except for the Maoris of New Zealand, which exhibit values approximately twice or more than the other groups (Supplementary Table 22). The age of C2a-M208 based on Y-STR variability data for the Maori is incompatible with the radiocarbon dating of archaeological sites, which indicate that Polynesians settled New Zealand by about 740 ya. Data indicating rapid spread of populations over 12,000 km of coastline and high diversity in the mtDNA of first generation settlers suggest that New Zealand was the target of a planned mass migration out of East Polynesia during the first decades of the fourteenth century. It is likely that such colonization by large number of individuals may have carry high levels of genetic variability within the Y-chromosomes reflected in the high diversity levels of C2a-M208 chromosomes in the Maori population relative to the other Polynesian and Polynesian outlier groups examined."


The final paragraph tries to explain the highly diverse and old age of the Melanesian haplogroup found in Maoris by suggesting a massive migration with many people (to overcome a founder-effect and bottleneck in the population). A simple explanation is that they met an ancient, diverse population of Melanesian original people. The older age of the New Zealand C2a-M208 confirms the presence of an original population there.


There is additional support for an early Melanesian presence, suggested by a paper published in 2006 (Kayser, M., Stoneking, M., et al. (2006). Melanesian and asian origins of Polynesians: mtDNA and Y chromosome gradients across the Pacific. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 23(11), 2234-2244. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msl093). Below is the relevant information:


"However, no haplotype sharing between geographic regions was observed for haplogroups C-M208 and M-M4, which are of Melanesian origin, and only one haplotype (2%) was shared between one Fijian and one Melanesian for K-M9, suggesting a more ancient spread of those NRY haplogroups from Melanesia to Polynesia."


mtDNA, the maternal lineages


A similar discrepancy was reported by a paper published in Nature this year, but instead of studying male markers, it focused on the matrilineal mtDNA markers (Almeida, M., Gandini, F., Rito, T. et al. Leveraging known Pacific colonisation times to test models for the ancestry of Southeast Asians. Sci Rep 15, 37044 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-20856-3), the authors noticed two sets of data where the appearance of the "Polynesian Motif" is older than expected, for New Zealand the age was calculated at 2,060 years BP, while archaeological sites are not older than 675-700 years (See Table 2 in the paper).


"The two sets of exceptions are in Near Oceania, prior to the Lapita expansion, where the emergence of the motif predates the emergence of Lapita, and Niue, Tuvalu and Aotearoa/New Zealand...
In the case of Aotearoa (New Zealand), the situation is different, as these islands have one of the best-defined chronologies for settlement in Oceania. We suggest two possible explanations for the discrepancy in this case. One is that we lack data from what may have been important stepping-stones between the available genetic source populations and Aotearoa, such as the Kermadec Islands, which could have been a direct source, although archaeological or oral historical information suggests settlement from Central East Polynesia (Cook Islands, Society Islands). There are no genetic data available within a radius of up to 2,000 km around New Zealand. Some diversity might have emerged in an intermediate source, some source diversity might have been lost due to partial resettlement, and specific haplotypes might have increased in frequency due to founder effects when moving south into Aotearoa. Another strong possibility is that the data might contain some sequencing or transcription artefacts (i.e., artificially induced “mutations” introduced by error) that have raised the founder estimate. For example, the rare non-synonymous mutation 6261 A appears twice independently in two different subclades of the Aotearoa dataset of only 22 samples.
"


When facts are explained away suggesting they are artifacts due to error, or insufficient data, then there is something weird in the theory. The other discrepancy, Niue (2,400 km - 1,500 mi. north of NZ) also has older dates than expected.


Kayser, M., Stoneking, M., et al. (2006) mentioned further up (Melanesian and asian origins of Polynesians: mtDNA and Y chromosome gradients across the Pacific) also noticed an ancient mtDNA of Melanesian origin among Polynesians:


"With respect to mtDNA haplogroups, there is again sharing of haplotypes between Polynesians and Melanesians for Asian haplogroups B4a and PM, whereas there is no sharing of haplotypes between Polynesians and Melanesians for the Melanesian haplogroup M28, suggesting a more recent spread of mtDNAs from Asia into Polynesia and a more ancient spread of mtDNAs from Melanesia into Polynesia."


Closing Comments


Kayser, M., Stoneking, M., et al. (2006) summarize these differences clearly and explain these apparent "discrepancies":


"If Polynesian ancestors did migrate to coastal/island Melanesia from Asia, mixed with coastal/island Melanesians (thereby obtaining Melanesian Y chromosomes and mtDNA types and leaving behind "Asian" Y chromosomes and mtDNA types), and then left Melanesia and colonized Polynesia, then the degree of haplotype sharing should be the same for haplogroups of Asian versus Melanesian origin because there was a single "separation" of an ancestral group of Polynesians from ancestral Melanesians. The fact that there is extensive sharing of Asian haplotypes, but not Melanesian haplotypes, between Polynesians and Melanesians today, therefore, could indicate that Melanesian haplotypes were present earlier in Polynesia (perhaps in Fiji)"


It seems pretty clear that Melanesians reached the islands of New Zealand long before the ancestors of the Polynesian Maoris. When they arrived will remain a mystery until serious research is conducted on the field, looking for remains older than the 17th century. It is exciting to imagine Melanesians reaching NZ on boats 10,000 years ago. They could have also headed east, spreading into the vacant islands of the Pacific, and who knows, continued on to South America.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025by Austin Whittall © 

Wednesday, December 17, 2025

The peopling of Polynesia, an article from 1910


In our current woke world, where we are all so careful about using certain words to avoid hurting sensibilities, trying to be correct about issues of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, politics, etc., it is refreshing to be able to read something written one hundred and fifteen years ago, which with frankness and the crudeness of that era describes facts and knowledge, without worrying about being politically correct or the censorship of cancel culture.


I am sharing a link to an interesting article written back in 1910, and highlighting its comments about the peopling of Polynesia.


Source: W. D. Alexander, (1910). The Origin of the Polynesian Race. The Journal of Race Development, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Oct., 1910), pp. 221-230. https://doi.org/10.2307/29737859. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29737859


Below is the full quote from Alexander:


"Antiquity of Man in Polynesia.
Many considerations combine to prove the great antiquity of man in Polynesia. Prof. Macmillan Browne has ably presented the evidences of this, as seen on the one hand in ancient traditions and relics, and on the other hand in the New Zealand traditions mention a number of aboriginal tribes. In a similar way the Hawaiian had numerous legends about the "Menehunes," described as a race of industrious and skillful dwarfs, who were said to have built the great fishpond walls and to have dug extensive irrigation ditches.
In the South Island of New Zealand there are vast shell mounds containing bones of the extinct Moa birds, and ancient Maori ovens and stone implements have been found fourteen feet below the present surface of the ground, under an ancient forest. In an article entitled "First Wells of Honolulu," by James Hunnewell, in Hawaiian Club Papers, p. 31, it is stated that the first wells in Honolulu were dug in 1822. "They passed through eight or ten feet of surface soil and volcanic sand, when a coral bed eight feet in thickness was met with and cut through, under which fresh water was reached. In this coral stratum a human skull and sundry human bones were found imbedded." In 1858, in dredging the harbor of Honolulu, near the Esplanade, in about twenty feet of water, it was found that underneath the mud and sand there was a stratum of hard coral rock about two feet in thickness, beneath which there was a thick layer of black volcanic sand. Embedded in this black sand were found the lower part of an ancient spear, about three feet long, and a slingstone of a red, close-grained lava, such as is not found anywhere in that vicinity. In 1859, as Fornander relates, "Mr. R. W. Meyer, of Kalae, Molokai, found in the side of a canyon on his estate, some seventy feet below the surface of the upper level plain, in a stratum of volcanic mud, breccia, clay and ashes, several feet in thickness, a human skull, compactly filled by the volcanic deposit surrounding it, as if it had been cast in a mould. As that stratum spreads over a considerable tract of land, at varying depths below the surface, andas the ravines and canyons which now intersect it were formed by erosion, the great age of that human skull may be reasonably inferred."
There are other indications of antiquity in the extremely primitive stage of Polynesian culture. The race was still in the Stone Age. The total absence of pottery is a significant fact, for, as Prof. Macmillan Browne observes : "All around the Pacific, on both the Asiatic and American coast, pottery has been made from time immemorial, and so it is in all the island world from the Malay peninsula south-east to the New Hebrides and Fiji." "The absence of pottery and of the use of the bow in war makes it certain that the pre-existence of a Melanesian and Papuan substratum of population in that region, assumed by some writers, is a fiction." In the art of making fire, as has already been stated, the Polynesians and Melanesians stand alone. With the exception of the Easter Islanders, the Polynesians did not possess even the most rudimentary forms of writing.
The above considerations would exclude the idea of any intercourse with the East Indian Archipelago within historical times. At the same time there is no sufficient evidence of a pre-existing race in Polynesia proper.
"


The text mentions "ancient" skulls and remains in Hawaii, and the Menehune. In New Zealand it reports "Maori" tools in shell middens which could belong to the aboriginal tribes encountered by the Maori in New Zealand (More on these aboriginal New Zealand people in our next post). It also points out that the Polynesians, unlike the Melanesians did not make pottery and did not use bow and arrow. So it questions a Melanesian origin. It also says there is not enough evidencer to support an aboriginal pre-Polynesian race in the islands of Polynesia.


But, an original wave of Melanesians into Polynesia would have abandoned the use of bow and arrow because they, like the later Polynesian migrants would have adopted fishing as a food resource using nets, hooks, and spears for that purpose. Furthermore, wood suitable for making bows and arrows would be hard to come across in the islands of Polynesia. Regarding ceramics, clay is the key raw material, abundant on large islands like New Guinea or New Zealand, it isn't found in volcanic atolls, where basalt, lava, and coral are the main components of soil.


The Melanesian presence in Polynesia before its current inhabitants isn't only something from 115 years ago, a paper published in 2006 (Manfred Kayser, et al., Melanesian and Asian Origins of Polynesians: mtDNA and Y Chromosome Gradients Across the Pacific, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 23, Issue 11, November 2006, Pages 2234–2244, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msl093) says the following (underlined is mine):


"The fact that there is extensive sharing of Asian haplotypes, but not Melanesian haplotypes, between Polynesians and Melanesians today, therefore, could indicate that Melanesian haplotypes were present earlier in Polynesia (perhaps in Fiji), leading to greater divergence between Polynesians and Melanesians for haplogroups of Melanesian origin than for haplogroups of Asian origin. However, there are large gaps in the sampling of coastal/island Melanesians, which would need to be filled in before one could be certain that there is truly a difference in patterns of haplotype sharing between Polynesians and Melanesians for haplogroups of Asian versus Melanesian origin... The striking difference observed here between Asian and Melanesian contributions to the paternal and maternal gene pool of Polynesians suggests an admixture bias toward more Melanesian men, perhaps as result of uxorilocal (matrilocal) residence and matrilineal descent in ancestral Polynesian society."


Why more Melanesian Y-chromosomes than Asian, and the opposite for mtDNA? The explanation given above seems weird. There was admixture in the islands, the Polynesians with Asian genes arrived and met Melanesians who prevailed and took Polynesian women (with Asian mtDNA) as their wives resulting in the current Polynesian admixture.


Our next post will look into the aboriginals of New Zealand, a pre-Polynesian people there, and some odd findings in the field of Maori genetics.


melanesians
Melanesian men, Mountaineers from inland Viti Levu (Kai Colo people) in Fiji c.1900. Source


Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025 by Austin Whittall © 

Wednesday, December 10, 2025

Who were the first people to reach Polynesia?


In this post we will look into the possible migration from Austronesia and Melanesia to America as proposed by Paul Rivet, but looking at an early timeline, since Polynesians reached the islands of the Pacific between 700 and 1200 AD, while America was peopled over 15,000 years ago.


This implies that there must have been an earlier group of people living in this region before the arrival of Polynesians 1300 to 800 years ago.


The First People in Polynesia


The Polynesians consiered that there was an original race of people inhabiting the islands they reached during their expansion across the Pacific Ocean, they called them Manahune. These mythical beings are very human in many ways, and suggest that they were possibly members of some previous wave that peopled Polynesia.


William Halse Rivers (1864-1922) proposed in 1914 (The History of Melanesian Society) that there had been two waves of people that populated Polynesia the first wave became the serfs, or commoners, enslaved by the second wave people, who became their overlords.


"Even with the available evidence, however, there is much which points to the two-fold nature of Polynesian culture. If the distinction between chiefs and commoners in Melanesia has been the result of the fusion of two peoples, the chiefs being the representatives of an immigrant people, it will be difficult to withhold a similar explanation of the two orders of chief and commoner in Polynesia." (p.280)


I have found references on the pre-Polynesian people that are said to have inhabited New Zealand. One of such sources states that "... This is the forbidden pre-Maori history with reports being withheld and access being denied to evidence of its first inhabitants who were annihilated by the arriving Maori. The Ngati Hotu tribe of New Zealand, described as being light-skinned, with light eyes and reddis hair, were the last surviving pre-Maori Urukehu.'They say we do not exist. They say we are an extinct race. My people still carry the red and blond hair, blue-green eyes, and fair skin of our ancestors. We are the Ngati Hotu." No reference is given for this quote, and it sounds as if it wass conspiracist, racist and pure pseudoscience.


The Urukehu, however, were real. The Encyclopedia of New Zealand - Te Ara, managed and updated by Manatu Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage in Wellington, New Zealand. Includes an entry on them, and the following image:


urukehu
Uurukehu. Source

"This photograph is from "The old-time Maori" (1938), by Mākereti Papakura. She notes that the blonde, fair child and the father, Tonihi (right), are both Urukehu. While some believe that Urukehu (fair-headed, fair-skinned Māori) are the offspring of the fairy people patupaiarehe, Mākereti Papakura believed that this light-skinned strain dates back to the traditional Polynesian homeland of Hawaiki, and that albino Māori are the product of the union between Māori and patupaiarehe. She describes patupaiarehe as ‘supernatural children of the mist ... seen in indistinct form in the passing mist. ... They are fair, and are clothed in flimsy white like the web of the pūngāwerewere [spider]."


Patupaiarehe were fairy-like people, pictured below in a New Zealand stamp (source, they lived in the forests and mountains, had blue eyes, fair hair and white or red skin. They abducted women.


patupaiarehe stamp

Finally, these Ngāti Hotu peoiple were an actual tribe that lived in the Taupō district when the first Maori poeple (priest Ngātoroirangi and explorer Tia) arrived in New Zealand, "discovering" it, and settling there: "The tribe were referred to as ‘urukehu’ (fairy people) because of their unusual red hair and fair skin" (Source).


A plausible explanation is that these fair haired people are the result of Melanesian genes. According to a paper published in Science, Melanesians "from the Solomon Islands and Equatorial Oceania have the darkest skin pigmentation outside of Africa, they also have the highest prevalence of blond hair (5 to 10%) outside of Europe." It is caused by a mutation in the TYRP1 gene, which is involved in the production of the skin and hair darkening pigment melanin. Other mutations in the TYRP1 gene can provoke albinism. This genetic trait is different to the one that causes fair hair in Europeans.


Judge W. E. Gudgeon in his work Maori migrations to New Zealand, 1892, (p. 217) mentions that "It can hardly be doubted that there were many tribes of Polynesian descent in occupation of this country when the crew of the Arawa entered the river at Maketu, Bay of Plenty... Among other well-known tribes now extinct, but who are regarded by the Maoris as Autocthones, are the following : Ngati-Eahnpungapunga, Nga-Marama, Te Elawerau, Marangaranga, Ngati-Hotu, Maruiwi, Te Baupongaoheohe, Te Tururumauka, Te Aruhetawiri, Te Aoraorn, Waitaha-Torauta, Whatumamoa, and many others ; some of whom are still tribes such as Ngati-Mahanga, NgatiUepohatu, Nga-Potiki, &c." So clearly, Gudgeon believed that the Polynesians reached New Zealand over a long period of time, and among the first arrivals, these "Authoctones" were the Ngati-Hotu.


I doubt we will find any future research on this matter, because the Maori, like the Mapuche of Chile, the U.S. and Canadian First Nations, and the Australian Aboriginals, don't like any theory that suggests that there were other people who reached "their" homeland before they did, and are willing to defend their status as "First People" by denying those theories and literally burying the evidence (Mungo man reburied and Kennewick man reburied).



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025 by Austin Whittall © 

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

Oceanians: Okewa in the Americas


My previous post mentioned Father Molina's point of view on the "Oceanian" presence in Patagonia c.500 AD. He also mentions Polynesian ceremonial clubs or "okewa". Today's post will explore other articles on these clubs in the Americas.


In 1930, José Imbelloni (1885-1967), an Italian anthropologist who lived and worked in Argentina, wrote a paper about the Okewa and other similar artifacts (Imbelloni, J. (1930). ON THE DIFFUSION IN AMERICA OF PATU ONEWA, OKEWA, PATU PARAOA, MITI, AND OTHER RELATIVES OF THE MERE FAMILY. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 39(4(156)), 322–345. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20702331).


The paper includes several photographs and describes artifacts unearthed in Arkansas, California, the State of Washington, Oregon, Michigan, British Columbia (Canada), Mexico, Peru, Argentina,

Imbelloni discards "convergence" by which people in the Americas created artifacts that are identical to those manufactured in New Zealand by Polynesian people (" not only because I consider such a convergence improbable which supposes also a somewhat astonishing parallelism of creative stages; but also on account of a large number of purely morphological circumstances.")


Imbelloni concludes as follows:


"The fact is that to this day nobody has ever faced the phenomenon in its integrity, because statements were based on a few discoveries, and more especially on North American ones, without taking South America into account; and some other writers dealt with the subject with much lightness, accepting commonplace explanations. The difficulty was avoided: now by bringing to bear the criterion of “convergence” in accidental inventions to a degree unsuitable even according to Bastian himself; now by impugning the veracity of the evidence of authors and writers of the last generation, as regards the specimens I have not been able to locate in the Museums; now by supposing that everything can be explained through a transposition of labels and objects in the glass-cases of ethnographical collections.
Against all these presumptions we have seen that the specimens found and collected by me, in these pages show unity and congruence.
To North America belong the following specimens: five standard patu onewa made of green and brown stone; two bodies of patu which very probably were of the onewa type; one argillite patu with a two-headed handle, similar to the Chatham specimens; three specimens of the miti model; and several patu paraoa, shaped according to the pattern of New Zealand.
To South America belong the following specimens: four patu onewa and two okewa.
The discoveries are located all along the Pacific Ocean zone in the northern continent, as well as in the southern.
The area of spatular weapons comprehends in North America: British Columbia and the States of Washington, Oregon and California. It is not necessary to assume that the origin of Nos. 4 and 5 from Michigan is apocryphal. A well-known track led the Indian tribes from the west to the Great Lakes region, by following the courses of the rivers. As for the southern steps, they form an uninterrupted chain along another beaten track, the way of the Uto-Aztec wandering—California-Arkansas-Mexico.
In South America the same element becomes visible in Peru and Araucania. It is interesting to note that the form of the patu onewa prevails toward the north and that of the okewa toward the south; let us note also the identity of type in the territories placed on both sides of the Cordillera de los Andes: the Argentine Nequén and the Chilian Province of Cautin, two areas connected by a corridor, whose ethnological content defines them as two communicating vessels.
Thus, the facts are connected by a natural logic that links them and throws light upon them all; and I am quite ready with profound admiration for those ethnologists who, with the preconceived idea of denying the migration of cultures from the Pacific to America, will be obliged to display much ingenuity in refuting, or cloaking with smoky clouds, the simple nature of the facts I have stated.
I beg of the reader not to forget that this paper contains only the American discoveries of the mere family stricto sensu, and no other. We must likewise consider in separate chapters.
(a) The derivatives proper to the New World, and especially the two foci of Nootka Sound and Araucanía, so plentiful with local variations.
(b) The quadrangular ceremonial axes which are toki tikitiki in Mangaia.
(c) The acclimatization in America of the whole Oceanic system of words, customs, and hierarchies connected with the word toki.
"

American and Polynesian stone clubs
Sickle-shaped stone clubs, Polynesia and Limay, Patagonia. From Imbelloni J. (1930), Fig. 17

Alternative Explanations


Imbelloni mentions two of them: convergent creative styles in different cultures or misplaced labels on museum collection artifacts. There are more. See, for instance, Ivory, C. S. (1985). Northwest Coast Uses of Polynesian Art. American Indian Culture and Research Journal , 9(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.17953 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2xk7z6b2).


Ivory argues that these artifacts in North America date from the late 18th century and are not older than 1778. During this period the natives living along the Pacific Northwest in the US and Canada (British Columbia, California, Oregon and Washington) were exposed to European goods and also to objects coming from Polynesia "especially those, such as the Tahitian gorget or the Marquesan club, which would enhance their status or prestige, or those like the Samoan club, which would be practical substitutes for implements in use in the culture. In both cases, the Native Americans sought not to change their culture, but to expand or enhance it through exotic, innovative or unusual objects. That these objects were Polynesian is not as important as the fact that they were both differentfrom and adaptable to Northwest Coast life."


Ivory also notes a pre-European⁄American contact through "the wreckage of Japanese vessels drifted on prevailing currents to the Northwest Coast some even with surviving crew members."


Imbelloni in his description of the Limay artifact pictured further up (See: Imbelloni, J. (1929). Un arma de Oceanía en el Neuquén. Reconstrucción y tipología del hacha del río Limay. Humanidades (La Plata, 1921) 20, 293-316. https://www.memoria.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/art_revistas/pr.2174/pr.2174.pdf), clearly states that he agrees with Juan Ambrossetti's 1908 publication about this same artifact, stating that "these American ceremonial weapons form part of the Polynesian culture."


The "Toki"


Imbelloni also noticed that the word "Toki" was used in Polynesia and among the Chilean Mapuche people to designate ceremonial axes or adzes. He wrote a paper about this (Imbelloni, "TÓKI" La primera cadena isoglosemática establecida entre las islas del Océano Pacífico y el Continente Americano, Revista de la Sociedad de Amigos de la Arqueología, 1931. V, 129-149):


"The phoneme toki extends unaltered from the eastern limit of Melanesia, through all the island groups of the Pacific, to the maritime territories of the two Americas, with a wide area of penetration into the interior of the northern continent, as well as the southern one, where the diffusion has followed the dual East and South direction, to the southern lands...
A more or less valuable part of the cultural heritage of the Native Americans is directly dependent on the migrations that the Pacific Islanders made to the west coast of America, fanning out from their last garlands of land, Hawaii in the North and the Marquesas, Paumotu, Rapa Nui in the South...
"


Further reading


Juan B. Ambrosetti, Clava lítica, de tipo peruano, del territorio del Neuquen, en Anales del Museo Nacional de Buenos Aires, tomo XVII (1908), p.229-231.
José Miguel Ramírez Aliag, Contactos transpacíficos: un acercamiento al problema de los supuestos rasgos polinésicos en la cultura mapuche. ISSN 0716-0887, CLAVA 5 1992, Museo Sociedad Fonck, Viña del Mar - Chile



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025 by Austin Whittall © 

Friday, July 4, 2014

NRY haplogroup C, part 2. Eurasia and Homo erectus


Y chromosome Haplogroup C is perhaps the oldest and therefore earliest indicator of the presence of modern human males in Eastern Asia. It is found at a relatively low frequencies across most of Asia, reaching its highest frequencies in North Eastern Asia (Mongolia, Siberia); it declines in Japan, Korea, China, India, Southern Asia, but risies in Eastern Indonesia, Polynesia and Australia. It is absent in Africa, found at moderate frequencies in North America and very low frequencies in Europe and South America. [1] (see map below)


As we will see below, it has distinct geographically-specific haplotypes of which C3 is the most widespread one spanning Asia and America.


C haplogroup global map
Map showing global distribution of C haplogroup, frequencies and official dispersion routes. Adapted from [2]

This extended range and low frequency coverage underlying more recent Eurasian haplogroups clearly indicate that it arose very early in Asia, among first humans that left Africa, during their trek across Western Asia and before they reached Eastern Asia.


In today's post I will summarize its regional haplotypes and frequencies and, close the post with a discussion on their origin and dispersal. I will go over the data and the "orthodox" point of view and later will suggest some non-orthodox ideas regarding C hg. and its origin. To skip the region by region information click here to go to the analysis part of this post.


A Regional Analysis of NRY Haplogroup C


We will detail the C haplogroup's haplotypes and their frequencies of in the following regions:
Australia, Melanesia, Polynesia and Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Indian subcontinent, China, Japan, Korea, Northwest Asia and Siberia, Persian Gulf, Europe, North America, (South America was discussed in a previous post.


C haplogroup across Southeastern Asia, Australia and Polynesia


To get your bearings in our regional analysis, the following map will come in handy. It shows the frequencies of the different C haplotypes in East and Southeast Asia, PNG, N. Zealand, Polynesia and Australia:


C haplogroup in Asia, map
Y chromosome C haplogroup, Range and frequencies in Asia, Australia and Polynesia. Adapted by A. Whittall from [3]

The map clearly shows how hg. C is present in the region at noticeably differing frequencies and with very distinct haplotypes in the each of the geographic locations:


  • C3 (M-217). North Asia (Mongolia, Korea, China) and the Americas
  • C1 (M-8). Only found in Japan and Ryukyu
  • C*. In South China and S.E. Asia, but this is a Paragroup and may conceal yet unknown haplotypes.
  • C2 (M-38). From East Indonesia and across Melanesia, Polynesia and New Zealand, but with two distinct haplotypes in the West and the East of this vast region.
  • C4 (M-347). Unique to Australia
  • C5 (M-356). Not shown in the map, but unique to India, Nepal and Pakistan

As you can see, there is a clearly geographic distribution of haplotypes with little or no overlap.


The following table gives some numerical data for the whole of Asia (including Greater India, not shown in the map above and North America):


Table C haplogroup data
Table with C haplogroup frequencies Asia and America. Adapted from [4]

This of course mirrors what we have mentioned above: discrete regional distributions and an overlaid C* paragroup at low frequencies (highest in South East Asia) which will have to be resolved into other new haplotypes once their markers have been identified.


Below we will review each region in detail and then try to reach some conclusions.


The Australian Aboriginals - C4


Austrailian natives have their own unique haplogroup, C4, defined by SNP M347; C4 has two haplotypes: C4a (with STR DYS390 deleted) and C4b with M210.



This is the original, ancient haplogroup that arrived in Australia during its peopling wave, which took place some 50 kya and was followed by "considerable isolation after the initial arrival" [4].


The original migrants came from the southern tip of mainland Asia: "Sunda" (encompassing the main Indonesian islands and Malaysia). The "Wallace Line", a strip of sea with many minor islands forming "Wallacea" (Sulawesi, Lombok, Sumbawa, Flores, Sumba, Timor, Halmahera, Buru, etc.) separated it from the other landmass of "Sahul", which was formed by Australia and Near Oceania -New Guinea (NG) and Melanesian Island. The migrants trekked across this now submerged land (sea levels rose after deglaciation c. 9 kya) and rafted across the Wallace Line, reaching Australia.


Interestingly, the other C haplogroups and paragroup C* did not enter Australia (one study detected some C* in Arnhem which may reflect modern arrivals), or if they did, disappeared without a trace.


Despite my hopes that Homo erectus admixed with this Paleolithic migratory wave that peopled Australia and New Guinea (NG), the mainstream science does not support this notion: ""local H. erectus or archaic Homo sapiens populations did not contribute to the modern aboriginal Australian gene pool" [4].


One thing that surprised me is that the time it took the human groups to move across Sahul and Sunda was so long in comparison to what orthodoxy attributes to the peopling of America event:

  • Australia. "...the migration from southwestern Asia to Australia would have taken <5,200 years ... This migration speed is in the same order of magnitude as estimated for other prehistoric continental settlements" [4]
  • Americas. " the Paleo-Indian spread along the entire longitude of the American double continent might have taken even <2000 yr." [5]

Note that to cross America from Alaska to Cape Horn is about twice the distance compared to the trek from Malaysia to Tasmania yet we must believe that they did it in less than half the time. Did the Paleoindians move four times faster than the Australian Aboriginals' ancestors? Something is not quite right with these numbers. Most likely the American peopling event is far too short, but since orthodox science has to have people in Monte Verde, Chile c. 13 kya and they supposedly entered the New World 15 kya., the absurdly short 2 kya figure appears... Another example of fiddling with the dates to make them fit with preconceptions.


C2: Melanesia, Polynesia and New Guinea (NG)


Melanesia and New Guinea (NG) were settled in the same wave that peopled Australia over 42 kya [6], but later waves of humans reached this area and account for over half the Y chromosome haplogroups in the Region. Nevertheless, haplogroup C is widespread and found at a ㅏ% frequency in Indonesia, indicating its ancient origin [3]. It is found with different haplotypes:


  • C* [C-RPS4Y*(xM38, M217, DYS390.1del]. This paragroup is the oldest (50 kya) lineage in Sunda and Sahul [6]. It is very rare in Melanesia and only appears in some coastal NG samples.
    It is "notably absent from the NG Highlands and Taiwan and the Philippines" [6], reaching only 3.4% in the latter (Taiwan and Philippines are mentioned because they are apparently the ancestral home of many Melanesians, but seemingly not the C* carriers). [8]
  • C2.
    • C2-M38*(xM208). It is almost absent west of the Wallace Line, its highest frequencies are found in East Indonesia, Moluccas Nusa Tenggara (51 - 44%) [9], coastal NG and Cook Islands.
      It is the most common haplogroup in Northwestern NG (34.6%) and the second most frequent haplogroup in New Guinea (avg. 12.8%). Since its STR diversity his highest in NWNG (Bird's Head region) it very likely originated there (or in Wallacea as the oldest hg. (42 - 61 kya) [6] , expanding east across Melanesia and NG into Polynesia (although rarely observed there); and also West, into Eastern Indonesia. [10][8]
    • C2b-M208. Found at high frequencies in the West Papua highlands and among Cook Islanders, it is old: mean age 46.2 ky [6] but had a much more recent expansion into Polynesia (5 - 2.2 kya) [8], where it is found at high frequencies (34%) and also among the New Zealand Maori (77%). [11] [10]
      Is a low frequency hg. in Northwest NG (2.5%) and NG (avg. 6.8%). [10]

A variety (originally named C6) with the P55 marker was reported [6] but is now considered as a Private SNP due to lack of positive testers [2] or a familial group of related males [12] so the C6 haplotype has been dropped and reassigned to European lineages. Three other haplotypes are absent in the region : C5, C3 and the Australian Aboriginal C4 [6].


Rest of Indonesia


  • C*. Has a patchy distribution across the Asian region, it is found at high frequencies in East Indonesia (29.2% in Flores and 22.8% in Lembata) and, as mentioned above, is absent in Melanesia and Polynesia. Further north it appears in China (Yao, 20%). [3]
  • C2-M38*, is absent in Western Indonesia but grows to an average of 33.5% in Eastern Indonesia (from 11% in Sulawesi to 57% in Sumba); it is found at very low frequencies in Polynesia and Melanesia. [3]

The Indian Subcontinent and the C5 clade


Haplogroup C was detected in India and had been initially classified as C* until Sengupta S. et al., (2006) [14] analysed the paragroup and identified a new haplotype, C5-M356. Almost 85% of the Indian C* individuals were assigned to the new subclade. Which is only found in the Indian subcontinent. [14]


Ancient and autochthonous


C5 is a pan-Indian lineage, absent in the rest of the world yet found at very low frequencies in India (1.4%) where it is widely distributed: It "occurs in all linguistic groups and in both tribes and castes. It also occurs in one Dravidian Brahui in Pakistan" [14]. For this reason, it "is an ancient hg... most plausibly arose in situ within the boundaries of present-day India" [14].


Unsurprisingly, The C3-M217 hg. frequent in Eastern and Central Asia has not been detected in India (it did appear in Pakistan though) [14], neither have C2 or C4.


The data regarding C hg. in India and Pakistan is the following [14] (notice the very low frequencies):


  • India
    • C*-M216 (RPS4Y) 0.27%
    • C5-M356 1.51%
  • Pakistan
    • C3-M217 6.82%
    • C5-M356 0.57%

Tamils of Southern India


The Tamil people inhabit southern India and northern Sri Lanka. A study [15] that sampled tribes, some of which are still foragers, found that haplogroup C was present in 19 out of the 31 groups sampled at relatively high frequency of 4.4% (avg). 90% of them were C5 and the remaining 10% were C*. C hg exhibited a high variance (0.80) suggesting a local origin for its prevailing haplotype.


China

C haplogroup is unevenly spread across China, it is scarce along the eastern coast and more frequent in the North, South and West. The C* paragroup is common in the South and East, and C3 in the North and West.


  • Southeast. (Yao, 20% - C*). [3]
  • Northeast. Heilongjiang (Manchu, 44.0%) and Hezhe 6.7%, Inner Mongolia (Mongolian, 52.2%; Oroqen, 61.3%), Outer Mongolia (52.8%) [2]
  • Northwest. Xinjiang (Hazak, 75.5%) [2]
  • Center. Miao 1.7%, Hui 6.7%, Tujia 8.2% (C-RPS4Y*), Han 6% (C-M217), Tujia 18,3% (C-M217)[7] [2]
  • South. C*: Mulau 9.1% and Shui 6.9% [2]

Neolithic archaeological remains 6.5 - 2.7 kya from West Liao River valley in Northeast China carried the C3e - P53.1 haplotype. These people are believed to have originated in the northern China steppe, a region where extant populations still carry C3e at a 23.8% frequency. [[17]]


Japan and its C1


C haplogroup is found in Japan at low frequencies, and it has a local haplotype, C1 exclusive to Japan. The values are: [18]

  • C1 - M105, the local haplotype, 1.5%
  • C3 - M217, originated in the mainland, 2.2%

Korea - C3*


The prevalent C haplogroup in Korea is C. The values differ according to the source: [20] indicated a 12.6% frequency of C-RPS4Y (that is C*, very likely C3*). Another [7] indicated a 16.2% frequency of C3* (xC3c) and yet another [14] 9.6% of C3*.


C3* is also found in neighboring Manchuria at moderate frequencies: higher than in Southeast Asia yet lower than Northeast Asia suggesting an expansion from Mongolia or Siberia into Korea.


Siberia and Northwest Asia


The North Asian haplotypes are (always from the orthodox point of view) relatively recent: C3 as a whole (4.1 to 14.9 ky), and its subclusters are even younger still: C3c (1.6 to 5.9 ky) and C3d (0.5 to 2.0 ky). Notice how wide spread these dates are, which shows the uncertainty originated by the mutation rates used in the calculations. [14]


These are the C lineages found in Northern Asia:

  • C3c. (M-48) Prevails among Manchurians, Evens, Kalmyks and Evenks. All of which are Mongolic-Tungusic peoples. [19]
  • C3d. Is frequent among Mongol speaking peoples: Mongols, Khamnigans and Buryats.
  • C3*. Paragroup with high frequencies (+30%) among Koryaks and Mongols it is also found in North America.

Trivia: history


There is a Genghis Khan "star cluster" (part of paragroup C3*) which is said to have originated 1 kya ago in Mongolia and spread by the Khan's relatives due to their "social status" (a neat sinophylic way of saying that the Mongol hordes raped their way across Eurasia). It now ranges from 35% among Mongols to between 3 and 8% among Buryats, Kazaks, Tuvinians, Shors and Altaians. It is between 0.27 to 2.8 ky old, so it may be related to Genghis Khan and his male relatives. [14][19] Nevertheless, the Kereys tribe in Kazakhstan have the highest frequency (76.5%) of this C3* star cluster and it is unlikely that it is due to Genghis Khan's clan. [19] So maybe these people are the original source of it.


Persian Gulf region


This in Southwestern Asia, the region where haplogroup C first appeared in Asia after leaving Africa. It is found at very low frequencies:


Iran [21]:

  • C*. 0.1%. Only appears among the Zoroasterians of Yazd province (2.9%).
  • C3. 0.4%, is found in 4 out of 20 ethnic groups, from 0.8% (Bandari) to 2.9% (Zoroasterian).
  • C5. 0.5%, appears in 3 groups, From 1.5% (Bandari) to 2.8% (Mazandarani). This is the Indian clade, did it back-migrate into Iran recently or is this a relict?

No apparent pattern, just a patchy distribution: C3 and C5 in the north cicum-Caspian area; C3 and C* in central Iran, C3 and C5 by the Persian Gulf. Perhaps the remnants of the ancient dispersal or are they recent movements of people? [21]


Other Gulf Countries: we also have C* (C-M216) at low frequencies in: Oman 3.3%, Saudi Arabia 1,3% and the UAE 1,2%. [21]


European C6


There is a very rare Southern European haplotype within C hg. The nomenclature for this European C-V20 haplotype has changed: it is now named C6 (originally named C7, but since the NG P-55 became a private marker, C6 was reassigned to Europe). It is characterized by markers V20, V7, V86. V182. V184, V219, V222.


Very few samples were known, a recent study [22] found 1 (one) person carrying C6 out of a sample of 1965 individuals! The paper indicates that "Further studies are needed to establish whether C7 [they use the old notation] chromosomes are the relics of an ancient European gene pool or the signal of a recent geographical spread from Asia.". If the latter, the C6 hg. has yet to be identified in Asia; I am inclined towards an ancient origin in Europe.


Archaic La Braña C6 individual


C6 has been identified in the 7,000 year old remains of a Mesolithic man, discovred at the La Braña site in Spain, supporting its ancient origin. However, with the usual caution of a scientific paper, the authors indicate that: (bold mine):


"... La Braña 1 sample belongs to either haplogroup C or F. When mutations defining those haplogroups were checked, only ancestral alleles were found in the haplogroup F-defining mutations, whereas seven C-defining mutations (M130, M216, P255, P260, V183, V199 and V232) showed only derived alleles. Thus, La Braña 1 most likely belonged to haplogroup C [...] The fact that we found ancestral alleles in mutations defining C1, C2, C3 and C4 (Table S9), together with their actual phylogeographic distribution restricted to Asia, Oceania and the Americas suggests that our individual does not belong to any of these branches. Rather, a new branch within haplogroup C (C6, originally named C7) has recently been identified in several men from Southern Europe, suggesting this could be an ancient European clade. Importantly, mutation V20 showed one read with the derived allele (A), which points to C6 as the most probable sub-clade for La Braña 1 sample. It could also be possible that this G to A mutation is a result of DNA damage. Other less likely haplogroup affiliations are C* and C5 (no read covered SNP M356), both found mainly in present-day India." [23]


North American C3b


Haplogroup C is present in North America at moderate frequencies in a unique haplotype found only in that part of the New World: C3b (P39). The details of the frequencies among the native people: [24]


Tanana (Alaska): 41.7%, Cheyenne: 15.9%, Sioux: 11,4%, Apache: 14.6%, Navajo: 1.3%. It was not detected among any other population across North or Central America.


See my previous post on C3* in South American natives.


Analysis and Discussion


Above I pointed out that Y chromosome hg C is absent in Africa; this means it originated outside of Africa. Conventional mainstream science will therefore place this origin after the OoA (Out of Africa) migration of Modern Homo sapiens some 60 kya.


1. Origin


The accepted theory is that Haplogroup C originated with the split from the hypothetical Haplogroup CF -or CF(xDE). Its marker is SNP P143, which is ancestral to F and C hgs. This split took place somewhere in Southwestern Asia, perhaps on the shores of the Persian Gulf 60 kya.


2. Dispersal across Asia


Men carrying hg. C are believed to have taken an eastern "coastal" route along the coast of the Arabian Sea, reaching the mouth of the Indus River. I see no objections to the possibility that they also advanced inland along the main rivers of this area, but the official dispersal theory sticks to a coastal route (perhaps to tie in the timing of the OoA event and the peopling of Australia, a quick march along the coasts of Asia is required).


2.a. India


From the Indus, C entered the Indian subcontinent, we can suppose that the typically Indian C5 arose later, from those who stayed behind in India, because it is unlikely that C mutated and only those with the C5 marker stayed in India and all the rest, with the non-mutated version kept on moving. Another option is that the mutations arose later from some other region and back- ispersed into India, where it is now prevalent. But this needs us to explain why it became lost in its point of origin.


2.b. Into Austronesia


These migrants pushed on south towards Cape Comorin and Sri Lanka, and then north along the Bay of Bengal and across modern Bangladesh, Myanmar and down into Malaysia, till they reached the edge of the emerged continental shelf in Indonesia: (during the Ice ages sea level was lower so all East Indonesian islands were joined into the Sunda landmass). They boated across the Wallace Line, a stretch of deep seas that blocked access of placental mammals southwards into Australia and New Guinea (NG) -as well as marsupial migrations towards the north. They finally reached Sahul the joined continent of NG and Australia.


Map peopling of Sahul
Peopling of Sahul and Southeast Asia. Adapted from [25]

The map above shows the current continental area and the emerged continental shelves (in grey), the red arrow shows the migration into Sahul.


It was during these moves that C2 appeared in Wallacea (Western Indonesia and NG) and stayed there while C4 appeared in Australia and also stayed there... why? what kept them from expanding and overlapping in a unified landmass?


The answer: Culture and Topography. Swamps, jungle, valleys and mountain ranges, deserts, rugged shores have kept NG people physically isolated. Tribal societies with their cultural imprint also kept them separated. Current language diversity is a clear indicator of isolation in NG. It is likely that these factors plus population bottlenecks may have kept PNG and Australian natives isolated after the initial single-wave peopling event allowing them to develop their own specific haplotype mutations without any furhter admixture. (Further reading on the peopling of Sahul, McEvoy et al., 2010).


Only much later did another migratory spasm take C2 across the vast Pacific Ocean to people Polynesia and New Zealand but this was a new C2 subclade (C-M208).


2.c. Northwards


We have not considered that these people may have crossed India via the Narmada (by this river, remains of H. erectus were unearthed) and Ganges Rivers or advanced upstream and inland along the Indus, Sutlej, Brahmaputra, Irrawaddy or Saleween rivers, reaching Tibet and Central China or that they may have gone across the continent from Dhaka (Bangladesh) to Hanoi (Vietnam) along the Tropic of Cancer (yellow arrow in map above) and from there advanced inland too (Mekong and Pearl rivers).


No, we have supposed that they took the long tortuous coastal route proposed by orthodoxy, which, in an Ice Age World is shown above (red arrow along Sunda and Blue one northwards towards S.E. Asia). Don't ask me why we must stick to the coast.


I bet that if populations in the interior, in North of Myanmar, Thailand, Yunnan and Laos are sampled, C* and maybe C5 will appear at low frequencies.. maybe this is the homeland of C* from which all others radiated and C5 back-migrated into India.


The following map shows all these possible routes (actually these make more sense than the coastal route for the North Asian populations):


map with C haplogroup dispersal across Asia
Entry and dispersal routes of C haplogroup in Asia. Copyright © 2014 by Austin Whittall. Data from [13]

The Green route is the official route. In blue, my suggested change, following the rivers (this explains why it is not so frequent along the East China Sea), a radically different route but also feasible is the Red route, across the Indus, Tian Shan, Altai and Southern Siberia into Manchuria.


I will cite a very interesting paper by Derevianko and Shunkov (2011) [27] which deals with the OoA theory it is worth reading it:


"Early human migration was a slow process, not a relay race. It is hard to conceive why the migrants should have moved directly to the east along the narrow coastal line rather than exploring the banks of the rivers which flow into the ocean and thus moving far to the north, where favorable ecological niches were available." [27]


Having said this, we will assume that, as per Zhong et al., [19] they moved in a "single coastal northward expansion route... in China about 32 to 42 thousand years ago."


2.d. China


They reached Southern China, and the paragroup C* formed here some 36 kya; the migrants continued along the coast (once again we must explain why C* stayed behind and the others moved on), part entered Taiwan (and from there Japan), the others and kept on towards North China leaving barely a trace in the coastal areas of Eastern China (now isn't that strange?).


In North China (Liaoning, Heilongjiang) the C3 haplotype appeared (33 to 20 kya) and dispersed widely: Eastwards, from Manchuria into Korea and Japan. West into Mongolia and South-Central Siberia, Western China, Altai, etc. (20 to 8 kya), and finally as the ices receeded at the end of the last Ice Age, (15 kya) Northwards into Northeast into Eastern Siberia, Beringia and... finally, America.


Another group entered Japan via Ryuku from Taiwan and originated the local C1 haplotype there.


And this is the end of the Orthodox dispersal version.


3. Sub-haplogroups


We have seen above that C hg. has various discrete subhaplogroups (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6 plus a paragroup C*) each with a specific geographical distribution. Common sense indicates that they "have undergone long-time isolation" [2]. But little is said about how they originated without spreading into other regions.


Below I adapted Fig. 2, from Redd A., et al., (2002) [26]; at that time the C5 haplotype from India was not known and the C4 among Australians was not shown in the tree, so I added the C4 dotted line around the yellow Aboriginal dots; I also wrote C5? around the green Indian dots within C* paragroup (top part). C3 in this figure does not include Native Americans and surely contains a lot of paragroup C3*. So I included on the right hand side, the C3* data for Asia and America from Roewer et al., (2013) [19], correlating the regions to the color code of Redd et al. (I added the South American natives in pink), but I maintained the individual data dots with their original colour (key is on upper right corner).


Also see C3* phylogenetic tree in my previous post.


C haplogroup tree
C haplogroup unrooted tree. Adapted from [26] and [19]

The tree is quite revealing as it shows a central core of C* from which the other branches appear. Actually, a closer look at the tree reveals that this central C* as per Redd et al., is Indian, and it is linked to the probable root in the form of the branch joining it with haplogroup B (on the left).


The most central branches of the tree are the Australian C4 (left-center) tightly gathered in the middle, and Indian C5 (center and top-center) with the other branches located further apart:

  • C2. (bottom left). Is diverse as can be judged from its spread branches, and it arises from C4
  • C1. (upper left). Is quite diverse and arises from C*
  • C3. (upper right). Is diverse and is also born from C*
  • C*. (middle and bottom center). Is diverse. The main branch on the bottom is mainly South East Asian, but there are also some Indian in it. It is very spread and closely linked to the root of C2 and C4, which suggests that this South Asian C* and the Austronesian lineages C2 and C4 are the very old lines of the C hg. peopling wave.

Comments:


The bottom clusters are basically a widely divergent C2 sprouting from the Australian C4, and C* in S.E. Asia


The top clusters are C1, C5 and C3 all sprouting from the archaich core.


Redd's original root from Hg. B, anchors in Indian C* (green dots). I have no way of telling apart the C5 and the C* of (See data above: Indian origin), my guess is that the upper cluster is genuine C5 while the green dots in the central part of the tree and the bottom are actually C*.


The core from which C1, C5, C3, C* and C4 sprout from are green Indian subcontinent dots... surely C* from India. Only C2 is clearly rooted in one line of C4


1. Origins


C2. Arose in Wallacea from an ancestral lineage of C (which must be the original C M-130 variety) carried by the group that would move into Australia and Melanesia. Part of them moved on into Australia forming C4, the other proto-C people remained in Wallacea and formed derived clades: paragroup C-M38* and haplogroup C-M208, which remained in this territory located East of the Wallace Line and much later moved into Polynesia. Topography, tribal structure and bottlenecks kept C2 and C4 apart.


C4. See above, the "ancestral C stock" from Wallacea entered Australia and remained there in isolation.


Of course the ancestra C line is ancestral to current C* in S. E. Asia, and the C4, C5, C1 and C3 lines. C* is still found in India and other parts of S.E. Asia, it is represented by the green dots in the central part of the image. These will prove to be a new haplotype (H7?) when their marker is found. This is the ancestral lineage, from which all others sprout, it is Indian.


This may help explain some of the questions we posed during the haplotype analysis:


C5 originated from this ancestral C in India, the ancestral C people are the original peopling wave, they moved north and became C3 and C1, they moved south and became C4 in Australia and C* in S.E. Asia, a yet to be discriminated haplogroup (H8?) It


The European C6 is not placed in the tree but it is surely a group that split early in Asia and marched West into Europe.


Clearly further analysis is necessary to breakdown C* into newer sub-clades.


C* in Indonesia has a very high STR variance: this means that it has had plenty of time to mutate; it is very old. In Indonesia it is more frequent in the East, because a "continual eastward migration of the initial settlers (i.e., settlements were not permanently established in western Indonesia) or later waves of (partial) replacement." overlaid it. [3] This corroborates is antiquity.


As we can see in the Table of C haplotype distribution, above, haplotype C3 is concentrated in Northern Asia and has a decreasing cline towards the south (absent in Australia, NG and Polynesia) and west, it is found in North America at relatively high frequencies (C3b - P39, unique to the New World) and in South America in a patchy C3* distribution (see my previous post on C3* in South America.


A sinophile paper [19] proposes that this cline is due to its Chinese origin some 42 to 32 kya, and a coastal north route of expansion, it adds that the highest STR diversity for C3 is found in Southeast Asia. This, in my opinion corrobrates its origin from the ancestral C group, but not in China; it appeared in a region that is central to the other Haplotypes:


The region currently occupied by Myanmar, North Thailand, East India and Yunnan in China.


From there it irradiated and became the current regional haplotypes.


Some Crazy ideas


Having given the official story and facts, allow me to let my imagination fly and suggest an alternative scenario based on these same facts.


The area where C hg. is found with a highest diversity in Asia is precisely the area where Homo erectus lived for over 1.5 million years: Southern and Eastern Asia (from China and Korea in the North, to India and Indonesia in the south).


Haplogroup C's coastal route is precisely the one supposedly taken by our distant H. erectus ancestor.


The OoA theory with H. sapiens originating in Africa and peopling the world, totally replacing previous extant populations (if they existed), is so widely accepted that it dealt a death blow to the multiregional theory (H. sapiens evolved in different regions from a common archaich ancestor). But recent genetic discoveries of admixture with Neanderthals, Denisovans and mysterious "X" hominins as well as some remains in China with a mosaic of archaic and modern features have put fresh wind in the sails of the Multiregional theory.


For instance, Derenko and Shunkov (2011) question the OoA theory and support the Multiregional hypothesis in which an "independent formation of anatomically modern humans occurred", this took place in three regions with four subspecies all of which merged into modern humans:


  • East and South East Asia, with Homo sapiens orientalensis
  • Rest of Eurasia, with Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens altaiensis (Denisovans)
  • Africa, with Homo sapiens africanensis

Among other things, they also use the evidence of a distinct post-Middle Paleolithic South East Asian lithic industry that was different to that of Europe and Asia, with an "autochthonous development of the Upper Paleolithic,"[27]


They go a step further and suggest a Homo erectus evolution into modern humans in Asia:


"...population of anatomically modern humans descended from Homo erectus locally. .... progressive biological traits are due to parallel evolution. Both in East Asia and in Africa, anatomically modern humans apparently originated from the same ancestral species – Homo erectus sensu lato. ...The totality of evidence speaks in favor of a progressive in situ evolution of Homo erectus in East Asia over a span of more than one million years. This does not preclude the immigration of small populations from adjacent regions, small-scale gene flow, or admixture." [27]


If this is the case, then the C haplogroup found among South East Asians is in fact the one carried by H. erectus from Africa into Asia and later mutated in situ in Asia.


But this would contradict the accepted notion that our Y chromosomes are exclusively human, and that our ancestors (and their Y chromosomes) split from those of H. erectus long ago. Their genes disappeared with them and therefore do not appear in us.


But a study has already suggested an ancient origin for human Y chromosome: (Mendez et al, 2013) it reports the discovery of a novel Haplogroup named A00, which gave a very old age: "338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237-581 kya). Remarkably, this exceeds current estimates of the mtDNA TMRCA, as well as those of the age of the oldest anatomically modern human fossils..." [16]. In other words this "human" Y chromosome haplogroup is older than humans!


Which of course has been criticised by OoA proponents as using incorrect mutation rates that pushed the dates too far into the past.


I wonder, (read my previous posts criticising the mutation rate calculations) if actually the mutation rates for this (and All other) haplogroups is not underestimated by a factor of three or four, which would mean that the dates could be 711 - 2,381 ky, more than enough to accomodate H. erectus in the picture.


This means that Y chromosomes mutate far slower than currently accepted. And that when we look at the current distribution of NRY hgs. we are seeing the ancient migrations of pre-sapiens men across the globe.


Current C hg. distribution reflects the migration of Homo erectus out of Africa 1.8 Mya. A band of a few hundreds of people walking into Asia with the CF haplogroup, splitting in the Persian Gulf by acquiring the M130 marker, and thus forming C haplogroup. They moved across South Asia keeping their C hg. identity during their long trek (note that since mutation rates are slower than accepted, no mutations arose during this period).


Finally reaching the Homeland from which it differentiated into its current haplogroups, in the North of S. E. Asia. From there they spread out. Some moved into NG, Australia mutating (slowly) into C2 and C4. Others went back into India and mutated to C5. The core in S.E. Asia evolved into C* while others went north forming C1 and C3.


A group did not take the Eastern route and went West into Europe forming C6 there. Maybe it will be sequenced someday from the bones at Sima de los Huesos...


Erectus entered America long ago, and the patchy C3* distribution in South America is what remains of a once widespread coverage of H. erectus in the New World, and not a recent transpacific junk with Jomons from Japan shipwrecked on the shores of Ecuador.


Of course this could be proved or rejected if DNA could be sampled and sequenced from H. erectus remains (maybe impossible due to DNA decay). Maybe in the future it could be done, who knows?



Sources


[1] Chuan-Chao Wang and Hui Li, (2013). Inferring human history in East Asia from Y chromosomes. Investigative Genetics 2013, 4:11 doi:10.1186/2041-2223-4-11
[2] Hua Zhong et al., (2010). Global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup C reveals the prehistoric migration routes of African exodus and early settlement in East Asia. Journal of Human Genetics doi: 10.1038/jhg.2010.40
[3] Tatiana M. Karafet et al., (2010). Major East–West Division Underlies Y Chromosome Stratification across Indonesia. Mol Biol Evol (2010) 27 (8): 1833-1844. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msq063 First published online: March 5, 2010
[4] Georgi Hudjashov et al., (2007). Revealing the prehistoric settlement of Australia by Y chromosome and mtDNA analysis. vol. 104 no. 21, 8726–8730, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702928104
[5] Martin Bodner, Ugo A. Perego et. al., (2012). Rapid coastal spread of First Americans: Novel insights from South America's Southern Cone mitochondrial genomes. Genome Res. May 2012; 22(5): 811–820. doi: 10.1101/gr.131722.111
[6] Laura Scheinfeldt, (2006). Unexpected NRY Chromosome Variation in Northern Island Melanesia. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23(8):1628–1641. 2006. doi:10.1093/molbev/msl028
[7] Yali Xue, et al., (2006). Male demography in East Asia: a north-south contrast in human population expansion times Genetics 172:4 (April 2006): pages 2431-2439.
[8] Stephen Oppenheimer, (2006). The 'Austronesian' story and farming-language dispersals: Caveats on timing and Independence in Proxy Lines of Evidence from the Indo-European Model, from "Uncovering Southeast Asia's Past: Selected Papers from the 10th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists : the British Museum, London, 14th-17th September 2004" European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists. NUS Press, Jan 1, 2006
[9] Kayser M, Underhill P, et al., (2003). Reduced Y-chromosome, but not mitochondrial DNA, diversity in human populations from West New Guinea. Am. J Hum Genet 72:281–302
[10] Stefano Mona et al., (2007). Patterns of Y-Chromosome Diversity Intersect with the Trans-New Guinea Hypothesis. Mol Biol Evol (2007) 24 (11): 2546-2555. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm187 First published online: September 10, 2007
[11] Underhill PA, Cavalli-Sforza LL., et al., (2001). The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations. Ann Hum Genet 65:43–62
[12] Y-DNA Haplogroup C and its Subclades - 2014. International Society of Genetic Genealogy
[13] Asian Ancestry based on Studies of Y-DNA Variation: Part 1 Early origins – roots from Africa and emergence in East Asia. Genebase Tutorials. http://www.genebase.com/learning/article/21
[14] Sanghamitra Sengupta., et al., (2006). Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists. Am J Hum Genet. Feb 2006; 78(2): 202–221 Dec 16, 2005. doi: 10.1086/499411
[15] Ganesh Prasad Arun Kumar et al., (2012) Population Differentiation of Southern Indian Male Lineages Correlates with Agricultural Expansions Predating the Caste System. PLoS ONE 2012. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050269
[16] Mendez et al., (2013). An African American paternal lineage adds an extremely ancient root to the human Y chromosome phylogenetic tree. Am J Hum Genet. 2013 Apr 4;92(4):637.
[17] Yinqiu Cui et al., (2013). Y Chromosome analysis of prehistoric human populations in the West Liao River Valley, Northeast China. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:216
[18] Nonaka, I., Minaguchi, K. and Takezaki, N., (2007). Y-chromosomal Binary Haplogroups in the Japanese Population and their Relationship to 16 Y-STR Polymorphisms. Annals of Human Genetics, 71: 480–495. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.2006.00343.x
[19] Roewer L., et al., (2013). Continent-Wide Decoupling of Y-Chromosomal Genetic Variation from Language and Geography in Native South Americans. PLoS Genet 9(4): e1003460. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003460
[20] Soon Hee Kim, Myun Soo Han, Wook Kim, and Won Kim, (2010). Y chromosome homogeneity in the Korean population. International Journal of Legal Medicine 124:6 (November 2010): pages 653-657.
[21] Grugni, V. et al., (2012). Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East: New Clues from the Y-Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians. PLoS ONE 7(7): e41252. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041252
[22] Scozzari R, Massaia A, D’Atanasio E, Myres NM, Perego UA, et al. (2012) Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades in the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree. PLoS ONE 7(11): e49170. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049170
[23] Iñ,igo Olade, et al., (2014). Derived immune and ancestral pigmentation alleles in a 7,000-year-old Mesolithic European, Nature (2014) doi:10.1038/nature12960
[24] Stephen Zegura, Tatiana M. Karafet et al., (2004). High-Resolution SNPs and Microsatellite Haplotypes Point to a Single, Recent Entry of Native American Y Chromosomes into the Americas. Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol 21(1), pp 164-75
[25] Moss, S. J. & Wilson, E. J. 1999. Biogeographic implications of the Tertiary palaeogeographic evolution of Sulawesi and Borneo. In Hall, R. & Holloway, J. D. (eds) Biogeography and Geological Evolution of SE Asia. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 133-155. [26] Redd, Alan J., et al., (2002). Gene Flow from the Indian Subcontinent to Australia: Evidence from the Y Chromosome. Current Biology, Vol. 12, Issue 8, 16 April 2002, Pages 673–677. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(02)00789-3
[27] A.P. Derevianko and M.V. Shunkov, (2011) Anthropogenesis and colonization of Eurasia by Archaic Populatoins. Formation of anatomically Modern Human. From Proceedings of the International Symposium “Characteristic Features of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Eurasia: Development of Culture and Evolution of Homo Genus” (July 4–10, 2011, Denisova Cave, Altai). Edited by A.P. Derevianko, M.V. Shunkov. pp 50 - 74.



Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2014 by Austin Whittall © 
Hits since Sept. 2009:
Copyright © 2009-2025 by Austin Victor Whittall.
Todos los derechos reservados por Austin Whittall para esta edición en idioma español y / o inglés. No se permite la reproducción parcial o total, el almacenamiento, el alquiler, la transmisión o la transformación de este libro, en cualquier forma o por cualquier medio, sea electrónico o mecánico, mediante fotocopias, digitalización u otros métodos, sin el permiso previo y escrito del autor, excepto por un periodista, quien puede tomar cortos pasajes para ser usados en un comentario sobre esta obra para ser publicado en una revista o periódico. Su infracción está penada por las leyes 11.723 y 25.446.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other - except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without prior written permission from the author, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review.

Please read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy before accessing this blog.

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

Patagonian Monsters - https://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/