Added: Donovon Billingsley - Date: 12.10.2021 22:08 - Views: 45619 - Clicks: 4018
Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. Bacteria, pigs, rats, pots, plants, words, bones, stones, earrings, diseases, and genetic indicators of all varieties are markers and proxies for the complexity of interweaving trails and stories integral to understanding human movement and knowledge assemblage in Southeast Asia and around the world. Understanding human movement and knowledge assemblage is central to comprehending the genetic basis of disease, especially of a cancer like nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The problem is that the markers and trails, taken in isolation, do not all tell the same story.
Human movement and knowledge assemblage are in constant interaction in an adaptive process of co-production with genes, terrain, climate, sea level changes, kinship relations, diet, materials, food and transport technologies, social and cognitive technologies, and knowledge strategies and transmission. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma is the outcome of an adaptive process involving physical, social, and genetic components.
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma NPC is a disease with a complex mix of viral, genetic, and environmental components and is considered enigmatic; however, when understood in all its dimensions, NPC could be a model for all such complex diseases . The etiology and developmental pathways of NPC were opened up by Wee et al.
Wee et al. Following its submergence, the original inhabitants of Sundaland went to sea and spread out into Southeast China and Borneo, eventually creating links with the Austronesian Malayo-Polynesians of Southeast Asia, Inuit of Greenland, and Polynesians of Oceania, and groups in the Mediterranean and East Africa . This paper puts Wee et al. Movement tends to be downplayed or even ignored in many s of the place of humans in the world and the ways to understand it .
Indeed, fixity in space and place has become the foundation of western rationality and epistemology. In this view, movement is equated with wandering, irrationality, and primitiveness, something that needs to be Asian for sex in grand Forster and set in logical, linear order; whereas sedentism is taken to be the touchstone and precondition for civilization and modernity . There is, however, another narrative; there were no revolutions, and humans and their ancestors were members of continuously interacting diaspora around the world.
Furthermore, in this view, the social, technical, and cognitive capacities that enabled such movements were developed not in Europe, but in Africa and in Southeast and Southwest Asia . Here, a series of claims are advanced: 1 movement itself often goes unexamined in s of human change and development; 2 understanding human movement requires the inclusion of a socio-cognitive dimension to the usual genetic, archeological, linguistic complex; 3 the genetic is incomplete without continuous genetic information using haplomic technology  ; 4 there are inevitably differing forms of genetic modeling, such as phylogenetic arborescent on the one hand and reticulate rhizomatic models on the other; 5 the totality of interacting components can be conceived, either as a complex adaptive system in action, or as being unifiable in a grand archeo-genetic synthesis; and 6 these two differing approaches should be held in creative tension with one another.
This article starts by looking at the colonization of the Pacific because of the incidence of NPC amongst Pacific islanders and their genetic links to South China . In theory, Pacific migration ought to be an ideal model of human migration. As Rogers et al. However, Pacific migration has proved to be remarkably complex. Indeed, investigators from many disciplines, including genetics, archeology, linguistics, anthropology, Paleoecology, sociology, history, zoology, botany, history of technology, architecture, mythology, indigenous knowledge, computer simulation, experimental voyaging, and so on, have encountered difficulties in understanding this diaspora.
Pacific migration exemplifies the challenges of working backwards from a given demographic and linguistic state, such as the colonization of the vast expanse of Pacific Ocean islands by Melanesians, Micronesians, and Polynesians and the wide geographical spread of the Austronesian languages. The movement of people out of Southeast Asia has left a plethora of trails, markers, and proxies, which range from bacteria  to rats  and from breadfruit  to canoe de but they do not tell the same story, instead pointing to differing origin points and routes of transmission. Thus, these diverse trails, markers, and proxies do not necessarily form a coherent, unified narrative.
Rather, as Keith Dobney who has followed the genetic trails of pigs kept by Pacific colonizers and who participated in a replica canoe voyage into the remote Pacific, said. Our study shows that this assumption may be too s implistic, and that different elements of the package, including pigs, probably took different routes through Island South East Asia, before being transported into the Pacific. There are four reasons for the difficulties in reconciling these differing route markers. As humans move in a given environment, they are not simply moving through it; they shape and affect it just as the environment shapes them.
This co-evolutionary adaptive process, or co-production, is historical, time-dependent, and, hence, irreversible. In tracing these chains of connection, and in following the trails of languages, bacteria, or rats, humans are simultaneously creating cognitive trails that deploy the ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies of their own disciplines.
Many researchers dream of a grand synthesis, a consilience of inductions, and a convergence of all disciplinary data under one of the many banners that have been proposed, including archeogenetics, phylogeography, Asian for sex in grand Forster genomic anthropology .
Such a synthetic consilience is an ideal towards which to aim, but one which should be subject to constant challenge. Rather than restricting the possibilities to a panoptic database or a subordination of all to phylogeny, understanding a complex adaptive system like human migration can be conceived as a system in which incommensurable, scale-dependent, and dynamic components produce emergent through interacting feedback processes .
In its broadest form, this model held that people moved from South China into Taiwan around years before present YBPfollowed by a demic diffusion of Austronesian-speaking peoples south from Taiwan on the wave of the adoption of agricultural practices for growing rice around YBP.
The model was portrayed as the synthesis of genetics, linguistics, and archeology first suggested by Cavalli-Sforza . The problems with the OOT model were manifold. It is tempting to place all four models on a continuum from OOT to tangled bank, but there are profound ontological differences between them. One emphasizes origins, initial settlement, and subsequent splits, whereas the other emphasizes a continuous process of interaction and admixture .
Having differing models creates problems; any genetic, archeological, or linguistic data will be arranged and analyzed in preset, model-specific ways, thereby restricting means of testing between them. Thus, synthesis becomes unlikely. The key to success in human movement has been Asian for sex in grand Forster diversity and adaptability, which enable them to establish a wide variety of means to survive in every environment around the world. Thus, for example, humans not only moved across the substantial sea barrier but were also able to adapt to crossing the complex ecological boundary of Wallacea between Island Southeast Asia and Melanesia.
New Guinea, the Bismarcks, and the Solomons are hotspots of linguistic, genetic, and cultural diversity, so it is vital to take into the various local and specific forms of movement and interaction. The pattern of cultural and linguistic diversity in which the lowlanders but not the highlanders are Austronesian suggests that the highly varied terrain and climate provides for small isolated groups with great diversity and for little interaction. The Polynesians did indeed pass through as they moved into Remote Oceania, but they now appear to have had relatively restricted interaction with the other inhabitants of the islands.
It is possible that their boat technology kept them largely separate and homogenous, whereas the matrilocal kinship arrangements may explain the specificity of the admixture of Melanesian mtDNA . Furthermore, the relatively recent phase of colonization and terraforming during which Polynesians moved into the remote Pacific, occupying and transforming islands, including Hawaii, Easter Island, and New Zealand, has now become the subject of a series of debates and controversies, following a brief period of consensus around the strategic voyaging model, Asian for sex in grand Forster is now being re-evaluated .
Much of his ambiguity on this issue is reflected in his difficulties in understanding the chart drawn by the Tahitian, Tupaia, whom Cook took with him when he left Tahiti on his first voyage on Endeavour in Tupaia was the leading Pacific navigator of the day and, in effect, showed Cook around, drawing a chart of all the islands he knew while they traveled together. Tupaia's chart, which was undecipherable until recently, was a puzzle for Cook because many of the islands seemed to be positioned incorrectly, thus giving Cook severe reservations about Tupaia's geographical knowledge .
Cook, in his own words, believed Tupaia was drawing a map. Tupaia seems indeed to have tried to include distance in his plotting diagrams, thereby going beyond the traditional system of representation. Cook clearly remained fixed in his Cartesian world, adding cardinal points to Tupaia's Chart. But both could look at the manuscript and see their own system represented: Cook reading islands on a grid and Tupaia reading islands radiating out from different centers.
In other words, Cook and Tupaia worked with differing epistemological and ontological assumptions about space and time and how they can be represented, assumptions that were incommensurable and mutually unrecognized. They both thought they were drawing a map but did not realize that they had no common agreement about what maps are or how they record and enable movement. Although they each had an effective system ofthey were operating within completely different socio-technical-religious networks. For Cook and his fellow enlightenment European navigators and explorers, the system was one of calculation and long-distance control central to the establishment of empire; for Tupaia and his fellow Polynesian navigators, the system was one of exploration and settlement by kin-based replication .
The prevailing orthodox explanation of movement into Remote Oceania has been one of deliberate strategic voyaging through the deployment of a complex of technologies and socio-technical skills, including canoes capable of windward sailing, a sophisticated body of al, environmental, and topographical knowledge, along with social institutions for storing, teaching, and reproducing that knowledge.
This paradigm seemed to be confirmed by a multitude of replica voyages and by Chambers' molecular genetics . However, Atholl Anderson a constant critic of this model, argues against the likelihood that early canoes had the required windward capacities. Other models are now proposed based on simulations, evolving canoe de, subsistence strategies, and so on, thereby opening the field to many widely differing understandings of where, when, how, with what, and why people moved into and throughout the Pacific  — .
This pattern of early agreement or dominance of a single model, followed by a proliferation of new research in a variety of disciplines revealing flaws in the early model, and provoking calls for a new synthesis that has not yet emerged, has been played out in every great human movement, including Out of Africa, Into Europe, Into Asia, and Into the Americas. The story in the case of the Americas is very like that of the Pacific.
One of the controversial human occupation sites in question, Monte Verde in Southern Chile, is now largely accepted as dated at about YBP, which makes it difficult to accommodate on the Clovis first model. This model was based on the assumption that migration into Alaska was only possible across the Beringian land bridge after the Late Glacial Maximum LGM at about YBP, when an ice-free corridor opened. An alternative coastal route is now plausible given accumulating archeological evidence of human occupation along the West coast, especially on the islands off California. Such evidence has been hard to obtain because of the rise in sea levels after the LGM .
This model opens up the possibility of a much earlier timeframe for migration into the Americas, as well as multiple groups overlapping each other and penetrating the interior simultaneously. However, as in the Pacific example, there is no agreement on theroutes, or dates of migrations  — . Some genetic studies support a single migration across the Beringian land bridge, and others support multiple entries, Asian for sex in grand Forster suggested by the recent genome sequencing of the hair of a Paleo-Eskimo  — .
In contrast, Hubbe et al. He found that these skulls were anatomically distinct from those of Native Americans, bearing more similarity to those of the ancestral populations of Australian aborigines and Melanesians. Hence, they concluded that there were at least two distinct migrations into the Americas. There is some evidence that the land bridge may have been flooded as early as YBP, which supports a coastal migration route, along with other possible overland routes . Thus, it appears that the great migrations into Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and the Americas may have used a coastal path.
Furthermore, these migrations could only have occurred with the deployment of socio-technical complexes sharing broad characteristics. They would also have common climate constraints and sea level changes. In addition, the forms of movement and interaction would have been entirely dependent on the specific historical context. The interactive complexity of those movements have not yet been brought into focus because of the constraints of earlier cognitive trails established in looking for isolated technical and material s of genes, artifacts, and other proxies and markers, and because the role of social cognition has not yet been fully understood and included in the complex.
The work of many disparate archeologists suggests that all forms of movement would have been dependent on a social technology of kinship, a network of relatedness, bonding, and obligations that enables the transmission of property and knowledge across generations through a classification of friends, enemies, and strangers.
These conceptions of kinship and relatedness are social and cultural constructs and do not map directly onto genetic and biological relationships. Hence, it is necessary to find ways in which the differing stories of relatedness and movement can work together.
Gamble  suggested that the development of complex forms of social cognition is a prerequisite for overcoming the limitations of co-presence and extending relationships in space and time: reaching Australia required kinship just as much as boats. Primate societies work as effectively as they do in this respect because they are based on deep social bonding that is cognitively expensive. Thus it is the computational demands of managing complex interactions that has driven neocortical evolution.
In a large part, the symbolization and feedback essential to the development of such social networks depends on keeping track of relatedness and kinship through forms of telling, such as performing and representation, storytelling, singing, dancing, painting, building, and weaving . It is now apparent that each of the major human dispersals need reconceiving, not as simple mass migrations or demic diffusions, but as human movements that were relatively fast and strategic, requiring great flexibility in a diversity of environments, necessitating complex information exchange systems that allow group planning and feedback .
Such information exchange systems are typically an integral component of a socio-cognitive-technical complex in which a wider interacting system of relationships, language, materials, genes, and people were co-produced during human movement . A salient example of this is the Maori concept of whakapapa, where their epistemological framework and taxonomy is based on the kinship and genealogy expressed through the canoes that brought the different groups to New Zealand . In addition to the social and cognitive components, appropriate material technologies are required for developing a strategic approach to moving into an unknown environment.
How then does this concept of human movement through the environment shape the ways in which to consider how to follow trails of genes, proxies, and markers, trails which are themselves co-producing a diversity of cognitive environments? How should the reflexive process of understanding how humans came to be the way they are as a species being conceived?
As indicated earlier, there is an ongoing attempt at synthesis and consilience, wherein geneticists, linguists, archaeologists, and so on, are constantly reviewing each other's data and models for clues on Asian for sex in grand Forster, dating, and connections. However, while such a dynamic consilience is laudable as goal-directed research, it is less desirable if it moves towards an insistence on commensurability between disciplines or towards subordination to the norms of one discipline.
Three things need to be kept clearly in mind. First, because it is in the nature of science that all disciplines are crucially dependent on their ontological assumptions and models, it is vital that such assumptions and models be challenged with alternative conceptions. Second, the suggested performative conception of human movement as a complex adaptive system ought to be reflected in the ways the disciplines involved interact.
Rather than aiming towards synthesis and commensuration alone, such an approach should be held in tension with that of a complex adaptive system, thereby allowing the relevant disciplines to interact and create an emergent outcome from that dynamic. A principal reason for such a suggestion is that this approach to knowledge production, movement, and assemblage is thoroughly biological. In contrast, an approach using engineering or physics aims at technocratic problem solving rather than attempting to understand processes that are historical and contingent, interactive and emergent. Finally, indigenous perspectives must be included.
Much research has the implication of telling indigenous inhabitants who they really are, where they come from, who they are related to, and what counts as authoritative knowledge.Asian for sex in grand Forster
email: [email protected] - phone:(656) 877-6547 x 9470
On the trails of markers and proxies: the socio-cognitive technologies of human movement, knowledge assemblage, and their relevance to the etiology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma