New paper on Austronesian expansion. Options

[trismegistos]

Yeah you're right, there is no Denisova hominin admixture in Southeast and Northeast Asians. I realized it sometime afterward, I was just too sleepy to bother, but thanks for clearing that up.

Northern Europeans are derived from Southern Europeans, therefore Southern Europeans are further up in the phylogenetic branch which would make them closer to Papuans. So how can Papuans be more related to Northern Europeans than Southern Europeans as Pavlova states? Unless, Pavlova is suggesting that Papuans are derived from Northern Europeans.

First and foremost, I will reiterate what Razib Khan said about all of these studies, depending on the accuracy(sensitivity and specificity) of the markers used, population sampling, etc., you will have conflicting results and hence confounded conclusions.

For eg, a study will say Northern Europeans as closer to Papuans than the Southerners. And another study will contradict that saying the Southern Europeans more closer to Papuans.

So, I would rather wait for more accurate studies than form premature conclusion that Papuans are derived from Northern Europeans. It's becoming clearer that the Caucasoid R haplo indeed came from South Asia, the land of the Australoid Dravidians which btw is closer to the Papuans including our Australoid Negritos particularly the Aetas. I am suspecting that in the earlier graph I presented on which Pavlova criticized that it seems the Papuan samples are really Melanesians with Austronesian influence, if they replaced that with pure Papuan samples. It will probably cluster with the Aeta negritos which showed high affinity with the South Asian populations, hence making it closer to the Western European populations. It is interesting to note that Aeta negritos, which the Papuans should cluster if Pavlova is right, EQUIDISTANT to all Population cluster groups, South Asians, Europians, East Asians both Southeast Asians and Northeast Asians(including Altaics)

How can East Eurasians and West Eurasians be equidistant to Papuans (or West Eurasians appear to be closer to Papuans), if the ancestors of today's East Eurasians truly went through a Southern Route through India / South Asia? The ancestors of today's East Eurasians would have absorbed some of the genes present in India / South Asia at the time, the genes left from the first wave Out of Africa which includes the ancestors of today's Papuans. The very reason why Papuans are supposedly genetically closer to Indians / South Asians as compared to East Eurasians according to Pavlova is because the ancestors of today's Papuans come from India / South Asia. The ancestors of today's East Eurasians would have picked up those genes in India / South Asia en route to Eastern Eurasia, and therefore East Eurasians should be genetically closer to Papuans than Wester Eurasians are to Papuans.

All population cluster groups are all relatively EQUIDISTANT in relation to the Aeta, found almost at the center of that newer SnP chart, which Razib Khan said are more accurate than the chart you referred to which uses markers of less resolving power. And if Pavlova is right the Papuans would cluster with the Aeta which have higher affinity with South Asian than to the East Eurasians. All are equidistant in relation to the Aeta because all population cluster groups mentioned, the majorty of their haplos are derived from K*, which Aeta has and which they said originated in South Asia and found in highest frequency in SEA (The Oppenheimer's Eden in the East theory).

If we are to use your logic, since the Aetas too are not much genetically close to the East Eurasians being more close to the South Asian and Caucasoids. Then, the Aetas too came from Northern Europe as the Papuans are. They will not be termed as Australoids if they came from Northern Europe.

East Eurasians, the Mongoloids, do indeed picked up the genes in India and South Asia, where will the O haplogroup originate from if not from the Australoid K* and I repeat, they say has its origin in South Asia and found only surviving today in highest frequency further east among aeta negritos and some parts of Oceania. The theoretical Northern route for East Eurasians have absent K* amongst populations there, how can the East Eurasians, which majority has Haplogroup O, a derivative of K, sprung forth from there or even passed there in Central Asia towards the East without that K. Central Asia the midpoint of that northern route only have recent haplo admixtures of relatively newer haplos of O and R, with conspicously absent older and ancestral haplos. The Hugo Pan SNP study is indeed right to conclude East Asians came from the Southern route. Why say the East Eurasians didn't do so in getting the Australoid K genes in South Asia or the Southern route by just judging from the chart alone.

I don't think Pavlova debunked that Southern route, he was just trying to say that Papuans should be closer to South Asians particularly the Dravidians. For both Dravidians and papuans are Australoids just like the Ainus or Jomons and the negritos.

Knowledge of the phylogenetic tree of the Haplogroups is the Key more than those charts which can change from one study to another, depending on the methodology and the sampling.

I have been saying those things for so many times with the possibility that the Australoid Negrito's Paragroup K could be paraphyletic to both the R haplo of the Caucasoids and the O haplo of the Mongoloids. And add to that it is from Paragroup K which gave rise to the Papuan haplos, both M and S. Papuans never derived from Northern European areas. That statement defies logic if you ask me. Papuans M and S didn't come from R haplo in Northern Europe or in the Northern route. Papuan haplogroups M and S including the Caucasoid haplogroup R are all both derived from K haplo/K*/Paragroup K, their common ancestry. If you survey the Northern areas and the purported Northern route, conspicously absent among populations is the probable ancestral K* or Paragroup K which is found only surviving in very trace or miniscule fraction of today's South Asian populations but surviving in higher levels among Southeast Asian negritos with the highest amount found among Aeta negritos particularly in Sambalic areas. How can Papuan M and S derived from North areas when its predecessor haplo, K* is found absent on those areas. All Australoids including Papuans, the Ainus-Jomons, the Negritos and Australian aborigines all went to the southern route from a common ancestry which is K haplo or Paragroup K on which the purest representative is the Aeta negritos, the rest of the negritos including Andamanese, Papuans, Australian aborigenes only have fewer percentages of these possible paraphyletiic ancestral K* and higher percentages of derivations of K*. Companions of K* in the southern route like Haplo D and the Haplo C are also detected on these Australoid groups. Oppenheimer's Eden of the East theory is not without basis from genetics, to archaeology, etc. What better place for a homeland than the place where civilization as we know it started as well as where agriculture(domestication of plants and animals) started. Scholars during the Medieval age even placed one of the four rivers of paradise(Eden) in India Major(greater India) or East Indies and Ganges river in India was another. Harappan civilizations was definetly older than and probably the forebear to the Sumerian civilization, so called origin of Western Civilization. As Sumerian civilization was the predecessor of all the Mesopotamian civilizations, in Levant, Biblical lands. I would even venture to say as Oppenheimmer did to say Harappan civilization's forebear in farther east. For many western esoteric practitioners, the Orient is the cradle of wisdom and Mu(Sundaland is the motherland). Also, linguistic scholars show connections among agglutinative languages like Austronesians and the Sumerians including Indian languages. Tonal languages like Tai-Kradai formed an umbrella with Austronesians, the Austro-Tai, and up the ladder we have the Austrics which include Hmong Mien and the Austro-Asiatics and finally the Sino-Austronesian to include Sino-Tibetan languages.

I will end from the beginning:
Reiterating what Razib Khan said about all of these studies; depending on the accuracy(sensitivity and specificity) of the markers used, population sampling, etc., you will have conflicting results and hence confounded conclusions in terms of this having more affinity to this than that. Better go for more accurate ones with markers of high resolving power. You don't say East Asians came from Northern route since they have low affinity to Papuans because that conclusion came from judging only from interpreting the affinities from that particular chart with low resolving power alone. You have to go deeper than that, and Pavlova knows that. And that's exactly how the Hugo Pan SNP study did as they concluded that the Southern route is where the ancestors of East Eurasians went to depite the seeming genetic distance between papuans and East Eurasians. And that conclusion even Pavlova didn't disagree with to begin with. And I repeat, he was just trying to say papuans are closer to South Asians, because of the Dravidians which they shared a common Australoid genetic heritage. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jun 26 2012, 10:42 AM

[Prau123]

Does everyone remember this discussion we had last December?: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=325996

It was a thread that AnybodyKiller created "Worldwide genetic distancing., Southeast Asian populations included", and he cited a Dienekes study which included Southeast Asians: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/human...tion-first.html

In that thread, I wrote down the Fst scores with respect to Southeast Asians. Here it is again:

If we look at the Fst score table, Southeast Asians are closest to East Asians (as expected) with a Fst score of 0.034.

Here's the Southeast Asian scores from lowest (closest to Southeast Asians) to highest (furthest away from Southeast Asians):

0.034 East Asians
0.081 Siberian/Central Asian
0.085 Indian
0.106 Northeast Siberian
0.125 West Asian
0.125 North European
0.133 Kalash
0.144 Red Sea
0.146 Mediterranean
0.154 Amerindian
0.174 Melanesian
0.203 Sub-Saharan African
0.212 Papuan
0.263 Paleoafrican

As a disclaimer, I'm not sure how Dienekes defines the Southeast Asian component here, because some of these Fst scores seem kind of strange. For example, at the K=12 run Melanesians were shown to be linked to Southeast Asians, but their Southeast Asian Fst score is 0.174 which puts them in 11th place among the group closest to Southeast Asians. Even Northern Europeans even come closer at 0.125 (tied for 5th. place). It appears that Papuans are distantly related to Southeast Asians with a Fst score of 0.212 making them the second most distant population from the Southeast Asians with only Paleoafricans being further distant. Yet Papuans and Melanesians make up part of the genome of some Filipino groups and other Southeast Asian groups. This may mean that the Southeast Asian component is a mainland Southeast Asian group such as Cambodian and perhaps also Malay Singapore which were the two Southeast components represented in the K runs.

You'll see that Southeast Asians are very far away from Papuans with a Fst score of 0.212 something that contradicts what I wrote in my previous post in this thread. On the other hand, Southeast Asians are pretty close to Indians at 0.085 which supports my theory that Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) passed through India.

Supposedly Papuans are from India, and therefore Papuans should be close to Indians according to Pavlova, and Pavlova is correct! Indians come in second on the list with a Fst score of 0.182 from the following Papuan perspective:

Here are Papuans Fst scores:

0.144 Melanesian
0.182 Indian
0.207 East Asian
0.212 Southeast Asian
0.222 West Asian
0.224 North European
0.232 Siberian/Central Asian
0.234 Kalash
0.239 Red Sea
0.242 Mediterranean
0.259 Northeast Siberian
0.285 Sub-Saharan
0.299 Amerindian
0.346 Paleoafrican


You'll also notice that Southeast Asians come in fourth place with 0.212 and East Asians in third place with 0.207. Therefore, from a Papuan perspective, East Eurasians are pretty close. So why is it from a Southeast Asian perspective that Papuans come second to last with other groups such as Northern Europeans, Red Sea, Mediterranean, and even Sub-Saharan coming in closer??? The answer may be because today's Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) come from a second wave Out of Africa which included the ancestors of today's Caucasoids! The ancestors of today's Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) did go through India and picked up the genes from the first wave out of Africa which included the ancestors of today's Papuans, and that's why from a Papuan perspective, Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) appear very close to them. Now we have the proof of the second wave Out of Africa that went through India to form today's East Eurasians.

But you'll also notice that from the Papuan perspective that Northern Europeans are relatively close as compared to Siberian/Central Asian, Northeast Siberian, and Amerindian! Again this is consistent with Pavlova's observation!!! So what's going here? How can Papuans be closer to Northern Europeans (and other Caucasoids for that matter) compared to Siberian/Central Asians, Northeast Siberians, and Amerindians??? These three groups are East Eurasians also with ancestors going through India, so Papuans should be closer to them than any Caucasoids since Caucasoids did not go through India (except maybe Northeast India/Pakistan, but all East Eurasians should still be closer to Papuans than any Caucasoid)! This doesn't make any sense. Did these three groups obtain admixture up in northern/central Asia that's pulling them away from Papuans? But this admixture is not present in Southeast Asians or East Asians.

Here are the Fst scores from a North European perspective:

0.036 West Asian
0.057 Mediterranean
0.065 Indian
0.068 Red Sea
0.068 Kalash
0.122 East Asian
0.125 Southeast Asian
0.126 Siberian/Central Asian
0.146 Northeast Siberian
0.167 Amerindian
0.176 Sub-Saharan
0.203 Melanesian
0.224 Papuan
0.233 Paleoafrican

As you can see North Europeans are very far away from Papuans, because North Europeans are from the second wave Out of Africa whereas Papuans are from the first wave Out of Africa as I have iterated before. I can't say anything more from this perspective.

Here's the Amerindian perspective:

0.136 East Asian
0.144 Siberian/Central Asian
0.149 Indian
0.152 Northeast Siberian
0.154 Southeast Asian
0.167 North European
0.175 West Asian
0.185 Kalash
0.204 Red Sea
0.205 Mediterranean
0.27 Melanesian
0.271 Sub-Saharan
0.299 Papuan
0.333 Paleoafrican

From this Amerindian perspective, Papuans are very far from them. North Europeans are much closer, and even more closer are all the East Eurasian groups. This is consistent with the notion that Amerindians are part of the second wave Out of Africa, and Papuans are part of the first wave Out of Africa.

Here it is from the Siberian/Central Asian perspective:

0.059 East Asian
0.078 Norteast Siberian
0.081 Southeast Asian
0.097 Indian
0.126 North European
0.129 West Asian
0.138 Kalash
0.144 Amerindian
0.151 Mediterranean
0.153 Red Sea
0.201 Melanesian
0.216 Sub-Saharan
0.232 Papuan
0.277 Paleoafrican

Basically the same results for Amerindian.


Here it is from the Northeast Siberian perspective:

0.078 Siberian/Central Asian
0.083 East Asian
0.106 Southeast Asian
0.119 Indian
0.146 North European
0.15 West Asian
0.152 Amerindian
0.158 Kalash
0.175 Red Sea
0.176 Mediterranean
0.227 Melanesian
0.24 Sub-Saharan
0.259 Papuan
0.301 Palaeoafrican

Again similar results with Amerindian and Siberian/Central Asian. There appears to be no admixture that differentiates these three groups from one another. Either these three groups obtained a northern/central Asian admixture together and therefore cannot be further differentiated from one another, or there is no northern/central Asian admixture; but if there is no northern/central Asian admixture, then how can these three groups be so far away from Papuans as compared to Southeast Asians and East Asians??? Or did the Papuans obtain an admixture that makes them closer to Caucasoids relative to these three groups? Perhaps this admixture is something that both Northern Europeans and Papuans obtained from an ancient group that once lived in Europe and in Australasia, but did not live in India or Southeast Asia at least when the ancestors of East Eurasians migrated through India at the time. The picture is more complicated than it appears after all.

This post has been edited by Prau123: Jun 27 2012, 02:46 AM

[AnybodyKiller]

I am just trying to explain the reason there is paucity of Western Indonesian negritos and it is due to that Toba eruption coupled that with the inundations or great floods several millenia later.

Yeah. I know that, back migration.

From the generally accepted mainstream theory, the Austronesians just like the Thais, came from Southern China (which is still part of Mainland Southeast Asia and where rice was domesticated accdg to the most recent study). For both came from the same parent lingusitic group called the Austro-Tai. Even the Austro-Asiatics, they said, came from Southern China. It was proven already that the genetic fingerprint of ancient human fossils found corresponding to humans living 5-10kya in an area where domesticated rice were said to have originated in the same timeframe showed GENETIC relationship to present day Southeast Asian Austronesians and the Tai(people from Thailand and Yunnan Daics) and not to the Hans from the Yellow river. Until, our ancestors were pushed to fast track maritime technologies to migrate Southward because of the invading Hans. just kidding

I don't know what would be the impetus to migrate southward to the scene of much greater calamity, inundations of Sundaland subcontinent due to rising sea levels. The rising of sea levels occured in three waves. The first occuring to about 10-12kya and the last which correspond to the Austronesian expansion, 5-7kya. I don't believe in the theory akin to the supremacist Aryan invasion theory, that migration south was forced upon by much stronger ethnic groups up north. During that time, end of the last Ice Age, more lands formerly cold barren up north became more hospitable and fertile, thus the migration will be northwards rather than southward. But then again, it could be that our ancestors, the Sino-Austronesian or the Austro-Tai or proto-Austronesian survivors from the Flood from the mainland Southeast Asia saw the almost deserted very fertile lands except for some pockets where there were Australoid negrito survivors in the Malayan archipelago, that includes the Philippines, as land free for the taking (BACKMIGRATION). They would have gone for the most prized possessions, the more vastly fertile plains of Tropical paradise in the South and East just like their vast fertile plains in Mekong river delta in homeland Mainland Southeast Asia rather than go to the rugged North, Southern China to Northern China.

But I am not closing my mind, me being an out of the box thinker. There's still a possibility that back migration of the Neolithics from the mainland is not needed (to support Jocano's theory) as development of Neolithic Austronesian O1 haplo alongside corresponding neotenic Mongoloid appearance could have occured even right in our own backyard from ancestral K haplo during the last Ice Age prior to the Great Flood likewise for their Neolithic mitochondrial equivalents. If Mongoloid neotenization or the development of Southern Mongoloid appearance could occur at Mainland Southeast Asia during the cold periods of the last Ice Age why not here also in the Philippines which is on the same latitude. Mongoloid like neotenization could also occur in the hot desert like environs as in the mongoloid looking bushmen of East Africa. They said that the Great Toba eruption precipitated an instant 1000 year Ice age causing a cold desert like condition from South Asia to parts of Southeast Asia. Such condition was a nice environment for Mongoloid neotenization. Mongoloid looking non negrito indigenous people such as the Hanunuo Mangyan relatively isolated have the 'Australoid genotype', the Aeta K haplo for about 67 percent of the population. But of course, orthodox thinkers from that study would be quick to point to admixture as the cause of their Mongoloidization because of inference that Austronesians came from Taiwan or from Mainland Southeast Asia rather than going for the bifurcations of K haplo to O from shared ancestry as the cause of the heterogeneity...


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025791/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025791/#bib30
30 Lebar FM.(ed.): Ethnic Groups of Insular Southeast Asia Volume 2: Philippines and Formosa New Haven, USA: Human Relations Area Files Press; 1975.

While the negrito looking Mamanwa tribe, have in their genetic material, 88 percent of Mongoloid genetics(O haplos and NO) with only a sparse Aeta gene(K haplo) of 11 percent. Despite being Mongoloid in their genetics, the mamanwas are considered as Negritos because of appearance. On the otherhand, the Hanunuo Mangyans are considered Non-negritos in physical appearance despite being more negrito in their genes.

Why Aeta negritos in the Philippines speak Austronesian unless they have shared ancestry with non Negrito Austronesian. In Malaysia, negritos there spoke Austro-Asiatic surrounded on all sides by Austronesian speakers. And so as the newest mitochondrial study seemed to point that Neolithic Austronesians seemed to radiate and originate from the Philippines and not Taiwan during the time of the last wave of rising of sea levels. Our neolithic Austronesian ancestors were earlier cut off from their Paleolithic Austronesian or Paleolithic Austro-Tai or Paleolithic Sino-Austronesian ancestors from the mainland due to the first and second wave of rising of sea levels which broke Sundaland into many islands forming the present archipelagos. And as these Neolithic Austronesians from the Philippines together with the Paleolithic Austronesians from the Mainland went to Malaysia, they isolated the indigenous Austro-asiatic negritos there. The question remains, why did the Austro-Asiatic negritos in Malaysia never give up their language to accept the language of their agriculturist neighbors when their counterpart the Aeta negritos in the Philippines seemed to gave up so easily their language in favor of the language of the agriculturist Austronesian neighbors? Unless, the Aeta themselves spoke their native language belonging to the Sambalic branch of the Austronesian language group since time immemorial and have shared ancestry with their non-negrito Austronesian neighbor.

Among negritos, there's a great genetic variation.

* The great distinctiveness of Philippine Negrito and Malaysian Negrito populations on the PC chart is surprising. At K=14 there is almost no overlap of common components between the two populations. The Malaysian Negrito population shows an affinity to the Papuan population, perhaps with varying degrees of Austronesian and Austro-Asiatic admixture.

But, the Philippine Negrito population is closer to the population of India than to the Papuan population and it is no closer to the Papuans than it is to the Uygars. They are not in the range of the broad Papua to Northeast Asian continuity in genotype, showing a much strong West Eurasian affinity.

The PC chart doesn’t specifically break out ANI and ASI components, but if the North-South; West-East tendencies in the PC chart are applicable within India, then Philippine Negrito may have a suggestively small distance from where ASI would appear if there were a pure ASI individual. Put another way, Philippine Negritos appear quite close genetically to where the Andaman Onge should be.
If Aeta negrito is genetically closer to the Andaman negritos from Andaman islands in South Asia, then their original language should be similar to the Andamanese. The collective languages in the Andaman islands is considered to be a sister language of Proto-Austronesian [link; http://email.eva.mpg.de/~blevins/pdf/webpub2007a.pdf ] . If that is so then the present Aeta's Austronesian language simply transitioned from their original proto-Austronesian for many generational ago with osmosis later on with the languages of their Austronesian agriculturist brethren or neighbors rather than the abrupt shift from their original indigenous one or an abrupt neglect of their original language to adopt to a foreign Austronesian language?

That's exactly what Razib said: "Philippine Negritos appear quite close genetically to where the Andaman Onge should be." And also the Andaman Islanders are the closest modern proxy to the ASI. Even this study, though probably outdated (according to Razib as well) claims that:

The results suggest that the Austro-Asiatic Khasi tribes of Northeast India represent a genetic continuity between the populations of South and Southeast Asia, thereby advocating that northeast India could have been a major corridor for the movement of populations from India to East/Southeast Asia.

Still there is an undeniable connection between South and Southeast Asia both culturally and genetically.

I also don't believe that it was a migration southwards due to fear btw. As a matter of fact a disproportionate amount of Austroneisan blood in mainland Asia is from Y-DNA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O1...NA)#Frequencies

The frequency of Haplogroup O1 among the Southern Han has been found to be slightly greater than the arithmetic mean of the frequencies of Haplogroup O1 among the Northern Han and a pooled sample of Austronesian populations. This suggests that modern Southern Han populations may possess a non-trivial number of male ancestors who were originally affiliated with some Austronesian-related culture, or who at least shared a genetic affinity with many of the ancestors of modern Austronesian peoples.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Jun 27 2012, 07:04 PM

[Prau123]

That's exactly what Razib said: "Philippine Negritos appear quite close genetically to where the Andaman Onge should be." And also the Andaman Islanders are the closest modern proxy to the ASI. Even this study, though probably outdated (according to Razib as well) claims that:

Still there is an undeniable connection between South and Southeast Asia both culturally and genetically.

I also don't believe that it was a migration southwards due to fear btw. As a matter of fact a disproportionate amount of Austroneisan blood in mainland Asia is from Y-DNA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O1...NA)#Frequencies

I also don't believe it was because of fear or invasion of Southern China from the Northern Chinese which promoted the Austronesian expansion. If Austronesians were under pressure to move, it would not necessarily mean we would create a maritime culture, and more likely we would have just headed south into Mainland Southeast Asia, and pushed ourselves into Austro-Asiatic territory which is not what we did. When the Huns invaded Europe, they pushed the Germanic tribes west who in turn pushed the Celts further west, but the Germanic and Celtic tribes didn't all of sudden create a maritime culture and moved up to Scandinavia or even England, and they simply moved on land and not on water ways.

Regarding the corridor and population movements between India and Southeast Asia, I also think there has been a long continuous movement of people between these two regions. The Austro-Asiatics who are supposedly from Mainland Southeast Asia likely went through that corridor since Austro-Asiatics are mainly a terrestrial migratory group. But even further back in the past, the earliest waves of humans from Out of Africa would likely have gone through it as well. But I guess the big question is, did the ancestors of today's Mongoloids also pass through that corridor en route to Eastern Eurasia? Why not I suppose, but we have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.



This post has been edited by Prau123: Jun 28 2012, 02:39 AM

[trismegistos]

I also don't believe that it was a migration southwards due to fear btw.

I also don't believe it was because of fear or invasion of Southern China from the Northern Chinese which promoted the Austronesian expansion. If Austronesians were under pressure to move, it would not necessarily mean we would create a maritime culture, and more likely we would have just headed south into Mainland Southeast Asia, and pushed ourselves into Austro-Asiatic territory which is not what we did. When the Huns invaded Europe, they pushed the Germanic tribes west who in turn pushed the Celts further west, but the Germanic and Celtic tribes didn't all of sudden create a maritime culture and moved up to Scandinavia or even England, and they simply moved on land and not on water ways.

I don't think the Huns pushed the Germanic tribes west. The Germanic tribes were then all over the place. The Huns simply were just incorporated into the Germanic tribes later on. What caused the barbarian expansion was the breakdown of the Roman empire. Celts were simply all over the place in Gaul, Ireland and in Wales. And they never went to Nordic lands. The Celts were simply incorporated among Germanic tribes later on. And they didn't need to have a maritime culture to survive as there was no land being gobled up by the sea at that time which only happened way much earlier during the deluvial period. And only around Englands and some parts of North Sea and other coastal areas were gobbled up during the deluvial period.

I also don't think it was because of fear of the Hans' invasion. I made that statement out of jest. Ano ba kayo? Di kayo makagets ng joke?

But fear itself for one's survival? Why not?

Fear indeed is one of the greatest impetus for migrations aside from going where the grass is greener...

The most probable reason for the development of maritime culture and technologies, the impetus for migration, was survival for the coming upheavals, the inundations. Just like Noah was advised to build the ark, the rising of sea levels would necessitate to build maritime worthy vessels or failure to do so would be the extinction of our race. A survey of all the cultures among coastal reigions in Southeast Asia, we will see a confluence of Flood myths or Flood cultural motiffs.

With more and more lands being gobled up by the sea, you have no choice but to build a boat. Necessity is indeed the mother of invention. And that scenario of more lands being gobled up by the sea is exactly what just happened among our ancient Austronesian forefathers to develop their maritime culture and technologies to suvive the deluge. And for that reason, they who came from the inundated lands didn't penetrate the Austro-Asiatic strongholds who were survivors deep inland. They went to those relatively elevated remaining coastal lands that stayed dry that make up the many islands of the archipelagos of East Indies, the insular remnants of inundated Sundaland and other coastal areas like Southern China.

And the direction of Migration is up North or outwards away from the inundations of Sundaland, which occured in at least 3 waves post glacial. More evidence on that later from the genetic point of view.

As a matter of fact a disproportionate amount of Austroneisan blood in mainland Asia is from Y-DNA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O1...NA)#Frequencies

The frequency of Haplogroup O1 among the Southern Han has been found to be slightly greater than the arithmetic mean of the frequencies of Haplogroup O1 among the Northern Han and a pooled sample of Austronesian populations. This suggests that modern Southern Han populations may possess a non-trivial number of male ancestors who were originally affiliated with some Austronesian-related culture, or who at least shared a genetic affinity with many of the ancestors of modern Austronesian peoples.

Of course, O1 is higher among South Chinese than Northern Chinese for O1 originated in the South from Southeast Asia, where much older O1 subclades were found even to those found in Southern China, the same goes for O2 and O3 coming from older O2 and O3 found in Southeast Asia which in return came from NO* and K* ancestral forefathers.

East Asians are just a subset from Southeast Asia.

Southern Han population has a higher arithmetic mean frequencies of O1 than a pooled sample of Austronesian populations? How did they sample that Austronesian population? Did they get that from the Indonesians who are O2 predominant? Then, they probably get what they want, a higher value for the Southern Han. For majority of Austronesians are of Paleolithic origins and not Neolithic as the Karafet study says. Majority are O2 then O1. But, I don't think Southern Han population would have a higher arithmetic mean frequencies of O1 from let's say from Luzon population or even Visayas.

It is not a question of which group has the highest arithmetic mean. The more important question is which group has the more older for the same clade. For.eg, let's say R1b is found highest in Europe but found lower in South Asia but with an older subclade. Would that mean R1b originated in Europe for having higher arithmetic mean? No. Despite R1b is found lower in South Asia, that is where R1b subclade originated for it is older there.

It is interesting to note, that subclades of O1, O2 and O3 from Northern areas and that includes SOUTHERN CHINA are relatively newer than those more diverse but older subclades of the same haplo groups, O1, O2, and O3.

And for these reasons, what do you think would be the major direction of the migration? Going North or going South? Going North, exactly. That's what exactly the various studies such as the Hugo Pan Asian SNP study as well as the studies of Chu et al and Su et al found out and concluded East Asians came from Southeast Asia. Of course, we can't rule out the newer back migrations corresponding to the so called Han expansion from Yellow river which happened only in historical times(not prehistory) due mostly to starvation and civil wars up north. Again fear for the family's safety and survival and to go where the grass is greener.

Another noteworthy back migration, was that of the Neolithic Austronesians from the Philippine isles and not from Taiwan accdg to the newer mitochondrial studies. They went southwards into the lands of the Paleolithic Austronesians in Indonesia and outwards for the so called Austronesian expansion towards Melanesia and Oceania. Again, this corresponds to the last wave of rising of sea levels. The first or the second wave of rising sea levels probably pushed our Austro-Tai ancestors(O1) from broken up Sundaland into Yunnan, Southern China developing into the Tai-Kradai branch over there and into the coastal agrarian and maritime trading cultures of Southern China (DongYi or Yue tribes) becoming incorporated later on in recent history into the Han sphere of influence.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jun 28 2012, 07:16 AM

[trismegistos]

Does everyone remember this discussion we had last December?: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=325996

It was a thread that AnybodyKiller created "Worldwide genetic distancing., Southeast Asian populations included", and he cited a Dienekes study which included Southeast Asians: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/human...tion-first.html

In that thread, I wrote down the Fst scores with respect to Southeast Asians. Here it is again:



You'll see that Southeast Asians are very far away from Papuans with a Fst score of 0.212 something that contradicts what I wrote in my previous post in this thread. On the other hand, Southeast Asians are pretty close to Indians at 0.085 which supports my theory that Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) passed through India.

Supposedly Papuans are from India, and therefore Papuans should be close to Indians according to Pavlova, and Pavlova is correct! Indians come in second on the list with a Fst score of 0.182 from the following Papuan perspective:

Here are Papuans Fst scores:

0.144 Melanesian
0.182 Indian
0.207 East Asian
0.212 Southeast Asian
0.222 West Asian
0.224 North European
0.232 Siberian/Central Asian
0.234 Kalash
0.239 Red Sea
0.242 Mediterranean
0.259 Northeast Siberian
0.285 Sub-Saharan
0.299 Amerindian
0.346 Paleoafrican


You'll also notice that Southeast Asians come in fourth place with 0.212 and East Asians in third place with 0.207. Therefore, from a Papuan perspective, East Eurasians are pretty close. So why is it from a Southeast Asian perspective that Papuans come second to last with other groups such as Northern Europeans, Red Sea, Mediterranean, and even Sub-Saharan coming in closer??? The answer may be because today's Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) come from a second wave Out of Africa which included the ancestors of today's Caucasoids! The ancestors of today's Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) did go through India and picked up the genes from the first wave out of Africa which included the ancestors of today's Papuans, and that's why from a Papuan perspective, Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) appear very close to them. Now we have the proof of the second wave Out of Africa that went through India to form today's East Eurasians.

But you'll also notice that from the Papuan perspective that Northern Europeans are relatively close as compared to Siberian/Central Asian, Northeast Siberian, and Amerindian! Again this is consistent with Pavlova's observation!!! So what's going here? How can Papuans be closer to Northern Europeans (and other Caucasoids for that matter) compared to Siberian/Central Asians, Northeast Siberians, and Amerindians??? These three groups are East Eurasians also with ancestors going through India, so Papuans should be closer to them than any Caucasoids since Caucasoids did not go through India (except maybe Northeast India/Pakistan, but all East Eurasians should still be closer to Papuans than any Caucasoid)! This doesn't make any sense. Did these three groups obtain admixture up in northern/central Asia that's pulling them away from Papuans? But this admixture is not present in Southeast Asians or East Asians.

Here are the Fst scores from a North European perspective:

0.036 West Asian
0.057 Mediterranean
0.065 Indian
0.068 Red Sea
0.068 Kalash
0.122 East Asian
0.125 Southeast Asian
0.126 Siberian/Central Asian
0.146 Northeast Siberian
0.167 Amerindian
0.176 Sub-Saharan
0.203 Melanesian
0.224 Papuan
0.233 Paleoafrican

As you can see North Europeans are very far away from Papuans, because North Europeans are from the second wave Out of Africa whereas Papuans are from the first wave Out of Africa as I have iterated before. I can't say anything more from this perspective.

Here's the Amerindian perspective:

0.136 East Asian
0.144 Siberian/Central Asian
0.149 Indian
0.152 Northeast Siberian
0.154 Southeast Asian
0.167 North European
0.175 West Asian
0.185 Kalash
0.204 Red Sea
0.205 Mediterranean
0.27 Melanesian
0.271 Sub-Saharan
0.299 Papuan
0.333 Paleoafrican

From this Amerindian perspective, Papuans are very far from them. North Europeans are much closer, and even more closer are all the East Eurasian groups. This is consistent with the notion that Amerindians are part of the second wave Out of Africa, and Papuans are part of the first wave Out of Africa.

Here it is from the Siberian/Central Asian perspective:

0.059 East Asian
0.078 Norteast Siberian
0.081 Southeast Asian
0.097 Indian
0.126 North European
0.129 West Asian
0.138 Kalash
0.144 Amerindian
0.151 Mediterranean
0.153 Red Sea
0.201 Melanesian
0.216 Sub-Saharan
0.232 Papuan
0.277 Paleoafrican

Basically the same results for Amerindian.


Here it is from the Northeast Siberian perspective:

0.078 Siberian/Central Asian
0.083 East Asian
0.106 Southeast Asian
0.119 Indian
0.146 North European
0.15 West Asian
0.152 Amerindian
0.158 Kalash
0.175 Red Sea
0.176 Mediterranean
0.227 Melanesian
0.24 Sub-Saharan
0.259 Papuan
0.301 Palaeoafrican

Again similar results with Amerindian and Siberian/Central Asian. There appears to be no admixture that differentiates these three groups from one another. Either these three groups obtained a northern/central Asian admixture together and therefore cannot be further differentiated from one another, or there is no northern/central Asian admixture; but if there is no northern/central Asian admixture, then how can these three groups be so far away from Papuans as compared to Southeast Asians and East Asians??? Or did the Papuans obtain an admixture that makes them closer to Caucasoids relative to these three groups? Perhaps this admixture is something that both Northern Europeans and Papuans obtained from an ancient group that once lived in Europe and in Australasia, but did not live in India or Southeast Asia at least when the ancestors of East Eurasians migrated through India at the time. The picture is more complicated than it appears after all.

It's a given fact already that central Asia is a hostland, where admixtures of newer haplogroups occured between subclades of R caucasoid and O Mongoloid forming the typical Uyghurs for e.g. That Central Asia for the most time during the Paleolithic period, was very barren and inhospitable for human habitation. And for these reasons, Chu et al and Su et al debunked the Northern route theory for the origin for the majority of East Asians with few minority exceptions like the Siberians, Some Northern Hans, and Central Asians. Both agreed, that the Siberians and Central Asians both have genetic contributions from this relatively recent Northern route post glacial period by Caucasoids going east and East Asians going west.

This is the reason why Siberians and Central Asians appears very divergent if compared to the Papuans.

From a split, the more you go far away from that split, the more genetic divergent it will be. And for that reason, Amerindians appear very divergent from papuans, both have haplogroups which split the earliest from K*, Paragroup K. But splitting by the Papuans occured the earliest between these two cluster groups. So the farther away from that split the more divergent. And so you have newer subclades of O haplo like from the Hans that appear very divergent from the older papuan's M and S haplos despite all of these subclades are descendants of a common ancestral K haplogroup line.

[trismegistos]

removed double post

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jun 28 2012, 05:12 AM

[Prau123]

I don't think the Huns pushed the Germanic tribes west. The Germanic tribes were then all over the place. The Huns simply were just incorporated into the Germanic tribes later on. What caused the barbarian expansion was the breakdown of the Roman empire. Celts were simply all over the place in Gaul, Ireland and in Wales. And they never went to Nordic lands. The Celts were simply incorporated among Germanic tribes later on. And they didn't need to have a maritime culture to survive as there was no land being gobled up by the sea at that time which only happened way much earlier during the deluvial period. And only around Englands and some parts of North Sea and other coastal areas were gobbled up during the deluvial period.

I also don't think it was because of fear of the Hans' invasion. I made that statement out of jest. Ano ba kayo? Di kayo makagets ng joke?

But fear itself for one's survival? Why not?

Fear indeed is one of the greatest impetus for migrations aside from going where the grass is greener...

The most probable reason for the development of maritime culture and technologies, the impetus for migration, was survival for the coming upheavals, the inundations. Just like Noah was advised to build the ark, the rising of sea levels would necessitate to build maritime worthy vessels or failure to do so would be the extinction of our race. A survey of all the cultures among coastal reigions in Southeast Asia, we will see a confluence of Flood myths or Flood cultural motiffs.

With more and more lands being gobled up by the sea, you have no choice but to build a boat. Necessity is indeed the mother of invention. And that scenario of more lands being gobled up by the sea is exactly what just happened among our ancient Austronesian forefathers to develop their maritime culture and technologies to suvive the deluge. And for that reason, they who came from the inundated lands didn't penetrate the Austro-Asiatic strongholds who were survivors deep inland. They went to those relatively elevated remaining coastal lands that stayed dry that make up the many islands of the archipelagos of East Indies, the insular remnants of inundated Sundaland and other coastal areas like Southern China.

And the direction of Migration is up North or outwards away from the inundations of Sundaland, which occured in at least 3 waves post glacial. More evidence on that later from the genetic point of view.



Of course, O1 is higher among South Chinese than Northern Chinese for O1 originated in the South from Southeast Asia, where much older O1 subclades were found even to those found in Southern China, the same goes for O2 and O3 coming from older O2 and O3 found in Southeast Asia which in return came from NO* and K* ancestral forefathers.

East Asians are just a subset from Southeast Asia.

Southern Han population has a higher arithmetic mean frequencies of O1 than a pooled sample of Austronesian populations? How did they sample that Austronesian population? Did they get that from the Indonesians who are O2 predominant? Then, they probably get what they want, a higher value for the Southern Han. For majority of Austronesians are of Paleolithic origins and not Neolithic as the Karafet study says. Majority are O2 then O1. But, I don't think Southern Han population would have a higher arithmetic mean frequencies of O1 from let's say from Luzon population or even Visayas.

It is not a question of which group has the highest arithmetic mean. The more important question is which group has the more older for the same clade. For.eg, let's say R1b is found highest in Europe but found lower in South Asia but with an older subclade. Would that mean R1b originated in Europe for having higher arithmetic mean? No. Despite R1b is found lower in South Asia, that is where R1b subclade originated for it is older there.

It is interesting to note, that subclades of O1, O2 and O3 from Northern areas and that includes SOUTHERN CHINA are relatively newer than those more diverse but older subclades of the same haplo groups, O1, O2, and O3.

And for these reasons, what do you think would be the major direction of the migration? Going North or going South? Going North, exactly. That's what exactly the various studies such as the Hugo Pan Asian SNP study as well as the studies of Chu et al and Su et al found out and concluded East Asians came from Southeast Asia. Of course, we can't rule out the newer back migrations corresponding to the so called Han expansion from Yellow river which happened only in historical times(not prehistory) due mostly to starvation and civil wars up north. Again fear for the family's safety and survival and to go where the grass is greener.

Another noteworthy back migration, was that of the Neolithic Austronesians from the Philippine isles and not from Taiwan accdg to the newer mitochondrial studies. They went southwards into the lands of the Paleolithic Austronesians in Indonesia and outwards for the so called Austronesian expansion towards Melanesia and Oceania. Again, this corresponds to the last wave of rising of sea levels. The first or the second wave of rising sea levels probably pushed our Austro-Tai ancestors(O1) from broken up Sundaland into Yunnan, Southern China developing into the Tai-Kradai branch over there and into the coastal agrarian and maritime trading cultures of Southern China (DongYi or Yue tribes) becoming incorporated later on in recent history into the Han sphere of influence.

I watched a documentary regarding the Huns, and it showed how they pushed the Germanic tribes west, causing the Celts to move even further west. They used the term "billiard-ball effect" to describe this type of migratory phenomenon. I can't find that documentary anymore. But here's an article about this billiard-ball effect:

While many of the surviving Ostrogoths came under Hunnic domination, two “experienced commanders of proved courage”, Alatheus and Saphrax , led a force of Ostrogoths across the river Dniester to form a united front against the Huns with their Visigothic brethren. However, they were comprehensively out-manoeuvred and out-flanked, causing them to appeal to the Eastern emperor to allow them across the Danube into Roman territory. This “billiard-ball” effect was to cause the disastrous Battle of Adrianople, the biggest Roman defeat since Cannae against Hannibal some six hundred years earlier. This effect set “into motion the great upheaval of peoples” , known as the Völkerwanderung, and is one of the four reasons that Denis Sinor gives for why the Huns caught the Western imagination.

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/398206


Haha, I agree. I shouldn't take everything so serious all the time. As you said the Austronesian expansion cannot be explained because of fear or invasion. An obvious question would be, why didn't we just migrate southward on land? Sure there were Austro-Asiatic groups south of us, but I don't think it would have stopped Austronesians from migrating southwards still. And there would have been some Austronesians migrating south anyways, and their languages would have survived, unless they were all assimilated into the Austro-Asiatic culture.

Also given the diversity of Austronesian languages present in Taiwan, one has to assume that those languages have been there for a very long time. There are about 10 primary branches of the Austronesian languages in Taiwan with Malayo-Polynesian being one of them only, and every Austronesian language outside of Taiwan is within that one Malayo-Polynesian branch which tells you that the divisions within the 10 primary branches are very steep and therefore would have to have evolved in Taiwan for a very long time. Languages take a long time to evolve into new daughter languages, and even much much longer time is required to create new higher level branches within a language family. Such length of time would not be attributed to a group migrating out of fear or invasion.

Taiwan's steep mountainous terrain would allow for each ethnolinguistic group to have their own isolated niche in the island allowing their languages to develop in isolation for a very long time into the various primary branches of Austronesian.

In general, I view a South to North migration of East Eurasians from Southeast Asia to East Asia and beyond. But we have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of the evidence lately favors this view, but there are still some questions that have to be answered so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit, especially regarding the genetic distance of Melanesians with West Eurasians.

Lastly, there may be some Caucasoid influence on the Siberian/Central Asian, Northeast Siberian, and Amerindians, but I think in those tests they were minimal. Besides, if West Eurasian genetic influence was large on these 3 groups, then that would cause these 3 groups to be closer to Melanesians more so than West Eurasians (such as North Europeans) to Melanesians. The Fst scores tell us that West Eurasians are closer to Melanesians than those 3 groups are to Melanesians, so anymore West Eurasian influence on those 3 groups would only make the 3 groups closer to Melanesians, and since the 3 groups are also East Eurasians that have the same ancestors as us Southeast Asians (and East Asians) and we happen to be closer to Melanesians than West Eurasians are to Melanesians, then it would cause those 3 groups to be also closer to Melanesians than West Eurasians are to Melanesians. Sorry for the long and complicated explanation, I could not explain it anymore simpler than that. But you're right, it could also be because of those 3 groups evolving for a very long time and far away, but I'm not sure, because if we look at the Fst scores again for Southeast Asian, you'll see that Siberian/Central Asian and Northeast Siberian are still closer to us than West Asians, North Europeans, and other West Eurasian groups, so these two groups apparently have not evolved that much from us. But in the case of Amerindian, they appear to have evolved far and/or received additional admixture since they are far down in our list. The Amerindians have undergone severe bottleneck effects and genetic drift, and this may affect our genetic distances with them.

Here's the Southeast Asian scores again:

0.034 East Asians
0.081 Siberian/Central Asian
0.085 Indian
0.106 Northeast Siberian
0.125 West Asian
0.125 North European
0.133 Kalash
0.144 Red Sea
0.146 Mediterranean
0.154 Amerindian
0.174 Melanesian
0.203 Sub-Saharan African
0.212 Papuan
0.263 Paleoafrican

This post has been edited by Prau123: Jun 30 2012, 11:24 PM

[Prau123]

I'd also like to add that only the Malayo-Polynesian branch migrated to spread and create the Austronesian languages outside of Taiwan. Why didn't the other primary branches of Austronesian also migrate outside of Taiwan if the Austronesians were somehow fleeing out of fear or invasion by others? It would not make sense that the Malayo-Polynesian group in Taiwan were the only ones who were brave enough and/or creative enough to create an early maritime culture and technology that allowed them to migrate southward into the Philippines and the rest of the archipelago and beyond. Perhaps the other primary groups also joined in, but were assimilated culturally and linguistically into the Malayo-Polynesian culture.

The other possibility is that 5,000+ years ago when the Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) expansion began, there was perhaps only one primary Austronesian language branch in Taiwan, and it was only since then that the various primary branches were developed in Taiwan. But that begs the question, why were't other primary branches of Austronesian developed outside of Taiwan? The Austronesians spread very quickly, and far and wide early in their expansion, so that would have allowed for other primary branches to develop outside of Taiwan, if the same thing was happening in Taiwan. But since primary branches of the Austronesian languages were not developed (or at least survived) outside of Taiwan, then it likely did not develop within Taiwan within the same time frame.

There is also the possibility that primary branches of Austronesian were developed in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc., but somehow became extinct, but I won't go into that.

One other possibility, is that the other primary branches of Austronesian migrated to Taiwan. They could have migrated before or after the Malayo-Polynesian expansion from Taiwan. Taiwan could have been a place of refuge for the various Austronesian groups from Southern China fleeing from fear or invasion. That could be a possibility. In this case, the Austronesian languages for the most part did not develop in Taiwan, but outside of it in Southern China. But the question still remains, why didn't the Austronesians simply migrate southward on foot into Mainland Southeast Asia and into Austro-Asiatic territory? As mentioned in my previous post, I don't think the Austro-Asiatics would have stopped such a migration, and perhaps they didn't, but that the Austronesians were assimilated into the Austro-Asiatic culture and language? Perhaps so, but it's not clear, and genetics would really help clear things up in this case. But I still find it strange that no Austronesian language survived to this date if such a southward migration did occur into Mainland Southeast Asia. Also, what happened to the Austronesian languages in Southern China if there were truly a large number of Austronesian speakers there to begin with? Perhaps they were also Proto-Austronesian speakers. But the Tai-Kadai languages currently present in Southern China do not seem to have divided a lot and are relatively mutually intelligible compared to the Austronesian languages, that is, they are a fairly new language family compared to Austronesian. This makes me think that most if not all of the primary branches of Austronesian were developed within Taiwan. Or perhaps all the Austronesian languages (and various primary branches) became extinct in Southern China. This did not have to happen at once, it could have been a slow and long process whereby some Austronesian languages in Southern China clinged on to existence until recently, but were eventually swamped by the language groups especially Tai-Kadai since it is related to the Austronesian language family. That is also a possibility. But if Tai-Kadai is an off-shoot of the Austronesian language family from Taiwan or even Southern China (or even an off-shoot of Proto-Austronesian), then we can at least reconcile in the notion that the Austronesian (or Proto-Austronesian) languages in Southern China made a come back. But no matter what we speculate the truth to be, Austronesians fleeing from fear or invasion isn't conclusively proven, so it could very well be that the Austronesian languages developed fully in Taiwan, and spread southward not out of fear or invasion, but because of exploration, population growth, technological advance, and a developing maritime culture.

Edit: This is of course assuming that the traditional model of the Out of Taiwan theory is correct, that Austronesians are originally from Southern China, then migrated to Taiwan and nestled there for perhaps thousands of years, and then migrated south to the Philippines and beyond. I'm not saying this model is correct, but that was the thought process my post was following.

This post has been edited by Prau123: Jul 1 2012, 03:13 AM

[filipinoy]

I'd also like to add that only the Malayo-Polynesian branch migrated to spread and create the Austronesian languages outside of Taiwan.

the Malayo-Polynesian branch did not migrated out of Taiwan....because the Malayo-Polynesian branch doesnt even exist on taiwan

in most classifications.... there is actually no such thing as a "Malayo-Polynesian branch" on Taiwan... only on yami island ... who has a maritime tradition (& could easily be part of batanes group)...


since its unlikely that the whole Malayo-Polynesian branch migrated out of taiwan & left no one behind

MP was developed outside taiwan, because austronesians had a big "pause" of a thousand or so years in the Phil. before colonizing the rest of SEA islands & pacific.... the closest to the MP branch seemed to be Paiwanic branch, but theres a possibility that other branches contributed to MP (or if some those branches even existed before)... the early migrations of austronesians into N. Phil. doesnt necessarily means a one massive wave from one area of taiwan.. it could be several small groups from different areas contributing.. & after periods of settlements.. developed the MP branch over time... (developing a entirely different branch takes a long time)


even though i think the austronesians speakers in the Phil. probably came from taiwan... i believe that the fast & large scale... colonization of islands by austronesian speakers.. jump started in the Phil. (by austronesians speakers who been in the PI for thousands of years & developed MP). & not taiwan..

in my view.... ...the Malayo-Polynesian branch...basically means Philippine branch..

so to me the main Austronesian branches based on previous classifications are

Tsouic
Western Plains
Northwest Formosan
Atayalic
East Formosan
Bunun
Rukai
Puyuma
Paiwan
N. Philippine (Malayo-Polynesian)

Why Aeta negritos in the Philippines speak Austronesian unless they have shared ancestry with non Negrito Austronesian.

In Malaysia, negritos there spoke Austro-Asiatic surrounded on all sides by Austronesian speakers.

many negritos in the Philippines i think are mixed with the austronesian settlers on different levels... so yes i think they have shared ancestry with the majority of filipinos

because the austronesians in the malay peninsula wasnt able to penetrate the interior & are more recent than the ones in the Phil. thats why for such a big area... they really have a low diversity in languages ...basically all the austronesians on the peninsula speak the same language, Melayu

malay peninsula is also on the "edge" of austronesian territory... the same goes to east timor, champa, or papua/melanesia ... where austronesian languages are surrounded by non-austronesian languages or vice-versa


the older austronesians in the philippines.. seemed to have penetrated every corner of the country... & assimilated/mix or influenced with all the previous non-austronesians settlers here...

in madagascar.... everyone there speaks austronesian... even though a big chunk of the population obviously have african ancestry
but that doesnt mean just because some austronesians have mixed african ancestry.. that all austronesians have african ancestry... & that "africans" there evolved into "present day austronesians" or vice versa

(although eventually if you go that far back in time... then we might all have African ancestry... lol)


all the surviving negrito/mixed negrito population in the Philippines... adopted/speaks the language(or a version of it) of whatever farming austronesian ethnic group settled neared them




PS .. hi everyone... just passing by if this site is still alive or still taken over by spam bots...

This post has been edited by filipinoy: Jul 1 2012, 08:12 PM

[Prau123]

the Malayo-Polynesian branch did not migrated out of Taiwan....because the Malayo-Polynesian branch doesnt even exist on taiwan

in most classifications.... there is actually no such thing as a "Malayo-Polynesian branch" on Taiwan... only on yami island ... who has a maritime tradition (& could easily be part of batanes group)...


since its unlikely that the whole Malayo-Polynesian branch migrated out of taiwan & left no one behind

MP was developed outside taiwan, because austronesians had a big "pause" of a thousand or so years in the Phil. before colonizing the rest of SEA islands & pacific.... the closest to the MP branch seemed to be Paiwanic branch, but theres a possibility that other branches contributed to MP (or if some those branches even existed before)... the early migrations of austronesians into N. Phil. doesnt necessarily means a one massive wave from one area of taiwan.. it could be several small groups from different areas contributing.. & after periods of settlements.. developed the MP branch over time... (developing a entirely different branch takes a long time)


even though i think the austronesians speakers in the Phil. probably came from taiwan... i believe that the fast & large scale... colonization of islands by austronesian speakers.. jump started in the Phil. (by austronesians speakers who been in the PI for thousands of years & developed MP). & not taiwan..

in my view.... ...the Malayo-Polynesian branch...basically means Philippine branch..

so to me the main Austronesian branches based on previous classifications are

Tsouic
Western Plains
Northwest Formosan
Atayalic
East Formosan
Bunun
Rukai
Puyuma
Paiwan
N. Philippine (Malayo-Polynesian)



many negritos in the Philippines i think are mixed with the austronesian settlers on different levels... so yes i think they have shared ancestry with the majority of filipinos

because the austronesians in the malay peninsula wasnt able to penetrate the interior & are more recent than the ones in the Phil. thats why for such a big area... they really have a low diversity in languages ...basically all the austronesians on the peninsula speak the same language, Melayu

malay peninsula is also on the "edge" of austronesian territory... the same goes to east timor, champa, or papua/melanesia ... where austronesian languages are surrounded by non-austronesian languages or vice-versa


the older austronesians in the philippines.. seemed to have penetrated every corner of the country... & assimilated/mix or influenced with all the previous non-austronesians settlers here...

in madagascar.... everyone there speaks austronesian... even though a big chunk of the population obviously have african ancestry
but that doesnt mean just because some austronesians have mixed african ancestry.. that all austronesians have african ancestry... & that "africans" there evolved into "present day austronesians" or vice versa

(although eventually if you go that far back in time... then we might all have African ancestry... lol)


all the surviving negrito/mixed negrito population in the Philippines... adopted/speaks the language(or a version of it) of whatever farming austronesian ethnic group settled neared them




PS .. hi everyone... just passing by if this site is still alive or still taken over by spam bots...

That's interesting Filipinoy, and welcome back! That makes sense, and like you said the Malayo-Polynesian branch is likely a North Philippine development since it's just south of Taiwan. The Yami language and people are likely a back migration from the Philippines according to that genetic study last year. So you're right, Malayo-Polynesian developed outside of Taiwan.

Since you were talking about pulses, it reminded me of the 2008 Austronesian Vocabulary Database study: http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austronesian/research.php
They had the language pulse and pause diagram, but also a phylogenetic tree of the Austronesian languages: http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austron...lTreeFigure.pdf
It's better to click on the link than to look at the tree below which is too small to see. But you'll notice that the Sama-Bajaw group of languages which includes Yakan (although other sources classify it as a Sabahan language), Bajo, Samal (Siasil), Mapun, and Inabaknon forms an exclusive group with the Philippine-Gorontalo-Mongondow languages at a confidence level of 74%. My guess is that the Sama-Bajaw languages are a transitional group between the Philippine-Gorontalo-Mongondow languages and the rest of the Malayo-Polynesian languages. This would also make sense geographically since the Sama-Bajaw languages are found in the Sulu Archipelago, Northeast Borneo, and areas nearby (with the exception to Inabaknon of course) connecting the Philippines to the rest of the Malay Archipelago. My question is, how did these languages survive the back migration of the Borneans into the Philippines which formed the Central Philippine languages? And also the earlier back migration from Sumatra and/or Peninsular Malaysia that would form the Northern Philippine languages? If you look at the Manobo, Subanon, and Bilic languages on the phylogenetic tree, they form an exclusive group with the Central Philippines languages and Palawanic languages at a confidence level of 83%. The Manobo, Subanon, and Bilic people likely spoke languages that are unrelated to the Central Philippine languages before the arrival of the Borneans. So they were "Borneanized" linguistically speaking, and that's why their languages are closely related to the Central Philippine languages today. But for some reason the Sama-Bajaw group survived this Bornean onslaught. Perhaps, the Sama-Bajaw group had a large population with an advanced and wealthy civilization which did not allow for the Borneanization of their culture and languages. Or perhaps the Sama-Bajaw languages had a successful back migration in recent times displacing the Central Philippine and Palawanic languages in the Sulu Archipelago. Tausug which is the oddball language in the Sulu Archipelago is a Central Philippine language surrounded by Sama-Bajaw and Sabahan languages. I've heard that Tausug was brought to the Sulu Archipelago from the Butuan Kingdom in present day Agusan Del Norte province near the Surigao provinces in northeastern Mindanao. The Butuan Kingdom may have spoken a language similar to Surigaonon from what I've read before. But Tausug is not actually that close to Surigaonon according to the phylogenetic tree. Cebuano and even Aklanon are closer to Surigaonon. I'm guessing the Sama-Bajaw languages had a back-migration of some sort, because even the Sabahan languages such as Bonggi, Molbog, and possibly Yakan migrated from Sabah into the Sulu Archipelago and Palawan in recent times perhaps during the Islamization period since most of them are Muslims.

Another issue lingering in my mind is that when the Borneans back-migrated into the Philippines, perhaps they adopted the languages of the Philippines and forgoed their Bornean languages. That may explain why the languages spoken in Borneo today are still unrelated to the Philippine languages. Perhaps the Borneans spoke a Sama-Bajaw language. There has to be a reason why the Sama-Bajaw languages survived. It's a small group of languages in terms of diversity and number of speakers. There has to be an explanation as to why Tausug exist in the middle of other language groups. Perhaps Tausug survived the arrival of the Bornean who spoke a Sama-Bajaw language. The same may apply with the Sumatrans or Peninsular Malaysians that may have migrated to the Northern Philippines. Perhaps the Sumatrans/Peninsular Malaysians adopted the languages of the Northern Filipinos. Just a thought, although it is far-fetch from the mainstream. Of course the lack of diversity in the Visayan, Bicolano, and Tagalog languages and the fact that many of the Visayan and Bicolano languages form a dialectic continuum with one another does suggest that the Central Philippine languages recently arrived in the Philippines with the arrival of the Borneans.



This post has been edited by Prau123: Jul 2 2012, 02:06 AM

[Prau123]

Major research project on the way regarding the origins of Southeast Asians, Australasians, and Pacific Islanders:

DNA analysis of ancient remains to uncover origin mysteries

Griffith University leads search for human evolution

Griffith University researchers will analyse DNA sequences from ancient human remains, some dating back 45,000 years, to determine the origins of the peoples of South-east Asia and Australia.

In collaboration with the Universities of Auckland, Copenhagen and New South Wales, the researchers will analyse human remains from continental and oceanic Asia and Australia using more powerful newly developed ancient DNA sequencing methods.

Chief Investigator Professor David Lambert from the School of Environment says understanding where the earliest people of Asia and continental Australia came from is critical to understanding modern human evolution.

"The recent sequencing of the Australian Aboriginal genome has identified two waves of human migration through Asia,'' he said.

"Aboriginal Australians descended from an early human dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago.

"This dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians 25,000 to 38,000 years ago, although there is evidence for hybridisation between them."

The researchers aim to identify descendent individuals from both lineages and detect historic patterns of interbreeding among these early people.

Professor Paul Tacon from Griffith University's Place, Evolution & Rock Art Heritage Unit said the research was a world-first study to attempt to recover human DNA sequences from more than 80 ancient human remains collected from a range of time points.

"We aim to identify the mitochondrial DNA lineage of each sample of human remains, the migration wave they represented and evidence of biological interactions, such as hybridisation with other groups.

"Although complete or draft genomes have been recovered from extinct species such as Neandertals and Woolly Mammoths, there are no existing populations of these species available for comparison.

"But an increasing number of complete human genomes in our study provide the foundation for this work."

Professor Tacon said the study was possible because of recent advances in second-generation DNA sequencing and parallel developments in DNA target capture technologies.

"These developments provide extraordinary new possibilities in the field of ancient human genomics."

The study is part of a $550,000 three-year Australian Research Council Linkage Grant.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/201...u-dao071712.php

This post has been edited by Prau123: Jul 19 2012, 07:21 PM