Indonesia and Maori and other Polynesians Options

[polyprince9]

Hi i'm new here and I've been researching polynesian history for a few weeks now. My dad is maori/cook islander and my mum is indonesian(maluku islands). Can anyone tell me how indonesians are related to polynesians? I've noticed that there are similar similarities in culture and language. But is there any relationship in DNA? I've also noticed that some indonesians look like samoans/tahitians/cook islanders and some can pass as maori. Is there a reason for this?
Culturally, what other pacific islands do indonesia share some similarities with?
Also,I understand that Indonesia has gone through centuries of colonialism and influences from India, China etc.
But are there any tribes in indonesia that still keeps it culture alive that are similar to other pacific island tribes? Are there any war dances like the sivi tau/sipi tau and haka?
Sorry if its a lot of questions, I'm just very interested in my background.


Thanks!

[vanguardia]

i'd advise you to lalso ook around in Filipino, Malaysian and maybe also Taiwan Chat for an answer to your question. So far, the commonality of the Peoples of the pacific and the Austronesian / Malay people of SEA is purely based on linguistics - maybe other cultural traditions & genetic heritage can be discovered.

[asyano]

Austronesia: Reclaiming The Civilization of the Voyaging Canoe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYSr2k4buqU

[trismegistos]

i'd advise you to lalso ook around in Filipino, Malaysian and maybe also Taiwan Chat for an answer to your question. So far, the commonality of the Peoples of the pacific and the Austronesian / Malay people of SEA is purely based on linguistics - maybe other cultural traditions & genetic heritage can be discovered.

Obviously not purely linguistics only. Cultural items too. Domesticated plants like 'taro" and animals which are introduced pre-Columbian times.
Austronesian seafaring ways as described above, tatoos, dog-man and flood myths, architectural motiffs, etc.
And don't forget genetics too.
for e.g Genetic relationship between the Maoris with the Southeast Asians
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s817069.htm

[elleX0]

polyp, start here in your research:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...man/photo2.html

[filipinoy]

Hi i'm new here and I've been researching polynesian history for a few weeks now. My dad is maori/cook islander and my mum is indonesian(maluku islands). Can anyone tell me how indonesians are related to polynesians? I've noticed that there are similar similarities in culture and language. But is there any relationship in DNA? I've also noticed that some indonesians look like samoans/tahitians/cook islanders and some can pass as maori. Is there a reason for this?
Culturally, what other pacific islands do indonesia share some similarities with?
Also,I understand that Indonesia has gone through centuries of colonialism and influences from India, China etc.
But are there any tribes in indonesia that still keeps it culture alive that are similar to other pacific island tribes? Are there any war dances like the sivi tau/sipi tau and haka?
Sorry if its a lot of questions, I'm just very interested in my background.


Thanks!

maluku warrior dance?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer..._type=&aq=f




but note australoids already settled many of the islands before the austronesian expansion, australoid admixture may vary per austronesian group
as i read there are non-austronesian languages in maluku
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_map.asp?name=IDM
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/03...utheast-asians/
http://www.irja.org/anthro/malmel.htm


off topic. it was moluccans who founded the city of Ternate, Philippines in the 1500s



edit:too many filipino replies here lol maybe cuz there been lots of austronesian related topics in filipino chat

This post has been edited by filipinoy: Oct 29 2009, 04:25 AM

[elleX0]

Excellent filipinoy. It provides much more detail. So it looks like man came from Africa to China and then From China to the Pacific Islands. So the ancestors of the Pacific islands came from south China. That is going to be difficult for some people to stomach?

[trismegistos]

Excellent filipinoy. It provides much more detail. So it looks like man came from Africa to China and then From China to the Pacific Islands. So the ancestors of the Pacific islands came from south China. That is going to be difficult for some people to stomach?

The Aetas, the Aborigines of Australia and the whole ancestors of Humanity were migrants from East Africa, based on the recent mitochondrial studies, passing from the Horn of Africa to the Gulf of Aden and finally to Sundaland and Australia. And from the sunking of the Sundaland (biblical Noah's flood? during the melting of the polar ice caps at the end of the pleistocene ice age) ten thousand years ago came the ancestors of the Austrics and some migrated to South Asia mixing with the natives there becoming the ancestors of the Indo-Aryans or Indo-Europeans, others going northwards to become the rice-cultivating settlers of South China onwards to the yayoi and jomon cultures of korea and japan. The divergence phenotypically from the short stature kinky haired dark colored pygmies to a taller whiter skinned straight haired Austrics coming from a single gene pool occured in Sundaland...

THE EVE OF AFRICA: single origin of man and GENETIC studies
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/paul-rod...d-spread-taiwan

The Bellwood's Theory or popularly known as the Out of Taiwan or South China theory has a concept of everything diffusing from Taiwan, then to the Philippines, then to the rest of Southeast Asia, Polynesia, etc. That the Ancestors of Malays, Filipinos, Hawaiians, Polynesians, Indonesians, the Malagasy speakers of Madagascar, the Maoris of New Zealand, etc. came from South China, then passed to Taiwan and to the Philippine isles. And so the Malagasy speaker from Madagascar and at the other end of the globe, the Polynesians from Easter Island off the coast of South America have one or few ancestors in common passing through Taiwan and the Philippines as their staging point for migrations as the central axis to both sides of the globe. And this occurs at the most 5,000 years ago.

But genetic studies done as published here... http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/pa...-spread-taiwan are saying that a more earlier migrations than the linguist Bellwood's theory is proving that the reverse direction might be true, that more larger migrations occuring much earlier than 5,000 years ago from Sundaland onwards northwards radiating towards Taiwan, South China, to as far as Korea and Japan via the landbridge or by boat during the times of rising sea levels at the end of the last glacial period or Ice Age. Dr. Oppenheimer and the Paleontologist Solheim even dared to say that the Hindu civilization and the earliest western civilization, Sumer owe much of their civilizations from those migrants coming from Sundaland.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/paul-rod...d-spread-taiwan

Their results show that the biggest migration went not from Taiwan, but to it, and occurred much earlier...
One of the more intriguing suggestions in the past decade is that the initial spread of humans from Africa extended along the southern coastline of Eurasia, to what is now Southeast Asia, then a subcontinent called Sundaland that was twice the size of modern India, stretching from Burma to Borneo. The flooding of this fertile paradise as the last Ice Age ended forced these people to adapt to new lifestyles, flee to new lands, or become extinct.

DNA research led by Leeds University’s Martin Richards, one of only two professors of archaeogenetics in the world, supports this idea, showing that the stone-age people on the southeastern shore of Sundaland expanded across the newly formed island chains 12,000 years ago.

The new theory, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, is likely to draw bitter criticism from supporters of the old consensus, based on linguistics, that the area is populated today by descendants of a rice-growing people called the Austronesians who expanded from Taiwan just 4,000 years ago. “Some quite forceful archaeologists have been extremely reluctant to accept this,” says Professor Richards. “And I haven’t met a single linguist willing to give up the out-of-Taiwan argument.”

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...a_and_Sahul.png

There must be major impulse for migrations of such magnitude to take place, so as to accelerate maritime technologies of the Proto Austronesians. Upheavals like the Noah's flood scenario, like the melting of the ice caps, or the end of the ice age, that will push, chronologies higher at or before 10,000 years ago and not just the 5,200 years ago of the Out of Taiwan theory.

But in fairness to the Out of Taiwan theory, a similar rising sea level might have occured on that time frame of 5,200 years ago. Perhaps this would reconcile the two theories, where migrations happened on a series of waves coinciding with the gradual rising of sealevels. As my memory serves me right, that the last rising of sealevel occured just about at that time period of Out of Taiwan theory which is 5,200 years ago. Edit: last rising was at 7,600 years ago

That migrations happened on both directions should never be discounted. As these two theories can easily be reconciled. But since the one with a higher chronologies could supplant the one with the lower, we are safe to assume that Taiwan is not the homeland of the Malayo-Polynesians.

another interesting link... http://pl.net/~keithr/rfc2001113OriginsEden.html

Back to topic.

Maori tatoos
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~tonyf/explore/maori.jpg
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-arch...?c=y&page=5

Ancient Luzon people and Vishayan tatoos
http://www.ngkhai.com/pointcebu/culture/Tattoo.htm
http://www.apat-na-alon-tribe.com/history1.html

Sorry I thought this is Filipino Chat

Indonesian tatoo history...
http://tattoojoy.com/tattoo_history/indonesia.htm

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Oct 29 2009, 05:27 AM

[kelapa]

Almost the modern evidences are available. So I would not comment much. I still doubt the sundaland theory though. However I do not think there are contradiction between "phillippine" path and "peninsular" (well before 10000 years there werent any) path. Both seemed to happen. Linguistical path went through phillippine, where as cultural path went through Indochina. Other case is evidence. For instance, the melanesian token some austronesian language by cultural contact, not intermarried (racial). Racial? Mixture seemingly. But with relation to polynesia, it is quite simple apparently. Once a polynesian artist (from hawaii) commented, that the balinese retained its "polynesian" distinction while at the same time showing hinduism symbols.

Austronesians were melting pots of culture and people, since before history began. Why? Look at our daily behavior. Mostly are easy-going, dont pay too serious on issues. Whether this is positive or negative, that is depend on the case, isnt it?

[vanguardia]

Lapita Culture

Polynesian cemetery unlocks ancient burial secrets

By Anna Salleh, ABC Science Online

The first people to settle Polynesia went to surprising lengths to honour their dead, archaeologists show.

Remains from the oldest cemetery in the Pacific suggest the Lapita people buried their dead in many different ways, some in "weird yoga positions", and removed their skulls for ceremonial purposes.

Dr Stuart Bedford and Professor Matthew Spriggs of the Australian National University reported their finds on the Lapita culture in Vanuatu at a recent seminar in Canberra.

"We found for the first time skulls buried in a pot, sealed by a flat bottomed ceramic dish that had been overturned and used as a lid on top of another pot," Dr Bedford said.

The site Dr Bedford and Professor Spriggs have been excavating is at Teouma in Vanuatu and is 3,100 years old.

They found evidence of 25 burials, all skeletons without their skulls.

The researchers found teeth where the head should be.

Dr Bedford says this is evidence the heads were not being pulled off soon after death but were removed after decomposition.

"Clearly there is a reverence for the head as it's being removed," he said.

Apart from the skull found in the pot, the researchers found another three skulls on the chest of the remains of one person.

Dr Bedford says removing skulls of the deceased was a long-standing practice in the Pacific before the missionaries arrived, with skulls often being removed to ceremonial houses.

The Lapita people could be the source of the practice.

"We're getting evidence that this burial practice is 3,000 years old," he said.
'Weird yoga positions


Dr Bedford and Professor Spriggs also found a huge diversity in the way bodies were buried at Teouma.

They say most were buried horizontally, mostly on their back in amongst holes in an old uplifted reef.

"This pottery bird was one of many on the inner rim of one pot, looking down on ancestral bones, but some were found lying on their front, which he says is very unusual," Dr Bedford said.

Others, still were found with their legs bent up or in what Dr Bedford describes as "weird yoga positions".

abc-australia

This post has been edited by vanguardia: Oct 29 2009, 05:49 AM

[elleX0]

So all that means that we are all related genetically but we are divided culturally. And that is the issue.We split into tribes and the tribes have to protect their territory to survive. So for us to survive we have to understand all the other tribes around us, or we will perish. That is what is happening all over the world, one tribe insisting that they are top dog, and the other tribe challenging that position.

This post has been edited by elleX0: Oct 29 2009, 08:12 AM

[trismegistos]

So all that means that we are all related genetically but we are divided culturally. And that is the issue.We split into tribes and the tribes have to protect their territory to survive. So for us to survive we have to understand all the other tribes around us, or we will perish. That is what is happening all over the world, one tribe insisting that they are top dog, and the other tribe challenging that position.

The cultural divide between Malaysians, Filipinos and Indonesians is virtually non-existent before the Western Colonizers came. Intermarriages between Ancient Austronesian royalties was very common. Like the Sultanate of Johore, Melaka/Malacca, Brunei, Maguindanao, Sulu including Manila as an outpost of Brunei were all interrelated in the bloodlines(Sri-Bisayan blood with admixture with Chinese, Arab and Hindu blood). And before that accdg to some quasi-historical documents, intermarriages between the Majapahit with the ancient royalties of Seludong/Saludong/Selurung/Lusung/Lucoes were common. The Archipelagos were connected by trade routes. Lucoes or the Luzon people were seen by the Portuguese explorers in Timor hauling sandalwood for export and having trade outpost and some important positions(temenggong) in Malacca, etc and were seen as Chinese because of their monopoly of the Chinawares.

Lindsay and those linguist ethnologue freaks are inventing races as there are many languages and dialects. Lindsay true color is pro Aryan, btw. Find it absurd the so called Indian nationalism and the refuting of many Indian scholars of the Aryan Invasion theory.

I don't know why people find it laughable for e.g. Filipinos calling themselves part of the Malay race or Malayo-Polynesian. Filipinos are just trying to reconnect with their ties with their brothers in the south. Must be the rivalries between Indonesians and the Malaysians. Must be the Bumiputra attitude of the Malaysians getting the ire of the Chinese wannabees. Not that I condone that attitude, in the contrary, I am against any bias and discrimination due to color, creed, race or ethnic affiliations and sex.

The coming centuries, the in-thing will be towards the Oriental and Feminine way of (W)Holism or the Holistic as opposed to Specializations of Occidental thought or Separatism of Western Way or "Divide and Conquer" which is too Aryan and Masculine.


Back to topic:
Most of our crops and cultivation like corn, potato, cacao, pineapple, peanuts and chilli came from Mexico and South America but were found already in Southeast Asia and the distribution of these domesticated plants happened even before the Europeans came something which pro-colonials would like to refute.

But genetics and new archeologic or paleontological studies are confirming that trans pacific voyages of the Austronesian and vice versa , other Southeast Asian native domesticated plants and animals were found in the Americas and all of these happened Pre Columbian times- even before Columbus set foot in the West Indies.

As for the rice-farming, still the progenitors are Austronesians or Proto-Austronesians though they were living back then in South China. Remember the AryHan Invasion theory or rather the Out of Taiwan theory. Till the Proto Austronesian were pushed and accelerated their maritime technologies because of the invading Ary-Hans. But the plausible and saner reason for migrations and the fast tracking of Maritime technologies was the impending catastrophic rising of sea levels(Sundaland theory of Solheim and Oppenheimer). Of course Pro-Han or the Chinese wannabe would like to say that rice agriculture was invented by the Han Chinese. The Austronesian cultural character of Funan, Jomon, Yue(?) or Yayoi(?) and Champa have long been (almost or totally) erased by cultural assimilations, invasions or to be politically correct by political assimilations, etc.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Oct 29 2009, 10:06 PM

[elleX0]

trism: so does it make any difference how all of you got bastardised? Are you saying that all the pacific islanders are brothers because of their admixtures and should stick together like the Arabs do? Are you saying the the Papuans are culturally the same as the Balinese or the Malaysian Bumiputras or the same as the Australian Aborigines or Sakais, or the Bataks? They may look alike, but I am sure that their differences is not just skin deep. That all the problems in South East Asia were caused by the Dutch and British and Portuguese and Spanish colonialists? That even between these different peoples that there was no difference in their culture? Do you really see it that way?

This post has been edited by elleX0: Oct 30 2009, 10:58 AM

[jrockerz]

Hi i'm new here and I've been researching polynesian history for a few weeks now. My dad is maori/cook islander and my mum is indonesian(maluku islands). Can anyone tell me how indonesians are related to polynesians? I've noticed that there are similar similarities in culture and language. But is there any relationship in DNA? I've also noticed that some indonesians look like samoans/tahitians/cook islanders and some can pass as maori. Is there a reason for this?
Culturally, what other pacific islands do indonesia share some similarities with?
Also,I understand that Indonesia has gone through centuries of colonialism and influences from India, China etc.
But are there any tribes in indonesia that still keeps it culture alive that are similar to other pacific island tribes? Are there any war dances like the sivi tau/sipi tau and haka?
Sorry if its a lot of questions, I'm just very interested in my background.


Thanks!

yes we do have !
especially when you check area called Moluccas ( east indonesia) there.

I am not genetically native, but most of my family born there, and we saw similarities to Hawaii.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkYWJNP1BAo

war dances? of course.
depeds which area, but moluccan war dances are called cakalele


keep post

[salamat]

trism: so does it make any difference how all of of got bastardised? Are you saying that all the pacific islanders are brothers because of their admixtures and should stick together link the Arabs do? Are you saying the the Papuans are culturally the same as the Balinese or the Malaysian Bumiputras or the same as the Australian Aborigines or Sakais, or the Bataks? They may look alike, but I am sure that their differences is not just skin deep. The all the problems in South East Asia were caused by the Dutch and British and Portuguese and Spanish colonialists? That even between these different peoples that there was no difference in their culture? Do you really see it that way?

Papuans r not austronesian

[elleX0]

Who are the Papuans then?

[filipinoy]

Papuans are considered Australoids, Australoids maybe one of the first groups out of Africa as they are one of the LEAST related to Africans

Australoid Subspecies
A. Veddoid (ie. remnant Australoid population in central and southern India)
B. Negritos (ie. remnants in Malaysia and the Philippines)
C. Melanesian race (ie. New Guinea, Papua, Solomon Islands)
D. Australian-Tasmanian (ie. Australian Aborigines)

But isolation of these groups have diversified their genetics

PNG is one of the most heterogeneous country in the world

Pure Papuans especially inland ones & unmixed Melanesians have no relation with Austronesians

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_map.asp?name=PG
Languages of PNG

The official language of Papua New Guinea Hiri Motu is an Austronesian language



But many coastal areas of PNG & surrounding islands of Melanesia that speaks Austronesian & genetic evidence show they have some Austronesian admixture

The 27-bp deletion in the erythrocyte band 3 gene (B3Delta27) constitutes a genetic basis for Southeast Asian and Melanesian ovalocytosis. The distribution of B3Delta27 has been interpreted to reflect malaria selection or dispersal of the recent expansion of Austronesian-speaking populations. To explore these two hypotheses, we examined eight malarious populations of the East Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea (PNG) that speak both the Austronesian and Papuan languages. The B3Delta27 allele frequencies within populations were not positively correlated with malaria endemicities. In contrast, statistically significant geographical variations in the B3Delta27 allele distribution were observed. B3Delta27 was high (0.06-0.07) in the islands, intermediate (0.02-0.03) in coastal regions, but was absent or rare (0.00-0.01) in inland populations. Furthermore, the prevalence of the mitochondrial DNA region V 9-bp deletion, associated with the Austronesian expansion, was significantly correlated with that of B3Delta27. These results suggest that B3Delta27 was introduced by Austronesian-speaking people within the past 3,500 years and susequently expanded to populations along the coasts and islands of PNG. This study highlights the contribution of population origins, patterns of gene flow, disease selection and genetic drift in determining the genetic compositions of present populations.

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v51/n3/abs/jhg200636a.html

This post has been edited by filipinoy: Oct 30 2009, 01:24 PM

[kelapa]

Another evidence of SEA as the central of dispersion to people of Asia (for Papuan, Melanesian, Polynesian, and Australian will be conducted further). The difference from former studies is that this study provide the whole genome data, not just certain marker genes or partial genome (mitochondrial or Y chromosome). This study provides also evidence against Express Train to Polynesia theory, especially the formosa-origin part.

News in Indonesian

News in Science journal

[Majapahitans]

Another evidence of SEA as the central of dispersion to people of Asia (for Papuan, Melanesian, Polynesian, and Australian will be conducted further). The difference from former studies is that this study provide the whole genome data, not just certain marker genes or partial genome (mitochondrial or Y chromosome). This study provides also evidence against Express Train to Polynesia theory, especially the formosa-origin part.

News in Indonesian

News in Science journal

The theory that holds the ancestors of Asian human race was came from Southeast Asia (could be in Indochina, Malay peninsula, or sunken Sundaland) makes that sunken Sundaland "Atlantis" theory as civilization primordial home is more appealing... (wearing my tin-foil cap).

This post has been edited by Majapahitans: Dec 15 2009, 04:38 AM

[kelapa]

If you notice the center of dispersal in the map is around Riau although I thought it is supposed to be hypothetical.



The arrow pointing to Melanesia is also quite not correct in my knowledge. We have evidences of Papuan/Melanesian/Australian culture in East Kalimantan and Maluku, too, beside in Java and Lesser Sunda Islands.

Any mention of Sundaland as center of dispersal should be provided with arguments on "why the place is likeable to these ancestors"; fertile soil, since they must be known to practice agriculture? any water sources ? And so on. We still lack of these evidences.