Philippines genetic distance between other Asians as compared to Eurpe, Autosomal study! Options

[AnybodyKiller]

Finn-Italy .013-.023
Finn-Germany .006-.013.
Finn-Russia .006-.012
Italy-Germany .0029-.008
Italy-Russia .008-.012
Italy-Sweden .006-.009
Italy-Greece 0 (Yes Zero!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_histo...SNPs_.282009.29

A study in May 2009 [42] of 19 populations from Europe using 270,000 SNPs highlighted the genetic diversity or European populations corresponding to the northwest to southeast gradient and distinguished "four several distinct regions" within Europe:
-Finland, showing the greatest distance to the rest of Europeans.
-the Baltic region (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), western Russia and eastern Poland.
-Central and Western Europe.
-Italy, "with the southern Italians being more distant"



Korea-China .0019
Korea-Mongolia .0082
China-Mongolia .0049
China-Japan .0065
China-Vietnam .0065
China-Cambodia .0139
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...distance-study/

Interestingly enough I found that Finns are actually as far from Germans as Filipinos are from Chinese. This is in terms of autosomal distancing. Just goes to show race is much more a cultural definition yet again.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting.

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Dec 14 2011, 03:30 PM

[moppom]

lol this has to be ocraps worst nightmare

along with explaining

what

yo habla espanol

means..

lol

[AnybodyKiller]

Direct link to the academic study since the one on CHF is broken.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10...al.pone.0003862

[ocrapdm]

Why would it be my nightmare?

Well, I don't dissociate Filipinos from Chinese. I BELIEVE that Filipinos, being Asians, are related to Chinese somehow.

But it's more like this:

1. She people are one of the Yueh tribes of Southern China and Vietnam.
2. She people are the remnants of the Austronesians in China.
3. Austronesian people only arose in Taiwan when the She who went there intermarried with the existing Australoids.
4. Their offspring, the Austronesian, now absorbed all the Australoids in Taiwan and now are the "Aborigines" of Taiwan called Kaoshan.
5. Some of the Austronesians in Taiwan felt that the island was becoming too crowded, and because of their Australoid affinities...
6. They were able to manage to get to Luzon without being killed or massacred by the resident Australoids.
7. Eventually, the Austronesians overpowered the Australoids by either absorbing them or killing them.
8. These Austronesians became the modern-day Filipinos, Malays, Bruneians, Indonesians, and Micronesians.

Filipinos are naturally 55% EAST ASIAN and 35% AUSTRALOID. So of course, the East Asian there would show some relation to the Chinese.

I NEVER dissociate Filipinos from Chinese, unlike what some users (like pommop) here claim.

[AnybodyKiller]

Why would it be my nightmare?

Well, I don't dissociate Filipinos from Chinese. I BELIEVE that Filipinos, being Asians, are related to Chinese somehow.

But it's more like this:

1. She people are one of the Yueh tribes of Southern China and Vietnam.
2. She people are the remnants of the Austronesians in China.
3. Austronesian people only arose in Taiwan when the She who went there intermarried with the existing Australoids.
4. Their offspring, the Austronesian, now absorbed all the Australoids in Taiwan and now are the "Aborigines" of Taiwan called Kaoshan.
5. Some of the Austronesians in Taiwan felt that the island was becoming too crowded, and because of their Australoid affinities...
6. They were able to manage to get to Luzon without being killed or massacred by the resident Australoids.
7. Eventually, the Austronesians overpowered the Australoids by either absorbing them or killing them.
8. These Austronesians became the modern-day Filipinos, Malays, Bruneians, Indonesians, and Micronesians.

Filipinos are naturally 55% EAST ASIAN and 35% AUSTRALOID. So of course, the East Asian there would show some relation to the Chinese.

I NEVER dissociate Filipinos from Chinese, unlike what some users (like pommop) here claim.

Like Tris said before, (where did that guy go anyways?) It also depends where you sample certain parts of the Filipino spectrum overlap with Chinese, while other parts seem to drift pretty far out. If they included a Micronesian sample I'd assume this part of the spectrum would overlap as well maybe.

We're as different from Chinese as Germans are from Finns. I think Finns are mixed with Mongolian or Altaic populations. Don't quote me on that though. Maybe they're 35-45% Mongol as well but those traits weren't as "popular" during sexual selection so the more European observable traits are displayed now.

[martin_nuke]

6. They were able to manage to get to Luzon without being killed or massacred by the resident Australoids.
7. Eventually, the Austronesians overpowered the Australoids by either absorbing them or killing them.

I have read legend stories of Australoids being massacred in Taiwan by Austronesians that is why the Australoids disapeared in Taiwan but if its true that they also did it in the Philippines that is terrible but they where not succesful. Anyway I am glad that the Spaniards did not massacre the remaining Australoids in the Philippines.

This post has been edited by martin_nuke: Dec 15 2011, 02:11 PM

[ocrapdm]

Like Tris said before, (where did that guy go anyways?) It also depends where you sample certain parts of the Filipino spectrum overlap with Chinese, while other parts seem to drift pretty far out. If they included a Micronesian sample I'd assume this part of the spectrum would overlap as well maybe.

We're as different from Chinese as Germans are from Finns. I think Finns are mixed with Mongolian or Altaic populations. Don't quote me on that though. Maybe they're 35-45% Mongol as well but those traits weren't as "popular" during sexual selection so the more European observable traits are displayed now.

I think it's fair to deduce that of all samples in the Philippines, it's more likely that Northern Luzonians would be the closest to Chinese. Ilocano customs and culture mirror some Hokkien traditions that we practice. And again, it's safe to assume that the Waray and Eastern Mindanao peoples are the farthest from the spectrum. In fact, some of the people there don't look Asian at all - more like either Micronesian or even Negrito or Papuan.

Well, Finns do not differ much from Germans in terms of genetic. Finns might have a separate language family from the rest of the Europeans but genetically, they're roughly similar to their neighbors. The average Finn have a SMALL proportion of East Asian genes, although relative to other Europeans, it's considered high already.

Not really because they were not popular, but it's widely known that Swedes attacked and colonized Finland during the 12th century onward. From a largely Uralic population descended from somewhere in Central Asia, the Swedish occupation led to a large influx of Swedish men entering the country, drastically changing the ethnic landscape, turning Finland into a largely Uralic and Asian country into one which is largely Germanic and European.

I have read legend stories of Australoids being massacred in Taiwan by Austronesians that is why the Australoids disapeared in Taiwan but if its true that they also did it in the Philippines that is terrible but they where not succesful. Anyway I am glad that the Spaniards did not massacre the remaining Australoids in the Philippines.

Actually, the Austronesians cannot theoretically massacre out the Australoids as a whole, because the AUSTRONESIANS are themselves mixtures of an Austro-Asiatic speaking people from Southern China who mated with Australoids in Taiwan.

[Graham_Cracker07]

I'm not exactly sure how this study differs from other ones I've seen, but it shows that average Filipinos have a significant amount of Australoid admixture. The most out of all the Asians listed, besides Melanesian-Indonesian groups. And even more than Indians. Here's the chart. I edited it (flipped it around) to make it easier to read, and I squared off the lowland Filipino bars. "PI-UB" is Ilocano, "PI-UI" is Visayan-Chavacano, and "PI-UN" is Tagalog. And for you Taiwanese Aborigine-lovers. They're at the top: "AX-AM" and "AX-AT" and their percentages are very similar to lowland Filipinos. Lots of Australoid there too. They must have bred their Negritos into extinction.



It looks to me like the Southeast Asian component has a lot of Australoid in itself because the group with the highest percentage of Southeast Asian is actually a Negrito group in Malaysia. But even if Southeast Asian is really Australoid as well, Filipinos would still have the highest Australoid percentage of all the lowland Asian groups, besides Malays & Indonesians.

Here's the website: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/03/pan-a...m-analysis.html

And a link to the spreadsheet which tells which groups are represented:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?aut...=CN7mhq0E#gid=0

So if this is right (which I'm not sure, somebody who's more knowledgeable, help me out) then the average Filipino is 30-35% Australoid. So you have the equivalent of 1 black grandparent.

[AnybodyKiller]

I'm not exactly sure how this study differs from other ones I've seen, but it shows that average Filipinos have a significant amount of Australoid admixture. The most out of all the Asians listed, besides Melanesian-Indonesian groups. And even more than Indians. Here's the chart. I edited it (flipped it around) to make it easier to read, and I squared off the lowland Filipino bars. "PI-UB" is Ilocano, "PI-UI" is Visayan-Chavacano, and "PI-UN" is Tagalog. And for you Taiwanese Aborigine-lovers. They're at the top: "AX-AM" and "AX-AT" and their percentages are very similar to lowland Filipinos. Lots of Australoid there too. They must have bred their Negritos into extinction.



It looks to me like the Southeast Asian component has a lot of Australoid in itself because the group with the highest percentage of Southeast Asian is actually a Negrito group in Malaysia. But even if Southeast Asian is really Australoid as well, Filipinos would still have the highest Australoid percentage of all the lowland Asian groups, besides Malays & Indonesians.

Here's the website: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/03/pan-a...m-analysis.html

And a link to the spreadsheet which tells which groups are represented:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?aut...=CN7mhq0E#gid=0

So if this is right (which I'm not sure, somebody who's more knowledgeable, help me out) then the average Filipino is 30-35% Australoid. So you have the equivalent of 1 black grandparent.

I wouldn't doubt it.

I'm assuming Taiwanese Native shows up as East Asian on the chart then. A few studies I've seen said we cluster closest to them out of all asians by far.

[Graham_Cracker07]

I wouldn't doubt it.

I'm assuming Taiwanese Native shows up as East Asian on the chart then. A few studies I've seen said we cluster closest to them out of all asians by far.

Taiwanese Native= Taiwanese Aborigine, and their bars (AX-AM & AX-AT) look very similar to the ones for lowland Filipinos. They're mostly East Asian with 25-30% Australoid. About the same percentage for Filipinos.

[ocrapdm]

I'm not exactly sure how this study differs from other ones I've seen, but it shows that average Filipinos have a significant amount of Australoid admixture. The most out of all the Asians listed, besides Melanesian-Indonesian groups. And even more than Indians. Here's the chart. I edited it (flipped it around) to make it easier to read, and I squared off the lowland Filipino bars. "PI-UB" is Ilocano, "PI-UI" is Visayan-Chavacano, and "PI-UN" is Tagalog. And for you Taiwanese Aborigine-lovers. They're at the top: "AX-AM" and "AX-AT" and their percentages are very similar to lowland Filipinos. Lots of Australoid there too. They must have bred their Negritos into extinction.



It looks to me like the Southeast Asian component has a lot of Australoid in itself because the group with the highest percentage of Southeast Asian is actually a Negrito group in Malaysia. But even if Southeast Asian is really Australoid as well, Filipinos would still have the highest Australoid percentage of all the lowland Asian groups, besides Malays & Indonesians.

Here's the website: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/03/pan-a...m-analysis.html

And a link to the spreadsheet which tells which groups are represented:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?aut...=CN7mhq0E#gid=0

So if this is right (which I'm not sure, somebody who's more knowledgeable, help me out) then the average Filipino is 30-35% Australoid. So you have the equivalent of 1 black grandparent.

PRECISELY. Filipinos are 30-35% Australoid.

The great differences between East Asian and Southeast Asian features (more pronounced among males) can't be explained by simple environmental differentiation:

Average Northeast Asian male

Average Mainland Southeast Asian male

Average Maritime Southeast Asian male (including Pinoys)

There's a gradient: less Mongoloid and more Australoid features from North to South.


And the East Asian (which is quite large) of Austronesians come from the She peoples of Fujian, China.

This post has been edited by ocrapdm: Dec 17 2011, 05:31 AM

[moppom]

What is clear as day, is that ocrap's got quite a large genetic distance to make up for with the chinese.

after all, he clearly states here

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...56734&st=20

post #33

3rd = No, I'm not Chinoy

So there we have it; ocrap is not a chinoy...lol

[AnybodyKiller]

Taiwanese Native= Taiwanese Aborigine, and their bars (AX-AM & AX-AT) look very similar to the ones for lowland Filipinos. They're mostly East Asian with 25-30% Australoid. About the same percentage for Filipinos.

Sorry couldn't read it too well. Using my phone.

That is really interesting to know! Meaning that Austronesians of old may have had "australoid" markers in them as well. The plot thickens

[Prau123]

Why would it be my nightmare?

Well, I don't dissociate Filipinos from Chinese. I BELIEVE that Filipinos, being Asians, are related to Chinese somehow.

But it's more like this:

1. She people are one of the Yueh tribes of Southern China and Vietnam.
2. She people are the remnants of the Austronesians in China.
3. Austronesian people only arose in Taiwan when the She who went there intermarried with the existing Australoids.
4. Their offspring, the Austronesian, now absorbed all the Australoids in Taiwan and now are the "Aborigines" of Taiwan called Kaoshan.
5. Some of the Austronesians in Taiwan felt that the island was becoming too crowded, and because of their Australoid affinities...
6. They were able to manage to get to Luzon without being killed or massacred by the resident Australoids.
7. Eventually, the Austronesians overpowered the Australoids by either absorbing them or killing them.
8. These Austronesians became the modern-day Filipinos, Malays, Bruneians, Indonesians, and Micronesians.

Filipinos are naturally 55% EAST ASIAN and 35% AUSTRALOID. So of course, the East Asian there would show some relation to the Chinese.

I NEVER dissociate Filipinos from Chinese, unlike what some users (like pommop) here claim.

A part of the ancestry of today's Filipinos may have come from Southern China or Northern Vietnam, but it doesn't mean they went to Taiwan first, and then onto the Philippines. They could have gone to Borneo first and then onto the Philippines, and possibly even a back migration into Southern China and Northern Vietnam.

I think it's fair to deduce that of all samples in the Philippines, it's more likely that Northern Luzonians would be the closest to Chinese. Ilocano customs and culture mirror some Hokkien traditions that we practice. And again, it's safe to assume that the Waray and Eastern Mindanao peoples are the farthest from the spectrum. In fact, some of the people there don't look Asian at all - more like either Micronesian or even Negrito or Papuan.

Well, Finns do not differ much from Germans in terms of genetic. Finns might have a separate language family from the rest of the Europeans but genetically, they're roughly similar to their neighbors. The average Finn have a SMALL proportion of East Asian genes, although relative to other Europeans, it's considered high already.

Not really because they were not popular, but it's widely known that Swedes attacked and colonized Finland during the 12th century onward. From a largely Uralic population descended from somewhere in Central Asia, the Swedish occupation led to a large influx of Swedish men entering the country, drastically changing the ethnic landscape, turning Finland into a largely Uralic and Asian country into one which is largely Germanic and European.



Actually, the Austronesians cannot theoretically massacre out the Australoids as a whole, because the AUSTRONESIANS are themselves mixtures of an Austro-Asiatic speaking people from Southern China who mated with Australoids in Taiwan.

Ilocanos are some of the darkest Filipinos among the lowland Filipinos. How do they have more Chinese admixture, if they are more darker? The darker you are, generally the more Australoid ancestry you have. This is just a general rule of course.

Yes there is Germanic input in Finnic population, but some people (and I'm not saying they're right) still believe that that the Caucasoid ancestry of Finns is separate from the Germanic people who invaded. Rather they were an early European group (non-Germanic) that migrated far north and met with the Uralic speaking Mongoloids. There's also possibly Baltic input.

This post has been edited by Prau123: Dec 23 2011, 09:53 PM

[filipinai]

A part of the ancestry of today's Filipinos may have come from Southern China or Northern Vietnam, but it doesn't mean they went to Taiwan first, and then onto the Philippines. They could have gone to Borneo first and then onto the Philippines, and possibly even a back migration into Southern China and Northern Vietnam.




Ilocanos are some of the darkest Filipinos among the lowland Filipinos. How do they have more Chinese admixture, if they are more darker? The darker you are, generally the more Australoid ancestry you have. This is just a general rule of course.

Yes there is Germanic input in Finnic population, but some people (and I'm not saying they're right) still believe that that the Caucasoid ancestry of Finns is separate from the Germanic people who invaded. Rather they were an early European group (non-Germanic) that migrated far north and met with the Uralic speaking Mongoloids. There's also possibly Baltic input.

Ilocanos are like mixed of a Semi-Mongoloid or Slightly almond eyes and Negritos. Ilocano is an Austronesian language, we also have to consider the culture of these people to check the similarities. That's how the Austronesian mixed and expanded.

As you can see they are mix of dark skinned and semi or slightly almond eyes. Filipinos Ancestries came from neighboring countries. They also got darker skinned because of the location like for example those people that live in the farm area or shore they got darker skinned. Some Ifugao, Kalinga or people of Benguet have lighter skinned & not are all dark skinned.



This post has been edited by filipinai: Dec 24 2011, 03:18 AM

[Prau123]

I have read legend stories of Australoids being massacred in Taiwan by Austronesians that is why the Australoids disapeared in Taiwan but if its true that they also did it in the Philippines that is terrible but they where not succesful. Anyway I am glad that the Spaniards did not massacre the remaining Australoids in the Philippines.

Maybe some Australoids got massacred, but probably most interbred.

I'm not exactly sure how this study differs from other ones I've seen, but it shows that average Filipinos have a significant amount of Australoid admixture. The most out of all the Asians listed, besides Melanesian-Indonesian groups. And even more than Indians. Here's the chart. I edited it (flipped it around) to make it easier to read, and I squared off the lowland Filipino bars. "PI-UB" is Ilocano, "PI-UI" is Visayan-Chavacano, and "PI-UN" is Tagalog. And for you Taiwanese Aborigine-lovers. They're at the top: "AX-AM" and "AX-AT" and their percentages are very similar to lowland Filipinos. Lots of Australoid there too. They must have bred their Negritos into extinction.



It looks to me like the Southeast Asian component has a lot of Australoid in itself because the group with the highest percentage of Southeast Asian is actually a Negrito group in Malaysia. But even if Southeast Asian is really Australoid as well, Filipinos would still have the highest Australoid percentage of all the lowland Asian groups, besides Malays & Indonesians.

Here's the website: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/03/pan-a...m-analysis.html

And a link to the spreadsheet which tells which groups are represented:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?aut...=CN7mhq0E#gid=0

So if this is right (which I'm not sure, somebody who's more knowledgeable, help me out) then the average Filipino is 30-35% Australoid. So you have the equivalent of 1 black grandparent.

But if we look at the Artemis Project June 11, 2011 http://dioegenesartemis.blogspot.com/2011/...hilippines.html, you'll notice that the Australoid admixture component for Filipino Ilocano or Tagalog or Visaya consist only of around 5-7% MelanesiaNaasioi and 2-3% Mamanwa for a total of 7-10% Australoid. That's a big difference compared to the Dienekes' 30-35% Australoid admixture. So this inconsistency calls into question the methodology used (or even the validity of the results), in particular the reference samples that were used by Dienekes. Were they pure Australoid reference samples? Or were they admixed with Austronesian genome? If the reference samples were admixed with Austronesian genome, then the average Filipino would show affinity to those admixed reference samples, that's my thinking. Hence, why Dienekes' Filipino samples showed high Australoid admixture (30-35% Australoid).

Ilocanos are like mixed of a Semi-Mongoloid or Slightly almond eyes and Negritos. Ilocano is an Austronesian language, we also have to consider the culture of these people to check the similarities. That's how the Austronesian mixed and expanded.

As you can see they are mix of dark skinned and semi or slightly almond eyes. Filipinos Ancestries came from neighboring countries. They also got darker skinned because of the location like for example those people that live in the farm area or shore they got darker skinned. Some Ifugao, Kalinga or people of Benguet have lighter skinned & not are all dark skinned.

I want to mention about the Kapampangas who may be related to the Ilocanos since their languages are both Northern Philippine languages. Kapampangans (and perhaps Ilocanos also) supposedly originate from Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia, but may have settled in Borneo en route to their settling of the Philippines several centuries ago before the Spanish arrived. This is attested by the linguistic similarities between Kapampangan and a Sumatran language. It make sense to me because Northern Filipinos (especially Ilocanos) tend to look darker compared to other lowland Filipinos such as the Visayans, since their origins are further south in Sumatra or Peninsular Malaysia whereas Visayans may originate in Northern Borneo. It's probably more complicated than this, but I'm just simplifying for the sake of clarity, since Visayans may consist of several tribes and may have been influenced by Sumatra , Peninsular Malaysia, Java, etc.

Here's an article: http://www.andropampanga.com/malay.html

Some modern-day linguistic researchers and archeologists claim that Filipinos including Kapampangans originated from China via Taiwan. However, based on oral traditions, it is believed that the early Kapampangan settlers along the river banks of the Rio Grande de la Pampanga in the Island of Luzon of the Philippine Archipelago were descendants of Malayan pioneers from the Malay Peninsula and from Singarak Lake of West Sumatra. These Malayan adventurers brought their advanced civilzation, their unique culture, their traditions and a language of their own and founded their dynasty based on the social foundations of freedom and economic prosperity.

The aforementioned belief based on tradition, is strengthened by Juan Francisco de San Antonio's Cronicas de la Apostolica Provincia de S. Gregorio (Manila 1738) and Francisco Colin's Labor Evangelica, Madrid 1663 (Native Races and their Customs) that Pampangos (according to tradition) originated from the largest island of the Orient, which is that of Sumatra or Trapobana (Sri Lanka).

It was indicated that in the midst of the island of Sumatra there was a large lake, on whose surrounding marge many different peoples had their abodes. A Kapampangan who had lost his way reached that place who was interviewed by Fr. Colin himself, and having discovered that there were men there of his own build, language, and clothing, approached, and entered into conversation with them in his own elegant Kapampangan tongue. They answered him in the same speech, and one of their men said: "You are descendants of the lost people who in former times, left here to settle other lands, and have never been heard of since."

Based on what is written in "The Philippine Islands -1493 - 1898", a 55-volume series English translation from the originals by Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson in the early 1900s, it is difficult to determine whether the Kapampangans came directrly from Sumatra, or settled first in Borney, because of the nearness of its lands and domains, and thence passed on to settle the islands of this archipelago although it appeared from the statements of some who had been in Borney for a time that they even found there sufficient indications that the Kapampangan people, some came from Sumatra and some from Malayo.

^ I can't attest to the validity or credibility of the article, but I've heard the Sumatran and Peninsular Malay origin of Kapampangans before.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY perhaps, you will see the many words that both Kapampangan and Bahasa Malay have in common. Please look into the link, and view the second half of the article. It will list several words that Kapampangan and Bahasa Malay share. Therefore Kapampangans (and perhaps Ilocanos also) originate south of the Philippines, in particular, from Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia. If the Ilocanos are the closest among the Filipino groups to the Chinese, then how do you account for this linguistic and oral tradition that connects Kapampangans (and perhaps Ilocanos) to Sumatra and Malaysia, and also the fact that Ilocanos are some of the phenotypically darkest lowland Filipinos?

This post has been edited by Prau123: Dec 24 2011, 05:26 AM

[ocrapdm]

Maybe some Australoids got massacred, but probably most interbred.

But if we look at the Artemis Project June 11, 2011 http://dioegenesartemis.blogspot.com/2011/...hilippines.html, you'll notice that the Australoid admixture component for Filipino Ilocano or Tagalog or Visaya consist only of around 5-7% MelanesiaNaasioi and 2-3% Mamanwa for a total of 7-10% Australoid. That's a big difference compared to the Dienekes' 30-35% Australoid admixture. So this inconsistency calls into question the methodology used (or even the validity of the results), in particular the reference samples that were used by Dienekes. Were they pure Australoid reference samples? Or were they admixed with Austronesian genome? If the reference samples were admixed with Austronesian genome, then the average Filipino would show affinity to those admixed reference samples, that's my thinking. Hence, why Dienekes' Filipino samples showed high Australoid admixture (30-35% Australoid).

The original research is linked with the spreadsheet, while the one in Diekenes is his interpretation. So if you want the facts, stick with the spreadsheet.

I want to mention about the Kapampangas who may be related to the Ilocanos since their languages are both Northern Philippine languages. Kapampangans (and perhaps Ilocanos also) supposedly originate from Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia, but may have settled in Borneo en route to their settling of the Philippines several centuries ago before the Spanish arrived. This is attested by the linguistic similarities between Kapampangan and a Sumatran language. It make sense to me because Northern Filipinos (especially Ilocanos) tend to look darker compared to other lowland Filipinos such as the Visayans, since their origins are further south in Sumatra or Peninsular Malaysia whereas Visayans may originate in Northern Borneo. It's probably more complicated than this, but I'm just simplifying for the sake of clarity, since Visayans may consist of several tribes and may have been influenced by Sumatra , Peninsular Malaysia, Java, etc.

Here's an article: http://www.andropampanga.com/malay.html
^ I can't attest to the validity or credibility of the article, but I've heard the Sumatran and Peninsular Malay origin of Kapampangans before.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY perhaps, you will see the many words that both Kapampangan and Bahasa Malay have in common. Please look into the link, and view the second half of the article. It will list several words that Kapampangan and Bahasa Malay share. Therefore Kapampangans (and perhaps Ilocanos also) originate south of the Philippines, in particular, from Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia. If the Ilocanos are the closest among the Filipino groups to the Chinese, then how do you account for this linguistic and oral tradition that connects Kapampangans (and perhaps Ilocanos) to Sumatra and Malaysia, and also the fact that Ilocanos are some of the phenotypically darkest lowland Filipinos?

Maybe that is true for the rulers (datus, rajahs, sultans), but for the majority of the ordinary commonfolk, it's more probable that they are the natives who settled there from the beginning.

There are numerous theories of origins of Philippines tribes made by educated Filipinos themselves during the Spanish period, linking their own ancestry to the "high civilizations" of India. LOL

For example:
Kapampangans and Ilocanos are said to come from Sumatra (Indonesia);
Tagalogs are said to come from Melaka (Malaysia);
Bicolanos and Visayans are said to come from Makassar (Indonesia).

Not only is this misleading, but it's not at all supported by anthropological, genetic, historical, and philologic studies. And most importantly, it does not make sense.

For example, the languages of Tagalog, Visayans, and Bicolanos are close to each other and do not have any close relations with other languages outside of the Philippine Islands. On the other hand, the languages of Ilocano, Pampango, Pangasinense, Igorots, and other Northerners are very similar to Taiwanese Aboriginal languages.

--
On the other hand, Filipinos come in all forms, shapes, and sizes. Not all Ilocanos are dark-skinned, not all Visayans look like Southeast Asians, and so on and so forth.

However, in general, Northern Luzon peoples (including Ilocanos) tend to be lightest among the native populations of the Philippines, except of course for the inhabitants of the Cagayan Valley, where there are many pure and half Negritos.

The Ilocanos of Cagayan, Isabela, and Nueva Viscaya for example, are NOT Pure Ilocanos but are native Gaddangs or Itawis who adopted the language of a few migrants from the Ilocos region.

[AnybodyKiller]

Thing is there are different types of "Australoids" (if everyone must insist on using the word. )

The ~35% in Filipinos is "K type". People who look like this.




just do a google image search of "Kapingamarangi people" or "Kapingamarangi" (This population has highest frequencies of K and corresponding markers).

Negritos are of the C and D line




EVERYONE PLEASE READ THIS LINK. PAGE 618 and see that Australian Natives cluster closer to East Asians than to Southeast Asians. It is very important we recognize that certain types of Australoids cluster relatively far from each other if we want to discuss them accurately.


EDIT: Page 618 is a good visual display

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Dec 24 2011, 03:04 PM

[moppom]

The original research is linked with the spreadsheet, while the one in Diekenes is his interpretation. So if you want the facts, stick with the spreadsheet.



Maybe that is true for the rulers (datus, rajahs, sultans), but for the majority of the ordinary commonfolk, it's more probable that they are the natives who settled there from the beginning.

There are numerous theories of origins of Philippines tribes made by educated Filipinos themselves during the Spanish period, linking their own ancestry to the "high civilizations" of India. LOL

For example:
Kapampangans and Ilocanos are said to come from Sumatra (Indonesia);
Tagalogs are said to come from Melaka (Malaysia);
Bicolanos and Visayans are said to come from Makassar (Indonesia).

Not only is this misleading, but it's not at all supported by anthropological, genetic, historical, and philologic studies. And most importantly, it does not make sense.

For example, the languages of Tagalog, Visayans, and Bicolanos are close to each other and do not have any close relations with other languages outside of the Philippine Islands. On the other hand, the languages of Ilocano, Pampango, Pangasinense, Igorots, and other Northerners are very similar to Taiwanese Aboriginal languages.

--
On the other hand, Filipinos come in all forms, shapes, and sizes. Not all Ilocanos are dark-skinned, not all Visayans look like Southeast Asians, and so on and so forth.

However, in general, Northern Luzon peoples (including Ilocanos) tend to be lightest among the native populations of the Philippines, except of course for the inhabitants of the Cagayan Valley, where there are many pure and half Negritos.

The Ilocanos of Cagayan, Isabela, and Nueva Viscaya for example, are NOT Pure Ilocanos but are native Gaddangs or Itawis who adopted the language of a few migrants from the Ilocos region.

thats interesting ocrap - so now that its been proven that you arent chinese [remember, you said "no im not chinoy"], from which tribe does your family originate?

[Graham_Cracker07]

Thing is there are different types of "Australoids" (if everyone must insist on using the word. )

The ~35% in Filipinos is "K type". People who look like this.




just do a google image search of "Kapingamarangi people" or "Kapingamarangi" (This population has highest frequencies of K and corresponding markers).

Negritos are of the C and D line




EVERYONE PLEASE READ THIS LINK. PAGE 618 and see that Australian Natives cluster closer to East Asians than to Southeast Asians. It is very important we recognize that certain types of Australoids cluster relatively far from each other if we want to discuss them accurately.


EDIT: Page 618 is a good visual display

They dont look pure Australoid. They look Mongoloid/Australoid mix. And I think so since they're Micronesians. I don't think they represent pure Australoids. If you look at the chart I posted earlier, the bar that is almost completely Australoid is the Melanesian bar. I think most of the Australoid in Filipinos comes from Negritos & Melanesians.

This post has been edited by Graham_Cracker07: Dec 24 2011, 05:33 PM