Debunking the OUT OF TAIWAN HOMELAND THEORY of Pinoys, "East Asians came from Southeast Asia" genetic study by Chu et
Debunking the OUT OF TAIWAN HOMELAND THEORY of Pinoys, "East Asians came from Southeast Asia" genetic study by Chu et
Feb 5 2010, 09:20 PM
Joined: 3-March 09
From: Los Indios Bravos' Mu
(also pls be referred to this post for more interesting points and links... http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=223334&view=findpost&p=4685172
, but anyways, I am going to repost it as addenda later on...
There are newer studies already debunking this "out of taiwan theory"
"Phylogenetic Analysis Of Human Mitochondrial Genomes Of Two Major Haplogroups In Austronesian-speaking Populations by Martin richards
The majority of populations that occupy the islands from Taiwan and Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) to Polynesia speak the same language family, Austronesian. Several models have been proposed for the origin of these populations but the prevailing one proposes a Neolithic expansion of rice farmers from South China to Taiwan and onwards, in the last 4000 years, to ISEA and further into the Pacific. This model is known as “Out of Taiwan”.
The phylogeny of complete sequences of two major Austronesian-speaking populations’ specific clades of mitochondrial DNA, haplogroups E and B4a1, contradicts the consensus view. Haplogroup E presents much deeper private subclades in ISEA. This suggests an ancestry there and a subsequent movement of people into Taiwan, probably motivated by the sea level rising at the end of the last ice age. The geographic origin of the B4a1 branch is unclear, but its most frequent sub-branch, present only in eastern ISEA and the Pacific and defined by the ‘Polynesian motif’, dates to around 7500 years predating the hypothetical “Out of Taiwan” movement 4000 years ago. Furthermore this branch is more diverse to the east of New Guinea in the Bismarck Archipelago, suggesting an origin in that region."
CHU ET AL STUDIES PROVING EAST ASIANS INCLUDING THE ALTAICS CAME FROM SOUTHEAST ASIA
To reiterate what the scientists concluded:
...genetic evidence does not support an independent origin of Homo sapiens in China. The phylogeny also suggested that it is more likely that ancestors of the populations currently residing in East Asia entered from SOUTHEAST ASIA.
It is now probably safe to conclude that modern humans originating in Africa constitute the majority of the current gene pool in East Asia. A phylogeny with very different topological structure would have been expected if an independent Asian origin of modern human had made a major contribution to the current gene pool in Asian populations. Since the methods employed in this analysis can detect only major genetic contribution from particular sources, a haplotype-based analysis will probably detect minor contribution from an independent origin of modern humans in East Asia (24, 25).
In contrast with previous studies (2–4) where distinction between southern and northern populations was clear, our current analysis showed that northern populations belong to two different groups, although statistical support was still weak. One noticeable difference in our study is the employment in the phylogeny reconstruction of the neighbor-joining method, which is supposedly more robust in the presence of genetic admixture. The use of microsatellites, a different type of genetic markers from previous studies, and the measures of genetic distance introduced further complication. However, the northern populations in cluster N2 were sampled from the southwestern part of China, except for Ewenki, where genetic admixture with the southern population was more likely to occur. This might explain why this group of northern populations clustered with southern populations.
Another noticeable feature from this analysis is that the linguistic boundaries are often transgressed across the six language families studied (Sino-Tibetan, Daic, Hmong-Mien, Austro-Asiatic, Altaic, and Austronesian). Such a phenomenon is even more pronounced among southern populations, where populations from the same geographic regions tend to cluster in the phylogeny (see Fig. 1 B). This observation is consistent with the history of Chinese populations, where population migrations were substantial.
The current analysis suggests that the southern populations in East Asia may be derived from the populations in Southeast Asia that originally migrated from Africa, possibly via mid-Asia, and the northern populations were under strong genetic influences from Altaic populations from the north. But it is unclear how Altaic populations migrated to Northeast Asia. It is possible that ancestral Altaic populations arrived there from middle Asia, or alternatively they may have originated from East Asia.
The analyses of metric and nonmetric cranial traits of modern and prehistoric Siberian and Chinese populations showed that Siberians are closer to Northern Chinese and Mongolian than European (26, 27). The same notion holds for the facial flatness (26–28). European populations did not appear in Siberia, western Mongolia, and China until the Neolithic and Bronze Age (26, 27, 29, 30). Furthermore, cranial and dental analyses have linked the Arctic peoples, Buryat and east Asians with American Indians (31–35), which arrived through Beringia (Bering land bridge) somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago (36). These observations are generally consistent with the genetic evidence based on this research and mitochondrial DNA data (37–40). Therefore, it is more likely that ancestors of Altaic-speaking populations originated from an East Asian population that was originally derived from Southeast Asia
More study proving that the Mongoloids or the East Asians came from Southeast Asia:
NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – In a paper appearing online today in Science, members of the Human Genome Organization's Pan-Asian SNP Consortium reported on genetic patterns in more than 70 Asian populations.
The team, which included researchers from 10 Asian countries as well as investigators from the US, used microarrays to map the genetics of 73 Asian populations. They found that most genetic clusters corresponded to language groups, though geography was also a factor in these patterns. In addition, the study suggests an influx of individuals from Southeast Asia contributed genetically to many populations found in East Asia today.
"[O]n the basis of variation at a large number of independent SNPs, we observed that there is substantial genetic proximity of [Southeast Asian] and [East Asian] populations," the researchers wrote.
Members of the HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium used the Affymetrix GeneChip Human Mapping 50K Xba Array to genotype 1,928 individuals from 73 Asian populations at 54,794 autosomal SNPs. They also assessed samples from two non-Asian HapMap populations.
Their ancestry analyses suggest Asian populations harbor genetic contributions from five language groups, three ethnic groups, and two small groups representing specific populations in Borneo and Thailand.
Most of the genetic patterns corresponded with language groups, the researchers reported. But there were exceptions. For instance, they found eight populations in which genetic and language patterns did not match. Rather, individuals in these populations tended to cluster more closely with nearby geographic populations.
"These patterns are consistent either with substantial recent admixture among the populations, a long history of language replacement, or uncertainties in the linguistic classifications themselves," the researchers explained.
In general, haplotype diversity was highest in southern Asia and dwindled in samples taken further north.
Most East Asian haplotypes — some 90 percent — turned up in Southeast or Central-South Asia. But more of these haplotypes were unique to Southeast Asia: about half of East Asian haplotypes were present only in Southeast Asia, the researchers reported, compared with the five percent of East Asian haplotypes that were found in Central-South Asia alone.
Such patterns indicate that migration from Southeast Asia into East and North Asia, the team explained. They proposed a model whereby ancestors of modern day Asian populations settled in India before migrating to Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. From there, it appears one or more groups traveled north, mixing with other populations already living in these regions.
Let's say the questionable Stanford study (which has a small sampling size of Filipinos and not representative to the whole spectrum of various Filipino phenotypes) is scientifically true:One might conclude that the Amis are the closest GENETICALLY to us Filipinos. But the fact remains, various genetic studies so far prove NORTHWARD MIGRATION. THUS the often quoted STANFORD STUDIES have no clear indication GENETICALLY in proving their assertion of SOUTHWARD MIGRATION but otherwise various studies done by Chu et al, Professor Martin Richards, and the HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium are affirming the Theories by Solheim and Oppenheimer and thus, debunking the linguist Bellwood's theory, OUT OF TAIWAN. Plus the fact that the validity of the old Stanford study on Filipinos is still in question. Probably, it's moot and academic since there are newer studies.
IN CONCLUSION, TAIWAN OR SOUTH CHINA IS NOT THE MOTHERLAND OF THE FILIPINOS.
We should throw to the garbage bin the Ary-Han Invasion Hoax perpetrated by some sinonazis.
New Asians: the Sundadont O1(Amis-Austonesians), Sinodont O2(Altaics-Japanese-Koreans), Sinodont O3(Sino-Tibetan) and the Sundadont Daics/Austro-Thai sprung up from the Old Asian Australoids(Ainus, Papuans, Andamese-who came from the Single Mitochondrial eve of Africa) in Sundaland during the end of the last glacial period(5,000 to 10,000yrs ago) as various studies done by Martin Richards and Chu et al(East Asians came from Southeast Asia and not Yunnan-Southwest China/Central Asia) had proven? Therefore another Northward migration by the NEW ASIANS circa postglacial period aside from the earlier Northward migration of the beach combing land-bridge trekking Old Australoids(Ainus) or OLD ASIANS 50,000-100,000 yrs ago.
That's why it so difficult to make generalizations basing from questionable studies like the Stanford study which has only few samplings of Filipinos and not truly representative of the spectrum of various Filipino phenotypes and genotypes. And idiocy to generalize that Filipinos are Amis or that people had this paternal lineages with a different maternal lineages. And yet linguistically speaking the Malay language, the Bahasa Indonesian language, the Tagalog-Bisayan languages share more similarities in lexicon than the Ami and Formosan languages. But of course, the linguist Bellwood has his own explanation but unfortunately newer genetic studies(Martin Richards) have debunked the Out of Taiwan theory. And not forgetting various myths by the Taiwanese aborigenes themselves keep pointing to the south as their origins.
Here we characterize Y chromosome variation in 1,209 samples drawn from Southeast Asia, Oceania, southern China, and Taiwan. The combination of a geographically extensive sample set with high-resolution Y chromosome haplotype data, employing both unique-event polymorphisms (UEPs), which define haplogroups, and quickly evolving microsatellites (Thomas et al. 1998, 1999), which define haplotypes, provides information about the length of time that lineages have been in residence in defined geographic areas. This allows identification of lineages that appear to have been in residence in the south, long before any possible input from the north associated with agriculture, and other lineages that were more recently dispersed and that could have been dispersed in association with agriculture. The identification of such lineages suggests (1) that the paternal heritage of many East Asian populations has an origin in insular Southeast Asia and Melanesia and (2) that the genetic heritage of Austronesian agriculturalists throughout Southeast Asia and Melanesia has a conspicuous indigenous origin and that, in Melanesia in particular, the dispersal of the Austronesian languages was mainly a cultural process, in contradiction to the express-train model.source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1235276/
As said earlier, most Taiwanese aborigenes claimed southern origins except the Amis who are sinodontified recently and heavily influenced from their South Chinese neighbors who were originally Austronesians as well until later times became Sinified.
Even the Polynesians admit coming from Havaiki or Javaiiki, their motherland.
The genetic studies especially the animal studies which often used as to bolster the Out of Taiwan theory can be reconciled with the Southeast Asian (out of Sundaland)theory.
AUSTRONESIAN EXPANSION can be easily explained via the Out of Southeast Asia theory because of the inundation of Sundaland or Southeast Asia during the end of the last glacial period.
While the Out of Taiwan can't fully explain the stimulus for the expansion. Must be out of WHIM.
About Javaiiki or Hawaiiki, homeland of the Polynesians... http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-SmiH...body-d3-d1.html
"The name Java, Jaba, Saba, Zaba, Jawa, Hawa, is the same word, which is used for rice-fields which are irrigated. The word is primarily connected with the flowing of water. "(In a note he adds)" Sawa, Jawa, Saba, Jaba, etc., has eviddntly in all times been the capital local name in Indonesia … The Bugis apply the name Jawa, Jawaka, to the Molukas."
The above quotation from Mr. Logan shows what an accomplished linguist and philologist considers to be the origin of the name Hawaiki (or Savaiki, for "h" and "s" are convertible letters, as are "w" and "v" in the Polynesian language) and his further remarks bear on one or more of the secondary Hawaikis, as we shall have to refer to later on. But the quotation is given here in order to assist in arriving at a meaning for the name. Mr. Edward Tregear has probably gone deeper into the origin of this and other names than anyone else, and briefly his conclusion is "That the names of the lands of Polynesian origin, such as Hawaiki, Yaringa, Paliuli, and Atia, are derived from words used for varieties of food, but primarily of grain. The grain-name was applied to barley, millet, wheat, etc., by the western natives, but to the rice by the people of India and the tribes moving eastward. It became in time not only a designation of the cereals themselves but of the soil in which they grew, and the methods of irrigation, etc." I cannot exactly agree with Mr. Logan that the iki in Hawaiki, means little, otherwise it would be—in Maori—iti, for the Maoris have not, like the Hawaiians, and some others, changed the "t" into
"k,"* It may be, that an "r" has been deleted, and the word might have been Hawa-riki, which of course means "little Hawa." But no Polynesian would, if this had been the case, use the form Hawaiki-nui (the great little Hawa). It seems to me more probable that the name may have been originally, Hawa-ariki or Hawa-the-regal, from ariki, eiki, aka-iki, etc., a high chief, king, firstborn, etc.
And from the Brazilian scientist:
Again, the Polynesians also claim to have come originally from a sunken island or continent which they called by names such as Hawaiki (or Javaiki), which mean something like "Sunken Grove" or "Destroyed Land", that is, the same as the sunken Garden of Eden. And, as we argue elsewhere, the Polynesian Paradise, just as all others indeed lay in the submerged portion of primordial Indonesia.
[Footnote: The name of Hawaii derives from that of Hawaiki or Jawaiki, the sunken continent which was the primordial homeland of the Hawaiians and other Polynesians. As we argue in detail elsewhere [Link to article: The Origin of the Polynesians], the Polynesians originally came from Indonesia. This place they called Jawa or Hawa, a name derived from the one of Java, the name of these islands in antiquity and even now. The name of Java refers to "wheat" or "barley" and, perhaps, "rice". What this means is that agriculture was invented there, as it indeed was.]
There are several schools of thought on the origin of haplotype O, according to wiki, which includes origin in glacier-covered Siberia . It is more likely that Haplo type O evolved in Southeast Asia and not in mainland China as previously thought and still being drummed up by various researchers. Various genetic studies as presented are showing Southeast Asia origins.
Even migrations by boat from Taiwan southward, statistically speaking, is very improbable because of the Nortward current, Kuroshio current, and going downwards is only probable at only certain parts of the year. The odds of migrating downwards is very nill considering, five thousands years ago, sail tacking was not yet developed. It is impossible to go from the Taiwan to Philippines because you will just end up going to Japan from Taiwan. There was no landbridge between Taiwan and Philippines at the end of the last ice age. And so crossing by landbridge from Taiwan to the Philippines is out of the question.
Unfortunately, rice grains artifacts as archaeological evidence can't be preserved in the tropics and thus the paucity of evidence of rice agriculture origins in insular SEA and much less in the inundated plains of Sunda. The oldest Rice terraces in the Philippines is dated 6,000 years ago(therefore swamp type and upland type of rice agriculture could be practiced much earlier) while the Austronesian expansion of rice farming migrants from Taiwan or South China to the Philippines and Indonesia according to that theory is only 2,000 to 5,000 years ago. 7,000 to 10,000 years ago(or even as late as 5,000 years ago-coinciding with the Bellwood's Austronesian expansion theory), there were series of rising of sea levels inundating much of the Sunda shelf or Southeast Asia and the receding glaciers during the end of the last Ice age actually favored NORTHWARD MIGRATIONS AND NOT BACK MIGRATIONS TO THE AXIS OF DISASTERS...
Linguists have now shown that the Austronesian language spoken in the Solomon islands is the most ancient form of this language, estimated to be over 15,000 years old. The Polynesian version of Austronesian is from Taiwan only 5,000 years ago, showing a direction of dispersal opposite to what has previously been believed.
Interesting that the Javanese and the Malays have as predominant Daic(Tai-Kadai) blood as Austronesian blood(shown in green). According to the naziwannabes, they were supposed to be product of the interbreeding between Melanesians(Papuans) and Amis who originally came from the Yunnan homeland as the Sino-Tibetans . They have only same proportion of minute traces of Melanesian blood as the Tagalogs, Bisayans and the Ryukans(Japanese).
The Javanese', the Malays', and the Pinoys' genetics sure show far greater genetic diversity in contrast to the Amis and the Ryukans.
How then can such impoverished diversity like the Amis give rise to descendant populations in Southeast Asia that are far more diverse? VERY UNLIKELY. Naziwannabes will opined that it is because of sweeping interbreeding(GENETIC ADMIXTURE) which is highly unlikely(Ancients tended to be TRIBAL AND CLANNISH)... The reason for genetic biodiversity is GENETIC DIVERGENCE AS MIGRATORY POPULATIONS SPLIT and NOT DAUGHTER POPULATIONS(Formosans) as PARENTS to Malayo-Polynesians(See italicized text and Map)... "the journey would have imposed a very strong population bottleneck (not many can survive the journey) that genetic diversity would have been reduced tremendously in the descendant Chinese populations" and Ami populations(Taiwan is considered as Genetic Backwaters instead of Homeland).
The Genetic continuum thus far proved Southeast Asia origin for the East Asians and Malayan-Filipinos and that the Yunnan-Taiwan homeland for Malayo-Polynesians is very unlikely.(Migrations of Humans were unlikely to proceed to Glacier covered Central Asia but Southward via Sout Asia then to Southeast Asia then finally NORTHWARD as glaciers retreated and with the inundations of Sunda shelf, and finally, Caucasoids had able to linked up with the Mongoloids in Central Asia) link: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...t&p=4437265
Quoting Farhan Ali:
A few others brought up the important issue of Austronesian origins. This issue is definitely complex. But it is almost certainly NOT the case that natives in Taiwan are genetic ancestors of Austronesian-speaking Southeast Asians because native Taiwanese are positioned highly nested in the Southeast Asian tree; instead, they are likely descendants of Southeast Asians. The present study sampled only two native Taiwanese populations. But in other studies sampling more native Taiwanese populations, the same pattern of results is found.
The origins of Austronesian languages (as opposed to genetic origins of Southeast Asians) are trickier. The two biggest pieces of evidence for Taiwanese origins are 1) there is greater Austronesian language diversity in Taiwan than elsewhere in Southeast Asia and 2) that agriculture is believed to have been brought into Southeast Asia from Taiwan/China in the Holocene a few thousand years ago, bringing along the Austronesian root words associated with agriculture. Language origins do not always track population ancestry, so in this case, it is entirely conceivable that native Taiwanese came from Southeast Asia and subsequently, a proto-Austronesian language from the North spread Southwards back in Southeast Asia with little population contribution as uncovered by the genetic study.
Alternatively, one can combine the genetic with linguistic evidence. Linguistic ancestry has very shallow time depth and cannot say much about which language families are related to which. But from the genetic evidence, speakers of the Austronesian language family are closely related to speakers of other Southeast Asian language families. Thus, based on parsimony, it is likely then that some proto-language of Southeast Asian ancestors came from Southeast Asia itself. Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic language families etc. are thus likely just daughters of this ancestral language in Southeast Asia.
As mentioned in the article, this present study debunks many established ideas including stories our grandparents and teachers may have told us. One is the belief that aboriginal Southeast Asians (e.g., the Orang Asli) were of a different lineage from the rest of Southeast Asians, but this study clearly shows that all Southeast Asians and East Asians including all the aborigines are united in one branch. The aborigines, despite what commentators here have alluded to in terms of their superficial “African” looks, are not more related to those from Africa than the Chinese, Japanese or others in Asia are. Looks are very deceiving. So can ‘wisdom’ passed down to us.
Fox argued that the greater genetic diversity in Southeast Asian populations is due to greater admixture. Admixture (e.g., intermarriages) is, of course, an important element of human history but such scenarios can be statistically tested and have been rejected in this paper as well as in others. E.g., a simple admixture scenario would predict that the closer geographically the populations are to the sources of admixture (India and China, in this case), the closer the genetic distance to populations in the sources and the greater the genetic diversity. There is no correlation between geography and genetic distances, and contrary to prediction, there is in fact a reduction in genetic diversity as one gets closer to India and China (e.g., Thailand, South China, etc.); the highest diversity is found in Indonesia which is the farthest away from India and China by land (little evidence of long-range maritime migrations in prehistory).
Fox also brought up the interfamily language diversity in mainland Southeast Asia. I’m not familiar with the intricate details of classifying languages, but I suspect it is as arbitrary as genus, family, etc. classifications of organisms. What defines a language family? There are elements that unite Austronesian with Austro-Asiatic but why are these separate families and not one? There are also elements that unite Malayo-Polynesian branch of the Austronesian family, but why it is a branch as opposed to a distinct family? In biology, the answer is that it arbitrarily depends on which guy happens to study that group of organisms, and this is probably the case for languages. In any case, in biology there are different levels of phenotypic diversity. It can be phylodiversity in which case, arbitrary higher level classifications matter and there is species diversity which depends only on species definitions (which are less arbitrary). Using mutual unintelligibility as the criterion of language ‘speciation’, it is true that island Southeast Asia has much greater language ‘species’ diversity.
The Higher Phylogeny of Austronesian
Re: common origins between Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, Austronesians, etc.
But I don't think pre-Austronesians came from NE China as the paper suggested. The reasons as stated above by recent more conclusive genetic studies and as what Farhan Ali mentioned about the subjectivity and arbitrary nature of linguistic reconstructions.
Before anything else, I have created a new thread discussing the newest maternal mitochondrial research study debunking out of Taiwan theory and about the Polynesian migration... http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=257140
And a very interesting thread about the genetic and linguistic connections between the Daics or Tai-Kradai with the Austronesians... http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...t&p=4740743
Some highlights of that thread...
t is also possible that our Dravidian ancestors from India splitted even before the Deluge into Austro-Asiatic(17-28kya) which stayed Mainland while Austro-Tai(Austronesian-Tai-Kradai) going further into Insular portion of Sundaland now ISEA. Then during the earlier risings of sea levels(circa 7-12kya) Tai-Kradai or Daic branch went to Indochina via two ways: mainland route and sea route going to Champa(now Vietnam)corridor and later on another sea route with the Formosan branch going to Taiwan. Then these three branches met on mainland contributing to the O1, O2 and O3 genotypes among Tai-Kradai or Daics.
But then Haplogroup O most probably originated not on South Asia(India) or even in MSEA but in ISEA(Sundaland), where K*/MNOPS splittings/bifurcations is highest and oldest. You have NO* haplotype among Surigaonons and Manobos and Australoid K*(age 50,000yrs ago) among Aetas and the Mongoloid looking Hanunuo Mangyans. I don't know if there is any MNOPS* or NO* or immediate precursor of the O haplogroup present in MSEA. If present, I probably bet the ISEA is more varied and older. Therefore all O1,O2,O3 haplogroups all Southern Mongoloid branches of Austro Tai and Austro Asiatic collectively called Austric most probably originated in ISEA>MSEA(both collectively formed Sundaland subcontinent then). Thus possible three bifurcations the first two predominantly O2,O3 splitted with the earliest occuring 17-28kya(?)into the Austro Asiatic via mainland route and later on O1a Daic or Tai-Kradai(7-12kya) via mainland route and sea route(to Champa/Vietnam corridor) to Indochina/South China. And the last bifurcation, another sea route migrations northward via Taiwan(5-7kya).
All three branches(proto-Daic, proto-AustroAsiatic, proto-Austronesian) then admixed in Mainland becoming the Yue or Yi or DongYi or the Yayoi migrants or proto Hmong Mien or proto-Sino-Tibetan that populated East Asia to become the ancestors of the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans. The Yayoi met with the earlier Australoid Ainu at Japan forming today's Japanese.
Exchanges between the Proto-Austronesian or Sino-Austronesian DongYi(O2+O3) or Yi or Yue or Viet people from South China/Indochina(via Austronesian Champa) with their southern brethren(Malayo-Polynesian) formed the Nusantao Maritime Trading Network.
You have to remember that southern half to almost the whole stretch of present day Vietnam was then for the longest time fully occupied by the Austronesian Champa people and was called then the Champa kingdom(land of the Austronesian Chams), which extended to present day Laos-Thailand. And also the present South China sea was then known as the Sea of Champa. So, the Austro-Tai (Tai kradai and Austronesian) territories were before contiguous from each other with the South china sea as the connecting link via maritime seafaring.
which explains why some Nordic Swedes have Asiatic features...
A counter-clockwise northern route of the Y-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia towards Europe
Although having variable frequency scales, the spatial distributions for ancestral paragroup NO-M214*, paragroup N-M231* and the prevalent hg O-M175 (Figure 2a, c, d) are generally congruent and highlight Southeast Asia as the most parsimonious source region of these clades. The spread pattern of paragroup NO* approximates the same regions of Southeast Asia as paragroup N*, although being present at an even lower frequency compared with N*18, 19 (data from Kayser et al19 updated in present study). More notable, however, is the fact that the spatial dynamics of the whole N and O haplogroups greatly differ from each other. The split between N* and O is dated to 34.64.7 thousand years (ky). The age of STR variation of hg O in Southeast Asia probably exceeds 26 ky,10 and its numerous subclades currently predominate in southern and southeastern Asia extending into northern China, Manchuria and some Siberian populations,7, 9, 11, 20, 21 as well as westward to the eastern sector of the Indian subcontinent10 and eastward to Oceania.18, 19
The K* haplotype from SEA is probably the source of the Mongoloid Haplogroup O as well as Haplogroup N while it is virtually absent in Central Asia as well as the Near East. Su et al and Chu et al are all in agreement. East Asians came from Southeast Asia and not Central Asia.
Paternal genetic affinity between western Austronesians and Daic populations
From that study(above link), it confirmed that the newer O1 haplotypes present among Taiwanese aborigenes can't be the patrilines to the Island Southeast Asians being those found in Indonesia more varied and older.
Unfortunately no Philippine population were sampled for that study. If they did that and correlated with the newer Karafet studies as well as this... http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/09/y-chr...gritos-and.html or http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/nc...hg2010162a.html ----
----...they would have considered Philippines or Eastern Indonesia as the origin of the Austronesians as well as the Daics also
Again, in the above study:
The ISEA populations may also be admixed. In our study, we assumed that the ISEA were mixed by three potential parental populations: Daic populations, Taiwan aborigines, and the indigenous populations of the Sunda Islands, who are similar to Papuans. We performed an admixture analysis on the Indonesians, and included data of the Papuans from the literature [36,37] as one of the parental population structures in the analysis. Our analysis showed the following admixture proportions: Daic (0.713 ± 0.124), Taiwan (0.143 ± 0.125), and Papuans (0.144 ± 0.050), indicating that the contribution of the Daic ancestry on the Indonesians is the most dominant. There is some uncertainty in these data as our assumption that the ISEA population is an admixture can not be tested.
In the bolded portions, they assumed that the heterogeneity in Island SEA populations is contributed by Admixture primarily and haven't tested the possibility that it might predominantly be by Transition/Splitting/Divergence/Genetic Continuum. For if they consider the latter and consider Admixture as a recent phenomenon and lesser in significance, the very diverse and older Indonesians/Philippines genotypes are therefore be far more ancestral to both Daics and to Taiwanese aborigenes. And they would have revise their conclusion that the Daics as ancestral to both Indonesians and Taiwanese aborignes favoring Indonesian/Philippines genotypes as ancestral to both the Daics and Taiwanese aborigines. A simple assumption could change greatly the complexion of the conclusion. Unfortunately what will be read by the greater majority will be just the conclusion and the abstract and will be considered the bible or the scientific facts. Without reading this minor nuances, one will be swayed by the conclusion coming from an interpretation of an assumption which could be flawed.
That study must be the source of that article which like in Lindsayish fashion said "Austronesians particularly the Indonesians are Daics." But the problem with this study, the premise was the Older Australoid or Proto-Mongoloid groups like K*, NO* or MNOPS subgroups were not considered as a Genetic continuum with the Paleolithic Indonesians and thus prematurely concluded that the Daics are much older than Indonesians. If the Karafet studies(Paleolithic origins of Indonesians) as well as the newer studies showing the Genetic continuum(Transition, Splitting, Bifurcations) between Australoids and the Southern Mongoloids are taken into the account and not just as simple admixture. It would have reversed the origin into ISEA instead of MSEA of both the Daics and Austronesians.
What is greatly or sorely or conspicuously missing and absent in this study are Filipino O1a as well as O2a and O3a samples. Even the indigenous Tai-Kradai populations from Thailand were not sampled. Most indigenous Daic or Yue or DongYi populations were sampled from Yunnan and South China who were accdg to this study relatively isolated from admixture with the Han Chinese but said to be also genetically very close to the latter. It would have greatly change the outcome of the study if there were indigenous Filipino and Thai samples. If the Filipino O1a samples particularly from the indigenous groups relatively isolated from admixtures like Mamanwas, Negrito Agtas, Manobos and lowlanders like the Surigaonons(which had NO* like the Manobos) were analyzed as older and more varied than the Daic group, Indonesian group and the Formosan group, then the Philippine isles will be deemed the Origin of Austronesians(O1a at the least). Archaic O2a samples particulary from the relatively isolated Negrito Irayas and Archaic O3a samples particularly from the Surigaonon and Maranao should then have been analyzed vis a vis against the Daics as well. If all three(O1a, O2a, O3a) from the Philippine isles were sampled and analyzed as older and more varied as against all Trans Asian samples, then, we can safely say Philippine isles as the origin of the Mongoloid O haplogroup or of the majority of all the Mongoloids.
In the newer studies, K* as well as NO* is found in the Philippine isles, these patrilines being the ancestors to all the O haplogroups found among the Daics, Sino tibetans, Austrics(Austro Asiatic and Austronesians)
The northern route or via Central Asia lack those markers and thus proving the southern route in the migrations of humans from Africa to South Asia then to Southeast Asia. Then K splitted to NO then splitted to O1, O2, O3 as they migrated up north. The Southern Route was verified by both Chu et al and Su et al and reflected on newer studies as well.
I can help but find the parallelism in terms of K, P, and R haplogroups of the Aryan invasion versus the Out of India theory and corresponding respectively to the Taiwan homeland hypothesis versus the K, NO, and O haplogroups of the Out of Indonesia/Philippines theory.
In conclusion, in terms of Genetic continuuty: Southern Chinese-Daics-Taiwanese aborignes-Filipinos-Indonesians-Daics-Southern Chinese (With Filipinos and Indonesians as ancestral to the Daics, Taiwanese aborigenes and the Southern Chinese)
Returning to the question of Out of India theory versus Out of Central Asia theory/Aryan Invasion theory:
My interpretation is there is a Genetic Continuum between Australoids and Caucasoids in South Asia just like in Southeast Asia(SEA), there is a genetic continuum between the Mongoloids and the Australoids. Indians are not Aryans from Central Asia up north invading/colonising/interbreeding with Dravidians from the South. But rather the Aryans R1b Western European Caucasoid haplotype and Eastern European South Asian R1a, R2 haplotype descended via the P haplotype from the Australoid K haplotype(with its daugher L haplotype and its ancestral C haplotype are also found in South Asia) or in layman's term, both the Aryans and the Dravidians shared the same ancestry in South Asia with the former who went northward then going to Central Asia and to the Middle East, then finally going to Europe. R splitted from K via P haplotype. Mongoloid O haplogroup also came from the K haplotype. C, D, K haplogroups travelled southward into SEA then northwards with K splitting to the various O haplogroups of East Asians and SEAsians. N, P, Q, S, and T all splitted from K. P haplotype the immediate ancestry of R haplogroup as accdg to wiki splitted from K during 20,000 to 40,000 yrs ago from Central Asia and siberia which is quite impossible knowing that the last glacial maximum which started 70,000 yrs ago and ending 10,000yrs ago was all covered with ice or if not in a very inhospitable condition. I wager tropical South Asia as the place of the splitting of R from P just like L splitted from K in South Asia also just about the same time. Himalayan mountain ranges were covered with very thick glaciers which extended into the Hindu Kush mountain ranges(Hindu killer) preventing southward migration from Central Asia and the Middle East respectively refuting the Aryan invasion theory with the Aryans coming from the chilly north. So, you have in the wiki, R haplotype in about 20,000yrs ago either originated in South Asia, Central Asia or the Middle East. I wager South Asia is the correct one and not Central Asia for the above reason. And only in the end of the last glacial period during 10-15,000 yrs ago, when R migrated to the Middle East crossing the terrible Hindu Kush mountain ranges and to the arid Central Asia steppes, which then became hospitable as the glaciers retreated. Current researchers have it backwards, it should be northward migration and not southward migration as the icy sheet retreated and making the northern arid steppe areas more hospitable to humans.
Sumerians seemed to be related to the Austrics(Austro Asiatic plus Austronesian) of South Asia and SEA. The Sumerian civilization, the first civilization in the Middle East, sprung forth from the Indus civililizations.
Western Civilization owes itself to the Civilizations in Indus Valley. Western Civilization came from the Romans'. The Romans' from the Greeks'. The Greeks' from the Phoenicians and the Ancient Egyptians. Phoenicians' from the Sumerians'. Accdg to the Ancient Egyptian, their motherland was Punt in the Eritrean sea(Indian Ocean) and so the Brazilian scientist's story goes.
Btw, T haplotype also known as K2, a direct offshoot of K haplotype(Non African) is found among Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Indians particularly Dravidians and Austro-Asiatics. So proving that from South Asia, R haplogroup migrants together with T haplotype migrated northwards and westwards during the Deluvial period(end of the last Ice age) and with the T haplotype finding its way into the Middle East then to Northeast Africa to the horn of Africa. T haplotype found its way into Europe too and among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian and Indus Valley Civilizations were all interconnected.
R haplogroup splitted from P haplotype, 20,000 yrs ago(Ice Age period).
If a class of people has a higher numbers of R haplogroup than to another class of people. That doesn't mean the former class are the source of R and interbreeding with another lower class to impart those R haplogroup. Ancient societies in prehistoric times tended to be clannish with ethnic taboos forbidding intermarriages between classes and other ethnic groups.
Since Europe has the higer numbers of R haplogroup, can we say R haplogroup originated from it.
The place with the higher molecular variance as what apac45 termed is the location of where the splitting occurs.
For one thing Western Asia as well as Central Asia, lack the K and P haplotypes, the immediate ancestry of R haplogroup. Those above areas can't be the areas where R originated. R just didn't appear out of nowhere. K haplotype with K* and MNOPS is found at a lower frequency in India but with higher frequency in SEA and Oceania but P haplotpe as P* the immediate ancestor of R haplogroups is found in higher frequency in India. P originated from K btw.
Trivia: A famous member of the T or K2 haplogroup is Thomas Jefferson.
The Tropical Rainforest could be the biblical Lost Paradise immortalized in the masterpieces of John Milton by Ave V. Rotor
K* haplotype(paternal to the Mongoloid O haplogroup, Caucasoid R haplogroup, Ancient Egyptian K2/T haplogroup and Amerindians Q haplogroup) found among Kunlun people(negritoes)
To end as a sidenote concerning the maternal mitochondrial Polynesian motiff of the Austronesian expansion:
B4a1a1 is closely associated with Austronesian expansions specifically with Malayo-Polynesian expansion. While the parent haplotype B4a1a is frequent in Taiwan, the Philippines and Sulawesi, neither its predecessor B4a or the Polynesian motif B4a1a1 were found in the sample of 640 women from Taiwan.
They suggested that the Polynesian motif may have originated in the Philippines where it is present in small quantities in Mindanao. However they also conclude that because of the higher diversity of B4a1a in Taiwan that the haplotype must have migrated from there to the Philippines where it is found at the lower diversity. However, the estimated ages of 9,500 BP to 4,600 for the haplotype in Taiwan and 7,900 BP to 2,400 for the Philippines show an extensive overlap in the standard error calculation.
What seems more important is the presence of the parent B4a, which is present in small quantities in the Philippines but absent from Taiwan.
The estimated ages for the frequent haplogroups that the study focuses on i.e., 7300 BP for B4a1a, 7900 BP for E1a1a, and 11,400 BP for M7c3c, all seem to early to0 correspond to the commonly given dates for an Out of Taiwan expansion of Proto-Austronesian, which is generally place more in the range of 5000 BP.
The presence of parent B4a in the Philippines and its absence in Taiwan suggested that the Taiwanese aborigenes themselves came from the Philippines. So both Taiwanese aborigenes and the Polynesians came from the Philippines. We are going back full circles. The Taiwanese aborigines didn't came out of nowhere. Martin Richard's study clearly pointed southern origins. And he didn't mention a northern origin(Southern China origin nor Mekong river delta origin) for the Taiwanese aborigenes as some study speculated.
Accdg to Martin Richards who debunked Out of Taiwan hypthesis:
The phylogeny of complete sequences of two major Austronesian-speaking populations’ specific clades of mitochondrial DNA, haplogroups E and B4a1, contradicts the consensus view[Taiwan Homeland hypothesis]. Haplogroup E presents much deeper private subclades in ISEA. This suggests an ancestry there and a subsequent movement of people into Taiwan, probably motivated by the sea level rising at the end of the last ice age.
Accdg to Oppenheimer, these studies:
a) pulls Taiwan closer to SE Asia and away from Mainland Asia,
b) a Philippines or other ISEA origin for B4a1a is not excluded - and
c) the dates appear far too early for the Express train Taiwan Homeland hypothesis.
B4a from the Philippines -----> B4a1a in Taiwan, the Philippines and Sulawesi ------->Polynesian motif B4a1a1 in Eastern Indonesia and Oceania
This post has been edited by trismegistos: Mar 25 2011, 08:10 AM
Jun 2 2010, 05:33 AM
Joined: 19-September 09
do malaysians, filipinos and indonesians take part in these events? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCLPs6hoe5k "austronesian welcome home"
Jun 2 2010, 10:02 AM
Joined: 16-April 07
do malaysians, filipinos and indonesians take part in these events? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCLPs6hoe5k "austronesian welcome home"
Well currently island of Boneo Dayak population both Indonesian Kalimantan and East Malaysian state is celebrating Harvest Festival/ Gawai Dayak/ Keaamatan
Cultural Dance - Iban
Orang Ulu Dance
Bidayuh Dance Rajang Be'uh
This is a great video showing harvest ritual rice godess "Hominodun" of the Kadazan: Pesta Kaamatan
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 19th June 2013 - 08:19 AM|