Newest Study Questioning/Debunking(?) the Out of Taiwan hypothesis, Ancient Voyaging and Polynesian Origins Options

[trismegistos]

Before anything else, pls be referred to the old thread for more interesting points and links... http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=223334
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-92...rge_figure=true
----------------------



The original paper:
http://download.cell.com/AJHG/pdf/PIIS0002929711000103.pdf

Ancient Voyaging and Polynesian Origins

Pedro Soares1, 2, Teresa Rito1, 3, 4, Jean Trejaut5, Maru Mormina1, 6, Catherine Hill1, Emma Tinkler-Hundal1, Michelle Braid1, Douglas J. Clarke3, Jun-Hun Loo5, Noel Thomson7, Tim Denham8, Mark Donohue9, Vincent Macaulay7, Marie Lin5, 10, Stephen Oppenheimer11 and Martin B. Richards1,

In this paper,
ISEA: includes Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysian Borneo. Taiwan-excluded

Near Oceania (the western Pacific): includes New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago, Bougainville, and the Solomon Islands; and

Remote Oceania includes Island Melanesia southeast of the Solomons (including Vanuatu and Fiji), Polynesia, and Micronesia

---------------------------------

Some highlights:

Haplogroup B4a1a, although almost exclusively associated with speakers of Austronesian languages, cannot have dispersed from Taiwan into ISEA and the Pacific 3–4 ka. The 95% confidence limits on the ages of B4a1a1 and B4a1a1a from complete mtDNAs explicitly reject this explanation for their distribution (Table 1). Because B4a1a, along with some haplogroup Q lineages—of likely New Guinean origin, which occur in Polynesia at a rate of <5%[10] and [12]—make up almost all of the mtDNAs found in Polynesia, these results exclude any significant direct Taiwanese contribution from 4 ka to the maternal ancestry of Polynesians. (We cannot entirely rule out an early Holocene dispersal from Taiwan >8 ka,23 but such a dispersal would not match the archaeologically dated “out of Taiwan” model.)

In ruling out both a simple Taiwanese and a Wallacean origin, these results also contradict an influential “slow boat” model for Polynesian origins that suggests an ancestry in Taiwan at 4 ka for the maternal line of descent while positing a large Near Oceanic origin for the male side, based on Y chromosome evidence.[10], [47], [48] and [49] Our results suggest instead that the mtDNA subclade B4a1a and the major Pacific Y chromosome haplogroup C2 might be distributed in a rather similar way, with a proximally Near Oceanic, but ultimately Southeast Asian, ancestry. Several widely distributed paternal subclades may have a Taiwanese ancestry, but they only occur in Oceania at low frequencies.[49] and [50] Available autosomal microsatellite diversity, furthermore, suggests that Polynesian patterns show a partly East Asian and partly Near Oceanic ancestry at low resolution but are distinct from both at higher resolution.[51] and [52] This is also compatible with our model of a largely ancient Asian ancestry for Polynesian origins, with an early Holocene incubation period in ISEA and then in Near Oceania. The male and female lines of descent may therefore not have such radically contrasting histories as some have proposed.[10] and [53]

The spread of B4a1a1a back through New Guinea into ISEA, which most likely took place 4–5 ka, suggests instead that models based on the idea of a “voyaging corridor,”[5] and [7] facilitating exchange between ISEA and Near Oceania, may provide a more plausible backdrop to the settlement of the Remote Pacific. The HVS-I database provides further indications of small-scale bidirectional movements across this region. E1b, in particular, might plausibly have been carried by small numbers of Austronesian-speaking voyagers who integrated with coastal-dwelling B4a1a1 groups in the Bismarcks (where it is present at 5%), perhaps stimulating the rise and spread of the Lapita culture and the dispersal of the Oceanic languages.38 Other lineages from Southeast Asia are also found at low frequencies in Near Oceania, and still others are candidates for dispersal from Taiwan into eastern Indonesia via the Philippines, but they did not reach Oceania.25 Some of these may have also been involved in the transmission of Austronesian culture and languages, although they evidently had no demic role in the founding of Polynesia.

Thus, although our results rule out any substantial maternal ancestry in Taiwan for Polynesians, they do not preclude an Austronesian linguistic dispersal from Taiwan to Oceania 3–4 ka,54 mediated by social networks rather than directly by people of Taiwanese ancestry but perhaps involving small numbers of migrants at various times.9 The mtDNA patterns point to the possibility of a staged series of dispersals of small numbers of Austronesian speakers, each followed by a period of extensive acculturation and language shift.55

Overall, though, the mtDNA evidence highlights a deeper and more complex history of two-way maritime interaction between ISEA and Near Oceania than is evident from most previous accounts.54 Archaeological and linguistic evidence for maritime interaction between ISEA and Near Oceania during the early and mid-Holocene is strengthening, however,[9] and [56] and it has been suggested that contacts might have been facilitated by sea-level rises and improvements in conditions on the north coast of New Guinea.4 Early to mid-Holocene social networks between New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago are marked by the spread of stone mortars and pestles, obsidian, and stemmed obsidian tools from 8 ka57 until before or alongside the advent of Lapita pottery in the Bismarcks at 3.5 ka.6 The absence of early Lapita pottery on New Guinea suggests major disruptions to preexisting exchange networks within Near Oceania before or at 3.5 ka, with increasing social isolation of some areas and increasing interaction between others.

There is also emerging evidence from both archaeology and archaeobotany for the spread of domesticates during the mid-Holocene, before the presumed advent of Austronesian dominance from 4 ka. Molecular analyses suggest that bananas,58 sago,59 greater yam,60 and sugarcane61 all underwent early domestication in the New Guinea region. These cultivars, and associated cultivation practices, diffused westward into ISEA, where the plants and linguistic terms for them were adopted by Proto-Malayo-Polynesian speakers upon their arrival 4 ka[9], [54] and [62]. The vegetative cultivation of these plants evidently occurred within ISEA before any Taiwanese influences became significant.

This work suggests, therefore, a convergence of archaeological and genetic evidence, as well as concordance between different lines of genetic evidence. Our results imply an early to mid-Holocene Near Oceanic ancestry for the Polynesian peoples, likely fertilized by small numbers of socially dominant Austronesian-speaking voyagers from ISEA in the Lapita formative period, 3.5 ka. Our work can therefore also pave the way for new accounts of the spread of Austronesian languages.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Sep 24 2011, 08:27 AM

[filipinoy]

^true agriculture already developed independently in papua new guinea.. i think one reason why austronesians wasn't able to penetrate the highlands & only settled the coast

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...mp;searchtype=a
:from the article.... this tree suggests... EA/MSEA origin?

Figure 2.

Chronology of Human mtDNA Haplogroup B4, with a Focus on the Austronesian-Specific B4a1a Clade

Branch lengths were estimated via maximum likelihood (ML) and a time-dependent molecular clock obtained from four ML trees, with data from different regions within B4a1a (overall data, Taiwan, ISEA, and Bismarck Archipelago only). ISEA denotes Island Southeast Asia; PM denotes Polynesian motif.

This post has been edited by filipinoy: Mar 2 2011, 09:31 AM

[trismegistos]

^true agriculture already developed independently in papua new guinea.. i think one reason why austronesians wasn't able to penetrate the highlands & only settled the coast

I agree. The ancient Papuans were already firmly rooted and established in the Papuan highlands that's why the ancient coastal lowlanders couldn't penetrate those thickly forested Equatorial Papuan jungle highlands. Or the coastal lowlanders weren't interested in Highland living.

Highest diversity and some of the most oldest language groups in the whole world are to be found there. Some linguists would consider Austronesian languages in around the Bismarck areas near the Papuan language group areas to contain the oldest Austronesian languages very much older than the Taiwanese aborigenes'.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...mp;searchtype=a
:from the article.... this tree suggests... EA/MSEA origin?

Figure 2.

Chronology of Human mtDNA Haplogroup B4, with a Focus on the Austronesian-Specific B4a1a Clade

Branch lengths were estimated via maximum likelihood (ML) and a time-dependent molecular clock obtained from four ML trees, with data from different regions within B4a1a (overall data, Taiwan, ISEA, and Bismarck Archipelago only). ISEA denotes Island Southeast Asia; PM denotes Polynesian motif.

As you have said in another thread, we can traced further BACKWARDS our ancestors' footsteps to Mainland SEA, our beach combing ancestors(land trekkers), then, further back to South Asia and, ultimately, to Africa. See the timeline. 50,000 yrs ago and before the end of the last Ice age, when Much OF ISEA themselves was connected to MSEA. Sundaland subcontinent(MSEA plus ISEA) was not yet inundated by rising sealevels. MSEA in the graph could be ISEA just the same or simply SUNDALAND which includes INDOCHINA btw during those timelines.

To put simply:
SUNDALAND= MSEA(Indochina) + ISEA(Malayan Archipelago)

And so MSEA/EA in the graph includes SUNDALAND. btw, those parent haplotypes are found also among ISEA. Anyways, there are lots of hold outs(East Asia centrics) putting East Asia as the origin of Haplogroup B. These are the people who believe the quite illogical Old hypothesis of Northern route of migration via Central Asia above Glacier covered Genetic barrier Himalayas during the Ice Age over the Southern route of migration via South Asia then finally to SEA as preferred by newer studies by Chu et al, Su et al, and the SNP studies. But slowly but surely the alternative origin of ISEA or SEA proper is getting stronger. Interestingly, that Haplogroup B is found among Indigenous Americans(American aborigenes or American Indians) but absent among Northern Siberians putting doubts whether migrations of most American Indians from Asia did really crossed Beringia near the Arctic at all. Boats that crossed the Pacific during the rising sealevels, anyone? Anyways, myths among Ancient American Indians recalled boat migrations from cataclysmic Deluge. What apac45 termed as 'basal mitochondrial N' which is found among Mamanwas in another study could be pretty close to the Original Archaic Basal Mitochondrial N that was ancestral to Haplogroup B. Plus the accompanying Haplogroup E is found at highest diversity in ISEA. So we can change that color(referring to MSEA/EA) ARBITRARILY AS ISEA's color as well and you won't go wrong.

Still, the major bifurcations or Austronesian expansion or the development of Austronesians(boat-builders) came from ISEA(Sundaland being splitted to many isles forming the MALAYAN archipelago:Indonesian and Philippine Archipelagos) starting from 15,000 yrs ago to the latest 5-7kya during those series of rising sea levels(not a singular event) which accelerated maritime technologies. This is way much older than the proposed Bellwood's expansion of only originally 2,000 yrs ago and now pushed to 5,000 yrs ago.

Plus all these mitochondrial studies pulled the Taiwanese aborigenes closer to ISEA than to the MSEA. And so the Taiwanese aborigenes came from ISEA proper(from the south) than from MSEA(Southern China and Indochina).

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Mar 3 2011, 08:48 PM

[filipinoy]

I agree. The ancient Papuans were already firmly rooted and established in the Papuan highlands that's why the ancient coastal lowlanders couldn't penetrate those thickly forested Equatorial Papuan jungle highlands. Or the coastal lowlanders weren't interested in Highland living.

Highest diversity and some of the most oldest language groups in the whole world are to be found there. Some linguists would consider Austronesian languages in around the Bismarck areas near the Papuan language group areas to contain the oldest Austronesian languages very much older than the Taiwanese aborigenes'.


As you have said in another thread, we can traced further BACKWARDS our ancestors' footsteps to Mainland SEA, our beach combing ancestors(land trekkers), then, further back to South Asia and, ultimately, to Africa. See the timeline. 50,000 yrs ago and before the end of the last Ice age, when Much OF ISEA themselves was connected to MSEA. Sundaland subcontinent(MSEA plus ISEA) was not yet inundated by rising sealevels. MSEA in the graph could be ISEA just the same or simply SUNDALAND which includes INDOCHINA btw during those timelines.

To put simply:
SUNDALAND= MSEA(Indochina) + ISEA(Malayan Archipelago)

And so MSEA/EA in the graph includes SUNDALAND. btw, those parent haplotypes are found also among ISEA. Anyways, there are lots of hold outs(East Asia centrics) putting East Asia as the origin of Haplogroup B. These are the people who believe the quite illogical Old hypothesis of Northern route of migration via Central Asia above Glacier covered Genetic barrier Himalayas during the Ice Age over the Southern route of migration via South Asia then finally to SEA as preferred by newer studies by Chu et al, Su et al, and the SNP studies. But slowly but surely the alternative origin of ISEA or SEA proper is getting stronger. Interestingly, that Haplogroup B is found among Indigenous Americans(American aborigenes or American Indians) but absent among Northern Siberians putting doubts whether migrations of most American Indians from Asia did really crossed Beringia near the Arctic at all. Boats that crossed the Pacific during the rising sealevels, anyone? Anyways, myths among Ancient American Indians recalled boat migrations from cataclysmic Deluge. What apac45 termed as 'basal mitochondrial N' which is found among Mamanwas in another study could be pretty close to the Original Archaic Basal Mitochondrial N that was ancestral to Haplogroup B. Plus the accompanying Haplogroup E is found at highest diversity in ISEA. So we can change that color(referring to MSEA/EA) ARBITRARILY AS ISEA's color as well and you won't go wrong.

Still, the major bifurcations or Austronesian expansion or the development of Austronesians(boat-builders) came from ISEA(Sundaland being splitted to many isles forming the MALAYAN archipelago:Indonesian and Philippine Archipelagos) starting from 15,000 yrs ago to the latest 5-7kya during those series of rising sea levels(not a singular event) which accelerated maritime technologies. This is way much older than the proposed Bellwood's expansion of only originally 2,000 yrs ago and now pushed to 5,000 yrs ago.

Plus all these mitochondrial studies pulled the Taiwanese aborigenes closer to ISEA than to the MSEA. And so the Taiwanese aborigenes came from ISEA proper(from the south) than from MSEA(Southern China and Indochina).

would that make austronesian languages in Bismarck way older than those in sundaland & the philippines? papuan related languages are the oldest & original languages of the bismarck area, austronesian when compared is just a more recent migrant



can't be "15,000" years ago.
because the article's tree chart above said B4a1a & B4a1a1a(polynesian motif) only appeared between 4,000-7,000BP,
which is right about the beginning time of the first estimated Austronesian movement 7,000bp


major migration of "B"



right now i still think Austronesians where present in our country first before papua new guinea

This post has been edited by filipinoy: Mar 4 2011, 01:32 PM

[trismegistos]

would that make austronesian languages in Bismarck way older than those in sundaland & the philippines? papuan related languages are the oldest & original languages of the bismarck area, austronesian when compared is just a more recent migrant



can't be "15,000" years ago.
because the article's tree chart above said B4a1a & B4a1a1a(polynesian motif) only appeared between 4,000-7,000BP,
which is right about the beginning time of the first estimated Austronesian movement 7,000bp


major migration of "B"



right now i still think Austronesians where present in our country first before papua new guinea

Haplogroup B4a1a, although almost exclusively associated with speakers of Austronesian languages was already present as early as 12ka to as late as 7-8ka as mentioned in the text.

In Y chromosomal:
~15kya- (my estimate of the start of the Sundaland inundation was about that time so it could be 12kya as in that graph), Paleolithic Proto-Austronesians(majority of today's Austronesian Indonesians) were already established(Y chromosomal Haplogroup O1 or subclades of Haplogroup O). Which corresponds to that Graph as Holocene Red near 10k mark. But by the last salvo of rising sea levels at 5-7kya as I have mentioned before as the last endpoint of that range, was when the First Neolithic Austronesians (Taiwanese aborigenes, Filipinos and Borneans)appeared as a sub branch from this Paleolithic Proto Austronesians or Austronesians. As Karafet Y chromosomal studies said, majority of Austronesian Indonesians were of Paleolithic origins.

In a way, you are right that the Neolithic Austronesians from the Philippine isles were first before they appeared in New Guinea and Oceania. The difference in our POV is Neolithic Austronesians first appeared and originated in the Philippines and radiated from there, to Taiwan and eventually to other areas like Indonesia, Oceania, etc.

For the purpose of this discussion to make it simpler to us layman, there are two Austronesians- Paleolithic and Neolithic. Neolithic to correspond to the predominant haplotype found among Taiwanese aborigenes. Since they labeled the Taiwanese aboriginese' O1a2 as exclusively as the Austronesian marker (of Austronesian expansion) to correspond to their OOT(Taiwan Homeland hypothesis). Which is wrong, of course, as Austronesians from Indonesia have much older and more diverse O1, O2 and O3 subclades and are as Austronesians as the Taiwanese are. But in my POV, these two(Neolithic and Paleolithic Austronesians) I considered as only one but in a genetic continuum. And so for the purpose of our discussion, those from the Bismarck areas are most probably off shoot from this Paleolithic proto Austronesians just like the Neolitic Austronesians are. That's why the oldest Austronesian languages accdg to some linguists are to be found there.

And this study is questioning, whether the Neolithic Austronesians had a major impact in the Austronesian expansion(of the Polynesian motiff) and found only slight influence. To put it simply, when the so called Neolithic Austronesians from Taiwan(OOT)/RP came to Near Oceania, the Paleolithic Austronesians from Eastern Indonesia had already spread to Oceania carrying the corresponding Austronesian language/genomics(Polynesian motiff)/culture.

In the light of the SNP studies, Chu et al, and Su et al studies, this Northern migration route below is questionable and outdated already. That's to conform to the Old Hypothesis of the Northern route as old as OOT. And soon will be outdated as Beyer's 3 wave theory. But for now is still popular and obviously has many adherents. But there is another more valid theory(Southern route). It's like Galileo's theory was unpopular during his time but later on recognized as correct.

What's strange with that graph is the arrow (from inlet encircling R, N, M) from South Asia passed through directly to the unpassable Genetic Barrier, the Himalayan Mountain ranges, to China. Why always China?
It would have been better if those in the inlet placed on China was placed lower in the area of MSEA/Sundaland. And that would conform with the Southern Migration theory.

So, there are two contending theories for the origins of B and E. In that graph, the origin is East Asia coming from the Northern route. I consider it difficult for humans to cross above Himalayas/Central Asia at the Last Glacial Maximum. I don't consider Central Asia as the Conception vessel for the development of Humans. The bleak conditions there is not right for Human habitation. If the Northern route is correct, what we will have is slitlike eyes like the Eskimos' and the haplotypes/haplogroup branchings up north should be older and more varied which it is not. And the one I subscribed to is the Southern route theory and SEA origins of both B and E. Latest Maternal mitochondrial, Paternal Y chromosomal and SNP studies are now showing the Southern route as more feasible and more validity than the Northern route. The Northern route became feasible only during the Neolithic period when the polar Ice caps retreated. And such they have only very slight contribution to the genomics of todays North East Asians with a little more amounts on today's Siberians.


Some notable highlights in this study:

Although an early Holocene dispersal from Taiwan to ISEA is possible, diversity indices (Table S4) suggest that the presence of B4a1a in Taiwan more likely represents a dispersal event from ISEA, which a founder analysis would date to 6.3 ka (Table S5), again mirroring haplogroup E. Dispersal from ISEA to Taiwan has also recently been indicated by large-scale genome-wide SNP analysis.

B4a1a1, the clade defined by the “pre-motif” transition at position 14022,23 is the immediate ancestor of the subclade carrying the Polynesian motif. It is absent from Taiwan and found primarily in Near Oceania, with a strong geographical focus on the Bismarck Archipelago (Figure 3B). It is also most diverse in the Bismarcks (Table 1 and Table S6), and although the overall age is estimated at 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.9, 8.7) ka, this rises to 8.4 (95% CI: 4.9, 12.1) ka with data only from the Bismarcks region, whereas the age estimates for Indonesia are consistently lower than those for the Bismarcks. Thus, B4a1a1 most likely either arose from a B4a1a ancestor within the Bismarcks or arrived there from further west in the early Holocene, much earlier than the appearance of Lapita and the putative arrival of Austronesian languages (3.5 ka at most).

Our results show that the maternal ancestors of most Remote Pacific islanders split from Asian mainland lineages 10–20 ka, rather than 5.5 ka, as would be the case if they were to be explained by the “out of Taiwan” model. They had established themselves in the Bismarck Archipelago by at least 6 ka, rather than arriving there 3.5 ka with the advent of Lapita pottery, as the model predicts.46 Haplogroup B4a1a, although almost exclusively associated with speakers of Austronesian languages, cannot have dispersed from Taiwan into ISEA and the Pacific 3–4 ka. The 95% confidence limits on the ages of B4a1a1 and B4a1a1a from complete mtDNAs explicitly reject this explanation for their distribution (Table 1). Because B4a1a, along with some haplogroup Q lineages—of likely New Guinean origin, which occur in Polynesia at a rate of <5%[10] and [12]—make up almost all of the mtDNAs found in Polynesia, these results exclude any significant direct Taiwanese contribution from 4 ka to the maternal ancestry of Polynesians.
So, 10-20 ka, 15ka is the midpoint.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Mar 4 2011, 11:56 PM

[Prau123]

Haplogroup B4a1a, although almost exclusively associated with speakers of Austronesian languages was already present as early as 12ka to as late as 7-8ka as mentioned in the text.

In Y chromosomal:
~15kya- (my estimate of the start of the Sundaland inundation was about that time so it could be 12kya as in that graph), Paleolithic Proto-Austronesians(majority of today's Austronesian Indonesians) were already established(Y chromosomal Haplogroup O1 or subclades of Haplogroup O). Which corresponds to that Graph as Holocene Red near 10k mark. But by the last salvo of rising sea levels at 5-7kya as I have mentioned before as the last endpoint of that range, was when the First Neolithic Austronesians (Taiwanese aborigenes, Filipinos and Borneans)appeared as a sub branch from this Paleolithic Proto Austronesians or Austronesians. As Karafet Y chromosomal studies said, majority of Austronesian Indonesians were of Paleolithic origins.

In a way, you are right that the Neolithic Austronesians from the Philippine isles were first before they appeared in New Guinea and Oceania. The difference in our POV is Neolithic Austronesians first appeared and originated in the Philippines and radiated from there, to Taiwan and eventually to other areas like Indonesia, Oceania, etc.

For the purpose of this discussion to make it simpler to us layman, there are two Austronesians- Paleolithic and Neolithic. Neolithic to correspond to the predominant haplotype found among Taiwanese aborigenes. Since they labeled the Taiwanese aboriginese' O1a2 as exclusively as the Austronesian marker (of Austronesian expansion) to correspond to their OOT(Taiwan Homeland hypothesis). Which is wrong, of course, as Austronesians from Indonesia have much older and more diverse O1, O2 and O3 subclades and are as Austronesians as the Taiwanese are. But in my POV, these two(Neolithic and Paleolithic Austronesians) I considered as only one but in a genetic continuum. And so for the purpose of our discussion, those from the Bismarck areas are most probably off shoot from this Paleolithic proto Austronesians just like the Neolitic Austronesians are. That's why the oldest Austronesian languages accdg to some linguists are to be found there.

And this study is questioning, whether the Neolithic Austronesians had a major impact in the Austronesian expansion(of the Polynesian motiff) and found only slight influence. To put it simply, when the so called Neolithic Austronesians from Taiwan(OOT)/RP came to Near Oceania, the Paleolithic Austronesians from Eastern Indonesia had already spread to Oceania carrying the corresponding Austronesian language/genomics(Polynesian motiff)/culture.

In the light of the SNP studies, Chu et al, and Su et al studies, this Northern migration route below is questionable and outdated already. That's to conform to the Old Hypothesis of the Northern route as old as OOT. And soon will be outdated as Beyer's 3 wave theory. But for now is still popular and obviously has many adherents. But there is another more valid theory(Southern route). It's like Galileo's theory was unpopular during his time but later on recognized as correct.

What's strange with that graph is the arrow (from inlet encircling R, N, M) from South Asia passed through directly to the unpassable Genetic Barrier, the Himalayan Mountain ranges, to China. Why always China?
It would have been better if those in the inlet placed on China was placed lower in the area of MSEA/Sundaland. And that would conform with the Southern Migration theory.

So, there are two contending theories for the origins of B and E. In that graph, the origin is East Asia coming from the Northern route. I consider it difficult for humans to cross above Himalayas/Central Asia at the Last Glacial Maximum. I don't consider Central Asia as the Conception vessel for the development of Humans. The bleak conditions there is not right for Human habitation. If the Northern route is correct, what we will have is slitlike eyes like the Eskimos' and the haplotypes/haplogroup branchings up north should be older and more varied which it is not. And the one I subscribed to is the Southern route theory and SEA origins of both B and E. Latest Maternal mitochondrial, Paternal Y chromosomal and SNP studies are now showing the Southern route as more feasible and more validity than the Northern route. The Northern route became feasible only during the Neolithic period when the polar Ice caps retreated. And such they have only very slight contribution to the genomics of todays North East Asians with a little more amounts on today's Siberians.


Some notable highlights in this study:

Although an early Holocene dispersal from Taiwan to ISEA is possible, diversity indices (Table S4) suggest that the presence of B4a1a in Taiwan more likely represents a dispersal event from ISEA, which a founder analysis would date to 6.3 ka (Table S5), again mirroring haplogroup E. Dispersal from ISEA to Taiwan has also recently been indicated by large-scale genome-wide SNP analysis.

B4a1a1, the clade defined by the “pre-motif” transition at position 14022,23 is the immediate ancestor of the subclade carrying the Polynesian motif. It is absent from Taiwan and found primarily in Near Oceania, with a strong geographical focus on the Bismarck Archipelago (Figure 3B). It is also most diverse in the Bismarcks (Table 1 and Table S6), and although the overall age is estimated at 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.9, 8.7) ka, this rises to 8.4 (95% CI: 4.9, 12.1) ka with data only from the Bismarcks region, whereas the age estimates for Indonesia are consistently lower than those for the Bismarcks. Thus, B4a1a1 most likely either arose from a B4a1a ancestor within the Bismarcks or arrived there from further west in the early Holocene, much earlier than the appearance of Lapita and the putative arrival of Austronesian languages (3.5 ka at most).

Our results show that the maternal ancestors of most Remote Pacific islanders split from Asian mainland lineages 10–20 ka, rather than 5.5 ka, as would be the case if they were to be explained by the “out of Taiwan” model. They had established themselves in the Bismarck Archipelago by at least 6 ka, rather than arriving there 3.5 ka with the advent of Lapita pottery, as the model predicts.46 Haplogroup B4a1a, although almost exclusively associated with speakers of Austronesian languages, cannot have dispersed from Taiwan into ISEA and the Pacific 3–4 ka. The 95% confidence limits on the ages of B4a1a1 and B4a1a1a from complete mtDNAs explicitly reject this explanation for their distribution (Table 1). Because B4a1a, along with some haplogroup Q lineages—of likely New Guinean origin, which occur in Polynesia at a rate of <5%[10] and [12]—make up almost all of the mtDNAs found in Polynesia, these results exclude any significant direct Taiwanese contribution from 4 ka to the maternal ancestry of Polynesians.
So, 10-20 ka, 15ka is the midpoint.

Basically, what is being said in the study (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Out of Taiwan Theory (OTT) cannot explain the timeliness of the derivative haplotypes or genetic markers of B4a1a (Neolithic Austronesian marker). OTT suggests that Neolithic Austronesians arrived from Taiwan (and originally before that from Southern China) to the Philippines; furthermore, OTT states that the Remote Pacific islanders split from the Asian mainland lineages 5.5 ka (5,500 years ago), and arrived in the Bismarck Archipelago 3.5 ka represented by the Lapita pottery culture. But this would mean that the Lapita pottery culture is the carrier of B4a1a1 (Bismarck motif) and possibly also the derivative B4a1a1a (Polynesian motif), but 3.5 ka is too late of a date, since B4a1a1 arose in the Bismarck Archipelago 6.8-8.4 ka with a 95% confidence level. Therefore, OTT cannot be the correct migration model. In fact, maternal ancestors of most Remote Pacific islanders split from Asian mainland lineages 10-20 ka, and not 5.5 ka as suggested by OTT.

Also according to the study, it is likely that B4a1a arrived to Taiwan from Insular Southeast Asia (ISEA) rather than from Taiwan to ISEA, and this arrival from ISEA to Taiwan occurred 6.3 ka.

For some reason, I interpreted the study as Neolithic Austronesians (B4a1a) from the Philippines as the forefathers of the Remote Pacific Islanders (B4a1a1 and B4a1a1a), and not Paleolithic Austronesians directly coming from Eastern Indonesia. I know that you said that the Neolithic Austronesians did migrate from the Philippines to Near Oceania (but not much beyond it and therefore did not culturally or genetically influence the Pacific Islands), but upon arriving Near Oceania, an earlier offshoot of the Paleolithic Austronesians had already left to the Pacific Islands. But since B4a1a derives B4a1a1 and B4a1a1a would that mean that Neolithic Austronesians went further east into the Pacific Islands and are in fact the forefathers of the Remote Pacific Islanders? I know that you also said that you considered Paleolithic Austronesians and Neolithic Austronesians "as only one but in a genetic continuum", so I take it that you consider Paleolithic Austronesians to be B4a1a also, or at least to have derived B4a1a1 and B4a1a1a somehow? Sorry if I misunderstood anything that you wrote or the study, and thanks for everything that you wrote up there. It was great stuff.

This post has been edited by Prau123: Mar 5 2011, 04:49 AM

[trismegistos]

Basically, what is being said in the study (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Out of Taiwan Theory (OTT) cannot explain the timeliness of the derivative haplotypes or genetic markers of B4a1a (Neolithic Austronesian marker). OTT suggests that Neolithic Austronesians arrived from Taiwan (and originally before that from Southern China) to the Philippines; furthermore, OTT states that the Remote Pacific islanders split from the Asian mainland lineages 5.5 ka (5,500 years ago), and arrived in the Bismarck Archipelago 3.5 ka represented by the Lapita pottery culture. But this would mean that the Lapita pottery culture is the carrier of B4a1a1 (Bismarck motif) and possibly also the derivative B4a1a1a (Polynesian motif), but 3.5 ka is too late of a date, since B4a1a1 arose in the Bismarck Archipelago 6.8-8.4 ka with a 95% confidence level. Therefore, OTT cannot be the correct migration model. In fact, maternal ancestors of most Remote Pacific islanders split from Asian mainland lineages 10-20 ka, and not 5.5 ka as suggested by OTT.

Also according to the study, it is likely that B4a1a arrived to Taiwan from Insular Southeast Asia (ISEA) rather than from Taiwan to ISEA, and this arrival from ISEA to Taiwan occurred 6.3 ka.

For some reason, I interpreted the study as Neolithic Austronesians (B4a1a) from the Philippines as the forefathers of the Remote Pacific Islanders (B4a1a1 and B4a1a1a), and not Paleolithic Austronesians directly coming from Eastern Indonesia. I know that you said that the Neolithic Austronesians did migrate from the Philippines to Near Oceania (but not much beyond it and therefore did not culturally or genetically influence the Pacific Islands), but upon arriving Near Oceania, an earlier offshoot of the Paleolithic Austronesians had already left to the Pacific Islands. But since B4a1a derives B4a1a1 and B4a1a1a would that mean that Neolithic Austronesians went further east into the Pacific Islands and are in fact the forefathers of the Remote Pacific Islanders? I know that you also said that you considered Paleolithic Austronesians and Neolithic Austronesians "as only one but in a genetic continuum", so I take it that you consider Paleolithic Austronesians to be B4a1a also, or at least to have derived B4a1a1 and B4a1a1a somehow? Sorry if I misunderstood anything that you wrote or the study, and thanks for everything that you wrote up there. It was great stuff.

Clearer and more concise condensation of this maternal mitochondrial study.
My above explanation is from the Paternal Y Chromosomal POV, re: Paleolithic and Neolithic. And tried to connect it to this, which ended up confusing.

^^lol maybe only because china is a big country (today), well galileo was going against the church which was a sin. from what i heard chinaPRC doesn't want taiwan to be the austronesian homeland.. taiwanROC do & they want a unesco recognition of taiwan as the austronesian homeland.. probably both for political reasons

i see your view... since theres only one migration into the region.. what you think made majority of filipinos/indonesians pop. quite different from negritos/papuans if they're the same people & have both lived in the same region/climate... as you know groups who never had migrations outside of the equatorial region in the their lineage, tend to retain many features similar/convergent those of sub-saharan africans like darker tones, more developed lip, larger eyes, non-straight/wavy hair etc.. ie: andamanese, australians, papuans..

Taiwan won't get sympathy from us, true Austronesians, if they keep on bullying...
http://erleargonza.blogspot.com/2011/03/ta...ly-ph-over.html

Sinocentrism-everything flows from China is one factor vis a vis OOT(Taiwan-centrism) as another factor? Well, it looks like it's complimentary not antagonistic in that chart/graph, that's why the migratory line's direction pointed to a very improbable and illogical (passing through the Genetic barrier-Himalayan mountain ranges) to China then to Taiwan southward to SEA. Neolithic Agriculture came from China and OOT(Taiwan Homeland hypothesis) is still very much accepted as the dogma and standard in our textbooks whether you're from China, Taiwan, or the Philippines or the rest of SEA and the world. Sundaland(MSEA+ISEA) as cradle of rice agriculture, need to be worked on more agressively by SEA researchers(paleontologist, archaeologist, archaeogeneticists, anthropologists, linguists, etc.).

The reasons for having different phenotypes: Bifurcations(Genetic splitting) early on and Natural Selection or rather Selective Breeding(selective preference for relatively lighter skinned over dark-skinned beauties), Different environments and conditions, Clannishness or Caste-like societies enforced by archaic religion and politics forbidding Admixture or inter-ethnic marriages, Different lifestyles(sedentary agrarian sheltered lifestyle versus brutish hunter-gatherer lifestyle), different latitude(RP is same latitude as IndoChina), different altitudes(Ifugaos more fairer skinned than their closes relatives the Ilocanos/Pangasinenses), Ice Age condition at that time meant much cooler condition than it is now, The Dragon and Bird Clan Nusantao Marime Trading and Communication Network(cultural and genetic exchanges between relatively lighter skinned Austronesians/Proto-Austronesians/Sino-Austronesian/DongYi(Yue/Yayoi?) tribes from the north with Proto-Austronesians/Austrics/Austronesians from ISEA/MSEA).

Sheltered agrarian lifestyle compared to their brutish hunter-gatherer ancestors afforded away from the Sun most of the time creating a decresed melanin production(Folic acid-Vitamin D-Melanin connection) for many millenia breeded a brownish hue complexion. Our Southern mongoloid ancestors preferred marrying with their own kind rather than to those with Australoid appearance (Selective preference for a much fairer maiden than black beauty). Then, the Southern Mongoloids(Sundadonts) went northwards to flee from the cataclysms/deluge/flood due to rising sea levels becoming the Northern Mongoloids(Sinodonts). Later on reverse migrations, Northern Mongoloids going back home southwards. The hunter gatherers like Australian aborigenes, the Andamese, and the Aeta negritoes have lived in relatively isolated conditions(including culturally) in their respective areas for millenia. It's almost like they haven't changed since time immemorial. If we ressurect our ancestor, the Callao man(~50kya) and put him side by side wth the negrito of today, we'll probably have difficulty in distinguishing one from the other.

That's why the Southern Mongoloids once bifurcated early on from their Australoid ancestors coupled with those above factors prevented them from regressing back to the Australoid phenotype despite millenia of living in relatively the same region.

Southern Mongoloids(Malayoids) having bifurcated early on from their Australoid ancestors practicing Agrarian lifestyle? The implication of this is huge. Agriculure started at Sundaland.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Mar 6 2011, 01:44 AM