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

[Prau123]

^^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..

Politics is likely a reason.

I do have a theory as to why Taiwanese aborigines and the Yami are more genetically closer to one another than they are to the Filipinos, and its probably because of genetic drift. Austronesians from Insular Southeast Asia (ISEA) migrated from the Philippines to Taiwan, and simply got stuck there with little inflow and outflow over the centuries and milleniums. The isolation of Taiwan allows for genetic drift among the Taiwanese aborigines; they genetically drifted away from other Austronesians over time and evolved with respect to their specific environmental conditions, and in this case very isolated environmental conditions in Taiwan. The Austronesians in the Philippines are also evolving in response to their respective environmental conditions which is different from Taiwan. Hence how two historically and genetically related groups of people can over time genetically drift apart from one another.

Trismegistos gives a good explanation below as to how we Austronesians began to look differently from the Negritos.

Here's the thing though. There doesn't appear to be any transitional group(s) between Austronesians and Australoids (such as Negritos and Papuans) as far as I know. Austronesians are classified as Southern Mongoloids with very very little Australoid genes, but both groups have a common ancestor in Southeast Asia and thus form a genetic continuum. So where are the transitional groups if we truly did genetically bifurcate from the Australoids? Usually there would be a genetic gradient from Australoid to Austronesian with several transitional groups inbetween to show for, but apparently there are none. I'm thinking that the genetic gradient was somehow destroyed, and here's my explanation:

First off, we should realize that there were Australoid groups throughout Asia. The Ainu of Japan are an Australoid group. Therefore, before any Mongoloids existed, Australoids likely were everywhere in Asia. But probably some Australoids (and more likely only one group of Australoid) evolve to become Proto-Mongoloids. Where this happened? I don't know. It could have happened in Southeast Asia or further north. We have to remember that terms like Southeast Asia or East Asia or Northeast Asia are artificial terms, and therefore it probably should not matter where Proto-Mongoloids developed. Moreover, the ice sheets were retreating from the last Ice Age, and Southeast Asia likely had a much cooler climate back then perhaps similar to that found in Northeast Asia today. So it is not impossible that one Australoid group began its evolutionary development into Proto-Mongoloids in Southeast Asia. These Proto-Mongoloids began to spread themselves throughout Asia and co-existed with other Australoid groups. One Proto-Mongoloid group made it to Siberia, and they would be the ancestors of todays Amerindians.

Of the several Proto-Mongoloid groups, perhaps only one evolved to become a Mongoloid group, and this Mongoloid group began spreading itself across Asia and coexisting with other Proto-Mongoloids and Australoids at first. However, this Mongoloid was more culturally and technologically advanced, and even discovered agriculture allowing its populations to grow and spread, and thus outcompeting the Proto-Mongoloids and Australoids in territory and population growth. The Proto-Mongoloids and Australoids would become marginalized being forced into the hills and mountains, or being forced to migrate elsewhere such as eastern Southeast Asia, or the mountains or islets of Southeast Asia. The Proto-Mongoloids and Australoids never discovered agriculture and other scientific and technological advancements, so their populations were likely very small, and were militarily weak and susceptible to attacks from Mongoloids. Most of the Proto-Mongoloids and Australoids were likely then absorbed (interbred) by the Mongoloids or destroyed, and therefore the transitional groups (especially most nearest to the Mongoloids geographically and genetically) were wiped out leaving only those groups furthest away from the Mongoloids (and hence most nearest to Australoid) to exist in the peripheries and hills of Southeast Asia today. Southeast Asians today do seem to have more Australoid admixture compared to the Northern Chinese, but Southeast Asians are much much more closer to other Mongoloids than to Australoids. Mongoloids having far larger populations in comparison to the Proto-Mongoloids and Australoids, any interbreeding between these groups would have minimal effect on the genetic makeup of the Mongoloid populations.

A similar thing likely happened with the formation of the Caucasoids from the Negroids with many of their transitional groups being wiped out.

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.


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 and linguists).

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 or transfers between relatively lighter skinned Austronesians/Proto-Austronesians/Austro-Dravidians/Sino-Austrics/DongYi(Yue/Yayoi) tribes from the north with Proto-Austronesians/Austronesians from ISEA/MSEA happened since time immemorial).

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). While the Northern mongoloids(Sinodonts) came from the Southern Mongoloids(Sundadonts) who went northwards during the rising of sea levels. Later on reverse migrations, Northern Mongoloids going southwards(Nusantao Maritime Trading Communication Network) with the Southern Mongoloids preferring to intermarry with the fairer Northern mongoloids. 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 Prau123: Mar 6 2011, 03:01 AM