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

[trismegistos]

The mystery on how Southern Mongoloids evolved from the Australoids, I already speculated some probable factors earlier in this thread. 50,000 yrs was quite a long period for such developments. We don't know exactly how it happened but those 50,000 long years is enough for a Southern Mongoloid evolution from a Dravidian looking ancestor from South Asia. If Tropical Indonesia might be hot enough for you perhaps semi-tropical or semi-temperate Philippines which had the same latitude as IndoChina(land of the Tai-Kradai and Austro-Asiatics) during the Ice Age/Last Glacial Maximum could be a good cradle for such development. The Hanunuo Mangyan Mongoloid looking Australoid is a good evidence that Philippine isles is the One!

That subset of Southern Mongoloids from Philippine isles and Indonesia went through the Mainland SEA(splitting into two groups, the Daics/Tai-Kradai and Austro-Asiatics) and another subset through the Philippine isles going to Taiwan and other northern areas then meeting with the earlier subset in the Mainland. The Tai-Kradai and Austro Asiatics are much closer to Austronesian Indonesians(O2,O3) than they are to the Austronesian Taiwanese aborigenes(O1a).

Note:
Hanunuo Mangyans and the Manobos can be designated as Australoids in terms of genetics, Austronesians in linguistics but as Mongoloid Sundadonts anthropologically speaking as any Southern Viet or Khmer. Their genotype can be dated as splitting from the K ancestral haplotype 50,000 yrs ago.

I have said before Agriculture started in the South and people migrated northwards or outwards during the end of the Last Glacial period. Then back migrations with admixing of Northerners and Southerners. But the admixing is not that strong as to overempower the Southerners in terms of linguistics and genetics as well as cultural. They are basically Southerners with little Northern admixtures. I don't think there are Siberian genotypes among us Southeast Asians. But the Siberians do have Southern genotypes or genotypes which were daughter genotypes from the Southerners) plus some recent admixtures from the Uralics. Most Mongolians and Siberians came from agriculturist ancestors from the south but can't farm anymore because of harsh cold desert like conditions.

Chu et al and Su et all(Y chromosomal) as well as the SNP studies all pointed Southern Origins in Southeast Asia of all East Asians. Hmong-Mien and Sino-tibetans all came from Southeast Asia. K haplogroup subdivisions occured in highest diversity in SEA. Hmong Mien and Sino-Tibetans didn't came out of nowhere from the North during the last Ice age. They all came from the South specifically 10kya during the rising sea levels near the end of the last Ice age. Trans migrations in Northern areas were difficult during the last Ice age as proven by both studies done by Chue et al and Su et al.

Well, languages were born as people migrate northwards or outwards and separate from the main group as founders. And as migrations spread outwards and daughter language groups develops on its own, that when comparing daughter language groups from the north and south, they are almost completely different from each other.

The Japanese language can be grouped together with the Austro-Asiatic. Sino-Tibetan can be an off shoot of proto Hmong Mien. proto-Hmong Mien can be an offshoot of proto Tai-kradai or proto-Austro-Asiatic. Tai kradai and Austroa Asiatic can be both offshoots of proto-Austronesian or the Sino-Austronesians.

The fact still remains that more and more newer genetic studies both maternal mitochondrial and paternal Y chromosomal even SNP studies are all pointing that Mongoloids, both Southern and Northern, came came from SEA.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Mar 23 2011, 03:00 AM