New paper on Austronesian expansion. Options

[AnybodyKiller]

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/03/austr...-indonesia.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/201...donesian-cline/



This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Jun 9 2012, 03:13 PM

[martin_nuke]

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/03/austr...-indonesia.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/201...donesian-cline/

One of the the scientists commented that the theory suggest that the Papuan population of Indonesia were massacred by the Austronesians it maybe true because the Austronesians also massacred the Negrito population of Taiwan. I am glad it didn't happen in the Philippines maybe because it was an archipelago and mountanous.

This post has been edited by martin_nuke: Jun 9 2012, 05:22 PM

[AnybodyKiller]

^Exactly. Someone posted this article in the Indonesian section on a different forum that made me think that might be the case.

http://www.freewestpapua.org/

[Prau123]

Where does everyone think Negritos and Melanesians come from? According to the 2010 study, Negritos may come from Australia, a kind of back-migration:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n2/...hg2010162a.html

But where did Melanesians come from? Did they come from Australia also? And some of the Philippine Negritos may be related to Melanesians if I remember correctly.

Does everyone think there were more Melanesians present in Western Indonesia (west of the Wallace Line) in the past before the arrival of the Austro-Asiatics and the Austronesians?

This post has been edited by Prau123: Jun 16 2012, 10:59 PM

[Jc2]

Where does everyone think Negritos and Melanesians come from? According to the 2010 study, Negritos may come from Australia, a kind of back-migration:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n2/...hg2010162a.html

But where did Melanesians come from? Did they come from Australia also? And some of the Philippine Negritos may be related to Melanesians if I remember correctly.

Does everyone think there were more Melanesians present in Western Indonesia (west of the Wallace Line) in the past before the arrival of the Austro-Asiatics and the Austronesians?

I think both groups came from the mainland 50,000 years ago when western Indonesia was still connected to Asia and New Guinea was connected to Australia. The Negritos occupied the Sunda shelf and the Philippines while the Papuan/Melanesians migrated to northern Sahul. There may have been Melanesians and Negritos left in western Indonesia after the sea level rose to its present level but I guess they have been assimilated or maybe even exterminated by Austronesian and Austroasiatic groups.

[Prau123]

I think both groups came from the mainland 50,000 years ago when western Indonesia was still connected to Asia and New Guinea was connected to Australia. The Negritos occupied the Sunda shelf and the Philippines while the Papuan/Melanesians migrated to northern Sahul. There may have been Melanesians and Negritos left in western Indonesia after the sea level rose to its present level but I guess they have been assimilated or maybe even exterminated by Austronesian and Austroasiatic groups.

I misread the study. Here's a couple passages from it: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n2/...hg2010162a.html

Negrito – indigenous Australian association: ancient divergence or recent contact?

As there seem to be signals of genetic links between several FEN groups (Aeta-Bataan, Aeta-Zambales, and Agta) and indigenous Australians (Arnhem Land and Great Sandy Desert) (Figure 3: C-RPS4Y and K-M9; Figure 4), divergence times and migration rates between these groups were estimated through pairwise, simulation-based analyses using the IM program.28 Divergence time estimates ranged from 14 549 to 19 799 Y (CI: 4939–75 059), although gene flow was detected from the Arnhem Land Australians to the Aeta of Bataan and the Agta, and from the Great Sandy Desert Australians to the Agta (Table 4 and Supplementary Figure 4). Point estimates indicate divergence times of about 15–20 KYA, after the initial colonization of the Asia-Pacific region around 40–50 KYA,1 though CI values overlap with the initial colonization time period. Time estimates, therefore, do not distinguish between ancient vs more recent divergence between the ancestors of FEN and indigenous Australian groups.

Another interesting finding was the link between C-RPS4Y and K-M9 haplotypes of some FEN groups and indigenous Australians. An early study on FEN groups, using immunoglobulin G genetic markers, inferred a possible ancient link with northeastern indigenous Australians.12 With information only from the NRY, our demographic inference yielded broad divergence time estimates, but with inferred gene flow that seem to run counter to the commonly-held view that there was little contact between Australia and the rest of the world after initial colonization.36 However, given the broad divergence time estimates, as well as the ancient associations inferred from network and haplotype sharing analyses, the inferred gene flow between FEN groups and indigenous Australians need not necessarily imply direct contact between these groups. An alternative possibility is that, gene flow from Australia to the Philippines was only via neighboring populations, in a ‘stepping-stone’ manner. Data from additional loci would be needed to confirm this apparent signal of more recent gene flow involving FEN and indigenous Australian groups.

So there are "genetic links between several FEN groups (Aeta-Bataan, Aeta-Zambales, and Agta) and indigenous Australians (Arnhem Land and Great Sandy Desert) (Figure 3: C-RPS4Y and K-M9 ". But it was likely through association between neighboring groups from Australia to Indonesia and then to the Philippines, instead of a direct migration from Australia to the Philippines.

This post has been edited by Prau123: Jun 18 2012, 01:19 AM

[trismegistos]

I think the newest mitochondrial studies seemed to indicate Philippines as the radiating source rather than Taiwan for the Neolithic Austronesian expansion occuring approximately to the last wave of recent rise of sea levels(5-7kya) which inundated Sundaland creating the maritime culture and so we have sea gypsies(badjaos and other culturally related people) throughout SEA. The immediate ancestors of these Neolithic Austronesians from the Philippines(?) came from the mainland during the time Sundalandbridges were still connected. The Neolithic Austronesians might have met up with Paleolithic Austronesians. What am I implying Austronesian languages probably didn't originate from Taiwan. And this is opposed of course to the mainstream linguistics which point to Taiwan. Of course, there are alternative linguistic viewpoints as well which pointed not on Taiwan. Genetic evidence showed conclusively the genetic relationship between Tai-Kradai(the Daics) and the Austronesians particularly the Western Indonesians. And it didn't show Taiwan as the origin between the two. And sure enough there is a linguistic relationship between the two(Daics and Austronesians) which together form the the Austro-Tai family which in turn belong to the mother group Sino-Austronesian superfamily which includes the Sino-tibetan, Austro-Asiatic, Hmong Mien.

^Exactly. Someone posted this article in the Indonesian section on a different forum that made me think that might be the case.

http://www.freewestpapua.org/

Where does everyone think Negritos and Melanesians come from? According to the 2010 study, Negritos may come from Australia, a kind of back-migration:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n2/...hg2010162a.html

But where did Melanesians come from? Did they come from Australia also? And some of the Philippine Negritos may be related to Melanesians if I remember correctly.

Does everyone think there were more Melanesians present in Western Indonesia (west of the Wallace Line) in the past before the arrival of the Austro-Asiatics and the Austronesians?

As jc2 pointed out all three came from the mainland during the time landbridges(sundaland subcontinent) existed.

As pockets of phenotypically and genotypically related people are found on several pockets throughout SEA, it is safe to say they were throughout Western Indonesia as well. What cause the thinning of the populations in Western Indonesia? Instead of massacre, its more like natural calamities...

The most major Population bottleneck in prehistory, the Toba eruption, which happened more than 50-60kya, might have killed out some common ancestral transitional genetic links between diverging Papuans, indigenous Australians and indigenous Southeast Asians after splitting from Mainland Southeast Asia. The volcanic eruption ashfall spread was towards India and so much of the casualties were from Indonesia to India as much of it covered the atmosphere precipitating into the six year long volcanic winter and 1000-year-long instant Ice Age. Bifurcations of K haplo(Aetas have K) then produced the O haplos like the Austro-Tai or the Sino-Austronesians through millenia of divergence. Domestication of plants like rice and animals like pigs, chicken, dogs, water buffalo by these people became an advantage in causing population explosion in outbreeding the indigenous people. Ancient Papuans, Negritos were far from being brutish hunter-gatherers and probably domesticated rootcrops, banana, etc.

This Western Indonesia to India direction of the destructive onslaught of the Toba eruption could be the reason for the sparing of Melanesians in Papua and of the Australian aborigenes, all found east of Wallace line.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jun 18 2012, 07:43 AM

[trismegistos]

I misread the study. Here's a couple passages from it: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n2/...hg2010162a.html





So there are "genetic links between several FEN groups (Aeta-Bataan, Aeta-Zambales, and Agta) and indigenous Australians (Arnhem Land and Great Sandy Desert) (Figure 3: C-RPS4Y and K-M9 ". But it was likely through association between neighboring groups from Australia to Indonesia and then to the Philippines, instead of a direct migration from Australia to the Philippines.

I would rather go for the more established and conclusive ancient divergence from Mainland SEA where some of these people split travelling through landbridges going to the Philippines becoming the Aetas-Agtas another split going to Indonesia and Papua crossing the Wallace line, becoming the Melanesians and another split going to Australia. The inconclusive recent geneflow could just be an artifact.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jun 18 2012, 06:48 AM

[trismegistos]

One of the the scientists commented that the theory suggest that the Papuan population of Indonesia were massacred by the Austronesians it maybe true because the Austronesians also massacred the Negrito population of Taiwan. I am glad it didn't happen in the Philippines maybe because it was an archipelago and mountanous.

Do they have an archaelogical proof to this massacre of Negrito population in Taiwan by the Austronesians or even some oral legends. It could be Negrito population were sparse there to begin with or even absent.

As pointed out earlier, the Negrito populations including transitional Australoid to Mongoloid divergent groups from South Asia(India) to Indonesia(western) most likely died out principally due to the direct and indirect effects of the most major population bottleneck of all time, the Great Toba eruption of Indonesia. The direction of the most calamitous ashfall would be from Indonesia going to India. Toba population bottleneck rather than massacre I would say. Even the most brutal massacre there would be survivors.

And as a result of the Toba bottleneck, lots of transitional groups which could have shown the gradual Australoid transitioning into Mongoloid groups were lost as K haplo gave birth to O haplo. Died out also probably are the corresponding possible transitional linguistic groups which could have pointed out the clear linguistic relationships between Indo-Aryans/Indo-European and Dravidians from South Asia with the Austronesians and Austro-Asiatics in Southeast Asia and even with the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese. Although there were linguistic studies showing the relationships between the languages of Ancient Sumerians, of the Indians from Subcontinent and the Austronesian languages.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jun 18 2012, 07:39 AM

[martin_nuke]

Do they have an archaelogical proof to this massacre of Negrito population in Taiwan by the Austronesians or even some oral legends. It could be Negrito population were sparse there to begin with or even absent.

They have a legend about the Little Black People in Taiwan and the Taiwan Aboriginal even celebrate it.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archi...1/27/2003212815

[Prau123]

I think both groups came from the mainland 50,000 years ago when western Indonesia was still connected to Asia and New Guinea was connected to Australia. The Negritos occupied the Sunda shelf and the Philippines while the Papuan/Melanesians migrated to northern Sahul. There may have been Melanesians and Negritos left in western Indonesia after the sea level rose to its present level but I guess they have been assimilated or maybe even exterminated by Austronesian and Austroasiatic groups.

I think the newest mitochondrial studies seemed to indicate Philippines as the radiating source rather than Taiwan for the Neolithic Austronesian expansion occuring approximately to the last wave of recent rise of sea levels(5-7kya) which inundated Sundaland creating the maritime culture and so we have sea gypsies(badjaos and other culturally related people) throughout SEA. The immediate ancestors of these Neolithic Austronesians from the Philippines(?) came from the mainland during the time Sundalandbridges were still connected. The Neolithic Austronesians might have met up with Paleolithic Austronesians. What am I implying Austronesian languages probably didn't originate from Taiwan. And this is opposed of course to the mainstream linguistics which point to Taiwan. Of course, there are alternative linguistic viewpoints as well which pointed not on Taiwan. Genetic evidence showed conclusively the genetic relationship between Tai-Kradai(the Daics) and the Austronesians particularly the Western Indonesians. And it didn't show Taiwan as the origin between the two. And sure enough there is a linguistic relationship between the two(Daics and Austronesians) which together form the the Austro-Tai family which in turn belong to the mother group Sino-Austronesian superfamily which includes the Sino-tibetan, Austro-Asiatic, Hmong Mien.




As jc2 pointed out all three came from the mainland during the time landbridges(sundaland subcontinent) existed.

As pockets of phenotypically and genotypically related people are found on several pockets throughout SEA, it is safe to say they were throughout Western Indonesia as well. What cause the thinning of the populations in Western Indonesia? Instead of massacre, its more like natural calamities...

The most major Population bottleneck in prehistory, the Toba eruption, which happened more than 50-60kya, might have killed out some common ancestral transitional genetic links between diverging Papuans, indigenous Australians and indigenous Southeast Asians after splitting from Mainland Southeast Asia. The volcanic eruption ashfall spread was towards India and so much of the casualties were from Indonesia to India as much of it covered the atmosphere precipitating into the six year long volcanic winter and 1000-year-long instant Ice Age. Bifurcations of K haplo(Aetas have K) then produced the O haplos like the Austro-Tai or the Sino-Austronesians through millenia of divergence. Domestication of plants like rice and animals like pigs, chicken, dogs, water buffalo by these people became an advantage in causing population explosion in outbreeding the indigenous people. Ancient Papuans, Negritos were far from being brutish hunter-gatherers and probably domesticated rootcrops, banana, etc.

This Western Indonesia to India direction of the destructive onslaught of the Toba eruption could be the reason for the sparing of Melanesians in Papua and of the Australian aborigenes, all found east of Wallace line.

I would rather go for the more established and conclusive ancient divergence from Mainland SEA where some of these people split travelling through landbridges going to the Philippines becoming the Aetas-Agtas another split going to Indonesia and Papua crossing the Wallace line, becoming the Melanesians and another split going to Australia. The inconclusive recent geneflow could just be an artifact.

The Negritos (Aetas-Agtas etc.) were those that primarily occupied the Sunda shelf and the Philippines while the Melanesians went further east towards eastern Indonesia and Papua (northern Sahul) crossing the Wallace line. I've summarized what both of you have said.

Were the Melanesians just more adapted to Northern Sahul? Did the Melanesians arrive first in the archipelago before the Negritos but were later outcompeted and pushed out of the Sunda shelf, Western Indonesia, and the Philippines by the Negritos? Was Northern Sahul a type of refuge for Melanesians from the Negritos? I find it strange that Negritos don't exist east of the Wallace line? Or do they? It appears that some Melanesians had a relatively advanced maritime culture. The Lapita Culture is often thought of as Austronesian, in particular Polynesian, but some say it may have started off as Melanesian.

Of course the Toba eruption could explain how groups separated, because populations would have been significantly lowered allowing each group to develop separately like what Trismegistos said.

Lastly, Negritos are smaller in stature and less muscular than Melanesians. If we look at Southeast Asians today, they are relatively smaller in stature and less muscular compared to other groups. And Melanesians are taller/larger in stature and more muscular similar to Australian aborigines and today's Polynesians. So it could be a matter of biological adaptivity, and this may be one reason why Negritos are prevalent west of the Wallace line, and why Melanesians are prevalent east of the Wallace line. Even Polynesians evolved to be large since they were east of the Wallace line.

This post has been edited by Prau123: Jun 18 2012, 11:46 PM

[Prau123]

And of course land bridges and geography could have naturally separated the ancestors of today's Negritos and Melanesians as both of you mentioned.

I just want to clarify that Negritos being smaller in stature and less muscular was probably an advantage over the larger stature and more muscularly built Melanesian west of the Wallace line. This is also one reason why Southeast Asians are smaller in stature and less muscular, because it's to their advantage since they too live west of the Wallace line. Perhaps there was just less protein available, or the climate was warmer as compared to east of the Wallace line. There's a reason why Polynesians became big, it's not just because their Austronesian ancestors interbred with the larger Melanesians in my opinion. East of the Wallace line favored those who were bigger and stronger.

Negritos could have also had a more advanced agricultural technology compared to Melanesians, but I'm not sure about this one.

[AnybodyKiller]

Do they have an archaelogical proof to this massacre of Negrito population in Taiwan by the Austronesians or even some oral legends. It could be Negrito population were sparse there to begin with or even absent.

As pointed out earlier, the Negrito populations including transitional Australoid to Mongoloid divergent groups from South Asia(India) to Indonesia(western) most likely died out principally due to the direct and indirect effects of the most major population bottleneck of all time, the Great Toba eruption of Indonesia. The direction of the most calamitous ashfall would be from Indonesia going to India. Toba population bottleneck rather than massacre I would say. Even the most brutal massacre there would be survivors.

And as a result of the Toba bottleneck, lots of transitional groups which could have shown the gradual Australoid transitioning into Mongoloid groups were lost as K haplo gave birth to O haplo. Died out also probably are the corresponding possible transitional linguistic groups which could have pointed out the clear linguistic relationships between Indo-Aryans/Indo-European and Dravidians from South Asia with the Austronesians and Austro-Asiatics in Southeast Asia and even with the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese. Although there were linguistic studies showing the relationships between the languages of Ancient Sumerians, of the Indians from Subcontinent and the Austronesian languages.

I think it's 100% proven now that Asians are descended from the South originally. I think this paper just merely pinpoints a back migration from mainland SEA.

I've been following Razib Khan's blog recently, he has some pretty good posts on the subject.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/201...tipode-of-asia/

This post has been edited by AnybodyKiller: Jun 20 2012, 03:15 PM

[trismegistos]

I think it's 100% proven now that Asians are descended from the South originally. I think this paper just merely pinpoints a back migration from mainland SEA.

I've been following Razib Khan's blog recently, he has some pretty good posts on the subject.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/201...tipode-of-asia/

I am just trying to explain the reason there is paucity of Western Indonesian negritos and it is due to that Toba eruption coupled that with the inundations or great floods several millenia later.

Yeah. I know that, back migration.

From the generally accepted mainstream theory, the Austronesians just like the Thais, came from Southern China (which is still part of Mainland Southeast Asia and where rice was domesticated accdg to the most recent study). For both came from the same parent lingusitic group called the Austro-Tai. Even the Austro-Asiatics, they said, came from Southern China. It was proven already that the genetic fingerprint of ancient human fossils found corresponding to humans living 5-10kya in an area where domesticated rice were said to have originated in the same timeframe showed GENETIC relationship to present day Southeast Asian Austronesians and the Tai(people from Thailand and Yunnan Daics) and not to the Hans from the Yellow river. Until, our ancestors were pushed to fast track maritime technologies to migrate Southward because of the invading Hans. just kidding

I don't know what would be the impetus to migrate southward to the scene of much greater calamity, inundations of Sundaland subcontinent due to rising sea levels. The rising of sea levels occured in three waves. The first occuring to about 10-12kya and the last which correspond to the Austronesian expansion, 5-7kya. I don't believe in the theory akin to the supremacist Aryan invasion theory, that migration south was forced upon by much stronger ethnic groups up north. During that time, end of the last Ice Age, more lands formerly cold barren up north became more hospitable and fertile, thus the migration will be northwards rather than southward. But then again, it could be that our ancestors, the Sino-Austronesian or the Austro-Tai or proto-Austronesian survivors from the Flood from the mainland Southeast Asia saw the almost deserted very fertile lands except for some pockets where there were Australoid negrito survivors in the Malayan archipelago, that includes the Philippines, as land free for the taking (BACKMIGRATION). They would have gone for the most prized possessions, the more vastly fertile plains of Tropical paradise in the South and East just like their vast fertile plains in Mekong river delta in homeland Mainland Southeast Asia rather than go to the rugged North, Southern China to Northern China.

But I am not closing my mind, me being an out of the box thinker. There's still a possibility that back migration of the Neolithics from the mainland is not needed (to support Jocano's theory) as development of Neolithic Austronesian O1 haplo alongside corresponding neotenic Mongoloid appearance could have occured even right in our own backyard from ancestral K haplo during the last Ice Age prior to the Great Flood likewise for their Neolithic mitochondrial equivalents. If Mongoloid neotenization or the development of Southern Mongoloid appearance could occur at Mainland Southeast Asia during the cold periods of the last Ice Age why not here also in the Philippines which is on the same latitude. Mongoloid like neotenization could also occur in the hot desert like environs as in the mongoloid looking bushmen of East Africa. They said that the Great Toba eruption precipitated an instant 1000 year Ice age causing a cold desert like condition from South Asia to parts of Southeast Asia. Such condition was a nice environment for Mongoloid neotenization. Mongoloid looking non negrito indigenous people such as the Hanunuo Mangyan relatively isolated have the 'Australoid genotype', the Aeta K haplo for about 67 percent of the population. But of course, orthodox thinkers from that study would be quick to point to admixture as the cause of their Mongoloidization because of inference that Austronesians came from Taiwan or from Mainland Southeast Asia rather than going for the bifurcations of K haplo to O from shared ancestry as the cause of the heterogeneity...

FEN[filipino ethnolinguistic negrito] groups also share haplogroups with FEnN[filipino ethnolinguistic non-Negrito] groups (ie, Mamanwa with Manobos and Surigaonons; Aeta with Hanunuo), but rather than ancient shared ancestry, gene flow between FEN and FEnN groups has been inferred by early anthropological studies. 30[reference below]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025791/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025791/#bib30
30 Lebar FM.(ed.): Ethnic Groups of Insular Southeast Asia Volume 2: Philippines and Formosa New Haven, USA: Human Relations Area Files Press; 1975.

While the negrito looking Mamanwa tribe, have in their genetic material, 88 percent of Mongoloid genetics(O haplos and NO) with only a sparse Aeta gene(K haplo) of 11 percent. Despite being Mongoloid in their genetics, the mamanwas are considered as Negritos because of appearance. On the otherhand, the Hanunuo Mangyans are considered Non-negritos in physical appearance despite being more negrito in their genes.

Why Aeta negritos in the Philippines speak Austronesian unless they have shared ancestry with non Negrito Austronesian. In Malaysia, negritos there spoke Austro-Asiatic surrounded on all sides by Austronesian speakers. And so as the newest mitochondrial study seemed to point that Neolithic Austronesians seemed to radiate and originate from the Philippines and not Taiwan during the time of the last wave of rising of sea levels. Our neolithic Austronesian ancestors were earlier cut off from their Paleolithic Austronesian or Paleolithic Austro-Tai or Paleolithic Sino-Austronesian ancestors from the mainland due to the first and second wave of rising of sea levels which broke Sundaland into many islands forming the present archipelagos. And as these Neolithic Austronesians from the Philippines together with the Paleolithic Austronesians from the Mainland went to Malaysia, they isolated the indigenous Austro-asiatic negritos there. The question remains, why did the Austro-Asiatic negritos in Malaysia never give up their language to accept the language of their agriculturist neighbors when their counterpart the Aeta negritos in the Philippines seemed to gave up so easily their language in favor of the language of the agriculturist Austronesian neighbors? Unless, the Aeta themselves spoke their native language belonging to the Sambalic branch of the Austronesian language group since time immemorial and have shared ancestry with their non-negrito Austronesian neighbor.

Among negritos, there's a great genetic variation.

* The great distinctiveness of Philippine Negrito and Malaysian Negrito populations on the PC chart is surprising. At K=14 there is almost no overlap of common components between the two populations. The Malaysian Negrito population shows an affinity to the Papuan population, perhaps with varying degrees of Austronesian and Austro-Asiatic admixture.

But, the Philippine Negrito population is closer to the population of India than to the Papuan population and it is no closer to the Papuans than it is to the Uygars. They are not in the range of the broad Papua to Northeast Asian continuity in genotype, showing a much strong West Eurasian affinity.

The PC chart doesn’t specifically break out ANI and ASI components, but if the North-South; West-East tendencies in the PC chart are applicable within India, then Philippine Negrito may have a suggestively small distance from where ASI would appear if there were a pure ASI individual. Put another way, Philippine Negritos appear quite close genetically to where the Andaman Onge should be.
If Aeta negrito is genetically closer to the Andaman negritos from Andaman islands in South Asia, then their original language should be similar to the Andamanese. The collective languages in the Andaman islands is considered to be a sister language of Proto-Austronesian [link; http://email.eva.mpg.de/~blevins/pdf/webpub2007a.pdf ] . If that is so then the present Aeta's Austronesian language simply transitioned from their original proto-Austronesian for many generational ago with osmosis later on with the languages of their Austronesian agriculturist brethren or neighbors rather than the abrupt shift from their original indigenous one or an abrupt neglect of their original language to adopt to a foreign Austronesian language?

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jun 21 2012, 06:53 AM

[trismegistos]

And of course land bridges and geography could have naturally separated the ancestors of today's Negritos and Melanesians as both of you mentioned.

I just want to clarify that Negritos being smaller in stature and less muscular was probably an advantage over the larger stature and more muscularly built Melanesian west of the Wallace line. This is also one reason why Southeast Asians are smaller in stature and less muscular, because it's to their advantage since they too live west of the Wallace line. Perhaps there was just less protein available, or the climate was warmer as compared to east of the Wallace line. There's a reason why Polynesians became big, it's not just because their Austronesian ancestors interbred with the larger Melanesians in my opinion. East of the Wallace line favored those who were bigger and stronger.

Negritos could have also had a more advanced agricultural technology compared to Melanesians, but I'm not sure about this one.

The Negritos (Aetas-Agtas etc.) were those that primarily occupied the Sunda shelf and the Philippines while the Melanesians went further east towards eastern Indonesia and Papua (northern Sahul) crossing the Wallace line. I've summarized what both of you have said.

Were the Melanesians just more adapted to Northern Sahul? Did the Melanesians arrive first in the archipelago before the Negritos but were later outcompeted and pushed out of the Sunda shelf, Western Indonesia, and the Philippines by the Negritos? Was Northern Sahul a type of refuge for Melanesians from the Negritos? I find it strange that Negritos don't exist east of the Wallace line? Or do they? It appears that some Melanesians had a relatively advanced maritime culture. The Lapita Culture is often thought of as Austronesian, in particular Polynesian, but some say it may have started off as Melanesian.

Of course the Toba eruption could explain how groups separated, because populations would have been significantly lowered allowing each group to develop separately like what Trismegistos said.

Lastly, Negritos are smaller in stature and less muscular than Melanesians. If we look at Southeast Asians today, they are relatively smaller in stature and less muscular compared to other groups. And Melanesians are taller/larger in stature and more muscular similar to Australian aborigines and today's Polynesians. So it could be a matter of biological adaptivity, and this may be one reason why Negritos are prevalent west of the Wallace line, and why Melanesians are prevalent east of the Wallace line. Even Polynesians evolved to be large since they were east of the Wallace line.

Wallace line, biological adaptivity or natural adaptation or selection, Sundaland subcontinent, Toba eruption, and inundations/great flood, all could explain.

Comments have been made on those links that Wallace line is a barrier but at some point became porous that some migrants accidentally/deliberately by boat/floating plank had crossed to the Sahul safely without being pushed into the abyssmal expanse of the ocean.

And so negritos dominated west of Wallace line or the Sundal shelf proper which is one subcontinent until the end of the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum) while Papuans and Australian aborigenes dominated east of Wallace line or the The Sahul shelf and Australia. It could be that the ancestors of Papuans/Melanesians and Australian aborigenes were originally ancient negritos just like the Aeta negritos and the Andamanese negritos west of Walace line but had successfully crossed to the other side or east of Wallace line. The founders or the ancestors of Melanesians/Papuans and Australian aborigenes could have the bigger body size than the usual negritos to begin with as an advantage in order to perilously cross the Wallace line successfully. And through further selection and biological adaptation to each of the separate environments created the present phenotypes or physical appearance of the typical Melanesians and Australian aborigenes. The ancestors of Negritos could be bigger in body size also then adapting into the present small size.

Now, the mystery of the paucity or absence of Negritos in wester Indonesia west of Wallace line when in the past Negritos covered the wide areas from East of India to the Andaman and to the Philippines and Malaysia can only be explained by a POPULATION BOTTLENECK. Such is the Toba eruption whose destructive force was greater in Western Indonesia then westward while sparing somewhat Melanesia and Australia. And you have only few survivors west of Wallace line remaining only in areas like the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand and the andaman islands. Negritos have either C*/Paragroup C or K*/Paragroup K or D*/Paragroup D. These paragroups ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragroup ) seemed to be paraphyletic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphyletic ) to the subclades of corresponding haplos if they don't possess any additional unique markers aside from the mutation that define the parent haplogroup or else will be removed from the paragroup to form an independent subclade. Paragroup K, Paragroup D and Paragroup C bifurcated even before the Toba eruption and throughout the Ice Age and beyond the rising of sea levels(inundations of Sundaland) into the subclades of haplos of the present majority of Eurasians, i.e., the Mongoloids ( like the Amerindians, East Asians and the southern Mongoloids/Southeast Asians ) and the Caucasoids like the South Indians and Western Europeans.

This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jun 23 2012, 11:13 AM

[Jc2]

While the negrito looking Mamanwa tribe, have in their genetic material, 88 percent of Mongoloid genetics(O haplos and NO) with only a sparse Aeta gene(K haplo) of 11 percent. Despite being Mongoloid in their genetics, the mamanwas are considered as Negritos because of appearance. On the otherhand, the Hanunuo Mangyans are considered Non-negritos in physical appearance despite being more negrito in their genes.

I don't quite understand that. According to this chart assuming the purple represents "Philippine Negrito", the Mamanwa seems to retain the most Negrito blood out of the other Negritos in the Philippines. The others except for the Aeta seems heavily admixed with Austronesian.

* The great distinctiveness of Philippine Negrito and Malaysian Negrito populations on the PC chart is surprising. At K=14 there is almost no overlap of common components between the two populations. The Malaysian Negrito population shows an affinity to the Papuan population, perhaps with varying degrees of Austronesian and Austro-Asiatic admixture.

But, the Philippine Negrito population is closer to the population of India than to the Papuan population and -redit is no closer to the Papuans than it is to the Uygars. They are not in the range of the broad Papua to Northeast Asian continuity in genotype, showing a much strong West Eurasian affinity.

According to this chart about the Denisovan admixture in modern humans, some tribal people of Mindanao and the people living east of the Wallacea line has significant Denisovan admixture. This includes the Mamanwa, the Manobo, people of Nusa Tengarra, Papuans/Melanesians, Australian Aborigines and Polynesians. In comparison, the people from mainland Asia and western Indonesia has no known Denisovan inheritance, this includes the Andamanese and Malaysian Negritos.

[trismegistos]

I don't quite understand that. According to this chart assuming the purple represents "Philippine Negrito", the Mamanwa seems to retain the most Negrito blood out of the other Negritos in the Philippines. The others except for the Aeta seems heavily admixed with Austronesian.

Purple color represent what haplo exactly? Haplogroup K-M9? or C-RPS4Y?

Accdg to the most recent study below, Mamanwa tribe have 42% of those sampled with Haplogroup O1a-M119, another 42% with Haplogroup O3-M122, and only 11% have Haplogroup K-M9, then, 2% with O2a-M95, 2% with Haplogroup NO-M214 and another 2% with C-RPS4Y.

While Aeta negritos from Zambales have 100% of those sampled having K-M9, while Aetas from Bataan having a majority of 87% sampled with K-M9 and the rest, a minority showing other haplos. While the rest of the Negritos have varying levels of heterogeneity with much lower K-M9 percentages and surprisingly the non-negrito Hanunuo Mangyans have higher at 67%.

See the table here... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P...791/table/tbl1/
(source link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025791/ )
The Y-chromosome landscape of the Philippines: extensive heterogeneity and varying genetic affinities of Negrito and non-Negrito groups

Eur J Hum Genet. 2011 February; 19(2): 224–230.
Published online 2010 September 29.

Frederick Delfin,1,2 Jazelyn M Salvador,1 Gayvelline C Calacal,1 Henry B Perdigon,1 Kristina A Tabbada,1 Lilian P Villamor,1 Saturnina C Halos,1 Ellen Gunnarsdóttir,2 Sean Myles,1,6 David A Hughes,2 Shuhua Xu,3 Li Jin,3 Oscar Lao,4 Manfred Kayser,4 Matthew E Hurles,5 Mark Stoneking,2 and Maria Corazon A De Ungria1,*

According to this chart about the Denisovan admixture in modern humans, some tribal people of Mindanao and the people living east of the Wallacea line has significant Denisovan admixture. This includes the Mamanwa, the Manobo, people of Nusa Tengarra, Papuans/Melanesians, Australian Aborigines and Polynesians. In comparison, the people from mainland Asia and western Indonesia has no known Denisovan inheritance, this includes the Andamanese and Malaysian Negritos.

Yes, the negritos from Mindanao have admixtures with Denisovan compared to west of Wallace line. I just quoted the comment about the Aeta negritos particularly those having 100% K-M9 which on the genetic clustermapping done showed its relationship as being median between South Asian populations and the Papuan populations but more leaning towards South Asian populations than to the Papuans. The Aeta negritos' genetic distance with the Uyghurs(Caucasoid and Mongoloid admixture in Central Asia) is the same as to the distance with the Papuans. The Aeta negritos were not included in that Denisovan study. It could show Denisovan admixture or not.

Philippines is a special case. During the last Ice Age up to the rising of sea levels, it was connected by a landbridge to the Sundaland proper which includes Palawan. And so the ancestors of the Aeta Negritos coming from the mainland were able to cross Luzon via landbridge. Therefore, before the deluge or much of its geologic history, Philippines can be considered WEST of Wallace line. The flow of the sea current from Melanesia/Sahul/Australia is northwards towards Mindanao, so it's possible that earlier Papuans could get stranded by boat/floating raft to Mindanao. And that could explain the Denisovan admixture among Negritos there. So, being transitional as regards to the Wallace line (earleir periods, it was West of Wallace line and now it is East of Wallace line), some parts of the Philippines, particularly the southernmost portion like Mindanao could show some probable admixtures with Papuans having Denisovan blood. So, it is possible that Aeta negritos of Luzon could possibly show no or even much lesser Denisovan blood being farther away up north of Wallacea.

In the chart, the Papuans have higher affinity with Malaysian negritos, it just goes to show that the ancestors of earlier Papuans were devoid of Denisovan blood initially and were very much related to the Malaysian negritos devoid of Denisovan blood and probably also should show genetic affinity to those extinct Western Indonesian negritos, the latter, probably died off due to the Toba eruption or the inundations as explained on earlier posts or got absorbed later on by the Austronesians. Once the ancestors of the Papuans had crossed the Wallace line and entered Wallacea, they intermarried with or absorbed some much earleir indigenous people having Denisovan blood. Then, the Papuans with Denisovan blood, probably got stranded up north by boat/raft to Mindanao as explained earlier and so contributing slightly to the genetic make-up of negritos there. The presence of Denisovan blood can be explained also in another scenario to be explained later. So the timeline is very important to understand why is that Malaysian negritos were closer to the Papuans than to the Aeta negritos when the former are devoid of Denisovan blood.

So, the Denisovans in the very archaic past showed a wider range of distribution from Denisova cave in Altai Krai up north to the south in Wallacea. Later on much of the Denisovans died off with only some residuals remaining in Wallacea and was able to contribute genetically to the Papuans and Australian aborigines of up to 6% of their DNA until the pure Denisovans died off completely and basically absorbed among the present Papuan and Australian aborigines. While west of Wallace line, Denisovan inheritance is absent among negritos there.

It is also possible that instead of the Papuans getting stranded by boat/raft to Mindanao just like what their ancestors did in successfully crossing to Wallacea, the Denisovans (as they survived and were absorbed in Wallacea) were able to survive and, then, also be absorbed by the negritos in the southern Philipines at the least or in a much larger part of the Philippines even up north if they can confirm that Aeta negritos also have Denisovan blood.

Aeta negritos' showing more genetic affinity with South Asian and placed almost at the center of the genetic clustering chart at a relative distance to all cluster groups seemed to confirm my suspicion that their Paragroup K/K* is probably paraphyletic as I posted earlier and thus could be considered to be the phylogenic or the ancestral grand daddy haplo of the various haplogroups/subclades of most Eurasians both Caucasoids and Mongoloids. The genes of the Aeta negritos can be the window to our genetic past.



This post has been edited by trismegistos: Jun 25 2012, 02:17 AM

[Prau123]

Purple color represent what haplo exactly? Haplogroup K-M9? or C-RPS4Y?

Accdg to the most recent study below, Mamanwa tribe have 42% of Haplogroup O1a-M119, have 42% of Haplogroup O3-M122, and only 11% of Haplogroup K-M9, 2% of O2a-M95, 2% of Haplogroup NO-M214 and 2% of C-RPS4Y.

While Aeta negritos from Zambales have 100% of K-M9, while Aeta from Bataan have very few admixtures. While the rest of the Negritos have varrying heterogeneity.

See the table here... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P...791/table/tbl1/
(source link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025791/ )
The Y-chromosome landscape of the Philippines: extensive heterogeneity and varying genetic affinities of Negrito and non-Negrito groups

Eur J Hum Genet. 2011 February; 19(2): 224–230.
Published online 2010 September 29.

Frederick Delfin,1,2 Jazelyn M Salvador,1 Gayvelline C Calacal,1 Henry B Perdigon,1 Kristina A Tabbada,1 Lilian P Villamor,1 Saturnina C Halos,1 Ellen Gunnarsdóttir,2 Sean Myles,1,6 David A Hughes,2 Shuhua Xu,3 Li Jin,3 Oscar Lao,4 Manfred Kayser,4 Matthew E Hurles,5 Mark Stoneking,2 and Maria Corazon A De Ungria1,*


Yes, the negritos from Mindanao have admixtures with Denisovan compared to west of Wallace line. I am talking about the Aeta negritos particularly those having 100% K-M9 which on the genetic clustermapping done showed its relationship as being median between South Asian populations and the Papuan populations but more leaning towards South Asian populations than to the Papuans. The Aeta negritos' genetic distance with the Uyghurs(Caucasoid and Mongoloid admixture in Central Asia) is the same as to the distance with the Papuans and other Mindanao negritos, the latter would have greater affinity clustering with the Papuan populations. The Aeta negritos were not included in that Denisovan study. It could show Denisovan admixture or not. Your guess is as good as mine. But judging that Aeta negritos' genetic inheritance has higher affinity west of Wallace line with South Indians, it could show much lesser or even absence of Denisovan admixture.

Philippines is a special case. During the last Ice Age up to the rising of sea levels, it was connected by a landbridge to the Sundaland proper which includes Palawan. And so the ancestors of the Aeta Negritos coming from the mainland were able to cross Luzon via landbridge. Therefore, before the deluge or much of its geologic history, Philippines can be considered WEST of Wallace line. The flow of the sea current from Melanesia/Sahul/Australia is northwards towards Mindanao, so it's understandable that earlier Papuans could get stranded by boat/floating raft in Mindanao. And that could explain the Denisovan admixture among Negritos there. So, being transitional as regards to the Wallace line (earleir periods, it was West of Wallace line and now it is East of Wallace line), some parts of it, particularly the southernmost portion like Mindanao could have have admixtures with Papuans with Denisovan blood. So, it is possible that Aeta negritos of Luzon could possibly show no or even much lesser Denisovan blood being farther away up north of Wallacea.

In the chart, the Papuans have higher affinity with Malaysian negritos, it just goes to show that the ancestors of earlier Papuans were devoid of Denisovan blood initially and were very much related to the Malaysian negritos devoid of Denisovan blood and probably also should show genetic affinity to those extinct Western Indonesian negritos which probably died off due to the Toba eruption or get absorbed later by the Austronesians. Once they had crossed the Wallace line and entered Wallacea, they intermarried with those having Denisovan blood. Then Papuans with Denisovan blood get stranded up north by boat/raft to Mindanao as explained earlier and so contributed slightly to the genes of negritos there. So the timeline is very important to understand why is that Malaysian negritos were closer to the Papuans than to the Aeta negritos when the former are devoid of Denisovan blood.

So, the Denisovans in the very archaic past showed a wider range of distribution from Denisova cave in Altai Krai up north to the south in Wallacea. Later on much of the Denisovans died off with only some residuals remaining in Wallacea and was able to contribute genetically to the Papuans and Australian aborigines of up to 6% of their DNA until the pure Denisovans died off completely and basically absorbed among the present Papuan and Australian aborigines. While west of Wallace line, Denisovan inheritance is absent among negritos there.

It is also possible that instead of the Papuans getting stranded by boat/raft to Mindanao just like what their ancestors did in successfully crossing to Wallacea, the Denisovans (as they survived and get absorbed in Wallacea) were able to survive and be absorbed by the negritos in the southern Philipines at the least (or a much larger part of the Philippines if they can confirm that Aeta negritos also have Denisovan blood).

Aeta negritos' showing more genetic affinity with South Asian and placed almost at the center of the genetic clustering chart at a relative distance to all cluster groups seemed to confirm my suspicion that their Paragroup K/K* is probably paraphyletic as I posted earlier and thus could be considered to be the phylogenic or the ancestral grand daddy haplo of the various haplogroups/subclades of most Eurasians both Caucasoids and Mongoloids. The genes of the Aeta negritos can be the window to our genetic past.

That's not a bad explanation Trismegistos. In fact, that's what I wanted to say in response to Jc2's question regarding Denisova admixture in Southern Philippine "Australoid" groups (such as the Manobo and Mamanwa) and the Melanesians/Papuans east of the Wallace line.

I too think that the Denisova hominin survived only east of the Wallace line (northern Sahul) and parts of Siberia. What happened to the Denisova hominin's inbetween northern Sahul and Siberia? My guess is that the Toba eruption killed off the population between northern Sahul and Siberia. If not the Toba eruption, at least some other major climatic event. This explains why some Philippine Negritos (such as the Aeta, Ati, Agta, etc.), Malaysian Negritos, Andamanese Negritos, many Southeast Asian Mongoloids, and many Northeast Asian Mongoloids don't have Denisova hominin admixture.

Getting back to our original discussion. The Denisova hominin lived east of the Wallace line in northern Sahul prior to the arrival of the Papuans (or the ancestors of today's Papuans who may have a recent common ancestor with the Negritos of the Philippines, Malaysia, and the Andaman islands). The Papuans/Negritos that migrated east of the Wallace line to northern Sahul were the Papuans/Negritos who acquired the Denisova admixture because they interbred with the Denisova hominin that survived there which is what you said. But the Papuans and Negritos who remained west of the Wallace line never received the Denisova admixture such as some of the Philippine Negritos, Malaysian Negritos, and the Andaman Negritos.

By the way, I read the Razib Khan link that you cited which was originally posted by AnybodyKiller: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/201...tipode-of-asia/

I read some of the discussion below that article, and one of the posters, Pavlova, was mentioning that the Papuan AX-ME cluster in the chart below should be closer to the Indian cluster, because in many other studies and PCA plots, Papuans are closer to Indians than to Southeast Asian/Northeast Asians. But in this plot the Papuan AX-ME cluster is closer to the Southeast Asian/Northeast Asians as compared to the Indians. Pavlova explains that the Papuan AX-ME cluster may actually be a Melanesian cluster as oppose to a true Papuan cluster; Melanesians have Austronesian ancestry and this evident in the fact that many Melanesians speak an Austronesian language. If the Papuan AX-ME cluster is in fact a Melanesian cluster, then that would explain why the Papuan AX-ME cluster is closer to the Southeast Asians and Northeast Asians as compared to the Indian cluster. The same could be said of the Malaysia Negrito cluster. Since the Malaysian Negritos have interbred with the Southeast Asians, that explains why they too cluster closer to the Southeast Asians/Northeast Asians as oppose to the Indian cluster.

But this does not affect your argument in any way, Trismegistos. In fact, it may show just how close all Australoids are (Indian ASI, Philippine Negritos, Malaysian Negritos, Papuans) which strengthens your argument that Melanesians/Papuans have a common ancestor with the Negritos of the Philippines, Malaysia, and the Andaman islands. If Papuans are truly close to Indians according to Pavlova, then that forces the other Negritos to be closer (or just as close) to Indians, hence it's one large close knit family.




Now it should be mentioned that the poster, Pavlova, is arguing for a Northern Route for the arrival of Mongoloids and Papuans into Eastern Eurasia. Pavlova does cite studies for his/her reason. Here's a part of Pavlova's discussion:

I disagree that Papuans are more related to East Asians. Nearly all genetic studies I’ve seen show that Papuans are the closest to South Asians. Note that the Australoids originated from South Asia. Also, Siberians and Native Americans seem to be the furthest away from Papuans out of all non-African populations.

Among Europeans, Northern Europeans are genetically more related to Papuans than Southern Europeans are to Papuans. The difference in FST between European-Papuan and Northeast Asian-Papuan is negligible. This probably means Papuans split off from the [u]same Eurasian branch as the Europeans and East Eurasians[/u].

What Pavlova is saying is that from Africa, humans migrated to the Middle East, then to Southern Europe, then to Northern Europe. From Northern Europe, a population went eastward, and then later splintered off in two directions, one southeastward to form Papuans and Indians (hence why Papuans and Indians are close to one another), and the other eastward to form Mongoloids and Amerindians. Pavlova even says that "Siberians and Native Americans seem to be the furthest away from Papuans out of all non-African populations" which suggest that Mongoloids and Papuans (Australoids in general) do not have a more recent common ancestor with one another as compared to Papuans and Northern Europeans. This suggest that Mongoloids did not originate in Southeast Asia, but rather they originate up in northern Asia derived from Northern Europeans! This is contrary to many of the recent studies that we have been discussing on these boards that Mongoloids (or their ancestors) are from Southeast Asia coming from a Southern Route through India from Africa. This is also contrary to the Pan-Asian SNP Consortium findings that 95% of the Y-DNA haplogroups come from the south from Southeast Asia.

Pavlova also mentions that in some studies Papuans actually appear to cluster closer to Northeast Asians than to Southeast Asians, and the explanation for that is because Northeast Asians have an Australoid component in them as well, namely Jomone. But I personally think that the Australoid component in Southeast Asians should be higher compared to that in Northeast Asians which would make them cluster closer to Papuans.

Here is a Razib Khan study that Pavlova cites that shows Papuans are indeed slightly closer to South Asians, Europeans, and West Asians as compared to Southeast Asians and Northeast Asians: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/201...abites-papuans/. But how accurate is it? That's the question.



This post has been edited by Prau123: Jun 25 2012, 02:31 AM

[trismegistos]

That's not a bad explanation Trismegistos. In fact, that's what I wanted to say in response to Jc2's question regarding Denisova admixture in Southern Philippine "Australoid" groups (such as the Manobo and Mamanwa) and the Melanesians/Papuans east of the Wallace line.

I too think that the Denisova hominin survived only east of the Wallace line (northern Sahul) and parts of Siberia. What happened to the Denisova hominin's inbetween northern Sahul and Siberia? My guess is that the Toba eruption killed off the population between northern Sahul and Siberia. If not the Toba eruption, at least some other major climatic event. This explains why some Philippine Negritos (such as the Aeta, Ati, Agta, etc.), Malaysian Negritos, Andamanese Negritos, many Southeast Asian Mongoloids, and many Northeast Asian Mongoloids don't have Denisova hominin admixture.

Thanks.

Just one correction, though. The Denisovan admixture is presently found only in Wallacea and among Mindanao negritos. It is now absent even in all parts of Siberia, even near to the original site where they found the fossils of a pure(?) Denisovan man in Denisova cave. Again, the fossils of this ancient relative of modern humans is first found in Denisova cave, hence the term Denisovan or Denisova hominin. That doesn't mean Denisovan originated near Denisova cave.

You are right. Many other relatives of humans or other hominins also died during the Toba erupton, including much the Denisovans, almost all Homo erectus, etc. Even the neanderthals of Europe died off during the climate change post-Toba eruption. Some denisovans obviously were spared or were able to survive to become incorporated in the genome of Papuans, of certain negritos in Mindanao, and of the Australian aborigenes.

Getting back to our original discussion. The Denisova hominin lived east of the Wallace line in northern Sahul prior to the arrival of the Papuans (or the ancestors of today's Papuans who may have a recent common ancestor with the Negritos of the Philippines, Malaysia, and the Andaman islands). The Papuans/Negritos that migrated east of the Wallace line to northern Sahul were the Papuans/Negritos who acquired the Denisova admixture because they interbred with the Denisova hominin that survived there which is what you said. But the Papuans and Negritos who remained west of the Wallace line never received the Denisova admixture such as some of the Philippine Negritos, Malaysian Negritos, and the Andaman Negritos.

By the way, I read the Razib Khan link that you cited which was originally posted by AnybodyKiller: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/201...tipode-of-asia/

I read some of the discussion below that article, and one of the posters, Pavlova, was mentioning that the Papuan AX-ME cluster in the chart below should be closer to the Indian cluster, because in many other studies and PCA plots, Papuans are closer to Indians than to Southeast Asian/Northeast Asians. But in this plot the Papuan AX-ME cluster is closer to the Southeast Asian/Northeast Asians as compared to the Indians. Pavlova explains that the Papuan AX-ME cluster may actually be a Melanesian cluster as oppose to a true Papuan cluster; Melanesians have Austronesian ancestry and this evident in the fact that many Melanesians speak an Austronesian language. If the Papuan AX-ME cluster is in fact a Melanesian cluster, then that would explain why the Papuan AX-ME cluster is closer to the Southeast Asians and Northeast Asians as compared to the Indian cluster. The same could be said of the Malaysia Negrito cluster. Since the Malaysian Negritos have interbred with the Southeast Asians, that explains why they too cluster closer to the Southeast Asians/Northeast Asians as oppose to the Indian cluster.

But this does not affect your argument in any way, Trismegistos. In fact, it may show just how close all Australoids are (Indian ASI, Philippine Negritos, Malaysian Negritos, Papuans) which strengthens your argument that Melanesians/Papuans have a common ancestor with the Negritos of the Philippines, Malaysia, and the Andaman islands. If Papuans are truly close to Indians according to Pavlova, then that forces the other Negritos to be closer (or just as close) to Indians, hence it's one large close knit family.

Nice observaton there by Pavlova. That could explain some inconsistencies.

Interbreeding or admixtures do or did occur between Austronesians and Negritos or Papuans for that matter but not in a major way as that Denisovan admixing with Papuans. Admixtures with some exceptions primarily become significant only in later times as the world gets smaller. This is because of the bias of marrying only with your own kind or only in the same social class or same clan or same tribe and therefore the taboo against ethnic mixing and for that reason, we have so many ethnic groups and there are many languages as there are ethnic groups. That's the Tower of babel paradigm.

Later on organized religion and politics enforced that taboo even more like the various caste structures in India and the castelike structures among ancient Southeast Asians. More so of the bias between very divergent lifestyles. For eg, between those with Agrarian lifestyle with the somewhat hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

And so you have indigenous groups which seemed to be greatly isolated from other ethnic groups despite the relatively very narrow geographic distance because of such sociocultural barrier which formed a genetic barrier as well. For eg. the Sambalic-speaking Aeta negritos with purely K* haplo with the Sambalic-speaking agrarian Kapampangans of O haplogroup, their contacts would be solely for trade purposes, Aeta negritos bartering their gold in exchange for trade products of the Kapampangan. The Aeta negritos from Zambales if we are to believe those studies mentioned have achieved relatively Genetic isolation free from admixtures for so many periods despite the very near distance with the mainstream populations. The same goes for other indigenous groups in relation to the dominant or mainstream agrarian ethnic groups. Exceptions would be the sanctioned royal intermarriages between ethnic groups to forged some political alliances or peace treaties.

What caused the genetic affinity/closeness and the somewhat opposite, the heterogeneity, the latter of which most would quickly attribute to mainly due to admixtures between ethnic groups that are indigenous with migrants from the backmigration for e.g, despite all those above mentioned sociocultural barriers forming relatively a genetic barrier, is probably due to bifurcations/splittting primarily as Australoids transitioned to becoming the Southern Mongoloids. E.g., Paragroup K splitting into becoming the Mongoloid, O and N haplogroup as they formed newer ethnic groups which went on separate ways and so on and so forth. Eventually, the various transitional groups died off due to those calamities. Having the same ancestral lines as we go many generations backward in time and go up the phylogenic tree, make these various ethnic groups cluster together in closer genetic affinity. Thus, I deduced that admixture only factored in secondarily to common ancestral phylogeny as the former becomes a major influence only recently (as the world gets smaller) in bringing various separate but contiguous ethnic groups closer together in genetic affinity. Implied in this also that O haplogroup which includes the majority of Austronesians, the East Asians and the rest of Southeast Asians originated in Southeat Asia from their K ancestors who went to Southeast Asia. Mongoloid neonetization could occur right in our own backward here in Southeast Asia as brought about by the Toba eruption and the various climate changes, making it possible. The selection bias due to sociocultural divide did ensure that genetic lines
would not lost their Mongoloid phenotype by intermarrying with Australoids negating Admixture phenomenon from causing HOMOGENEITY or homogenization in phenotype.

Of course, there are exceptions like the major admixture of relatively recent haplos between Mongoloids and the Caucasoids forming the Uyghurs.

Admixture between Denisovan and the Papuans could be somewhat facilitated by their having similar lifestyles. Thus, there was no sociocultural barrier to genetic exchanges. And that admixture had occured early on (Papuan founder lines admixed earlier with Denisovan lines) ensuring their descendants down the line would always carry their Denisovan genetic heritage from that earliest point of many tens of thousands of years ago spilling over to the present.

Now it should be mentioned that the poster, Pavlova, is arguing for a Northern Route for the arrival of Mongoloids and Papuans into Eastern Eurasia. Pavlova does cite studies for his/her reason. Here's a part of Pavlova's discussion:

[I disagree that Papuans are more related to East Asians. Nearly all genetic studies I’ve seen show that Papuans are the closest to South Asians. Note that the b]Australoids originated from South Asia. Also, Siberians and Native Americans seem to be the furthest away from Papuans out of all non-African populations.

Among Europeans, Northern Europeans are genetically more related to Papuans than Southern Europeans are to Papuans. The difference in FST between European-Papuan and Northeast Asian-Papuan is negligible. This probably means Papuans split off from the same Eurasian branch as the Europeans and East Eurasians[/b]]

In your statement which I bolded, you said:
Papuans went to the Northern route together with the Mongoloids to East Asia. Then yet he disagreed that Papuans are more related to East Asian mongoloids? I find that strange. Then, he said further that Siberians and Native Americans seemed further away from Papuans. It doesn't make any sense when the Papuans are coming from the Northern route?

What Pavlova is saying is that from Africa, humans migrated to the Middle East, then to Southern Europe, then to Northern Europe. From Northern Europe, one population went southeastward to form Papuans and Indians (hence why Papuans and Indians are close to one another), while a second population migrated eastward to form Mongoloids and Amerindians. Pavlova even says that "Siberians and Native Americans seem to be the furthest away from Papuans out of all non-African populations" which suggest that Mongoloids and Papuans (Australoids in general) do not have a more recent common ancestor with one another as compared to Papuans and Northern Europeans. This suggest that Mongoloids did not originate in Southeast Asia, but rather they originate up in northern Asia derived from Northern Europeans! This is contrary to many of the recent studies that we have been discussing on these boards that Mongoloids (or their ancestors) are from Southeast Asia coming from a Southern Route through India from Africa. This is also contrary to the Pan-Asian SNP Consortium findings that 95% of the Y-DNA haplogroups come from the south from Southeast Asia.

Pavlova also mentions on that in some studies Papuans actually appear to cluster closer to Northeast Asians than to Southeast Asians, and the explanation for that is because Northeast Asians have an Australoid component in them as well, namely Jomone. But I personally think that the Australoid component in Southeast Asians should be higher compared to that in Northeast Asians which would make them cluster closer to Papuans.

Here is a Razib Khan study that Pavlova cites that shows Papuans are indeed slightly closer to South Asians, Europeans, and West Asians as compared to Southeast Asians and Northeast Asians: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/201...abites-papuans/

I don't think there is conflict over what Pavlova said with the now generally accepted Southern route theory as proposed by the Hugo SNP study. I read all his posts regarding the topic and he never mentioned that he was against the Southern route. Though, it do appears at first glance, but all his statements despite being opposed by Razib Khan on certain areas can be reconciled with the Southern route theory.

I don't think he implied that there is no common ancestor between the Mongoloids and the Papuans. He never implied that the Eurasians went to North Europe and through the Northern route to become the East Asians and Amerindians, while the rest went the Southern route to become the Papuans and the South Asians in order to explain the relative genetic distance between Northeast Asians and the Papuans. The Papuans came from North Europe? Did he said or implied that?

Razib Khan even said the dangers of relying to old classical marker studies causing people to wrongly assume such deductions like "Siberians and Native Americans seem to be the furthest away from Papuans out of all non-African populations" which suggest that Mongoloids and Papuans (Australoids in general) do not have a more recent common ancestor with one another as compared to Papuans and Northern Europeans. This suggest that Mongoloids did not originate in Southeast Asia, but rather they originate up in northern Asia derived from Northern Europeans!

He said and I quote;

i think this is the problem. different marker sets will give different results because of this problem.[snip]

the power of the old classical marker studies is low to detect a lot of fine-grained differences. they’re good with african vs. non-african cuz that’s the cleanest distinction in the data set. fyi, for robust human phylogenetics i wouldn’t look at anything before 2005. the old stuff isn’t wrong always, but for fine scale stuff the SNP-chip studies are the best.


Now to reconcile what Pavlova said to that of the Southern route theory, which I think he never debunked anyway:

Mankind came from Africa and then went to South Asia (the Southern route theory) then to Southeast Asia, this is the path the Australoids went. The split came in there and went northwards to Central Asia specifically to Iran( Aryans splitting from the Indo-aryan group ), then to West Asia, becoming the ancestors of both Europeans, northern and southern. This explains why the Australoids like Papuans have affinity with the Caucasoids and the South Asians. Papuans together with the Australian aborigenes are considered as Australoids. And they are indeed closer with the South Indians like the Australoid Dravidians and thus they cluster somewhat with North Indians and the rest of the Caucasoids.

From Southeast Asia another split happened between Australoids like the Papuans and the would be Southern Mongoloid, Southeast Asians. While East Asians including Northeast Asians is a subset of these Southeast Asians. There is some subset of the Australoids particularly the Ainus who went up before the Southeast Asian mongoloids were formed, the latter went upwards as well becoming the Yayoi group which intermarried with the earlier Jomon group or Ainuids forming the Okinawans and the Japanese. The Jomon group or the Australoid Ainus are related to the Australoids like the Papuans. Since the Northeast Asian Japanese have Australoid admixture particularly the Jomon and Ainus, this explains why Pavlova said Notheast Asian would cluster with Papuans.

Some subset from this southern route who became the Southern Mongoloid then eventually becoming the Northern Mongoloid, went further northwards to become the Siberians, while another subset went to the Americas becoming the Amerindians. This explains why Siberians and Amerindians is farther away from the Papuans genetically speaking. Just looking at Geography, one can understand it clearly.

So you see, he never said or implied that Mongoloids like Northeast Asians did not originate in Southeast Asia nor did he said that Mongoloids came from Northern Europeans.

[Prau123]

Thanks.

Just one correction, though. The Denisovan admixture is presently found only in Wallacea and among Mindanao negritos. It is now absent even in all parts of Siberia, even near to the original site where they found the fossils of a pure(?) Denisovan man in Denisova cave. Again, the fossils of this ancient relative of modern humans is first found in Denisova cave, hence the term Denisovan or Denisova hominin. That doesn't mean Denisovan originated near Denisova cave.

You are right. Many other relatives of humans or other hominins also died during the Toba erupton, including much the Denisovans, almost all Homo erectus, etc. Even the neanderthals of Europe died off during the climate change post-Toba eruption. Some denisovans obviously were spared or were able to survive to become incorporated in the genome of Papuans, of certain negritos in Mindanao, and of the Australian aborigenes.




Nice observaton there by Pavlova. That could explain some inconsistencies.

Interbreeding or admixtures do or did occur between Austronesians and Negritos or Papuans for that matter but not in a major way as that Denisovan admixing with Papuans. Admixtures with some exceptions primarily become significant only in later times as the world gets smaller. This is because of the bias of marrying only with your own kind or only in the same social class or same clan or same tribe and therefore the taboo against ethnic mixing and for that reason, we have so many ethnic groups and there are many languages as there are ethnic groups. That's the Tower of babel paradigm.

Later on organized religion and politics enforced that taboo even more like the various caste structures in India and the castelike structures among ancient Southeast Asians. More so of the bias between very divergent lifestyles. For eg, between those with Agrarian lifestyle with the somewhat hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

And so you have indigenous groups which seemed to be greatly isolated from other ethnic groups despite the relatively very narrow geographic distance because of such sociocultural barrier which formed a genetic barrier as well. For eg. the Sambalic-speaking Aeta negritos with purely K* haplo with the Sambalic-speaking agrarian Kapampangans of O haplogroup, their contacts would be solely for trade purposes, Aeta negritos bartering their gold in exchange for trade products of the Kapampangan. The Aeta negritos from Zambales if we are to believe those studies mentioned have achieved relatively Genetic isolation free from admixtures for so many periods despite the very near distance with the mainstream populations. The same goes for other indigenous groups in relation to the dominant or mainstream agrarian ethnic groups. Exceptions would be the sanctioned royal intermarriages between ethnic groups to forged some political alliances or peace treaties.

What caused the genetic affinity/closeness and the somewhat opposite, the heterogeneity, the latter of which most would quickly attribute to mainly due to admixtures between ethnic groups that are indigenous with migrants from the backmigration for e.g, despite all those above mentioned sociocultural barriers forming relatively a genetic barrier, is probably due to bifurcations/splittting primarily as Australoids transitioned to becoming the Southern Mongoloids. E.g., Paragroup K splitting into becoming the Mongoloid, O and N haplogroup as they formed newer ethnic groups which went on separate ways and so on and so forth. Eventually, the various transitional groups died off due to those calamities. Having the same ancestral lines as we go many generations backward in time and go up the phylogenic tree, make these various ethnic groups cluster together in closer genetic affinity. Thus, I deduced that admixture only factored in secondarily to common ancestral phylogeny as the former becomes a major influence only recently (as the world gets smaller) in bringing various separate but contiguous ethnic groups closer together in genetic affinity. Implied in this also that O haplogroup which includes the majority of Austronesians, the East Asians and the rest of Southeast Asians originated in Southeat Asia from their K ancestors who went to Southeast Asia. Mongoloid neonetization could occur right in our own backward here in Southeast Asia as brought about by the Toba eruption and the various climate changes, making it possible. The selection bias due to sociocultural divide did ensure that genetic lines
would not lost their Mongoloid phenotype by intermarrying with Australoids negating Admixture phenomenon from causing HOMOGENEITY or homogenization in phenotype.

Of course, there are exceptions like the major admixture of relatively recent haplos between Mongoloids and the Caucasoids forming the Uyghurs.

Admixture between Denisovan and the Papuans could be somewhat facilitated by their having similar lifestyles. Thus, there was no sociocultural barrier to genetic exchanges. And that admixture had occured early on (Papuan founder lines admixed earlier with Denisovan lines) ensuring their descendants down the line would always carry their Denisovan genetic heritage from that earliest point of many tens of thousands of years ago spilling over to the present.

In your statement which I bolded, you said:
Papuans went to the Northern route together with the Mongoloids to East Asia. Then yet he disagreed that Papuans are more related to East Asian mongoloids? I find that strange. Then, he said further that Siberians and Native Americans seemed further away from Papuans. It doesn't make any sense when the Papuans are coming from the Northern route?


I don't think there is conflict over what Pavlova said with the now generally accepted Southern route theory as proposed by the Hugo SNP study. I read all his posts regarding the topic and he never mentioned that he was against the Southern route. Though, it do appears at first glance, but all his statements despite being opposed by Razib Khan on certain areas can be reconciled with the Southern route theory.

I don't think he implied that there is no common ancestor between the Mongoloids and the Papuans. He never implied that the Eurasians went to North Europe and through the Northern route to become the East Asians and Amerindians, while the rest went the Southern route to become the Papuans and the South Asians in order to explain the relative genetic distance between Northeast Asians and the Papuans. The Papuans came from North Europe? Did he said or implied that?

Razib Khan even said the dangers of relying to old classical marker studies causing people to wrongly assume such deductions like "Siberians and Native Americans seem to be the furthest away from Papuans out of all non-African populations" which suggest that Mongoloids and Papuans (Australoids in general) do not have a more recent common ancestor with one another as compared to Papuans and Northern Europeans. This suggest that Mongoloids did not originate in Southeast Asia, but rather they originate up in northern Asia derived from Northern Europeans!

He said and I quote;

i think this is the problem. different marker sets will give different results because of this problem.[snip]

the power of the old classical marker studies is low to detect a lot of fine-grained differences. they’re good with african vs. non-african cuz that’s the cleanest distinction in the data set. fyi, for robust human phylogenetics i wouldn’t look at anything before 2005. the old stuff isn’t wrong always, but for fine scale stuff the SNP-chip studies are the best.


Now to reconcile what Pavlova said to that of the Southern route theory, which I think he never debunked anyway:

Mankind came from Africa and then went to South Asia (the Southern route theory) then to Southeast Asia, this is the path the Australoids went. The split came in there and went northwards to Central Asia specifically to Iran( Aryans splitting from the Indo-aryan group ), then to West Asia, becoming the ancestors of both Europeans, northern and southern. This explains why the Australoids like Papuans have affinity with the Caucasoids and the South Asians. Papuans together with the Australian aborigenes are considered as Australoids. And they are indeed closer with the South Indians like the Australoid Dravidians and thus they cluster somewhat with North Indians and the rest of the Caucasoids.

From Southeast Asia another split happened between Australoids like the Papuans and the would be Southern Mongoloid, Southeast Asians. While East Asians including Northeast Asians is a subset of these Southeast Asians. There is some subset of the Australoids particularly the Ainus who went up before the Southeast Asian mongoloids were formed, the latter went upwards as well becoming the Yayoi group which intermarried with the earlier Jomon group or Ainuids forming the Okinawans and the Japanese. The Jomon group or the Australoid Ainus are related to the Australoids like the Papuans. Since the Northeast Asian Japanese have Australoid admixture particularly the Jomon and Ainus, this explains why Pavlova said Notheast Asian would cluster with Papuans.

Some subset from this southern route who became the Southern Mongoloid then eventually becoming the Northern Mongoloid, went further northwards to become the Siberians, while another subset went to the Americas becoming the Amerindians. This explains why Siberians and Amerindians is farther away from the Papuans genetically speaking. Just looking at Geography, one can understand it clearly.

So you see, he never said or implied that Mongoloids like Northeast Asians did not originate in Southeast Asia nor did he said that Mongoloids came from Northern Europeans.

Yeah you're right, there is no Denisova hominin admixture in Southeast and Northeast Asians. I realized it sometime afterward, I was just too sleepy to bother, but thanks for clearing that up.

I'll repost Pavlova's comment:

Mlabri are Austro-Asiatic, but their cluster is all Sino-Tibetan (pink). Obviously this means the authors made a mistake in labeling that cluster as “Sino-Tibetan”.

I disagree that Papuans are more related to East Asians. Nearly all genetic studies I’ve seen show that Papuans are the closest to South Asians. Note that the Australoids originated from South Asia. Also, Siberians and Native Americans seem to be the furthest away from Papuans out of all non-African populations.

Among Europeans, Northern Europeans are genetically more related to Papuans than Southern Europeans are to Papuans. The difference in FST between European-Papuan and Northeast Asian-Papuan is negligible. This probably means Papuans split off from the same Eurasian branch as the Europeans and East Eurasians.

Northern Europeans are derived from Southern Europeans, therefore Southern Europeans are further up in the phylogenetic branch which would make them closer to Papuans. So how can Papuans be more related to Northern Europeans than Southern Europeans as Pavlova states? Unless, Pavlova is suggesting that Papuans are derived from Northern Europeans.

Pavlova later says:

I’ve seen some trees (from new and old studies) with East Eurasians being closer to Papuans. But in some other studies (notably newer studies), West Eurasians appear to be closer to Papuans. Could the relationship be like that of Africans? Maybe East and West Eurasians are quite equidistant to Papuans, just like Europeans and Asians are equidistant to Africans?

How can East Eurasians and West Eurasians be equidistant to Papuans (or West Eurasians appear to be closer to Papuans), if the ancestors of today's East Eurasians truly went through a Southern Route through India / South Asia? The ancestors of today's East Eurasians would have absorbed some of the genes present in India / South Asia at the time, the genes left from the first wave Out of Africa which includes the ancestors of today's Papuans. The very reason why Papuans are supposedly genetically closer to Indians / South Asians as compared to East Eurasians according to Pavlova is because the ancestors of today's Papuans come from India / South Asia. The ancestors of today's East Eurasians would have picked up those genes in India / South Asia en route to Eastern Eurasia, and therefore East Eurasians should be genetically closer to Papuans than Wester Eurasians are to Papuans.

This post has been edited by Prau123: Jun 26 2012, 03:23 AM