QUOTE (filipinoy @ Dec 13 2009, 08:50 PM)
the word for inom is closed to the Japanese word for drink too, okinawa is close taiwan maybe there is some contact or trading or maybe they used to be austronesians too
Oppenheimer book is not really that recent genetics as you said since it was published more than a DECADE AGO
The problem stems ultimately from the fact that Oppenheimer is a geneticist, not a linguist, an historian or an archaeologist; he is therefore bound to make errors when trying to interpret linguistic, historical or archaeological evidence. Whilst it is always important to analyse and consider as many different types of evidence as possible when trying to understand an historical or pre-historical period or event, it is also important to recognise that each piece of evidence must be considered on its own terms, and that such different types of evidence which require such different methods of interpretation can very rarely be shoe-horned together in an accurate way
He mixes things from mythical writings like Atlantis or Eden, many myths contradicts with genetics like N.American myths when most research points to the west
looks like Oppemheimer focuses more on polynesians, who are obviously partly originated in E. indonesia
Tho i do believe the aeta & similar groups came from Sundaland before the last ice age
i know NanYang usually refers to SEAsia
does NanYang have two meanings?(Simplified Chinese: (南阳), Traditional Chinese: (南陽); pinyin: Nányáng) 南 Nán-South,阳 yáng-sun (the south side of a mountain, or the north side of a river, which in Chinese is called Yang meaning "sunny").
anyways NanYang is not even an austronesian word, does the taiwan aborigines have their legend in an austronesian language?
Taiwanese Aborigines said they came from the north, myths from aborigine groups is inconsistent with each otherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amis_people#I..._classification
Genetic Evidence of out of taiwan/china(north)theoryhttp://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/outoftaiwan/http://www.pnclink.org/pnc2009/english/Pre...pt-MarieLin.pdf
Almost all Austronesian groups are agricultural, rice growers (except some pacific is. where theres really no rice fields available)
archeological evidence shows the first cultivation of rice were around 7-5000BC
Rice came from the north, Wild rice originated from the footsteps of the Himalayas
Some groups in taiwan are not really rice farmers
Terracing techniques in the philippines, indonesia, taiwan & madagascar are the same as those in China, outside SEA & s.China is diffirent
Filipinos are Mongoloids, ALL mongoloids came from the north, mongoloids developed their asian characteristics & features because of the ice age/blowing cold weather & some these features changes as they move south, this is also true with the Native american mongoloids
Because groups of people who have didnt come from the north & have always stayed around the equator/tropics will have retain features that they have when they left africa like the Australians, Aetas, Andanamese & Papuans did.
i dont think theres a super-clear answer yet
but it would be nice to see if more evidences comes out proving that sunken parts of the area surrounding the Philippines is the Lost City of ATLANTIS as Oppenheimer said & it is the garden of Eden.
And how he said Civilizations of China, India, Mesopotamia, Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean originated from an area around the Philippines
You are a linguist right?
Yes there are legends among Taiwanese aborigenes saying they came from Nanyang. How did you think I came up with the word Nanyang If I never read about their legend, that they came from Nanyang. Nanyang of course a chinese word. I read the legend in a chinese website translated in English obviously it is already translated. I would like to read the legend in their original austronesian language.
Regarding the Ami tribe, that is just one tribe among many. Reading from the links you have given:
There is still no consensus in the academic circle how "Amis" came to be used to address the Pangcah. One supposition is that it was originally used by the Puyuma to call the Pangcah, as the Pangcah lived to the north of them. Another supposition holds that those who lived in the Taitung Plain called themselves "Amis" because their ancestors had come from the north.
The latter is just one supposition out of the many. Is that from their legend or just a supposition? Can you give me the actual legend? And perhaps the ancestors of their ancestors did came from south then went north then went south. Who knows? But one thing for sure overwhelming genetic evidence is pointing for their origin in the south. link... http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/paul-rod...d-spread-taiwan
There was recent discovery of underwater ancient city believed to be of advanced civilization(Lemurian), in Japan!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs2Ghk1iWbw...feature=related
It was featured in Discovery Channel. Could be a piece of the puzzle.
Ok lets be scientific, and remove The Atlantis or Lemuria crap(since you are not into metaphysics and hidden knowledge stuff, which various freemasons, yogi-mystics, intuitives and theosophists are capable of penetrating)...
Oppenheimer is a medical doctor turned archeologist or paleontologists.
Have you done a DNA test? Isn't that a very objective test compared to the arbitrary classifying of languages and dialects. DNA test is such a very objective test it is the final arbiter in some legal cases.
Genetics is more an exact science compared to linguistics which I consider as an arbitrary science. Linguistics is prone to error and much more prone to bias or is very subjective.
Interpretation of genetic studies is more scientific and can be validated and is less prone to inter observer biases.
If you read the links of the various genetic studies they are recent.
I'll repeat I agree with the linguists in terms of linguistic branching, I only oppose the Taiwan as homeland or origin concept which is kinda arbitrary. In terms of diversity or richness the Taiwanese branch is almost a dead branch compared to the richness of the Philippine branching.
Do you know how to interpret the methodology of the various studies of the links you have presented? They are using animal or bacterial genomes and connect the dots with the linguistic theory of Bellwood. Why not go directly with human genetics
. The genetic study on animals and bacteria and correlating it with the linguistic study makes the genetic study on animals more prone to arbitrary and biased judgement favoring a Taiwan homeland. I have notice various genetic studies in proving Out of Taiwan theory have few sampling sizes compared to the genetic studies proving a South to North migration.
And much of the genetic studies used on animals and bacteria including dingoes lol is not clear on how they obtain a taiwan origin. It is not well-delineated or blurry in short very subjective. The methodologies are flawed and sampling sizes small. As I have said why not go directly with Human genetics, to give a final say.
Take a look at this sample genetic study "kuno"... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/pmc/article...1684865/?page=6
The above study is not even a true blue genetic study or genomic study or genetic haplotype study or a full mitochondrial genome study. It is not even a study of genetic fragments but an enzyme study on carbonic anhydrase variance. A full mitochondrial genomic "Human" genetic study is far superior to the enzyme study well referenced by Robert Lindsay claiming Filipinos are descended from the Ami tribe. The ami Tribe didn't even have the genetic biodiversity or have a very divergent haplotype-rich mother gene pool to be considered as the ancestors of Filipinos.
Do you understand how to interpret this...http://www.genomeweb.com/arrays/hugo-pan-a...+%C3%9Cberfeed)
quote:In general, haplotype diversity was highest in southern Asia and dwindled in samples taken further north.Most East Asian haplotypes — some 90 percent — turned up in Southeast or Central-South Asia. But more of these haplotypes were unique to Southeast Asia: about half of East Asian haplotypes were present only in Southeast Asia, the researchers reported, compared with the five percent of East Asian haplotypes that were found in Central-South Asia alone.Such patterns indicate that migration from Southeast Asia into East and North Asia
, the team explained. They proposed a model whereby ancestors of modern day Asian populations settled in India before migrating to Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. From there, it appears one or more groups traveled north, mixing with other populations already living in these regions.---
If we came from up north since we are Mongolians
este Mongoloids right, why do the haplotypes in the North is not varied and lack the richness and tend to be homogenous? Think of this way, the origin must have the richness but when it radiates, the richness disappear and becomes homogenous at the periphery. So very imposible to point a northern origin or Garden of Eden especially during the time of the last Ice age. People from east Africa, came during the last Ice age, the Glaciers put a barrier for a migration up north, only when the ice has melted would the people from the South able to migrate up. With the cold terrain up north, they adapted with chinesey eye or slit-like eyelids, stout body reminiscing of the body types of Eskimos to conserve heat. Seems logical right. If we are mongoloid coming from up north in Siberia, why only a few percentage of our population have slanted or slit-like eye lids? Let's go back to linguistics. If we follow the linguistic arguments, we are completely different from the Han Chinese. The Austronesian language lacks the monosylabbic and language or grammatical structures of the Sino-tibetan languages. So what does that tell us. We are genetically different from the Mongoloids in the mainland?(of course not as genetic studies has proven Filipino genetic make up is similar to Southern Chinese) Why is the Japanese language completely different from the Chinese language? If the Japanese came from the mainland completely. Another pitfall of linuistic study to determine the root ancestry.
In terms of origin of rice agriculture, unfortunately, more earlier physical evidence is in the ocean floors already, the great Plains of Sundaland. In the tropics, preservation of grains or seeds is very futile. In terms of richness of gene pool including of wild rice, the northern areas in the Himalayas will never surpass the tropical paradisial biodiversity. The mother gene pool should have the variety of haplotypes.
I like to emphasize why linguistic study has problems compared to genetic study to quote a geneticist:
What evidence we have falls into three categories: physical remains, such as stone tools and cave paintings, can reveal the movement of technology and culture, but sometimes these spread not just as groups move, but between peoples. Linguistic studies, comparing modern languages to find their common roots, have the same problem. But genetics, looking at how minor mutations have spread through the world’s population, does not.
I reiterate the more I look at your links the more the concept of radiating from the Philippines is getting clearer. Philippines to Malay archipelago(North to south Migration) to Polynesia(eastward) to China, Korea, Japan(northward)
Since you are leaning linguistics perhaps you can study in your spare time the various links:http://www.reocities.com/pinatubo.geo/austric.htmhttp://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/sumer.htmhttp://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/austro.htm
Relations of Austrics with Austronesians, relations of Austrics with Sumerian language, Austric influence in India(Indo-Aryans or Indo-Europeans). Austrics relations between Austroasiatics
Edit: another interesting link presented as reference by Robert Lindsay which he used in substantiating his claim of Ami tribe of Taiwan being the ancestors of the Filipinos is actually proving the contrary: East Asians were descended from Southeast Asians... http://www.pnas.org/content/95/20/11763.abstract
The phylogeny also suggested that it is more likely that ancestors of the populations currently residing in East Asia entered from Southeast Asia.