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.

^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?

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





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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...


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?

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.

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.



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.

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,*


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.

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:



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.

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:



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:



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.

First and foremost, I will reiterate what Razib Khan said about all of these studies, depending on the accuracy(sensitivity and specificity) of the markers used, population sampling, etc., you will have conflicting results and hence confounded conclusions.

For eg, a study will say Northern Europeans as closer to Papuans than the Southerners. And another study will contradict that saying the Southern Europeans more closer to Papuans.

So, I would rather wait for more accurate studies than form premature conclusion that Papuans are derived from Northern Europeans. It's becoming clearer that the Caucasoid R haplo indeed came from South Asia, the land of the Australoid Dravidians which btw is closer to the Papuans including our Australoid Negritos particularly the Aetas. I am suspecting that in the earlier graph I presented on which Pavlova criticized that it seems the Papuan samples are really Melanesians with Austronesian influence, if they replaced that with pure Papuan samples. It will probably cluster with the Aeta negritos which showed high affinity with the South Asian populations, hence making it closer to the Western European populations. It is interesting to note that Aeta negritos, which the Papuans should cluster if Pavlova is right, EQUIDISTANT to all Population cluster groups, South Asians, Europians, East Asians both Southeast Asians and Northeast Asians(including Altaics)



All population cluster groups are all relatively EQUIDISTANT in relation to the Aeta, found almost at the center of that newer SnP chart, which Razib Khan said are more accurate than the chart you referred to which uses markers of less resolving power. And if Pavlova is right the Papuans would cluster with the Aeta which have higher affinity with South Asian than to the East Eurasians. All are equidistant in relation to the Aeta because all population cluster groups mentioned, the majorty of their haplos are derived from K*, which Aeta has and which they said originated in South Asia and found in highest frequency in SEA (The Oppenheimer's Eden in the East theory).

If we are to use your logic, since the Aetas too are not much genetically close to the East Eurasians being more close to the South Asian and Caucasoids. Then, the Aetas too came from Northern Europe as the Papuans are. They will not be termed as Australoids if they came from Northern Europe.

East Eurasians, the Mongoloids, do indeed picked up the genes in India and South Asia, where will the O haplogroup originate from if not from the Australoid K* and I repeat, they say has its origin in South Asia and found only surviving today in highest frequency further east among aeta negritos and some parts of Oceania. The theoretical Northern route for East Eurasians have absent K* amongst populations there, how can the East Eurasians, which majority has Haplogroup O, a derivative of K, sprung forth from there or even passed there in Central Asia towards the East without that K. Central Asia the midpoint of that northern route only have recent haplo admixtures of relatively newer haplos of O and R, with conspicously absent older and ancestral haplos. The Hugo Pan SNP study is indeed right to conclude East Asians came from the Southern route. Why say the East Eurasians didn't do so in getting the Australoid K genes in South Asia or the Southern route by just judging from the chart alone.

I don't think Pavlova debunked that Southern route, he was just trying to say that Papuans should be closer to South Asians particularly the Dravidians. For both Dravidians and papuans are Australoids just like the Ainus or Jomons and the negritos.

Knowledge of the phylogenetic tree of the Haplogroups is the Key more than those charts which can change from one study to another, depending on the methodology and the sampling.

I have been saying those things for so many times with the possibility that the Australoid Negrito's Paragroup K could be paraphyletic to both the R haplo of the Caucasoids and the O haplo of the Mongoloids. And add to that it is from Paragroup K which gave rise to the Papuan haplos, both M and S. Papuans never derived from Northern European areas. That statement defies logic if you ask me. Papuans M and S didn't come from R haplo in Northern Europe or in the Northern route. Papuan haplogroups M and S including the Caucasoid haplogroup R are all both derived from K haplo/K*/Paragroup K, their common ancestry. If you survey the Northern areas and the purported Northern route, conspicously absent among populations is the probable ancestral K* or Paragroup K which is found only surviving in very trace or miniscule fraction of today's South Asian populations but surviving in higher levels among Southeast Asian negritos with the highest amount found among Aeta negritos particularly in Sambalic areas. How can Papuan M and S derived from North areas when its predecessor haplo, K* is found absent on those areas. All Australoids including Papuans, the Ainus-Jomons, the Negritos and Australian aborigines all went to the southern route from a common ancestry which is K haplo or Paragroup K on which the purest representative is the Aeta negritos, the rest of the negritos including Andamanese, Papuans, Australian aborigenes only have fewer percentages of these possible paraphyletiic ancestral K* and higher percentages of derivations of K*. Companions of K* in the southern route like Haplo D and the Haplo C are also detected on these Australoid groups. Oppenheimer's Eden of the East theory is not without basis from genetics, to archaeology, etc. What better place for a homeland than the place where civilization as we know it started as well as where agriculture(domestication of plants and animals) started. Scholars during the Medieval age even placed one of the four rivers of paradise(Eden) in India Major(greater India) or East Indies and Ganges river in India was another. Harappan civilizations was definetly older than and probably the forebear to the Sumerian civilization, so called origin of Western Civilization. As Sumerian civilization was the predecessor of all the Mesopotamian civilizations, in Levant, Biblical lands. I would even venture to say as Oppenheimmer did to say Harappan civilization's forebear in farther east. For many western esoteric practitioners, the Orient is the cradle of wisdom and Mu(Sundaland is the motherland). Also, linguistic scholars show connections among agglutinative languages like Austronesians and the Sumerians including Indian languages. Tonal languages like Tai-Kradai formed an umbrella with Austronesians, the Austro-Tai, and up the ladder we have the Austrics which include Hmong Mien and the Austro-Asiatics and finally the Sino-Austronesian to include Sino-Tibetan languages.

I will end from the beginning:
Reiterating what Razib Khan said about all of these studies; depending on the accuracy(sensitivity and specificity) of the markers used, population sampling, etc., you will have conflicting results and hence confounded conclusions in terms of this having more affinity to this than that. Better go for more accurate ones with markers of high resolving power. You don't say East Asians came from Northern route since they have low affinity to Papuans because that conclusion came from judging only from interpreting the affinities from that particular chart with low resolving power alone. You have to go deeper than that, and Pavlova knows that. And that's exactly how the Hugo Pan SNP study did as they concluded that the Southern route is where the ancestors of East Eurasians went to depite the seeming genetic distance between papuans and East Eurasians. And that conclusion even Pavlova didn't disagree with to begin with. And I repeat, he was just trying to say papuans are closer to South Asians, because of the Dravidians which they shared a common Australoid genetic heritage. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Does everyone remember this discussion we had last December?: http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=325996

It was a thread that AnybodyKiller created "Worldwide genetic distancing., Southeast Asian populations included", and he cited a Dienekes study which included Southeast Asians: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/human...tion-first.html

In that thread, I wrote down the Fst scores with respect to Southeast Asians. Here it is again:



You'll see that Southeast Asians are very far away from Papuans with a Fst score of 0.212 something that contradicts what I wrote in my previous post in this thread. On the other hand, Southeast Asians are pretty close to Indians at 0.085 which supports my theory that Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) passed through India.

Supposedly Papuans are from India, and therefore Papuans should be close to Indians according to Pavlova, and Pavlova is correct! Indians come in second on the list with a Fst score of 0.182 from the following Papuan perspective:

Here are Papuans Fst scores:

0.144 Melanesian
0.182 Indian
0.207 East Asian
0.212 Southeast Asian
0.222 West Asian
0.224 North European
0.232 Siberian/Central Asian
0.234 Kalash
0.239 Red Sea
0.242 Mediterranean
0.259 Northeast Siberian
0.285 Sub-Saharan
0.299 Amerindian
0.346 Paleoafrican


You'll also notice that Southeast Asians come in fourth place with 0.212 and East Asians in third place with 0.207. Therefore, from a Papuan perspective, East Eurasians are pretty close. So why is it from a Southeast Asian perspective that Papuans come second to last with other groups such as Northern Europeans, Red Sea, Mediterranean, and even Sub-Saharan coming in closer??? The answer may be because today's Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) come from a second wave Out of Africa which included the ancestors of today's Caucasoids! The ancestors of today's Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) did go through India and picked up the genes from the first wave out of Africa which included the ancestors of today's Papuans, and that's why from a Papuan perspective, Southeast Asians (and all East Eurasians) appear very close to them. Now we have the proof of the second wave Out of Africa that went through India to form today's East Eurasians.

But you'll also notice that from the Papuan perspective that Northern Europeans are relatively close as compared to Siberian/Central Asian, Northeast Siberian, and Amerindian! Again this is consistent with Pavlova's observation!!! So what's going here? How can Papuans be closer to Northern Europeans (and other Caucasoids for that matter) compared to Siberian/Central Asians, Northeast Siberians, and Amerindians??? These three groups are East Eurasians also with ancestors going through India, so Papuans should be closer to them than any Caucasoids since Caucasoids did not go through India (except maybe Northeast India/Pakistan, but all East Eurasians should still be closer to Papuans than any Caucasoid)! This doesn't make any sense. Did these three groups obtain admixture up in northern/central Asia that's pulling them away from Papuans? But this admixture is not present in Southeast Asians or East Asians.

Here are the Fst scores from a North European perspective:

0.036 West Asian
0.057 Mediterranean
0.065 Indian
0.068 Red Sea
0.068 Kalash
0.122 East Asian
0.125 Southeast Asian
0.126 Siberian/Central Asian
0.146 Northeast Siberian
0.167 Amerindian
0.176 Sub-Saharan
0.203 Melanesian
0.224 Papuan
0.233 Paleoafrican

As you can see North Europeans are very far away from Papuans, because North Europeans are from the second wave Out of Africa whereas Papuans are from the first wave Out of Africa as I have iterated before. I can't say anything more from this perspective.

Here's the Amerindian perspective:

0.136 East Asian
0.144 Siberian/Central Asian
0.149 Indian
0.152 Northeast Siberian
0.154 Southeast Asian
0.167 North European
0.175 West Asian
0.185 Kalash
0.204 Red Sea
0.205 Mediterranean
0.27 Melanesian
0.271 Sub-Saharan
0.299 Papuan
0.333 Paleoafrican

From this Amerindian perspective, Papuans are very far from them. North Europeans are much closer, and even more closer are all the East Eurasian groups. This is consistent with the notion that Amerindians are part of the second wave Out of Africa, and Papuans are part of the first wave Out of Africa.

Here it is from the Siberian/Central Asian perspective:

0.059 East Asian
0.078 Norteast Siberian
0.081 Southeast Asian
0.097 Indian
0.126 North European
0.129 West Asian
0.138 Kalash
0.144 Amerindian
0.151 Mediterranean
0.153 Red Sea
0.201 Melanesian
0.216 Sub-Saharan
0.232 Papuan
0.277 Paleoafrican

Basically the same results for Amerindian.


Here it is from the Northeast Siberian perspective:

0.078 Siberian/Central Asian
0.083 East Asian
0.106 Southeast Asian
0.119 Indian
0.146 North European
0.15 West Asian
0.152 Amerindian
0.158 Kalash
0.175 Red Sea
0.176 Mediterranean
0.227 Melanesian
0.24 Sub-Saharan
0.259 Papuan
0.301 Palaeoafrican

Again similar results with Amerindian and Siberian/Central Asian. There appears to be no admixture that differentiates these three groups from one another. Either these three groups obtained a northern/central Asian admixture together and therefore cannot be further differentiated from one another, or there is no northern/central Asian admixture; but if there is no northern/central Asian admixture, then how can these three groups be so far away from Papuans as compared to Southeast Asians and East Asians??? Or did the Papuans obtain an admixture that makes them closer to Caucasoids relative to these three groups? Perhaps this admixture is something that both Northern Europeans and Papuans obtained from an ancient group that once lived in Europe and in Australasia, but did not live in India or Southeast Asia at least when the ancestors of East Eurasians migrated through India at the time. The picture is more complicated than it appears after all.

That's exactly what Razib said: "Philippine Negritos appear quite close genetically to where the Andaman Onge should be." And also the Andaman Islanders are the closest modern proxy to the ASI. Even this study, though probably outdated (according to Razib as well) claims that:

Still there is an undeniable connection between South and Southeast Asia both culturally and genetically.

I also don't believe that it was a migration southwards due to fear btw. As a matter of fact a disproportionate amount of Austroneisan blood in mainland Asia is from Y-DNA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O1...NA)#Frequencies

I also don't believe it was because of fear or invasion of Southern China from the Northern Chinese which promoted the Austronesian expansion. If Austronesians were under pressure to move, it would not necessarily mean we would create a maritime culture, and more likely we would have just headed south into Mainland Southeast Asia, and pushed ourselves into Austro-Asiatic territory which is not what we did. When the Huns invaded Europe, they pushed the Germanic tribes west who in turn pushed the Celts further west, but the Germanic and Celtic tribes didn't all of sudden create a maritime culture and moved up to Scandinavia or even England, and they simply moved on land and not on water ways.

Regarding the corridor and population movements between India and Southeast Asia, I also think there has been a long continuous movement of people between these two regions. The Austro-Asiatics who are supposedly from Mainland Southeast Asia likely went through that corridor since Austro-Asiatics are mainly a terrestrial migratory group. But even further back in the past, the earliest waves of humans from Out of Africa would likely have gone through it as well. But I guess the big question is, did the ancestors of today's Mongoloids also pass through that corridor en route to Eastern Eurasia? Why not I suppose, but we have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't think the Huns pushed the Germanic tribes west. The Germanic tribes were then all over the place. The Huns simply were just incorporated into the Germanic tribes later on. What caused the barbarian expansion was the breakdown of the Roman empire. Celts were simply all over the place in Gaul, Ireland and in Wales. And they never went to Nordic lands. The Celts were simply incorporated among Germanic tribes later on. And they didn't need to have a maritime culture to survive as there was no land being gobled up by the sea at that time which only happened way much earlier during the deluvial period. And only around Englands and some parts of North Sea and other coastal areas were gobbled up during the deluvial period.

I also don't think it was because of fear of the Hans' invasion. I made that statement out of jest. Ano ba kayo? Di kayo makagets ng joke?

But fear itself for one's survival? Why not?

Fear indeed is one of the greatest impetus for migrations aside from going where the grass is greener...

The most probable reason for the development of maritime culture and technologies, the impetus for migration, was survival for the coming upheavals, the inundations. Just like Noah was advised to build the ark, the rising of sea levels would necessitate to build maritime worthy vessels or failure to do so would be the extinction of our race. A survey of all the cultures among coastal reigions in Southeast Asia, we will see a confluence of Flood myths or Flood cultural motiffs.

With more and more lands being gobled up by the sea, you have no choice but to build a boat. Necessity is indeed the mother of invention. And that scenario of more lands being gobled up by the sea is exactly what just happened among our ancient Austronesian forefathers to develop their maritime culture and technologies to suvive the deluge. And for that reason, they who came from the inundated lands didn't penetrate the Austro-Asiatic strongholds who were survivors deep inland. They went to those relatively elevated remaining coastal lands that stayed dry that make up the many islands of the archipelagos of East Indies, the insular remnants of inundated Sundaland and other coastal areas like Southern China.

And the direction of Migration is up North or outwards away from the inundations of Sundaland, which occured in at least 3 waves post glacial. More evidence on that later from the genetic point of view.



Of course, O1 is higher among South Chinese than Northern Chinese for O1 originated in the South from Southeast Asia, where much older O1 subclades were found even to those found in Southern China, the same goes for O2 and O3 coming from older O2 and O3 found in Southeast Asia which in return came from NO* and K* ancestral forefathers.

East Asians are just a subset from Southeast Asia.

Southern Han population has a higher arithmetic mean frequencies of O1 than a pooled sample of Austronesian populations? How did they sample that Austronesian population? Did they get that from the Indonesians who are O2 predominant? Then, they probably get what they want, a higher value for the Southern Han. For majority of Austronesians are of Paleolithic origins and not Neolithic as the Karafet study says. Majority are O2 then O1. But, I don't think Southern Han population would have a higher arithmetic mean frequencies of O1 from let's say from Luzon population or even Visayas.

It is not a question of which group has the highest arithmetic mean. The more important question is which group has the more older for the same clade. For.eg, let's say R1b is found highest in Europe but found lower in South Asia but with an older subclade. Would that mean R1b originated in Europe for having higher arithmetic mean? No. Despite R1b is found lower in South Asia, that is where R1b subclade originated for it is older there.

It is interesting to note, that subclades of O1, O2 and O3 from Northern areas and that includes SOUTHERN CHINA are relatively newer than those more diverse but older subclades of the same haplo groups, O1, O2, and O3.

And for these reasons, what do you think would be the major direction of the migration? Going North or going South? Going North, exactly. That's what exactly the various studies such as the Hugo Pan Asian SNP study as well as the studies of Chu et al and Su et al found out and concluded East Asians came from Southeast Asia. Of course, we can't rule out the newer back migrations corresponding to the so called Han expansion from Yellow river which happened only in historical times(not prehistory) due mostly to starvation and civil wars up north. Again fear for the family's safety and survival and to go where the grass is greener.

Another noteworthy back migration, was that of the Neolithic Austronesians from the Philippine isles and not from Taiwan accdg to the newer mitochondrial studies. They went southwards into the lands of the Paleolithic Austronesians in Indonesia and outwards for the so called Austronesian expansion towards Melanesia and Oceania. Again, this corresponds to the last wave of rising of sea levels. The first or the second wave of rising sea levels probably pushed our Austro-Tai ancestors(O1) from broken up Sundaland into Yunnan, Southern China developing into the Tai-Kradai branch over there and into the coastal agrarian and maritime trading cultures of Southern China (DongYi or Yue tribes) becoming incorporated later on in recent history into the Han sphere of influence.

It's a given fact already that central Asia is a hostland, where admixtures of newer haplogroups occured between subclades of R caucasoid and O Mongoloid forming the typical Uyghurs for e.g. That Central Asia for the most time during the Paleolithic period, was very barren and inhospitable for human habitation. And for these reasons, Chu et al and Su et al debunked the Northern route theory for the origin for the majority of East Asians with few minority exceptions like the Siberians, Some Northern Hans, and Central Asians. Both agreed, that the Siberians and Central Asians both have genetic contributions from this relatively recent Northern route post glacial period by Caucasoids going east and East Asians going west.

This is the reason why Siberians and Central Asians appears very divergent if compared to the Papuans.

From a split, the more you go far away from that split, the more genetic divergent it will be. And for that reason, Amerindians appear very divergent from papuans, both have haplogroups which split the earliest from K*, Paragroup K. But splitting by the Papuans occured the earliest between these two cluster groups. So the farther away from that split the more divergent. And so you have newer subclades of O haplo like from the Hans that appear very divergent from the older papuan's M and S haplos despite all of these subclades are descendants of a common ancestral K haplogroup line.

removed double post

I watched a documentary regarding the Huns, and it showed how they pushed the Germanic tribes west, causing the Celts to move even further west. They used the term "billiard-ball effect" to describe this type of migratory phenomenon. I can't find that documentary anymore. But here's an article about this billiard-ball effect:


http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/398206


Haha, I agree. I shouldn't take everything so serious all the time. As you said the Austronesian expansion cannot be explained because of fear or invasion. An obvious question would be, why didn't we just migrate southward on land? Sure there were Austro-Asiatic groups south of us, but I don't think it would have stopped Austronesians from migrating southwards still. And there would have been some Austronesians migrating south anyways, and their languages would have survived, unless they were all assimilated into the Austro-Asiatic culture.

Also given the diversity of Austronesian languages present in Taiwan, one has to assume that those languages have been there for a very long time. There are about 10 primary branches of the Austronesian languages in Taiwan with Malayo-Polynesian being one of them only, and every Austronesian language outside of Taiwan is within that one Malayo-Polynesian branch which tells you that the divisions within the 10 primary branches are very steep and therefore would have to have evolved in Taiwan for a very long time. Languages take a long time to evolve into new daughter languages, and even much much longer time is required to create new higher level branches within a language family. Such length of time would not be attributed to a group migrating out of fear or invasion.

Taiwan's steep mountainous terrain would allow for each ethnolinguistic group to have their own isolated niche in the island allowing their languages to develop in isolation for a very long time into the various primary branches of Austronesian.

In general, I view a South to North migration of East Eurasians from Southeast Asia to East Asia and beyond. But we have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of the evidence lately favors this view, but there are still some questions that have to be answered so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit, especially regarding the genetic distance of Melanesians with West Eurasians.

Lastly, there may be some Caucasoid influence on the Siberian/Central Asian, Northeast Siberian, and Amerindians, but I think in those tests they were minimal. Besides, if West Eurasian genetic influence was large on these 3 groups, then that would cause these 3 groups to be closer to Melanesians more so than West Eurasians (such as North Europeans) to Melanesians. The Fst scores tell us that West Eurasians are closer to Melanesians than those 3 groups are to Melanesians, so anymore West Eurasian influence on those 3 groups would only make the 3 groups closer to Melanesians, and since the 3 groups are also East Eurasians that have the same ancestors as us Southeast Asians (and East Asians) and we happen to be closer to Melanesians than West Eurasians are to Melanesians, then it would cause those 3 groups to be also closer to Melanesians than West Eurasians are to Melanesians. Sorry for the long and complicated explanation, I could not explain it anymore simpler than that. But you're right, it could also be because of those 3 groups evolving for a very long time and far away, but I'm not sure, because if we look at the Fst scores again for Southeast Asian, you'll see that Siberian/Central Asian and Northeast Siberian are still closer to us than West Asians, North Europeans, and other West Eurasian groups, so these two groups apparently have not evolved that much from us. But in the case of Amerindian, they appear to have evolved far and/or received additional admixture since they are far down in our list. The Amerindians have undergone severe bottleneck effects and genetic drift, and this may affect our genetic distances with them.

Here's the Southeast Asian scores again:

0.034 East Asians
0.081 Siberian/Central Asian
0.085 Indian
0.106 Northeast Siberian
0.125 West Asian
0.125 North European
0.133 Kalash
0.144 Red Sea
0.146 Mediterranean
0.154 Amerindian
0.174 Melanesian
0.203 Sub-Saharan African
0.212 Papuan
0.263 Paleoafrican

I'd also like to add that only the Malayo-Polynesian branch migrated to spread and create the Austronesian languages outside of Taiwan. Why didn't the other primary branches of Austronesian also migrate outside of Taiwan if the Austronesians were somehow fleeing out of fear or invasion by others? It would not make sense that the Malayo-Polynesian group in Taiwan were the only ones who were brave enough and/or creative enough to create an early maritime culture and technology that allowed them to migrate southward into the Philippines and the rest of the archipelago and beyond. Perhaps the other primary groups also joined in, but were assimilated culturally and linguistically into the Malayo-Polynesian culture.

The other possibility is that 5,000+ years ago when the Austronesian (Malayo-Polynesian) expansion began, there was perhaps only one primary Austronesian language branch in Taiwan, and it was only since then that the various primary branches were developed in Taiwan. But that begs the question, why were't other primary branches of Austronesian developed outside of Taiwan? The Austronesians spread very quickly, and far and wide early in their expansion, so that would have allowed for other primary branches to develop outside of Taiwan, if the same thing was happening in Taiwan. But since primary branches of the Austronesian languages were not developed (or at least survived) outside of Taiwan, then it likely did not develop within Taiwan within the same time frame.

There is also the possibility that primary branches of Austronesian were developed in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc., but somehow became extinct, but I won't go into that.

One other possibility, is that the other primary branches of Austronesian migrated to Taiwan. They could have migrated before or after the Malayo-Polynesian expansion from Taiwan. Taiwan could have been a place of refuge for the various Austronesian groups from Southern China fleeing from fear or invasion. That could be a possibility. In this case, the Austronesian languages for the most part did not develop in Taiwan, but outside of it in Southern China. But the question still remains, why didn't the Austronesians simply migrate southward on foot into Mainland Southeast Asia and into Austro-Asiatic territory? As mentioned in my previous post, I don't think the Austro-Asiatics would have stopped such a migration, and perhaps they didn't, but that the Austronesians were assimilated into the Austro-Asiatic culture and language? Perhaps so, but it's not clear, and genetics would really help clear things up in this case. But I still find it strange that no Austronesian language survived to this date if such a southward migration did occur into Mainland Southeast Asia. Also, what happened to the Austronesian languages in Southern China if there were truly a large number of Austronesian speakers there to begin with? Perhaps they were also Proto-Austronesian speakers. But the Tai-Kadai languages currently present in Southern China do not seem to have divided a lot and are relatively mutually intelligible compared to the Austronesian languages, that is, they are a fairly new language family compared to Austronesian. This makes me think that most if not all of the primary branches of Austronesian were developed within Taiwan. Or perhaps all the Austronesian languages (and various primary branches) became extinct in Southern China. This did not have to happen at once, it could have been a slow and long process whereby some Austronesian languages in Southern China clinged on to existence until recently, but were eventually swamped by the language groups especially Tai-Kadai since it is related to the Austronesian language family. That is also a possibility. But if Tai-Kadai is an off-shoot of the Austronesian language family from Taiwan or even Southern China (or even an off-shoot of Proto-Austronesian), then we can at least reconcile in the notion that the Austronesian (or Proto-Austronesian) languages in Southern China made a come back. But no matter what we speculate the truth to be, Austronesians fleeing from fear or invasion isn't conclusively proven, so it could very well be that the Austronesian languages developed fully in Taiwan, and spread southward not out of fear or invasion, but because of exploration, population growth, technological advance, and a developing maritime culture.

Edit: This is of course assuming that the traditional model of the Out of Taiwan theory is correct, that Austronesians are originally from Southern China, then migrated to Taiwan and nestled there for perhaps thousands of years, and then migrated south to the Philippines and beyond. I'm not saying this model is correct, but that was the thought process my post was following.

the Malayo-Polynesian branch did not migrated out of Taiwan....because the Malayo-Polynesian branch doesnt even exist on taiwan

in most classifications.... there is actually no such thing as a "Malayo-Polynesian branch" on Taiwan... only on yami island ... who has a maritime tradition (& could easily be part of batanes group)...


since its unlikely that the whole Malayo-Polynesian branch migrated out of taiwan & left no one behind

MP was developed outside taiwan, because austronesians had a big "pause" of a thousand or so years in the Phil. before colonizing the rest of SEA islands & pacific.... the closest to the MP branch seemed to be Paiwanic branch, but theres a possibility that other branches contributed to MP (or if some those branches even existed before)... the early migrations of austronesians into N. Phil. doesnt necessarily means a one massive wave from one area of taiwan.. it could be several small groups from different areas contributing.. & after periods of settlements.. developed the MP branch over time... (developing a entirely different branch takes a long time)


even though i think the austronesians speakers in the Phil. probably came from taiwan... i believe that the fast & large scale... colonization of islands by austronesian speakers.. jump started in the Phil. (by austronesians speakers who been in the PI for thousands of years & developed MP). & not taiwan..

in my view.... ...the Malayo-Polynesian branch...basically means Philippine branch..

so to me the main Austronesian branches based on previous classifications are

Tsouic
Western Plains
Northwest Formosan
Atayalic
East Formosan
Bunun
Rukai
Puyuma
Paiwan
N. Philippine (Malayo-Polynesian)



many negritos in the Philippines i think are mixed with the austronesian settlers on different levels... so yes i think they have shared ancestry with the majority of filipinos

because the austronesians in the malay peninsula wasnt able to penetrate the interior & are more recent than the ones in the Phil. thats why for such a big area... they really have a low diversity in languages ...basically all the austronesians on the peninsula speak the same language, Melayu

malay peninsula is also on the "edge" of austronesian territory... the same goes to east timor, champa, or papua/melanesia ... where austronesian languages are surrounded by non-austronesian languages or vice-versa


the older austronesians in the philippines.. seemed to have penetrated every corner of the country... & assimilated/mix or influenced with all the previous non-austronesians settlers here...

in madagascar.... everyone there speaks austronesian... even though a big chunk of the population obviously have african ancestry
but that doesnt mean just because some austronesians have mixed african ancestry.. that all austronesians have african ancestry... & that "africans" there evolved into "present day austronesians" or vice versa

(although eventually if you go that far back in time... then we might all have African ancestry... lol)


all the surviving negrito/mixed negrito population in the Philippines... adopted/speaks the language(or a version of it) of whatever farming austronesian ethnic group settled neared them




PS .. hi everyone... just passing by if this site is still alive or still taken over by spam bots...

That's interesting Filipinoy, and welcome back! That makes sense, and like you said the Malayo-Polynesian branch is likely a North Philippine development since it's just south of Taiwan. The Yami language and people are likely a back migration from the Philippines according to that genetic study last year. So you're right, Malayo-Polynesian developed outside of Taiwan.

Since you were talking about pulses, it reminded me of the 2008 Austronesian Vocabulary Database study: http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austronesian/research.php
They had the language pulse and pause diagram, but also a phylogenetic tree of the Austronesian languages: http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austron...lTreeFigure.pdf
It's better to click on the link than to look at the tree below which is too small to see. But you'll notice that the Sama-Bajaw group of languages which includes Yakan (although other sources classify it as a Sabahan language), Bajo, Samal (Siasil), Mapun, and Inabaknon forms an exclusive group with the Philippine-Gorontalo-Mongondow languages at a confidence level of 74%. My guess is that the Sama-Bajaw languages are a transitional group between the Philippine-Gorontalo-Mongondow languages and the rest of the Malayo-Polynesian languages. This would also make sense geographically since the Sama-Bajaw languages are found in the Sulu Archipelago, Northeast Borneo, and areas nearby (with the exception to Inabaknon of course) connecting the Philippines to the rest of the Malay Archipelago. My question is, how did these languages survive the back migration of the Borneans into the Philippines which formed the Central Philippine languages? And also the earlier back migration from Sumatra and/or Peninsular Malaysia that would form the Northern Philippine languages? If you look at the Manobo, Subanon, and Bilic languages on the phylogenetic tree, they form an exclusive group with the Central Philippines languages and Palawanic languages at a confidence level of 83%. The Manobo, Subanon, and Bilic people likely spoke languages that are unrelated to the Central Philippine languages before the arrival of the Borneans. So they were "Borneanized" linguistically speaking, and that's why their languages are closely related to the Central Philippine languages today. But for some reason the Sama-Bajaw group survived this Bornean onslaught. Perhaps, the Sama-Bajaw group had a large population with an advanced and wealthy civilization which did not allow for the Borneanization of their culture and languages. Or perhaps the Sama-Bajaw languages had a successful back migration in recent times displacing the Central Philippine and Palawanic languages in the Sulu Archipelago. Tausug which is the oddball language in the Sulu Archipelago is a Central Philippine language surrounded by Sama-Bajaw and Sabahan languages. I've heard that Tausug was brought to the Sulu Archipelago from the Butuan Kingdom in present day Agusan Del Norte province near the Surigao provinces in northeastern Mindanao. The Butuan Kingdom may have spoken a language similar to Surigaonon from what I've read before. But Tausug is not actually that close to Surigaonon according to the phylogenetic tree. Cebuano and even Aklanon are closer to Surigaonon. I'm guessing the Sama-Bajaw languages had a back-migration of some sort, because even the Sabahan languages such as Bonggi, Molbog, and possibly Yakan migrated from Sabah into the Sulu Archipelago and Palawan in recent times perhaps during the Islamization period since most of them are Muslims.

Another issue lingering in my mind is that when the Borneans back-migrated into the Philippines, perhaps they adopted the languages of the Philippines and forgoed their Bornean languages. That may explain why the languages spoken in Borneo today are still unrelated to the Philippine languages. Perhaps the Borneans spoke a Sama-Bajaw language. There has to be a reason why the Sama-Bajaw languages survived. It's a small group of languages in terms of diversity and number of speakers. There has to be an explanation as to why Tausug exist in the middle of other language groups. Perhaps Tausug survived the arrival of the Bornean who spoke a Sama-Bajaw language. The same may apply with the Sumatrans or Peninsular Malaysians that may have migrated to the Northern Philippines. Perhaps the Sumatrans/Peninsular Malaysians adopted the languages of the Northern Filipinos. Just a thought, although it is far-fetch from the mainstream. Of course the lack of diversity in the Visayan, Bicolano, and Tagalog languages and the fact that many of the Visayan and Bicolano languages form a dialectic continuum with one another does suggest that the Central Philippine languages recently arrived in the Philippines with the arrival of the Borneans.

Major research project on the way regarding the origins of Southeast Asians, Australasians, and Pacific Islanders:


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/201...u-dao071712.php