May 08, 2012

Patrilineal signals of Austronesian expansion in mainland Southeast Asia

There was a recent paper on the spread of Austronesian in Island Southeast Asia, and now here's one on its spread in mainland Southeast Asia. Information about sampled populations can be found in Table 1. Haplogroup frequencies below:



PLoS ONE 7(5): e36437. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036437

Patrilineal Perspective on the Austronesian Diffusion in Mainland Southeast Asia

Jun-Dong He et al.

The Cham people are the major Austronesian speakers of Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA) and the reconstruction of the Cham population history can provide insights into their diffusion. In this study, we analyzed non-recombining region of the Y chromosome markers of 177 unrelated males from four populations in MSEA, including 59 Cham, 76 Kinh, 25 Lao, and 17 Thai individuals. Incorporating published data from mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), our results indicated that, in general, the Chams are an indigenous Southeast Asian population. The origin of the Cham people involves the genetic admixture of the Austronesian immigrants from Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) with the local populations in MSEA. Discordance between the overall patterns of Y chromosome and mtDNA in the Chams is evidenced by the presence of some Y chromosome lineages that prevail in South Asians. Our results suggest that male-mediated dispersals via the spread of religions and business trade might play an important role in shaping the patrilineal gene pool of the Cham people.

Link

10 comments:

Jim said...

This is interesting in and of itself, and when someone does the same thing for Daic (Thai and relatives)-speaking groups, that will be another piece of the picture. Daic languages look to be Austronesisan, branching at the same level as the languages in Taiwan. And of course it will be intersting when someone compares Cham and Daic populations with those Austronesian speakers on taiwan.

Jim said...

Oopsie. Looks like someone has done that.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/05/paternal-genetic-affinity-between.html

terryt said...

What I find most interesting is the complete absence of Y-DNA D in the sample. That argues against a 'coastal' migration for D. It is basically absent from regions accessible from the coast.

German Dziebel said...

@terry

Good point, Terry. I noticed it, too. It's also interesting that Cham and Kihn both have Y-DNA C3 plus a C*. The latter could be C2 or not but in any case, this suggests that C2 may not have been picked up by Austronesians before entering Polynesia, but in fact part of an original C2/C3 make up of Austronesians as a whole. This could be a sign of the "Mongoloid" component that they brought with them to Polynesia, and not a sign of an indigenous Papuan component that came in through admixture.

Same for mtDNA B4/B5: both lineages are present in both Chams and Kihns suggesting that B4 is not limited to Austronesians but in fact is a broader Southeast Asian component that Austronesians carried with them all the way to Polynesia.

South Central Haplo said...

O2 is strong in both islands and coastal mainland. A SNP analysis like done in other threads will help a lot in finding the genetic man/direction. O3 is more inland.

terryt said...

"It's also interesting that Cham and Kihn both have Y-DNA C3 plus a C*. The latter could be C2 or not but in any case"

It might not be C2 either. C* is claimed in Wikipedia as being found all round the South China Sea, while C2 is definitely Siouth Wallacean. C3's origin is very likely north of China. So the differentiation of C2, C4 and C3 considerably pre-dates the Austronesian expansion.

"this suggests that C2 may not have been picked up by Austronesians before entering Polynesia, but in fact part of an original C2/C3 make up of Austronesians as a whole".

As I just pointed out, it looks very much as if C2 and C3 origins are very much distant from each other. I would say that it is almost certain that C2 joined the Austronesians when they reached Southern Wallacea and, from there, moved almost entirely eastward into the wider Pacific.

"This could be a sign of the 'Mongoloid' component that they brought with them to Polynesia, and not a sign of an indigenous Papuan component that came in through admixture".

The Mongoloid element is far more likely to have been introduced by Y-dna O and mt-DNAs M7 and M9. C2 is moderately far from any early Mongoloid presence.

"Same for mtDNA B4/B5: both lineages are present in both Chams and Kihns suggesting that B4 is not limited to Austronesians but in fact is a broader Southeast Asian component that Austronesians carried with them all the way to Polynesia".

Very true. In fact B4'5 is part of haplogroup R11'B. The three mambers are spread around the South China Sea. R11'B6 in South China, R24 in the Philippines with B4'5 between these two opposite ends. The haplogroup's spread presumably goes back to the time of Sunda and lowered sea level.

"O2 is strong in both islands and coastal mainland".

I used to wonder if its spread was associated with the expansion of Austro-Asiatic languages. I'm drawing very near to concluding that it was.

"O3 is more inland".

Very much so. I doubt vwery much that it was associated with the early elements of the austronesian expansion but it has become the dominant O haplogroup in the Pacific.

Dobba Makale said...

Hi,

Have you guys already read the book entitled Culture Contact & Language Convergence by Kemp Pallesen? He said the Tausug people are descended from Sama-Badjao men who worked as trader and Butuanon, which is a Visayan tribe, women. How true is this statement?

But from what I have read from different sources, according to archaeologists like J.T. Peralta and William Henry Scott, it is said that Butuanon people from the Butuan area in northeastern Mindanao actually migrating or invading Sulu island during 11 A.D thus forming the Tausug population as we know today if I remembered correctly. Furthermore, Pallesen is just a linguist not an archaeologist or historian.

Pallesen also committing some errors here, he said "it must be realized that the speakers of Tausug today are not "East Mindanaoans" in terms of physical ethnicity, and that because of persistent intermarriage the Tausug of today are probably more similar physically to Northern Sama (Balangingi Sama) and Western Sama (Pangutaran Sama) speaking Sama than to their linguistic relatives on the Mindanao coast", whereas actually he never really observed them for himself whether Tausugs are indeed the descendants of Sama-Badjao men and Visayan (Butuanon) women. From my own observation, many Tausug people that I had met actually bore more resemblance to Mindanaoans such as Iranuns, Maguindanaos, Visayans, and even Malay peoples, etc. while I can differentiate a Sama-Badjao physical appearance from those people. A Sama-Badjao looks unique and different from those people that I had mentioned previously although some Tausugs do look like some Sama-Badjaos in terms of physical appearance. Not too mention that judging either paternal or maternal lineage based on physical appearance of the descendants, is of course impossible. So I think the "silver bullet" for any question like this is to look at the uniparental markers of the groups involved as it would be a far more definitive way to answer the question.

Are there any differences of genes and DNA between those groups of ethnic? Are someone here familiar with all of them?

Are the Tausug people really descended from Sama-Badjao men and Visayan women? How true is this statement? I think if it is true that Tausug people descended from intermarriages between Sama-Badjao people and Visayan people, there are also considerable amounts of Visayan men married Sama-Badjao women too instead of Sama-Badjao men marrying Visayan women. Any thoughts?

terryt said...

I am unable to answer any of your questions except to say the Philippines have been settled a long time, and there has been lots of movement into and around the islands. You should be able to follow up some of the references in this link:

http://imphscience.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/complete-mtdna-genome-of-filipino-ethnolinguistic-groups-reveal-a-philippine-indian-link/

Dobba Makale said...

How about the yDNA genome of the people of Philippines?

terryt said...

"How about the yDNA genome of the people of Philippines?"

This is pretty much the definitive one at present although it doesn't divide up either Y-DNA C or K:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n2/full/ejhg2010162a.html

Quote:

" We find extreme diversity in the Y-chromosome lineages of Filipino groups with heterogeneity seen in both Negrito and non-Negrito groups, which does not support a simple dichotomy of Filipino groups as Negrito vs non-Negrito. Filipino non-recombining region of the human Y chromosome lineages reflect a chronology that extends from after the initial colonization of the Asia-Pacific region, to the time frame of the Austronesian expansion. Filipino groups appear to have diverse genetic affinities with different populations in the Asia-Pacific region".

You will also find this Dienekes post and the discussion on the paper useful:

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2010/09/y-chromomes-of-filipino-negritos-and.html