tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post8867624995850269774..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Genetic methods applied to linguistic diversity of the SahulDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65931221674761977892009-11-19T05:16:27.675+02:002009-11-19T05:16:27.675+02:00From the link:
"Second, it can be shown tha...From the link: <br /><br />"Second, it can be shown that linguistic boundaries in this area can persist much longer than separated biological populations, thus retaining a signal of distinct populations after the biological signal has been obscured through interbreeding". <br /><br />Once again we have a demonstration of the relative independence of genes and language. The authors' approach will be useful in throwing further light on the relationships between other languages. <br /><br />"The wide-spread families (TNG and PN) on both sides of the Torres Strait divide (~9,000 BP) are the result of more recent expansions of two of those groups". <br /><br />That obviously doesn't mean those two language groups separated just 9000 years ago. In fact the authors show, 'Australian languages were separated from all others at K3, not showing internal differentiation until K7'. The latter comment revealing that the expansion within Australia was relatively recent. The comment suggests that the two language groups (TNG and PN) have expanded independently since the formation of Torres Strait. The authors do claim to have revealed, 'some first tentative links across the Torres Straits' though. They go on to suggest, 'The faint admixtures across the Torres Strait could be remnants of interrelations between Papuan and Australian populations before the continents were separated about 9,000 BP'. And, 'The results also show traces of early dispersals, including hints at ancient connections between Australian languages and some Papuan groups (long hypothesized, never before demonstrated)'. That makes sense. <br /><br />"We find that in the eastern islands there are clearly distinct AN and non-AN groups, with good evidence of a deep structural phylogenetic signal, albeit with some admixture [16]. In the western islands however there is considerably more typological convergence between AN and non-AN languages". <br /><br />Presumably because the Austronesian languages reached the western region before it reached the east, and so has had longer to mix. Austronesian languages don't really originate around New Britain, they just started their main eastward migration from there. And ultimately they began moving into what had been previously uninhabited islands. So nothing to mix with. Any back migrants would have reinforced the separateness of Papuan and Austronesian languages.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com