tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post980175561077086132..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Post-glacial migrations of humans into East AsiaDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81916846800949429312010-11-19T16:02:51.881+02:002010-11-19T16:02:51.881+02:00"Probably means there was no-one there in the..."Probably means there was no-one there in the Pleistocene."<br /><br />Exactly. Taiwan was colonized by Austronesians in the Holocene. No doubt about it.<br /><br />"So Austronesian certainly wasn't present too far east of Wallace's line before then either."<br /><br />Apparently, not too far.<br /><br />"But the fact we can see a relationship between the various Austronesian languages indicates its spread is much more recent, even if we allow the possibility that Taiwanese languages are a separate cline from the Malayo-Polynesian group. You may like to claim Austronesian is a very slowly-evolving language but that claim seems unlikely. Other Pleistocene languages in the region, especially those of Australia and New Guinea, are extremely diverse. So much so that it is impossible to see any relationship between most of the language groups. So how would a language isolated on various islands maintain a common thread through the whole of the period since the Pleistocene?"<br /><br />Linguists working on Austric note that simple morphology and prosody (Austronesian and Austroasiatic languages are simple morphologically, unlike Indo-European with its elaborate suffixation and suprasegmental features) may be conducive to the longer preservation of genealogical relatedness between languages. This is one possibility. Another factor to keep in mind is that, while linguistic diversity does confer a certain antiquity to the region where it's found, there are cases such as Ainu, when there's only one language, hence diversity is close to 0, but there are all the reasons to believe that it's been around since the Pleistocene. This is because Ainu, a small population, evolved through several stages during which innovations were redistributed across all existing dialects. So, my interpretation of the combined genetic and linguistic data from the Pacific and SEAsia involves three stages in the evolution of Austronesian languages: 1) proto-Austroasiatic-Ongan-Austronesian unity somewhere in western (South)East Asia; 2) it's breakup, with a small Austronesian dialect chain establishing itself in (approximately) Wallacea, with subsequent innovations spreading by diffusion without any population movement; 3) expansion north, west and east from there in the early Holocene, with parallel gene flow from Asia back south in mid-to-late Holocene.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81626518525538855802010-11-19T05:34:45.562+02:002010-11-19T05:34:45.562+02:00"boating terminology is not well-attested in ..."boating terminology is not well-attested in Taiwanese languages". <br /><br />And that is very interesting, although could be explained if just one group of Austronesian-speaking Taiwanese had the technology and were able to move to the Philippines. <br /><br />"The aboriginal Taiwanese don't have any Pleistocene-level lineages". <br /><br />Probably means there was no-one there in the Pleistocene. <br /><br />"They expanded to Polynesia late, but otherwise they've been present east of the Wallace line since the Pleistocene". <br /><br />The evidence seems pretty convincing that no-one was able to move beyond a few of the northern Solomon islands until about 3-4000 years ago. So Austronesian certainly wasn't present too far east of Wallace's line before then either. Non-Austronesian languages are spoken in the few parts of Melanesia not occupied until that time, again arguing against a long-term Austronesian presence anywhere near New Guinea or Melanesia. <br /><br />"But this doesn't mean that Austronesian didn't exist before. Not as the second largest family in the world but as a dialect chain with innovations spreading across it without much population movement". <br /><br />It would be very difficult to make the claim that the Austronesian spread goes back as far as the Pleistocene. Sure, Austronesian must derive from some language spoken during the Pleistocene. But the fact we can see a relationship between the various Austronesian languages indicates its spread is much more recent, even if we allow the possibility that Taiwanese languages are a separate cline from the Malayo-Polynesian group. You may like to claim Austronesian is a very slowly-evolving language but that claim seems unlikely. Other Pleistocene languages in the region, especially those of Australia and New Guinea, are extremely diverse. So much so that it is impossible to see any relationship between most of the language groups. So how would a language isolated on various islands maintain a common thread through the whole of the period since the Pleistocene?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88684238791038118462010-11-18T22:12:58.715+02:002010-11-18T22:12:58.715+02:00"C is by no means present in all Austronesian..."C is by no means present in all Austronesian-speaking populations. And of course C2 derives from a C* of some sort, presumably in the Pleistocene and most likely in Southern Wallacea. But that in no way proves that the Austronesian language first appeared in the same place and at the same time."<br /><br />No, but all the data shows that C*/C2 is an Austronesian lineage. And, as you remember, there are other Cs in the Philippines (across Negrito and non-Negrito populations).<br /><br />"There is no such thing as an 'Austronesian haplogroup'..."<br /><br />The aboriginal Taiwanese don't have any Pleistocene-level lineages. It means they are more recent populations than Ongan or Malayo-Polynesians, although there may have been "Asian"/Mongoloid gene flow from Taiwan down south in the Holocene. Linguists just should take note. Or, Y-DNA is not a Pleistocene lineage.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34106631738096942172010-11-18T22:12:40.929+02:002010-11-18T22:12:40.929+02:00"To most people the evidence is overwhelming ..."To most people the evidence is overwhelming that the language emerged from Taiwan."<br /><br />You are making a logical mistake by confusing opinions and data. I'm looking at the data. Opinions, even if they are those of a majority, are of secondary importance to me. There are some dissenters, among linguists, such as Ilya Peiros who I quoted. Malayo-Polynesian languages are not attested in Taiwan, hence, if another Austronesian language appears somewhere else, and this could be Ongan, then Taiwan becomes one of the destinations for the Austronesian dispersal and not its ultimate origin.<br /><br />""the fact that Ongan is 100% Y-DNA Dx and some Polynesian groups are almost 100% C2x".<br /><br />Argues against an ancient connection..."<br /><br />How can it argue against it? It's consistent with it, if not directly suggestive. There are populations out there, such as the Ainu, who have both C and D lineages. Also, compare mtDNA Q lineages in Melanesians and Polynesians (again, not admixture IMO) and Andamanese M31, M32.<br /><br />"I'd put that population well north of SE Asia..."<br /><br />Okay, it could be further up north, but why do you think that those carriers of D and C lineages weren't Austronesians? Again, C2 is uniquely Austronesian and non-Austronesians got it from them, and not the other way around.<br /><br />"I'd include Austroasiatic, along with Sino-Tibetan, Ket, Yenesian and Na-Dene."<br /><br />Austroasiatic is interesting indeed, especially Nicobarese, right next to the Andamans. Nicobarese is the core of the Austric proposal (see most recently Lawrence Reid) because it shows a set of unique grammatical matches with Austronesian (equally Malayo-Polynesian and Formosan). I can support it with my kinship data, too. So, we may have a cluster of very divergent subgroups in western SEA: Ongan, Nicobarese-Austroasiatic and Malayo-Polynesian. A group of them went to colonize Taiwan, maybe while it was still part of mainland, as boating terminology is not well-attested in Taiwanese languages.<br /><br />""Then, in Holocene, Austronesians expanded in several directions".<br /><br />I think everyone agrees with that."<br /><br />But this doesn't mean that Austronesian didn't exist before. Not as the second largest family in the world but as a dialect chain with innovations spreading across it without much population movement.<br /><br />"I'm sure it has been you who has been saying no pre-Austronesian languages exist in the region."<br /><br />I've never said that there are no non-Austronesian languages in south Wallacea or in island Melanesia. What I was saying is that, if we find an old Pleistocene lineage in Austronesian, we shouldn't automatically attribute it to an extinct pre-Austronesian population. There are living non-Austronesian populations and the gene flow seems to have been going on between Austronesians and non-Austronesians since the Pleistocene. Even if we assume that Austronesians picked up some lineages (such as Y-DNA K) from non-Austronesians, it should've taken them more than 3,000 years to dilute their "Asian"/Mongoloid male ancestry by 90%.<br /><br />What I believe Y-DNA C2 lineage in Wallacean, Melanesian and Polynesian Austronesians shows is that Austronesians entered this broad area rather early on. They expanded to Polynesia late, but otherwise they've been present east of the Wallace line since the Pleistocene.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16846773907568288022010-11-18T04:58:53.975+02:002010-11-18T04:58:53.975+02:00Sorry. I didn't see your previous post.
&q...Sorry. I didn't see your previous post. <br /><br />"This contradicts what you have been saying". <br /><br />I'm sure it has been you who has been saying no pre-Austronesian languages exist in the region. <br /><br />"Austronesians is a distinct language family. It's also ultimately derived from (South)east Asia, just like Australians and Papuans". <br /><br />But austronesian is not related at all to Australian or Papuan languages. <br /><br />"The data shows that the lineage that's usually considered of Pleistocene origin, namely C*/C2, appears to have been an inherent part of the Austronesian expansion and not a random lineage picked up from pre-/non-Austronesians" <br /><br />Incorrect. C is by no means present in all Austronesian-speaking populations. And of course C2 derives from a C* of some sort, presumably in the Pleistocene and most likely in Southern Wallacea. But that in no way proves that the Austronesian language first appeared in the same place and at the same time. As you say later: <br /><br />"Language shifts do occur just like gene flow, and in this part of the world correlation between languages and genes is weak". <br /><br />Exactly. There is no such thing as an 'Austronesian haplogroup', although if you're prepared to accept the language derives from Taiwan it is very easy to see which male haplogroup it was originally associated with.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60822136531677574722010-11-18T04:48:00.336+02:002010-11-18T04:48:00.336+02:00"the fact that Ongan is 100% Y-DNA Dx and som..."the fact that Ongan is 100% Y-DNA Dx and some Polynesian groups are almost 100% C2x". <br /><br />Argues against an ancient connection. We need more information on any connection between Ongan and Austronesian before we can jump to definite conclusions. <br /><br />"I wouldn't be surprised that there was an ancestral population in SEAsia that was 50% D and 50% C". <br /><br />I'd put that population well north of SE Asia. Somewhere round the China/Mongolia/Tibet border region. From there C and D moved east to Japan, and then C moved south to Wallacea and Australia, and D moved south through the Chinese hill country to Burma and the Andamans. Some small amount of D reached Sumatra. <br /><br />"This population gave rise to Andamanese, Tai-Kadai and Austronesians (let's leave Austroasiatic for now)". <br /><br />I'd include Austroasiatic, along with Sino-Tibetan, Ket, Yenesian and Na-Dene. <br /><br />"Then, in Holocene, Austronesians expanded in several directions". <br /><br />I think everyone agrees with that. <br /><br />"So, in essence they are a Pleistocene population on agricultural 'steroids' and not a Taiwanese icing on the SEA/Oceanic cake". <br /><br />To most people the evidence is overwhelming that the language emerged from Taiwan. However I agree that the Austronesian expansion consisted in the main of Pleistocen SE Asian populations.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43151892889498721232010-11-16T17:54:22.322+02:002010-11-16T17:54:22.322+02:00"But very distantly related to it. The Austro..."But very distantly related to it. The Austronesian connection is problematic, but probably has a simple explanation. It's just that we haven't found it yet."<br /><br />Of course, if there's a "simple" explanation we'll find it. What's infinitely more interesting to me at this point, however, is the fact that Ongan is 100% Y-DNA Dx and some Polynesian groups are almost 100% C2x. There seems to be a clear parallelism between the fixation of a Pleistocene lineage in two extreme catty corner island points of Austronesian (para-Austronesian) spread. You wouldn't argue that Andamanese colonized Andaman islands 3000 years ago and replaced a pre-Andamanese population that used to be Y-DNA D. This is just not parsimonious. Then why do we need to argue that Austronesians picked up their Pleistocene lineage from pre-Austronesians? <br /><br />Take the Ainu: they have Y-DNA C, D and O. O is clearly recent but C and D are of Pleistocene age. I wouldn't be surprised that there was an ancestral population in SEAsia that was 50% D and 50% C. This population gave rise to Andamanese, Tai-Kadai and Austronesians (let's leave Austroasiatic for now). As the ancestral unity broke apart, different parts migrated in different directions, new mutations (various Ks and Os) arose and slowly edged out the original Pleistocene pool. Its vestiges survived in a Wallacean/Near Oceanic and in an Andamanese refugia. Then, in Holocene, Austronesians expanded in several directions. So, in essence they are a Pleistocene population on agricultural "steroids" and not a Taiwanese icing on the SEA/Oceanic cake.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10351010334162004462010-11-16T14:47:37.314+02:002010-11-16T14:47:37.314+02:00"Eastern Indonesia possesses more linguistic ..."Eastern Indonesia possesses more linguistic diversity than any other region in Southeast Asia, with both Austronesian (AN) languages that are of East Asian origin, as well as non-Austronesian (NAN) languages of likely Melanesian origin".<br /><br />This contradicts what you have been saying. Another comment that contradicts your claims:<br /><br />"both NRY and mtDNA data showed a complete lack of correlation between linguistic and genetic relationships, most likely reflecting genetic admixture and/or language shift ... a clear example of the lack of the often-assumed correlation between the genes and languages of human populations".<br /><br />"in southern Wallacea, just like everywhere else, Austronesians were the donors of C lineages into Papuan populations and not the other way around".<br /><br />The data above supports the idea that C2 was present in southern Wallacea long before the Austronesians reached it."<br /><br />How does this contradict what I've been saying? What "data above" supports the idea that C2 was present before Austronesians reached southern Wallacea? Terry, you can access the article for free and read it and look at the table I referenced. From the distribution of frequencies, it appears that C*/C2 is much more frequent in Austronesians than in non-Austronesians, which is a usual sign of admixture, an admixture from the former into the latter.<br /><br />There's little doubt that Austronesians came in contact with non-Austronesians, just like Trans-New Guineans came in contact with non-Trans-new Guineans, etc. Austronesians is a distinct language family. It's also ultimately derived from (South)east Asia, just like Australians and Papuans. The problem is when and how. The data shows that the lineage that's usually considered of Pleistocene origin, namely C*/C2, appears to have been an inherent part of the Austronesian expansion and not a random lineage picked up from pre-/non-Austronesians. You and I just looked at frequencies in southern Wallacea and in island Melanesia. <br /><br />Language shifts do occur just like gene flow, and in this part of the world correlation between languages and genes is weak. (This is not a rule, however.) But language shift and gene flow occur both ways, and the data shows that C*/C2 is the lineage that was absorbed by non-Austronesians from Austronesians.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48011617394756792602010-11-16T04:38:22.187+02:002010-11-16T04:38:22.187+02:00I've just gone back and I see that Dienekes ha...I've just gone back and I see that Dienekes has already blogged on the article above. I don't know if you've seen it: <br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/genetic-admixture-in-eastern-indonesia.htmlterrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42644941377831315512010-11-16T04:35:34.518+02:002010-11-16T04:35:34.518+02:00"In Genetic Admixture History of Eastern Indo..."In Genetic Admixture History of Eastern Indonesia as Revealed by Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis, by Stefano Mona, there's a table (p. 1867) with frequencies of C* and C2 in southern Wallacea". <br /><br />And the abstract starts off: <br /><br />"Eastern Indonesia possesses more linguistic diversity than any other region in Southeast Asia, with both Austronesian (AN) languages that are of East Asian origin, as well as non-Austronesian (NAN) languages of likely Melanesian origin". <br /><br />This contradicts what you have been saying. Another comment that contradicts your claims: <br /><br />"both NRY and mtDNA data showed a complete lack of correlation between linguistic and genetic relationships, most likely reflecting genetic admixture and/or language shift ... a clear example of the lack of the often-assumed correlation between the genes and languages of human populations". <br /><br />"in southern Wallacea, just like everywhere else, Austronesians were the donors of C lineages into Papuan populations and not the other way around". <br /><br />The data above supports the idea that C2 was present in southern Wallacea long before the Austronesians reached it. <br /><br />"What we find in Ongan and Jarawa, instead, are Y-DNA Dx, which is the same stratigraphic level as Y-DNA C". <br /><br />But very distantly related to it. The Austronesian connection is problematic, but probably has a simple explanation. It's just that we haven't found it yet.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40484011227144245142010-11-15T17:30:56.233+02:002010-11-15T17:30:56.233+02:00"But Ongan is just one of several Andaman lan..."But Ongan is just one of several Andaman language..."<br /><br />Blevins established linguistic relationship between Jarawa and Onga (the two smallest but most divergent languages in the Andaman islands). Great Andamanese is a large collection of languages that apparently don't show a connection to Austronesian. See for details www.andamanese.net/Lg%20Sciences%20Vol%2031%20GA%20article.pdf. What's interesting is the fact that if Austronesians landed in the Anadaman islands relatively late we would've seen their recently derived mtDNA and Y-DNA lineages there. But we don't. What we find in Ongan and Jarawa, instead, are Y-DNA Dx, which is the same stratigraphic level as Y-DNA C.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12043540691770788812010-11-15T06:45:20.571+02:002010-11-15T06:45:20.571+02:00In Genetic Admixture History of Eastern Indonesia ...In Genetic Admixture History of Eastern Indonesia as Revealed by Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis, by Stefano Mona, there's a table (p. 1867) with frequencies of C* and C2 in southern Wallacea. There are 140 instances of C2 among Austronesian speaking groups against 19 instances of C2 in non-Austronesian-speaking groups. For C* the ratio is even wider: 48 against 1. Various Y-DNA O lineages are also more frequent in Austronesians vs. non-Austronesians but the gap is not as wide, and in the case O-M134 Pantar (NAN) exclusively has it.<br /><br />Again, it looks like in southern Wallacea, just like everywhere else, Austronesians were the donors of C lineages into Papuan populations and not the other way around.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27188285895492238212010-11-15T04:12:01.370+02:002010-11-15T04:12:01.370+02:00"Ongan and Malayo-Polynesians show the deepes..."Ongan and Malayo-Polynesians show the deepest Eurasian Y-DNA lineages, Dx and C2". <br /><br />But Ongan is just one of several Andaman languages, and it makes some sort of sense that Austronesian may have influenced the Southern Andamans substantially independently of any supposed common origin. <br /><br />"out of Taiwan expansion, which requires additional awkward assumptions such as the absorption of indigenous lineages in southern Wallacea, the complete replacement of their languages followed by the expansion of those adopted lineages and their gene flow into the Papuans further out east". <br /><br />Those 'additional awkward assumptions' appear to be what has happened. This is my take on the various Wallacean crossings, which fits all the evidence (I include the Philippines in 'Wallacea' because they are certainly not part of 'Sundaland): <br /><br />To me it looks almost certain that Y-DNA C and mt-DNA N were the first to cross Wallace's Line, about 60,000 years ago. In Australia they became Y-DNA C4 and mtDNA S, O N13 and N14. None of these basal haplogroups reached New Guinea. <br /><br />Closely related haplogroups are found west of Wallacea however. Various Y-hap Cs are spread around the South China Sea and into the Philippines (although they could be later arrivals in this latter region). C2's apparent coalescence in Tengarra suggests that the first Wallace's Line crossing to Australia was in the south, via Timor. <br /><br />Some unknown time later, possibly as much as 20,000 years later or perhaps almost immediately, people were able to again cross Wallacea. Presumably during another ice age and period of lowered sea level. K-derived Y-DNAs S and M, and mtDNAs M27, M28 and M29/Q made it to previously uninhabited New Guinea. With them went the N-derived mtDNA P. This last haplogroup, along with a couple of Y-DNA Ks and mtDNAs M42, M14 and M15, also entered Australia at the same time. <br /><br />The aticle you linked to suggests that over the period of lowest sea level there was a continuing improvement in boating technology and trading networks through SE Asia, including parts of Wallacea. Various haplogroups shifted around, presumably with the development of the Hoabinhian. There seems to have been a movement westward of New Guinea Y-haps into Sulawesi and Halmahera (and possibly the Philippines) and members of SE Asian mtDNA haplogroups such as M9 moved east. <br /><br />But the big shift was when Y-hap O1 entered the picture, presumably via the Philippines. Perhaps those islands had been unoccupied until then. The post Dienekes recently put up on the Philippines showed the Wallacean haplogroups in unexpected places there, although they tend to be associated with presumed Aboriginal Philippine populations. <br /><br />All the above people formed the substrate on which the Malayo-Polynesian languages were first imposed upon. So we could say that the Austronesians developed from the mix of people around Wallacea, from where they spread both east and west.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46886060837848521792010-11-13T15:45:59.330+02:002010-11-13T15:45:59.330+02:00"It seems to me you are arguing in a circle.&..."It seems to me you are arguing in a circle."<br /><br />At this point, I'm just trying to understand if we've exhausted all other interpretations before settling on the recent out of Taiwan expansion, which requires additional awkward assumptions such as the absorption of indigenous lineages in southern Wallacea, the complete replacement of their languages followed by the expansion of those adopted lineages and their gene flow into the Papuans further out east.<br /><br />"Which argues against a very deep connection between Ongan and Austronesian."<br /><br />How does it argue against it? All most recent expansions of Austronesians such as to Madagascar involved mtDNA B and Y-DNA O. Ongan and Austronesian are related at a deep genealogical linguistic level and correspondingly Ongan and Malayo-Polynesians show the deepest Eurasian Y-DNA lineages, Dx and C2. I don't think this can be explained away. We often hear that linguistics and mtDNA genetics support replacement out of Taiwan, but it also appears that linguistics and Y-DNA genetics suggest continuity through Pleistocene.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-57374281300621029392010-11-13T11:22:13.099+02:002010-11-13T11:22:13.099+02:00"I don't know how to best explain the abs..."I don't know how to best explain the absence of hg B in Lapita samples" <br /><br />Very strange and doesn't make sense. <br /><br />"if not by suggesting that B*/B4 in Near Oceania is much older than 3500 years BP" <br /><br />But it cannot possibly be older than that beyond the Northern Solomons. <br /><br />"Just like Y-DNA hg C*/C2 is old enough to have drifted out of the Borneo area from which Madagascar was later peopled". <br /><br />It's very unlikely that C2 was ever present in either of those places. <br /><br />"you've been arguing all along that Austronesians picked up their C lineage(s) from indigenous Papuan (meaning any non-Austronesian, Plestocene in origin) populations". <br /><br />Yes. From the pre-Austronesian population of Southern Wallacea. <br /><br />"from what we know, Austronesians were the donors of Cs (and Os) into indigenous Papuan populations". <br /><br />Yes. Into Papuan populations in New Guinea and islands north and east of it. <br /><br />"I'll mention, in passing, that there's no hg B in the Andamanese either". <br /><br />Which argues against a very deep connection between Ongan and Austronesian. <br /><br />"it suggests that Austronesian is older than Chinese Neolithic" <br /><br />It seems to me you are arguing in a circle. You're claiming that Austronesian is an ancient, slowly-changing language, and this shows that it's long-establ;ished in island SE Asia. You're also arguing that because Austronesian is long-estsblished in Wallacea it must be an ancient, slowly-changuing language. What if both suppositions are wrong?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8357367631273158192010-11-12T18:58:12.950+02:002010-11-12T18:58:12.950+02:00"You've just gone to a huge amount of tro..."You've just gone to a huge amount of trouble to show that the local languages didn't die out where people were already present when the Austronesians arrived. However it seems as though incoming Y-DNA introgressed into some of those local populations."<br /><br />Terry, you've been arguing all along that Austronesians picked up their C lineage(s) from indigenous Papuan (meaning any non-Austronesian, Plestocene in origin) populations. I showed you the data that demonstrates the opposite: from what we know, Austronesians were the donors of Cs (and Os) into indigenous Papuan populations. That's why the absurd historical accident of Austronesians absorbing Cs from a non-Austronesian substratum and expanding them, while replacing this substratum linguistically has never happened. The data seems to indicate that C2 is a native Austronesian language. In conjunction with the Ongan-Austronesian linguistic connection, it suggests that Austronesian is older than Chinese Neolithic, it exhibits unique lineages that stratigraphically (phylogenetically) belong to the earliest set of Eurasian lineages (Dx in Ongan, C2 and Cx in Malayo-Polynesian) (Karafet's stage 1 of the colonization of the Pacific), and it's earliest expansion signal ranged between the northwest (Andaman islands)- southeast (Wallacea, Near Oceania) axis.<br /><br />"I wasn't aware of that. What haplogroup(s) is there? And how come B4 came to dominate further east?"<br /><br />They just tested for 9bp deletion - an easy to spot marker that's shared by all B lineages in Asia and America -, and they didn't find it in their Lapita sample. See Hagelberg here (http://www.jstor.org/pss/49647) and here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/elps.1150180907/abstract). I'll mention, in passing, that there's no hg B in the Andamanese either. I don't know how to best explain the absence of hg B in Lapita samples - aside from questioning aDNA results as unreliable - if not by suggesting that B*/B4 in Near Oceania is much older than 3500 years BP, that it didn't arrive straight from Asia to colonize Polynesia and that it had enough time to get drifted out in some places. Just like Y-DNA hg C*/C2 is old enough to have drifted out of the Borneo area from which Madagascar was later peopled.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-79029314013978653432010-11-12T04:25:14.977+02:002010-11-12T04:25:14.977+02:00"I would interpret it as gene flow from Austr..."I would interpret it as gene flow from Austronesians to Papuans and not the other way around". <br /><br />The evidence you've just provided suggests very strongly that the Austronesian C2 is intrusive to New Britain/New Ireland. C2 was absent in the original Papuan-speaking population. <br /><br />"Any recent Southeast Asian component (associated with the development of Lapita) is most certainly associated <br />with haplogroup O3-M122" <br /><br />Exactly what I've been telling you all along. <br /><br />"which has a remarkably low frequency in this sample series (18 of 685 samples" <br /><br />Again that supports what has been accepted for many years: 'some of these non-Austronesian-speaking groups followed along behind the Austronesian expansion'. O3 has been replaced by the expanding Melanesian haplogroups and the C2 that came in with O3. O1 did not form very much of the Austronesian expansion beyond Wallacea itself. <br /><br />"Even if all O haplogroups might have been introduced just with the immediate Southeast Asian ancestral component of the Lapita peoples, their frequency in our series totals just 8% (table 2), almost entirely restricted to <br />Oceanic-speaking populations". <br /><br />Again exactly as has been accepted for many years. By the time of the Lapita expansion the people involved had become a mixture. And the Lapita people dodged islands, such as New Britain, New Ireland and the Northern Solomons, that were already occupied. The article even hints a such a factor: <br /><br />"many Lapita sites in the Bismarck Archipelago are located on smaller or offshore islands" <br /><br />The Lapita expansion began in the Bismark Archipeligo, but almost certainly from the Admiralty Islands, not from any of the larger ones. It seems very likely that the Austronesian-speaking people found the Admiralties unoccupied when they arrived. <br /><br />"This is paralleled by the lack of mtDNA hg B in ancient Lapita samples" <br /><br />I wasn't aware of that. What haplogroup(s) is there? And how come B4 came to dominate further east? <br /><br />"how could agriculturalists almost completely replace their own men with indigenous ones, while obliterating local languages without a trace?" <br /><br />You've just gone to a huge amount of trouble to show that the local languages didn't die out where people were already present when the Austronesians arrived. However it seems as though incoming Y-DNA introgressed into some of those local populations. Hardly surprising.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65679135999768895882010-11-12T04:23:25.201+02:002010-11-12T04:23:25.201+02:00"Haplogroup O1a-M119 Y-chromosomes also have ..."Haplogroup O1a-M119 Y-chromosomes also have been found to occur at low frequency among various populations of Siberia" <br /><br />Thanks for that information. Note though: 'low frequency among various populations'. They are sort of eratics. <br /><br />"Southern China and southern Siberia are thousands of miles apart, though, with no O1 in between". <br /><br />According to a map I have O1 is found in North China, so no real problem. <br /><br />"Non-Austronesian language have survived on islands as well". <br /><br />Only on islands that were almost certainly already occupied by the time of the Austronesian expansion. That has been accepted for many years. Although it has also been accepted that some of these non-Austronesian-speaking groups followed along behind the Austronesian expansion. <br /><br />"Too bad, they don't show indigenous C lineages to support your claims". <br /><br />I keep telling you that there were no C's anywhere in the Pacific, or even east of Southern Wallacea, until the Austronesian expansion. Certainly there were none in New Guinea or in the islands to its north and east. So if anything the absence of 'indigenous C lineages' supports my claims. And the claims of virtually every scientist involved in studying the prehistory of the region. <br /><br />"frequencies of C lineages in island Melanesia". <br /><br />They are a product of the Austronesian expansion. <br /><br />"In New Ireland, Kuot is a Papuan language surrounded by Austronesian languages. All of them have C2-M38". <br /><br />People were present in New Ireland before the Austronesians arrived. So it seems that the incoming Y-chromosome has replaced the indigenous one, but the indigenous language has survived. <br /><br />"In West New Britan, Anem is a Papuan language and it has C2b". <br /><br />Same situation. <br /><br />"The rest of the Papuan-speaking communities don't have C at all" <br /><br />That's the pre-Austronesian situation. <br /><br />"many Austronesian-speaking do". <br /><br />Which is exactly what we would expect.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68203709265508675422010-11-11T17:08:41.881+02:002010-11-11T17:08:41.881+02:00For instance, Unexpected NRY Chromosome Variation ...For instance, Unexpected NRY Chromosome Variation in Northern Island Melanesia, by Laura Scheinfeldt et al., shows frequencies of C lineages in island Melanesia. In New Ireland, Kuot is a Papuan language surrounded by Austronesian languages. All of them have C2-M38. In West New Britan, Anem is a Papuan language and it has C2b. The rest of the Papuan-speaking communities don't have C at all, while many Austronesian-speaking do. I would interpret it as gene flow from Austronesians to Papuans and not the other way around.<br /><br />Also, of interest, from the same paper, "Any recent Southeast Asian component (associated with the development of Lapita) is most certainly associated <br />with haplogroup O3-M122, which has a remarkably low frequency in this sample series (18 of 685 samples or <br />2.6%). Even if all O haplogroups might have been introduced just with the immediate Southeast Asian ancestral component of the Lapita peoples, their frequency in our series totals just 8% (table 2), almost entirely restricted to <br />Oceanic-speaking populations. In our sampling strategy, we may have missed higher concentrations of the O haplogroups. For example, many Lapita sites in the Bismarck Archipelago are located on smaller or offshore islands and we did not sample those, except for Mussau (where no O samples were found)."<br /><br />This is paralleled by the lack of mtDNA hg B in ancient Lapita samples.<br /><br />So, how could agriculturalists almost completely replace their own men with indigenous ones, while obliterating local languages without a trace? I think the data shows that Austronesians were donors of BOTH more ancient and more recent haplogroups.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82956735779161977672010-11-11T15:07:04.152+02:002010-11-11T15:07:04.152+02:00"I didn't know there was any there."..."I didn't know there was any there."<br /><br />"Haplogroup O1a-M119 Y-chromosomes also have been found to occur at low frequency among various populations of Siberia, such as the Nivkhs (one of 17 sampled Y-chromosomes), Ulchi/Nanai (2/53), Yenisey Evenks (1/31), and especially the Buryats living in the Sayan-Baikal uplands of Irkutsk Oblast (6/13)." (Wiki)<br /><br />"O's expansion is related to the Yangtze Neolithic that is hardly surprising."<br /><br />Southern China and southern Siberia are thousands of miles apart, though, with no O1 in between.<br /><br />"and not many have been convinced so far."<br /><br />People tend to reject new ideas for a long time. Notably, nobody has shown Blevins to be wrong.<br /><br />"The islands are rather small so total language replacement is very possible, in fact probable. Non-Austronesian languages certainly survive on the nearby mainland although these too appear to be related to Austronesian and to languages further north."<br /><br />Non-Austronesian language have survived on islands as well. Too bad, they don't show indigenous C lineages to support your claims.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85062071900972102082010-11-11T01:48:46.392+02:002010-11-11T01:48:46.392+02:00"How do you explain the presence of O1 in Sou..."How do you explain the presence of O1 in South Siberia?" <br /><br />I didn't know there was any there. There is certainly a very small proportion in Northern China, but if O's expansion is related to the Yangtze Neolithic that is hardly surprising. <br /><br />"Plus, according to Li et al. O1 arrived in Taiwan from ISEA or the Philippines". <br /><br />The Chinese are very keen to minimise the possibility that there has been any historical expansion from China. That's why they're so keen to place O's origin as a whole in SE Asia rather than in China. They wish to demonstrate the Chinese are not an expansionist people, in spite of the evidence of the Han expansion over the last two thousand years. It's reasonable to suppose that the Han expansion is simply a continuation of more ancient processes. <br /><br />"Austronesianists haven't been prepared for such a turnaround". <br /><br />and not many have been convinced so far. <br /><br />"you got to have a non-Austronesian speaking population carrying C2 somewhere in ISEA or Oceania to claim that it was absorbed by Austronesians from a Wallacean substrate to which that attested population was related". <br /><br />Not really. The islands are rather small so total language replacement is very possible, in fact probable. Non-Austronesian languages certainly survive on the nearby mainland although these too appear to be related to Austronesian and to languages further north.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48401136447794230572010-11-10T13:32:39.587+02:002010-11-10T13:32:39.587+02:00"I wouldn't be so sure that 'it didn&..."I wouldn't be so sure that 'it didn't originate with them'. Certainly not with all of them, but very likely with O1."<br /><br />How do you explain the presence of O1 in South Siberia? I thought you were saying that all Os in Oceania are migrants from East Asia. Plus, according to Li et al. O1 arrived in Taiwan from ISEA or the Philippines.<br /><br />"As far as I know that connection is far from universally accepted. And any connection may be through a common substrate."<br /><br />It just came out of the blue. Austronesianists haven't been prepared for such a turnaround. But it came from a very respectable linguistic institution and is remarkably solid from the point of view of meeting the requirements for establishing a linguistic relationship. Regarding a "common substrate", Blevins in that paper noticed a few striking similarities between Ongan words and some Philippine Negrito words that Reid described as potentially pre-Austronesian. In her opinion, however, they are not pre-Austronesian but ancient Austronesian-Ongan.<br /><br /><br />"C2 was almost certainly absorbed from a south Wallacean substrate."<br /><br />Well, this substrate is not attested, by which I mean that you got to have a non-Austronesian speaking population carrying C2 somewhere in ISEA or Oceania to claim that it was absorbed by Austronesians from a Wallacean substrate to which that attested population was related. You can't use the same empirical observation as both an argument and a proof.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41729496153640972982010-11-10T05:16:30.779+02:002010-11-10T05:16:30.779+02:00"But where do we see proof that Austronesians..."But where do we see proof that Austronesians absorbed their Cs from the Papuan substrate. We need to have Cs widely spread across Papua New Guinea and then appearing in Austronesians ar reduced frequencies to begin seeing this admixture". <br /><br />I'm certain that the Austronesian Cs did not enter that language group from New Guinea. On the contrary the only C to enter New Guinea is C2, and it seems to have done so about the time of the Austronesian expansion. C2 was almost certainly absorbed from a south Wallacean substrate. It came to dominate the further Polynesian gene pool but didn't spread west. <br /><br />"One thing I'm certain about is that Y-DNA O was carried by Austronesians to some remote places but it didn't originate with them" <br /><br />I wouldn't be so sure that 'it didn't originate with them'. Certainly not with all of them, but very likely with O1. <br /><br />"Judging by the presence of a sister language of Proto-Austronesian in the Andaman islands associated with hg D..."<br /><br />As far as I know that connection is far from universally accepted. And any connection may be through a common substrate. <br /><br />"If conservatism is a feature of Austronesian languages including Ongan, then the extreme divergence of Taiwanese languages may be a derived feature". <br /><br />It is certain that Malayo-Polynesian diversified considerably once it had moved into the uninhabited regions of the Pacific. So it seems unlikely to me that it had been previously very conservative.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37041116298334076402010-11-09T17:49:32.580+02:002010-11-09T17:49:32.580+02:00Correction: "Judging by the presence of a sis...Correction: "Judging by the presence of a sister of Proto-Austronesian in Taiwan associated with hg D..." to read " Judging by the presence of a sister language of Proto-Austronesian in the Andaman islands associated with hg D..."German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39386154282677996252010-11-09T15:51:24.752+02:002010-11-09T15:51:24.752+02:00"I doubt very much that O was present in SE A..."I doubt very much that O was present in SE Asia during the Pleistocene."<br /><br />I agree. What I meant is that Y-DNA O is a Holocene hg, and Y-DNA C is a Pleistocene hg, but in both cases we have several branches of these haplogroups associated with Austronesian speakers. And it's only C2, from the known C lineages, that is exclusively Austronesian. All the Os are found throughout Asia from South Siberia (O1) down into Oceania.<br /><br />"I'm fairly sure Os origin is futher north. It represents a southward movement into South China and SE Asia."<br /><br />Okay, this makes sense. It represents the (Northern) Mongoloid migration to SEA and Oceania. Some of these Os end up in western Papua New Guinea, among non-Austronesian speakers, as admixture with Austronesians. So, this process is clear to me. But where do we see proof that Austronesians absorbed their Cs from the Papuan substrate. We need to have Cs widely spread across Papua New Guinea and then appearing in Austronesians ar reduced frequencies to begin seeing this admixture.<br /><br />"Which indicates Austronesian was spread to some extent independently of haplogroups."<br /><br />One thing I'm certain about is that Y-DNA O was carried by Austronesians to some remote places but it didn't originate with them. Judging by the presence of a sister of Proto-Austronesian in Taiwan associated with hg D and by the presence of Cs in the Philippines, Wallacea, Melanesia and Polynesia I suspect that Austronesian is much older than the dates offered by linguists and archaeologists. This doesn't mean that Austronesians didn't move around and trade a lot in the past 5,000 years.<br /><br />Also, if you read Blevins' "A Long Lost Sister of Proto-Austronesian? <br />Proto-Ongan, Mother of Jarawa and Onge of the Andaman Islands" (available for free online), on pp. 190-191 she writes: "A striking feature of PON and PAN is their conservative historical phonologies. Both are recognizable as sisters, and have changed little from PAO. I suggest that this conservatism is a consequence of two independent features of Proto-Austronesian-Ongan: first, its relatively simple (C)V(C) syllable structure; and second, its dearth of inflectional morphology. Inflectional morphology gives rise to multimember paradigms, and when paradigms exist, analogical changes (e.g., leveling, extension) are likely to follow. PAO did not have such a system and, as a consequence, analogical change has not muddied the clear waters of regular sound change. As a consequence of relatively simple sound patterns and isolating morphology, then, it appears that PON, PAN, and many of their daughters have changed little over thousands of years."<br /><br />If conservatism is a feature of Austronesian languages including Ongan, then the extreme divergence of Taiwanese languages may be a derived feature.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.com