May 9, 2012

The Cham People and why the genetic structure of SE Asia is mostly not the product of Austronesian expansion

Cham girls
There's a new interesting paper on the haploid genetics of SE Asians, with some focus on the Cham People, who are an enclave of Austronesian speakers in the middle of pre-Austronesian peoples (Austroasiatic specially).


Abstract

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.



Y-DNA

Fig. 5 (click for the original)
Just some of the Cham patrilineages seem to be attributable to Austronesian origins from Island SE Asia (ISEA). In this regard, I suggest to take a look with due care to figure 5 (click on thumb at the right), which shows the median-joining networks of the relevant Cham lineages in the context of the wider SE Asian context.

Some detail in brief (see also fig. 2 for the details, n(Cham)=59):
  • P(xO) is all actually R and better observed in fig. 6, where it becomes obvious that it's all linked to South Asia (R1a1a and R2a).
  • C is mostly C3-P217 but there is also one individual with C* (C2?). It seems mostly related to Mainland SE Asia (MSEA) rather than ISEA, as seems logical for a lineage with the greatest concentration in far NE Asia. The C* single case is probably of Austronesian origin.
  • F(xK) is found in two Cham individuals and some others. One of them is H, which is surely also of "recent" arrival from South Asia (Hindu and Muslim religion, trade).
  • K(xNO,P) is found in 10% of the surveyed Cham men. It may have arrived from ISEA and most is concentrated in a single haplotype among the Cham (further reinforcing the idea of a possible Austronesian founder effect).
  • O* (P191): found in one Cham and obviously from MSEA
  • O1a (M119): found in 3 Cham and I'd say that related to South China (2) and MSEA (1).
  • O2a1* (M95): this paragroup is way too common in MSEA for all branches to have anything to do with Austronesians (Cham: 30.5%, what is a major component)
  • O2a1a (M88): this lineage is not found at all in ISEA but only MSEA and South China (Cham 8.5%).
  • O3a* (P200): the Cham individuals are clearly haplotypes as their MSEA neighbors (Cham: 6.8%).
  • O3a2b (M7): it also looks very much MSEA (Cham: 5.1%)
  • O3a2c1 (M134): a single Cham man sits on a branch derived from South China.

This leaves the count of male-mediated origin:
  • MSEA & South China: 67.9% (all O and C3)
  • ISEA (likely Austronesian): 13.6% (K*, C* and F*)
  • Taiwan & Philippines (core Austronesian): nothing at all
  • South Asia (Hindu/Muslim historical networks): 18.7% (R, H)

Can we stretch a bit the  Austronesian influence? Maybe but not really much. I am probably as surprised as you may be. It's also quite surprising that almost 20% of the Cham patrilineages are from South Asia. 


Fig. 3 - Principal Component analysis based on Y-DNA haplogroups

Cham apart, it is interesting that, in the above PCA chart, we can see two more clear clusters: (1) Wallaceans (regardless of language) and (2) a core Austronesian group made up of Taiwan, Mentawai and Nias (and to lesser extent Borneo). 

This "Taiwanese Aboriginal" identity in the Y-DNA of the small and peculiar Indonesian islands of Nias and Mentawai (located West of Sumatra) has been observed before and seem to describe these two populations as the only "pure" Austronesian colonies in all ISEA.

However it is also true that Borneo does approach this cluster (although it may depend on the particular samples considered). By contrast, Java and Bali are a whole dimension apart, much closer to MSEA populations than to the "true Austronesians" of Aboriginal Taiwan and their genetic neighborhood. 



Mitochondrial DNA

There is much less emphasis of the paper on mtDNA but at least there is a pie chart of the frequencies among the Cham and the Kinh (from North Vietnam, Austroasiatic speakers):


Fig. 7 - haplogroup apportions in two populations from Vietnam

Something that quickly strikes the eye is that the Cham do not have much more B4 than the Kinh, somewhat dispelling the "myth" of this matrilineage being associated with Austronesian expansion everywhere (a subclade, B4a1a1a, is an important founder effect among Polynesians however: the so-called "Polynesian motif" but that's about it).

Also the Kinh may have a slightly more "Northerner" affinity for some haplogroups: low N9a, high M8. 

I wonder if the R* among the Cham is made up of South Asian clades (like some of the abundant M* maybe) or it hides something else.

Update (may 12): Fig. 7 clearly states that: For mtDNA haplogroups, M* includes M17, M20, M21d, M22, M33c, M50, M51, M71, M72, M73, and M77; N* includes N21 and N23; R* includes R22 and R23. I had not noticed this before (h/t Terry). 

23 comments:

  1. "I wonder if the R* among the Cham is made up of South Asian clades (like some of the abundant M* maybe) or it hides something else".

    'Hides something else'? Perhaps it exposes something else?

    "Something that quickly strikes the eye is that the Cham do not have much more B4 than the Kinh, somewhat dispelling the 'myth' of this matrilineage being associated with Austronesian expansion everywhere"

    One thing that is obvious with many of your comments here is that you still do not understand the Austronesian expansion. I've been continually trying to explain that the expansion did not involve a single set of haplogroups that expanded all at once. As usual you are obsessed with 'single origins', you are looking this time for an Austronesian 'Garden of Eden'. The Austronesian expansion was far more complicated, as is presumably the case with most (if not all) human expansions.

    "Can we stretch a bit the Austronesian influence? Maybe but not really much. I am probably as surprised as you may be".

    I am not surprised at all. The mainland of SE Asia was well-populated by the time of the Austronesian expansion. It was many of the smaller unoccupied islands that provided the attraction for the boating people. However it is obvious thet Austronesians established themselves around the coast of much of mainland SE Asia.

    "it is interesting that, in the above PCA chart, we can see two more clear clusters: (1) Wallaceans (regardless of language) and (2) a core Austronesian group made up of Taiwan, Mentawai and Nias (and to lesser extent Borneo)".

    Wallacea looks from this paper to have been already reasonably densely settled. On the other hand Mentawai and Nias look most likely to have been previously unoccupied. Further, and interestingly, the same evidence points to Borneo having been largely empty. At first sight this seems unlikely, but it has been assumed by many anthropologists studying the Austronesian expansion. Much of southern Borneo is actually tropical swamp forest, probably not much use to humans until the Austronesians arrived with their newly improved boating technology.

    "However it is also true that Borneo does approach this cluster (although it may depend on the particular samples considered). By contrast, Java and Bali are a whole dimension apart, much closer to MSEA populations than to the 'true Austronesians' of Aboriginal Taiwan and their genetic neighborhood".

    Don't you remember correcting me when I left Bali out of Sunda? Because Java and Bali were part of Sunda they were presumably already densely occupied by the Austronesian expansion. However they did completely adopt the languge group. This paper perhaps indicates that Borneo, although part of Sunda, had in fact been isolated from it to some degree. Perhaps not all of Sunda was dry land at the time of lowest sea level, the strait between Sumatra and Borneo being tropical swamp forest rather than dry land.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Perhaps it exposes something else?"

      When resolution is increased it will expose, so far we do not know what hides behind the asterisk.

      "I am not surprised at all".

      A few days ago you were claiming that some mtDNA lineage found among Cambodians and other MSEA people (can't recall which one) was Austronesian via the Cham. You should be surprised much more than I am.

      "On the other hand Mentawai and Nias look most likely to have been previously unoccupied".

      Maybe but the Mentawai people are hunter-gatherers, so they either are a regressive Neolithic people (???) or, more likely?, they indicate a possible source or at least twin population of the Taiwanese Aboriginal people, long before the Austronesian expansion.

      "Don't you remember correcting me when I left Bali out of Sunda?"

      Of Sundaland, the Ice Age peninsula that here is discussed as WISEA (they do include mainland Malaysia in it). I even argued that Balinese arrived walking to their island because today they have taboos against all kind of mariner activities, so they may well be of pre-Neolithic origin (at the latest Austroasiatic-Neolithic in any case).

      Delete
  2. "When resolution is increased it will expose, so far we do not know what hides behind the asterisk".

    I think most likely R22, or some other already classified R. Perhaps they didn't test for many subclades of R.

    "I even argued that Balinese arrived walking to their island because today they have taboos against all kind of mariner activities, so they may well be of pre-Neolithic origin"

    Bali was connected to the mainland at times of lowered sea level, ie it was part of Sunda. The Balinese could have walked to that island at almost any time up until about 10,000 years ago.

    "Sundaland, the Ice Age peninsula that here is discussed as WISEA (they do include mainland Malaysia in it)".

    Obviously thet would. The Malay Peninsula was part of Sunda.

    "A few days ago you were claiming that some mtDNA lineage found among Cambodians and other MSEA people (can't recall which one) was Austronesian via the Cham. You should be surprised much more than I am".

    It was R22, which you claimed was definitely not Wallacean. I certainly didn't claim it 'was Austronesian VIA the Cham'. I suggested it arrived in the Cham WITH the Austronesians. Obviously if the Cham speak an Austronesian language they must have had some connection with Island SE Asia. It makes complete sense that at least some of their haplogroups originate in the islands. Why would I be surprised at that?

    "Maybe but the Mentawai people are hunter-gatherers, so they either are a regressive Neolithic people (???)"

    Quite possibly. That is certainly the accepted explanation for many inland inhabitants of Borneo.

    "or, more likely?, they indicate a possible source or at least twin population of the Taiwanese Aboriginal people, long before the Austronesian expansion".

    Unlikely. If that was the case it would be almost certain that the two populations would speak unrelated languages, rather than both speaking branches of a single Austonesian family of languages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Balinese could have walked to that island at almost any time up until about 10,000 years ago".

      What would imply that they are essentially pre-Neolithic. It would need to be confirmed however.

      "Obviously if the Cham speak an Austronesian language they must have had some connection with Island SE Asia. It makes complete sense that at least some of their haplogroups originate in the islands".

      But in Y-DNA we know the haplogroups almost in full and very few (13% or so) can be attributed to Austronesian immigration, if any - and none of them is O (when most Austronesians in that area are mostly O variants in their patrilineages).

      It is certainly not as I would expect, with or without Austronesian genetic input.

      "If that was the case it would be almost certain that the two populations would speak unrelated languages"...

      Is it possible that in some cases language has spread through trade and/or politics? States, monarchies, imposed Austronesian languages from some point onwards and they would have a ripple effect on the neighboring "barbarians", who may even be formally subjects in one way or another. The linguistic homogeneity of Austronesians other than Taiwan Aboriginals contrasts quite dramatically with their genetic diversity and hunter-gatherer anomalies like the Mentawai.

      Delete
  3. 'When resolution is increased it will expose, so far we do not know what hides behind the asterisk".

    We were both a little remiss here. Under the diagram is the comment:

    "R* includes R22 and R23"

    So that solves that problem.

    "What would imply that they are essentially pre-Neolithic. It would need to be confirmed however".

    Certainly people were there pre-Neolithic. However I strongly suspect that Y-DNA O brought in the Neolithic. I'll explain why I think that soon.

    "But in Y-DNA we know the haplogroups almost in full and very few (13% or so) can be attributed to Austronesian immigration"

    No, but why would people in Europe so readily adopt an introduced language family yet SE Asians be unable to do so?

    "Is it possible that in some cases language has spread through trade and/or politics?"

    Of course. Malay, especially, expanded through trade. And some suspect that Austronesian itself expanded at least partly through the expansion of trade networks.

    "The linguistic homogeneity of Austronesians other than Taiwan Aboriginals contrasts quite dramatically with their genetic diversity and hunter-gatherer anomalies like the Mentawai".

    The diversity is a product of the complicated series of migrations into and through the region. I'll do a separate comment on what I believe this paper shows regarding the expansion of Y-DNA O.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Under the diagram is the comment: "R* includes R22 and R23"".

      Oops! Would it be a dog I would have been bitten. It also details the M sublineages: M17, M20, M21d, M22, M33c, M50, M51, M71, M72, M73, and M77.

      I'll correct the text accordingly. Thanks for noticing.

      Bali: "However I strongly suspect that Y-DNA O brought in the Neolithic".

      In that case they must have arrived by boat. However, as you know, I do not think that most Indonesian O is Neolithic but likely quite older.

      "No, but why would people in Europe so readily adopt an introduced language family yet SE Asians be unable to do so?"

      I do not understand the question: in both Europe and SE Asia introduced languages were "readily" adopted without much genetic exchange, although explaining the processes in detail would require for us to know better the hidden historical details of the late Prehistory (classes, kings, laws, religions, wars, etc.) Something we can only imagine, and with difficulty.

      I feel a contradiction between when you say "trade networks" and when you say "migrations". Of course they could have happened in parallel but it seems to me that you still cling to the idea of migration as main element, when it's less and less clear in fact.

      Delete
  4. Just O2a1(M95) and O2a1a(M88) are tested for. We know that O2a is just the southern version of O2b. One went north and one went south. To me it looks very likely that O2a(PK4) was responsible for the Austro-Asiatic expansion. Especially so for O2a1a(M88). The last haplogroup is spread from Vietnam in the east to the Pashtun in the west. And O2a1 looks to have carried the Hoabinhian to Sulawesi and the Munda language to Eastern India.

    The next haplogroup into islands SE Asia was the Austronesian-linked O1. Only O1a(M119) was tested. O1a is also found in the Austronesian-related Kradai-speaking people, and even as far north as amoung the Nivkh of Eastern Siberia. O1a2(M50) is found especially in Nias and in Taiwan. O1a2 was perhaps the first element of the Austronesian expansion, but O1a1 rapidly joined in.

    The remaining haplogroups tested are members of O3. O3a (P200) is present at low levels in The Han, as well as in the Philippines and in Vietnam. O3a1 is ommitted because it is basically a Han haplogroup. Another of the basal O3a haplogroups, O3a3 (M300), is ommitted because it is associated with Sino-Tibetan speakers and with the Japanese.

    O3a2c (P164) is ommitted because it is closely associated with Sino-Tibetan speakers: Tibet and Han Chinese. That takes us to O3a2b (M7), a mainland South China haplogroup, and O3a2c1 (M134) the most downstream O haplogroup tested. It is Sino-Tibetan, Japan, East and SE Asia. It is low in Indonesia, high in China and Malaya. But the O haplogroup associated with the Polynesians is O3a2c. The Polynesian O is almost certainly a single haplogroup, perhaps we could call it O3a2c2? The East Austronesian O3a2c is therefore subsumed into O3a (P200) in this paper. I know nothing about O3a2a (M159), but it was not tested.

    "K(xNO,P) is found in 10% of the surveyed Cham men. It may have arrived from ISEA and most is concentrated in a single haplotype among the Cham (further reinforcing the idea of a possible Austronesian founder effect)".

    And:

    "The C* single case is probably of Austronesian origin".

    Most likely you are correct here. But some of the O3a in the Cham may be Austronesian in origin. As may be the O1a.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "O1a2(M50) is found especially in Nias and in Taiwan".

      That's the only O1 that can be associated to Austronesian expansion, if any at all. All the others are more diverse outside the core Austronesian area and are therefore pre-Austronesian.

      Otherwise you should cultivate your blog with all those ideas.

      Cheers.

      Delete
  5. "That's the only O1 that can be associated to Austronesian expansion, if any at all. All the others are more diverse outside the core Austronesian area and are therefore pre-Austronesian".

    Your obstinacy is admirable. I've been trying to tell you for ages that there is no single 'Austronesian haplogroup'. The Austronesian expansion led to all sorts of alterations in the distribution of haplogroups around island SE Asia, and beyond. Of course the other haplogroups are 'more diverse outside the core Austronesian area'. They don't originate withinit. They mostly originate on mainland SE Asia and, further back, in China. Within the Austronesian-speaking region most haplogroups are of limited diversity, indicating just subsections of the mainland populations joined the Austronesians. The present paper shows exactly that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Your obstinacy is admirable".

      Only obstinate people would consider obstinacy as "admirable2. Unless there are other reasons for it, obstinacy is a defect. Intelligence is flexible and adaptive, not obstinate (unless there are good reasons to be obstinate).

      "Of course the other haplogroups are 'more diverse outside the core Austronesian area'. They don't originate within it".

      Then they are not Austronesian lineages but pre-Austronesian ones. It's as if you would claim that R1b is Indoeuropean. Sure some late IEs carried it but there is no reason why we should associate it with Indoeuropeans (unlike what happens with R1a or more likely some subclades of this large haplogroup).

      If a lineage was in Java before Austronesian language and culture arrived, then you can't say it's "Austronesian", not in a debate on the origins of the people.

      "They mostly originate on mainland SE Asia and, further back, in China".

      In some cases that is highly dubious, looking in fact as local Sundalandese clades. In others it may be but in either case they are not Austronesian lineages nor were transported by the Austronesian settlers, who had not or almost no relation to mainland Asia.

      You like to bend things so they fit your pre-established discourse but no: things are much simpler.

      Delete
  6. "In that case they must have arrived by boat. However, as you know, I do not think that most Indonesian O is Neolithic but likely quite older".

    I disagree completely. O arrived by boat somewhere early in the expansion of the Chinese Neolithic. It is very difficult to make a convincing case for an earlier arrival.

    " feel a contradiction between when you say "trade networks" and when you say "migrations". Of course they could have happened in parallel but it seems to me that you still cling to the idea of migration as main element"

    Numbers of 'migrants' may not have been very numerous in regions in the mainland and larger islands where they made contact but it looks to be very much 'migration' into many of the islands. The aboriginal populations on these islands may have been low until the Austronesians arrived with their superior navigational ability. The Austronesians were able to shift between islands more readily and so survive factors likely to limit population growth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Then they are not Austronesian lineages but pre-Austronesian ones".

    Of course they are pre-Austronesian lineages in that they originated before the Austronesians appeared. But they do not enter very much of the region where Austronesians are present today until they came in during the Austronesian expansion. That is especially so for the islands of SE Asia.

    "If a lineage was in Java before Austronesian language and culture arrived, then you can't say it's 'Austronesian', not in a debate on the origins of the people".

    It is extremely unlikely that O3 was present in Java before it came in from further north during the Austronesian expansion. I'm sure you're not going to claim that O3 is pre-Austronesian in Fiji or Central Polynesia, for example. Polynesian O3a2c is obviously the end result of O3a's expansion from Southern China, and O3a's presence in Southern China is obviously the end result of O3's expansion from further northwest within China. Have a look at the distribution of O3 haplogroups. I'd agree that O2a in island SE Asia is pre-Austronesian, but not by much. It formed part of the Austro-Asiatic expansion. Again its closest relation is O2b in Japan and across Northern China. There is no evidence that O2b moved north from SE Asia. On the contrary several downstream clades of O2b are found in parts of SE Asia. And even O1 is present in Southern China, and even as far north as the Nivkh.

    "In some cases that is highly dubious, looking in fact as local Sundalandese clades".

    That is possibly the case for some downstream clades but is not true of any basal clades within any O haplogroup. Even O2a is found in the Mon Kmer and Kradai but is unlikely to have entered those groups from Sunda. The movement is much more likely to have been in the other direction.

    "but in either case they are not Austronesian lineages nor were transported by the Austronesian settlers, who had not or almost no relation to mainland Asia".

    The Austronesians look to have had considerable contact with parts of mainland SE Asia. What you really mean is that they left very little genetic imprint. But what looks to have happened is that groups from the mainland (sometimes recently arrived from further inland) joined them as they moved further and further out into the islands. O3 is an obvious candidate for such a scenario. O2 doesn't seem to have joined much at all.

    "You like to bend things so they fit your pre-established discourse but no: things are much simpler".

    Maju. In biology things are very seldom 'simple'.

    "It's as if you would claim that R1b is Indoeuropean. Sure some late IEs carried it but there is no reason why we should associate it with Indoeuropeans"

    Again, not simple. And yet you like to believe that the Austronesian expansion was simple. Are SE Asians somehow inferior to Europeans?

    "obstinacy is a defect. Intelligence is flexible and adaptive, not obstinate"

    And you are obstinate. The reason I admire your obstinacy is that you can hold onto a belief in spite of so much evidence to the contrary. It takes dedicated obstinacy to do that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Polynesian O3a2c"...

      Are three individuals in Thaiti! I was going to say "don't start me with Polynesians when they are full or rare founder effects that have almost nothing to do with what we find in ISEA" but really, you have chosen which is almost the most rare of all lineages among Polynesians...

      Whatever the case it's clear that we do not agree on where are the origins of many of the ancestors of modern day ISEA peoples, particularly in Sundaland. We can agree to disagree (as I do not wish to go all over again why so many O subclades are more numerous and more diverse in Sundaland).

      "Are SE Asians somehow inferior to Europeans?"

      WTF?! If R1b is NOT Indoeuropean, then O3a2 or most O1a are NOT Austronesian. Same logic for both regions.

      It's you who seems to argue that R1b "is Indoeuropean". I don't swallow that shit and tell that to Basques or Chadic peoples, for example.

      Delete
  8. "It's you who seems to argue that R1b 'is Indoeuropean'".

    Where have I ever claimed that 1b is Indo-European? I have never claimed any such thing. You're making things up again.

    "Whatever the case it's clear that we do not agree on where are the origins of many of the ancestors of modern day ISEA peoples, particularly in Sundaland. We can agree to disagree (as I do not wish to go all over again why so many O subclades are more numerous and more diverse in Sundaland)".

    We disagree because you, as usual, refuse to consider all the evidence. You blogged about a very relevant paper:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21505448

    O3 cannot possibly be Sunda in origin. At the O3a level it splits into 4 haplogroups: O3a1, O3a2, O3a3 and O3a4. O3a1 is widespread through east, north and south China and is rare in SE Asia. O3a2 is present in South China but is far more common in Sino-Tibetan speakers, Japanese and even Tibetans than it is anywhere in Sunda. It is generally accepted that people speaking Sino-Tibetan languages have been moving SOUTH for some time, not north. O3a3 is widespread in Sino-Tibetan speakers and north into Japan. It is not present anywhere in what was Sunda. I have no idea where O3a4 has been recorded. Perhaps you can help although I'm sure Ebizur would know.

    If you're prepared to ignore O2b it is possible to make a case that O2 originated in Sunda, but again it is far more likely that O2 has arrived in the Sunda region more recently than the Paleolithic.

    O1 could perhaps be Sunda but according to the above paper O1a1 is reasonably common in South China. By that the authors mean south of the Yangtze River. So again: Chinese, not Sunda. The diversity in SE Asia is a result of the multiple entries made by O, not its origin.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Whatever the case it's clear that we do not agree on where are the origins of many of the ancestors of modern day ISEA peoples, particularly in Sundaland".

    Another relevant piece of evidence that you are determined to avoid is the fact that O is descended from NO and therefore N is its most closely related haplogroup. N is virtually confined to regions north of China, certainly north of the Chin Ling mountains. These last are usually considered the boundary between northern and southern China. Put simply it looks as though N coalesced north of the mountain range, which separated that haplogroup from O which coalesced south of the mountains.

    "Are three individuals in Thaiti! I was going to say 'don't start me with Polynesians when they are full or rare founder effects that have almost nothing to do with what we find in ISEA' but really, you have chosen which is almost the most rare of all lineages among Polynesians..."

    Reasonably common in Fiji, so the haplogroup reached there alright. And especially common in Taiwan and the Philippines, so presumably Tahiti is as far east as the haplogroup reached. Its proportion in the population gradually reduces as we move east. Absoloutely logical to me. And the Polynesians are not exactly 'full of rare founder effects that have almost nothing to do with what we find in ISEA'. Except for some obviously European haplogroups all Polynesian haplogroups have their ancestry in island SE Asia or in Melanesia. As we move east some diminish in importance and others increase. One of the few occassions where biology is simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. N is found in Southern China and most of the basal diversity of N is there in Southern and Eastern China.

      "Reasonably common in Fiji"...

      Local founder effect. Irrelevant.

      Delete
  10. Hi - I come to this with no knowledge of the discussion so far. Any chance you could, in very simple terms, explain the relation of this paper and this discussion to other austronesian groups of Mainland SEA? I'd be grateful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Cham speak an Austronesian language, being the main (only?) Austronesian group established in the mainland other than peninsular Malays.

      Other than that, Terry almost invariably goes a bit (or a lot) off-topic and loves arguing everything, especially everything Austronesian.

      Delete
  11. There are few Austronesian-speaking groups on the mainland. It is mainly an island language group although see it as being related to the Tai-Kradai group of the mainland. The Austronesian language looks to have originated in Taiwan and spread from there through the Philippines and east into the Pacific and west to Madagascar. Maju has numerous posts on the subject and I'm sure he will be able to link you to at least some of them. You will find some by clicking on 'labels' at the bottom of his post here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm thinking of the Ede (Rhade) and Jarai of Vietnam's Central Highlands. I think there must be 1 million or more non-Cham Austronesian speakers there. They have historical memories of their own connection to the Cham as "brothers". Wondering if the research you discuss might have bearing on those remembered histories, and if there is additional research that might shed light on similarities or differences in those early histories, the origins of the groups, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No idea. Maybe Terry can tell you something?

      Delete
  13. Sorry. I have no idea. I do think that the Cham are not the only Austronesian-speaking Vietnamese though, so it makes sense that members originally connected with the Cham would have moved north.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. Personal attacks, manipulation and trolling are also very much unwelcome here.The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Preliminary comment moderation is... ON (sorry, too many trolls).