In this entry, rather than discussing Polynesians alone, which seem to be just the tip of the Eastern Austronesian iceberg, I'll try to understand here the complexity of speakers of Oceanic languages, the main native language family of Island Oceania.
Oceanic is a branch of Austronesian but for the purposes of this entry we will only mention other Austronesian peoples/languages tangentially. The focus is Oceanic because we can't understand the parts without the whole here most probably.
Linguistics
Oceanic languages are scattered as follows:
 |
Admiralties and Yapese
St Matthias
Western Oceanic and Meso-Melanesian (two distinct sub-families)
Temotu
Southeast Solomons
Southern Oceanic
Micronesian
Fijian–Polynesian
Black enclosed zones are pockets of languages from other families.
(CC by kwami)
|
It is certainly interesting that Micronesian and Fijian-Polynesian seem to be particularly related among them. Instead the Western Oceanic and Admiralty subfamilies (both from the islands near Papua) seem to have separated early on or diverged farther for whatever other reasons (stronger substrate influence for example).
Prehistory
 |
| Lapita pot from Tonga (source) |
As I cited recently, Polynesians seem to have spread from Society Islands in the 1190-1290 CE window. The genesis of the Micronesian family is not well understood... but the overall genesis of Oceanic languages seems to be at the Lapita culture, which spread through Island Melanesia (excluding Papua) and some nearby islands (notably Tonga and Samoa - also Marquesas c. 300 CE(ref)).
Early Lapita culture is dated to c. 1350-750 BCE, while a Late phase is dated to c. 250 BCE, spreading to the Solomon Islands, which show no indications of the earlier period (Ricaut 2010, fig. 2).
So a simplified chronology for Oceanic expansion would be
- Lapita culture from near Melanesia to Vanuatu and Kanaky (New Caledonia), then to:
- Fiji, Samoa and Tonga since c. 900 BCE
- Solomon Is. c. 250 BCE
- Arrival to Society Islands (Tahiti, etc.) c. 300-800 CE from maybe Samoa.
- Main Polynesian expansion to the farthest islands (Hawaii, Rapa Nui, Aotearoa-NZ) c. 1200 CE from Society Is.
Phenotype ('race')
A classical and unavoidable element in the ethnographic division of the region is phenotype, appearance (i.e. 'race'). Since the first European arrival to the area the division between black Melanesians and white Polynesians (very relative as we will see now) has been part of all our conceptualizations of the region.
Conscious of that and wanting to get a better impression I collected from the Internet what I estimate may be representative faces from the Oceanic linguistic zone and nearby areas (other Austronesians and Melanesians) and put them on a map:
 |
| Click to expand |
A relatively homogeneous Polynesian phenotype can be identified and one can imagine that it stems from the area of Samoa-Tonga, considering the previous prehistorical review. But otherwise the diversity, gradations and abundance of local uniqueness seems quite impressive.
Based on other cases, one would imagine also that phenotype differences would be coincidental with genetic ones. However this is not too easy to discern, partly because Polynesians have strong founder effects that blur the matter, partly because there is no obvious strict dividing line between the various phenotypes and partly because of the insistence of some in considering Lapita as a Polynesian phenomenon, when it is obviously an Oceanic one, including and emphasizing the Melanesian side of the diverse Oceanic landscape, of which the Polynesian-Micronesian branch is just one element (famous and extended but not the core).
Genetics
The main Y-DNA lineage among Polynesians is C2a1 (P33), not found outside Polynesia senso stricto but reaching there frequencies of 63-90% (excepted Tonga where it's only 33%). This is a clear founder effect in this population.
 |
| C subclades in SE Asia and Oceania (from Karafet 2010, annotated with ISOGG nomenclature) |
C2a1 is clearly derived from a Melanesian superset C2a (M208) still found as C2a(xC2a1) at low frequencies in Samoa (8%) and Tahiti (4%) but also in Vanuatu (2%) and coastal Papua (13%). C2a establishes a probably genetic link of Polynesians with Lapita culture and Melanesian peoples in general.
An earlier pylogenetic stage is C2 (M38), which is probably in the region since the very first colonization process some 50 thousand years ago (or maybe even earlier). C2(xC2a) is most common in Wallacea (East Indonesia, East Timor), where it reaches maybe figures of 33% on average. It is however also found in highland Papua (13%) and Vanuatu (20%) but as it is most doubtful that C2a evolved as recently as Lapita times, we should really focus on C2a as such rather than the wider C2, which only seems to confuse the matter.
The lack of C2(xC2a) in most of the Oceanic languages' area clearly indicates that the expansion (and subsequent founder effects) did not begin in Wallacea but in Melanesia, at least in what regards to C sublineages.
The other major Polynesian haplogroup is O3a2 (P201), which would seem to have originated in Philippines and maybe arrived there via Micronesia:
 |
| O3 subclades in SE Asia and Oceania (from Karafet 2010, annotated with ISOGG nomenclature) |
Melanesian populations also sport some lineages that are not common among other Oceanic-speaker peoples, notably K, M and S. However they are irregularly shared with Wallacea (Eastern Indonesia, East Timor). Like C2 these lineages coalesced in the region soon after colonization by Homo sapiens.
In the motherly side of things genetic, the absolutely dominant mtDNA lineage among Polynesians (the so-called Polynesian motif) is B4a1a1, which ultimately stems from East or rather SE Asia. However it probably arrived to the region (again) via Melanesia, albeit maybe somewhat tangentially.
 |
From Friedlander 2007 (fig. 4)
Spatial frequency distribution of haplogroup B4a* and B4a1a1 in Island Southeast Asia and the western Pacific, created using the Kriging algorithm of the Surfer package of haplogroups. Figure 4b presents the detailed distribution for Northern Island Melanesia. Data details are provided in table S3.
|
The matrilineal Polynesian motif does offer a possible pattern of settlement, maybe related specifically to Late Lapita, that could allow us to understand the possible origin of the phenotype differences between Melanesians and Polynesians, as could do the Y-DNA lineage O3a2. However there are lots of remnants of quite strictly Melanesian Early Lapita, as is evident by the (Y-DNA) C2a lineages retained so strongly among Polynesians within their own founder effects, whose importance we cannot afford to dismiss.
Other mtDNA lineages like Q1 or M27 are of relevance in Melanesian populations. Q1 did make its way into some Polynesian populations but as minority lineage only.
Update (Oct 31):
Terry in the comments sections grunts a lot but now and then provides useful complementary data, for example this Y-DNA map of the region from Kayser 2006:
 |
| Kayser 2006 - fig. 1 Frequency distribution of (A, B) NRY and (C, D) mtDNA haplogroups found in Polynesia with a genetic origin in (A, C) Asia or (B, D) Melanesia. |
As is apparent since Kayser's publication (if not before), the Melanesian patrilineages are much more common (actually dominant) among Polynesians than the matrilineages from the same origin, what is attributable to a founder effect related to the Lapita culture.
Another interesting reference is this Y-DNA map of Papua (New Guinea) and some nearby islands (from Mona 2007):
 |
| Mona 2007 FIG. 2.—Y-chromosome haplogroups and their frequencies in populations from the Bird’s Head region and elsewhere in New Guinea. Data from other populations of New Guinea were used from previous studies (Kayser et al. 2003, 2006). Size of the pie charts is according to sample size of the groups. Abbreviations are as in supplementary table S1, Supplementary Material online. |
Both maps and/or the data in the relevant papers provide key information on possible origins for the C2a-M208 patrilineal founder effect, so important in general in the Oceanic peoples and specially the Polynesian branch. The exact origin cannot be pinpointed without further research (or maybe not at all) but it's clear that C2a-M208 only exists from Papua (New Guinea) to the East, so it must have a Melanesian origin be it Papuan or from the nearby islands.
Bibliography
- François-Xavier Ricaut et al., Ancient Solomon Islands mtDNA: assessing Holocene settlement and the impact of European contact. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2010 ··> LINK (PDF).
- Jonathan S. Friedlaender et al., Melanesian mtDNA Complexity. PLoS ONE, 2007 ··> LINK (open access).
- Tatiana Karafet et al., Major East-West Division Underlies Y Chromosome Stratification Across Indonesia. MBE 2010 ··> LINK (free access).
- Michael Knapp et al., Complete mitochondrial DNA genome sequences from the first New Zealanders. PNAS 2012 ··> LINK (open access).
- Manfred Kayser et al., Melanesian and Asian Origins of Polynesians: mtDNA and Y Chromosome Gradients Across the Pacific. MBE 2006 ··> LINK (open access).
- Stephano Mona et al., Patterns of Y-Chromosome Diversity Intersect with the Trans-New Guinea Hypothesis. MBE 2007 ··> LINK (free access).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Note: updates after first posted version in maroon color.
"the overall genesis of Oceanic languages seems to be at the Lapita culture, which spread through Island Melanesia (excluding Papua)"
ReplyDeleteYes. Note: excluding Papua.
"and some nearby islands (notably Tonga and Samoa)".
It actually reached the far eastern end of Polynesia, the Marquesas:
http://www.janesoceania.com/polynesia_lapita/index.htm
Pottery died out beyond the andesite line (Fiji), presumably because the coral atolls didn't provide enough suitable clay.
"The lack of C2(xC2a) in most of the Oceanic languages' area clearly indicates that the expansion (and subsequent founder effects) did not begin in Wallacea but in Melanesia, at least in what regards to C sublineages".
From the Bismark Archipelago actually. The Admiralty Islands and New Ireland. But both Y-DNA C2 and mt-DNA B4a had both quite likely just recently arrived there from further west.
"Other mtDNA lineages like Q1 or M27 are of relevance in Melanesian populations. Q1 did make its way into some Polynesian populations but as minority lineage only".
And presumably a somewhat later migrant to the region. Other Melanesian haplogroups also made it nearly as far as Polynesia: Q2, P1, P2. And many Melanesian Y-DNAs including K, M1, M2 and a minor presence of S.
"a Late phase is dated to c. 250 BCE, spreading to the Solomon Islands, which show no indications of the earlier period"
The northern Solomon Islands were already occupied by the time of the Austronesian/Lapita expansion. That's why the languages spoken in the region are often not at all related to the Oceanic languages, the subject of your entry here. They are the 'black' languages on your map.
"partly because of the insistence of some in considering Lapita as a Polynesian phenomenon, when it is obviously an Oceanic one, including and emphasizing the Melanesian side"
The Northern Solomon Islands (definitely Melanesian) were not included in the original Lapita expansion, as you've just pointed out.
"But otherwise the diversity, gradations and abundance of local uniqueness seems quite impressive".
Basically an east/west cline. As you say, 'there is no obvious strict dividing line between the various phenotypes'.
"A relatively homogeneous Polynesian phenotype can be identified"
So much so that when I ran into some Hawaiians in the Arkansas, USA, at first I thought I was back home.
"one can imagine that it stems from the area of Samoa-Tonga, considering the previous prehistorical review".
ReplyDeleteThat's almost universally accepted to be the case.
"An earlier pylogenetic stage is C2 (M38), which is probably in the region since the very first colonization process some 50 thousand years ago"
Doubtful if the haplogroup has been in New Guinea since that time. C2 in New Guinea includes the derived form C2a.
"it is most doubtful that C2a evolved as recently as Lapita times"
It is equally as doubtful that it evolved much before that time. Ebizur suggested somewhat less than 10,000 years ago, perhaps 5-7000 years ago.
"The other major Polynesian haplogroup is O3a2 (P201), which would seem to have originated in Philippines and maybe arrived there via Micronesia"
The O3a2-P201 in Polynesia is now recognised as being O3a2c-P164. Other O3a2cs are mainland China, especially Sino-Tibetan groups, and O3a2b is also Mainland Chinese. It is therefore very doubtful that Polynesian O3 'originated' in the Philippines. However it may have entered the Austronesian stream from there.
"Melanesian populations also sport some lineages that are not common among other Oceanic-speaker peoples, notably K, M and S".
And their presence in such populations is very likely to be the result of a follow-on movement, as I've continually tried to point out.
"However they are irregularly shared with Wallacea (Eastern Indonesia, East Timor)".
And there almost certainly represent a back movement from Melanesia, not an origin in Wallacea. Although obviously their ancestors must have crossed Wallace's Line at some stage.
"Like C2 these lineages coalesced in the region soon after colonization by Homo sapiens".
Quite likely each in a separate region. C2 in Southern Wallacea, K somewhere west of Wallace's Line, M and S in New Guinea/Melanesia.
"B4a1a1, which ultimately stems from East or rather SE Asia. However it probably arrived to the region (again) via Melanesia, albeit maybe somewhat tangentially".
Like Y-DNA C2 it shot past northern New Guinea and out into the Pacific. But unlike C2 it remained as a major proportion of the haplogroups along the route.
Some old comments from JCA (probably Ebizur) you may find interesting:
ReplyDeletehttp://s6.zetaboards.com/man/topic/8570894/1/
"this overall pattern fits a movement of ancestral Polynesians trending
generally eastward from (or through) Island Southeast Asia, along coastal New
Guinea, and out into the wider Pacific (Hurles et al. 2002; Kayser et al. 2003)".
And:
"Haplogroup C2-M38(xC2a-M208) has been found most commonly among inhabitants of central and eastern Indonesia, especially on the island of Sumba. It also seems to be quite common among Ni-Vanuatu on the island of Maewo (9/44 = 20.5% C-M38*(xM208, P33)), and it has been found rarely among coastal and highland New Guineans, Micronesians, and western Indonesians (Mentawai). The most interesting thing about these data, in my opinion, is that nearly all carriers of haplogroup C2-M38 and its subclades seem to be Austronesian speakers. Is the hypothesis of a Palaeolithic, 'Papuan' origin of this haplogroup really tenable?"
Thanks for almost nothing, Terry. Instead of offering a well structured comment, you again proceed to impulsively go through one liner quotes and short aggressive answers. I take notice of the Marquesas Late Lapita arrival and the forgotten Melanesian lineages (I was quite tired already when reached the mtDNA section, admittedly) but I fail to see much more relevant criticisms, much less constructive ones, in your comments.
ReplyDeleteUnsubstantiated opinions and unremarkable emphases that I will not discuss make most of them: "Note: excluding Papua" (thanks for parroting my words), "The northern Solomon Islands were already occupied"... (sure, did I say otherwise? - also the Southern islands by the way), "almost universally accepted", "Doubtful", "most doubtful", "equally as doubtful", "almost certainly".
The only point I will take a bit of time to answer is:
"The O3a2-P201 in Polynesia is now recognised as being O3a2c-P164. Other O3a2cs are mainland China, especially Sino-Tibetan groups, and O3a2b is also Mainland Chinese. It is therefore very doubtful that Polynesian O3 'originated' in the Philippines. However it may have entered the Austronesian stream from there".
Have you or your sources (links?) tested that Filipinos do not have that specific P164 subclade. I'd find most surprising to discover that Polynesians are now Han Chinese, honestly. O.O
In any case it's clear that the most important non-Melanesian Y-DNA lineage among Polynesians and Micronesians is not found at meaningful levels in other Austronesian populations but Filipinos. Filipinos are also a good plausible source for other Austronesians (for different reasons), so it all makes good sense if Philippines is the source.
Correction:
DeleteI just wrote "I take notice of the (...) forgotten Melanesian lineages".
Nope: I cannot find evidence for those lineages in Polynesia, only in Vanuatu. The only Melanesian mtDNA documented in Polynesia is Q1.
As for JCA's comments (that's not Ebizur), there's not much to say either: C2(xC2a) is precisely not C2a and has only a very remote relation many millennia ago. Also Wallaceans only began to speak Austronesian much after C2a diverged from C2, even with the fancy dates you support (which are arbitrary speculations, as all molecular-clock-o-logy, and can prove nothing at all).
I'd trust Ibra and Black Man much more: serious people there.
"Have you or your sources (links?) [The O3a2-P201 in Polynesia is now recognised as being O3a2c-P164]"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22079672?dopt=Abstract
Quote:
"In particular, the prominence of sub-haplogroup O3a2c* (P164), which has previously been observed at only minimal levels in Mainland East Asians (2.0-4.5%), in both Polynesians (ranging from 19% in Manua to 54% in Tonga) and Ami aborigines from Taiwan (37%) provides, for the first time, evidence for a genetic connection between the Polynesian populations and the Ami".
"I'd find most surprising to discover that Polynesians are now Han Chinese, honestly".
Yes, I bet you would. However it is what I have been trying to tell you all along. But not only Chinese (not necessarily 'Han' of course), including C2 and O1a. Dienekes blogged the paper, and I made a comment that I'm sure you will disagree with:
http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2011/12/y-chromosome-ties-between-taiwan-and.html
"In any case it's clear that the most important non-Melanesian Y-DNA lineage among Polynesians and Micronesians is not found at meaningful levels in other Austronesian populations but Filipinos".
Of course it is quite possible that O3a entered the Austronesians from the Philippines, but it is equally possible it entered from Vietnam (which to me is the more likely scenario).
"Nope: I cannot find evidence for those lineages in Polynesia, only in Vanuatu".
And Fiji evidently. I did say, 'nearly as far as Polynesia'.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/11/2234.full
Quote:
"1) the highest overall frequency of mtDNA haplogroups of Melanesian origin in Polynesia (20.5%) is observed in Fiji—it is also the only Polynesian group where all 4 Melanesian mtDNA haplogroups observed in Polynesia are found (table 2 and fig. 1); 2) Fiji displays the highest diversity of Melanesian NRY haplogroups in Polynesia and shows the second highest frequency of Melanesian haplogroups (78.5%) in Polynesia with all 5 major haplogroups being present (table 2 and fig. 1); 3) in the K-M9 network, most Fijian haplotypes are more closely associated with Melanesian than with Polynesian haplotypes (fig. 2C); 4) Fiji displays the highest frequency of M-M4 (24.3%), which elsewhere only exists in Melanesia (2%), where it most likely originated but today mostly occurs as subgroup M-P34 (28–74%). Thus, M-M4 in Fiji represents an old Melanesian lineage that left Melanesia prior to the M-P34 mutation rising in appreciable frequency".
So the M-P34 probably coalesced no more than just 3000 years ago.
It's interesting that the Ami have so much of the Polynesian lineage but it's still not any direct link with Han Chinese, where it is a different sublineage +c1 and not +c*, as you correctly state elsewhere, and a mere small clade.
DeleteThe link to Philippines is still almost certain, partly because of language affinity (Formosan languages are far too upstream in the Austronesian tree, while Oceanic and Malay families are part of the same major branch).
"But not only Chinese (not necessarily 'Han' of course)"...
The only "mainland East Asian" reported by Karafet to have O-P201 at meaningful levels are (Southern) Han (8%) and Tujia (14%).
"And Fiji evidently"...
'Evidently' only after you provided your reference, not before.
"Sure, did I say otherwise? - also the Southern islands by the way"
ReplyDeleteWrong. The Southern Solomon Islands are problematic, but probably unoccupied until the arrival of the Austronesian-speaking Lapita people. Certainly the islands beyond were unoccupied. Within the Solomon Islands the Tyron/Hackman Line may indicate that regions to the south were unoccupied before Lapita times. I'm sure you will find this relevant:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/09/03/molbev.msr186.full
"However, some researchers have questioned the extent to which Austronesian languages, archaeological evidence such as Lapita pottery, and gene flow from Asia after the initial settlement of Near Oceania all reflect the same single major wave of migration (Terrell 2009; Soares et al. 2011). Nonetheless, an admixed Asian/Near Oceanian ancestry of Remote Oceanians is strongly supported by analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and nonrecombining Y chromosome (NRY) data (Kayser et al. 2000, 2006; Kayser, Choi, et al. 2008) as well as genome-wide data (Friedlaender et al. 2008; Kayser, Lao, et al. 2008; Wollstein et al. 2010). The estimated date for this admixture, based on genome-wide SNP data, is about 3 KYA (Wollstein et al. 2010; Pugach et al. 2011), in excellent agreement with the archaeological and linguistic evidence (Spriggs 2003; Gray et al. 2009; Specht 2009)".
I'm sure you will follow this comment up:
"One possible explanation for C-RPS4Y* in the Solomons is that it was brought by the Austronesian expansion via Southeast Asia. However, the network for STR haplotypes of C-RPS4Y* does not support this explanation, as Solomons haplotypes are quite diverged from Southeast Asian haplotypes (supplementary fig. 4, Supplementary Material online), One possible explanation for C-RPS4Y* in the Solomons is that it was brought by the Austronesian expansion via Southeast Asia. However, the network for STR haplotypes of C-RPS4Y* does not support this explanation, as Solomons haplotypes are quite diverged from Southeast Asian haplotypes (supplementary fig. 4, Supplementary Material online)"
Mind you, C2* in New Guinea is virtually confined to the Bird's Head, the region nearest to the islands of Southern Wallacea.
You are already making baseless claims again (your alleged support is only a smoke bomb that says nothing on the matter):
Delete"The Southern Solomon Islands are problematic, but probably unoccupied until the arrival of the Austronesian-speaking Lapita people".
There's no Lapita in Southern Solomon or in all Solomon Is. for what matters until the Late phase. And this one only in Guadalcanal (mostly) and some in Boungaville. According to Ricaut's paper (see bibliography), who I'm sure knows better than you.
The islands are too close to each other to have been unoccupied.
"Mind you, C2* in New Guinea"...
I don't care about C2* but only C2a.
How C2 it arrived to Papua, where no doubt coalesced into C2a, which eventually hijacked into the Oceanic gene pool, becoming dominant, is surely a most interesting prehistoric accident about which we can tell nothing at all because we keep no relevant record whatsoever.
Please stop beating the C2(xC2a) dead horse, thanks.
"I'd trust Ibra and Black Man much more: serious people there".
ReplyDeleteDid you read the link Blackman provided regarding C2 in New Guinea? The authors tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile their belief that C2* is ancient in New Guinea with the evidence of Austronesian settlement on the island. The first problem they raise:
"Thus the Austronesian expansion had only a small impact on shaping Y-chromosome diversity in NWNG, although the linguistic impact of this expansion to this region was much higher."
Surely if they had been prepared to concede that Y-DNA was at least partly responsible for the linguistic impact the problem would disappear. Another problem they raise:
"Haplogroups C-M38 and K-M9 were either erased by the TNG expansion and reflect the earlier Y-chromosome diversity of New Guinea or
indicate an older expansion staring in NWNG, that is, the Bird's Head region."
If C2's arrival is later than they claim this problem of the disappearing haplogroup also disappears. And note from the map that C2-M38 is virtually confined the Bird's Head. C2a, an 'Austronesian' haplogroup, is very prominent in a single hill group, the Dani, presumably a product of post-Austronesian migration into the hill country. The authors ignore the possibility that C2's diversity in the Bird's Head may be the product of original diversity in a population entering from the islands of Southern Wallacea, where Ebizur claims the haplogroup probably originated.
"Did you read the link Blackman provided regarding C2 in New Guinea?"
DeleteNo. I have not enough time nor energies to look in every detail. Care to repost?
"Surely if they had been prepared to concede that Y-DNA was at least partly responsible for the linguistic impact the problem would disappear".
You see a problem where there is none: languages expand often with little to zero genetic impact. I have no English ancestors, much less from ancient Anglia (Schleswig), and I'm here speaking English for example.
C2a was probaly picked in a key founder effect in coastal Papua, where it is well documented. How exactly it arrived there (as C2 before coalescence) is less important but certainly pre-Austronesian (for many reasons: language, other associated lineages, etc.)
I insist that JCA is NOT Ebizur. They don't even write the same way at all!
Delete"It's interesting that the Ami have so much of the Polynesian lineage but it's still not any direct link with Han Chinese"
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would the connection be specifically with the 'Han' Chinese? Even O3a2c1 is not specifically Han Chinese. It is found in Tibet as well as being present in Japan. Even O3a1c, the majority Han O haplogroup, cannot be said to be specifically 'Han'.
"'Evidently' only after you provided your reference, not before".
I assumed (wrongly obviously) that you would know that already without any reference.
"You are already making baseless claims again"
They are only 'baseless' because you can't be bothered reading any references.
"surely a most interesting prehistoric accident about which we can tell nothing at all because we keep no relevant record whatsoever".
But we do have records. We have the present haplogroup distribution which can tell us plenty, if we are prepared to actually look. In spite of my best efforts you seem committed to seeing the Austronesian expansion as some sort of Biblical Exodus from a SE Asian Garden of Eden (led by some Austronesian Moses?). On the contrary, it was a product of a whole series of population movements around island SE Asia and Melanesia involving all sorts of populations. The carriers of the Oceanic/Austronesian languages all the way out to Polynesia were no more 'Han Chinese' than they were 'Papuans'.
"Why on earth would the connection be specifically with the 'Han' Chinese?"
DeleteFirst of all if you say "China" or "Chinese", I understand by default "Han". The same that if you say "French" I think in Paris and not Tahiti, even if both are part of the same state. So if you mean some minority group in China, please be specific.
Second, the data of Karafet 2010 clearly indicates that those peoples with the O3-P201 lineage are (Southern) Han and Tujia (an inland TB ethnicity), so Han again.
"I assumed (wrongly obviously) that you would know that already without any reference".
You should never assume that, because our minds are limited, so, even if I knew once it's easy that I will have mostly forgotten as months or years have passed.
"But we do have records. We have the present haplogroup distribution which can tell us plenty"...
Well. Present haplogroup distribution of C2a suggests a Papuan origin.
"In spite of my best efforts you seem committed to seeing the Austronesian expansion as some sort of Biblical Exodus from a SE Asian Garden of Eden (led by some Austronesian Moses?)".
I don't think I'm saying that at all. Linguistically it may look that way: Taiwan > Philippines > rest of the World, but genetically it's obviously not. In the case of Polynesians and other Oceanic peoples, their "Eden" was at least partly Papua or the nearby islands where Lapita culture began.
It is you who is obsessed in denying the Melanesian patrilineal (C2a) and cultural (Lapita) roots of the Oceanic and therefore Polynesian ethnicities. You are trying to transfer their urheimat (better than "Eden", if you allow) to Wallacea, which apparently would be "whiter" and "more genuinely Austronesian" in your unspokenly racist mind.
This is wrong in every aspect: neither culturally (no Lapita) nor genetically (no C2a) we can link Wallacea to the Oceanic expansion. Additionally the remote Wallacean ancestors of C2a were not Austronesians yet in any aspect (but "Papuan" or "Melanesian" instead).
Who is the one inventing "Edens" here? You are! Worse: you are inventing them without any evidence whatsoever.
"The carriers of the Oceanic/Austronesian languages all the way out to Polynesia were no more 'Han Chinese' than they were 'Papuans'".
The connection with coastal Papuans is much closer than to mainland China, both in patrilineage and cultural origins (no Lapita in Taiwan, mind you!) However I would rather use the less rigid notion of Melanesian (instead of Papuan) because actually the Bismark Archipelago and other islands from the area where Lapita began has not been properly sampled AFAIK.
"C2(xC2a) is precisely not C2a and has only a very remote relation many millennia ago".
ReplyDeleteYou obviously need a little education in genetics. The mutation M208 that gave rise to C2a must have occurred in an individual whose father was C2. So it must have occurred somewhere within the region where C2 was living. Much the same applies to C2a1 and the mutation P33. By looking at the series of mutations we can see C's expansion out into the Pacific. I would have thought that was a simple concept to grasp.
"Also Wallaceans only began to speak Austronesian much after C2a diverged from C2, even with the fancy dates you support"
Wrong again. Ebizur gives a date for C2a,s coalescence (at your own blog) as 5-6000 years ago, mainly in the Admiralty Islands but also through Melanesia. C2 in the Admiralty Islands/Melanesia is somewhat earlier, as we would expect if C2a coalesced there. Neither haplogroup can be shown convincingly to have coalesced in new Guinea. In fact Ebizur claims both are quite rare overall on that island, except along the northern coast which we know was settled by Austronesian-speaking people.
"The mutation M208 that gave rise to C2a must have occurred in an individual whose father was C2".
DeleteQuit bitching, OK? Such an obvious development happened long before the Oceanic genesis, i.e. Lapita culture. The fact that we can only trace Y-DNA C2a as such to Papua, to populations speaking languages other than Oceanic, tells us that C2a arose in Papua or nearby "Old Melanesia" islands (Bismarck or Solomon archipelagos).
It's futile to attempt to relate it to C2* in Wallacea because its relation is certainly pre-Austronesian by many many millennia.
So for all practical purposes C2a is a lineage of Melanesian origin, what is consistent with Oceanic languages spreading first of all with the Lapita culture, a mostly Melanesian phenomenon, with a Polynesian offshoot only in Late Lapita.
This Late phase ascription of the Polynesian core area of Samoa-Tonga is also consistent with the Late phase ascription of Solomon Islands, which, like Polynesians but unlike other Oceanic Melanesians, have high frequencies of mtDNA B4a.
"Ebizur gives a date for C2a,s coalescence (at your own blog) as 5-6000 years ago".
That's mere pseudoscientific molecular-clock-o-logy and by the old obsolete mutation rate of which even Dienekes reneges nowadays. Total speculation and proof of nothing.
Even if you choose to believe in molecular-clock-o-logy, you must at least multiply all pre-2012 dates x2 (or much more if the author was a "pedigree rate" freak).
"No. I have not enough time nor energies to look in every detail. Care to repost?"
ReplyDeleteHere's the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17846104
It says the text is free but I can't access it except via Zeta. And here is an interesting map of Y-DNA S's distribution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_S_%28Y-DNA%29
Very prominent in the east of the island, although in the above paper it appears as K-M254 and is present in the west, especially in the Ekari, a highland group. The authors regard K-M524 as part of the Trans-New Guinea expansion. Surely if the Oceanic people spread through there we would find much more of the haplogroup in the Pacific than what we actually do. The distribution of the haplogroups actually suggest that C2 has perhaps replaced Trans-New Guinea phylum speakers and haplogroups in the Bird's Head, but that would imply that C's arrival is long after S coalesced.
Very interesting the Mona paper, thanks.
DeleteWhile it is true that C2 is concentrated in Bird's Head peninsula (but is mostly C2(xC2a)), it is also true that it is common in all Western Papua and also extends eastward to PCO and TOL (Papua Coastal and Tolai?)
These last are the ones that should interest us most because they were part of the Lapita cultural phenomenon. A Tolai or otherwise Bismarck Archipelago origin for Oceanic/Polynesian C2a is most likely.
"The fact that we can only trace Y-DNA C2a as such to Papua, to populations speaking languages other than Oceanic, tells us that C2a arose in Papua or nearby "Old Melanesia" islands (Bismarck or Solomon archipelagos)".
ReplyDeleteI'm more than happy to accept Bismark Archipeligo or, more likely, the Admiralty Islands, which can be strongly supported. Anywhere else is very doubtful and cannot be strongly supported. In all the above regions Austronesian languages predominate.
"It's futile to attempt to relate it to C2* in Wallacea because its relation is certainly pre-Austronesian by many many millennia".
On what evidence do you claim that to be so?
"the Lapita culture, a mostly Melanesian phenomenon, with a Polynesian offshoot only in Late Lapita".
It is obvious, even from much of what you've written during the discussion at this post, that the 'Polynesian offshoot' cannot be at all called 'Melanesian'. The pattern of expansion you claim is therefore wrong.
"like Polynesians but unlike other Oceanic Melanesians, have high frequencies of mtDNA B4a".
Wrong again. Even the downstream clade B4a1a1a makes up a very significant proportion of haplogroups right through Melanesia, commonly at least more than one third and mostly more than that. Where it is noticeably absent is in New Guinea itself where it is confined to populations speaking Austronesian languages.
"That's mere pseudoscientific molecular-clock-o-logy"
So once more you demonstrate your selective acceptance of molecular clockology.
"I'm more than happy to accept Bismark Archipeligo or, more likely, the Admiralty Islands, which can be strongly supported".
DeleteAll happy now. (What support there is for Admiralty?)
"On what evidence do you claim that to be so?"
For instance, if we follow Mona's data (which you just linked to), the transition C2 > C2a surely happened in Bird's Head peninsula, where no Austronesian languages were spoken historically.
Also you just said that an obsolete short count proposed estimate date for C2a was 6 Ka ago, which is obviously pre-Austronesian (excepted Taiwan). Austronesian languages are thought to have left Taiwan c. 3000 BCE and Philippines c. 2000 BCE. As the realistic date must be at least twice older...
I mean: your own "evidence" (solid or feeble) is against your own claims.
"It is obvious, even from much of what you've written during the discussion at this post, that the 'Polynesian offshoot' cannot be at all called 'Melanesian'".
It's not non-Melanesian either. It obviously keeps a lot of Melanesian elements, including the main paternal lineage C2a and the Lapita cultural base.
"The pattern of expansion you claim is therefore wrong".
Uh? How is it "wrong"? And how is it "right"?, according to you?
"Wrong again. Even the downstream clade B4a1a1a makes up a very significant proportion of haplogroups right through Melanesia"...
Founder effect. All haplogroups involved have obviously experienced one or several such founder bottlenecks, which is consistent with the limited amount of people which was surely involved in each new colonization.
Most areas of Island Melanesia, notably Vanuatu, Kanaky (New Caledonia) and Bismarck Arch. are very low on the lineage anyhow. Only Solomons are high on it and it is Solomons also which were only affected by Lapita in the late phase, just like the "elder" Polynesian islands (Samoa-Tonga).
So it's easy to conclude that B4a and the derived Polynesian motif spread only with Late Lapita, which is also the phase most directly related to Polynesian ethno-linguistic formation.
"So once more you demonstrate your selective acceptance of molecular clockology".
You know I do not accept it at all. Certainly not as evidence. Speculating is free but don't come later with your dreams as "evidence" of anything: not acceptable.
"First of all if you say 'China' or 'Chinese', I understand by default 'Han'".
ReplyDeleteChina has only been 'Han' for the last two or three thousand years so 'Chinese' obviously encompasses more than just Han Chinese.
"Well. Present haplogroup distribution of C2a suggests a Papuan origin".
Only in your own mind, although I suspect that you include the Admiralty Islands in your concept of 'Papuan'. In which case you are probably correct.
"In the case of Polynesians and other Oceanic peoples, their 'Eden' was at least partly Papua or the nearby islands where Lapita culture began".
Well, the Lapita culture definitely did not begin in New Guinea so we are approaching agreement. Lapita is generally accepted to have begun on the Admiralty Islands or nearby New Ireland.
"It is you who is obsessed in denying the Melanesian patrilineal (C2a) and cultural (Lapita) roots of the Oceanic and therefore Polynesian ethnicities".
I have never denied a patrilineal C2a or Lapita origin for Polynesians. What I continue to deny is that C2a has its origin in New Guinea.
"You are trying to transfer their urheimat (better than 'Eden', if you allow) to Wallacea, which apparently would be 'whiter' and 'more genuinely Austronesian' in your unspokenly racist mind".
ridiculous comment Maju. Southern Wallaceans would have been phenotypically 'Papuan' at the time of the early Austronesians. In fact you should find this paper rather revealing:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/05/1118892109.full.pdf+html
Note that the region of Eastern Indonesia where the female mediated admixture is strongest is exactly the region where I suggest that Y-DNA C2 and mt-DNA B4 mixed, and where the origins of the eastward expansion of the Austronesian-speaking people began. It is also precisely the region where C2 almost certainly coalesced. All the evidence comes together in that region. The Admiralty Islands were a later staging post, as was Northern Vanuatu and Fiji/Tonga/Samoa, and then Central Polynesia. I have an idea there is another paper that shows the same cline that lies east of Wallace's Line. It is the paper that specifies female-mediated gene flow in the above region.
"Founder effect. All haplogroups involved have obviously experienced one or several such founder bottlenecks, which is consistent with the limited amount of people which was surely involved in each new colonization".
ReplyDelete'Founder effect'? The same haplogroup is spread right across Oceania at basically the same proportion and you claim founder effect? Ridiculous.
"Most areas of Island Melanesia, notably Vanuatu, Kanaky (New Caledonia) and Bismarck Arch. are very low on the lineage anyhow".
Rubbish. It makes up one third through Vanuatu and the Bismarks and Admiralty, half on Bougainville and more than half through the Solomon Islands. If you don't believe me look it up for yourself. I'm running out of time, and patience.
"So it's easy to conclude that B4a and the derived Polynesian motif spread only with Late Lapita, which is also the phase most directly related to Polynesian ethno-linguistic formation".
B4a originated in Taiwan/Philippines, and even the Polynesian B4a1a1a is present in the Philippines but not in Taiwan. Again, look it up yourself if you don't believe me.
"What support there is for Admiralty?"
Generally accepted to be the place of origin for Lapita. Look it up yourself.
"While it is true that C2 is concentrated in Bird's Head peninsula (but is mostly C2(xC2a)), it is also true that it is common in all Western Papua and also extends eastward to PCO and TOL (Papua Coastal and Tolai?)"
It extends eastward along the northern coast, Austronesian-speaking regions.
"'Founder effect'? The same haplogroup is spread right across Oceania at basically the same proportion and you claim founder effect?".
DeletePrecisely: the fact that it's only one one haplogroup or a reduced number of them indicates a strong founder effect at the origin at least. Otherwise we'd see many different haplogroups, none of them dominant.
"It makes up one third through Vanuatu and the Bismarks..."
Why do I bother listing and linking the bibliography and posting the maps? Per Friedlaender (supp. materials), Vanuatu has 16% B4a, New Caledonia 24%, while most people in New Britain are low on the lineage. However some nearby islands like New Ireland are high while places like Boungaville vary from 0% to 100% depending on which specific locality. Solomons 33-67%, etc.
What's better your emotional "Rubbish!" or real data? I'm also running out of time and specially patience, Terry.
"B4a originated in Taiwan/Philippines"...
Of course! But the frequency there is c. 10% (9% in Taiwan, 11% in Philippines) and if Filipinos (or rather Filipinas, because it is a matrilineage) would have emigrated homogeneously without any founder effect into the Oceanic region, then we'd see roughly the same in Oceania. That's why a founder effect is required.
... "and even the Polynesian B4a1a1a is present in the Philippines"...
But at very low frequencies and it's not clear if it is a back-migration from Oceania. Open to either but in any case you need a founder effect (or several) at the Lapita ethno-cultural genesis.
""What support there is for Admiralty?"
Generally accepted to be the place of origin for Lapita. Look it up yourself".
I mean for the origin of C2a (or C2a1) among Oceanic peoples.
"[C2] extends eastward along the northern coast, Austronesian-speaking regions".
Look at the maps: that's not true but wishful-thinking. It also extends widely inland specially in the Western half of the island, and including C2a (Kayser) and among coastal Papuans who do not speak Austronesian nor probably did in the past.
"It's futile to attempt to relate it to C2* in Wallacea because its relation is certainly pre-Austronesian by many many millennia".
ReplyDeleteYou might have to rethink that statement. According to Ebizur's comments on your blog C2*, C2(xC2a), has been found in Maewo in Vanuatu at 20%. It also reached as far east as Fiji at 8.6% and one each has been found in Samoa, Tonga and the Cook Islands. We can be reasonably sure that Maewo was first reached by Austronesian-speaking, Lapita pottery using people no earlier than about 4000 years ago, and Fiji even more recently. Therefore we can be sure that C2*'s expansion extended until that time. We cannot, therefore, assume that C2* had arrived in the Bird's Head thousands of years before that time. Perhaps C2*'s expansion was particularly long-lived, but to me that seems unlikely.
"Look at the maps: that's not true but wishful-thinking. It also extends widely inland specially in the Western half of the island"
Isn't that exactly what we would expect from a rapidly expanding haplogroup? It is 'concentrated' along the coast, then.
"and including C2a (Kayser) and among coastal Papuans who do not speak Austronesian nor probably did in the past".
You and I both know that languages are only loosely connected to haplogroups. The Austronesian languages seem more associated with mt-DNA B4a rather than with any particular Y-DNA. C2 and C2a presumably both introgressed into non-Austronesian populations through the easily accessible regions of the New Guinea mainland. The Austronesian languages in New Guinea are largely confined to the northern coastline with some extension around either end of the island.
"I mean for the origin of C2a (or C2a1) among Oceanic peoples".
Even C2a in mainland New Guinea is quite probably the result of movement in from offshore islands. Ebizur again [C2a-M208]: '23/49 = 24.5% WNG Highlands All C2a-M208 individuals belong to the "PNG Coast"'. Of the Melanesian islands C2a's presence is greatest in the Admiralty Islands (15%). Everywhere Lapita is found C2 is present, and Lapita originated on the Admiralty Islands.
"Also you just said that an obsolete short count proposed estimate date for C2a was 6 Ka ago, which is obviously pre-Austronesian (excepted Taiwan). Austronesian languages are thought to have left Taiwan c. 3000 BCE and Philippines c. 2000 BCE. As the realistic date must be at least twice older... "
I'm prepared to accept that Y-DNA C2 men did not speak Austronesian languages until they met up with mt-DNA B4a women. And that happened somewhere between the Bird's Head and the Philippines.
"Precisely: the fact that it's only one one haplogroup or a reduced number of them indicates a strong founder effect at the origin at least".
Doesn't make sense. Always one haplogroup survived the founder effect, never reducing in number. B4a1a1a survived all the 'founder effects' all the way from the Philippines to Eastern Polynesia. Some founder effect. The haplogroups that that show reduced number from Melanesia east are precisely those Melanesian haplogroups that tagged along, both mt-DNA and Y-DNA. The two island SE Asian haplogroups remain dominant all the way.
It is in the maps in this entry (I have no idea how you can keep track from comments made years ago): there is C2* in Vanuatu and some Micronesian islands but is still another thing than C2a, a parallel flow and not the origin.
Delete"You and I both know that languages are only loosely connected to haplogroups".
It seems to me that you're just trying to put excuses: languages travel with relative ease regardless of genetics, genes not so much, specially not regardless of language and other elements of group identity.
"The Austronesian languages seem more associated with mt-DNA B4a rather than with any particular Y-DNA".
Depends which ones: many Melanesian branches for instance are outside that "rule". It seems to me that B4a is strongly linked to Late Lapita only, while Early Lapita would have carried many different (usually Melanesian-specific) mtDNA lineages instead.
"I'm prepared to accept that Y-DNA C2 men did not speak Austronesian languages until they met up with mt-DNA B4a women".
I'm not prepared for that at all. I understand instead that the Lapita culture peoples spoke Austronesian languages but with a mostly Melanesian genetic make-up and that B4a only became important in the late Lapita phase, which is apparent in its dominance among both Polynesians and Solomonians.
You will ask and then how did they begin to speak Austronesian languages? Probably by means of a less dramatic genetic influence but a genetic influence (i.e. immigrants) nonetheless. The exact details escape me but this cultural founder effect surely happened in the North/NE Papuan coasts and/or islands.
As the Oceanic-Melanesians expanded with Early Lapita their connections with the Austronesian founder elements in Philippines, Micronesia or nearby islands increased and a secondary wave expanded tangentially to the Melanesian Lapita, along its Eastern edge, settling new islands (Tonga, Samoa, Marquesas eventually too) and probably also settling heavily the Solomons (even if these were maybe already inhabited by hunte-gatherers).
I don't think it's so hard to understand and in any case it is what the genetic patterns seem to be saying.
"Doesn't make sense. Always one haplogroup survived the founder effect, never reducing in number".
One or more but it cannot be zero.
"B4a1a1a survived all the 'founder effects' all the way from the Philippines to Eastern Polynesia".
I don't detect any founder effect in Philippines: the great founder effect of B4a seems to be at Late Lapita and the Polynesian motif at the origin of Polynesians themselves (a subset of the former), maybe in Fiji?
"The haplogroups that that show reduced number from Melanesia east are precisely those Melanesian haplogroups that tagged along, both mt-DNA and Y-DNA".
Those are the ones that did not survive the founder effect. Example:
Original pop.: 50% A, 50% B
New pop. after founder effect: 100% A (or maybe 98% A and 2% B, later drifting to 0% because the large numbers are the ones who survive statistical randomness almost invariably).
I think that you don't understand well what a founder effect is, hence my example here.
"The two island SE Asian haplogroups remain dominant all the way".
That's not the case with Y-DNA however, where the main founder effect belongs to C2a, although "SE Asian" O3a2 is also very important. Here the founder effect had a bicephalous result (but all other Y-DNA lineages were pruned totally or almost).
That's a founder effect.
Said that, a founder effect specific results may well be affected by historical ethno-cultural and even political causes but we cannot discern them without a reliable historical source, so...
"Per Friedlaender (supp. materials), Vanuatu has 16% B4a, New Caledonia 24%, while most people in New Britain are low on the lineage. However some nearby islands like New Ireland are high while places like Boungaville vary from 0% to 100% depending on which specific locality. Solomons 33-67%, etc."
ReplyDeleteYou have obviously not understood a single thing about the Oceanic expansion. Bougainville and New Britain have very little B4a1a because they were already occupied when the Austronesians moved past. Further east B4 has been somewhat replaced by the expansion of Melanesian mt-DNAs. I would have thought it was simple to grasp but obviously that is a wrong supposition on my part. I haven't rechecked the Friedlaender paper lately. I have a map I copied off from some paper that shows Vanuatu at around a third mt-DNA B4a1a1a.
"Of course! But the frequency there is c. 10% (9% in Taiwan, 11% in Philippines) and if Filipinos (or rather Filipinas, because it is a matrilineage) would have emigrated homogeneously without any founder effect into the Oceanic region, then we'd see roughly the same in Oceania. That's why a founder effect is required".
I've already said (somewhere) that we have a founder effect at the origin of B4a's expansion east. But surely it is an anomaly that this is the only founder effect discernible during the whole of the expansion. B4a1a1a maintains a major presence in the population all the way to far Eastern Polynesia, with a reduced presence in regions the Melanesian haplogroups later spread to. Besides which B4a may have had a stronger presence in the Philippines at the beginning of the expansion, although many haplogroups were obviously left behind. Here's the paper regarding female-mediated gene flow in Southeast Indonesia:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871831/
Quote:
"Human genetic diversity is typically partitioned over geography in more gradual clines observed at the level of continents (Serre & Paabo 2004). Steep and narrow clines are more unusual (Novembre & Di Rienzo 2009), partly because long-term stability requires large initial gene frequency differences between source populations, and repeated gene flow tends to destablize them (Wijsman & Cavalli-Sforza 1984). A major question emerging from this study relates to the age of the cline in eastern Indonesia. Was it established in the Paleolithic by the encounter of genetically differentiated hunter–gatherer groups (Hill et al. 2007), or did it arise more recently with the mixing of Austronesian farmers and local populations in eastern Indonesia?"
Surely it is a recently established cline because repeated gene flow has not flattened it out.
"A major finding of this study is that mean rates of Asian admixture are higher on the X chromosome than on the autosomes, suggesting that Asian women made a approximately 7 per cent greater contribution on average during the admixture process(es). This is consistent with previous studies noting a higher proportion of Asian mtDNA versus Y chromosome lineages in many Indo-Pacific populations from eastern Indonesia (Mona et al. 2009). Our results, derived from unlinked and highly informative nuclear markers, are concordant with this finding. In our study, this sex bias in admixture rate appears more prevalent towards the southeast".
Where C2* almost certainly coalesced. Its nearest relation is C4 in Australia while we seem to have no specifically New Guinea C haplogroup. This suggests has been in New Guinea nowhere near as long as it has been in Australia, but it has been present in Southern Wallacea all that time.
"Bougainville and New Britain have very little B4a1a because they were already occupied when the Austronesians moved past".
DeleteNew Britain was important in Early Lapita culture: Austronesians did not "move past" it. Much more correct would be to say that some Austronesians (Oceanic peoples specifically) began their journey at New Britain and nearby islands.
You're just being prejudiced because those Austronesian pioneers were, are, dark skinned. While you fill your mouth now and then with empty discourses on the complexity of the ancestry of Austronesians blah, blah, you seem to have serious problems accepting that many Austronesians are mostly black-skinned (Melanesian) and have always been so (and both archaeology and genetics support it).
"I haven't rechecked the Friedlaender paper"...
It is an important part of this entry and a main source of the relevant genetic data. I'd suggest you do.
"I have a map"...
There are several well documented maps in this entry and no one supports your claim about high B4a in Vanuatu. However it often happens that different samples produce different results. I'd beg for a source if you want me to believe in it anyhow (otherwise it may well be that you wrote down the wrong figure).
"But surely it is an anomaly that [the B4a signature] is the only founder effect discernible during the whole of the expansion".
It is not: we also detect founder effects in Y-DNA, reduced essentially to two lineages: C2a and O3a2. The Polynesian expansion began with a marked founder effect, that was re-emphasized, refined,at later stages (as only fractions of the original population took part in the new colonizations).
"B4a1a1a maintains a major presence in the population all the way to far Eastern Polynesia, with a reduced presence in regions the Melanesian haplogroups later spread to".
This sentence and the logic underlying it has two errors:
1. B4a1a1a1 is only important in Polynesia, so it does not "maintain" anything because elsewhere in the Austronesian world it is insignificant or even non-existent. "Polynesian motif" should not be read as "Austronesian motif", just Polynesian (because of their founder effect).
2. Melanesian haplogroups did not "later spread to" Far Melanesia, they actually spread earlier, with Lapita I. And that explains that the "Polynesian" lineages of Lapita II had such a limited impact in those islands, which were already settled.
You should revise your unjustified "logic".
"Surely it is a recently established cline because repeated gene flow has not flattened it out".
The fact that we can use the word "cline" it means that it has been somewhat flattened out but whatever. It is not talking about Melanesia/Polynesia but another genetic frontier (I don't like the way you mix things so capriciously).
If you'd do that between Polynesia and Melanesia you'd get a relatively sharp boundary (with some exceptions) for the mtDNA but not for the Y-DNA but that's because of the peculiarities of the Lapita II/Polynesian founder effects.
"Where C2* almost certainly coalesced".
I told you already that we cannot accept "octopus" as a type of pet.
C2(xC2a) is irrelevant for the matter at hand, don't insist please.
"It is not talking about Melanesia/Polynesia but another genetic frontier (I don't like the way you mix things so capriciously)".
ReplyDeleteThe post is called 'The genetic and phenotype complexity of the Oceanic language area'. Surely we must extend the information to either end of that distribution in order to make sense of the evidence.
"C2(xC2a) is irrelevant for the matter at hand, don't insist please".
You may not believe that C2(xC2a) is an ancestor of C2a but I believe otherwise.
"I have no idea how you can keep track from comments made years ago"
I printed them off because I was particularly interested in the numbers.
"there is C2* in Vanuatu and some Micronesian islands but is still another thing than C2a, a parallel flow and not the origin".
Surely the two almost certainly traveled east together. Why would you desire to propose separate movements? I agree that C2a originated further west that Vanuatu. I am almost certain that it coalesced and came to make up a major proportion of the eastward moving C during the period spent in the Admiralty Islands. I'm sure you blogged about such a pause in the eastward movement some time ago.
As far as I'm aware ALL Austronesian-speaking populations have a substantial proportion of B4a. Any examples to the contrary? By 'substantial' I would include one quarter, as at times populations can maintain a language against incoming populations.
"It seems to me that B4a is strongly linked to Late Lapita only, while Early Lapita would have carried many different (usually Melanesian-specific) mtDNA lineages instead".
I'm sure it was the other way round. The early spread was associated almost entirely with Y-DNA C2 and mt-DNA B4a. The Melanesian-specific mtDNA lineages followed on, most not making it as far as the first two. A much more likely scenario surely.
"I understand instead that the Lapita culture peoples spoke Austronesian languages but with a mostly Melanesian genetic make-up and that B4a only became important in the late Lapita phase, which is apparent in its dominance among both Polynesians and Solomonians".
You're proposing an almost impossible scenario. How would mt-DNA B4a and Y-DNA C2 travel right past all those Melanesian haplogroups in the wider Pacific and finally reach Eastern Polynesia virtually alone?
"The exact details escape me"
Because its a virtually impossible scenario. The obvious explanation is surely the correct one.
"I don't detect any founder effect in Philippines: the great founder effect of B4a seems to be at Late Lapita and the Polynesian motif at the origin of Polynesians themselves (a subset of the former), maybe in Fiji?"
That is really convoluted reasoning. B4a1a1 certainly coalesced in the Philippines. Yet you're claiming some long-distance connection with the remote Pacific. And 'no founder effect in the Philippines'? Just one of those Filipina haplogroups moved into the Pacific and you detect no founder effect? Open your eyes.
"I think that you don't understand well what a founder effect is, hence my example here".
Your example is irrelevant to what occurred in the Pacific. The only haplogroups that have reduced in proportion are the ones that were first along the northern margin of the new Guinea mainland, that is Y-DNA C2 and mt-DNA B4a. And whatever scenario you care to conjure up those two haplogroups must have made such a journey at some time.
(a) Oceanic is not "anything Austronesian", just the Eastern branch of Malayo-Polynesian.
Delete(b) Root C2 underived was ancestor of C2a and other C2 (i.e. C2*) but that happened long ago and is not relevant for the study of Oceanic peoples in the context of the Neolithic.
(c) I am not aware of B4a (much less the Polynesian motif!) being too important in other Austronesian populations. If you think otherwise, please document it. The data reported by Friedlander (see map above) tells us that it quickly decreases in frequency to the West and is almost non-existent in Java, Sumatra, Malay peninsula, etc.
(d) "You're proposing an almost impossible scenario. How would mt-DNA B4a and Y-DNA C2 travel right past all those Melanesian haplogroups in the wider Pacific and finally reach Eastern Polynesia virtually alone?"
On a boat? Or a dozen boats... I can't say.
Those people (few in number necessarily) could only have minimal impact in already settled Lapita I islands like Vanuatu or Kanaky but they did have much more success in the frontiers of the East, which were scarcely populated or not settled at all.
As simple as that: did you know that the majority (or at least plurality) of white US Americans in the Mid-West have German roots... but then Utahns don't: they mostly have English roots instead. Founder effect! How could they ever cross the plains without becoming German-Americans themselves? On wagons I presume (also cultural elements like Mormonism surely helped to keep them apart).
(e) "B4a1a1 certainly coalesced in the Philippines".
We can't say for sure. It's possible but no throughout research has been done yet; it can also bee back-flow. Whatever the case it's a very minor lineage in Philippines so the founder effect (bottleneck) at the origins of Polynesians is still necessary.
"And 'no founder effect in the Philippines'?"
You don't seem to understand what founder effect means. Please do your homework first: how can there be a founder effect in Philippines when B4a1a1 is such a tiny haplogroup and its parent clade B4a only includes ~10% of the population?! Where do you see the bottleneck in that?!
Please, understand the matter properly and do not drive me crazy with your confusion.
"It is an important part of this entry and a main source of the relevant genetic data. I'd suggest you do".
ReplyDeleteI have. The paper is mainly concerned with Near Oceania, particularly New Britain, New Ireland and Bougainville. It mentions Malaita in the Southern Solomons in passing. It is not concerned at all with Vanuatu.
"New Britain was important in Early Lapita culture: Austronesians did not 'move past' it".
Early Lapita is mainly associated with the Admiralty Islands and New Ireland. They largely bypassed New Britain because it was already occupied. The same is true of the Solomon Islands, especially the northern ones. Even the above paper has this comment:
"haplogroup B4a1a1 is rare in Island Southeast Asia and is not particularly common in the New Britain vicinity, which is at the center of early Lapita sites (they are mostly on nearby small islands)"
Note: not New Britain but in the vicinity and 'mostly on nearby small islands'.
"There are several well documented maps in this entry and no one supports your claim about high B4a in Vanuatu".
Could you point me to exactly which map claims anything at all about Vanuatu?
"1. B4a1a1a1 is only important in Polynesia, so it does not "maintain" anything because elsewhere in the Austronesian world it is insignificant or even non-existent. "Polynesian motif" should not be read as "Austronesian motif", just Polynesian (because of their founder effect)".
Ridiculous comment. B4a1a1a originated in the Philippines so it must have come from there to Polynesia, via the northern Melanesian islands. And it is present in varying proportions along the whole of that route.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/1/21.full
Quote:
"Haplogroup B4a1a is highly diverse in Taiwan, but the subclade (B4a1a1) characterized by a mutation at np 14,022 is absent there. The identification of haplogroup B4a1a1 in the Philippines may indicate a stage of development of the Polynesian Motif along the north to south pathway proposed in the general Out of Taiwan model for the Austronesian population expansion. This apparently completes a series of genetic links from Taiwan (where the B4a1a motif may have originated), through the Philippines (where the np 14,022 mutation might have evolved) and finally to Indonesia (where the full Polynesian Motif first occurs). However, the observation of a B4a1a1 sample in the Philippine population is not necessarily incompatible with models that argue for an extended development period for the Polynesian Motif in ISEA, if the proposed area of development of the motif is expanded to include the Philippines. Another alternative explanation is that the B4a1a1 lineages might have been brought to the Philippines by a back migration from Indonesia".
"2. Melanesian haplogroups did not 'later spread to' Far Melanesia, they actually spread earlier, with Lapita"
That comment is almost impossible to justify.
(a) Friedlander's paper does have a Vanuatu sample, as well as Santa Cruz and Kanaky (New Caledonia) ones. In this sense it is much better than Kayser's study. You are yet to provide an alternative reference.
Delete(b) I am following Ricaut, who places Early Lapita in New Britain, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and Fiji (but not Solomon Is.) Other references I could find also suggest that Early Lapita did not reach further than Fiji, what makes the B4a wave very coherent with Late Lapita, with the possible exception of Fiji.
Admiralty Islands may be important in the genesis of Lapita (?? - you claim so at least) but we do not have genetic data for them. Admiralty Islands' people (photo by Margaret Mead) look very much Melanesian to me in any case.
(c) "Note: not New Britain but in the vicinity and 'mostly on nearby small islands'".
Please download the supplementary material instead of finding random quotes.
(d) "Could you point me to exactly which map claims anything at all about Vanuatu?"
Of course: the one with the blue colors in this post, upper half labeled "a", which I captioned "From Friedlander 2007 (fig. 4)". You can find a higher quality version in the relevant open access paper (see bibilography).
There is a clear black dot (sample) in Vanuatu and the supplementary material says 16% (? - unsure now, would need to recheck but do it yourself now) B4a in that sample.
(e) It's pretty much irrelevant if B4a1a1 originated in the Philippines because it is a very rare lineage there (~1.4% in Mindanao), so it must have been amplified by means of a founder effect (bottleneck) at the origin of Polynesians, among which it reaches figures of almost 100%.
It's so obvious!!! 1.5% does not become 100% without need for an explanation. That explanation is called founder effect.
I should not be struggling with such an obviousness, really.
In 1985, I read Patrick Vinton Kirch, Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Actually, the subtitle was misleading, it included a deep review of Polynesian origins in the Lapita culture. Anyway, the more recent genetic surveys have only confirmed what the archeologists and linguists figured out a long time ago.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I can confirm the phenotypic consistency of Pacific islanders. Although neither island group was ever isolated, and they are not far apart, Tongans look a little bit different than Samoans, and I can usually identify them correctly. The I-Kiribati have a yet different look. On the other hand, Eastern Polynesians all look pretty much the same, having rather recent shared ancestry.
"Tongans look a little bit different than Samoans, and I can usually identify them correctly".
ReplyDeleteCongratulations. That's more than I can do, and I see a number of them quite often.
"You don't seem to understand what founder effect means".
Yet another ridiculous comment when you've just claimed, 'it's a very minor lineage in Philippines [B4a1a1] so the founder effect (bottleneck) at the origins of Polynesians is still necessary'. Exactly. at the departure from the Philippines. All the evidence points to an origin of both the Austronesian languages and haplogroups originated in Taiwan, and the Malayo-Polynesian branch originated in the Philippines. What is your problem? And you've revealed that you do not understand founder effect with:
"how can there be a founder effect in Philippines when B4a1a1 is such a tiny haplogroup and its parent clade B4a only includes ~10% of the population?! Where do you see the bottleneck in that?!"
The founder effect is at the departure from the Philippines, not the arrival. I would have thought that was obvious, but no. You don't understand founder effects. A founder effect must have a departure and an arrival.
"(b) Root C2 underived was ancestor of C2a and other C2 (i.e. C2*) but that happened long ago and is not relevant for the study of Oceanic peoples in the context of the Neolithic".
That comment is complete rubbish. Northern Vanuatu, including Maewo, was first settled some 4000 years ago, and is precisely the region the link I provided showed that the Lapita culture spread back west into the Solomon Islands, south into New Caledonia and east to Fiji. C2* makes up 20% of Northern Vanuatu Y-DNA haplogroups (Ebizur) and even 17% over all Vanuatu. C2*'s prominence in the region almost certainly indicates it was one of the first haplogroups to move beyond the Bismark Archipelago. So it becomes extremely 'relevant for the study of Oceanic peoples in the context of the Neolithic', in fact it is of the utmost significance.
"Those people (few in number necessarily) could only have minimal impact in already settled Lapita I islands like Vanuatu or Kanaky but they did have much more success in the frontiers of the East, which were scarcely populated or not settled at all"
Maju, when are you going to get it through your thick skull that Vanuatu and 'Kanaky' were amoung the islands uninhabited until the Lapita-using, Austronesian-speaking people reached them some 4000 years ago. C2* was obviously a member of that movement, much as you might like not to believe it so.
"The founder effect is at the departure from the Philippines, not the arrival".
DeleteSure, of course.
"A founder effect must have a departure and an arrival".
A departure from presumably Philippines and an arrival to Polynesia. What's your problem with that?
"C2*'s prominence in the region almost certainly indicates it was one of the first haplogroups to move beyond the Bismark Archipelago. So it becomes extremely 'relevant for the study of Oceanic peoples in the context of the Neolithic', in fact it is of the utmost significance".
Whatever. You're dancing at the margins of the question, which is C2a. There's more C2* in New Guinea if you need a parallel source but AFAIK nobody has studied the haplotype structure (NJ trees) so not much more can be said for C2(xC2a).
"The data reported by Friedlander (see map above) tells us that it quickly decreases in frequency to the West and is almost non-existent in Java, Sumatra, Malay peninsula, etc."
ReplyDeleteA strange comment, even for you. Especially when you've just written, 'Oceanic is ... just the Eastern branch of Malayo-Polynesian'. As I agree with that comment I fail to see why you would bring up 'Java, Sumatra, Malay peninsula, etc' at all, and surely you must be able to see that too. Unless you really are blindly committed to some prior belief.
"There is a clear black dot (sample) in Vanuatu and the supplementary material says 16% (? - unsure now, would need to recheck but do it yourself now) B4a in that sample".
Sixteen percent is not insignificant, especially when it is obvious that Polynesian B4a1a1 must have passed through Vanuatu.
"It's so obvious!!! 1.5% does not become 100% without need for an explanation. That explanation is called founder effect".
The explanation needed is why did it become so reduced in frequency through Melanesia when it must have made up a significant proportion of mt-DNA during the Austronesian movement from SE Asia to Polynesia.
"We can't say for sure [B4a1a1 certainly coalesced in the Philippines]. It's possible but no throughout research has been done yet"
Maju, I linked to a research paper that claimed exactly that. Why do I bother?
"it can also bee back-flow".
Could be, but so could the presence of C2a in New Guinea be backflow from Northern Vanuatu. The movement was not inexorably east. Two way trade between Northern Vanuatu and the Bismark archipelago continued for some time (see the paper I linked to some time back). The two way trade is presumably responsible for the eastward spread of Melanesian and New Guinea haplogroups and aDNA.
"you seem to have serious problems accepting that many Austronesians are mostly black-skinned (Melanesian) and have always been so"
I agree with the first part of that comment, but the second part seems very unlikely. Any paper you might care to read on the subject agrees that the greater proportion of mt-DNA through much of the Pacific is East Asian in origin, specifically B4a of course. Presumably the early Eastern Austronesians had a significant proportion of East Asian aDNA as well.
"I fail to see why you would bring up 'Java, Sumatra, Malay peninsula, etc'"
DeleteBecause you first decontextualized my comment which was an answer to your claim of B4a being a major Austronesian (yes, generic Austronesian, not Oceanic). But as you don't keep the separate threads (using the "Reply" button), it's very difficult for me now to search back for your original false claim which I was debunking that way. Do it yourself.
"Sixteen percent is not insignificant"...
16% (or is it 11%?) is NOT 100% nor anything comparable. "Insignificant" was not the word I used.
"The explanation needed is why did it become so reduced in frequency through Melanesia when it must have made up a significant proportion of mt-DNA during the Austronesian movement from SE Asia to Polynesia".
Because the Melanesian islands were settled before that movement (with that founder effect) happened.
But that's irrelevant for the fact that there was a B4a1a1 founder effect at the beginnings of the colonization of Polynesia (with only limited impact, mostly as B4a* in other areas of Oceanic language like Melanesia).
The founder effect is not reliant on the low frequencies in Island Melanesia nor vice-versa, they are distinct phenomena happening in the same overall process of migration.
"Maju, I linked to a research paper that claimed exactly that. Why do I bother?"
You linked to a paper that listed Ba1a1 in Philippines (1.4% in Mindanao, 1.5% in an unidentified sample, 0% in the rest of Philippines). That's all what the paper said.
Considering tha B4a1a1 is 100% in most of Polynesia, any back-migration from Polynesia at overall levels that would make up the 1.4% of the Mindanao population, would cause that.
Said that, I imagine it's not the true historical phenomenon but that's because I find most difficult that Polynesians would go in enough numbers to Mindanao and also because of the lack of related Y-DNA C2a.
" Presumably the early Eastern Austronesians had a significant proportion of East Asian aDNA as well".
DeleteThere's no reason to think that, if by early Eastern Austronesians you mean Early Lapita peoples. They were surely dark skinned and with low to no B4a mtDNA. The light skinned high B4a1a population and its most marked founder effects also in the Y-DNA side, the Polynesian founders, only seem to show up since late Lapita.
Also the Solomon Islands, even if high in B4a (but not the Polynesian motif) are very dark colored. Their Y-DNA is from the Melanesian kind although not C2. They are also Late Lapita by cultural foundation but their local genetic make-up is different from Polynesians.
"Presumably the early Eastern Austronesians had a significant proportion of East Asian aDNA as well".
DeleteThat's what seems it was not the case... until Late Lapita, which is clearly related to the B4a founder effects (B4a* in Solomon and B4a1a1 in Polynesia).
"Whatever. You're dancing at the margins of the question, which is C2a. There's more C2* in New Guinea if you need a parallel source but AFAIK nobody has studied the haplotype structure (NJ trees) so not much more can be said for C2(xC2a)".
ReplyDeleteTurns out the deeper origin of the Lapita people is Halmahera, as I've suspected between the Bird's head and the Philippines. Hopefully you will find this 2004 paper instructive (but I doubt it):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC428491/
Rats. Specifically Rattus exulans. Quote:
"Our result highlighting the significance of Island Southeast Asia, in particular Halmahera, or the Wallacea region, for Lapita origins is consistent with genetic analyses of human population origins in the Pacific. Analyses of maternally inherited mtDNA variation have identified and traced the distribution of a number of population-specific markers in the Pacific, most importantly the Asian-derived 9-bp deletion coupled with three point mutations, which is often referred to as the 'Polynesian motif' (30-32). Although the 9-bp deletion and Polynesian motif is the predominant mitochondrial lineage in both Polynesian and Micronesian populations, other 'non-Asian' lineages are found in both regions, and those are traced to Near Oceania".
And:
"The Y chromosome data suggest a 'Melanesian' or Eastern Indonesian origin for the predominant lineage found in Micronesia and Polynesia"
So Y-DNA C2 and mt-DNA B4a met on Halmhera, and then moved east along the northern coast of New Guinea and into 'Remote Oceania'. And we have this comment regarding to and fro movement:
"The distribution of haplotype 2 is particularly interesting, suggesting an interaction sphere/spheres encompassing this region, from the Philippines and Southern Indonesia through the Solomon Islands. This is consistent with archaeological evidence of obsidian trade (18, 19), animal translocations (7) between ISEA and Near Oceania, and post-Lapita interactions including the Reef/Santa Cruz group (20, 21)".
Nothing in your paper shows in any meaningful manner Halmahera being at the "deep origin" of Lapita.
DeleteAfter all it's a paper on rat genetics and very much inconclusive for what I can see: the tree formed in Fig. 2, if rooted to R3 (Thailand), produces its first branch to Far Melanesia and Polynesia and the second is the one shared by the Malay Archipelago and Near Melanesia.
This would be coherent with the first branch being related to Lapita and Polynesian expansion indeed but provides no link to anywhere specific, neither Philippines, nor Maluku nor Near Melanesia, where the rat type belongs to the second branch.
"... as I've suspected"...
A few days ago you were claiming Admiralty Islands...
Northern Maluku (incl. Halmahera) surely acted as commercial/cultural pivot, along with other islands between the two Malayo-Polynesian branches... but I see nothing specific in the data to support the claims you make.
"The distribution of haplotype 2 is (...) consistent with (...) post-Lapita interactions including the Reef/Santa Cruz group (20, 21)".
DeleteLooks indeed a post-Lapita layer to me. It is haplotype III which can be proposed as a Lapita/Polynesian remnant.
Also I'm think that they must have used very large ships to carry rats with them. Mere canoes would have soon shown the rats and made them serve as food or perish by drowning.
"After all it's a paper on rat genetics and very much inconclusive for what I can see"
ReplyDeleteYou seem unable to comprehend anything in relation to human expansion. If you can't see the significance of the findings here I'm prepared to give up on you. You're obviously totally committed to some belief in human prehistory that doesn't coincide with the facts. But as a last effort I'll carry on:
"Also I'm think that they must have used very large ships to carry rats with them. Mere canoes would have soon shown the rats and made them serve as food or perish by drowning".
Such stupidity. You obviously didn't read the paper properly. They carried the rats from island to island to release as future food. The rats did not have to hide on the canoes.
"A few days ago you were claiming Admiralty Islands... "
Lapita origin: Admiralty Islands. But Lapita did not form in a vacuum. Its deeper origin, as shown in this paper, lies in Halmahera.
"Also the Solomon Islands, even if high in B4a (but not the Polynesian motif) are very dark colored. Their Y-DNA is from the Melanesian kind although not C2. They are also Late Lapita by cultural foundation but their local genetic make-up is different from Polynesians".
Maju. How many times do I have to repeat. The Northern Solomon Islands were occupied long before the Lapita developed. I had become sure that even you had come to realise that the Solomons were not involved in early Lapita, so what is your problem? Why do you find it necessary to keep making things up?
"16% (or is it 11%?) is NOT 100% nor anything comparable".
You have accused me several times of 'racism', a totally baseless accusation. But here you demonstrate your own fundamental racism. You believe that 'primitive' humans were not able to move backwards and forwards through the islands of the Pacific. That's a ridiculous belief. You believe groups of humans reached particular islands and remained isolated on their individual islands until the nasty white man turned up. That is very far from the case. People continued to move out from the Solomons long after the Lapita/Austronesians had moved past. I am stunned that you are unable to comprehend that, yet you claim to be an intelligent person.
I'm fucking up tired of your "such stupidity", etc. comments when, in addition to all, you are still wrong and wasting my time with long comments that I have to read and reply. Last answer therefore.
Delete1. The rats' paper does not only NOT show what you claim but actually the authors say otherwise, as I underlined above. I repeat:
"The distribution of haplotype 2 is (...) consistent with (...) post-Lapita interactions"...
"Lapita origin: Admiralty Islands. But Lapita did not form in a vacuum. Its deeper origin, as shown in this paper, lies in Halmahera".
Never heard of that before. It's plausible but, naturally, I'd like evidence: your claims without it are worth nothing, even negative (i.e. Terry claims something, whatever: there's a high chance it's wrong or so extremely confused that is worse than just wrong).
"The Northern Solomon Islands were occupied long before the Lapita developed".
It is irrelevant. Solomoans are the only Melanesians with high B4a. And they are also the only Islan Melanesians who did not take part in Early Lapita (but did in the Late phase).
"You believe that 'primitive' humans were not able to move backwards and forwards through the islands of the Pacific".
I haven't said so. I don't believe what you claim I do.
What I think is that if Lapita ~ Melanesia, then Lapitans = Melanesians. 1+1=2 also incidentally.
"Whatever. You're dancing at the margins of the question, which is C2a. There's more C2* in New Guinea if you need a parallel source but AFAIK nobody has studied the haplotype structure (NJ trees) so not much more can be said for C2(xC2a)".
ReplyDeleteC2* is basic to the whole question. The fact that you can't see that is what I find surprising. C2* is far more common in Vanuatu than is C2a. Therefore the expansion of C2* (from where-ever it started, the Bird's Head or Southern Wallacea) must have been rapid. Its presence in New Guinea quite possibly predates its arrival in Vanuatu by just a very short time. C2a therefore could well have coalesced in Vanuatu and its presence in New Guinea be the result of back movement. It is barely, if at all, present west of new Guinea.
"But that's irrelevant for the fact that there was a B4a1a1 founder effect at the beginnings of the colonization of Polynesia (with only limited impact, mostly as B4a* in other areas of Oceanic language like Melanesia)".
The colonisation of Western Polynesia was almost immediate following the colonisation of Vanuatu. And Vanuatu was the centre of expansion into Fiji and Western Polynesia. Therefore it is impossible to escape the fact that B4a, in whatever form you wish to propose, was part of the first wave to Vanuatu.
"There's no reason to think that, if by early Eastern Austronesians you mean Early Lapita peoples".
There is no valid reason not to think it. Your claims regarding B4a are not believable in any way. For example:
"They were surely dark skinned and with low to no B4a mtDNA. The light skinned high B4a1a population and its most marked founder effects also in the Y-DNA side, the Polynesian founders, only seem to show up since late Lapita".
So you're claiming that this B4a1a moved all the way across the Northern New Guinea and out into Eastern Polynesia in a single leap. A most unlikely scenario. B4a1a is found all along the route the Lapita took, and even follows the earlier ancestry of the Lapita people. The Melanesian haplogroups are the later movement east. Except, for some reason, you are in mortal fear of seeing it. I can't understand why that should be. Please enlighten me.
"Said that, I imagine it's not the true historical phenomenon but that's because I find most difficult that Polynesians would go in enough numbers to Mindanao and also because of the lack of related Y-DNA C2a".
No person in their right mind would propose a back migration from Polynesia to the Philippines. Therefore I rest my case.
"C2* is basic to the whole question".
DeleteUnless you believe that C2a only coalesced very recently, what I do not, then it is not.
"C2* is far more common in Vanuatu than is C2a".
So, say, C2z (let's assume they are all "cousins", a is probably the case for real), had a founder effect in Vanuatu. This is mostly unrelated to C2a in Polynesia.
You can treat all C2* as if it was C2-root: it is a number of lineages parallel to C2a and C2a1, just that researchers and us also, in our ignorance, do not know much or anything at all of the phylogeny under the C2 node and therefore we place the asterisk, which is as good as a question mark.
"C2a therefore could well have coalesced in Vanuatu"...
There's not a single individual with C2a located in Vanuatu. It is all in one or several "brother" lineages such as, C2z, C2y, C2x... (probably just one). And brothers are not fathers (unless there's something very very wrong in your family).
"The colonisation of Western Polynesia was almost immediate following the colonisation of Vanuatu".
Not what I have read. Vanuatu was in Early Lapita and what followed was surely Kanaky and Fiji, probably in this order. Only then came "Western Polynesia", i.e. Tonga and Samoa, whose Lapita dates are from the Late period in fact.
Whatever the case, it should be obvious that the genetic makeup of Vanuatuans and that of Polynesians are too different to be ancestral to each other, except in residual manner: Vanuatuans have low O3a2 and zero C2a (Y-DNA), as well as low B4a (mtDNA), Polynesians are high in all three.
I must say that even Fijians don't look too ancestral to Polynesians, only at the level of Samoa-Tonga the ascendancy is more obvious.
"So you're claiming that this B4a1a moved all the way across the Northern New Guinea and out into Eastern Polynesia in a single leap".
Not exactly, partly for practical reasons and partly because they had to live in or near New Guinea to incorporate the C2a founder effect. But essentially they seem a small bunch of "sea gypsies" who found room to expand and thrive.
Just like Malagassy founders also had to coast along Asia and Africa to reach Madagascar, the Polynesian founders had to make stops in the islands towards Polynesia. But in both cases the number of founders was small enough not to make a genetic impact that we can notice in lands already populated (although they moved some foods like banana, etc. in the case of Malagassy people at least, whose legacy we can observe indeed).
We can make some nuances here, specially re. the Solomon, but that's what happened as a matter of fact.
Oh. I've found Ebizur's comments regarding Y-DNA C2:
ReplyDeletehttp://leherensuge.blogspot.co.nz/2010/02/eurasian-y-dna-note.html
I notice you've learned nothing since this post. Some of Ebizur's comments, followed by my replies:
"an overwhelming majority of haplogroup C Y-DNA in populations from Papua New Guinea eastward belongs to the subclade C2a-M208, which exhibits a rather young TMRCA"
All the dates you provide for the TMRCA for C2a-M208 easily fit the timing of the Austronesian expansion beyond New Britain.
"On the other hand, Y-DNA haplogroup C2*-M38(xC2a-M208) exhibits a rather long TMRCA"
And I'd go with your second option, 'it is a truly indigenous haplogroup with a history of more than 10,000 years in Wallacea'.
"instead, it appears that both C2*-M38 and C2a-M208 are quite rare in Island Melanesia (especially the Solomon Islands, including Bougainville)"
Those islands were already occupied by the time of the Austronesian expansion. So would tend to be bypassed for uninhabited islands beyond. Even in New Guinea offshore uninhabited islands would have been the first occupied. The C2 thread would be very thin along the New Guinea coast and through the Northern Solomons. That would account for the patchy distribution of C until it becomes established beyond Fiji. And some C2a may be the product of back movement from further east. It's known that the 'Polynesian outliers' are the product of such a movement back west, presumably from Samoa.
"I notice you've learned nothing since"...
DeleteNeither did you as you keep throwing molecular-clock-o-logy against facts. Even if the clock seems now to run at half the Zhivotovsky rate, which was then considered the "slow" rhythm.
Then you whine "I'm not using molecular clock as evidence". Yes, you are. All the time. Most of the time it's your only backing.
"Those islands [Solomon] were already occupied by the time of the Austronesian expansion. So would tend to be bypassed for uninhabited islands beyond".
That was also the case with New Britain, Amiralty, etc. Yet these were fully integrated in Early Lapita.
"And some C2a may be the product of back movement from further east. It's known that the 'Polynesian outliers' are the product of such a movement back west, presumably from Samoa".
You're making things up.
C2a is found in many different places of New Guinea and that's the only place outside the area of Oceanic languages. There's no possible back-migration "from Samoa" to the Papuan Highlands. Quit that crap!
"in addition to all, you are still wrong and wasting my time with long comments that I have to read and reply. Last answer therefore".
ReplyDeleteMy last effort to help you see facts.
"Neither did you as you keep throwing molecular-clock-o-logy against facts".
And you consistently ignore facts. I firmly believe that although 'founder effect', 'bottleneck' and 'drift' have certainly occurred at times they have been far less frequent than many like to believe. Drift is the one of the three most likely to have happened, in small, isolated populations of fixed size. But the three terms are almost always only invoked when the evidence fails to fit some preconceived belief. Any interpretation is far more likely to be correct if the evidence can be easily explained without recourse to any of them. You have constantly had to invoke founder effect whenever the evidence, as it stands, fails to fit your belief.
"What I think is that if Lapita ~ Melanesia, then Lapitans = Melanesians. 1+1=2 also incidentally".
Completely wrong. Lapita is universally considered the origin of the Polynesians, not the Melanesians. In fact it has been found in regions occupied by the first people into the Eastern Pacific, which is certainly not 'Melanesia'.
"Unless you believe that C2a only coalesced very recently, what I do not, then it is not".
On what grounds do you believe that? Surely C2a must have coalesced after C2* began its migration. C2*'s expansion, even that into New Guinea, may be no more than just 4-5000 years old.
"So, say, C2z (let's assume they are all 'cousins', a is probably the case for real), had a founder effect in Vanuatu. This is mostly unrelated to C2a in Polynesia".
Ridiculous stance. Northern Vanuatu has long been accepeted as being a staging post during the settlement of Polynesia. And C2a must have coalesced from some C2, somewhere. That 'somewhere' could well be in Vanuatu, although equally likely it could be as far west as the Admiralty Islands. It should be obvious to you that Vanuatu C2* moved east with its 'descendant' haplogroup C2a. I see no other possibility, unless you've already absolutely committed to what you want to believe, and are not prepared to consider any alternative.
"You can treat all C2* as if it was C2-root: it is a number of lineages parallel to C2a and C2a1, just that researchers and us also, in our ignorance, do not know much or anything at all of the phylogeny under the C2 node and therefore we place the asterisk, which is as good as a question mark".
More irrelevant rambling. C2a is a specific lineage within C2*, just as C2a is a specific lineage in C2a. And C2a1 a specific lineage under C2a. The lineages coalesce, even with our present limited understanding of the phylogeny, from west (Southern Wallacea) to east (Eastern Polynesia). I would have though that was extraordinarily easy to see. Unless you've already made up your mind that you don't want to see it.
"Lapita is universally considered the origin of the Polynesians, not the Melanesians".
DeleteAnd some magic guy known as 'God' is "universally" considered to exist up there in the stratosphere...
What means nothing in terms of science.
"In fact it has been found in regions occupied by the first people into the Eastern Pacific, which is certainly not 'Melanesia'".
Indeed, in the Late phase (only).
Polynesians are an epiphenomenon of Lapita and of Oceanic languages' expansion in general. Just that a popular one, like Vikings.
"Surely C2a must have coalesced after C2* began its migration".
If, as is the case, C2*=C2(xC2a), then no. They are different things, just like me and my brothers. If you call my three brothers C2* and me C2a, there you have it. You could also call my three brothers C2b, C2c and C2d... but for that, in real life genetics, you would have to know they are different lineages for sure. So far we only know that they are not C2a: C2* = NOT C2a, C2* = parallel to C2a.
"Northern Vanuatu has long been accepeted as being a staging post during the settlement of Polynesia".
Jesus has long been accepted as the Messiah in some parts of the world... Your preacher style with continuous demagogic appeals to follow the bandwagon... leaves me cold. Angry at most.
"C2a is a specific lineage within C2*"...
NO!!! NO!!! NO!!!
C2* in our context (the referenced papers and this discussion) is defined as all the C2 that is NOT C2a. Synthetically: C2(xC2a). Get that straight already, dammit!
The asterisk anyhow always represents a residual paragroup, in this case C2 is divided into C2a and C2* (i.e. all other C2 - but not C2a).
Why do I have to explain this? Why don't you pay any attention? Why don't you just accept your elements of ignorance with more humility and less annoying arrogance?
Beats me!
"Not what I have read. Vanuatu was in Early Lapita and what followed was surely Kanaky and Fiji, probably in this order".
ReplyDeleteVery rapidly, in that order. What information do you have that Vanuatu was settled long before Fiji/Tonga/Samoa? Everything I've ever read on the subject claims a rapid occupation of remote Oceania as far east as Tonga/Samoa once Vanuatu had been reached. In other words Fiji, Tonga and Samoa were first occupied by Early Lapita:
http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-175283483/northern-vanuatu-as-a-pacific-crossroads-the-archaeology
Quote:
"This paper outlines current archaeological research being undertaken in the area, focusing on defining initial human settlement there some 3000 years ago and subsequent cultural transformations which led to the establishment of the ethnographic present".
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_of_Samoa
Quote:
"The oldest date so far from pre-historic remains in Samoa has been calculated by New Zealand scientists to a likely true age of circa 3,000 BP (Before Present) from a Lapita site at Mulifanua during the 1970s".
Difficult to maintain any belief in an extensive delay. But I'm sure you'll manage.
"What information do you have that Vanuatu was settled long before Fiji/Tonga/Samoa?"
DeleteRicaut. It is in the bibliography and a key element in the exposition. I am surprised that you ask only now.
Also Wikipedia says:
"In Western Polynesia, Lapita pottery is found from 800 BCE onwards in the Fiji-Samoa-Tonga area".
After stating that "'Classic' Lapita pottery was produced between 1350 and 750 BCE in the Bismarck Archipelago".
So we have a 1350-750 bracket for Early Lapita up to Fiji (at the farthest) and, after 800, we have Late Lapita in Fiji-Samoa-Tonga but also in all Island Melanesia, incl. now also Solomon islands (at least Guadalcanal and Bouganville).
"The oldest date so far from pre-historic remains in Samoa has been calculated by New Zealand scientists to a likely true age of circa 3,000 BP (Before Present) from a Lapita site at Mulifanua during the 1970s".
Imagining it is real, it'd be 200 years before what other entries claim. I really don't think it makes a difference, specially since calibration matters or otherwise different methodologies may be the real reason behind the new date.
"Whatever the case, it should be obvious that the genetic makeup of Vanuatuans and that of Polynesians are too different to be ancestral to each other, except in residual manner: Vanuatuans have low O3a2 and zero C2a (Y-DNA), as well as low B4a (mtDNA), Polynesians are high in all three"
ReplyDeleteThat is the point I've been trying to get across since Christ was a corporal in the army of the Lord. Thank you. The difference is easily explained if we concede that the Melanesian element in Vanuatu developed after the ancestors of the Polynesians had passed through. The difference is impossible to explain under any scenario you have proposed, except in your own mind.
"I must say that even Fijians don't look too ancestral to Polynesians, only at the level of Samoa-Tonga the ascendancy is more obvious".
You have consistently had to resort to all sorts of manipulations and massaging of the evidence to explain that fact. But again that is easily explained as being the result of a follow-on movement of Melanesian elements.
"C2a is found in many different places of New Guinea and that's the only place outside the area of Oceanic languages. There's no possible back-migration "from Samoa" to the Papuan Highlands".
No-one, except those not in their right mind, would even imagine such a thing possible. But back movement from Vanuatu to the Solomons and the Bismark Archipelago is widely accepted.
"Not exactly, partly for practical reasons and partly because they had to live in or near New Guinea to incorporate the C2a founder effect. But essentially they seem a small bunch of 'sea gypsies' who found room to expand and thrive".
That is exactly what the 'rat evidence' explains. The movement was along the northern coastline of New Guinea and through the islands to the north of that island.
"The rats' paper does not only NOT show what you claim but actually the authors say otherwise, as I underlined above".
The rat paper says both haplotypes moved east from Halmahera, probably separately. The 'later' movement was via the north New Guinea coast, exactly the route by which it has long been accepted the Austronesians entered the Pacific. The 'earlier rat movement reached only the Solomon Islands, so cannot be associated with the Austronesian expansion. But it probably is associated with the later movement of Melanesian groups.
"Just like Malagassy founders also had to coast along Asia and Africa to reach Madagascar, the Polynesian founders had to make stops in the islands towards Polynesia".
And that explains the sporadic appearance of mt-B4a and Y-DNA C2 along the route. Again I have been trying to point that out since we first communicated.
"It is irrelevant. Solomoans are the only Melanesians with high B4a. And they are also the only Islan Melanesians who did not take part in Early Lapita (but did in the Late phase)".
We still find non-Austronesian languages in the Northern Solomons. Surely it is therefore reasonable to suppose that the original population in the region was non-Austronesian also. B4a must have introgressed into that pre-existing population. Just as Papuan haplogroups have introgressed into populations in the wider Pacific.
"That is the point I've been trying to get across since Christ was a corporal in the army of the Lord".
DeleteI see your "logic", Pastor.
"The difference is easily explained if we concede that the Melanesian element in Vanuatu developed after the ancestors of the Polynesians had passed through".
That makes no sense whatsoever. You would need to give too many explanations to way too many questions: first of all: why would the first settlers abandon such a prime quality location?, second: which archaeological data supports such a secondary arrival and genocide?, third: why do Melanesians have more linguistic diversity within Oceanic than Polynesians, who sport a single low tier linguistic family?
It is a prejudiced model that can't be sustained. As the Lapita entry of Wikipedia ends:
Matthew Spriggs stated: "The possibility of cultural continuity between Lapita Potters and Melanesians has not been given the consideration it deserves. In most sites there was an overlap of styles with no stratigraphic separation discernible. Continuity is found in pottery temper, importation of obsidian and in non-ceramic artefacts".
All adds up to a Melanesian Oceanic culture, surely influenced by "white" Austronesians from Philippines or wherever (some of whose descendants, after a strong bottleneck and some clear admixture, founded the Polynesian people), but still mostly Melanesian in genetics and phenotype.
"The rat paper says both haplotypes moved east from Halmahera".
It cannot say that when Haplotype III is only found in Far Oceania. Whatever the case you're mixing apples and oranges because the rats spread in post-Lapita interactions (or mostly so).
"We still find non-Austronesian languages in the Northern Solomons".
It's very likely that the islands were inhabited before Austronesian expansion. It does not seem important.
"B4a must have introgressed into that pre-existing population".
Introgression is a term that indicates a strong positive selection, typically for the jump of one highly adaptive allele from one population or often species to another (via a smaller admixed pop.) It can't be used here unless you mean that the haplogroup was highly adaptive, what I doubt is what you mean.
Apologies for going back on my word and continuing.
ReplyDelete"Ricaut. It is in the bibliography and a key element in the exposition. I am surprised that you ask only now [What information do you have that Vanuatu was settled long before Fiji/Tonga/Samoa?]".
You didn't read it very well:
"The earliest Lapita settlements outside the Bismarks are in the Reefs-Santa Cruz Islands at 3200 BP"
Those islands are in Northern Vanuatu. And later in the same paper:
"The Lapita cultural complex developed in the Bismark Archipelago 3450-3350 BP and led to the settlement of the Reefs-Santa Cruz, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa by Austronesian speakers 3200-2800".
So the earliest Lapita settlements in Samoa are no more than 650 years after the Lapita's development.
"In Western Polynesia, Lapita pottery is found from 800 BCE onwards in the Fiji-Samoa-Tonga area".
You have told others often enough not to rely on Wikipedia.
"Imagining it is real, it'd be 200 years before what other entries claim. I really don't think it makes a difference, specially since calibration matters or otherwise different methodologies may be the real reason behind the new date".
Well. The paper you held up as being reliable disagrees with you.
"first of all: why would the first settlers abandon such a prime quality location?"
I see no problem. Human groups like to stick with what they know. The first Lapita people were adjusted to a coastal environment whereas the Melanesians were used to a more inland exploitation.
"second: which archaeological data supports such a secondary arrival and genocide?"
Migration was almost certainly continuous in a large degree, and we certainly don't need 'genocide' to explain the varying proportions of haplogroups in various islands.
"third: why do Melanesians have more linguistic diversity within Oceanic than Polynesians, who sport a single low tier linguistic family?"
Simple. They started out with more linguistic diversity. After all they had been in New Guinea for a very long time, and in the Northern Solomons for perhaps as long.
"The distribution of haplotype 2 is (...) consistent with (...) post-Lapita interactions"
But haplogroup 2 is not the one that made it out to Polynesia:
"If we apply this explanation to our observed data, specifically regarding possible competitive exclusion of haplogroup III in Near Oceania, we might be seeing the result of an initial pre-Lapita introduction of R. exulans (haplogroup II) from Wallacea to Near Oceania. Later, perhaps with Lapita peoples, rats of haplogroup III were carried from Wallacea, through Near Oceania, where they were not successfully introduced to occupied islands because of competition from the wide range of rats, including the earlier introduced R. exulans. However, when the boats reach islands previously uninhabited and where there were no other rodents, haplogroup III could successfully establish".
"C2* in our context (the referenced papers and this discussion) is defined as all the C2 that is NOT C2a".
You are avoiding the obvious fact that C2a can only have coalesced from some C2 individual. And if you're actually prepared to look at a map you will immediately see why a Y-DNA C2 island hopping population could come to dominate the birds head. It is virtually surrounded by islands.
"Jesus has long been accepted as the Messiah in some parts of the world..."
Not by scientists. The same as perhaps to make things simple for you I should have said:
"Northern Vanuatu has long been accepeted by scientists as being a staging post during the settlement of Polynesia".
And:
""Lapita is universally considered by scientists to be the origin of the Polynesians, not the Melanesians".
Satisfied? I presume not.
800 BCE and 2800 BP are the same date!!!
Delete"Second" and "third" points leave me so unimpressed with your ex-post-factor rationalizations that I pass.
Pacific rat: if the tree is rooted at R3 (Thailand), then haplogroup III and super-haplogroup I/II are coetaneous (or maybe III is older - shorter stem?) No reason therefore to imagine that hg III expanded after I/II but roughly at the same time.
[Jesus as Messiah] "Not by scientists".
Also by many scientists.
... "by scientists"...
"Dentists recommend"... "Experts say"...
Publicity slang that stinks and is too easy to spot by now.
"Satisfied? I presume not".
Nope.
"Lapita is universally considered by scientists to be the origin of the Polynesians, not the Melanesians"
Actually I just quoted some scientists who said otherwise, mind you. Of course "origin of Melanesians" is not a valid term but origin of Oceanic-speaking Melanesians (or even better: Oceanic-speaking peoples in general, most of which are considered to be Melanesian) is correct.
Polynesians are overrated.
"800 BCE and 2800 BP are the same date!!!"
ReplyDeleteSorry. I read it as '800 BP', presumably because you were insisting Samoa was settled long after Northern Vanuatu was. As you are now aware, the two regions were settled almost simultaneously.
"'Second' and 'third' points leave me so unimpressed with your ex-post-factor rationalizations that I pass".
The statements are the facts, so presumably the only reason they don't impress is because you are determined to believe something incorrect. Everything in previously unoccupied 'Remote Oceania' was settled rapidly once the Lapita pottery-using Austronesians had managed to cross the gap between Guadalcanal and Santa Cruz. The back and forth movement that continued across this gap argues strongly against any sort of 'founder effect' across it. Austronesian and Melanesian haplogroups became mixed.
"origin of Oceanic-speaking Melanesians (or even better: Oceanic-speaking peoples in general, most of which are considered to be Melanesian) is correct".
You cannot claim that. There is no evidence of any early further migration from SE Asia all the way to Eastern Polynesia apart from the Lapita, which certainly reached as far as Western Polynesia. The Lapita people are the only possible ancestors of the Polynesians. As you've admitted yourself they cannot be considered 'Melanesian'. Melanesian haplogroups make up just a small proportion of Polynesian haplogroups. On the other hand SE Asian haplogroups become a majority, almost certainly because they formed a majority all the way along the original route. No explanation you have offered comes close to explaining the evidence. In fact I can't think of your offering anything remotely possible.
"Nope".
Of course not. As Davidski remarked elsewhere, 'Maju you're full of it, as usual'. Why are you so full of it? What is your problem?
"'Classic' Lapita pottery was produced between 1350 and 750 BCE"...
DeleteSo 800 BCE is at the very end of the period. Thanks.
"The statements are the facts"...
What "damn" facts are in "Migration was almost certainly continuous"... ? Just another of your pompous "certainly" unfounded claims.
What damn facts are in: "Simple. They started out with more linguistic diversity. After all they had been in New Guinea for a very long time, and in the Northern Solomons for perhaps as long"? It's nothing but verbal games: they lived in New Guinea but did not yet speak Oceanic languages yet.
What damn fucking facts?! You are continuously insulting my intelligence with idiotic claims like those. I do not deserve that, really.
"You cannot claim that. There is no evidence of any early further migration from SE Asia all the way to Eastern Polynesia apart from the Lapita"...
I don't say that proto-Polynesians were not part of Lapita, specially Late Lapita. In fact, considering their partial Melanesian ancestry (C2a) they must necessarily have been there. But they are still a peculiar community within a mostly "black" Lapita peoples with Austronesian languages but other than the Polynesian-Micronesian branch.
"Melanesian haplogroups make up just a small proportion of Polynesian haplogroups".
C2a is a clearly Melanesian haplogroup (not Asian in any case) and is the main Y-DNA lineage among Polynesians.
In any case it's clear that early Polynesians suffered a strong founder effect, and that explains everything you may need to explain.
"As Davidski remarked elsewhere, 'Maju you're full of it, as usual'. Why are you so full of it? What is your problem?"
Go tel him. He'll be happy the first two minutes. I must concede that people with authoritarian tendencies like Polako or Dienekes, who have no problem implementing the moderation filter, have the advantage that they can ignore people like you and your harassment by just not clicking a button.
I hate pre-pub moderation and prefer a frank, even sometimes dirty, debate but up to a point. What I really like is mutually enriching informative exchange not bumping heads in verbal battles without substance.
What damn fucking facts?! You are continuously insulting my intelligence with idiotic claims like those. I do not deserve that, really".
ReplyDeleteThere are several facts concerning Oceania you are obviously very reluctant to accept. This is apparently because those facts conflict with what you wish to believe.
“'Dentists recommend'... 'Experts say”...”
Your first problem is this comment of yours:
“It's very likely that the islands were inhabited before Austronesian expansion. It does not seem important”.
Your own Friedlaender reference claims:
“During the mid-to late-Holocene, at least one significant impulse of influence came from Island Southeast Asia that led to the development of the Lapita Cultural Complex in the Bismarck Archipelago, primarily on its small off-shore islands, at ~3,300 YBP [7], [8]. A few hundred years after, people bearing the Lapita Cultural Complex had colonized the islands of the Pacific as far east as Tonga and in effect had become the Polynesians (a useful distinction is Remote Oceania, which refers to the Pacific islands beyond the central Solomons settled at ~3,200 YBP or later, versus Near Oceania, which includes New Guinea and Northern Island Melanesia [9])”.
And:
“a useful distinction is Remote Oceania, which refers to the Pacific islands beyond the central Solomons settled at ~3,200 YBP or later, versus Near Oceania, which includes New Guinea and Northern Island Melanesia”
You claim 'not important', but I disagree. Note that people moved rapidly into the ' Pacific islands beyond the central Solomons settled at ~3,200 YBP or later'. So the Early Lapita had reached Tonga and Samoa within a 'few hundred years' of its first appearance in the Bismark Archipelago. And the islands of Remote Oceania were uninhabited before they arrived.
Your comment:
"So 800 BCE is at the very end of the period. Thanks".
Long after people had reached Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. Your own Kaysar reference states:
“Archaeological evidence suggests that western Polynesian islands (Fiji, Futuna, Samoa, Tonga) were settled 2,100–3,200 years ago by people belonging to the so-called Lapita cultural complex that originated 3,000–3,500 years ago in Island Melanesia, in particular the Bismarck Archipelago”
That is a fairly rapid expansion.
The fragmentary nature of your reply makes me very hard to me to understand which is your point exactly.
DeleteI'm not sure if you are confusing BP and BCE dates again because nothing of what you say contradicts the factoid of Tonga-Samoa being settled c. 800 BCE (which incidentally is within the bracket of "2,100–3,200 years ago".
"That is a fairly rapid expansion".
~500-600 years. 'Rapid' and 'slow' are subjective and relative, not really worth debating. What matters is that Far Melanesia was settled at the beginning of the period and Near Polynesia (and even Fiji) were colonized only at the end of Early Lapita, existing, I'd dare say, some hiatus between both related waves.
“What 'damn' facts are in 'Migration was almost certainly continuous'... ? Just another of your pompous 'certainly' unfounded claims”.
ReplyDeleteYour own reference (Ricaut):
“This finding indicates smaller scale analyses reveal a more complex reality of genetic admixture in some parts of Oceania than is often assumed in current debates”.
Same reference:
“This issue of post-settlement interaction and exchange in Melanesia is often completely ignored in genetic reconstructions”.
Well. As I wrote:
“Northern Vanuatu has long been accepted by scientists as being a staging post during the settlement of Polynesia”.
Ricaut:
“The earliest Lapita settlements outside the Bismarks are in the Reefs-Santa Cruz islands at 3200 BP (Green, 2003), perhaps suggesting that the initial Lapita expansion bypassed the entire main Solomons chain where there are no Early Lapita sites (i.e. 3400-2800 BP) (Shepherd and Walter, 2006). Recent linguistic analyses of the Reefs-Santa Cruz languages indicate that they derive from an early branch of the Oceanic subgroup whose proximal homeland is the Bismark Archipelago, in agreement with the archeological evidence of a 'leapfrog' colonisation”
Although the Reefs-Santa Cruz islands are politically part of the Solomon Islands they are geographically part of Vanuatu. From Vanuatu people rapidly reached Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. The expansion further into East Polynesia was delayed for as much as a thousand years. A fact that seems to consistently confuse you. Earlier you disagreed with my comment:
“Lapita is universally considered by scientists to be the origin of the Polynesians, not the Melanesians”.
Ricaut again:
“The latter [Austronesian expansion out of Taiwan] led to the development of the Lapita cultural complex in the Bismark Archipelago which resulted in the settlement of remote Oceania [which includes Polynesia]”.
From the same reference:
“In addition, the ancient and modern Solomon haplogroup distribution (e.g. M27 haplogroup) suggests, in agreement with some archeological and linguistic models, that Early Lapita populations expanding out of the Bismark Archipelago, had little or no contact with the indigenous non-Austronesian populations in Bougainville and the Solomon Islands.”
And from Friedlaender:
“Almost 40% of our samples are B4a1a1, which includes the so-called “Polynesian Motif” (table S2). This has been tied to an Austronesian expansion out of Taiwan that led to the development of the Lapita Cultural Complex in the Bismarcks, and finally to the settlement of Polynesia and Micronesia”
The Early Lapita therefore was not responsible for the spread of New Guinea/Solomon haplogroups.
Post-Lapita interactions in Near Melanesia:
DeleteThese are the same interactions implicit for haplogroup II in Pacific rats which you were rejecting two days ago.
Those post-Lapita interactions possibly refined the pre-existing genetic landscape, cutting some corners and diluting a bit some differences, but they do not imply AFAIK any ex novo migration nor much less the massive replacement of Vanuatu and Kanaky (and possibly other islands) implicit in your anti-Melanesian "logic".
Santa Cruz:
An early branch of Oceanic languages is not the same as a direct ancestor of Polynesian. In fact it is the opposite: an early derived branch which has remained ¿isolated? (at least enough to remain very distinctive) ever since.
What your quotes mean is that Santa Cruz people arrived there with Early Lapita and has remained there with relatively low interaction, specially no new notable genetic inputs, ever since.
Good for them. There's nothing like being at home in peace, specially with tropical temperatures and such a beautiful environment.
(1) Remote Oceania also includes Far Melanesia, mind you.
(2) I have repeatedly said that Solomon Is. (incl. Bougainville) were only affected by Lapita in the late phase, c. 250 BCE. It has an important place in the primary entry, which you should re-read and understand (why are you even criticizing if you obviously did not understand the main entry?). You cannot use the Solomon as reference for other Melanesian islands, which were indeed affected by Early Lapita.
(3) The Friedlander quote is so out of context that I do not know what it may mean for you. 40% where?
There was a bold type title before the numbered points but somehow it got deleted. Something about researchers quotes...
DeleteAs for your belief that Polynesian B4a cannot have come from island SE Asia, Ricaut mentions:
ReplyDelete“The presence of the Polynesian motif has also been confirmed in Madagascar ..”
Specifically B4a1a1a2. Polynesians and Melanesians have B4a1a1a1 and B4a1a1a4. Haplogroups B4a1a1a3 and B4a1a1a% are confined to Polynesia. You are standing on shaky ground if you're going to claim that the Malagasay B4a came from New Guinea.
And Friedlaender:
“The 'Motif' is very common in Polynesia, Micronesia, and many parts of Near Oceania, and is absent in the Papuan New Guinea highlands [13], as well as in some Papuan-speaking areas of Northern Island Melanesia (tables S2, S3, and figure 4a). The 'Motif' has also been confirmed in central and eastern Indonesian populations in low frequencies [42], and it could have originated either there or in Near Oceania [see 33]. It was also carried to Madagascar”
Your comment:
“C2a is a clearly Melanesian haplogroup (not Asian in any case) and is the main Y-DNA lineage among Polynesians”.
Karafet:
“The fine-scale sampling in this survey shows that C-M38* attains its highest frequency (and STR diversity) in eastern Indonesia rather than in Melanesia (supplementary table S3, Supplementary Material online), suggesting its origin may be further west than previously hypothesized”.
So almost certainly originally from Southern Wallacea, rather than New Guinea. You have difficulty accepting a Papuan phenotype for that region. Have a look at these people from East Timor and tell me they look typically SE Asian:
http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?num=10&um=1&hl=en&biw=1360&bih=629&tbm=isch&tbnid=Uy2gS23INCWriM:&imgrefurl=http://www.seasite.niu.edu/easttimor/&docid=VNLk-X1v-dA1lM&imgurl=http://www.seasite.niu.edu/easttimor/proud%252520east%252520timorese.jpg&w=1145&h=735&ei=e-aeUL-0OMbUigfW9YDIDg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=10&sig=111497522159891088143&sqi=2&page=1&tbnh=131&tbnw=217&start=0&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:74&tx=76&ty=79
And some information on East Timor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor
Vale, vale. I concede that the Polynesian motif is original from Mindanao or elsewhere in Philippines. Makes sense.
DeleteI insist that you should not use (Y-DNA) C*, C2* to discuss the origin of C2a, the same that we don't use (mtDNA) B4* to infer that of B4a1a1.
Nobody says that Timorese look typically East Asian. But again that's irrelevant because no direct Wallacea-Far Oceania link has ever been found that does not go through New Guinea (or otherwise Near Melanesia).
"These are the same interactions implicit for haplogroup II in Pacific rats which you were rejecting two days ago".
ReplyDeleteBut 'Post-Lapita interactions in Near Melanesia' has nothing to do with any connection between Oceanic-speaking Polynesian Lapita people. It is also post-arrival in Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.
"Those post-Lapita interactions possibly refined the pre-existing genetic landscape, cutting some corners and diluting a bit some differences, but they do not imply AFAIK any ex novo migration"
Exactly. But just a few days ago you are proposing a post-Lapita migration to explain the Polynesian presence beyond Fiji. It didn't happen. And 'Those post-Lapita interactions' did more than just 'refined the pre-existing genetic landscape, cutting some corners and diluting a bit some differences'. They made any 'founder effect' very unlikely.
"An is not the same as a direct ancestor of Polynesian. In fact it is the opposite: an early derived branch which has remained ¿isolated? (at least enough to remain very distinctive) ever since".
Basically Polynesian does descend from that 'early branch of Oceanic languages'. It certainly doesn't descend from the post-Lapita back movement into the Southern Solomons.
"What your quotes mean is that Santa Cruz people arrived there with Early Lapita and has remained there with relatively low interaction, specially no new notable genetic inputs, ever since".
But members of that Santa Cruz population were the first to move rapidly on south into Vanuatu and New Caledonia, and east to Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. A later movement from Vanuatu carried the Late Lapita back west into the Southern Solomons, as the Ricaut reference, and several I've linked to, all say. You can believe any myth or fairy tale you like but I'm not going to let you get away with making things up.
"(1) Remote Oceania also includes Far Melanesia, mind you".
ReplyDeleteYes it does. And no-one lived anywhere within 'Remote Oceania' until the Austronesian-speaking Early Lapita people entered it around three and a half thousand years ago.
"(2) I have repeatedly said that Solomon Is. (incl. Bougainville) were only affected by Lapita in the late phase, c. 250 BCE."
And I have never disagreed with that at all. In fact I have consistently claimed that Bougainville was not involved with the development of the Lapita, and that the Bismark Archipelago only became involved because Lapita developed in the small islands around the Bismark Sea (possibly including the Admiralty Islands). All the references claim the Lapita expanded rapidly from that region through Northern Vanuatu as far as Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. Eastern Polynesia was then later settled from those islands, most likely specifically from Samoa.
"It [Solomon Is. (incl. Bougainville) were only affected by Lapita in the late phase] has an important place in the primary entry, which you should re-read and understand (why are you even criticizing if you obviously did not understand the main entry?)"
Maju. It is obviously you who has not understood the main points of any of the papers, even the ones you referenced yourself.
"(3) The Friedlander quote is so out of context that I do not know what it may mean for you. 40% where?"
You obviously need to read the Friedlander paper again. You should have no trouble finding what the 40% refers to. I'll give you a clue. The paper deals with the Solomon Islands.
"I insist that you should not use (Y-DNA) C*, C2* to discuss the origin of C2a, the same that we don't use (mtDNA) B4* to infer that of B4a1a1".
I disagree completely. In fact we could more easily work the other way round, and use the mutations leading to B4a1a1 to find where B4a most likely originated. And the mutation at the base of C2a must have occurred in a C2 individual. Because both C2* and C2a made it east of the Admiralty Islands we can use C2* as an indication of C2a's place of origin. What is your problem? Is it simply that conclusions reached conflict with the myths and fairy tales you are addicted too?
"Nobody says that Timorese look typically East Asian. But again that's irrelevant because no direct Wallacea-Far Oceania link has ever been found that does not go through New Guinea (or otherwise Near Melanesia)".
How on earth do you come to that conclusion when you earlier wrote, 'I have repeatedly said that Solomon Is. (incl. Bougainville) were only affected by Lapita in the late phase, c. 250 BCE'. The Lapita, and so the Oceanic language, expansion had nothing to do with the Solomons, and almost certainly nothing to do with New Guinea either. All the references both you and I have linked to claim a minimal involvement of Lapita with the Solomon Islands and New Guinea until the back movement of the late Lapita carried a later Oceanic language group into the Solomon Islands. Even then New Guinea remained remarkably untouched although B4a has spread to non-Oceanic-speaking people.
(1) Austronesian speaking, yes. Proto-Polynesian no.
Delete(2) ... "the Bismark Archipelago only became involved because Lapita developed in the small islands around the Bismark Sea (possibly including the Admiralty Islands)".
It's the origin: small or large islands all are Melanesian in phenotype. Actually you have not mentioned Admiraly since I showed you how the natives actually look (racism?).
Not just that but while you insist in making all the Early Lapita expansion look as a compressed single block, the fact is that the first islands to be settled were in this order: Vanuatu (Melanesia), Kanaky (Melanesia) and (quite late) Fiji (Melanesia but of Polynesian language) and only "in the last minute", almost in Late Lapita already, Samoa and Tonga (Polynesia).
The process is transparent: Polynesians as such only appear in the last tick of the Early Lapita clock.
(3) "You obviously need to read the Friedlander paper again. You should have no trouble finding what the 40% refers to".
I'm not your slave! You insult me again by giving me orders instead of explaining your own words yourself. You are again stepping very far inside the red zone. I'm about to ban you, Terry. Seriously. Because you have no respect nor true intellectual integrity.
"What matters is that Far Melanesia was settled at the beginning of the period and Near Polynesia (and even Fiji) were colonized only at the end of Early Lapita, existing, I'd dare say, some hiatus between both related waves".
ReplyDeleteThat is complete rubbish Maju. Fiji and Near Polynesia were settled within a few hundred years of the original Lapita expansion. It was close to a thousand years later that people were able to move beyond Samoa, but there is no evidence at all that these people were other than the people who had reached Western Polynesia with the expansion of the Early Lapita. Late Lapita refers to the pottery found in the Southern Solomon Islands, not that found in Fiji and Near Polynesia.
500-600 years. The difference between the beginning and the end.
DeleteYou managed to get me fucked up. Shit! Who do you think you are to come to my blog to order me around and playing with my mind, Terry?
ReplyDeleteThis discussion is over. Comments closed.