RSS

Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup Q in Oceania

21 Dec
Even if a very specialized detail, this lineage may help to shed light on the colonization of Oceania:
Chris A. Corser et al., The Q2 Mitochondrial Haplogroup in Oceania. PLoS ONE 2012. Open accessLINK [ doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052022]

Abstract

Many details surrounding the origins of the peoples of Oceania remain to be resolved, and as a step towards this we report seven new complete mitochondrial genomes from the Q2a haplogroup, from Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Kiribati. This brings the total to eleven Q2 genomes now available. The Q haplogroup (that includes Q2) is an old and diverse lineage in Near Oceania, and is reasonably common; within our sample set of 430, 97 are of the Q haplogroup. However, only 8 are Q2, and we report 7 here. The tree with all complete Q genomes is proven to be minimal. The dating estimate for the origin of Q2 (around 35 Kya) reinforces the understanding that humans have been in Near Oceania for tens of thousands of years; nevertheless the Polynesian maternal haplogroups remain distinctive. A major focus now, with regard to Polynesian ancestry, is to address the differences and timing of the ‘Melanesian’ contribution to the maternal and paternal lineages as people moved further and further into Remote Oceania. Input from other fields such as anthropology, history and linguistics is required for a better understanding and interpretation of the genetic data.

Figure 2. Overview of the Q haplogroup.
The dataset has 36 mitochondrial genomes including all eight Q3 sequences, 17 Q1, three Q2 genomes from Friedlaender et al. [28], one from Hudjashov et al. [36],
together with the seven additional Q2a genomes reported here. The
network has been proved the shortest possible (the minimum number of
mutations) by using the techniques in Pierson et al. [40]. Differences in branching between the four equally parsimonious trees occur in the Q3 subgroup.

See also in this blog:

Advertisements
 
82 Comments

Posted by on December 21, 2012 in mtDNA, Oceania

 

82 responses to “Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup Q in Oceania

  1. terryt

    December 21, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    The paper really doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. We have always known that Q was much more ancient in New Guinea/Near Oceania than it was in remote Oceania. And we knew that both Q1 and Q2 had eventually reached Fiji and even the Cook Islands. However this comment: "A major focus now, with regard to Polynesian ancestry, is to address the differences and timing of the ‘Melanesian’ contribution to the maternal and paternal lineages as people moved further and further into Remote Oceania". Shows that the authors are nowhere near as confident as you are that Q moved east with the first wave into Remote Oceania. And this: "Input from other fields such as anthropology, history and linguistics is required for a better understanding and interpretation of the genetic data". I have many times tried to point out that such input in general supports a somewhat later movement of Q. Other interesting titbits in the diagram: Q3 looks to be much more a mainland haplogroup than do the other two. One early branch of Q2 is shown in Australia and an early Q1 is shown in Java. Another branch of Q1 is shown in the Philippines. So we yet again appear to have evidence of movement back across Wallace's Line.

     
  2. Maju

    December 21, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    Certainly I see this mostly as a bit of data: worth mentioning but not particularly striking in any way. I'm glad that you find people with the same ideas as you have. I remain confident however that Melanesian genetics arrived in "the first wave" and that it is Polynesian specifics what represent the second wave (logically). But whatever rocks your boat…

     
  3. terryt

    December 21, 2012 at 11:51 pm

    "Melanesian genetics arrived in "the first wave" and that it is Polynesian specifics what represent the second wave (logically)". It is not logical at all. It doesn't fit the distribution of Pacific Island phenotypes for a start, nor the pattern of Lapita expansion. Under you scenario you have to postualte that Polynesians traveled all the way from Taiwan to New Zealand without interacting with any populations along the way. I admit that is what many Europeans believed until a hundred years ago but it has been well and truly dropped by virtually everyone these days. Except for one or two who also insist that the Phoenicians came here as well.

     
  4. Maju

    December 22, 2012 at 12:28 am

    It is logical and it does fit the pattern of Lapita (which is essentially a Melanesian culture of Oceanic languages, much more diverse than the Micro-Polynesian subfamily also linguistically). "Under you scenario you have to postualte that Polynesians traveled all the way from Taiwan to New Zealand without interacting with any populations along the way".Not at all. From Philippines to Tonga only and not "without interacting" but being more influenced than influential because they were few among many.

     
  5. Joy

    December 22, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    Not to join the argument above, but to mention another factor …With the possible exception of Rapa Nui, no Pacific island was completely isolated either before or after Cook. An elder on Niue told me that historically they had to fend off raiders from Samoa, Tonga, and the Cook islands. As rape and abduction of young women is a common habit in raiders, I suspect that there was a low level of genetic interchange going on in all historical periods. So it is hard to know when and how one example of a haplotype might have arrived on an island.Having said that, obviously there is a strong founder effect on every island, the genes that land with the first canoe on a virgin shore will always predominate.

     
  6. terryt

    December 22, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    "With the possible exception of Rapa Nui, no Pacific island was completely isolated either before or after Cook". Rapa Nui is not actually the only exception. Most of Eastern Polynesia was fairly isolated although occasional storm tossed visitors mat have arrive in New Zealand and Hawaii. And more often in Central Polynesia such as the Cook Islands and Tahiti. Niue was basically part of the Tong/Samoa/Fiji region where we have well documented cases of contact, mostly unfriendly. Tonga gained control of the eastern Fiji islands in fact. "the genes that land with the first canoe on a virgin shore will always predominate". And that indicates that Y-DNA C2 and mt-DNA B4a were first beyond Fiji, and probably first to that group of islands. "It is logical and it does fit the pattern of Lapita (which is essentially a Melanesian culture of Oceanic languages, much more diverse than the Micro-Polynesian subfamily also linguistically)". You are conveniently forgetting that Lapita arrived in the Southern Solomons in the form of 'Late Lapita'. And that is the region of more dominance of Melanesian/New Guinea haplogroups. "From Philippines to Tonga only and not 'without interacting' but being more influenced than influential because they were few among many". You are the only person since about 1950 to believe that.

     
  7. Maju

    December 23, 2012 at 12:00 am

    Of course. That must apply for minor lineages but there are major lineages all around like Y-DNA C2 which are clearly of Melanesian origin. Also in Far Melanesia (which is strongly coincident with the area of Early Lapita, along with some parts of Near Melanesia) the lineages are in most cases of (Near) Melanesian origins, what cannot be attributed to minor recent flow.

     
  8. Maju

    December 23, 2012 at 12:07 am

    "You are conveniently forgetting that Lapita arrived in the Southern Solomons in the form of 'Late Lapita'".Not at all. That area is also high in the Asian-original and Polynesian-akin lineage mtDNA B4a. Even if it's not the "Polynesian motif" in many cases, they are closely related lineages which must have arrived in the same wave (Late Lapita). "And that is the region of more dominance of Melanesian/New Guinea haplogroups". Not at all, at least not in mtDNA which is the strongest in B4a other than Polynesia proper. I do not have data for the Y-DNA of specifically Southern Solomon and considering that we discussed the matter recently and I recycled whatever of value you had to offer, that means that you don't have any such data either (most likely). "You are the only person since about 1950 to believe that". Hahaha!Surely not but I wouldn't care if I was. I do not found my ideas only or mostly on what others may think. Nobody who matters does.

     
  9. terryt

    December 23, 2012 at 1:04 am

    "Surely not but I wouldn't care if I was. I do not found my ideas only or mostly on what others may think. Nobody who matters does". So you're teaming up with all the Eurocentric racists whose beliefs have been thoroughly discredited over the last 50 years then. The idea that the Polynesians represent one of the 'Lost Tribes' of Israel. "like Y-DNA C2 which are clearly of Melanesian origin". If you are prepared to include Wallacea within Melanesia, yes. "Also in Far Melanesia (which is strongly coincident with the area of Early Lapita, along with some parts of Near Melanesia) the lineages are in most cases of (Near) Melanesian origins, what cannot be attributed to minor recent flow. Also in Far Melanesia (which is strongly coincident with the area of Early Lapita, along with some parts of Near Melanesia) the lineages are in most cases of (Near) Melanesian origins, what cannot be attributed to minor recent flow. "Also in Far Melanesia (which is strongly coincident with the area of Early Lapita, along with some parts of Near Melanesia) the lineages are in most cases of (Near) Melanesian origins, what cannot be attributed to minor recent flow". Why can it not be attributed to recent gene flow? That is the conclusion of most who have studied the prehistory of the region. "Even if it's not the 'Polynesian motif' in many cases, they are closely related lineages which must have arrived in the same wave (Late Lapita)". I have tried to explain elsewhere that B4a1a1a was not the only B4a haplogroup to move into the Pacific. In fact it was not the only B haplogroup to move at least some of the way. And the 'Late Lapita' has nothing at all to do with Polynesia. From one of the papers you linked to on the subject the Late Lapita appears to have moved west from Santa Cruz into the Southern Solomons, presumably after Melanesian haplogroups had arrived in at least Santa Cruz.

     
  10. Maju

    December 23, 2012 at 3:04 am

    "So you're teaming up with"…With nobody."… the Polynesians represent one of the 'Lost Tribes' of Israel".My ass!"If you are prepared to include Wallacea within Melanesia, yes".Not the case: C2a is not original from Wallacea, regardless of whatever you consider it it be. C2a is original from Papua and/or nearby islands by the Northeast. Narrow concept Near Melanesia only. Because:1. They are the vast majority of the ancestry (and also there's no indication of genocide).2. Far Melanesians have much more linguistic and cultural diversity than Polynesians. Melanesians in general make up most of the Oceanic language family in terms of diversity: they are the norm, Polynesians are the exception. "I have tried to explain elsewhere that B4a1a1a was not the only B4a haplogroup to move into the Pacific".Why do you have to vindicate your alleged contributions all the time. Focus to the debate at hand and stop being so narcissistic.

     
  11. terryt

    December 23, 2012 at 10:04 pm

    "Far Melanesians have much more linguistic and cultural diversity than Polynesians. Melanesians in general make up most of the Oceanic language family in terms of diversity: they are the norm, Polynesians are the exception". I would have thought it was obvious even to you that the 'Melanesians' who speak Austronesian languages have adopted the languages. They spoke Papuan languages before the Austronesians arrived. The Papuan languages survive through virtually all of New Guinea and parts of the Northern Solomon Islands including New Britain and New Ireland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papuan_languages"Why do you have to vindicate your alleged contributions all the time. Focus to the debate at hand and stop being so narcissistic". If you knew what you were talking about it would be worth carrying on, but obviously you're not prepared to learn a thing.

     
  12. terryt

    December 23, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    It is remotely possible that you will find this interesting. A Master's thesis by a Maori concerning the political aspects of the survival of the language ('te reo Maori'). It presumably has aspects of similarity to the survival of Basque: http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/2463/AnaruN.pdf?sequence=3You can probably guess the meaning of most Maori expressions, but you need to know that 'whakapapa' basically means 'ancestry' or 'pedigree'.

     
  13. terryt

    December 23, 2012 at 11:57 pm

    "With nobody … My ass!" I forgot. last night I glanced through a 1980 book 'The First new Zealanders' by Philip Houghton. To give you some idea of his credentials: http://australianmuseum.net.au/Uploads/Journals/17714/148_complete.pdfhttp://australianmuseum.net.au/Uploads/Journals/17709/144.pdfConcerning the origin of the Polynesians: "Some would trace them, pretty much Polynesians already in physical form, a sea-going people, out of Indonesia, skirting the larger islands of Melanesia, and somehow preserving the purity of their genes in their eastward progress- a remarkable feat". That remarkable feat is basically what you seem to be claiming. The author obviously doesn't accept it as being at all likely. And that bel;ioef is a continuation of the ealier 'Aryan Maori' belief which had Polynesians doing much the same thing but starting from India: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/european-ideas-about-maori/5Again you seem pretty much committed to a very similar belief. Everyone originated in, or at least passed through, India. Back to Joy's comment of a few days ago: "I suspect that there was a low level of genetic interchange going on in all historical periods. So it is hard to know when and how one example of a haplotype might have arrived on an island". Again a quote from the above book: "Even a superficial look at the skeletal form of the prehistoric people of the Polynesian tringale suggests a remarkable sameness, an homogeneity of form through out – allowing that the skeletal record is incomplete and that there is archaeological and linguistic evidence of the penetration of Melanesia into the western fringes of Polynesia." So, 'archaeological and linguistic evidence of the penetration of Melanesia into the western fringes of Polynesia'! What haplogroups could that penetration possibly involve? Or did the 'penetration' leave no genetic trace in the modern haplogroups? I think you know my answer so I won't bother.

     
  14. Maju

    December 24, 2012 at 1:05 am

    "They spoke Papuan languages before the Austronesians arrived".Whatever the exact genesis in what is now Papua-New Guinea, they were already Oceanic speakers when they arrived to Vanuatu, Kanaky and the other remote islands. So they were "the Austronesians who arrived" to Far Melanesia.

     
  15. Maju

    December 24, 2012 at 1:06 am

    Surely interesting but right now I'm trying to close some mostly unnecessary debates with you for the day so I can go to bed with something done.

     
  16. Maju

    December 24, 2012 at 1:11 am

    "… out of Indonesia"…Almost 100% certain that this claim is incorrect: instead of Indonesia it should read Philippines and instead of imagining them as they are now at that stage he should imagine them as regular Filipinos. The Melanesian admixture happened on route. "So, 'archaeological and linguistic evidence of the penetration of Melanesia into the western fringes of Polynesia'!"Vague claims of no precision are irrelevant to me. You read stuff and you give blind credit to everyone but me. Go debate with them.

     
  17. Sakiusa

    December 24, 2012 at 5:39 am

    My mtDNA tests came back as Q2a, since my mother is Fijian. This study is really interesting considering the break off from mtDNA M occurred in the pacific. I guess it's safe to say that Q is genuinely a pacific trait.

     
  18. Maju

    December 24, 2012 at 10:32 am

    Yes, absolutely. It think it was quite obvious from previous materials (cf. "see also" section) but for Q2a specifically this paper is quite explicit. I'm glad that it's of personal use to you.

     
  19. terryt

    December 25, 2012 at 7:58 am

    "I guess it's safe to say that Q is genuinely a pacific trait". Specifically southwest Pacific in origin though. And certainly not at all common beyond Fiji, although Q1 is present as a very small minority in Central and Eastern Polynesia. This is shown in the diagram Maju posted and has been known for some time. Q2a is a subclade of Q2, probably originally from the Bismark archipelago. Q1 is almost certainly originally from the New Guinea mainland. "Almost 100% certain that this claim is incorrect: instead of Indonesia it should read Philippines" Wrong again Maju. It is usually accepted they moved to Halmahera before moving out to the islands north of New Guinea. Halmahera is in Indonesia and is almost certainly where mt-DNA B4a and Y-DNA C2 teamed up. "The Melanesian admixture happened on route". True, although C2 was probably already 'Papuan' in phenotype, so the 'Melanesian' mixture was reasonably strong right from Halmahera although it was added to in regions west of Fiji by other haplogroups such as Q. "Vague claims of no precision are irrelevant to me". You are being idiotic here. They are not 'Vague claims of no precision'. The claim was made by a widely respected worker in the field and by the 1980s the idea was so widely accepted (except by you because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe) that the author didn't even bother to provide any reference for the statement. The rest of the book is peppered with references. Besides which I have in the past provided references which claim exactly the same thing. But as usual you refuse to believe anything that doesn't fit your preconceived belief. Your inability to accept 'archaeological and linguistic evidence of the penetration of Melanesia into the western fringes of Polynesia' is simply a reflection of your inability to accept reality when it rears up and bites you in the behind. "You read stuff and you give blind credit to everyone but me". They have become experts in their field over years of research whereas you have consistently shown an appalling ignorance of the colonisation of the Pacific. And, what's more, have shown absolutely no interest in learning anything about the region. "they were already Oceanic speakers when they arrived to Vanuatu, Kanaky and the other remote islands. So they were 'the Austronesians who arrived' to Far Melanesia". Yes, and then Melanesian people arrived and adopted the languages spoken by the first people to reach Vanuatu and New Caledonia, just as the very few Melanesians who arrived in Fiji adopted Fijian languages.

     
  20. Maju

    December 25, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    The case of Q and other Melanesia-originated mtDNA lineages among Polynesians is like the case of X among Native Americans: there is an patrilineage counterpart which is clearly dominant in each of those groups (Y-DNA Q and C2a respectively) whose origins are the same of zone. However while among proto-Amerindians in Siberia it is relatively easy to understand how the population originally Central Asia (Western affinity) admixed with more and more East Asian women (mostly) of lineages A, B, C and D, as they moved Eastwards. In the case of Polynesians we don't see that possible source pool and we also see strong founder effects among the East Asian (Filipino, early-Austronesian) lineages, both the famous mtDNA B4a one and the less-famous Y-DNA O3, which is the second main patrilineage of Polynesians. So we can only construe that an early Austronesian population of East Asian stock (Filipinos, so to say), let's call them "the seed population", arrived to somewhere Near Melanesia (not Hamalmera that I can discern but rather the islands and coasts of PNG) where they exerted their linguistic influence, "converting" some Melanesian groups to their ethnic identity. These then expanded to Vanuatu, Kanaky and beyond with the Lapita culture. A less admixed (but also admixed, notably with the incorporation of Melanesian male lineage C2a) branch of the "seed population" went all the way to Samoa and Tonga in the Late Lapita phase, from where later they would expand to all Polynesia. We can detect most of the Polynesian founder effects already in Samoa (Tonga also but less similar, so they are clearly related but not the main branch of Polynesian founders, Fidji is more Melanesian in everything because it was colonized with Early Lapita). "They are not 'Vague claims of no precision'. The claim was made by a widely respected worker"…Claims to authority. I mean seriously: data is all I eat. Appeals to God and the Pope will get you nowhere with me. You want me to believe your shit, send me a copy (email me and I'll send you my address). I have read nowhere in papers and articles all published much later than "1980" that there was any second migration after Lapita, rather the opposite. Your "authority" probably confused something. … "and then Melanesian people arrived and adopted the languages spoken by the first people to reach Vanuatu and New Caledonia"…Nonsense! You claim that with zero evidence and is illogical from all aspects: archaeological, genetic and linguistic. You're just a bag full of fables, often with a racist tone to them.

     
  21. terryt

    December 26, 2012 at 2:30 am

    "In the case of Polynesians we don't see that possible source pool" What. You obviously haven't bothered looking. Y-DNA C2 and mt-DNA B4a are well founded in Eastern Indonesia, the region where most accept that the movement into the Pacific originated before reaching the Admiralty Islands. "and the less-famous Y-DNA O3, which is the second main patrilineage of Polynesians". I agree that O3 is prominent in the Austronesian movement east, but it is not the only Y-DNA. "So we can only construe that an early Austronesian population of East Asian stock (Filipinos, so to say), let's call them 'the seed population', arrived to somewhere Near Melanesia (not Hamalmera that I can discern but rather the islands and coasts of PNG)" I with that that so far although I think Halmahera was important and cannot be ignored. "where they exerted their linguistic influence, 'converting' some Melanesian groups to their ethnic identity". Again, I agree. Although this 'seed population' did not linger long in the Admiralty Islands where it developed the Lapita pottery. "These then expanded to Vanuatu, Kanaky and beyond with the Lapita culture". But the first bearers of Lapita eastward were the people who had emerged from Eastern Indonesia. The Melanesian people had not become a major proportion of the eastward movement. That is to some considerable extent shown by the fact that the 'Melanesian' haplogroups tend to be more common on larger islands where they were able to directly transfer their inland culture to the new islands rather than continuing with a coastal culture. "A less admixed (but also admixed, notably with the incorporation of Melanesian male lineage C2a) branch of the 'seed population' went all the way to Samoa and Tonga in the Late Lapita phase" That is the mistake you persist in making. They had reached Samoa and Tonga before the Late Lapita had developed, and the Late Lapita certainly had nothing to do with the migration to those eastern islands. The Late Lapita looks to be mainly a Santa Cruz development and it moved back west into the Southern Solomons. One of the papers you linked to in another blog said exactly that. "Fidji is more Melanesian in everything because it was colonized with Early Lapita" No. Fiji is 'more Melanesian in everything' because of later arrivals from Vanuatu and New Caledonia who had in turn become 'more Melanesian". Surely that is a simple thing to understand. It is certainly widely accepted by everyone involved in the study of Pacific people. It is just your Eurocentric position blinds you to what has actually happened in the Pacific.

     
  22. terryt

    December 26, 2012 at 3:03 am

    "Nonsense! You claim that with zero evidence and is illogical from all aspects: archaeological, genetic and linguistic". Unfortunately for your rant: plenty of evidence. "Claims to authority. I mean seriously: data is all I eat". I have linked numerous times to data that shows exactly what I am saying. It is so widely accepted that even Fiji tourist organisations claim as much, in a somewhat romanticised fashion: http://blog.captaincook.com.fj/fijis-melanesian-polynesian-history/"it’s widely agreed that two distinct races of people, the Melanesian and Polynesian races, first settled Fiji" "Melanesian people came to Fiji from nearby islands, including Vanuatu, New Caledonia and the eastern Solomon Islands". "The Lapita people were the other settlers of Fiji. These people came from an area of New Caledonia where significant deposits of their unique forms of pottery were found. Lapita pottery is defined by the geometric designs that were created by stamping the unfired clay with an implement that can be likened to a tooth, and examples of this pottery have been found in New Guinea and further east in Samoa". "Much evidence suggests that the Lapita people were the first settlers of Fiji and that they came from Southeast Asia via New Guinea and New Caledonia. These people settled on the major islands of Fiji and close to the shorelines of these islands."It is believed that the Melanesian people came to Fiji some time later and settled in the less hospitable and accommodating areas of the islands, located further inland". And Lonely Planet: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/fiji/history"The original inhabitants of Fiji called their home Viti. These were Lapita people, probably from Vanuatu, who arrived about 1220 BC and stayed for only a short while before disappearing from the archaeological record. Their descendants, who became assimilated with people who arrived from Melanesia, were coastal dwellers, who initially relied on fishing and seem to have lived in relative peace. Around 500 BC a shift towards agriculture occurred along with an expansion of population – probably due to further incursions from other parts of Melanesia – that led to an increase in intertribal feuding. Cannibalism became common and in times of war, villages moved to ring-ditched fortified sites. By around AD 1000 Tongan invasions had started and continued sporadically until the arrival of Europeans". Have a look at Navatu pottery, a second movement fom Melanesia into Fiji. I know I'm wasting my time because I have linked to this before: http://archaeology.about.com/od/shthroughsiterms/qt/Sigatoka-Sand-Dunes.htm"The Navatu phase refers to post-Lapita occupations in Fiji, dated between 2100-900 years ago (BP), with cultural characteristics thought to have been influenced by contact with Vanuatu or New Caledonia in central Melanesia". Even Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Fiji"Austronesian peoples are believed to have settled in the Fijian islands some 3,500 years ago, with Melanesians following around a thousand years later." This paper deals primarily with contact between the islands of Fiji but also mentions continuing, although fluctuating, contact with islands further west and east: http://ejournal.anu.edu.au/index.php/bippa/article/viewFile/230/220

     
  23. Maju

    December 26, 2012 at 3:53 am

    No, B4a is not "strong" in Eastern Indonesia: it is almost only an Oceanian phenomenon with limited impact in the Malay area, including Madagascar. Papers that we have already discussed in length determine with great certainty that the origin of B4a for all the Malayo-Polynesian area is in Philippines, probably in Mindanao. C2(xC2a) is irrelevant for our debate, as we have already discussed. Only (or almost only) C2a matters for the Oceanic area and this one is necessarily of Papuan origin. "I agree that O3 is prominent in the Austronesian movement east, but it is not the only Y-DNA". Of course but it is the Y-DNA which must have arrived with mtDNA B4a, incorporating the Melanesian lineage Y-DNA C2a, as well as minor Melanesian mtDNA ones like Q. "Although this 'seed population' did not linger long in the Admiralty Islands where it developed the Lapita pottery". We cannot attribute most of Lapita, certainly not Early Lapita, to this "seed population" but to Melanesians of mostly Oceanic language, whose biological relation with this group was marginal at best. There's not a single hint of connection of Early Lapita with the Polynesians or the mtDNA-related peoples of the Solomons. All the B4a-strong populations (Polynesians and most Solomonians) are related to Late Lapita exclusively. "But the first bearers of Lapita eastward were the people who had emerged from Eastern Indonesia".Lapita has no apparent connection whatsoever with Eastern Indonesia, nor, as far as I can discern, have any peoples of the Oceanic languages area. The Austronesian movement to Wallacea and Western Indonesia is only related at the origin (in Philippines) and it is that double vector of expansion what marks the divergence of Oceanic and Malay. If there were contacts between Wallacea and the Lapita area these were probably late and minor. In all our discussions you have not been able to provide any evidence of a Wallacea-Lapita connection of any sort; you are again just being stubborn out of beliefs and prejudice and not facts nor reason. "That is to some considerable extent shown by the fact that the 'Melanesian' haplogroups tend to be more common on larger islands"…Where a population replacement, as the one you imagine (with no evidence) would be most improbable (large island = large population = near-impervious to genocide). But it's not a matter of size of the islands but of where Lapita culture reached in stage I (most Island Melanesia) and stage II (Solomons and Near Polynesia). It is very simple:Lapita I: Near and Far Melanesia except most of the Solomons: no B4a!Lapita II: Near Polynesia and the Solomons: B4a en masse!So B4a (and hence the proto-Polynesian migration) corresponds not to Lapita I but to Late Lapita only. It can't be any other way unless you invoke a highly disruptive host of imaginary (unfounded, unreal) population movements and removals. "That is the mistake you persist in making. They had reached Samoa and Tonga before the Late Lapita had developed, and the Late Lapita certainly had nothing to do with the migration to those eastern islands". False. We have discussed that before. The colonization of Samoa-Tonga (and almost also Fidji itself) corresponds with Late Lapita. A very late branch reached to Marquesas if my memory is correct but that's not the bulk of Late Lapita but a very late offshoot.

     
  24. Maju

    December 26, 2012 at 3:58 am

    "… plenty of evidence"…Nowhere to be found. Either you begin building your argumentations on facts or I'm going to get very angry at you. I already am in fact. I spend almost every day hours rebuking your almost systematically wrong, unfounded and undocumented nonsense. And you are not paying me enough for that (zero is enough for nothing). "it’s widely agreed"…Go to agree with the dumbs who agree with you… Please! Go…All that is nothing but beliefs. Ideas founded on nothing but fantasy.

     
  25. terryt

    December 26, 2012 at 10:12 am

    My last effort on thi post, but I'm sure you won't agree with the conclusions: http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/publications/Cox_2008_PopulationGeneticsResearchProgress_Chap2_p45.pdf"Nevertheless, the discrete distribution of some mtDNA and Y-chromosome lineages also supports later movements from northern Island Melanesia to at least the Reefs-Santa Cruz group (Friedlaender et al. 2002) and the northern parts of Vanuatu (Cox 2003:140). Melanesian lineages may have dispersed to Fiji at a comparatively late date as well (Campbell 1995:4-5)". "A more parsimonious explanation is that this spread was facilitated by novel Neolithic technologies introduced by Lapita peoples with ultimate Asian ancestry spreading eastward from Island Southeast Asia (Spriggs 1997). If colonists derived from Pleistocene-era populations in Melanesia took part in this population dispersal, the homogeneous material culture of the earliest settlements in Remote Oceania implies that they adopted their new cultural lifestyle quickly. The first settlers crossing into Remote Oceania were probably already partially admixed (for instance, see parallels inDevlin et al. 2001), probably in Island Melanesia rather than further west (Hill and Serjeantson 1989), with subsequent migratory contributions trending eastward in later centuries (Friedlaender et al. 2002, Cox 2003)". "Following the initial settlement of Remote Oceania, there was considerable mobility between the Solomon and Vanuatu Archipelagos and Fiji. Spriggs (1997:154 ff.) presents evidence that these island chains later underwent trade contraction, adopted an ‘inwardlooking’ approach, and demonstrably reduced their mobility near the end of the Lapita period around 2,000 BP. The rapid drop in Melanesian lineage frequencies near Fiji may simply represent an eastward limit to the drift of Melanesian populations at that time. Alternately, this ‘Melanesianisation’ may be relatively recent (Campbell 1995). Only these, or similarly complex scenarios, can account for the high frequency of Melanesian population markers in Vanuatu and Fiji – reaching nearly 100% in some populations eastward of the Near/RemoteOceania boundary (Cox 2003)". "The key point is that genetic profiles from Melanesia to Polynesia do not change particularly abruptly (Figure 5), perhaps due to significant population mobility during later periods. The Near/Remote Oceania division may be an incredibly useful concept for conceptualizing human demographic processes during the Pleistocene (and for explaining the distribution of some terrestrial animals; Austin 1999, Matisoo-Smith and Robins 2004), but it does not adequately reflect human diversity in this region today (Clark 2003b, D’Arcy 2003)".

     
  26. Maju

    December 26, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    So where is the FACT that would make me change my mind. Nothing but opinions. This is the closest they get to a factoid:"The key point is that genetic profiles from Melanesia to Polynesia do not change particularly abruptly (Figure 5)"…In comparison with what? With the changes in Indonesia, where Austronesian human colonization was minimal in most places and where there are some semi-sharp boundaries inside Wallacea and with Papua. Notice that they are talking only Y-DNA. In mtDNA the boundary would be rather abrupt because it's easy to see it in the maps of B4a distribution, which are almost binary. In Y-DNA there is no sharp boundary between Melanesia and Indonesia because C2a (probably measured as C2, or even just C, judging from the reference map fig.4), but that is rather wrong) smoothes it all. If they'd evaluate O3 only they'd see a quite abrupt change. So the key of all is that the primary landscape of Melanesian of Oceanic language, a secondary wave of proto-Polynesians added up, causing major founder effects in Samoa-Tonga (and maybe to some extent in Fiji). However before those founder effects were done, they heavily mixed, mostly by the Y-DNA side, with Melanesians of Oceanic language, what blurrs the picture to the point that some like you cannot see anything anymore (or so it seems).

     
  27. terryt

    December 26, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    I remain to be convinced that you know far more about the subject than do the members of the Hammer Lab in Arizona: http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/people.htmlIn fact I am certain you know far less on the subject of genetics than do undergraduates at the university. "So the key of all is that the primary landscape of Melanesian of Oceanic language, a secondary wave of proto-Polynesians added up, causing major founder effects in Samoa-Tonga (and maybe to some extent in Fiji)". That is complete rubbish. Se if you can find anyone who knows anything about the subject that would agree with you there.

     
  28. terryt

    December 26, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    "If they'd evaluate O3 only they'd see a quite abrupt change". And from that you jump to the conclusion that O3 moved in one massive voyage from the Philippines to Polynesia without stopping along the way: 'a secondary wave of proto-Polynesians added up, causing major founder effects in Samoa-Tonga (and maybe to some extent in Fiji)'. Unfortunately for your belief C2 does much the same. From Ebizur's comments some time back: "Also, I have mentioned before that Papua New Guinea marks the beginning of a zone of infrequent occurrence of C2*-M38(xC2a-M208) that extends eastward through Island Melanesia and Polynesia, with the apparent exception of at least the island of Maewo in Vanuatu. Most extant C2*-M38(xC2a-M208) seems to be confined to eastern Indonesia, including the islands of Wallacea and the western half of New Guinea. However, a comparison of the data sets of Mona et al. (2007) and Scheinfelt et al. (2006) reveals that this is not because C2a-M208 "replaces" C2*-M38 throughout this broad zone; instead, it appears that both C2*-M38 and C2a-M208 are quite rare in Island melanesia (especially the Solomon Islands, including Bougainville), but on the rare occasions when haplogroup C does occur in island Melenesia, it is about equally likely (and in Vanuatu, perhaps even more likely) to belong to C2*-M38 as it is to belong to C2a-M208. C2a-M208 only starts to become notably frequent in the area around Fiji … " So from your perspective C2 should also have moved from Western New Guinea to Fiji in one giant leap while O3 did much the same from the Philippines. Unlikely scenarios in both cases. Surely the distribution of both O3 and C2 in Melanesia fits far more closely the idea that its presence there has been obscured by the later expansion of 'Melanesian' haplogroups. That fits exactly Murray Cox's explanation for the varied presence and absence of steep clines through the Pacific.

     
  29. Maju

    December 27, 2012 at 12:59 am

    I don't even really disagree with Cox: I disagree with your interpretation of his opinions and appeal to them. I agree with him on the data (facts) and disregard, as usual, the opinions issued, sometimes without sufficient meditation around them and which may have changed by now (four years later, after many other materials and corresponding opinions have been published). You are just appealing to authority but there are many authorities here. I just could not care less and will not bother imitating your scholastic style.

     
  30. Maju

    December 27, 2012 at 1:02 am

    NOT "without stopping along the way". They did not make a dent on an already established Melanesian Lapita I population. In fact the dent was made upon them in terms of mostly Y-DNA C2a.

     
  31. terryt

    December 28, 2012 at 8:24 am

    "They did not make a dent on an already established Melanesian Lapita I population" Of course not. The WERE the Lapita I population. Along with C2. "In fact the dent was made upon them in terms of mostly Y-DNA C2a". How do you come to that conclusion? Ebizur stated that C2 in any form is absent through much of the Solomon Islands so if that haplogroup was responsible for the 'dent' in O3 C2 itself has also suffered a dent. And O3 is not entirely absent between the Philippines and Fiji. According to this paper it has been found alnog the Papua New Guinea coast and on the islands to the southeast. Interestingly you can see that O1a2 made it to the Admiralty Islands and to the Papua New Guinea coast and the islands to the southeast: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209021204By the way, concerning your comments about Halmahera. Anyone moving between the Philippines and New Guinea would pass at least as close as two or three metres from Halmahera.

     
  32. terryt

    December 28, 2012 at 8:33 am

    Sorry, I missed this: "the opinions issued, sometimes without sufficient meditation around them and which may have changed by now (four years later, after many other materials and corresponding opinions have been published)". So what, exactly, has changed in the last four years that may lead him to change his conclusions? Surely his main conclusion is that shallow clines develop when there is considerably gene exchange over the boundary and steep clines develop at the front of an advancing population. That conclusion would still hold today and the clines he draws attention to are just as steep or just as gradual as they were four years ago. "You are just appealing to authority but there are many authorities here". OK. See if you can come up with an authority whose conclusions coincide with yours on the matter of Austronesian expansion into the Pacific. There is no shortage of authorities that agree with my interpretation although of course in my case that interpretation has been made from the result of years of reading on the subject by those authorities.

     
  33. Maju

    December 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    Lapita II in Near Polynesia and Solomon may not have been the same thing, at least judging from DNA. More like two phenomenons only linked by chronology, generic cultural frame and B4a. " And O3 is not entirely absent between the Philippines and Fiji. According to this paper it has been found alnog the Papua New Guinea coast and on the islands to the southeast".That is coherent with all I say, more so as it is found in "PNG-Coast/Islands" to the exclusion of Admiralties, Bismark and Boungaville. So they are talking of the Eastern half of the New Guinea landmass, specifically its coasts and nearby islands.However I would not dare to pinpoint any too precise location for the genesis of the proto-Polynesian population because the diverse genetic "ingredients" have greatest affinities with this or that locality in PNG (and sometimes also in West Papua but this one seems redundant) and a founder effect has too much randomness implicit to bother looking for the most similar "origin": none will be (unlike it'd happen if the settlement would have been done from many origins and in many successive waves from the same region, in which case we'd see a strong pattern similitude, as happens with Euro-Americans, etc.)"Anyone moving between the Philippines and New Guinea would pass at least as close as two or three metres from Halmahera". Maybe (they could go via Micronesia also or straight across the open Ocean) but the case is that there is no genetic nor archaeological clue leading to Halmahera in relation with Polynesians or Lapita. It all begins in PNG or at the very least West Papua. So they passed by quite fast… if they did at all.

     
  34. Maju

    December 28, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    "OK. See if you can come up with an authority"…NO! I do not want to appeal to authority. That's intellectually dishonest!

     
  35. terryt

    December 29, 2012 at 12:46 am

    "It all begins in PNG or at the very least West Papua. So they passed by quite fast… if they did at all". So this is my understanding of how you see the history of Melanesia/Lapita. People of Melanesia who had had no contact with SE Asia for thousands of years somehow had adopted a southeast Asian language, had suddenly adopted pottery that shows links to SE Asia, and had suddenly developed a boating technology that enabled them to expand beyond the region of Near Oceania that they had occupied for thousands of years. Remember, all this without any outside contact at all. To me that seems an absolutely stupid stand to take.

     
  36. Maju

    December 29, 2012 at 3:12 am

    Not at all. Obviously there were influences from Philippines and one of them ended being the Polynesian wave. The exact process is difficult to unravel but I don't think discussing with you helps because you are not interested in that, only in imposing your ideas to reality and to my poor tired existence – also it may be nearly impossible because of the the unavoidable founder effects (expansion of small "lucky" lineages) and drift (tendency to erasure of those very lineages where they were just a small minority).

     
  37. terryt

    January 1, 2013 at 4:02 am

    "Obviously there were influences from Philippines and one of them ended being the Polynesian wave". And those influences were quite considerable. For a start no matter what 'molecular-clockology' you use Polynesian mt-DNA B4a1a1a has a deeper origin in Taiwan, followed by the Philippines. Again, independent of any 'molecular-clockology' the Malayo-Polynesian branch of Austronesian is just one of several Austronesian language families in Taiwan. And Lapita is just one of several SE Asian-derived pottery styles in New Guinea and along its coast. That argues in favour of the 'express train model' of eastward Austronesian expansion. "The exact process is difficult to unravel but I don't think discussing with you helps because you are not interested in that" On the contrary I am exactly 'interested in that', the unraveling the strands of the Polynesian expansion. The process is not at all 'difficult to unravel' if you are prepared to abandon a few prejudices. "it may be nearly impossible because of the the unavoidable founder effects" Most of the links I've supplied here state very definitely that there were actually few founder effect events in the movement into the Pacific. To and fro movement led to fairly shallow clines except in one or two places. And those steep clines provide evidence (if you're prepared to accept it as such) of being the advancing front of a recent, even continuing, genetic expansion.

     
  38. Maju

    January 1, 2013 at 5:58 am

    "And those influences were quite considerable".Your own arguments do not support that claim:→ "mt-DNA B4a1a1a"… → B4a in general is not really relevant for Lapita I, being only apparent in relation with Lapita II (Polynesia and Solomons). → "Taiwan"… → doesn't seem to matter at all in the Malayo-Polynesian phase of Austronesian expansion and certainly not in the Polynesian one. Who is "gardening in Eden" now? The Malayo-Polynesian expansion is rooted in Philippines and not at all in Taiwan. The Oceanic expansion is rooted in Philippines and Near Melanesia (each are playing a different yet complementary role to the other's). Taiwan is irrelevant by this stage. "On the contrary I am exactly 'interested in that', the unraveling the strands of the Polynesian expansion. The process is not at all 'difficult to unravel' if you are prepared to abandon a few prejudices". What I read as meaning: I already have my own pre-formatted explanation and I am not interesting in exploring any other possibility. You are not interested in unraveling the details of the process because for you the subtleties of Melanesian appropriation of the Austronesian phenomoenon do not even exist, they are anathema. You need to invent a second wave-cum-genocide (and with no archaeological support) to explain that all the Lapita I area is Melanesian and that all Oceanic branches except Polynesian are spoken by people of dark complexion and kinky hair. You are not interested in reality: only on your pre-fabricated fantasy of irking racist tinges. "Most of the links I've supplied here state very definitely that there were actually few founder effect events in the movement into the Pacific".Polynesian genetics are all a brutal founder effect, reducing genetic diversity to almost one single maternal lineage and two paterna ones. It's even more extreme in that than the OoA or the first settlement of America. Nothing in your links says otherwise because there's no way to close our eyes to that fact. You may want to gouge your eyes out of their sockets by now, as you are so stubbornly entrenched on your pseudo-truth.

     
  39. terryt

    January 2, 2013 at 9:59 pm

    "'mt-DNA B4a1a1a'… → B4a in general is not really relevant for Lapita I, being only apparent in relation with Lapita II (Polynesia and Solomons)". That is complete rubbish Maju. B4a1a1a is the ONLY mt-DNA haplogroup that spreads through the whole lapita region. Given that pottery was introduced to Melanesia from the Philippines it also follows that B4a1a1a is the ONLY mt-DNA haplogroup that is spread along the whole route and, what's more, almost entirly confined to that route. B4a1a1a is almost unknown in the New Guinea mainland and where present is strung out along the northern coastline. Thhe only mt-DNA that comes close to a complete Lapita distribution is M28, and it certainly did not come from further east at any recent period. "→ 'Taiwan'… → doesn't seem to matter at all in the Malayo-Polynesian phase of Austronesian expansion and certainly not in the Polynesian one". Taiwan is obvioulsy very relevant to the deeper origin of Malayo-Polynesians. You may prefer to deny that it is so but you'd have a great deal of difficulty convincing anyone else of such an airy fairy theory. "The Malayo-Polynesian expansion is rooted in Philippines and not at all in Taiwan". But the language has its origin in Taiwan. "What I read as meaning: I already have my own pre-formatted explanation and I am not interesting in exploring any other possibility". I am certainly interested in considering any other possibility but you ideas lack any credence whatsoever. They do not fit all the evidence, and surely ALL the evidence is what we have to consider. "for you the subtleties of Melanesian appropriation of the Austronesian phenomoenon do not even exist, they are anathema". The Melanesians certainly appropriated the Austronesian phenomenon but they didn't invent it. The language, the pre-Lapita pottery and the boating technology were all appropriated by Melanesia populations, and they carried on behind the vanguard of Austronesian expansion. No other explanation that I have seen fits all the evidence. And for you tat appropriation is by no means 'subtle'. You envisage wholesale approriation with almost no contact between Melanesians and Austronesians. I find that extremely difficult to accept. "You need to invent a second wave-cum-genocide" You and your obsession with genocide. It is certainly not necessary to postulate genocide. Merely rapid movement and small founder populations. And the 'second wave' would not post-date the first by any considerable time. THye would have filled up the gaps. "You are not interested in reality: only on your pre-fabricated fantasy of irking racist tinges". Surely it is you who is the 'racist'. You seem to believe that the 'primitive' Melanesians were somehow not able to progress beyond Tonga/Samoa but the 'superior' Polynesians were able to depart from the Pillipines and cover the huge distance to Polynesia with minimal contact with Melanesia. That sounds to me like some 'Lost Tribe' exodus. "Polynesian genetics are all a brutal founder effect, reducing genetic diversity to almost one single maternal lineage and two paterna ones". Not one of the links either of us has provided say any such thing. Back and forward movement of people is the common denominator in all the papers. The reason why we have 'almost one single maternal lineage and two paterna ones' is that they were in the vanguard of the movement and other haplogroups are yet to catch up with them. Of course that means we are looking at an 'original' founder effect somewhere near the admiralty Islands or even further west.

     
  40. Maju

    January 3, 2013 at 3:39 am

    What is rubbish is to claim that " B4a1a1a is the ONLY mt-DNA haplogroup that spreads through the whole lapita region", when in many localities of Lapita I its frequency is zero or quite low. From Friedlaender 2007 (supp. materials):Extremes at New Britain: 0% in Nakanai (Loso) ant Nata, 55% in Kove.Extremes at Boungaville: 0% in Rokotas, 100% in Nagovisi.Vanuatu: 17%New Caledonia: 26%Fiji: 80%(Only Lapita I archipelagos mentioned).Similarly in ISEA the highest frequency of B4a is never above 11% (except Ambon where it reaches to 23%). Only in some localities within the Lapita I area and then in the Lapita II area (Solomons and Polynesia), B4a is dominant in an uniform way. But then the Lapita II area is massively B4a, very especially Polynesia. Hence, even if B4a was present in the early Oceanic expansion (Lapita I), it acquired its dominance among Polynesians (and almost only among them) only because of a founder effect at the root of the Polynesian ethnicity. A secondary but less dramatic founder effect happened in the other Late Lapita area: the Solomons. However there it is not associated to Y-DNA O3 nor C2a, suggesting that it was a different even if loosely related process. Which lineages are important instead of B4a in Lapita I zones? P, Q, M28 and M29 (M27 and E also sometimes). All those lineages, except E, are typical Melanesian but if there are founder effects these are not very marked and must be localized, not affecting the whole Lapita I area but each of its archipelagos or islands if anything. So each local colonization was a different process to some extent. One of them: the one affecting Fiji first and later also Samoa and Tonga seems to have been starred by the proto-Polynesian group. But all the others show little trace of them if at all.

     
  41. Maju

    January 3, 2013 at 4:25 am

    "Taiwan is obvioulsy very relevant to the deeper origin of Malayo-Polynesians".Maybe but only for that. The main pivotal and genetic role in the expansion of Malayo-Polynesians was in Philippines, not Taiwan. Taiwan is just a distraction you throw around and that does not really matter whatever the angle you look at it. "The Melanesians certainly appropriated the Austronesian phenomenon but they didn't invent it".Nor did the Filipinos nor the Malays nor the Indonesians… all them are mostly rooted locally in their genetics, as we have discussed elsewhere. With limited genetic influence from outside they became Austronesian in language and identity. Just because they have epicanthic fold and lighter skin tones does not make any difference. It should not."It is certainly not necessary to postulate genocide".How come? If, as you claim, first there was a population A (Polynesian-like in everything, notably the lineages) and now there is a population B (Melanesian-like in nearly everything), it means that the population A was exterminated or nearly so. That is a genocide. Of course there was no genocide but that's because the population B was the first and only one to arrive (in any significant numbers) to Far Melanesia (before the French pied noirs). "You seem to believe that the 'primitive' Melanesians were somehow not able to progress beyond Tonga/Samoa but the 'superior' Polynesians were able to depart from the Pillipines and cover the huge distance to Polynesia with minimal contact with Melanesia".I rather imagine the following:1. Population A (Y-DNA O3, mtDNA B4a, not too many) arrived from Philippines to the northern coasts/islands of Papua-New Guinea (Trobriand?). They were very influential somehow and many local groups "converted" to their language and customs, at least to some extent. 2. These "convert" locals, population B (Melanesians), were the main force in the Lapita I phenomenon, settling Vanuatu (B1), Solomon (B2) and Fiji (B3). The B4a we see represent women "imported" from pop. A into pop. B (patrilocality) before the expansion in the normal marriage exchange among neighbors in good terms with a similar ethnic identity. 3. An admixed group, A1, sailed from PNG (not Philippines!) to Tonga and Samoa (and maybe as far as the Marquesas) within the context of Lapita II. In the same late chronology, another admixed group A2 partly settled the Solomon (which were inhabited before Lapita) causing curious local founder effects. The remnants of A may still be in the area or have been almost totally erased by integration with the locals by now. The information I have is not complete enough. They left marks in any case because O3 is found in PNG (in Trobriand also another one of your obsessions: lots of Taiwan-like O1a, as well as lots of B4a, so it may be a locality where the A population settled originally). "Not one of the links either of us has provided say any such thing".Are you denying that mtDNA B4a1a1 makes up more than 94% of all Polynesian mtDNA? Or that patrilineages O3 and C2a together also constitute almost 100% of the genetic pool in this population. This implies a very strong founder effect already at Samoa and Tonga. But not elsewhere.

     
  42. Maju

    January 3, 2013 at 4:28 am

    Oops Bougainville was not just misspelled but also belongs to Lapita II, not I.

     
  43. terryt

    January 4, 2013 at 5:27 am

    "Are you denying that mtDNA B4a1a1 makes up more than 94% of all Polynesian mtDNA? Or that patrilineages O3 and C2a together also constitute almost 100% of the genetic pool in this population. This implies a very strong founder effect already at Samoa and Tonga. But not elsewhere". Of course not. But 'founder effect is certainly not the only possible explanation. As for supposed founder effect: "Hence, even if B4a was present in the early Oceanic expansion (Lapita I), it acquired its dominance among Polynesians (and almost only among them) only because of a founder effect at the root of the Polynesian ethnicity". No Maju. Completely wrong. That B4a's expansion into the Pacific did not involve significant 'founder effects' is demonstrated by the fact that although B4a1a1a is the most common B4a haplogroup in Polynesia it is by no means the only one. Members of B4a(xB4a1a1a) made it to central Polynesia and B4a1a1(xB4a1a1a) even made it to the region most likely to exhibit founder effect: New Zealand. "3. An admixed group, A1, sailed from PNG (not Philippines!) to Tonga and Samoa (and maybe as far as the Marquesas) within the context of Lapita II". No Maju. Completely wrong again. That the major portion of B4a's expansion from the Philippines was relatively recent, and rapid, is demonstrated by the fact that it must have left island SE Asia (well west of Melanesia) shortly after B4a1a1a had coalesced, not before. B4a1a1a2 has been found only on Madagascar and almost certainly coalesced in that region during the last two thousand years at most, and B4a1a1a3 has been found only on Polynesia and almost certainly coalesced in the last two thousand years. Other B4a1a haplogroups are confined to Taiwan and the Philippines along with nearby people such as the Yami and Ivatan. So B4a1a1a must have expanded from the Philippines and reached both geographic extremes shortly before either subclade coalesced. "1. Population A (Y-DNA O3, mtDNA B4a, not too many) arrived from Philippines to the northern coasts/islands of Papua-New Guinea (Trobriand?). They were very influential somehow and many local groups 'converted' to their language and customs, at least to some extent". So influential were they that B4a1a1 can basically be used as a marker for Austronesian languages in the Pacific. Some Austronesian languages have spread beyong B4a1a1a's distribution of course. Language is not defined by haplogroup. "2. These 'convert' locals, population B (Melanesians), were the main force in the Lapita I phenomenon, settling Vanuatu (B1), Solomon (B2) and Fiji (B3). The B4a we see represent women 'imported' from pop. A into pop. B (patrilocality) before the expansion in the normal marriage exchange among neighbors in good terms with a similar ethnic identity". Doesn't make sense. So why didn't they take their own women with them? Surely if they had done so B4a would have remained a minority haplogroup and been the first to drift out. Surely B4a is the main component of the eastward movement.

     
  44. terryt

    January 4, 2013 at 5:28 am

    "Which lineages are important instead of B4a in Lapita I zones? P, Q, M28 and M29 (M27 and E also sometimes)". Not one of those lineages is present in ALL Lapita regions. P1 is unknown in the Near Oceania region of the Solomon Islands, P2 is unknown in either Santa Cruz or Vanuatu, Q1 is unknown in either Vanuatu or New Caledonia, Q2 is unknown in Bougainville, M28 is unknown on the Admiralty Islands, M29 is unknown in Santa Cruz. M27 is unknown in either Vanuatu or New Caledonia and E made it no further east than Bougainville. Not one of them can be used as a marker for the Lapita expansion, whether lapita I or II. And you even go so far as admitting such: 'but if there are founder effects these are not very marked and must be localized, not affecting the whole Lapita I area but each of its archipelagos or islands if anything'. And certainly none of the above haplogroups speak exclusively austronesian languages. "Extremes at New Britain: 0% in Nakanai (Loso) ant Nata, 55% in Kove.Extremes at Boungaville: 0% in Rokotas, 100% in Nagovisi". That is so irelevant to the question that it is hardly worth replying to. However it is obvious you do not understand the situation. Even in New Britain and Bougainville the Lapita was largely confined to the coast. B4a1a1a is reasonably common in other parts of both islands. And both islands contain people who speak non-Austronesian languages. "Only in some localities within the Lapita I area and then in the Lapita II area (Solomons and Polynesia), B4a is dominant in an uniform way". Why on earth would you expect it still to be 'dominant in an uniform way'? People come and go, and surely you don't expect that the first haplogroups into Europe would still be 'dominant in an uniform way'. "How come? If, as you claim, first there was a population A (Polynesian-like in everything, notably the lineages) and now there is a population B (Melanesian-like in nearly everything), it means that the population A was exterminated or nearly so. That is a genocide". Most definitely it does not imply genocide, as I keep trying to point out. Just because some haplogroup is first into a region it does not necessarily remain so. Y-DNA I has certainly not remained dominant in Europe for example. And genocide is exactly what your explanation for the Austronesian expansion requires: selective genocide of haplogroups. This explanation makes no sense at all: "So each local colonization was a different process to some extent. One of them: the one affecting Fiji first and later also Samoa and Tonga seems to have been starred by the proto-Polynesian group. But all the others show little trace of them if at all". So you're claiming a single migration from Taiwan to Fiji for B4a1a1a, which brought an Austronesian language with it. How on earth do you propose the Melanesian people who had carried Lapita I had been persuaded to adopt Austronesian languages in the first place? "A secondary but less dramatic founder effect happened in the other Late Lapita area: the Solomons. However there it is not associated to Y-DNA O3 nor C2a, suggesting that it was a different even if loosely related process". Or more likely: didn't happen at all.

     
  45. Maju

    January 4, 2013 at 6:18 am

    That is still a founder effect. If we look at the source populations, be it in Philippines or Near Melanesia (or anywhere else you wish to imagine), we do not see anything even close to those frequencies of B4a and we see instead a much greater diversity of haplogroups, both male and female. "That the major portion of B4a's expansion from the Philippines was relatively recent, and rapid"…Actually, Lapita was not that "rapid": it took many centuries, what, as the examples of modern European colonialism (among many others) show, give room for many particular cases and for many sequential stages. There's simply no reason to demand uniformity, much less when what we see, before the Polynesian founder effect, is the opposite in fact: lots of diversity and local particularities. "So why didn't they take their own women with them?"They actually did but they were already admixed (patrilocal admixture), so some of them were B4a. And it was mostly slightly admixed Melanesian populations the ones which had incorporated into their cultural baggage the Austronesian languages and the mariner adventurerism (and tech surely) typical of Austronesian culture. "Surely if they had done so B4a would have remained a minority haplogroup and been the first to drift out".There was never room for much drift as the B-derived populations were always relatively large: they do preserve much of the diversity they surely had upon arrival, not just B4a but also all the other Melanesian lineages with only minor signals of (weak) founder effect caprice.

     
  46. Maju

    January 4, 2013 at 6:39 am

    "Not one of those lineages is present in ALL Lapita regions".So? They are in general and it all depends on how nit-picky you get. If I get nit-picky I can also claim that B4a is not present in ALL Lapita area samples (some have 0% in fact). "P1 is unknown in the Near Oceania region of the Solomon Islands".Which incidentally is out of Lapita I. So P1 is strongly associated to Lapita I – check!"Q2 is unknown in Bougainville"Also out of Lapita I. Hence Q2, which is what Sakiusa inquired about many comments ago, is strongly associated with Lapita I as well – check! "M28 is unknown on the Admiralty Islands, M29 is unknown in Santa Cruz".Very small specific localities. I gather that therefore M28 and M29 are also strongly associated with Lapita I at least – check!"Not one of them can be used as a marker for the Lapita expansion, whether lapita I or II"…I actually read the opposite from the very same observations you just made. Some subclades of P, Q, M28 and M29 are strongly associated with Lapita I, and in some cases also with Lapita II or either subregional part of it (Solomon or Polynesia)."Just because some haplogroup is first into a region it does not necessarily remain so". Replacement as the one you suggest implies genocide. For example B4a people were first to Aotearoa, what you call New Zealand, but now they are minority. And we know that was because of a genocide, even if "unfinished". I'm not sure if the term "genocide" is mainstream or not over there but it's for real and not questionable. Slow-drip replacement theories are nonsense (the "infiltrators" are drifted out and never really accumulate, much less in enough numbers for replacement). Of course in some rare cases the original population may die out because of a supervolcano or extreme epidemics (and some external help) but that's essentially the same thing even if it was not intentional. "How on earth do you propose the Melanesian people who had carried Lapita I had been persuaded to adopt Austronesian languages in the first place?"I don't have answers for everything (I wish!) but the fact is that they did. That was probably before Lapita I, I presume. I can only imagine that some technological (and maybe also cultural?) advantages helped but can't say exactly how. "Or more likely: didn't happen at all".Then how do you explain the very common B4a in the Solomons precisely? It needs a colonization of some sort and that one was related to Lapita II: a process parallel but distinct from the Polynesian early one.

     
  47. terryt

    January 4, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    "That is still a founder effect. If we look at the source populations, be it in Philippines or Near Melanesia (or anywhere else you wish to imagine), we do not see anything even close to those frequencies of B4a and we see instead a much greater diversity of haplogroups, both male and female". Why on earth would present frequency have anything at all to do with founder effect? Anyway, lets consider for a moment that you are correct. Remember that Remote Oceania was completely uninhabited until the lapita/Austronesians arrived. Andwe are reasonably sure of the order in which the islands were settled. So if your theory is correct we should find that haplogroups in Remote Oceania are a subset of Santa Cruz haplogroups. Vanuatu in fact does have four of the six Santa Cruz haplogroups: B4a1a1a, P1, Q2 and M27. Vanuatu and New Caledonia both lack Santa Cruz haplogroups P4a and Q1. Founder effect or genocide? But Q1 reappears in Fiji so genocide in Vanuatu and New Caledonia seems the more likely explanation in this case. P4a is not present elsewhere in Melanesia but is a mainland New Guinea haplogroup. And both Vanuatu and New Caledonia seem somehow to have picked up M29. Perhaps M29 suffered genocide on Santa Cruz. So we're left with just four possible haplogroups that entered Santa Cruz to eventually reach Polynesia: B4a1a1a, obviously, and P1, Q2 and M28. All four of these haplogroups have been found all along the route between Santa Cruz and Fiji. Where is this founder effect you're consistently on about? It has completely dissappeared. No evidence for any sort of founder effect during the movement from Near Oceania to Fiji. Furthermore in New Caledonia we find M29, P2 and M27 as well as the four Santa Cruz/Lapita haplogroups. Genocide again? Fiji actually looks to have elements from from both New caledonia in the south and Vanuatu in the north, not just a subset of Santa Cruz haplogroups. The real situation in Remote Oceania is far more complicated than a simle series of founder effects followed by a huge expansion of B4a1a1a.

     
  48. terryt

    January 4, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    "Actually, Lapita was not that 'rapid': it took many centuries" By 'rapid' I did not mean 'instant'. "They actually did but they were already admixed (patrilocal admixture), so some of them were B4a". 'Some of them were B4a'? How do you possibly explain how that haplogroup came to dominate so much of the region, including the long-occupied Solomon Islands? It doesn't make sense. "mostly slightly admixed Melanesian populations" Yes: 'slightly admixed'. In fact very slightly admixed. "the ones which had incorporated into their cultural baggage the Austronesian languages and the mariner adventurerism (and tech surely) typical of Austronesian culture". Yes. In fact fundamentally the same population that had originally brought in 'the Austronesian languages and the mariner adventurerism (and tech surely) typical of Austronesian culture' from outside. Most of the admixture occurred after this population had moved past. "There was never room for much drift as the B-derived populations were always relatively large" Yes. Once they had arrived from the Philippines they primarily occupied the peviously uninhabited offshore islands, and expanded from those. "they do preserve much of the diversity they surely had upon arrival, not just B4a but also all the other Melanesian lineages with only minor signals of (weak) founder effect caprice". Now you're beginning to talk sense, except that the 'Melanesian lineages' didn't arrive with them. They were confined to the larger islands, many of which preserve the pre-Austronesian Papuan languages. "If I get nit-picky I can also claim that B4a is not present in ALL Lapita area samples (some have 0% in fact)". No Lapita area has 0% B4a1a1a. Some regions that were very marginal for the presence of Lapita lack the haplogroup and those regions maintain the pre-existing non-Austronesian languages. "Which incidentally is out of Lapita I. So P1 is strongly associated to Lapita I – check!" Don't get too carried away here Maju. How much Lapita I was present in the new Guinea mainland where P1 is particularly common? "Also out of Lapita I. Hence Q2, which is what Sakiusa inquired about many comments ago, is strongly associated with Lapita I as well – check!" I thought you have always maintained that Bougainville was Lapita I. No Q2. "I gather that therefore M28 and M29 are also strongly associated with Lapita I at least – check!" Primarily from the Bismarks so they were probably very early followers of Lapita I. But as I mentioned above M29 is not found on Santa Cruz so must have suffered genocide there.

     
  49. terryt

    January 4, 2013 at 10:08 pm

    "Replacement as the one you suggest implies genocide". I have not suggested 'replacement' in any region at all. 'Addition' is what I suggest. "For example B4a people were first to Aotearoa, what you call New Zealand, but now they are minority. And we know that was because of a genocide, even if 'unfinished'". That is nothing like anything that happened in pre-European times. Perhaps small groups on small islands were wiped out, as happened in New Zealand. But to wipe out a whole haplogroup was extremely unlikely. "I'm not sure if the term 'genocide' is mainstream or not over there but it's for real and not questionable". Used often, but the term 'holocaust' is frowned upon. Seems only one group is allowed to use that term. "I don't have answers for everything (I wish!) but the fact is that they did". No Maju. The fact is that they didn't. "I can only imagine that some technological (and maybe also cultural?) advantages helped but can't say exactly how". You're sort of on the right track here. But a language will only be picked up if it is advantageous to the population picking it up. I agree that both technology and language were picked up by Melanesian people but that was only after extensive contact with an incoming population that had brought those elements into the region. And even overshot and largely bypassed that Melanesian population. "Then how do you explain the very common B4a in the Solomons precisely? It needs a colonization of some sort and that one was related to Lapita II: a process parallel but distinct from the Polynesian early one". That recently-arrived Lapita/Ausronesian population came to predominate in a population that began to be more mobile between the various islands of the Solomons. It seems most likely that most of the Solomon Islands were sparsely inhabited until the arrival of more sea-based economies. Without such exploitation the islands are unable to supoport a large population.

     
  50. Maju

    January 4, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    "Why on earth would present frequency have anything at all to do with founder effect?"Why else?! If in source population you have, say, lineages A, B, C and D and in destiny population you only or almost only find A, that's because the founders were all carriers of that lineage and that is called "founder effect". Look it up in Wikipedia, Google or wherever you wish. "Vanuatu in fact does have four of the six Santa Cruz haplogroups: B4a1a1a, P1, Q2 and M27. Vanuatu and New Caledonia both lack Santa Cruz haplogroups P4a and Q1. Founder effect or genocide?"Isn't Santa Cruz part of the Solomons and therefore part of Lapita II, while Vanuatu and Kanaky are of Lapita I? What are you talking about? Why would you imagine that the settlers of Vanuatu or Kanaky (NC) originated in Solomon and not in PNG?"But Q1 reappears in Fiji"Different founder effect. You are all the time assuming that Fiji was founded FROM Kanaky, for example, but that does not need to be the case, even if Fiji was settled AFTER Kanaky (and even if the founders stopped at Kanaky for some time). It's like assuming that Mexico (or even the USA) was settled (by Europeans or Mestizos) from Cuba and Hispaniola, just because these islands were settled first. In fact most settlers arrived directly or almost directly from Europe. Did your ancestors arrive from Australia or Singapore or did they just made it all the way from Ireland or Britain, even if they probably stopped at some of these landmasses on route? The latter, right? Same for Oceanic peoples, mutatis mutandi.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: