[naruwan]

It's been pretty well established through liguistics and cultural anthropology that modern Polynesians, including Hawai'ians, are related to the various aboriginal tribes of Formosa. But until recently, genetic evidence had yet to be gathered. Jean Trejaut and Marie Lin, of Mackay Memorial Hospital in Taipei, have taken on the task, and report their findings in Public Library of Science Biology. From the synopsis:

Quote

Taken together, these results suggest that Taiwanese aboriginal populations have genetically been isolated from mainland Chinese for 10,000 to 20,000 years, though the whereabouts of their origin in the Asian region is still unclear. Additionally, these results demonstrate that Polynesian migration most likely originated from people identical to the aboriginal Taiwanese. These findings provide the first direct evidence for the common ancestry of Polynesians and indigenous Taiwanese, and suggest that Taiwan genetically belongs to that region of insular Southeast Asia that might have been the point from where Polynesians started their migration across the Pacific, followed by later cultures that developed from their descendents in east Indonesia and Melanesia. Further research will be necessary to accurately determine the origins of the aboriginal Taiwanese; however, these results are a step towards clarifying the origins of Polynesians.

That's a lot less unwieldly than the highly technical language of the report's authors in its conclusion:

Quote

Taiwanese aboriginal populations share their maternal ancestry with populations of mainland East Asia through haplogroups B, R9, and M7 as their main genetic components. At the same time the haplogroup structure at a finer phylogenetic resolution suggests relatively long-term isolation from the mainland populations. The coalescence times of B4a1a, F3b, F4b, R9c, and M7c1c lineages point to founder effects in Taiwan ranging from recent (0–2,000 years) to more ancient times (7,000–20,000 years). These results most likely reflect the drift in small endogamous populations of the island that became isolated by the rising sea levels after the last Ice Age.

The time element (13.2 ± 3.8 thousand years to the MRCA) obtained from the phylogenetic reconstruction of complete B4a1a sequences requires that we adopt a model according to which the origin of Austronesian migration can be traced back to Taiwan, and allows for the notion that it was followed by interaction periods elsewhere in Indonesia and finally in Melanesia where the complete motif specific to Polynesian B4a1a1 sequences (Polynesian motif) was developed.

As The Economist puts it:

Quote

In a study involving 640 people from nine Taiwanese tribes, Dr Trejaut and Dr Lin found three mutations shared by Taiwanese, Polynesians and Melanesians (who also speak Austronesian) which are not found in other Asians. So the mystery seems to have been solved at last. Where the Taiwanese came from, though, is a different question again.

[Gubook Janggoon]

That's pretty cool.

So are they saying that people in the Pacific were originally from Taiwan?

[naruwan]

Gubook Janggoon, on Aug 10 2005, 10:16 PM, said:

That's pretty cool.

So are they saying that people in the Pacific were originally from Taiwan?

Yes. In fact it has long been suggested that the Austronesians had origins from Taiwan with evidence from linguistics.

But now there are further proof. Genetics. Now it's pretty much set in stones.

[qrasy]

It says: 'Traces of Archaic Mitochondrial Lineages Persist in Austronesian-Speaking Formosan Populations' and it proves that Taiwanese Aborigines are closest to early Austronesians (also in the Linguistic trees), but does not convince that the place of origin was in Taiwan. (e.g. the scenario that they moved to Taiwan and undergo much smaller changes/mutations)
Yeah, by the way it says

Quote

these results suggest that Taiwanese aboriginal populations have genetically been isolated from mainland Chinese for 10,000 to 20,000 years, though the whereabouts of their origin in the Asian region is still unclear.

This post has been edited by qrasy: 11 August 2005 - 04:21 AM

[tadamson]

It's difficult to explain cause and effect from either Genetic or Linguistic studies. But both can give good evidence of links. It's always worth remembering htat such studies only prove links.

rgds.

Tom..

Remember Humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps, and 82% with carrots !

[naruwan]

qrasy, on Aug 11 2005, 02:20 AM, said:

It says: 'Traces of Archaic Mitochondrial Lineages Persist in Austronesian-Speaking Formosan Populations' and it proves that Taiwanese Aborigines are closest to early Austronesians (also in the Linguistic trees), but does not convince that the place of origin was in Taiwan. (e.g. the scenario that they moved to Taiwan and undergo much smaller changes/mutations)
Yeah, by the way it says

It is in fact this finding: "Taiwanese aboriginal populations have genetically been isolated from mainland Chinese for 10,000 to 20,000 years" that points Taiwan to the origins of Austronesians.

Of course you can say "but people from Taiwan came from somewhere".

However when they have been isolated for 10,000 to 20,000 years before they spread out to the pacific islands, makes they unique to Taiwan.

If one really want to simplify things, one may just slab a huge "ALL PEOPLE ARE FROM AFRICA" tape on these kind of topics and say the end.

[Gubook Janggoon]

I wonder what suddenly made them spread out like that.

[naruwan]

Gubook Janggoon, on Aug 11 2005, 10:52 AM, said:

I wonder what suddenly made them spread out like that.

Perhaps researching myths in Austronesia could help.

But here is a few reasons that could make people run out of Taiwan:

1. Typhoon
2. Earth Quake
3. Vocano erruption
4. Tsunami

or ALL TOGETHER....

In fact I was reading about Polynesians, and they said about every 300 years, a new island would be migrated to.

But Taiwan was pretty crowed for hunter and gatherer life style. The Pingpu flatland aboriginals had all the western planes while aboriginals occupied the mountains and the eastern planes.

so it is not surprising they would movie out.

Especially on the south eastern planes, where a tradition of sailing to the Philippines was only stopped after the Dutch arrived.

[Sephodwyrm]

Native Taiwanese now account for less than 5% of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan
The other 2 percent of Taiwan's population, numbering about 440,000, are the indigenous people, divided into 11 major groups: Ami, Atayal, Paiwan, Bunun, Puyuma, Rukai, Tsou, Saisiyat, Yami, Thao and Kavalan.

[naruwan]

Sephodwyrm, on Aug 11 2005, 05:15 PM, said:

Native Taiwanese now account for less than 5% of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan
The other 2 percent of Taiwan's population, numbering about 440,000, are the indigenous people, divided into 11 major groups: Ami, Atayal, Paiwan, Bunun, Puyuma, Rukai, Tsou, Saisiyat, Yami, Thao and Kavalan.

Your point is?

Stop rechew that information.

That is the "POLITICAL" definition of aboriginals.

80% of Taiwanese are aboriginals by ethnicity.

Probably even less than 5% if you are talking about culturally, which is a result of political and social opression.

Come to think of it. If only the people practicing the aboriginal traditions, i.e. wearing traditional clothing, hunting, live in the tribe can be counted as aboriginals. Aren't most Chinese not Chinese either?

[Sephodwyrm]

Erm Erm...(brain explodes)

(brain reforms again)
So what's your point in rebuffing Wiki? If you have a complaint go to Wiki and talk about it.

[qrasy]

naruwan, on Aug 12 2005, 12:44 AM, said:

It is in fact this finding: "Taiwanese aboriginal populations have genetically been isolated from mainland Chinese for 10,000 to 20,000 years" that points Taiwan to the origins of Austronesians.

Of course you can say "but people from Taiwan came from somewhere".

However when they have been isolated for 10,000 to 20,000 years before they spread out to the pacific islands, makes they unique to Taiwan.

If Austronesian divergence of language were not as old as 10000 years, it would be Taiwan as the point of spread.

Quote

If one really want to simplify things, one may just slab a huge "ALL PEOPLE ARE FROM AFRICA" tape on these kind of topics and say the end.

No. We are talking about Austronesian, not human in general.

naruwan, on Aug 12 2005, 08:08 AM, said:

80% of Taiwanese are aboriginals by ethnicity.

How do you arrive in this number? Since 80% are aboriginal descendant?
If it's your definition of 'ethnicity', no wonder 100% of Human are Aficans by 'ethnicity'.

Quote

Probably even less than 5% if you are talking about culturally, which is a result of political and social opression.

Come to think of it.  If only the people practicing the aboriginal traditions, i.e. wearing traditional clothing, hunting, live in the tribe can be counted as aboriginals.  Aren't most Chinese not Chinese either?

You mean 'Not Chinese' because of they are not wearing Chinese clothes? How do you think about Indonesians and other SouthEast Asians?

This post has been edited by qrasy: 12 August 2005 - 12:47 AM

[naruwan]

qrasy, on Aug 11 2005, 10:41 PM, said:

If Austronesian divergence of language were not as old as 10000 years, it would be Taiwan as the point of spread.

What's wrong with looking at genetic divergence? It's much more concrete.

qrasy, on Aug 11 2005, 10:41 PM, said:

No. We are talking about Austronesian, not human in general.

Just giving you an example of over simplification. Which will make this topic pretty pointless.

qrasy, on Aug 11 2005, 10:41 PM, said:

How do you arrive in this number? Since 80% are aboriginal descendant?
If it's your definition of 'ethnicity', no wonder 100% of Human are Aficans by 'ethnicity'.

It's another genetic study. Which has been discussed many times. Go look are "About Taiwan" thread started by hansioux. In fact the correct figure is 88% of the "Ethnic Early Immigrants" are Pingpu aboriginals. They were either similated into Han culture under social pressure, or were decendents of Han and Aboriginal marrige.

qrasy, on Aug 11 2005, 10:41 PM, said:

You mean 'Not Chinese' because of they are not wearing Chinese clothes? How do you think about Indonesians and other SouthEast Asians?

My point to show how ridiculous it is to erase an ethenicity just because they are not living with traditions that people associate them with.

For example if no one wears Native American clothes or speak Native American languages, does that mean there are no more Native Americans?

Taiwanese Pingpu Aboriginals are still Aboriginals, even if they lost their customs and languages.

[naruwan]

Sephodwyrm, on Aug 11 2005, 07:08 PM, said:

Erm Erm...(brain explodes)

(brain reforms again)
So what's your point in rebuffing Wiki? If you have a complaint go to Wiki and talk about it.

Actually my complaint is that we (as in you and my Seph *heart*) have to go over this same subject everytime the topic of Taiwan ethnicity arise. And everytime you would paste the same thing from wiki again and again.

This post has been edited by naruwan: 12 August 2005 - 01:37 AM

[qrasy]

naruwan, on Aug 12 2005, 01:32 PM, said:

What's wrong with looking at genetic divergence? It's much more concrete.

Although genes of a man will not change during life, genetic components of an ethnic are always changing gradually (genetic transmissions to offspring). Surely you must take a timeline to measure, otherwise what you measure is not only Austronesian, but other related ethnics (e.g. Cambodian). The timeline may be approximated by linguistic method.

Quote

It's another genetic study.  Which has been discussed many times.  Go look are "About Taiwan" thread started by hansioux.  In fact the correct figure is 88% of the "Ethnic Early Immigrants" are Pingpu aboriginals.  They were either similated into Han culture under social pressure, or were decendents of Han and Aboriginal marrige.

You meant this: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...topic=2004&st=0
This thread is already closed. You may continue to discuss it here. About genetics/populations we should look for rudeboy, but anyway I'll just try to discuss with my present knowledge.

Quote

My point to show how ridiculous it is to erase an ethenicity just because they are not living with traditions that people associate them with.

For example if no one wears Native American clothes or speak Native American languages, does that mean there are no more Native Americans?

Taiwanese Pingpu Aboriginals are still Aboriginals, even if they lost their customs and languages.

Of those aboriginal tribes, which ones are Pingpu tribes?
How would you count which Taiwanese is Pingpu and which is Han?
Would you treat 1/4-Taiwanese aboriginal as full Taiwanese aboriginals? (if you take the recent DNA test as in by hoklo.org, it's no more than 1/4 in those 88% of Taiwanese Han population)

This post has been edited by qrasy: 12 August 2005 - 02:15 AM