Jump to content


Photo

Malay Origins


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 世中豪杰

世中豪杰

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 89 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boon Lay
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 21 September 2008 - 10:40 PM

I have received some ramdom email from my friend & i am but curious of how accurate the statement in the email is.
frankly to speak i am not too convience myself & i feel that 3 months time is too short to come to an conclusion.
Care to share on your views on how accurate the article is?

the email is the copy & paste from the email that i have received

================================================================================
===========
Friends,
After spending 3 months in Indonesia studying the origins of the Malay race, Michael

Chick finds there is no such race except that which UMNO propagates for its own

political and financial gains. An Astronesian race, yes but Malay race, no.

________________________________________________________________

Who are the Malays? And how to unite them

Posted by Vineeth Menon

Sunday, 03 August 2008 15:51

It is time to define who the "malays" really are and to correctly define them. To begin with, let us look at the subject of "Race". Since Hitler's Days of propagating the "Superiority" of the Aryan Race, many have scorned from the very mention of the very word "race" itself. However, certain Malaysian Political Parties still seems to relish in its' very notion of separation. Strangely, they go all out to "Divide and Rule". Uniting one race in particular, but not the rest of the country. And they spend lots of time, money and effort to this redundant and lost cause.

Anthropology defines only 5 Races in the World (use your favorite search engine). The Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids, The Dravidic, and the Austronesians. Any other species is merely a combination of the above 5 main groupings. Geographically, Malaysia falls within the Austronesian Category.


Brown skinned people, residing in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Polynesian Islands, Tahiti, Hawaii and so forth. In fact, it is next to impossible to differentiate the Austronesian People, regardless of the country they come from. However, if there is a certain distinctive physical facial feature, which identifies anyone from any locality, it is usually a case of the gene pool not coming from a wide enough resource. Put bluntly, Incest, or Inbreeding (as Mahathir so aptly put it, in the greater sense of the definition, in his book, "The Malay Delima"). Inter-marrying from within the community. However, some still believe that it is essential that cousins should marry each other to protect the "Blue-Blood", and/ or to prevent family property from ever leaving the clan. This unfortunately is in stark contrast to the Mongoloid practice where two people with even the same family names are prohibited from marrying.

In fact, once you remove the nationalities from the Austronesians, you will find a vast interesting and diverse group of people. From the many ornate costumes, to the vast number of religions and cultural practices. The very essence of the Austronesian Culture is bound to intoxicate every observer. One other category, which seems to confuse the issue is the existence of whom locals call the "Orang Asli". Technically known as "Australo Melanesians", they are the direct descendants of the East Africans who migrated out of Laetoli, Africa circa 60,000 years ago. You will also find it impossible to distinguish between an Australian Aborigine, The Malaysian Negrito, or the Philippine Aeta with the Papuan Tribes.


So you now have two distinct groups. The first to arrive here are the Australo Melanesians, circa 60,000 years ago, and then you have the Austronesians (from Yunan), who arrived in Malaysia circa 3,000 years ago. Cross-Breeding between the two results in a "new" category called the Polynesians. "Poly" meaning "many", thus accurately describing the many "...sians" which have inter-bred. Caucasians with Austronesians, Australo-Melanesians with Austronesians and so on so forth. For an accurate understudy of Anthropology, country borders are irrelevant, and only serve to create severe delusions of the facts.

As the Austronesian Clusters are so diverse, many individual traits start to form in a localized manner. For the sake of individual Nationalism Spirit, many have mutated from its original form. Others, such as costumes and such have taken on slightly different materials depending on what was locally available to them, and was duly influenced by the spice tradesmen of the West who brought new materials. However, they all have their roots in animism, which is still seen in all of greater Polynesia.

As such, their religions are equally as diverse. True to form, most Austronesian Cultures have still retained many traits during their animistic days. Hinduism also has played an extremely large role in defining rituals, and is most obvious in local Austronesian Wedding Customs. The concept of Sultan and Maharaja (Raja in short) is also of Hindu origins. The Sultan is equivalent to the "Son of Heaven" concept of China. Therefore, "Duli Yang Maha Mulia" (He who is of Supreme Nobility). So is the double-handed praying-gesture when addressing someone of importance, or when addressing the King/ Sultan. The local bomoh will attest to a combination of animistic, and pagan practices with Islam. Frowned by authorities, but still permitted to practice; with or without a license. Exorcisms, prediction of lottery numbers, healing the sick are among the many many functions and duties of the local Bomoh. He is also often seen to grace important venues, holding back the rain, or invited to special occasions and functions; sometimes, by the very people who scorn his pagan "superior powers".

While it is true that a large number of Asutronesians are of the Muslim faith (but not in the greater Polynesia), it is also important to note, that (in South East Asia) the majority of them converted en-masse during the late 19th Century just prior to the Krakatau Volcanic explosion. Impending "Doomsday" brought about a massive conversion from the previous 1,500 years of Hinduism. Why the Balinese, the North "Sulawesians", the Kalimantans, the people from Flores, the Papuans and the central Javanese never converted, we will never know. Perhaps they never heard of the impending explosion of this volcano, or that they were simply too far away to care.

Read 'Krakatoa': The Wrath of the Earth and how it turned Indonesia Muslim by Richard Ellis.

Travelling by air from Jakarta to Bali will present you with an unprecedented view of many active volcanoes along central Java. (a possible "peek" into the past of the pre-Krakatau days).

"... Kejawen is the actual and true religion of most of the Javanese people, but they have been forced ever since 1947 to identify themselves as Muslims, thus swelling the number of declared Muslims into the majority ..." -John Valentine

For those wanting to read more on Kejawen can turn to:

http://www.joglosemar.co.id/

http://www.kpsnusantara.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kejawen

Again, use your favourite search engine to research/ Amazon.com your "Kejawen" materials. Spending the past 3 months in Indonesia has allowed me to make many ground-level observations firsthand. For those keen, make your own observations, and studies.

Aceh, in North Sumatra of Indonesia is actually an acronym few are made aware of. A=Arab, C=Chinese, E=Europe and H=Hindi (India). The diagram below offers a much known migrational origins of the various Austronesians ( only known as "malay" in Malaysia).

To further confuse the issue, Indonesia, defines a "malay" simply if you come from 2 regions. The Riau (formerly known as riuh, meaning "noisy") and its neighboring islands, as well as to the Brunei inhabitants (who probably came from the same Riau region).


But regardless, circa 75% of West Malaysian Austronesians are migrants from the Island of Java (Batavia), thus should be called Javanese instead of "malay". Even better would be the preferred, and correct name of Orang Ambon. For the record, in Austronesian language, "Orang ..." simply implies the place of origin. As such, "Orang Aceh", does not mean the "Acehnese Race", but people from Aceh. Similarly, "Orang Jawa" simply means "People who come from Java. Nowhere has the word "Orang" (in its original sense) meant "race". "Bangsa" transalates as "Race", while "Warganegara" transalates as "Nationality". Hence, no one ever talks about the "Singaporean Race", even though one might refer to them, as "Orang Singapura", or "Warganegara Singapura". Now, using the same definition, "Orang Melayu" means people from Kampong Melayu, Jambi, Sumatera. Somewhere along the way, some bright spark decided to "upgrade" Melayu, from Kaum (tribe) to Bangsa (Race). Noble, but wrong.

For reasons best known only to the Individual Local Governments, the very insistence of a "malay race", as well as the concept of "Ketuanan Melayu" (Lordship of malays) continues to elude the Academia. Who exactly are they referring to, when they mention the word "malay", and who exactly do these "malays" have Lordship over? Is this concept of Lordship then, just as ficticious as the "malay-race" definition itself?

In closing, the above picture is an "In-Your-Face" challenge, to see if anyone can accurately identify, which tribes these Austronesians are from, or next best, which country they each originated from individually. (FYI. The flower garlands could be props from dancing in front of hotels, or actual ceremonial costumes) Wherever they come from, I'm very sure that once the Austronesian Race is correctly identified that the UMNO's demented definition of the word "malay" would cease to be significant. Just like the very existence of UMNO itself. By the same definition, Mahathir resumes being an Indian, Badawi is once again part-Hainanese, part Pakistani, his former wife, part Japanese, and his present wife, Portuguese. And so, looking back, Malaysia never had a "malay" Prime Minister since independence. ...... t-o-u-g-h.

For now, we are all looking forward to the unification of all Malaysians, and not any individual "race" from any particular Political Party. And no matter many kilos of C4 are used, one can never take away the Beauty, the Charm, and the Mystique of the Greater Exotic Austronesian Race.

But for the record, Malaysia cannot unite, unless, you first correctly identify the "malays". Do some soul-searching. Ask your relatives, most will gladly tell you where you came from. The only people who obviously cannot possibly remember, are the Orang Asli's. They have been here since 60,000 years ago. Far too long for any mortal to remember. And they, and they alone, my friends, are the True and Only Bumiputra of this land.

Prepared by Michael Chick
Best Regards,
世中豪杰( ShiJie)

#2 ~Hsin_Hpyu_Shin~

~Hsin_Hpyu_Shin~

    Commissioner (Shi Chijie 使持节)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 62 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:59 AM

way too simplistic

#3 Gwailo

Gwailo

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 970 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 16 December 2008 - 08:38 AM

way too simplistic


I agree...plus there r some things wrong with the article

Australian Aborigine, The Malaysian Negrito, or the Philippine Aeta with the Papuan Tribes are not Austronesian but r rather Australoid, and Austronesian is not a race but rather language family

Oh and second...Pacific Islanders like Hawiian, Tahitan, Samoan, Maori etc r not considered Malay
Malay r the malay people of Malaysia, malay people in Indonesia, and Visayans and bangsomoro of Central and SOuthern Philippines

Malays r considered southern mongoloid btw

Malay Ethnic in the Philippines
Posted Image
Posted Image

Malay Ethnic in Malaysia
Posted Image
Posted Image

Edited by Gwailo, 16 December 2008 - 08:58 AM.


#4 ~Hsin_Hpyu_Shin~

~Hsin_Hpyu_Shin~

    Commissioner (Shi Chijie 使持节)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 62 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 16 December 2008 - 10:11 AM

I think the most revealing paragraph that demonstrates the laziness of this article is :


Brown skinned people, residing in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Polynesian Islands, Tahiti, Hawaii and so forth. In fact, it is next to impossible to differentiate the Austronesian People, regardless of the country they come from. However, if there is a certain distinctive physical facial feature, which identifies anyone from any locality, it is usually a case of the gene pool not coming from a wide enough resource.




Lazy assertion number :


1. Brown = Austronesian = people living in all these countries
2. They all look alike
3. Any differentiation is from inbreeding :notworthy:


the author is definitely an expert on the area : not

#5 Gwailo

Gwailo

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 970 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 16 December 2008 - 11:16 AM

I think the most revealing paragraph that demonstrates the laziness of this article is :





Lazy assertion number :


1. Brown = Austronesian = people living in all these countries
2. They all look alike
3. Any differentiation is from inbreeding :notworthy:


the author is definitely an expert on the area : not


By such logic...Indians and south asians would fall under austronesian too :wallbash:

#6 mumbaki

mumbaki

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 95 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    SE Asian History

Posted 20 December 2008 - 10:24 PM

I agree...plus there r some things wrong with the article

Australian Aborigine, The Malaysian Negrito, or the Philippine Aeta with the Papuan Tribes are not Austronesian but r rather Australoid, and Austronesian is not a race but rather language family

Oh and second...Pacific Islanders like Hawiian, Tahitan, Samoan, Maori etc r not considered Malay
Malay r the malay people of Malaysia, malay people in Indonesia, and Visayans and bangsomoro of Central and SOuthern Philippines

Malays r considered southern mongoloid btw

Malay Ethnic in the Philippines

Malay Ethnic in Malaysia


filipinos are closely related to cantonese and ami tribe of taiwan according to robert lindsay.

#7 LongMa

LongMa

    Supreme Censor (Yushi Dafu 御史大夫)

  • Supreme Scholar (Jinshi)
  • 1,173 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wash DC
  • Interests:history, global politics, economics, genetics, psychology, sociology, Confucianist countries, economic development, SubSahara African politics and economics.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Modern Greater China Political-Economy

Posted 20 December 2008 - 10:38 PM

filipinos are closely related to cantonese and ami tribe of taiwan according to robert lindsay.


Robert Lindsay is not a geneticist or anything close. He is an amateur journalist who is often on welfare (dole) who lives in some predominately Hispanic ghetto in California. If you want to use him as your source please go right ahead. Do not confuse writing about something with an authoritative tone with actually knowing what one is talking about. He doesn't cite anything.


I would suggest looking at this study for a starter, it shows some Filipino samples and you an see how it compares to various Chinese samples...

http://www.chinahist...showtopic=28737

Edited by LongMa, 20 December 2008 - 10:39 PM.

"That's One of the tragedies of this life - that the men who are most in need of a beating up are always enormous"

-Preston Sturges 1942 film, The Palm Beach Story.

http://southeastasia...olicyblogs.com/

龙马 Rising!

#8 mumbaki

mumbaki

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 95 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    SE Asian History

Posted 20 December 2008 - 10:57 PM

Robert Lindsay is not a geneticist or anything close. He is an amateur journalist who is often on welfare (dole) who lives in some predominately Hispanic ghetto in California. If you want to use him as your source please go right ahead. Do not confuse writing about something with an authoritative tone with actually knowing what one is talking about. He doesn't cite anything.


I would suggest looking at this study for a starter, it shows some Filipino samples and you an see how it compares to various Chinese samples...

http://www.chinahist...showtopic=28737

according to dna other studies filipinos are generally related to ami and also some other people from s.china because most of migrations to the philippines was from southern china and taiwan eversince never from other places also the guamians and yapese are related to filipinos.


http://carlosrull.co...ipino-american/

this article has links to other studies.

it seems that filipinos are also related to central asians in some study.

Edited by -遙-, 20 December 2008 - 11:04 PM.


#9 LongMa

LongMa

    Supreme Censor (Yushi Dafu 御史大夫)

  • Supreme Scholar (Jinshi)
  • 1,173 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wash DC
  • Interests:history, global politics, economics, genetics, psychology, sociology, Confucianist countries, economic development, SubSahara African politics and economics.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Modern Greater China Political-Economy

Posted 20 December 2008 - 11:30 PM

according to dna other studies filipinos are generally related to ami and also some other people from s.china because most of migrations to the philippines was from southern china and taiwan eversince never from other places also the guamians and yapese are related to filipinos.


http://carlosrull.co...ipino-american/

this article has links to other studies.

it seems that filipinos are also related to central asians in some study.


I think we need to be real careful and speak with a little more precision when we say "related", that is a vague term.

We have to think about the fact that hundreds of thousands of Southern Chinese (from Guangdong but especially Fujian) moved to the Philippines and when the Spanish came there, the Chinese were highly intermixed with the ruling class and were quite wealthy off of trade.

I would imagine if these researchers were "cheap" as they usually are due to budget concerns and randomly tested people around Manila or one of the other large cities, Chinese immigrants usually flock there and the intermixture with them would be much higher than some other areas of the country.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I agree with you, but there are several avenues of gene flow...we know Southern Han are fairly mixed (due to female ancestry) with various Southeast Asian related peoples who once were dominant in Southern China. We have to look at the over all meaning. In the end all humans are related, in the end all East and Southeast Asians are related. This doesn't tell us much.

So we have the ancient gene flow of the original Austronesian (starting in Taiwan or Southern China) to the Philippines and more recent (last 600 years or so)...

Also being related to Southern Chinese means what exactly?

It doesn't mean much of anything unless we are comparing that to something else.

You can say a Kenyan is related to an Saudi Arab. That's true and that tells you what? Does this mean an Arab in Saudi is not more related to a Greek man than he is to a Kenyan?

So are the average Filipinos more related to modern Southern Chinese or aboriginal Taiwanese than they are to Malays or Indonesians? Is there a cline...maybe there is more Chinese relationship in the North and it fades to more Malay relationship as you move further South?

This is why I asked you to look at the link. If you look at a genetic distance/affinity map with other populations you can see how Filipinos fit in the region.

From what I can see from the other study...Filipinos overlap a lot with Taiwanese natives, and even closer with Dai.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Dai_people

Dai are related to Thai and Lao people. They are also fairly close to Viet, but not Cambodians (Khmer) or Lahu (Lahu being a Sino-Tibetan language).

Based on this I would say there relationship to Southern Chinese is really a more ancient relationship to people Han Chinese absorbed in Southern China.

At this point I would bet that Filipinos are an intermediate population between Southern Chinese who are heavily admixed with Yue people and proto-Thai and people in Malaysia and Northern Indonesia and not shockingly this would fit with geography... I wonder if the relationship with Vietnamese has something to do with Malay-related Champa who lived in Southern Vietnam and mixed with the Viet (Yue) population.

The study I posted for you is quite recent and uses over 200 genetic markers. The resolution is much higher than any study that would have come out even 3 years ago.
"That's One of the tragedies of this life - that the men who are most in need of a beating up are always enormous"

-Preston Sturges 1942 film, The Palm Beach Story.

http://southeastasia...olicyblogs.com/

龙马 Rising!

#10 mumbaki

mumbaki

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 95 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    SE Asian History

Posted 21 December 2008 - 08:18 AM

I think we need to be real careful and speak with a little more precision when we say "related", that is a vague term.

We have to think about the fact that hundreds of thousands of Southern Chinese (from Guangdong but especially Fujian) moved to the Philippines and when the Spanish came there, the Chinese were highly intermixed with the ruling class and were quite wealthy off of trade.

I would imagine if these researchers were "cheap" as they usually are due to budget concerns and randomly tested people around Manila or one of the other large cities, Chinese immigrants usually flock there and the intermixture with them would be much higher than some other areas of the country.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I agree with you, but there are several avenues of gene flow...we know Southern Han are fairly mixed (due to female ancestry) with various Southeast Asian related peoples who once were dominant in Southern China. We have to look at the over all meaning. In the end all humans are related, in the end all East and Southeast Asians are related. This doesn't tell us much.

So we have the ancient gene flow of the original Austronesian (starting in Taiwan or Southern China) to the Philippines and more recent (last 600 years or so)...

Also being related to Southern Chinese means what exactly?

It doesn't mean much of anything unless we are comparing that to something else.

You can say a Kenyan is related to an Saudi Arab. That's true and that tells you what? Does this mean an Arab in Saudi is not more related to a Greek man than he is to a Kenyan?

So are the average Filipinos more related to modern Southern Chinese or aboriginal Taiwanese than they are to Malays or Indonesians? Is there a cline...maybe there is more Chinese relationship in the North and it fades to more Malay relationship as you move further South?

This is why I asked you to look at the link. If you look at a genetic distance/affinity map with other populations you can see how Filipinos fit in the region.

From what I can see from the other study...Filipinos overlap a lot with Taiwanese natives, and even closer with Dai.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Dai_people

Dai are related to Thai and Lao people. They are also fairly close to Viet, but not Cambodians (Khmer) or Lahu (Lahu being a Sino-Tibetan language).

Based on this I would say there relationship to Southern Chinese is really a more ancient relationship to people Han Chinese absorbed in Southern China.

At this point I would bet that Filipinos are an intermediate population between Southern Chinese who are heavily admixed with Yue people and proto-Thai and people in Malaysia and Northern Indonesia and not shockingly this would fit with geography... I wonder if the relationship with Vietnamese has something to do with Malay-related Champa who lived in Southern Vietnam and mixed with the Viet (Yue) population.

The study I posted for you is quite recent and uses over 200 genetic markers. The resolution is much higher than any study that would have come out even 3 years ago.

i agree with that,that is why pinoys have diverse ancestry other than that of ami group which is the core/ethnic ancestor of filipinos.

Edited by -遙-, 21 December 2008 - 08:22 AM.


#11 William O'Chee

William O'Chee

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Columnist
  • 2,264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Interests:History; political philosophy; rowing; bobsled and skeleton; going to extraordinary places.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Han dynasty, Neo-Confucianism

Posted 21 December 2008 - 09:41 AM

Technically known as "Australo Melanesians", they are the direct descendants of the East Africans who migrated out of Laetoli, Africa circa 60,000 years ago. You will also find it impossible to distinguish between an Australian Aborigine, The Malaysian Negrito, or the Philippine Aeta with the Papuan Tribes.

I have no idea what is meant by "you will find it impossible to distinguish" between the cited groups. They are distinctly different groups of people, culture aside. Australian Aborigines are very different from the people of the Torres Strait, let alone neighbouring Papua New Guinea. Even within Papua New Guinea, there are different ethnic groups. Papuans, for example, are basically Polynesian, whereas others in the country are essentially Melanesian.

It is obvious that the author has little direct experience of these people.

#12 Gwailo

Gwailo

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 970 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 22 December 2008 - 08:20 PM

filipinos are closely related to cantonese and ami tribe of taiwan according to robert lindsay.


depends....tribal people in Northern Philippines trace their origin to Aboriginals of Taiwan
One group that comes to mind if the ifugao

Ifugao
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image


While people of the central and southern Philippines trace their origin to Malaysia and Indonesia

Look up Beyer's theory of the wave migration in the Philippines

#13 mumbaki

mumbaki

    Military Commissioner (Jiedushi 节度使)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 95 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    SE Asian History

Posted 14 January 2009 - 08:39 PM

depends....tribal people in Northern Philippines trace their origin to Aboriginals of Taiwan
One group that comes to mind if the ifugao

Ifugao


While people of the central and southern Philippines trace their origin to Malaysia and Indonesia

Look up Beyer's theory of the wave migration in the Philippines

beyer's theory was disproven by jocano.

#14 Daeng "The Imagineer"

Daeng "The Imagineer"

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Siam (Thailand)
  • Interests:Asian History, music, Fine Arts, Entertainments etc.
  • Languages spoken:English, Siamese, Lao
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Siamese
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Designer, artist, history lover

Posted 01 March 2013 - 10:17 AM

So you now have two distinct groups. The first to arrive here are the Australo Melanesians, circa 60,000 years ago, and then you have the Austronesians (from Yunan), who arrived in Malaysia circa 3,000 years ago. Cross-Breeding between the two results in a "new" category called the Polynesians. "Poly" meaning "many", thus accurately describing the many "...sians" which have inter-bred. Caucasians with Austronesians, Australo-Melanesians with Austronesians and so on so forth. For an accurate understudy of Anthropology, country borders are irrelevant, and only serve to create severe delusions of the facts.
 

Poly= Man  Nesians=nesos (islands in Greek)

Hence Polynesian means Many islands



#15 YummYakitori

YummYakitori

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • Supreme Scholar (Jinshi)
  • 1,452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore
  • Languages spoken:English, Mandarin, Hokkien, Teochew, Korean, Japanese, Mongolian (a bit)
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese 潮州漢族
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean History 朝鮮歷史 조선역사

Posted 01 March 2013 - 07:31 PM


By such logic...Indians and south asians would fall under austronesian too [img]http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/public/style_emoticons/default/wallbash.gif[/img]

Why would it? Indians and South Asians are considered either Dravidic (in Southern Tamil Nadu Regions), Caucasoid (in Northwest) and a mix of Mongoloid, Dravidic and perhaps Caucasoid in the Northeast.

Great Andamanese are considered Negroid though
Буурэг дэрсэнд уурэглэсэн бужин туулай нь ч амгалан Булээн нууранд нь ганганалдсан хотон шувууд нь ч амгалан Буувэй санаа нь ивлэсэн Бусгуй сэптгэл нь ч амгалан хонхон дуутай бойтгийг нь Цэцэг унсэх нь энхрийхэн хöгöн горхины урсгалд нь Цэнгэг хараахай зуггуйхэн Хиртэшгуй ариухан дагшинд нь Монголын узэсгэлэн яруухан




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users