Farhan Ali
Recent study shows DNA evidence pointing to an original migration pattern of humans from Southeast Asia to China believed to have happened about 20,000 years ago
Photo courtesy of Salon
The Chinese are the dominant group in Singapore and recently, a senior government politician encouraged Chinese Singaporeans to find out who their ancestors were and where they came from. There is also the current heated debate over the learning of Mandarin by those whose ancestors did not speak Mandarin.
Thus, it is relevant that in a study published just this week in the influential journal Science, the Han Chinese (and other East Asians) have been shown to have originally come from Southeast Asia. Instead of being natives of China, the Han Chinese were in fact immigrants who descended from mainland and island Southeast Asia, the latter historically known as the Malay Archipelago.
This recent study is massive and involved a 40-institution, multi-national (though largely Asian) research team that sampled DNA from over 70 populations throughout Asia. The paper used genetic markers called single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) which are differences in the chemical ‘lettering’ of DNA, in order to infer patterns of ancestry. And whilst the techniques used were esoteric, this collective pan-Asian effort had an aim close to everyone’s hearts: to recover the lost memory of where we came from.
Southeast Asians Top the Family Tree
Two major findings of this research are worth discussing, the most important being the family tree that was reconstructed by the authors that provides direct evidence that modern Han Chinese came from Southeast Asia. In the tree, all of the Han Chinese populations were descendents of Southeast Asians who formed the top of the tree (analogous to how our great-grandparents would be right at the top in a family tree).
Whilst this has been suggested for almost 10 years, the present study brings the most convincing data and analyses to the table yet. As to when this migration occurred, although the present study did not address this important issue, evidence from other past studies suggests the migration of the Chinese from Southeast Asia probably occurred around 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. The Southeast Asians, in turn, originally came from the southern coasts of Asia which were ultimately populated by humans from East Africa.
The second set of findings pertains to genetic diversity which refers to how similar or different the DNA make-up of individuals in a population are. The genetic diversity is highest in archipelagic Southeast Asia (e.g., Indonesia) with more homogenous (similar) DNA make-up as one goes further North into China.
These findings are important as they provide strong corroboration of the linguistic data from anthropologists and linguists who have discovered an astounding level of linguistic and ethnic diversity in island Southeast Asia, which have hundreds of ethnic groups and languages. The region’s predominant Austronesian language family (which includes Malay) is the world’s most widespread native language family with speakers spanning from Madagascar in Africa to the islands in the Pacific such as Fiji.
(left) The Asian ‘family’ tree with Southeast Asian populations and languages in green, blue and red, and East Asians generally in
purple and yellow. Numbers on branches represent statistical support.
Hard to Accept, But Research is Conclusive
While many Chinese Singaporeans are familiar with the various dialect groups in China, geneticists and linguists know that the diversity of Han Chinese is comparatively low. While some may have elaborate socio-political theories involving the political unity of China, the role of the First Emperor of China and so on, a much simpler and likelier explanation is that diversity, both genetic and cultural, declines as a function of migration. When groups from the ancestral population migrate out into new regions, they bring with them only a very small sample of the original diversity and this is the pattern we find among the Han Chinese. Indeed, even in the modern age, we find this to be true: for example, Asians in America are far less diverse as a group than those in their original homeland.
(left) source: L. Jin et. al. Science
For some, this recovery of the lost memory of the various races in Singapore may be enlightening. For others, it may be as much of a shock as being told one’s father is not his/her real father. But the scientific conclusion is clear, the Chinese in China were immigrants whose ancestors lived in Southeast Asia. The Chinese arrivals in the 19th and 20th century in Singapore and Malaysia were actually a return to an ancestral homeland that had been long abandoned, to live with descendents of their ancestors who had long been forgotten, and to relearn a daughter of the ancestral language, Malay – now all but unlearned by the present generation.
The present findings (and others) dispel the notion of any one monolithic “race”. Instead, all of humanity is a cohesive genetic pool with extensive mixing among populations that are changing fluidly. Such mixing among Southeast Asians giving rise to Chinese populations has left indelible marks on our DNA and these marks of our deep shared heritage, remarkably unsullied by divergent recent histories, are a silent but truthful witness against modern self-serving essentialist propaganda proclaiming the contrary.
Reference
Abdulla, M.M. et al. (2009). Mapping human genetic diversity in Asia. Science, 326, 1541-1545. A non-technical summary is also given in the same issue: Normille, D. (2009). SNP Study supports southern migration route to Asia. Science, 326, 1470.
DNA suggests all homo sapiens originated from Africa.
All these while, I have thought Malays are decendents of southern chinese who migrated to Southeast Asia thousands of years ago. Now, it’s the other way around. But if we link DNA originated from Africa, this migration pattern is only natural. But many Malays in Singapore have mix heritage especially from Chinese, Indians and Arabs linkage. In a way, Malays are no longer genetically the same as Malays who live here thousands of years ago. Thus, this dispel the notion of race. There is just no such thing as race. Only human being can be scientifically explained. How do u differentiate a black cat from a white cat? Food for thoughts.
no wonder the facial features of Malays and Chinese are the same
Intriguing article. No wonder we have Chinese who look like Malays and Malays who in turn look like Chinese. I had a classmate in secondary school, a Chinese with a dark skin. How he suffered. He was called all sorts of derogatory names linked to his dark skin. I met him the other day after 40 years. Thank God, he seemed to have matured into a normal Joe, just like any Tom, Lim or Ahmad.
Many of us still believe that fair skinned people, Caucasians primarily, have an advantage over others not born with such skin. Such is the way of the world, a notion perhaps buttressed by Hollywood John Wayne, Tarzan type movies over the years.
Of course, we know that Asians and others of such hue are just as smart and talented as the rest of their fairer skin cousins from Europe or the US.
But age-old sterotypes persist. Hence the huge sales in the skin whitening creams industry.
Perhaps, one day Singapore ICs will do away with the RACE requirement. It appears to be a relic from our colonial days when it was somehow deemed necessary to compartmentalise the various immigrant races. Or is there some other explanation?
Interesting…
Previously it was thought that the East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) were descended from the group of humans who left Africa and migrated eastwards into Siberia, then southwards.
The first humans to reach the Malayan Peninsular branched out from these African migrants somewhere around India and travelled southwards down, and from the Indonesian islands crossed over to Australia. (Thus accounting for the similar features between the Aborogines and Negroes)
And like Mhd Nur theorized, what accounts for the Southeasian people’s features is likely generations of inter-mixing between the East Asians, the Indo-Aryans and the first settlers on the Malayan Peninsular.
Now anthropologists once again have to rethink their theories. lol!
Not a conclusive study.
If we look at the surrounding regions of SE Asia , Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and even as far as the Pacific islands, the inhabitants look alike.
The Chinese look quite different from these people on average. There may be exceptions.
I trust me senses more than the way the DNA is interpreted.
In 1970-, when China was weak, speaking mandarin is a no no for PAP and positioned to be of low class in Singapore.
Nowadays, when China arises and poised to take over the western as the world leader, our govern quickyl change its course. Everything is almost got something to do with China. People are encouraged to use mandarin, to study in China, and to the extent of importing PRC to dilute its people, and some official ask you to find your ancestor in China … sounds so fake …
There really is only one human race and all other superficial differences are just man-made.
Who really here can say they are “pure” anything?
whats the main purpose of the release of this research?
To justify more of LKY uncontrol of mass migration of Northern Chinese into Singapore?
that is why i have been telling everyone to NOT fall for lky’s game of divide and conquer. he knows very well that if we all unite, it is game over for him.
Kindly refer following links below………..
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/lets-not-forget-our-multilingual-roots/
http://talesovercoffee.blogspot.com/2009/12/good-english-isnt-always-good-english.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8406506.stm
http://www.singazine.com/
WELL DONE INCHE FARAHAN ALI , GREAT RESEARCH AND WRITE – UP SIR!
Farhan Ali,
“The Chinese arrivals in the 19th and 20th century in Singapore and Malaysia were actually a return to an ancestral homeland that had been long abandoned, to live with descendents of their ancestors who had long been forgotten, and to relearn a daughter of the ancestral language, Malay – now all but unlearned by the present generation.”
Actually, Austronesian languages, of which Malay is one, is believed to originate from South China or Taiwan. The linguistic, and possibly genetic, ancestors of the Malays probably came from Taiwan.
References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_languages
[2] Trejaut JA, Kivisild T, Loo JH, Lee CL, He CL, et al.(2005) Traces of archaic mitochondrial lineages persist in Austronesian-speaking Formosan populations. PLoS Biol 3(8): e247.
With all due humility , kindly and please read the intelligent WORDS of
INCHE RIZAL…….
59) rizal on December 13th, 2009 11.47 pm I don’t really see any good reason as to why the world has to suffer for china’s sake. Clearly it is easier to learn English than mandarin and that English is the most widely spoken language in the world. If china wishes to trade internationally, they should learn to communicate in English, not the world learning to speak mandarin for China. But i guess the chinese government is too nationalistic to get its citizens to learn English and expect the world to learn mandarin for them. NOT
You can’t force a person who is not interested in a language to be proficient in it, and i don’t want to see parents doing that to their children. In the UK, the british have a preference on taking up French as a second language probably due to the similarities in culture or the love for French
It’s not good if people keep ‘looking the same’ generation after generation. That just shows that they might be overly-racially/culturally introverted.
Anyway, the Malays don’t look Chinese. Similar yes. I’d say they are more of cross between Indians and Chinese. Some have larger eyes and ‘flatter’ noses. They also look quite a lot like filipinos. It’s also been said that the native americans are of ‘asian’ orign – though i’m not entirely sure which part of Asia. They were said to have crossed the ice bridge linking asia and the americas ages ago.
I’m not surprised that the Chinese originated in s.e.Asia. After all, the Africans did take a stroll from Africa, through India, and forward.
But the focus now ought to be on the value of cultural miscegenation as opposed to genetic ones. That, has been largely unlearned by the new ‘singaporean’, or more aptly, Qin-gaporean, of contemporary times.
I’m certainly with ‘sad sack’ on this. What i term, the ‘traditional bilingualism’ promoted amongst the chinese in singapore is nothing short of culturally backward and does not appreciate the significance of egalitarian multiculturalism. Learning mandarin, given China’s backward view of culture – where assimilation is preferred over integration – just serves to reinforce their cultural exclusivity. In learning mandarin, we are all just validating them as they are and not as they could be – same thing happened in singapore, which is why the chinese of today aren’t as smart, witty, or creative as the multicultural chinese I knew in the 70s. We could even say that they we are breaking our legs to keep up with China’s monoculturally-induced disability. English ought to be our ‘mother-tongue’ as it fuses the mothers of all our cultures into one. I wonder how many of the ‘new chinese’ realise that. Precious few i dare say.
ed
“In 1970-, when China was weak, speaking mandarin is a no no for PAP and positioned to be of low class in Singapore.”
I wouldn’t say that is entirely true. Mandarin became a ‘yes yes’ when the PAP realised the political threat of the multicultural English-speaking sector of singaporean society. They were beginning to take over the media, the economy and so on. Monoculturalism, like the way if was pursued in China from the Qin period onward, served as the elixir for political longevity.
Lee is a smart guy, at least compared to most of the brightest minds on the oppositional side. He knew that political victory required cultural manipulation. Hence, the chinese population provided a ready source as they could be more easily assimilated to the way of the Qin as opposed to the Indians or Malays who hailed from distinguishable perspectival backgrounds. This way, the multicultural sector was overthrown – via the Marxist Conspiracy detentions, SAP schools, media discrimination, speaking mandarin/promote chinese culture campaigns, etc, etc, etc.
You gals and guys who do not have intimate experience with the multiculturals of the 70s really don’t know how great this country could have been if Lee did not trip it up. As i’ve been saying for quite a while, if the oppositional sector supported multiculturalism more than democracy, more of the latter would be delivered as a consequence. I dare say, that besides Lee and myself, there are precious few in this country who realise the value of this equation.
ed
SAD TO SAY , SUCH A SINCERE SITE IS NOT RECOGNISED…..
refer link………..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_languages
Pak Lah is 100% Chinese. Go check it out!
Great piece of work, I really enjoyed reading it. I just need to point out some problems, I do not know if there is evidence to suggest that Malay is a direct descendant (you called it ‘daughter’) of the language spoken by the southeast asians 10000-20000. Also, your article also failed to address the question of whether the Malays today are remnants of that original tribe, or are they from a more recent secondary migration from Taiwan, (and some say Yunnan)?
Pertaining to linguistics, why don’t the Han Chinese speak a variant of Austronesian languages then? Languages are not just ‘forgotten’, they evolve over time but essentially can be traced back to a root ancestral language.
Only philistines care about the amount of melanin in a person’s skin.
I can accept the fact that Chinese are the descendants of the people in S.E. Asia. What I find it hard to reconcile is why isn’t there any evidence of an ancient civilization older than China in South East Asia? Why isn’t the Malay language and history older than China?
45) sad sack on December 12th, 2009 5.40 am Why can’t we give the Malay Language the importance and prominence? After all Malay is the National Language, and since before the Japanese war everyone spoke Malay as a common language among different races , besides English. All the four races, the Chinese,Malays, Indians and Eurasians communicated well with a sense of belonging to the nation. We had two common languages used then. as Malay was an easier to learn and understand. Even the uneducated Chinese could learn and speak the language with ease. Today there is only one common language used, which is English. Not all in speak English today, here.
Malay is also economically important, considering Malaysia and Indonesia who are our immediate neighbours. Even the Filipino language, Tagalog has close similarities to Malay.
Considering all these positive reasons, one wonders are there any other ulterior motives for the prominence of the Mandarin language now. At the expense of Malay the National Language and other Official Languages.
For your additional referances…….
go to links below………….
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/lets-not-forget-our-multilingual-roots/
http://seelanpalay.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-says-that-racial-discrimination.html
http://talesovercoffee.blogspot.com/2009/12/good-english-isnt-always-good-english.html
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/search/label/Racism
http://www.according2ed.com/search/label/racism
http://according2ed.vox.com/library/posts/tags/race/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/15/obamas-visit-stirs-rethin_n_358163.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8406506.stm
http://www.singazine.com/
OriginalResonance, I believe your and our interests would all be better served if you would be clear on your stance. Certainly, if your intention was to deplore racism, then you would evidently not be alone, yet it is unclear whether you are denying a real racial disparity or advocating racial equality.
“Certainly, if your intention was to deplore racism, then you would evidently not be alone, yet it is unclear whether you are denying a real racial disparity or advocating racial equality. ”
It has nothing to do with racism. It’s stupidity that I’ve a problem with. I hate ignorance with a passion.
“Intolerance maybe tolerable. This is a new logical construct which many have failed to understand. But it could be because those who don’t understand are intellectually dishonest.”
Do you tolerate paedophilia?
rabblerouser: Apologies if I misconstrued your reply as sarcasm. If I’m not wrong, I was probably wrong. LOL
It’s just another research trying to justify their own claims. And yet you guys believe almost 100% in it. Sighz… ignorance is not a bliss.
Migrated from Africa to India, yes. But migrated to southeast Asia first and then to China… don’t you think it’s troublesome for people of that era? It should be going to China first before coming down to southeast Asia as common sense speaks. Would you go to Changi first before going to Orchard Road from Woodlands or straight away take a cab to Orchard Road? Lol.
PS: There are also many researches and investigations related to the migration and origins. Don’t just believe in one and take it to its logical conclusion.
This one no joke one.
Hope that we do not change history like the jap do .This DNA research claim doesn’t seem quite acceptable to me except there may be a possibility if you all believe my thinking and if my thinking and analysis is correct.
My thinking is that all human being’s ancester is a animal call MONKEY(ape/orang utan/chimpanzee etc)There is no race /religion/language except that they appear in different form like more hairy or less hairy etc .It is possible that South East Asia 21,000 years back got the most jungle and forest and as such have most monkeys,or could be the origin of monkeys..
Group by group these monkeys move away and some settle in China,Middle east and other part of the world.Slowly,the individual group create their own language and culture in the country that they landed.Some one from the group could be more intelligent and invented the 101 that is capable of doing away with their hairy hair .Gradually they walk with chest up stomach in and become what we call Human Being.As animal have feeling,they miss their playmates and sibling in South East Asia.So there is logic to say that they return to SEA to see their love one in the form of human being visiting monkeys .If that is the case then the DNA may be 50%correct.
The fact that the Chinese were originally from South East Asia means that the Chinese should be the real bumiputras of Malaysia. Hence they should be given extra privileges in Malaysia.
Saying we originated from monkeys is like saying the person who gave birth to your cousin is your mom.
“Recent study shows DNA evidence pointing to an original migration pattern of humans from Southeast Asia to China believed to have happened about 20,000 years ago”
From Wiki, we know that “The archaeological site of Xihoudu (西侯渡) in Shanxi Province is the earliest recorded use of fire by Homo erectus, which is dated 1.27 million years ago”
Which means, even if there was migrants that went all the way up to China from Southeast Asia, they would have just enter a land which had been populated by earlier civilisations who were already there 1.25 million years ago.
So now, can the findings still stand?
This theory runs counter to that of the Genographic project which claims that human migration from Africa broke up the second time somewhere in Kazakhstan resulting in the caucasoid and Mongoloid race. Those that went west became the caucasians and those, east, the orientals. It was during about 30,000 years when some of the orientals or chinese went northwards in pursuit of the game (buffalos), crossed the Bering Strait and settled in North America. They are the ancestors of Native Americans. This theory is plausible if we study the facial features of the Native Americans and the Chinese. Also, the Siberian reindeer people who are very much Chinese, live in tents till today that are very similar to the Teppes of American Indians. So if the theory here suggest that the chinese went northwards from South East Asia around 20.000 years ago, it beg the question of who were the people that crossed the Bering Straits 30,000 years ago. They cannot be the caucasiod race as their facial features do not support this theory.
Also according to the Genographic Project, one group went along the coastline to Southern India to Malaya and southwards to Indonesia and Australia. This theory again is supported by the fact that the original people of Malaya (Orang Asli or Sakai), Indonesia (including New Guinea), the original Australians and Southern Indians (Dravidians) all look very much like the Africans,
My personal view is that some Chinese migrated southwards, mixed with the Indians at the Burma-India border and became what is known as Chinese, Thai, Malay or Indo-Chinese. The Indian race is also very complex. Whilst the originals were Negroids, most are Caucasoids having mixed in the North with the Aryans (Middle-Eastern people). Hence, some Thais, modern Malays (post Orang Asli) and Indo-Chinese have a mixture of Mongoloid and Caucasiod features. When we study anthropology, we must bear in mind that thousands of years ago, people do not politically categorize each other as Chinese, Indian or Malay. They had simply integrated. It was politics that drew that line.
33) Not Convincing,
The Homo Erectus became extinct in Asia before Homo Sapiens arrived.
There was also a popular theory that is still taught in schools in China that the Chinese were descended from the chinese Homo Erectus (the Peking Man), and were thus a seperate ‘species’ from the rest of the humans.
The theory had been debunked in light of DNA tests done on all East Asians which indicate that they all shared the same ancestry as the first homo sapiens who migrated out of Africa.
There’s a very good BBC docu “The Incredible Human Journey” which talks about how humans populate the whole world. You can find it on Youtube.
Thanks ZEFLY (AKA JOSHUA CHIANG) !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mRa9ICp9oY&feature=PlayList&p=CAF953B069993691&index=0&playnext=1
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CAF953B069993691
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BD80FD198CE85E35
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EFA1F7345C5407FA
i also think that the crossroads of human migration is probably central asia which means that the mongoloid race migrated eastwards from central asia instead of northwards from southeast asia. if the chinese had migrated from southeast asia, the migration routes would probably be by sea or along the coasts since indo china and southern china are very mountainous areas. however the cradle of chinese civilization is centered around the yellow river, far removed from the coasts and way up north. if the ancestors of chinese race had migrated from the south, shouldnt they settle around the yangtze river delta, a far more fertile region?
a similar logic can be applied to indian civilization. the dravidians, coming east from the middle east, first set upon the indus river delta and started the indus civilization, the aryans subsequently came in from the northwest from central asia. and the trajectory of their migration path is telling from the focus of hindustani civilization on the gangetic plains that run from the north west to the south east.
southern china may have been populated by austro-asiatic peoples migrating northwards from south east asia, but they should be seen less as Han chinese, instead more as distinct tribes, some of which got absorbed by the Han Chinese who migrated southwards during later periods. this explains why some southern chinese may look like malays, while it is less likely for a northern chinese. this mixing of the 2 races in southern china is also reflected in the dialects – hokkien for example is believed to contain some austronesian elements, like the term for man/woman (da-bor/za-bor). some of the aboriginal tribes that probably migrated to southern china from south east asia are still present, especially in yunnan and guangxi regions. the racial integration in yunnan is probably less successful than in coastal regions due to lack of broad valleys that Han chinese favour, and migration probably occurred in later periods as evidenced by the Mandarin speaking populace (Mandarin being a more “modern” dialect as compared to Cantonese, Teochew and Hokkien).
whoever came up with this theory and wrote the article probably have scant knowledge of the complexity of china. afterall human genetics has always been a topic shrouded in myths and speculations and have been subject to manipulations throughout history by groups seeking back up for their twisted racial theories (think hitler).
in addition to the above, the yangtze river delta was supposedly populated by scantily dressed tribal peoples according to chinese historical records. this is a strong indication that these peoples probably migrated northwards from warmer climes in south east asia – and this region is probably the northern most area populated by austro-asians in early history. incidentally the demarcation of northern vs southern china is often taken as Qin mountains and Huai river, just a little to the north of the yangtze delta.
human migration does not go one way either – the thais supposedly migrated southwards from today’s yunnan to indo china. originating from cooler climes, they are more well-covered than the khmers who had settled in indo china earlier. motifs in angkor for example showed female dancers with exposed bosoms. however influence from the thais who grew more dominant over time, got the khmers to eventually adopt similar sensibilities.
winstoncheng,
“This theory runs counter to that of the Genographic project which claims that human migration from Africa broke up the second time somewhere in Kazakhstan resulting in the caucasoid and Mongoloid race. Those that went west became the caucasians and those, east, the orientals. It was during about 30,000 years when some of the orientals or chinese went northwards in pursuit of the game (buffalos), crossed the Bering Strait and settled in North America.”
That is not true. The oldest indisputable evidence of human settlement in the Americas is findings related to the Clovis culture and they are about 11,000 years old according to carbon-dating.
Isn’t ethnicity defined by history, religion, culture as well as DNA?
If racial hierarchy (according to some people’s definition of racist theory) is determined by skin color, then wouldn’t albinos be regarded as the “master race”? Not as simple as that.
I was thinking about neo-Nazis; they are usually the marginalized white trash of their society and not the elites (circa 2010 AD), the reason why racism is perpetuated is so that the lowliest of a racial society are “superior” to members of another race, no matter how much more intelligent or talented they are. This should be common sense by now, yet…
This survey is so fake…China Chinese..the writer have no idea how diversity and how many tribes the Chinese have. Might as well say that europeans come from SE Asia too.
O holy – you must be having one of those mandarino brains to
deny the truth and science. Wake up!
Nope to @43
Everyone knows that all human microcritia is traced to africa. Somemore they have older skeletons too. Got it?
This study is not recognized by the west too.
Secondly, can u identify Han Chinese? Can you claim to be a Han chinese even if you are a chinese? Everyone knows real Han Chinese had a crack in their little toe. Don’t use any Chinese when you claiming a Han Chinese, got it?
While this article is quite interesting, I am not too sure about some of the assertions.
Firstly, linguistic diversity is expected to be higher in insular (i.e. island) environments compared to mainland environments because islands are more isolated and organisms and languages would evolve and diversify faster in such environments. The fact that insular Southeast Asia has a lot of islands do imply a lot more diversification.
Secondly, the centre of diversity for Austronesian languages is actually in Taiwan, meaning most of the Austronesian languages in Southeast Asia evolved after its original appearance in Taiwan. That implies a southward migration for Austronesian languages. Tai-Kadai languages also have a centre of diversity in southwestern China (particularly around Hainan), although the languages spread southwards (towards Thailand) and westwards (towards India).
The original article (which should probably be cited as the HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium instead of Abdulla et al.) had not considered all the archaeological, linguistic, and historical evidence, and only concluded that a general trend was a migration from south to north, but did state that under simulation studies, subsequent substantial migrations does not distort the shape of the tree.
Thirdly, language groups and human populations are not exactly the same. Human populations can move around, but they do not necessarily retain the language they originally speak. There can be language spread and language displacement.
Fourthly, research on the linguistic aspects has yet to come to any general consensus. Many hypotheses have been proposed for protolanguages linking Austronesian with Tai-Kai, Austroasiatic, and Sino-Tibetan etc., but linguists are not very convinced by the present state of reconstructions.
The article and comments thread are fast disappearing from the main page, so here’re some thoughts in response to comments from others.
Triple Threat laughs at the research asking, “Would you go to Changi first before going to Orchard Road from Woodlands or straight away take a cab to Orchard Road? Lol”.
I’m not sure what to make out of this sort of armchair comment. I suggest Triple Threat go out and see nature sometimes. Apart from the fact that there was probably no cab going from India to China thousands of years ago, there was also the little problem of the massive Himalayan range, present before modern humans came, separating what are now China and India. Even if humans migrating from India into China found a suitable Himalayan corridor to cross (it’s not clear a corridor exists in prehistoric times), the journey would have imposed a very strong population bottleneck (not many can survive the journey) that genetic diversity would have been reduced tremendously in the descendant Chinese populations. How then can such impoverished diversity give rise to descendant populations in Southeast Asia that are far more diverse?
r accuses of me (or maybe the authors of the original Science paper) of not knowing the complexity of China. No doubt China is complex but complexity is not the same as diversity; it is a fact of genetics that the Chinese in China are less diverse than other populations down south (found time and time again in many studies). This is all the more remarkable given that there are over a billion Chinese, dwarfing the sizes of the other aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia. All I (and others in countless other news reports on this Science article) can say is that size is not diversity.
Maque brought in some island theory of diversity. If Maque’s theory were correct, the savannahs of East Africa would be the last place we would find the greatest human genetic (and probably, cultural too) diversity. In fact, evolutionary theory predicts the opposite: the greater the population bottleneck in islands, the smaller the genetic diversity and the slower the rate of evolution. But never mind all these because the sea levels rose only after the last glacial maximum (end of the “Ice age”) around 10,000-20,000 years which means “island” Southeast Asia did not exist back then; instead Southeast Asia including Indonesia was mostly one large landmass during most of modern human evolution and migration into China. The use of “island” Southeast Asia in the article was, of course, a modern reference (just like “China” and “India”) and should not be confused with what conditions actually existed in prehistoric times.
A few others brought up the important issue of Austronesian origins. This issue is definitely complex. But it is almost certainly not the case that natives in Taiwan are genetic ancestors of Austronesian-speaking Southeast Asians because native Taiwanese are positioned highly nested in the Southeast Asian tree; instead, they are likely descendants of Southeast Asians. The present study sampled only two native Taiwanese populations. But in other studies sampling more native Taiwanese populations, the same pattern of results is found.
The origins of Austronesian languages (as opposed to genetic origins of Southeast Asians) are trickier. The two biggest pieces of evidence for Taiwanese origins are 1) there is greater Austronesian language diversity in Taiwan than elsewhere in Southeast Asia and 2) that agriculture is believed to have been brought into Southeast Asia from Taiwan/China in the Holocene a few thousand years ago, bringing along the Austronesian root words associated with agriculture. Language origins do not always track population ancestry, so in this case, it is entirely conceivable that native Taiwanese came from Southeast Asia and subsequently, a proto-Austronesian language from the North spread Southwards back in Southeast Asia with little population contribution as uncovered by the genetic study.
Alternatively, one can combine the genetic with linguistic evidence. Linguistic ancestry has very shallow time depth and cannot say much about which language families are related to which. But from the genetic evidence, speakers of the Austronesian language family are closely related to speakers of other Southeast Asian language families. Thus, based on parsimony, it is likely then that some proto-language of Southeast Asian ancestors came from Southeast Asia itself. Austronesian, Austro-Asiatic language families etc. are thus likely just daughters of this ancestral language in Southeast Asia.
As mentioned in the article, this present study debunks many established ideas including stories our grandparents and teachers may have told us. One is the belief that aboriginal Southeast Asians (e.g., the Orang Asli) were of a different lineage from the rest of Southeast Asians, but this study clearly shows that all Southeast Asians and East Asians including all the aborigines are united in one branch. The aborigines, despite what commentators here have alluded to in terms of their superficial “African” looks, are not more related to those from Africa than the Chinese, Japanese or others in Asia are. Looks are very deceiving. So can ‘wisdom’ passed down to us.
I would reiterate my point that language groups and genetic groups are not the same. I am not disputing the facts and findings of the HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium. But I do disagree with some assertions in the article and the response by the writer.
1. Rates of (biological) evolution are indeed greater for islands compared to mainland habitats. This has been observed by various scientists, and I am sure there is a lot of available literature out there. As to the why, I am not really sure. Although there may be genetic bottlenecks in small island populations, other processes may play a part (genetic drift and founder effects together with natural selection can indeed drive speciation, and thus evolutionary diversity).
2. I can compare language evolution to biological evolution, although they do not exactly operate in the same way. The relatively scarcity of different Chinese languages in northern China has been attributed to the fact that northern China is a large flat plain, and migration and movement of groups is easily facilitated. This allowed the easy spread of Mandarin (and its related dialects) across northern and southwestern China. In contrast, there are seven major language groups (generally classified as Wu, Yue, Gan, Xiang, Hakka, Min Nan, Min Bei) in southern China where it is more mountainous (and hence more island-like). I would like to compare this to the situation in East Africa; unfortunately, I have little knowledge of the East African savannahs.
3. As far as I know, most linguists cannot reconstruct protolanguages to more than 6000 years before present. Even so, many of the world’s known languages diversified only fairly recently. For example, the split of the major Indo-European branches are dated to just 5000 years before present, with many of the present day languages emerging within the space of just 2000 years. All these occur after the last glacial maximum, and so language diversification can be presumed to have occurred in island-like conditions for regions such as insular Southeast Asia.
4. I would like to point out why we raise the issue of Austronesian originating in Taiwan. In the article, there is the idea about Chinese returning to Southeast Asia to relearn a daughter (Malay) of the ancestral language. Yes, parsimoniously, the protolanguage of Southeast Asian ancestors may well be from Southeast Asia itself, but there is not enough evidence to show which one in particular. And since there is enough evidence for daughter languages to show some of the later migrations (i.e. Austronesian languages migrated southwards), it seems ironic to suggest Malay as that particular daughter language to relearn when all Asians supposedly speak daughter languages anyway, more so when Malay and other Austronesian languages may not actually be native remnants of the protolanguage, but are also fairly recent reintroductions.
On a different note, it seems like the tips of the tree (with the Altaic and Sino-Tibetan branches) are a grade instead of a clade. This could represent fairly significant differences within Sino-Tibetan (and Altaic) speaking populations.
All that said, I thought the research findings were most interesting, and hope that more sampling of diverse Asian populations will be done to elucidate the tree further. Of course, combining the genetic data with data from other sources would be even better for us to understand our history.
Maque:
A few comments. Regarding island diversity, I think you are conflating morphological diversity with genetic diversity. It is true that in some islands, there is rapid speciation with a lot of morphological diversity but that has more to do with unexplored niches being opened up (e.g., Darwin’s finches), but the underlying genetic structure might still not deviate from neutral expectations (i.e., not ‘more’ genetically diverse than mainland habitats). Alternatively, you can have very rapid morphological diversity in a ‘sympatric’ environment where there is no isolation (e.g., cichlid fishes in lakes in Africa). The link between morphological/phenotypic diversity and genetic diversity is still debated in the literature, and in this specific study, the two are correlated but it need not be so.
On daughter languages. I’m not saying Malay is the ancestral language (the original sentence “a daughter of the ancestral language, Malay” might be parsed by others as meaning Malay is the ancestral language when the parsing should be Malay, a daughter of the ancestral language (which is unknown)). You argued that Malay and other Austronesian languages may be “fairly recent reintroductions” but reintroductions from where? Austronesian and Austro-Asiatic languages whose speakers are highly related, most likely had a Southeast Asian origin by parsimony according to the tree (which you agree with), so the reintroduction is likely to have come ultimately from speakers from Southeast Asia (though they may not be speaking the “true” ancestral language anymore but we can never know either way). None of this would be supported if Austronesian speakers had closer affinities to populations in China, but this is strongly rejected by the tree. Malay was just one daughter language that got picked up by migrating Chinese. If the Chinese migrants in the 19th Century learned Austro-Asiatic Orang Asli languages extensively, what I said would apply equally strongly, but we know that did not happen in history.
Yes, I definitely support more interdisciplinary research. I think there is this general mistaken notion that the region we live in is a simply satellite of other civilizations when evidence suggest that Southeast Asia is in fact one of the seed centers of other populations in prehistoric times and a maritime and trading hub in historic times.
Farhan Ali,
“Austronesian and Austro-Asiatic languages whose speakers are highly related, most likely had a Southeast Asian origin by parsimony according to the tree (which you agree with), so the reintroduction is likely to have come ultimately from speakers from Southeast Asia (though they may not be speaking the “true” ancestral language anymore but we can never know either way).”
In that case, following your logic, it stands to reason that Chinese is also ultimately from Southeast Asia. So, Malays studying Chinese would also be relearning “a daughter of the ancestral language”.
Another possible explanation for the greater genetic diversity of SE Asians is that SE Asians are an admixture of immigrants from India in the West and East Asia, with a greater contribution from East Asian immigrants.
SE Asians have wide cheekbones which are characteristic of East Asian populations. Also, SE Asians (and Pacific Islanders) have lighter complexions than South Indians although SE Asia receives as much UV radiation as India.
Also, SE Asians don’t seem to resemble Indians and resemble more closely to East Asians. I realize that of course physical appearances are not good indicators of genetic differences.
In terms of linguistics, mainland SE Asia/South China seems to have the greatest diversity. The number of language groups is maximal in South China and adjacent parts of SE Asia where you can find very different languages from the Kradai, Austro-asiatic, Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan language groups side by side. In contrast, insular SE Asia has relatively limited linguistic diversity (mostly closely related Austronesian languages) which points to a recent linguistic expansion. The linguistic evidence suggests that South China and adjacent parts of mainland SE Asia have supported a larger population than North China or Insular SE Asia for a long time.
When the Han Chinese that is in the Central Plains draw a line between them and their Southern Brethens, they noted that they are shorter in built, and have double eyelids while they don’t. There is also facial differences like type of beard, curly or non curly hair, etc
And not to mention that remarkable curve eyes. Anyway, the chinese here are mostly are from Southern China. If you been to Northern China, you will see Chinese that is different from Sg. Sg Chinese r mostly hydrids of north and south or mostly from southern China.