一路 BBS

查看: 41|回复: 1

Origin of East Asians, Taiwan Aborigines 原住民, and Austronesians

发表于 1-8-2022 13:21:47 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 choi 于 1-8-2022 13:27 编辑

(1) Paul Jenkuei Li (Academia Sinica 中央研究院), The Discovery of Liandao Man and Its Implications for the Pre-Austronesian Homeland 亮島人的發現跟南島民族的來源. Journal of Chinese Linguistics (publisher: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press), 43: 224 (January 2015)

(a) The above link supplies page 1 only, other pages locked behind paywall.
(b) Page 1 has the English abstract. The companion Chinese abstract is as follows: "八千多年前亮島人的發現,在學術研究上具有重大的意義。本文從考古學、遺傳學跟語言學跨領域的觀點來討論。亮島人的基因跟現代的台灣南島民族很類似,其次是菲律賓和印尼。史前時代在華南居住的都非漢人。語言學的證據顯示:公元前一世紀或更早南亞民族已經居住在長江三角洲一帶了。本文推測南島民族跟南亞民族的前身大約在六千年前才在華南沿海一帶分化,遷移到台灣以後才成為古南島民族。要證明南島民族跟南亞民族的親屬關係,大概不是傳統的比較方法(the comparative method)就可以達成的,構詞學可以提供必要的證據。
(c) 李壬癸  Paul Jenkuei Li
(1936- ; 宜蘭縣客家人; BA 台灣師範大學英語系 1959, 密西根大學英語與文學碩士 1962-1963, 夏威夷大學語言學博士 1967-1973; 台灣南島語言學先驅, 台灣中央研究院院士)
(i) 亮島
(section 2 歷史: "1951年7月,中華民國國軍為維護馬祖南竿、北竿與東引之間的航道安全,遂派遣反共救國軍海上特種突擊中隊中隊長李承山率六名隊員偵搜上岸,順利在浪島上豎立青天白日滿地紅旗。這是唯一解放軍失守、並由國軍取回的土地")
, whose 參考資料 Reference 2 (link does not work) is
陳仲玉 (計畫主持人), 馬祖亮島島尾遺址群發掘及「亮島人」修復計畫, 連江縣政府, 2013
("2011年7月,因軍方慶祝亮島登島60週年紀念會,意外發現存在已久卻無人認識其形成因素與年代的貝塚。其後組成「馬祖亮島考古隊」,陸續在亮島上發現「百勝港遺址」、「亮島島尾I遺址」、「亮島島尾 II遺址」。該年度試掘亮島島尾 I遺址,出土史前遺物,經碳素14測定年代,確定該遺址為一距今約 8,000年前的新石器時期早期遺址。該遺址又發現了約 8,300年前的墓葬與「亮島人」遺骸,不僅是至今馬祖地區最早的史前遺址,亦為福建沿海地區新石器時代早期史前遺址之一")

Of course I did not know of this island and its history until a year ago when I started researching on this island upon reading (3) below.
(ii) The location of 亮島 relative to 南竿島(馬祖島), 北竿島 and 東引島 may be found in a map mid-page down

(2) Albert Min-Shan Ko * * * Mark Stoneking and and Ying-Chin Ko, Early Austronesians: Into and out of Taiwan. American Journal of Human Genetics, 94: 426 (2014).
https://imphscience.wordpress.co ... ldest-austronesian/

Quote (footnotes omitted):

Abstract: "Until now, there had been no ancient skeletal evidence of a potential Austronesian-speaking ancestor prior to the Taiwan Neolithic ~6,000 years ago * * * We address these issues via analysis of a complete mitochondrial DNA [abbreviation: mtDNA] genome sequence of an ~8,000-year-old skeleton from Liang Island (located between China and Taiwan) and 550 mtDNA genome sequences from 8 aboriginal (highland) Formosan and 4 other Taiwanese groups. We show that the Liangdao Man mtDNA sequence is closest to Formosans, provides a link to southern China, and has the most ancestral haplogroup E sequence found among extant Austronesian speakers. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis allows us to reconstruct a history of early Austronesians arriving in Taiwan in the north ~6,000 years ago, spreading rapidly to the south, and leaving Taiwan ~4,000 years ago to spread throughout Island Southeast Asia, Madagascar, and Oceania.

Introduction: "a limited panel of Y chromosome and autosomal STR loci indicate that Taiwan aboriginals are genetically close to the Daic speakers from southern China * * * there are no Austronesian speakers in China * * * Crucially, there is a lack of relevant fossil material pertaining to the origin or the genetic diversity of the various groups of aboriginal Formosans, nor has information concerning genetic diversity among the various groups of aboriginal Formosans been incorporated into investigations of the Austronesian expansion. * * * The Liangdao Man skeletal remains were discovered on the Liang Island of the Matsu archipelago in December 2011 and transported to the Matsu Folklore Museum. Matsu is located on the Min River estuary, 24 km from Fujian and 180 km northwest of Taiwan. It represents one of the shortest crossings from the mainland into Taiwan. The skeleton is 70% complete and that of a robust male about 160 cm in height. The C14-AMS [carbon 14 - Accelerator Mass Spectrometry] dating of a thoracic rib yields a date 8,060–8,320 Cal BP (at 95% probability). The Liangdao Man has a shell mound above it that contains artifacts such as pottery, stone tools, and bone tools. The radiocarbon dates of the shells and charcoal from the layers above the Liangdao Man range from 7,500 to 7,900 years ago (ya), verifying the burial to be from the earliest phase of the shell mound.

Material and Methods: "The DNA was extracted as described previously from a foot phalanx and femur of the Liangdao Man

Result: "The ancient mtDNA is haplogroup E * * * Figure 3 shows a comparison of the Liangdao Man sequence with 104 sequences from haplogroup E, collected from this study [ie, Liangdao Man], Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Melanesia and the nearest extant [ie, presemt today] relative haplogroup (M9) that is found in southern China. Two aboriginal Formosan sequences are the closest match to the Liangdao Man sequence, with four nucleotide differences in the mtDNA proteincoding region.

"Haplogroup E has been previously dated to more than 30,000 years ago (30 kya) by the rho method and a constant molecular clock. By contrast, Bayesian dating via ancient DNA calibration and using the direct age of the Liangdao Man indicates that haplogroup E probably arose
8,136–10,933 ya (95% highest posterior density, HPD) [this is considered in 2021 AD].  [Figure 2 tells you that Haplotype E's immediate predecessor is Haplotype M9.]

Discussion: "Haplogroup E is not observed in more than 6,000 individuals across 84 populations in China, and therefore the occurrence of this haplogroup at the Liangdao Man's location is highly unusual. In fact, haplogroup E is prevalent outside China among Austronesian-speaking groups from Taiwan, Philippines, Malay Peninsula, Island Southeast Asia, and Guam and Marianas in Micronesia, spreading as far west as Madagascar and as far east as the Bismarck Archipelago, but it has not yet been reported in Polynesia. * * * A Formosan source for the Liangdao Man is unlikely, because haplogroup E evolved from haplogroup M9, which [M9] has never been detected in more than 1,000 Formosan mtDNA sequences from this study and published data. Instead, haplogroup M9 is distributed along coastal China close to the Liang Island, such as in the Yangtze Valley region and Zhejiang. This suggests that M9 differentiated to E outside China (near Fuzhou) and that the haplogroup E lineages are associated with early Austronesians and the subsequent dispersal of Austronesian languages (Figure 5B). Further support for this view is that on the Mainland Southeast Asia, the E lineages are found in the Austronesian-speaking Cham but not in the AustroAsiatic, Tai-Kadai (Daic), or Tibeto-Burman speakers. The Cham have been traced to originate from Borneo, which may be one linguistic source of Malagasy, and E lineages are reported at 10% frequency in the Malagasy

"The earliest domestication of foxtail millet is 9.5–11.5 kya in northern China and of rice is 8.2–13.5 kya in the Yangtze Valley (Figure 5A). * * * Archeological evidence indicates that Neolithic Taiwan was settled 6 kya. * * * Taken together, the entry into Taiwan is likely from the
north, because the Liang Island and the origin of cereal crops used by aborigines are northward of the island (Figure 5A). The incoming direction matches the genetic findings that Saisiat 賽夏 and Atayal 泰雅 (northernmost tribes) have the highest mtDNA diversity (Figure 4C) [high DNA diversity means existing longest so as to have enough time to accumulate mutations; when biologists look for where a fruit was first domesticated, they look for where the most diversity for that fruit is] * * * In Taiwan, the early Austronesians dispersed southward (Figure 4). * * * The Out-of-Taiwan simulation, corresponding to the Proto-Malayo-Polynesian speakers (who left Taiwan), has a higher mean probability of occurring at 4.1–4.2 kya, which is consistent with the archeological record of an early contact with the Philippines at 4 kya. However, at this time there was a single population
moving through Taiwan because none of the Formosan tribes had yet formed.

(a) authorship:
(i) current position:
葛明軒  Albert Min-Shan Ko, assistant professor, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Chang Gung Univ 長庚大學 (CGU; located in 桃園市), undated
(education: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology)
Qiaomei Fu is the third author (out of 8), At the time, she was affiliated with "Department of Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig." as was the first and second last (Stoneking) authors.  
(ii) 付巧妹 (2007年在西北大学获理学学士学位,2009年在中国科学院研究生院获硕士学位,2013年在德国马克思.普朗克进化人类研究所获演化遗传学博士学位; 先后在德国马普进化人类学研究所和美国哈佛医学院 [under David Reich] 从事博士后研究; presently 中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所 研究员 and (脊椎动物演化与人类起源) 重点实验室副主任)
http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/sourcedb_ ... 160513_4601203.html
(iii) Mark Stoneking (1956- ; American; BA in anthropology from Univ of Oregon 1977, MS in in genetics from Penn State 1979; studied in Univ of Wisconsin Madison 1979-1981 without obtaining a degree; PhD in genetics from UC Berkeley 1981-1986; assistant professor to full professor 1990-1998 Penn State; Group Leader, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 1999-resent)
(iv) Ying-Chin Ko 葛應欽, of China Medical University 中國醫藥大學 (in Taichung); father of 葛明軒.
(i) For Island Southeast Asia, see Maritime Southeast Asia
("Maritime Southeast Asia is sometimes also referred to as Island Southeast Asia [ISEA]")
, where a map (caption: The biogeographical region of Malesia corresponds to Maritime Southeast Asia) is informative visually. Click "Malesia" and you will see two versions: excluding Papua-New Guinea or not.

Locked behind paywall, Mark Donohue and Tim Denham, Farming and Language in Island Southeast Asia Reframing Austronesian History. Current Anthropology, 51: 223 (2010) has a map showing ISEA.

(ii) ISEA is compared to Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA).

TTACHMENT at the bottom is a figure that fits here.
(c) STR in quotation of "Introduction" stands for Short Tandem Repeats. See microsatellite
("certain DNA motifs (ranging in length from one to six or more base pairs) are repeated, typically 5–50 times. * * * [Microsatellites] have a higher mutation rate than other areas of DNA [because a mutation in coding areas may cause  disadvantage or death in a carrier and thus will not be retained in natural selection] * * * The name 'satellite' DNA refers to the early observation that centrifugation of genomic DNA in a test tube separates a prominent layer of bulk DNA from accompanying 'satellite' layers of repetitive DNA"/  section 5 Applications, section 5.2 Forensic and medical fingerprinting: [different people have different numbers of repeats, plus high mutation rates])
For a graphic representation before and after centrifugation, see
Dr. B. Fristensky and N. Brien, Kinetic Classes of Genomic DNA. University of Manitoba, Canada, undated (course: "PLNT 3140 Introductory Cytogenetics - 2021")

Go to the section whose heading is "Highly Repetitive Fraction - Satellite DNA."
(d) For "Cal BP," see before present
(section 3 Radiocarbon calibration)
(e) Polynesia
(f) peoples and their languages:
(i) For "Daic speakers" in Introduction, see Kra–Dai languages
(section 1 Names: "The name 'Kra–Dai' was proposed by Weera Ostapirat (2000), as Kra and Dai are the reconstructed autonyms of the Kra 仡央 ['Kra 是对仡央语族 "人" 这个单词的构拟'  zh.eikipedia.org for 仡央语群] and Tai 傣 branches respectively")
(ii) Malagasy language
(section 2 Etymology)


50.69 KB, 下载次数: 0


使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 1-8-2022 13:22:14 | 显示全部楼层
(3) Chuan-Chao Wang, Genomic insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia. Nature, 591: 413 (March 2021)

(a) Go to Figure 1, and see very few samples are from China. So this paper says little about people in China.
(b) Figure 2 showed noted sites where DNAs had been extracted.
(i) Tianyuan man  田园洞人
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7993749/  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyuan_man   
(Tianyuan Cave 田园洞 near Beijing)
(ii) 田园洞 is located at 北京市房山区周口店镇.
(i) Figure 3's caption says,

"Figure 3: Estimates of mixture proportions using qpAdm.
(a) qpAdm modelling of Yellow River farmer (blue) and Liangdao-related ancestry (orange) in present-day East Asians * * *

(ii) The text associated with Figure 3 stated, "The Transeurasian Hypothesis is that the Mongolic, Turkic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic protolanguages were spread by agriculturalists from the West Liao River region who our analysis (Figure 2) shows were a mixture of Upper Yellow River-related (~67%) and Liangdao-related ancestry (~33%). Strikingly we observe that this characteristic mixture of ancestries is absent in the Mongolian and Amur River Basin time transects in our study (Figure 3), which is not what is expected for the hypothesis that expansions of West Liao River farmers spread Mongolic and Tungusic languages. In contrast, West Liao River farmer ancestry did plausibly have an impact further east. For example, we can model present-day Japanese as two-way mixtures of ~92% Bronze Age West Liao River populations and ~8% Jomon, with negligible contribution from Yellow River farmer-related sources as confirmed since Yellow River farming groups are included in the outgroup set for this qpAdm analysis and the models fit . This ancestry is consistent with having been transmitted through Korea, as Japanese can be modeled as ~91% Korean and ~9% Jomon.

• Jōmon pottery  縄文土器
(photo 2)

(4) Ming Zhang  张明 and Qiaomei Fu, Human Evolutionary History in Eastern Eurasia Using Insights from Ancient DNA. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development, 62: 78 (June 2020).

Note This is a review article. Please view Figure 2 only.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册


快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表