±«Óãtv

Ancient and Archaeology  permalink

Eastern Indonesia

• Message 1. 

  Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011

  Contrary to accepted belief recent articles have revealed that, the extant population of eastern Indonesia has retained about a 14% mtDNA component of macro haplogroups M and N,which belong to the earliest phase of colonization pre-50Ka.

  Link to this forum: Eastern Indonesia

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011

  henvell,
  
  can you explain in "lay" terms what you want to explain?
  
  Kind regards and with esteem,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Eastern Indonesia

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 25th February 2011

  Hi Paul. Henville tends to "paste and run" so with his and your indulgence I'll attempt to explain my own take on what these new papers allege.
  
  There is a recent hypothesis, based on DNA study and largely formulated by Chinese researchers, which postulates that the "Express Train", "Slow Boat" and "Out of Taiwan" models used to describe Pacific migration are all actually valid facets of the same phenomenon. The hypothesis employs facets of each model to support a contention that cultural and DNA correlation in the area is a very recent phenomenon and therefore that an archaeological and anthropological approach to deducing migration patterns is, by definition, limited to recent events and quite unable to provide a comprehensive picture.
  
  Having dismissed culture-based analysis it then proceeds to draw deduction based only on mitochondrial DNA. A crucial part of this analysis is the statistic derived from earlier research which indicates that 14% of the present Indonesian population retains a haplogroup configuration which pre-dates a supposed early Holocene period of "demic diffusion" in the region (total population replacement), which the study then maintains therefore calls into question the previously accepted theory that the region acted as a sort of "launch pad" for eastern migration at different times, each migration being relatively swift and highly populated. Instead it postulates that the 14% "low" incidence could equally be regarded as "high" if one radically revises the model to accommodate lower population sizes, less sporadic and more uniform migration periods, and an increased probability that DNA evidence supports matrilineage as the standard method of distribution, male contribution being relegated to an "overlay".
  
  In a nutshell it proposes on this basis that there is no need to have a supposed period of demic diffusion in the equation at all. It also allows for a degree of "reverse" distribution, with some people obviously travelling any direction except eastwards, and ultimately attempts to place the Pacific migrations in the broader context of humanity's general spread from the Horn of Africa. However in relegating previously considered motives for migration such as resource shortage, population expansion and climatic change, it then proposes no single motive for movement - understandable given the dependence of the hypothesis on a more "meandering" of people rather than necessity-driven migration.
  
  It is important to note however that this hypothesis falls short of drawing further deduction in any case and its authors tend to acknowledge that it raises as many new questions as it purports to answer. It is also important to note that the model infers much lower population levels in the Holocene than previously supposed but fails to accommodate a later "explosion" which then must have occurred in more recent history but for which no DNA evidence has (yet) been ascertained.
  
  Interesting, but inconclusive. Henville's presentation of it as "contrary to popular belief" is correct, though his phraseology suggests that the 14% statistic of very old DNA in Indonesia is also subject to revision. This, as far as I know, is not the case.

  Link to this forum: Eastern Indonesia

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 25th February 2011

  Re: Message 3.
  
  Nordmann,
  
  thank you very much for your explanation. To try to understand your "exposé" I did some quick research about for instance:
  the demic diffusion model versus the cultural diffusion model.
  
  Holoceen: 12,700 years ago till now.
  With the term in Google: "dna male contribution overlay" I found among others the following only to disturb me more (I think one need to have an intense course in DNA studies (one for dummies) to understand DNA related discussions?)
  
  I also found a site about Alpha men under the same term in Google: theories using Sykes as support (the Sykes from Blood of the Vikings and the several Eves, if I remember it well) Only to say if you read about DNA on the net that you have to be "cautious".
  
  You wrote:
  "and an increased probability that DNA evidence supports matrilineage as the standard method of distribution, male contribution being relegated to an "overlay"."
  Can you explain for a "layman", what you mean by that sentence, especially the term: "overlay".
  
  You wrote:
  "It is also important to note that the model infers much lower population levels in the Holocene than previously supposed but fails to accommodate a later "explosion" which then must have occurred in more recent history but for which no DNA evidence has (yet) been ascertained."
  
  This is the ultime test for me to prove that I understood something and don't be "vexed" if I am completely wrong...
  If I understood it well, you have to have a recent "explosion" in population levels if if you infers much lower population levels in the Holocene to reach the 14 % in the actual population?
  
  Kind regards and with esteem as always,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Eastern Indonesia

  Report message4

Back to top