posted                         

• the majority ESEA Gold K
• the strong NEG Grey K and EUR/SAS Blue K minorities
• and the small AFR Brown K and PAP Pink K

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

code:

---

  2200-1600 BCE        Neolithic          Vietnam    5/5    3.7-7.2%  **
   2500-209 BCE   Late Neolithic          Vietnam    3/4    1.2-4.8%  -*
   1125-926 BCE   Late Neolithic/Bronze   Laos       0/1          0%                  
    744-398 BCE        Neolithic          Malaysia   1/1        5.4%   *
    459-231 BCE                  Bronze   Laos       1/1        3.6%   *
                                                                                                                                   
 391BCE-0100 CE                  Bronze   Vietnam    6/6    2.4-6.3%  -*   
                                                                                                                               
      78-234 CE        ProtoHistoric      Cambodia   1/1        3.6%   *
     215-419 CE        Iron               Thailand   4/4    2.4-4.4%  -* 
   1448-1653 CE             Historic      Malaysia   1/2        2.4%
   1641-1950 CE             Historic      Vietnam    1/1        1.6% 
 

---

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
It's a preprint. Keep that in mind while reading the snippets below. Anybody know any similar already published articles?


Piya Changmai, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich et al
Ancient DNA from Protohistoric Period Cambodia indicates that
South Asians admixed with local populations as early as 1st -3rd centuries CE
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.30.498315v1.full.pdf


ABSTRACT

Indian cultural influence is remarkable in present-day Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA), and it may
have stimulated early state formation in the region. Various present-day populations in MSEA harbor a
low level of South Asian ancestry, but previous studies failed to detect such ancestry in any ancient
individual from MSEA. In this study, we discovered a substantial level of South Asian admixture (ca.
40% – 50%) in a Protohistoric individual from the Vat Komnou cemetery at the Angkor Borei site in
Cambodia. The location and direct radiocarbon dating result on the human bone (95% confidence
interval is 78 – 234 calCE) indicate that this individual lived during the early period of Funan, one of
the earliest states in MSEA, which shows that the South Asian gene flow to Cambodia started about a
millennium earlier than indicated by previous published results of genetic dating relying on present-
day populations.

Plausible proxies for the South Asian ancestry source in this individual are present-
day populations in Southern India, and the individual shares more genetic drift with present-day
Cambodians than with most present-day East and Southeast Asian populations.

---

Posts: 7091 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

Finding an ancient Cambodian individual with that much southern Indian-like ancestry is interesting and not necessarily something I would have expected. I know the aboriginal inhabitants of Southeast Asia would have been darker-skinned Negritos, but I always imagined the Khmer of Angkor Wat fame to look like modern Khmer people, i.e. typical Austroasiatic-speaking "Sundadont" Southeast Asians whose ancestors would entered the region from further north after the Negritos. I wonder if this South Asian-like ancestry is actually Negrito rather than Indian?

---

Posts: 26303 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
I for one am not at all surprised by the finding of Indian ancestry in ancient SE Asia. Historically contact between India and Southeast Asia has been consistent if not frequent. Northeastern India is biogeographically continuous with Southeast Asia save

The chalcolithic Copper Hoard Culture of the Ganges Plain has been shown to have connections to the Eneolithic of Myanmar and Southeast Asia and we have the Austrasian speaking Munda people of Eastern India. There is also traditions in the epic Ramayana that Rama participated in maritime campaigns of conquest in Suvarnabhumi meaning 'Golden Land' which lay to the east of India comprising also Suvarnadvipah 'Golden Islands', it was said Rama pacified them into vassal states for his legendary empire. Millennia later, Rajendra Chola I of South India emulated Rama in doing the same to expand Chola Empire influence in Southeast Asia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

Finding an ancient Cambodian individual with that much southern Indian-like ancestry is interesting and not necessarily something I would have expected. I know the aboriginal inhabitants of Southeast Asia would have been darker-skinned Negritos, but I always imagined the Khmer of Angkor Wat fame to look like modern Khmer people, i.e. typical Austroasiatic-speaking "Sundadont" Southeast Asians whose ancestors would entered the region from further north after the Negritos. I wonder if this South Asian-like ancestry is actually Negrito rather than Indian?

---

People often assume that the aboriginal types of SE Asia to be "Negrito" in look but we don't really know how the original inhabitants of the Sunda subcontinent looked or rather the diversity that existed in that region before the Holocene. So far we have remains of the Hoabinhians but I already showed that these were not black aboriginals but rather proto-SEA 'mongoloids' ancestral to many Austrasian speakers! So there's no telling the type of Indian ancestry that existed. Mind you that even the 'Negrito' type Andamanese are Indodont in odontomorphology and NOT Sundadont.

---

quote:

---

Island Southeast Asia (ISEA), the area encompassed by modern Indonesia, East Malaysia, and the Philippines, was colonized by modern humans at least 45,000 years ago1 and possibly >50,000 years ago.2 At that time, the region was split between the Pleistocene continent of Sunda, which stretched from Sumatra to Bali and Palawan, and Wallacea, which included the islands east of Wallace’s line (fig. 1). The Sunda shelf was flooded when sea levels rose in the early-Holocene epoch, spurring the development of maritime exchange between populations on the remnant Sunda islands (especially Borneo and Palawan) and populations in Wallacea.4–6 However, despite this evidence for a dynamic population history in early ISEA, paleoanthropologists tend to classify all early human remains in the region as “Australo-Melanesian” (i.e., related to the indigenous people of Australia and New Guinea) and argue for a mid-Holocene immigration of the ancestors of most of the present-day inhabitants.

---

quote:

---

Background: An early dispersal of biologically and behaviorally modern humans from their African origins to Australia, by at least 45 thousand years via southern Asia has been suggested by studies based on morphology, archaeology and genetics. However, mtDNA lineages sampled so far from south Asia, eastern Asia and Australasia show non-overlapping distributions of haplogroups within pan Eurasian M and N macrohaplogroups. Likewise, support from the archaeology is still ambiguous.

Results: In our completely sequenced 966-mitochondrial genomes from 26 relic tribes of India, we have identified seven genomes, which share two synonymous polymorphisms with the M42 haplogroup, which is specific to Australian Aborigines.

Conclusion: Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence of an early colonization of Australia through south Asia, following the "southern route".

---

quote:

---

Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) was first colonized by modern humans at least 45,000 years ago, but the extent to which the modern inhabitants trace their ancestry to the first settlers is a matter of debate. It is widely held, in both archaeology and linguistics, that they are largely descended from a second wave of dispersal, proto-Austronesian–speaking agriculturalists who originated in China and spread to Taiwan ∼5,500 years ago. From there, they are thought to have dispersed into ISEA ∼4,000 years ago, assimilating the indigenous populations. Here, we demonstrate that mitochondrial DNA diversity in the region is extremely high and includes a large number of indigenous clades. Only a fraction of these date back to the time of first settlement, and the majority appear to mark dispersals in the late-Pleistocene or early-Holocene epoch most likely triggered by postglacial flooding. There are much closer genetic links to Taiwan than to the mainland, but most of these probably predated the mid-Holocene “Out of Taiwan” event as traditionally envisioned. Only ∼20% at most of modern mitochondrial DNAs in ISEA could be linked to such an event, suggesting that, if an agriculturalist migration did take place, it was demographically minor, at least with regard to the involvement of women.

---

Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
One problem is that people automatically group so-called "Negrito" types together as one monolithic group when they obviously are not. Not only is there phenotypic distinction aside from melanated skin and curly hair but the genetic distinction is striking.

Here is an excellent paper from Jinam et al. 2017: Discerning the Origins of the Negritos, First Sundaland People: Deep Divergence and Archaic Admixture



We first investigated the relationship between individuals by PCA. Figure 1A shows that the first two principal components (PCs) separates the Andamanese, Malaysian Negritos and Philippine Negritos into distinct clusters. If Papuans and Melanesians were included (supplementary fig. S4A, Supplementary Material online), the Philippine Negritos were located between the Papuans and Malaysian Negritos along PC2. When the Andamanese individuals were omitted, PC1 separates the Aeta, Agta, and Batak from the other populations whereas PC2 separates the Mamanwa and Jehai from other groups (fig. 1B). The Agta, Aeta, and Batak individuals form a comet-like pattern along PC1, which may indicate admixture events. Similarly, the Mamanwa also showed the comet-like pattern along PC2. The PCA plot without Agta and Aeta (supplementary fig. S4B, Supplementary Material online) places the Batak close to the non-Negrito Philippine groups, suggesting a high proportion of admixture. The Manobo and Mamanwa, both living in northern Mindanao, have a high affinity as several Manobo individuals clustered with the Mamanwa (fig. 1B and supplementary fig. S4B, Supplementary Material online).



The results of ADMIXTURE analysis from k = 2–7 are shown in figure 2. The cross-validation error assuming k = 1 to k = 9 number of clusters shows that k = 7 has the lowest error (supplementary fig. S5, Supplementary Material online). The orange-colored component is highest in the Austronesian-speaking non-Negrito groups, with varying proportions in the four Philippine Negritos, suggesting admixture. Among the Philippine Negrito groups, the Batak have the highest proportion of this orange component, corresponding well to their close proximity to the non-Negritos in the PCA plot (fig. 1B). From k = 6, the Mamanwa have their own genetic component (white), and at k = 7, the Batek were differentiated from other populations (yellow). These observations suggest that the Mamanwa and Batek have experienced a substantial amount of long-term genetic drift. To verify the presence of admixture, we used the D-statistic (Patterson et al. 2012). The results for D(Philippine Negrito, Andamanese; French, x), are shown in supplementary figure S6 in the Supplementary Material online. A negative Z-score implies gene flow between the Philippine Negritos and population x; highly negative Z-scores were observed for Philippine Negritos and Philippine non-Negritos, suggesting gene flow tended to involve groups that are geographically close. We classified individuals from Aeta, Mamanwa and Manobo groups who have less than 60% of their corresponding ancestral component proportion based on ADMIXURE result at k = 6 as highly admixed. In total, 22 individuals were omitted from subsequent population-based analyses.

Another problem which is far too prevalent is assumption making based on cranial morphology alone. Thus certain cranial facial forms are readily classed as "Negrito" and others "Mongoloid".

Here is a paper from Matsumara et al. 2019 that discusses the cranial morphology of Hoabinhians: Craniometrics Reveal “Two Layers” of Prehistoric Human Dispersal in Eastern Eurasia



^ Notice in the craniometric NNS map above, that Nicobarese fall into the 'Australoid' cluster along with the Jomon, whereas the Aeta Negritos of the Philippines fall into the Austronesian cluster which makes one wonder how many of those in the Australoid cluster including pre-Neolithic southern Chinese actually match that phenotype!

---

quote:

---

Pygmies have long served, both in Western imagination and in Western science, as a sheet
anchor for racial hierarchies and for putative sequences of human physical and social evolution.
In the course of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Western exploration in Africa, Asia and the Pacific generated what might broadly be termed a colonial ‘Pygmy mythology’,
composed of a set of characteristics deemed diagnostic of this diminutive ‘race’, articulated with an exceptional degree of confidence by travellers and metropolitan scientists alike. This paper charts the manner in which the three central tropes of racist denigration – the primordial, the
infantile and the bestial – have been applied to excess in the description of Pygmies. Yet Pygmies
have also been enlisted by colonial observers in an unlikely alliance, as third-party foils in
arguments that seek to naturalize the conditions of colonial subjugation of non-Pygmy others.
The impetus for this strange alliance is considered through reference to the recent rediscovery by the revisionist historian, Keith Windschuttle, of a Pygmy past in the rainforests of Queensland,
Australia.

...

Along with Tasman ian Aborigines, the Fuegians of Patagonia, Hottentots and Bushmen, people described as Pygmies have long served as a global sheet anchor for racial hierarchies which have sought to account for apparent di?erences among human groups in terms of their supposed relative evolutionary progress (Gamble 1992). Whether diminutive or (reputedly) gigantic, as in the case of the Fuegians (McEwan et al. 1997), by virtue of their extreme physical distance and extreme variation from European norms, together with the reported poverty of their material cultures or simplicity of their social structures, these groups have each been identi?ed as primordial, as the surviving traces of early stages in human social and physical evolution (Tylor 1865; Morgan 1877). By the early twentieth century, the issues of Pygmy origins and of the relationship between Pygmies and other human groups were being articulated in terms of a 'Pygmy Problem' or 'Pygmy Question. The history of the 'Pygmy Question' opens up for consideration both the function of racial comparison and hierarchy, and the role of racial thinking in colonial logics of domination.

Consideration of the 'invention' of the Pygmy, first as a distinct racial category and then as a global stratum or frozen moment in human physical and social evolution, usefully exposes the more general process of construction of racial types, and the manner in which such knowledge is constituted through a circular affirmation of 'facts' among popular travelogues, colonial reports, medical descriptions and professional or scienti?c pronouncements. Recent accounts of colonialism, as a fractured and heterogeneous series of projects united only in retrospect, are a valuable corrective to an earlier tendency to treat colonialism as a monolithic entity (Thomas 1994). However, the notion of a more diffuse colonial imaginary reflects the extent to which stereotypical conceptions of human difference, formulated most powerfully under the conditions of colonial exploration and rule, have come to transcend national boundaries and languages and to permeate a global economy of representation. Notions of racial hierarchy generated through cross-cultural encounters and refined through colonial rule exert an enduring influence over popular conceptions of human difference and evolution, as well as scholarly research and writing on these topics.

---

Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ You bring up an excellent point about the so-called 'Pygmies'. Actually I shared your thoughts on that as well. People tend to group African Pygmies together based on similar physiognomy yet modern genetics show that they are actually genetically distinct populations and a similar situation is also found for the so-called 'Capoid' or Khoisan peoples of Southern Africa with the Khoin-Khoin and San being much more genetically distinct from each other than they appear.

But it's not just Europeans. Unfortunately even East Asians are guilty of this mistake of making assumptions based on cranial features while presumably matching certain genomes to said cranial features. Genetics itself is busting this fallacy. I notice South Asian experts i.e. Tagore and others don't make such assumptions and I think this has to do with the greater self awareness that their own populations of the Indian subcontinent are of diverse mixed origins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

Thus Aeta (Negrito of the Philippines) are cranially "Mongoloid" specifically of Austronesian type, yet in skin and flesh are Australasian. Meanwhile the Nicobarese are cranially Australasian or "Negrito" but in flesh and skin are "Mongoloid" and not black at all. The Hoabinhians who are Australasian cranially have their modern descendants particularly the Semai who are shown below:

https://editorial01.shutterstock.com/wm-preview-1500/9779636d/3fa890e4/Shutterstock_9779636d.jpg

https://imkiran.com//wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_8856-980x653.jpg

The Semai are occasionally called Seman (not to be confused with the Semang Negritos) yet look where they plot in the craniometric NNS map. Among the Austronesian peoples they plot closest to Northeast Asian/Siberian peoples!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

The implications are clear especially when we consider ancient crania from other regions, say Paleo-American skulls who exhibit 'Australasian' features, skulls in Africa who display 'Caucasoid' features, or even skulls in Europe like the Russian Sungir skull that display 'Negroid' features!

This is why folks like Antalas who cling so hard to racial typologies won't dare address these strikingly glaring discrepancies. It is the same reason why modern bio-anthropologists and forensic experts are abandoning racial typology if they haven't already.

---

quote:

---

"In this part of the world, the genealogy extends back more than 35,000 years, when Neanderthals still occupied Europe," he adds. "These island groups were isolated at the edge of the human species range for an incredible length of time, not quite out in the middle of the Pacific, but beyond Australia and New Guinea. During this time they developed this pattern of DNA diversity that is really quite extraordinary, and includes many genetic variants that are unknown elsewhere, that can be tied to specific islands and even specific populations there. Others suggest very ancient links to Australian Aborigines and New Guinea highlanders."

Friedlaender also says that the study gives a different perspective on the notion of the "apparent distinctions between humans from different continents, often called racial differences. In this part of the Pacific, there are big differences between groups just from one island to the next -- one might have to name five or six new races on this basis, if one were so inclined. Human racial distinctions don't amount to much."

---

Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

That is why I don't use their naming conventions when I speak on the subject. The only "aboriginal" populations of Asia period are those going back 40,000 years and those populations were already diverse, because I do not believe these populations were all pygmies or negritos but they were all tropically adapted. That is the first problem with this line of thinking which basically tries to group phenotype variation into "racial" clusters, which have no historical correspondence to facts. That said, there have been waves of migrations in Asia throughout its history, but for the most part, the diversity already existed including skin color. It is just that as time went on and social preferences became more of a factor certain features became preferred over others, along with the fact of the population boom in China, but that is relatively recent. Not to mention the majority of the Eurasian continent is well above the equator so it makes sense that a northern adapted phenotype would be most predominant, such as in East Asia.

---

quote:

---

It makes no sense to compare the Semai to any sort of aboriginal population. They aren't even aborigines. This is what causes the confusion because it implies that up to 10,000 years ago, all populations in SEA were negritoes and that any other features originated somewhere else, such as North of Asia, which is false. The greatest human diversity in Asia today is in ISEA and the Pacific, specifically Melanesia. Therefore, modern Asians are a result of this ancient diversity in phenotype among "aboriginal" populations going back 40,000 years, which means all of them were not short curly haired pygmies. And that is why many populations of Native Americans have features resembling a wide range of Asian populations, not simply so-called North East Asian "mongoloids". And the reason for that is because the Americas are the only continent that spans the entire globe North to South including the equator.

---

quote:

---

It is misleading because there never was a single "type" of Asian phenotype in Asia, even 40,000 years ago. This is what I keep saying but people keep running back to "racial" terminology. The diversity of humanity is not race and "aboriginal" means prototype as in having all of the genes required to express a wide variety of traits in phenotype and physiognomy that allows humans to adapt to a wide range of environments without the need for extreme genetic changes leading to sub-speciation. This is why I argue against such usage of "racial" typologies.

quote:

---

"In this part of the world, the genealogy extends back more than 35,000 years, when Neanderthals still occupied Europe," he adds. "These island groups were isolated at the edge of the human species range for an incredible length of time, not quite out in the middle of the Pacific, but beyond Australia and New Guinea. During this time they developed this pattern of DNA diversity that is really quite extraordinary, and includes many genetic variants that are unknown elsewhere, that can be tied to specific islands and even specific populations there. Others suggest very ancient links to Australian Aborigines and New Guinea highlanders."

Friedlaender also says that the study gives a different perspective on the notion of the "apparent distinctions between humans from different continents, often called racial differences. In this part of the Pacific, there are big differences between groups just from one island to the next -- one might have to name five or six new races on this basis, if one were so inclined. Human racial distinctions don't amount to much."

---

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228064916.htm

---

Posts: 26303 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Thx T

=-=-=-=-=

Fig. 3. An ADMIXTURE analysis plot showing results for 6 hypothetical ancestral groups (K=6).
Abbreviations for meta-populations are as follows: Ancient MSEA, Ancient Mainland Southeast
Asians; AFR, present-day Africans; EUR, present-day Europeans; CAU, present-day Caucasians; ME,
present-day Middle Easterners; NEG, present-day Andamanese Negritos; PAP, present-day Papuans;
SAM, present-day Native Meso- and South Americans; ESEA, present-day East and Southeast Asians;
SIB, present-day Siberians; CAS, present-day Central Asians; SAS, present-day South Asians; N,
Neolithic; LN, Late Neolithic; PH, Protohistoric period; BA, Bronze Age; His., Historical period.
The number of individuals for each population is indicated in brackets after the population name.





=-=-=-=-=-=-=


It's HUMONGOUS! Had to unzoom it. So, thar ih tis, but do yourselves a favor and download the original.

---

Here is another one i posted in another thread.


Peopling of Southeast Asia



Estimated ancestry components among selected modern populations per Changmai et al (2022). The yellow component represents East Asian-like ancestry.
Source wikipedia.

Topic: Research team finds Indian ancestry among Southeast Asians

Posts: 2566 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged |