Pacific Islander and Meso-American genetic relationship

[chris epic]

We all know that the aboriginals of the North and South American continents came from Asia. What I've been taught is that Mongoloid-Siberian Asians crossed the land bridge that was present during the recent recession of the world's waters from the great Pleistocene Epoch. They then gradually moved from present-day Canada, into the lower "US" and then into Mexico, Meso-America, and finally South America; and here, the oldest inhabitants are the Olmecs.

I have also learned that a population of sea-farring people originating in Africa or Madagascar took off over 50,000 years ago and swept across the South China Sea, inhabiting Indonesia, Micro-nesia (Vanuatu), Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines, etc... Asians mixed with many of these people and from the Philippines, they spread throughout the rest of the Pacific, all the way over to Hawaii...

I am interested in this personal observation (without any genetic education, and very little Anthropological education): North American "Indians" obviously look more like their Mongoloid-Siberian relatives than do the Meso and South American "Indians." The Meso and south American Indians, in fact, bare more of a striking resemblance to Pacific Islanders like Philippinos and Hawaiins.

Though all of these people are primarily from Asian ancestry, would it be plausible to assume that as North American Indians are decended from Mongoloid-Siberian Asians, Meso and South American Indians are more closely decended or related to Pacific Islanders?

[pipelineaudio]

Its neat to see the feather mowhawk helmets in both china and hawaii, the kalua pig in the philipines and hawaii, and I always hear that the Easter Islanders were kanakas that happened upon some south american indians already living there. Was the galapagos settled before columbus?

[Dave1001]

Its neat to see the feather mowhawk helmets in both china and hawaii, the kalua pig in the philipines and hawaii, and I always hear that the Easter Islanders were kanakas that happened upon some south american indians already living there. Was the galapagos settled before columbus?

Fortunately, this stuff should all be fairly easy to find out with today's genetic testing.

Anyone know the results? I'm sure folks like sforza-cali (or is it cali-sforza?) have done or agregated the research.

[TriangleMan]

Though all of these people are primarily from Asian ancestry, would it be plausible to assume that as North American Indians are decended from Mongoloid-Siberian Asians, Meso and South American Indians are more closely decended or related to Pacific Islanders?
(Pure speculation on my part, no data):

It could even be a mixture of both, perhaps some Polynesians made it to South America but later when the Siberian Asians arrived the Polynesians intermingled with them.

[Foolmewunz]

I have also learned that a population of sea-farring people originating in Africa or Madagascar took off over 50,000 years ago and swept across the South China Sea, inhabiting Indonesia, Micro-nesia (Vanuatu), Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines, etc... Asians mixed with many of these people and from the Philippines, they spread throughout the rest of the Pacific, all the way over to Hawaii...



May I ask where you learned of this? This would, of course, be interesting but I've never heard of the first wave of emigration. The latter part, the settlement of Polynesia by Southeast Asians is fairly documented (or at least well argued), but I've never seen reference to the origins of those people, in turn, being from Madagasgar or Africa.

As to Polynesian settlement of South America? Highly unlikely IMHO. In recent years, to prove the Polynesian diaspora (likely from the initial bases in Fiji and Tonga), several groups have reconstructed Polynesian craft, using materials available before the Western incursion. The longest voyages achieved have been 3000 to 4000 KM. And this was knowing ahead of time where they were going (yet navigating without modern instrumentation). Further, most of the currents would be running against them unless they had taken a far southerly route, which seems problematic.

As Dave1001 said, though, with DNA and genetic evidence now available for various ancestral claims, there should be evidence available... If not now, then sooner rather than later.

[Roboramma]

(Pure speculation on my part, no data):

It could even be a mixture of both, perhaps some Polynesians made it to South America but later when the Siberian Asians arrived the Polynesians intermingled with them.

Since South America was populated by around 11,000 years ago, or so, and the Polynesians didn't populate the south pacific until maybe 3500 (soloman islands)-1000 (new zealand) years ago, I don't think it's likely that the Polynesians beat the "Siberians" there.

[Roboramma]

I have also learned that a population of sea-farring people originating in Africa or Madagascar took off over 50,000 years ago
I'm pretty sure that Madagascar was first populated only about 1500 to 2000 years ago, by people from Indonesia, rather than the other way around.*

and swept across the South China Sea, inhabiting Indonesia, Micro-nesia (Vanuatu), Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines, etc... Asians mixed with many of these people and from the Philippines, they spread throughout the rest of the Pacific, all the way over to Hawaii...
This sounds mixed up. From what I know, around 50,000 or 60,000 years ago, people who were originally from Africa, but had already spread to Asia quite a while before, started populating Indonesia, New Guinea, and eventually Australia.
I don't think these are the same people who populated the Philippines (I think it was populated around 30,000 years ago, which is later than Australia, and people never went from Australia back to New Guinea or the rest of Asia), though I could be wrong, but certainly not the same people who populated the south pacific (Polynesia, New Zealand).*

*Of course all this is off the top of my head, so take with a grain of salt.

[Bikewer]

From a number of things I've seen or read lately, it seems that anthropologists are re-thinking much of the paradigm about the settlement of the Americas.

I know there is considerable evidence that "ice-hugging" hunters and fishermen from Northern Europe worked their way across frozen Northern seas to the East coast of the Americas, and they have found advanced stone tools here that bear much more resemblance to later European finds than to anything found previously in the Americas.
There is a lot of speculation about the settlement of the West Coasts as well, both North and South. Finds of advanced stone tools in areas much older than was previously thought possible, for instance.
There seems to be thought now that the traditional "walking over the land bridge" was only one wave of migration, and that there have probably been a number of such from different areas.

[pipelineaudio]

The latter part, the settlement of Polynesia by Southeast Asians is fairly documented (or at least well argued), but I've never seen reference to the origins of those people, in turn, being from Madagasgar or Africa.


When my mom was taking anthropology I know the out of africa explanation was popular for many of the pacific Islands.

The only "southeast asians" thats seem to resemble southern polynesians in any meaningful way are the New Guineans to me anyhow. But as you move north and east, there does seem to be a bit of asian mixed in.

Of course, they could have been interbreeding with the menehunes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menehune) :)

[TriangleMan]

Since South America was populated by around 11,000 years ago, or so, and the Polynesians didn't populate the south pacific until maybe 3500 (soloman islands)-1000 (new zealand) years ago, I don't think it's likely that the Polynesians beat the "Siberians" there.
You appear to be correct. I was thinking of Easter Island when I wrote that, but just took a look around the web and it appears that current thinking is that the first settlers arrived there around 100-700AD. For some reason I thought the first Easter Island settlements were much (much, much) earlier than that.

[chris epic]

May I ask where you learned of this? This would, of course, be interesting but I've never heard of the first wave of emigration. The latter part, the settlement of Polynesia by Southeast Asians is fairly documented (or at least well argued), but I've never seen reference to the origins of those people, in turn, being from Madagasgar or Africa.
Well the first thing that had bells going off for me was the difference between how "most" Filipinos looked as compared to tribal people of Malaysia or Vanuatu. While Filipinos, Hawaiians, Tongan, Samoan, Javan, and New Zealand natives look more asian; Malaysian, Vanuatuan, and Austrailian Aboriginies look more African. Even the Filipino use the expression "Negrito" to describe darker skinned natives. Philippine ancestry seems to be a mix of the Austroasian people of Malaysia, Borneo, and Sumatra who look more African in appearance, combined with the southern migration of the Chinese peoples (Vietnamese/Cambodian/Thai/Philippine) and then from the Philippines, these "Mestizo" of Malay and "Chinese" people spread throughout the rest of the Pacific. The Maylay/Sumatra/Austrailian aboriginals didn't just sprout up in these places, they came from Africa, right? There are even Malay decendents in South Africa.

[Roboramma]

Maylay/Sumatra/Austrailian aboriginals didn't just sprout up in these places, they came from Africa, right? Via Asia. Over the course of thousands of years. Certainly not by boat from Africa.

Austrailian natives are as much African as are North American natives, or Europeans.

[The Atheist]

While Filipinos, Hawaiians, Tongan, Samoan, Javan, and New Zealand natives look more asian;You're sure you're not just getting had by the fact that many Pacific Islanders and Maori have intermarried with Chinese over the past 150 years?

There are huge numbers of Pacific Islanders who can trace back to a Chinese.

Just an aside re: NZ Maori (the indigenous people) All indications - and there are many - show not more than ~1000 years in occupation here.

[pipelineaudio]

You're sure you're not just getting had by the fact that many Pacific Islanders and Maori have intermarried with Chinese over the past 150 years?

I was thinking the same thing, but still hes got a point

African to Andaman to New Guinea to Melanesia lookswise is about right. Samoans got the 'fros and the nose kinda but not much else, Tongans kinda the same but less. Fiji, Hawaii, Tahiti and the Maoris though really do start to look a bit more asian. Much skinnier, sometimes stright long hair, etc... There are more than a few islands where we know polynesian and Maylays or other asians lived close together arent there?

[chris epic]

Via Asia. Over the course of thousands of years. Certainly not by boat from Africa.

Austrailian natives are as much African as are North American natives, or Europeans.
Not when you compare photographs. Genes, yes, but not skin color and facial features. If you were to hold a picture of a German, Chinese, Austrailian Aboriginal, and an African up together and ask "Which two people look most closely related?" Without a doubt you would point to the Aboriginal and the African.

[The Atheist]

Fiji, Hawaii, Tahiti and the Maoris though really do start to look a bit more asian. Much skinnier, sometimes stright long hair, etc... There are more than a few islands where we know polynesian and Maylays or other asians lived close together arent there?Well, I live amonst Pacific Islanders, Maori and Asians - I'm surrounded by the buggers here - we're the only white people for miles! I just don't get the Asian/Polynesian connection visually - features, size, shape, bone structure, facial hair, the lot. Plus, nowadays, there has been so much mingling of ethnicities that the lines are getting more blurred all the time.

As I understand it, the dating of Polynesian migration was all North -> South, due to the arrival dates of colonisation. The dates don't work for Asia -> Polynesian migration.

I'll stand to be corrected, this is going back to school indoctrination, for me!

[The Atheist]

Not when you compare photographs. Genes, yes, but not skin color and facial features. If you were to hold a picture of a German, Chinese, Austrailian Aboriginal, and an African up together and ask "Which two people look most closely related?" Without a doubt you would point to the Aboriginal and the African.Phew. Again, I wonder how many Aboriginals and Africans you've had a beer with, but apart from very dark skin, I see no resemblance at all between Africans and Aboriginals. Aboriginals and Indonesians, absolutely. I think throwing a German into the line-up's a little disingenuous!

[pipelineaudio]

Well, I live amonst Pacific Islanders, Maori and Asians - I'm surrounded by the buggers here - we're the only white people for miles! I just don't get the Asian/Polynesian connection visually - features, size, shape, bone structure, facial hair, the lot. Plus, nowadays, there has been so much mingling of ethnicities that the lines are getting more blurred all the time.


I live amongst pacific islanders too, as I AM a pacific islander :)

Like you I dont see much alike from the aboriginal and the polynesian. I dont see much alike from aboriginal to maori either. Yet I dont have any problem in believing the seafaring asians and polynesians mixed it up a bit. Look at the Chamorros for instance. Way too tough to be straight asian, but way too spritely to be full on polynesian

[Soapy Sam]

Brian Sykes, in "The Seven Daughters of Eve" presents evidence that the Polynesians were Asian, not American.

[chris epic]

Phew. Again, I wonder how many Aboriginals and Africans you've had a beer with, but apart from very dark skin, I see no resemblance at all between Africans and Aboriginals. Aboriginals and Indonesians, absolutely. I think throwing a German into the line-up's a little disingenuous!
The German thing was onlya response to Roboramus' post "Austrailian natives are as much African as are North American natives, or Europeans."

Have you seen that show on the Travel Channel "Tribal Life"? or something like that- the show documenting the daily life of the people of Vanuatu, an island in the Pacific? Just look at them- hey look more "African" than Asian and their further east in the Pacific then Javans are.

....
Okay, here we go. http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/genetics/mtDNAworld/one.html

This slide show supports the primary "Out of Africa" diaspora of human migration from about 100,000 years ago- from genetics, it appears that Africans did not take off from Madigascar out to the South Pacific Islands.

What I am thinking is that the more "African" features in austroasians, as opposed to the more "asian" features of Pacific islanders is probably a matter of isolated evolution. When people first left Africa, a population of them "qickly migrated down through Asia and into Australia where they remained isolated from the west of the world and maintained their "African" characteristics. The more "Asian" features are from later migrations of Asians that mixed with the isolated "Africanistic" austroasians and as a result, some later island-isolated peoples were more "Africanistic" (Vanuatu, Aboriginy, etc...) and other were more Asian looking (Philippines, Hawaii, etc...)

[chris epic]

Brian Sykes, in "The Seven Daughters of Eve" presents evidence that the Polynesians were Asian, not American.

I dont think that was ever the assumtion. I was curious if any Polynesians made it over to the Americas, not the other way around.

[chris epic]

http://www.vanuatutourism.com/vanuatu/cms/en/culture/culture.html

[grayman]

Another theory to be found here (http://www.amazon.com/Zuni-Enigma-Nancy-Yaw-Davis/dp/0393047881). The Zuni Enigma.

[Soapy Sam]

I dont think that was ever the assumtion. I was curious if any Polynesians made it over to the Americas, not the other way around.

I understand it to have been the theory behind Thor Heyerdahl's "Kon Tiki" expedition. I'm willing to be corrected though.

[Roboramma]

Not when you compare photographs. Genes, yes, but not skin color and facial features. If you were to hold a picture of a German, Chinese, Austrailian Aboriginal, and an African up together and ask "Which two people look most closely related?" Without a doubt you would point to the Aboriginal and the African.

Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with how people expanded over the world. The genetic evidence is far more useful than just looking at photos for the question that you were actually asking, and that I was responding to:
Well the first thing that had bells going off for me was the difference between how "most" Filipinos looked as compared to tribal people of Malaysia or Vanuatu. While Filipinos, Hawaiians, Tongan, Samoan, Javan, and New Zealand natives look more asian; Malaysian, Vanuatuan, and Austrailian Aboriginies look more African. Even the Filipino use the expression "Negrito" to describe darker skinned natives. Philippine ancestry seems to be a mix of the Austroasian people of Malaysia, Borneo, and Sumatra who look more African in appearance, combined with the southern migration of the Chinese peoples (Vietnamese/Cambodian/Thai/Philippine) and then from the Philippines, these "Mestizo" of Malay and "Chinese" people spread throughout the rest of the Pacific. The Maylay/Sumatra/Austrailian aboriginals didn't just sprout up in these places, they came from Africa, right? There are even Malay decendents in South Africa.

Considering that you seemed to be suggesting that people went from Africa to Australia, and that Australians were thus more closely related to Africans than to any other people (which would be false - from the migration site you linked to, Australians and Europeans would be more closely related to each other than either are to Africans (because both decend from N and M types) if it weren't for interbreding. With interbreding of course at the time of the European discovery of Africa, Africans would be more closely related to Europeans than to Australians.

I think I'm not writing very clearly (my head is rather muddy at the moment).

[Foolmewunz]

I understand it to have been the theory behind Thor Heyerdahl's "Kon Tiki" expedition. I'm willing to be corrected though.

Opposite direction. Heyerdahl thought South Americans had inhabited the islands; not the other way around (well "across").

[Roboramma]

Opposite direction. Heyerdahl thought South Americans had inhabited the islands; not the other way around (well "across").

I think that's what Soapy Sam was talking about as well - south americans colonising polynesia. chris epic is talking about polynesians colonising south america.

I don't think I'd be all that surprised if either had occured, actually. What would surprise me is if either had been that important. What I mean is that Polynesians are of Asian origin. If South Americans had gone to polynesia, they didn't stay. If some polynesians made it to South America (again, it seems possible), there weren't enough of them to have a major cultural (or agricultural) impact. Is it possible that there was some trade between the two? As far as I know, maybe, if but so very little.

Anyway, from what I've read, there's certainly no conclusive evidence that the two cultures were in touch.
(I think the best evidence is in the form of some agricultural plants that are shared, but I'm not sure. I may be remembering that wrong...)

[Foolmewunz]

I think that's what Soapy Sam was talking about as well - south americans colonising polynesia. chris epic is talking about polynesians colonising south america.

I don't think I'd be all that surprised if either had occured, actually. What would surprise me is if either had been that important. What I mean is that Polynesians are of Asian origin. If South Americans had gone to polynesia, they didn't stay. If some polynesians made it to South America (again, it seems possible), there weren't enough of them to have a major cultural (or agricultural) impact. Is it possible that there was some trade between the two? As far as I know, maybe, if but so very little.

Anyway, from what I've read, there's certainly no conclusive evidence that the two cultures were in touch.
(I think the best evidence is in the form of some agricultural plants that are shared, but I'm not sure. I may be remembering that wrong...)


Oops. Sorry, S.S. I read it incorrectly.

Yes, there are a couple of recent things that indicate that Chinese or Japanese may even have hit the U.S. West Coast in the 14th or 15th Century. See the link that Grayman provided. The author assumes that the boat anchor they discovered was Japanese, but I don't think the Japanese were navigating in that era and we now know that the Chinese were. As they got as far as Africa to the west, it could be that they got to North America by sailing North and across the Bering.

I'll have to read up on some of the recent developments in anthropology on these topics, though. My original learnings said that the Australian aboriginals were a different genetic line from the islanders, but that the Maori and NZ original inhabitants were the same as the Polynesians. Has anyone seen anything that actually links the two, biologically. (We seem to have legitimate experts on these boards in a lot of areas - any anthropologists at JREF?)