<%@LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT" CODEPAGE="65001"%> Haplogroup O1 (Y-DNA)

Excerpts from Wikipedia.org

Haplogroup O1 (MSY2.2) is a descendent branch of the greater Haplogroup O. The great majority of Y-chromosomes within Haplogroup O1 belong to its subgroup O1a (M119).

Origins: The Haplogroup O1 branch is believed to have evolved during the Late Pleistocene (Upper Paleolithic) in Southeast Asia. The genetic marker, Haplogroup O1a-M119 is found frequently among Austronesian peoples, Kradai peoples, and various other ethnic minorities in China. This lineage is presumed to be a marker of the prehistoric Austronesian expansion, with possible origins encompassing the regions along the southeastern coast of China and neighboring Taiwan, and is found among modern populations of Maritime Southeast Asia and Oceania.

A 2009 study by Karafet et al. at the University of Arizona suggests haplogroup O1 was part of a four-phase colonization model in which Paleolithic migrations of hunter-gatherers shaped the primary structure of current Y chromosome diversity of Maritime Southeast Asia. Neolithic incursions made only a minor impact on the paternal gene pool, despite the large cultural impact of the Austronesian expansion. Approximately 5000 BC, Haplogroup O1 coalesced at Sundaland and migrated northwards to as far as Taiwan, where O1a2 constitutes some 90% of the Aboriginal Y-DNA, being the main haplogroup that can be directly linked to the Austronesian expansion in phase 3.

Li et al. at the Yale University Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, concluded that in contrast to the Taiwan homeland hypothesis, Island Southeast Asians do not have a Taiwan origin based on their paternal lineages. According to their results, lineages within Maritime Southeast Asia did not originate from Taiwanese aborigines as linguistic studies suggest. Taiwan aborigines and Indonesians were likely to have been derived from the Daic populations based on their paternal lineages, and therefore evolved independently of each other.

The strongest positive correlation between Haplogroup O1 and ethnolinguistic affiliation is that which is observed between this haplogroup and the Austronesians. The peak frequency of Haplogroup O1 is found among the aborigines of Taiwan, precisely the region from which linguists have hypothesized that the Austronesian language family originated. A slightly weaker correlation is observed between Haplogroup O1 and the Han Chinese populations of southern China, as well as between this haplogroup and the Kradai-speaking populations of southern China and Southeast Asia. The distribution of Daic languages in Thailand and other parts of Southeast Asia outside of China has long been believed, for reasons of traditional linguistic geography, to reflect a recent invasion of Southeast Asia by Daic-speaking populations originating from southeastern China, and the somewhat elevated frequency of Haplogroup O1 among the Daic populations, coupled with a high frequency of Haplogroup O2a, which is a genetic characteristic of the Austro-Asiatic peoples of Southeast Asia, suggests that the genetic signature of the Daic peoples' affinity with populations of southeastern China has been weakened due to extensive assimilation of the earlier Austro-Asiatic residents of the lands which the Daic peoples invaded. Also, it has been noted that Haplogroup O1 lineages among populations of continental Southeast Asia outside of China display a reduced level of diversity when compared with populations of South China and insular Southeast Asia, which may be evidence of a bottleneck associated with the westward migration and settlement of ancestral Daic-speaking populations in Indochina.

Distribution: Haplogroup O1 lineages are found primarily in Southeast Asian populations of Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, southern China and Taiwan.

Haplogroup O1a-M119 Y-chromosomes also have been found to occur at low frequency among various populations of Siberia, such as the Nivkhs (one of 17 sampled Y-chromosomes), Ulchi/Nanai (2/53), Yenisey Evenks (1/31), and especially the Buryats living in the Sayan-Baikal uplands of Irkutsk Oblast (6/13).

Frequencies: A 2008 study by Li et al. at Yale University Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, demonstrated that the admixture analyses of Daic populations showed a significant genetic influence over a large proportion of Indonesians. Most of the population samples contained a high frequency of haplogroup O1a-M119.

The frequencies of Haplogroup O1 among various East Asian and Austronesian populations suggest a complex genetic history of the modern Han populations of southern China. Although Haplogroup O1 occurs only at an average frequency of approximately 4% among Han populations of northern China and peoples of southwestern China and Southeast Asia who speak Tibeto-Burman languages, the frequency of this haplogroup among the Han populations of southern China nearly quadruples to about 15%. The frequency of Haplogroup O1 among the Southern Han has been found to be slightly greater than the arithmetic mean of the frequencies of Haplogroup O1 among the Northern Han and a pooled sample of Austronesian populations. This suggests that modern Southern Han populations may possess a non-trivial number of male ancestors who were originally affiliated with some Austronesian-related culture, or who at least shared a genetic affinity with many of the ancestors of modern Austronesian peoples.

Subclades: This phylogenetic tree of haplogroup subclades is based on ISOGG-2011

  • O1 (MSY2.2)
    • O1*
    • O1a (M119) Found frequently in Austronesians, southern Han Chinese, and Tai-Kadai peoples
      • O1a*
      • O1a1 (M307.2/P203.2)
      • O1a2 (M50, M103, M110) Occurs among Austronesian peoples of Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Madagascar as well as among some populations of continental Southeast Asia

 

 

* Y Chromosomes of Prehistoric People Along the Yangtze River by Hui Li, et al.

Abstract: The ability to extract mitochondrial and nuclear DNA from ancient remains has enabled the study of ancient DNA, a legitimate field for over 20 years now. Recently, Y chromosome genotyping has begun to be applied to ancient DNA. The Y chromosome haplogroup in East Asia has since caught the attention of molecular anthropologists, as it is one of the most ethnic-related genetic markers of the region. In this paper, the Y chromosome haplogroup of DNA from ancient East Asians was examined, in order to genetically link them to modern populations. Fifty-six human remains were sampled from five archaeological sites, primarily along the Yangtze River. Strict criteria were followed to eliminate potential contamination. Five SNPs from the Y chromosome were successfully amplified from most of the samples, with at least 62.5% of the samples belonging to the O haplogroup, similar to the frequency for modern East Asian populations. A high frequency of O1 was found in Liangzhu Culture sites

 

Locations of the Archaeological Sites, Cultures and the Distributions of Y SNP Haplogroups

Prehistoric Cultures: Maqiao, Liangzhu (良渚)

 

Case Counts of Y SNP Haplogroups of the Archaeological Sites

 

 

Liangzhu Culture

Photo of Jade cong with taotie motif, Liangzhu Culture, National Gallery of Art, Washington DC

The Liangzhu culture (良渚文化) (3400-2250 BC) was the last Neolithic jade culture in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Its area of influence extended from around Lake Tai north to Nanjing and the Chang Jiang, east to Shanghai and the sea, and south to Hangzhou. The culture was highly stratified, as jade, silk, ivory and lacquer artifacts were found exclusively in elite burials, while pottery was more commonly found in the burial plots of poorer individuals. The type site at Liangzhu was discovered in Yuhang County, Zhejiang and initially excavated by Shi Xingeng in 1936.

The culture possessed advanced agriculture, included irrigation, paddy rice cultivation and aquaculture. Houses were often constructed with stilts on rivers or shorelines.

The jade from this culture is characterized by finely worked large ritual jades, commonly incised with the taotie motif. The most exemplary artefacts from the culture were its cong (cylinders). The largest cong discovered weighed 3.5 kg. Bi (discs) and Yue axes (ceremonial axes) were also found. Jade pendants were also found, designed with engraved representations of small birds, turtles and fish. Many Liangzhu jade artefacts had a white milky bone-like aspect due to its tremolite rock origin and influence of water-based fluids at the burial sites, although jade made from actinolite and serpentine were also commonly found.

A neolithic altar from the Liangzhu culture, excavated at Yaoshan in Zhejiang, demonstrates that religious structures were elaborate and made of carefully positioned piles of stones and rock walls: this indicates that religion was of considerable importance. The altar has three levels, the highest being a platform of rammed earth. Three additional platforms were paved with cobblestones. There are the remains of a stone wall. On the altar are twelve graves in two rows. A new discovery of ancient city wall base relics was announced by the Zhejiang provincial government on November 29, 2007. All the relics previously identified were parts of city construction. It was concluded the site was the ancient capital of the Liangzhu Kingdom, whose influence spread as far as modern-day Jiangsu, Shanghai, and Shandong Provinces. A new Liangzhu Culture Museum was completed in 2008 and opened late in the year. It is 17.5 kilometers north-west of the north-east corner of West Lake in Hangzhou.

 

 

* Paternal Genetic Structure of Hainan Aborigines Isolated at the Entrance to East Asia by Li D., et al.

Abstract

Background: At the southern entrance to East Asia, early population migration has affected most of the Y-chromosome variations of East Asians.

Methodology/Pricipal Findings: To assess the isolated genetic structure of Hainan Island and the original genetic structure at the southern entrance, we studied the Y chromosome diversity of 405 Hainan Island aborigines from all the six populations, who have little influence of the recent mainland population relocations and admixtures. Here we report that haplogroups O1a* and O2a* are dominant among Hainan aborigines. In addition, the frequency of the mainland dominant haplogroup O3 is quite low among these aborigines, indicating that they have lived rather isolated. Clustering analyses suggests that the Hainan aborigines have been segregated since about 20 thousand years ago, after two dominant haplogroups entered East Asia (31 to 36 thousand years ago).

Conclusions/Significance: Our results suggest that Hainan aborigines have been isolated at the entrance to East Asia for about 20 thousand years, whose distinctive genetic characteristics could be used as important controls in many population genetic studies.

 

 

* Paternal Genetic Affinity Between Western Austronesians and Daic Populations by Hui Li, et al.

Abstract

Background: Austronesian is a linguistic family spread in most areas of the Southeast Asia, the Pacific Ocean, and the Indian Ocean. Based on their linguistic similarity, this linguistic family included Malayo-Polynesians and Taiwan aborigines. The linguistic similarity also led to the controversial hypothesis that Taiwan is the homeland of all the Malayo-Polynesians, a hypothesis that has been debated by ethnologists, linguists, archaeologists, and geneticists. It is well accepted that the Eastern Austronesians (Micronesians and Polynesians) derived from the Western Austronesians (Island Southeast Asians and Taiwanese), and that the Daic populations on the mainland are supposed to be the headstream of all the Austronesian populations.

Results: In this report, we studied 20 SNPs and 7 STRs in the non-recombining region of the 1,509 Y chromosomes from 30 China Daic populations, 23 Indonesian and Vietnam Malayo-Polynesian populations, and 11 Taiwan aboriginal populations. These three groups show many resemblances in paternal lineages. Admixture analyses demonstrated that the Daic populations are hardly influenced by Han Chinese genetically, and that they make up the largest proportion of Indonesians. Most of the population samples contain a high frequency of haplogroup O1a-M119, which is nearly absent in other ethnic families. The STR network of haplogroup O1a* illustrated that Indonesian lineages did not derive from Taiwan aborigines as linguistic studies suggest, but from Daic populations.

Conclusion: We show that, in contrast to the Taiwan homeland hypothesis, the Island Southeast Asians do not have a Taiwan origin based on their paternal lineages. Furthermore, we show that both Taiwan aborigines and Indonesians likely derived from the Daic populations based on their paternal lineages. These two populations seem to have evolved independently of each other. Our results indicate that a super-phylum, which includes Taiwan aborigines, Daic, and Malayo-Polynesians, is genetically educible.

 

Geographic Distribution of Sampled Populations and Migration Routes Suggested by Y Chromosome Analysis

 

Haplotype Network of Y-STRs of Haplogroup O1a* Individuals

 

Excerpt: The age of the O1a* haplogroup was estimated in the network. The total age is 33765 ± 5221 years, which corresponds to the last Ice Age. The age of all the Daic samples in the network is 33193 ± 5577 years, close to the age of O1a*. It is not easy to estimate the real age of the Taiwan clusters as they overlap with the Daic haplotypes to a large extent. This kind of overlap also indicates multiple migrations from Daic populations to Taiwan aborigines. We estimated the age of the Taiwan cluster in the left side of the network to be 14659 ± 3110 years. The estimated age of all the Taiwan samples is 21268 ± 3148 years. Interestingly, this latter age is close to the age of the oldest human remains found in Taiwan, those of the Chochen Man. Therefore, we conclude that the migration of O1a* individuals from the mainland to Taiwan Island occurred during the Palaeolithic Age.

Because two fairly specific clusters of ISEA haplotypes can be observed in the network, we performed time estimates in both clusters. The age of the left ISEA cluster in the network is 9895 ± 2393 years, whereas that of the right cluster is 25880 ± 7137 years. The linguistic estimate for the origin of the Malayo-Polynesian is younger than that of our estimates, around 5000–6000 years ago. Moreover, little overlap between Daic haplotypes and ISEA haplotypes is observed in the network, which indicates bottleneck effects might have formed the two ISEA clusters during the emigration of ISEA populations out of the ancestral Daic populations. Geographically, the bottleneck might be the narrow seashore of Vietnam. Therefore, the O1a* haplogroup was most probably introduced into ISEA populations during the origin of the Malayo-Polynesians
more than 7500 years ago. However, the possibility of recent migrations of the O1a individuals into ISEA can not be ignored, because the genetic time estimate is not precise enough to eliminate such a possibility....

In fact, our observations are consistent with a monophyletic Austro-Tai super-phylum which contains Daic speakers, Malayo-Polynesians, and Taiwan aborigines. The observations presented in this study demonstrate that it is absolutely necessary to include Daic populations and ISEA in the Austronesian origin studies. Without these groups, Polynesians and Taiwan aborigines would have appeared most similar to each other, leading to the conclusion that all the Austronesians originated in Taiwan.

Our results suggest that the Gulf of Tonkin is more likely the homeland of the paternal lineages of ISEA....

 

Y-SNP Haplogroup Frequencies of the Newly Studied Samples (%)

(C, D*, D1, F, M, K, O*, O1a*, O1a2, O2a*, O2a1, O3*, O3a1, O3a4, O3a5, O3a5a, P)

 

 

* Genetic Evidence Supports Demic Diffusion of Han Culture by Bo Wen, et al.

NRY Haplogroup Distribution in Han Populations

Population n C* D/E D1 F* K* O3* O3d O3e O1* O1b O2a* O2a1 Q1 P*
    M130 YAP M15 M89 M9 M122 M7 M134 M119 M110 M95 M88 M120 M45
Northern Han
                              
Gansu
60
7
5
  
6
10
11
  
11
5
   1  
3
1
Hebei
14
      
2
1
3
  
7
1
          
Henan
50
2
    
2
11
16
  
10
4
      
4
1
Liaoning
48
1
1
  
11
8
13
  
9
2
  
1
  
2
  
Neimeng
60
12
3
  
4
8
13
  
16
1
  
1
  
2
  
Shandong 1
85
14
1
2
3
12
36
  
12
    
1
  
4
  
Shandong 2
100
4
    
11
13
32
  
30
6
  
1
  
3
  
Shannxi 1
63
2
3
  
4
11
16
  
22
1
  
1
  
1
2
Shannxi 2
27
      
3
9
5
  
8
1
      
1
  
Xinjiang
51
2
1
  
3
9
15
  
15
2
      
2
2
Southern Han
                              
Anhui
22
3
      
4
6
  
4
4
      
1
  
148
4
1
  
3
21
80
6
24
3
1
4
  
1
  
Guangdong
64
3
  
1
  
8
15
  
19
5
  
7
5
1
  
Guangxi
26
2
      
4
4
  
5
4
  
2
5
    
Hubei
18
1
      
2
5
1
6
3
          
Hunan
15
        
2
5
  
4
2
  
2
      
Jiangsu
100
6
2
  
3
19
25
2
19
18
  
4
  
2
  
Jiangxi
21
1
1
  
2
4
4
  
5
3
  
1
      
Shanghai
55
4
2
    
9
14
1
9
14
      
2
  
Sichuan
63
3
  
1
  
10
16
2
18
5
  
6
2
    
Yunnan 1
27
3
    
1
1
5
  
15
1
  
1
      
Yunnan 2
66
4
  
2
2
15
25
4
10
    
2
  
2
  
Zhejiang
106
10
      
6
26
  
28
29
  
5
  
2
  

 

 

* Partial Duplication at AZFc on the Y Chromosome Is a Risk Factor for Impaired Spermatogenesis in Han Chinese in Taiwan by Yi-Wen Lin, et al.

The Y Chromosome Haplogroups of Han Taiwanese

(C, D, N*, N1, N3, O*, O1*, O1a, O1b, O2, O3*, O3a, O3c, O3d, O3e, Q, R),

 

 

* More Genetic Sharing among the Populations of Taiwan than Expected: A Plain tribes (Pinpu) Perspective by
Marie Lin, et al.

Results and Discussion: YSNP (paternal lineages) analysis showed 55% of Siraya and 70% of Pazeh men sharing paternal lineages O1a*, O1a1*, O1a2, O3*, O3a* and O3a3* with TwA and ISEA, and except for O1a* and O1a2, were also seen in Fujian (which we here classify as CSEA). Among other Y haplogroups, O2*, O2a*, O3a4*, O3a3c* and O3a3c1 comprised 40% of the Siraya and 28% of Pazeh gene pool and were also commonly seen all over CSEA and ISEA. Male movement between CSEA, ISEA and Taiwan will be better understood when high definition NRY-SNP determination (and associated Y-STR) of other Asian populations become available.

 

 

* 永恆的西拉雅族－遺傳基因的研究 by 林媽利, et al.

Excerpt: 分析173人男性的西拉雅族人的父系血緣，發現父系血緣約全部由O群構成，有O*，O1*，O1b，O2*，O2a*，O3a*(O3*)，O3c(O3a3)，O3a4b(O3d*)，O3a5a1(O3e1a)，O3a5a(O3e1*)，O3a5b(O3e*)及O3b血緣，除此外尚有少數C及N*的血緣。

這些血緣除了O1b血緣只出現在台灣原住民外，其他的血緣全分佈在別的亞洲族群，在我們超過1000人父系血緣的資料中，除O1b外其他的血緣也在中國、福建、越南、泰國、印尼及菲律賓找到。

西拉雅族共有14%(35/173)的父系血緣屬於原住民的O1b血緣，西拉雅族屬O1*血緣有71人，41%(71/173)，因O1*血緣可來自原住民(泰雅族有98%屬這血緣)也可來自福建移民，所以利用其中32人(SL)的16個YSTR結果與台灣原住民238人及福建人23人O1*父系血緣YSTR的資料做neighbor network分析，以探究西拉雅族人的O1*的父系血緣是來自福建移民或者是源自原來的台灣原住民。一起分析的O1* YSTR資料包括阿美族(AM)16人、泰雅族(AT)49人、排灣族(PW)15人、卑南族(PU)14人、魯凱族(RU)22人、賽夏族(SA, SB)21人、太魯閣族(TK)19人、邵族(TH)19人、鄒族(TS)38人、雅美族(YA, YB, YC, YD, YE, YF)25人、菲律賓巴丹人(BD)10人、台灣人(AD)5人及福建人(只有號碼)23人。分析的結果顯示在圖二的O1*父系血緣網狀關係圖上，中心的網狀處是顯示基因的相關性，這關係圖很明顯的把福建人與台灣原住民區分開來，灰色區為平埔族及高山原住民區，圈起來的區域(在時鐘9點的位置)為福建人區，可看到被分析的32人西拉雅族中8人落在福建人區，表示這8人或25% (8/32=25%) O1*西拉雅族父系血緣來自福建的移民(8人為SL233, SL320, SL314, SL316, SL014, SL019, SL030, SL321)，其他24人(75%)的O1*血緣落在高山原住民區(灰色區)，顯示這75%西拉雅族的O1*父系血緣來自原住民(平埔公或高山公)。在圖二西拉雅族及巴宰族屬原住民的O1*父系血緣常在同一區出現，顯示這兩族平埔族的父系血緣在遺傳上接近及相關。

 

圖2 O1*父系血緣Y-STR的Neighbor Network 分析

線 圈起來的區域為福建人區, 灰色區為高山族區含平埔族血緣

(circled area - Fujian, shaded areas - Taiwanese aborigines)

 

 

我們流著不同的血液: 以血型、基因的科學證據揭開台灣各族群身世之謎
by 林媽利

 

 

 

Excerpt

從基因看人類的遷移: 台灣人的構成
…我們認為閩南人、客家人是屬於中國南方的族群, 這個跟過去的觀念不一樣, 而且也會牽扯到政治, 所以當然會有人來「消毒」, 有2007年中國的報導《分子人類學所見歷史上閩越族群的消失》,因為父系血緣的O1*血緣, 被認為是中國越族的特徵血緣, 這報告中福建各處195人的男性檢體, 只有6%(13/195) 屬於O1*血緣,195人中的59人採樣自閩南及潮州地區, 這些地區正是台灣閩南人、客家人的來處, 結果這59人中並沒有發現O1*血緣, 所以結論是這些地方的越族早已被漢武帝移走或者是殺掉, 現在閩南、潮州地區的人應該是來自中國北方漢人移民的後代。是這樣嗎?因為我們也有福建的檢體啊! 所以, 我們在55個福建男性中找到12人是O1*型(22%), 22%跟6%在統計上是有意義的不同,表示這二個資料有不同的結果,我們認為福建還有22%越族的O1*血緣,百越族並沒消失。我們對我們的結果有信心, 且這結果和台灣人O1*血緣的頻率接近。…

我們在2006年為100個台灣人做尋根的服務…上述100人當中有彭明敏教授, 徵得他的同意, 他的祖先來源是母系血緣從亞洲北方來的, 他的父系血緣是屬於O1*血緣, 在台灣O1*血緣可能來自越族或者來自台灣原住民, 後來我們做了Y-STR分析, 發現他的父系血緣是屬於原住民, 他的組織抗原有只見於西拉雅的特徵血緣, 還有一個組織抗原是閩越族的特徵血緣。所以可以看到他的基因來源是多方來源。我們發現台灣人差不多都是這個樣子, 每個人都可能有多元來源的
祖先群。…

永恆的平埔族: 西拉雅族、巴宰族及凱達格蘭族遺傳基因的研究
…台灣高山族主要屬於M119及M95群, 閩南人主要屬於M122群。M119群父系血緣在台灣有O1a*, O1a1*及O1a2的3個血緣,M95群有O2*,O2a*及O2a1a的3個血緣。M122血緣在台灣高山族有O3*,O3a*,O3a3*及O3a3c1*,在平埔族除此外多出O3a3a,O3a3b*,O3a3c*(漢藏語系為主), O3a3c1a及O3a4*血緣。O1*(O1a*及O1a1*)血緣在中國被認為是越族的血緣, O1*血緣在福建人出現22%,在台灣高山族有很高的頻率, 如在泰雅族高達98%,以致中國不少學者認為台灣高山族與古代泰越族為同一來源, 在這報告中, 我們試著探討福建人的O1*及台灣高山族O1*是否完全相同。在這報告中, 我們也探討在西拉雅族、巴宰族及凱達格蘭族三族平埔族出現的O1*是來自福建的移民, 或是源自台灣高山族(及平埔族群原本) 的血緣。…

西拉雅族共有14%(25/221) 的父系血緣屬於O1a2血緣, 巴宰族有13%(5/40) 也屬於這個血緣, 凱達格蘭族24男性中則有一人為這血緣。西拉雅族屬O1*(O1a*+O1a1*)血緣有71人, 因O1*血緣可來自高山族及平埔族(泰雅族有98%屬這血緣), 也可來自福建移民(福建人有22%屬這血緣), 所以利用西拉雅族32人、巴宰族18人及凱達格蘭族8人的O1*的Y-STR結果與台灣高山族238人及福建人23人的Y-STR資料做neighbor network分析, 以探究西拉雅族人或巴宰族人O1* 的父系血緣是來自福建移民, 或者是源白原來的台灣高山族或平埔族。一起分析的O1*STR資料包括: 阿美族l6人、泰雅族49人、排灣族15人、卑南族14人、魯凱族22人、賽夏族21人、太魯閣族19人、邵族19人、鄒族38人及雅美族25人、共238人高山族、及菲律賓巴丹人10人、台灣人5人及福建人23人。分析的結果顯示在圖2的O1*父系血緣網狀關係split tree圖上，中心的網狀處是顯示基因的相關性，這關係圖很明顯的把福建人與台灣高山族區分開來，灰色區為平埔族及高山族區，圈起來的區域(在時鐘9點的位置)為福建人區，可看到被分析的32人西拉雅族中8人落在福建人區，表示這8人或25% (8/32=25%) O1*西拉雅族父系血緣來自福建的移民(8人為SL233, SL320, SL314, SL316, SL014, SL019, SL030, SL321)，其他24人(75%)的O1*血緣落在高山原住民區(灰色區)，顯示這75%西拉雅族的O1*父系血緣來自平埔族或高山族。在巴宰族的情形是40個男性族人中,父系血緣屬O1*系血緣有21人, 其中18人參與父系血緣屬的neighbor network分析, 結果有5人或28%(5/18=28%)的O1*父系血緣來自福建(5人為PZ031,PZ019,PZ098,PZ058,PZ080在時鐘9點圈起來的地區),其他72%來自平埔族或高山族(灰色區)。凱達格蘭族23個男性族人中, 有1人屬台灣高山族特有的O1a2,8人屬於O1*,經Y-STR資料分析, 其中5人(63%)O1*父系血緣來自平埔族或高山族, 在圖2可見西拉雅族、巴宰族及凱達格蘭族屬非福建人的O1*父系血緣常在同一區出現, 顯示這三族平埔族的父系血緣在遺傳上接近及相關。…

 

 

* 臺灣原住民族的Y 染色體多樣性與華南史前文化的關連性 by 陳叔倬

 

 

* HLA Genetic Diversity and Linguistic Variation in East Asia by Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, et al.

The “Least Controversial “Phylogeny of the 40 East Asian Languages

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Austronesian Peoples

The Austronesian peoples are a population in Oceania and Southeast Asia that speaks languages of the Austronesian family. Austronesian peoples include: Taiwanese aborigines; the majority ethnic groups of East Timor, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Madagascar, Micronesia, and Polynesia, as well as the Polynesian peoples of New Zealand and Hawaii, and the Austronesian peoples of Melanesia. They are also found in Singapore, the Pattani region of Thailand, and the Cham areas of Vietnam (remnants of the Champa kingdom which covered central and southern Vietnam), Cambodia, and Hainan, China. The territories settled by Austronesian peoples are known collectively as Austronesia.

Prehistory and History: Archaeological evidence demonstrates a technological connection between the farming cultures of the south (Southeast Asia and Melanesia) and sites that are first known from mainland China, whereas a combination of archaeological and linguistic evidence has been interpreted as supporting a northern (southern China and Taiwan) origin for the Austronesian language family. In a recent treatment, all Austronesian languages were classified into 10 subfamilies, with all the extra-Formosan languages grouped in one subfamily and with representatives of the remaining 9 known only in Taiwan. It has been argued that these patterns are best explained by dispersal of an agricultural people from Taiwan into insular Southeast Asia, Melanesia, and, ultimately, the remote Pacific. Although this model—termed the “express train to Polynesia” — is broadly consistent with available data, concerns have been raised. Alternatives to this model posit an indigenous origin for the Austronesian languages in Melanesia or Southeast Asia.

Some western scholars believe Austronesian peoples originated on the island of Taiwan following the migration of pre-Austronesian speaking peoples from continental Asia approximately 10,000-6000 B.C. According to some linguists, due to a lengthy split from the Austro-Tai populations, the Proto-Austronesian language, the cultures and ethnic groups of the Austronesian peoples began on Taiwan approximately 6,000 years ago.

Austronesian peoples themselves have a variety of different traditions, and history of their origins. Some Indonesian scholars believe that the Austronesian peoples originated in Maritime Southeast Asia (modern day Indonesia, and the Philippines). However according to most Western scholars, Austronesian peoples originated on the island of Taiwan, and are spread as far away as Madagascar in the Indian Ocean, Easter Island, Maritime Southeast Asia, New Zealand, and to the rest of the Pacific Islands.

A study by Leeds University and published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, showed that mitochondrial DNA lineages have been evolving within Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) since modern humans arrived approximately 50,000 years ago. Population dispersals occurred at the same time as sea levels rose, which resulted in migrations from the Philippine Islands to as far north as Taiwan within the last 10,000 years.

According to mainstream Western studies, a large-scale Austronesian expansion began around 5000-2500 B.C. Population growth primarily fueled this migration. These first settlers may have landed in northern Luzon in the archipelago of the Philippines, intermingling with the earlier Australo-Melanesian population who had inhabited the islands about 23,000 years earlier. Over the next thousand years, Austronesian peoples migrated southeast to the rest of the Philippines, and into the islands of the Celebes Sea, Borneo, and Indonesia. The Austronesian peoples of Maritime Southeast Asia sailed eastward, and spread to the islands of Melanesia and Micronesia between 1200 B.C. and 500 A.D. respectively. The Austronesian inhabitants that spread westward through Maritime Southeast Asia had reached some parts of mainland Southeast Asia, and later on Madagascar.

Sailing from Melanesia, and Micronesia, the Austronesian peoples discovered Polynesia by 1000 B.C. These people settled most of the Pacific Islands. They had settled Easter Island by 300 A.D., Hawaii by 400 A.D., and into New Zealand by 800 A.D. In the Indian Ocean they sailed west from Maritime Southeast Asia; the Austronesian peoples reached Madagascar by 0-500 A.D.

Genetic Studies: Genetic studies have been done on the people and related animals. The Haplogroup O1 (Y-DNA)a-M119 genetic marker is frequently detected in Austronesians, as well as some ethnic minorities in China (southern non-Han Chinese). Other genetic markers found in native Austronesian populations are Haplogroup C (Y-DNA) and Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Tai-Kadai Languages

The Tai-Kadai languages, also known as Daic, Kadai, Kradai, or Kra-Dai, are a language family of highly tonal languages found in southern China and Southeast Asia. They include Thai and Lao, the national languages of Thailand and Laos respectively. There are nearly 100 million speakers of these languages in the world. Ethnologue lists 92 languages in this family, with 76 of these languages being in the Kam-Tai branch.

The diversity of the Tai-Kadai languages in southeastern China, especially on Hainan, suggests that this is close to their homeland. The Tai branch moved south into Southeast Asia only in historic times, founding the nations that later became Thailand and Laos in what had been Austroasiatic territory.

External Relationships: The Tai-Kadai languages were formerly considered to be part of the Sino-Tibetan family, but outside of China they are now classified as an independent family. They contain large numbers of words that are similar in Sino-Tibetan languages. However, these are seldom found in all branches of the family, and do not include basic vocabulary, indicating that they are old loan words (Ostapirat 2005).

Several Western scholars have presented suggestive evidence that Tai-Kadai is related to or a branch of the Austronesian language family. There are a number of possible cognates in the core vocabulary. Among proponents, there is yet no agreement as to whether they are a sister group to Austronesian in a family called Austro-Tai, a backmigration from Taiwan to the mainland, or a later migration from the Philippines to Hainan during the Austronesian expansion.

In China, they are called Zhuang-Dong languages and are generally considered to be related to Sino-Tibetan languages along with the Miao-Yao languages. It is still a matter of discussion among Chinese scholars whether Kra languages such as Gelao, Qabiao, and Lachi can be included in Zhuang-Dong, since they lack the Sino-Tibetan similarities that are used to include other Zhuang-Dong languages in Sino-Tibetan.

 

 

Tai Peoples

The Tai (Chinese 泰) ethnicity refers collectively to the ethnic groups of southern China and Southeast Asia, stretching from Hainan to eastern India and from southern Sichuan to Laos, Thailand, and parts of Vietnam, which speak languages in the Tai family and share similar traditions and festivals, including Songkran. Despite never having a unified nation-state of their own, the peoples also have historically shared a vague idea of a "Siam" nation, corrupted to Shan or Assam in some places, and most self-identify as "Tai"

Origin of the Tai: Linguist Laurent Sagart recently hypothesized that the proto-Kradai language originated as an Austronesian language that migrants carried from Taiwan to mainland China. Afterwards, the language was then heavily influenced by local languages from Sino-Tibetan, Hmong-Mien, or other families, borrowing much vocabulary and converging typologically. Much closer to the present, some peoples speaking Tai languages migrated southward over the mountains into Southeast Asia, perhaps prompted by the coming of the Han Chinese to south China.

Linguistic heritage is not synonymous with genetic heritage, because of language shift where populations learn new languages. However, it is believed that the O1 Y-DNA haplogroup is associated with both the Austronesian people and the Tai. The prevalence of Y-DNA Haplogroup O1 among Austronesian and Tai peoples also suggests a common ancestry with the Sino-Tibetan, Austro-Asiatic, and Hmong-Mien peoples some 35,000 years ago in China. Y-DNA Haplogroup O2a is also found at high frequency among most Tai peoples, which is a trait that they share with the neighboring Austroasiatic peoples. Y-DNA Haplogroups O1 and O2a are subclades of O Y-DNA haplogroup, which itself is a subclade of Y-DNA Haplogroup K, a genetic mutation that is believed to have originated 40,000 yeas ago, somewhere between Iran and Central China.

Population in China: In southern China, people speaking Kam–Tai (Zhuang-Dong) languages are mainly found in Guangxi, Guizhou, Yunnan, Hunan, Guangdong, and Hainan. According to statistics from the fourth census taken in China in 1990, the total population of these groups amounted to 23,262,000. Their distribution is as follows:

History in China: In China, Kadai languages are mainly distributed in a radial area from the western edge of Yunnan Province to Guangdong and Hainan Provinces. Most speakers live in compact communities. Some of them are scattered among the Han Chinese or other ethnic minorities. The Yue people, who covered a large area in South China in ancient times, were their common ancestors.

 

 

Austro-Tai Languages

Austro-Tai is a hypothesis that the Tai-Kadai and Austronesian language families of southern China and the Pacific are genealogically related.

The Tai-Kadai languages contain numerous similar forms with Austronesian which were noticed as far back as Schlegel in 1901. These are considered to be too many to explain as chance resemblance. The question then is whether they are due to language contact—that is, borrowing—or to common descent—that is, a genealogical relationship.

The Relationship: Among scholars who accept the evidence as definitive, there is disagreement as to the nature of the relationship. Benedict attempted to show that Tai-Kadai has features which cannot be accounted for by proto-Austronesian, and that therefore it must be a separate family coordinate with Austronesian (a sister relationship). Ostapirat concluded that these reconstructed linguistic features are spurious. However, he could not rule out the possibility that Tai-Kadai tone cannot be explained, and so leaves the question open pending further reconstruction of proto-Austronesian. He supports the consensus hypothesis of several scholars that proto-Austronesian was spoken on Formosa or adjacent areas of coastal China, and that the likely homeland of proto-Tai-Kadai was coastal Fujian or Guangdong as part of the neolithic Longshan culture. The spread of the Tai-Kadai peoples may have been aided by agriculture, but any who remained near the coast were eventually absorbed by the Chinese.

Sagart, on the other hand, holds that Tai-Kadai is a branch of Austronesian which migrated back to the mainland from northeastern Formosa long after Formosa was settled, but probably before the expansion of Malayo-Polynesian out of Formosa. The language was then largely relexified from what he believes may have been an Austro-Asiatic language. Robert Blust (1999) suggests that proto-Tai-Kadai speakers originated in the northern Philippines and migrated from there to Hainan island (hence the diversity of Tai-Kadai languages on that island), and were radically restructured following contact with Hmong-Mien and Sinitic.

However, Ostapirat maintains that Tai-Kadai could not descend from Malayo-Polynesian in the Philippines, and likely not from the languages of eastern Formosa either. His evidence is in the Tai-Kadai sound correspondences, which reflect Austronesian distinctions that were lost in Malayo-Polynesian and even Eastern Formosan. These are proto-AN *t and *C, also *n and *N, which were distinct in proto-Tai-Kadai but which fell together as *t and *n in proto-MP and Eastern Formosan; and *S, which is *s in proto-Tai-Kadai but *h in proto-MP. There are also Austro-Tai roots which are not attested from Malayo-Polynesian, such as *Cumay "bear". (Western MP has *biRuaŋ.)

Sagart proposes an Eastern Formosan–Malayo-Polynesian connection with Tai-Kadai, based on words such as proto-Tai-Kadai *maNuk and Eastern Formosan *manuk "bird", as compared to proto-Austronesian, where the word for "bird" was *qayam, and *maNuk meant "chicken", and a few other words such as *lima "five" and *-mu "thou" which have not been reconstructed for proto-Austronesian. However, Ostapirat notes Tai-Kadai retains the Austronesian *N in this word, which had been lost from Eastern Formosan and Malayo-Polynesian, and that a change in meaning from "chicken" to "bird" could easily have happened independently, for example among proto-Tai-Kadai speakers when they borrowed the mainland word *ki "chicken" (cognate with Old Chinese *kej and Miao /qai/).

Sagart suggests that Austro-Tai is ultimately related to the Sino-Tibetan languages and has its origin in the Neolithic communities of the coastal regions of prehistoric North China or East China. Ostapirat, by contrast, sees connections with the Austro-Asiatic languages (in Austric), as Benedict had. Reid notes that the two approaches are not incompatible, if Austric is valid and can be connected to Sino-Tibetan.