User talk:Austronesier/sandbox5

Great work so far
Hi, great work so far. Some points which may be considered are the date of the Austroasiatic and Austronesian dispersal into ISEA: eg. "occured around 4,000 to 5,000 years ago" and "Starting from around 4,000 to 5,000 years ago" seem to be more accurate than the lower bound of 4,000 years ago. Eg. Lipson et al.:
 * Evidence from linguistics and archaeology indicates that the ‘Austronesian expansion,’ which began 4,000–5,000 years ago, likely had roots in Taiwan ... Within Indonesia, several surveys have noted an east–west genetic divide, with western populations tracing a substantial proportion of their ancestry to a source that diverged from Taiwanese lineages 10,000–30,000 years ago (kya), which has been hypothesized to reflect a pre-Neolithic migration from Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA)19,20,21,22

Or Bergström:
 * A robust phylogeny of Austronesian languages suggested an origin in Taiwan 5,200 years ago, and spread that could be linked initially to the Lapita culture beginning 3,300 years ago, reaching the furthest parts of Remote Oceania by 1,200 years ago [6].

and Choin et al.
 * ...Neolithic expansion, which is thought to have started from Taiwan around 5,000 years ago2,3,4.

I do not know how relevant this paper (taking results of Larena et al. and Choin et al. into account) may be, but it summarized some noteworthy points:
 * The first showed that Philippine Cordillerans had begun branching off from the Indigenous Taiwanese by at least 8,000 years ago. These were likely hunter-gatherers that arrived long before the emergence of agriculture in the Philippines.
 * The second of the studies showed that the ancestors of Austronesian-speaking Pacific Islanders likely split off from the Indigenous Taiwanese before 5,000 years ago. This predates their dates of arrival in Oceanian islands based on archaeological evidence, indicating that the Philippines, or some other part of island Southeast Asia, may have been the proximal source of these migrations rather than Taiwan.

In this regard, wouldn't Austroasiatic-like ancestry arriving on the Philippines earlier (?) than Austronesian groups indicate an earlier expansion in ISEA (eg. predating the 4,000 to 5,000 years)? Referring specifically to the Manobo-like and Mlabri and Htin ancestries discussed in Larena:
 * Both Manobo and Sama genetic ancestries diverge from a common East Asian ancestral gene pool (∼15 kya [95% CI: 14.8 to 15.4 kya]) earlier than the estimated divergence between the indigenous peoples of Taiwan and Cordillerans. ... The common ancestor of Sama and Htin/Mlabri populations was estimated to have diverged from Ancestral Manobo ∼12 kya (95% CI: 11.4 to 12.6 kya). Given the geographic distribution of the Htin/Mlabri-related genetic signal today, their ancestors likely expanded into western Indonesia and the southwestern Philippines, via Sundaland, before the expansion of Cordilleran-related populations (14). Interestingly, the above estimated divergences (15 kya and 12 kya) coincide with the major geological changes in ISEA, inferred from reconstructions of Sundaland at the end of the Last Glacial Period (SI Appendix, Fig. S3 E and F).

They may represent a pre-agricultural expansion of MSEA groups, as noted by Lipson et al.

We may included some of this information as well.

Anyways, your revised version looks great, thank you! Regards.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful input. Yes, 4kya was not a good idea for a statement that goes "starting from...". The earliest Neolithic finds in Northern Luzon are dated around 4.2kya, so I will have to revise the figure. Unfortunately, all sampled aDNA from Taiwan and the Philippines is much younger than that, and also younger than aDNA from the Pacific. So there is no hard evidence for the exact dating of the spread of ASEA ancestry out of Taiwan unless by inference from non-genetic evidence. I'll think of a wording that best matches the dates in secondary genetic sources.
 * I still hesitate to cite Larena et al. in this article for reasons I have mentioned before. This article by Liu et al. does not support the idea of an early (= pre-Neolithic) dispersal of Cordillerans to Luzon. The Kankanaey samples are well within the range of early Out-of-Taiwan individuals. We should really wait to hear what other geneticists say about the bolder conclusions of Larena et al. As for the MSEA signal in the Manobo and neighboring populations, IMO they should be fit into a typology of all extant ancient indivduals of SE Asia and southern EA, and also in a synopsis with populations from western Indonesia, before we can really say anything definite about it.
 * As of now, I mostly follow the broad outline in the secondary sources. Maybe I can add data from Larena et al. (and also Lansing's Punan Batu paper) in a short mention as recent unconfirmed research.
 * I still also want to add a tiny bit about Wang et al. (the Guangxi paper) discussing the potential sources for the deep Asian ancestry in early MSEA farmers, since they model Man Bac completely without a Hoabinhian component. –Austronesier (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. Yep, that sounds good. I hope too we will get soon a review on SEA, just as Taufik et al. on Oceania. Regards.-Wikiuser1314 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)