Comments by "Angry Kittens" (@AngryKittens) on "TaiwanPlus Docs"
channel.
-
@Do2mifasol-nh3lq Let me put it this way:
Austronesians have specific technologies they carried with them when they sailed across the seas: paddy rice-farming, sophisticated ships and sails (including outriggers), pottery, bark-cloth, chickens, wood-shaping adzes, houses built on stilts, millet, water buffalo, etc.
NONE of these existed in Borneo or Peninsular Malaysia before 1500 BC. They were clearly carried by Austronesians when they arrived from SOMEWHERE ELSE.
In contrast, all of these cultural markers are found in Taiwan and the Philippines (as well as parts of southeastern China) since at least 2200 BC and older.
13
-
@Do2mifasol-nh3lq Explain to me how Hawaiians and the Chamorro have paddy farming though they never came into contact with Austroasiatic peoples. LOL
Paddy rice farming is a common heritage of ALL Southeast Asians. Likely first discovered by either the Hmong-Mien peoples in the Upper Yangtze or the Pre-/Para-Austronesian civilizations of the Lower Yangtze (Hemudu, Majiabang, Liangzhu, etc.), a technology which then spread to the neighboring Kra-Dai, Austroasiatic, Sinitic, Japonic, and Koreanic cultures via contact and trade. And of course, to Austronesians, via their mainland Pre-/Para-Austronesian forebears.
The Austroasiatic and Negrito peoples of Borneo in the Paleolithic did NOT have rice crops OR paddy farming. They were either hunter-gatherers or cultivated simple crops like yams via slash-and-burn agriculture. Rice, millet, and advanced agriculture only started to appear after Austronesians arrived.
Same thing with Austronesian sailing ships. Austroasiatic peoples have RIVER boats that are incapable of surviving in the deeper parts of the sea, as evidenced by the fact that they never colonized islands during the Paleolithic. Most human civilizations have boats and coracles like these, it's not special. The only reason Austroasiatic groups even exist in the Greater Sunda Islands was because they were trapped there when the sea levels rose and drowned most of Sundaland at the end of the last ice age, c. 12000 BC. They didn't sail to Java or Sumatra or Borneo. They WALKED there.
Negritos had rafts, but they did not have sailing ships. They didn't even have clothing or weaving technologies to make the sails necessary for such vessels. Bark-cloth (specifcially bark cloth beaters) is also an Austronesian technology and didn't exist in Borneo before Austronesians. Negritos, like their cousins, the Papuans, did not have textiles.
Austronesians on the other hand created the first ships to sail in OCEANIC waters. The first boats that could survive long seaborne voyages. They have ships made with the lashed-lug technique, that had fore-and-aft crab claw sails (made from woven pandan leaves), with either multiple hulls (catamarans) or outriggers. These technologies are UNIQUE to Austronesians. and is what enabled them to sail the seas, while other human groups could not. It's the reason why Austronesians colonized almost all of the islands of the Indo-Pacific.
Try again.
13
-
12
-
@Do2mifasol-nh3lq A common misconception that Indonesians and Malaysians seem to have is that they think the Aboriginal Taiwanese and the Paleolithic Pre-Austronesians/Para-Austronesians of mainland southeastern China are Chinese.
They're not. The Sinitic peoples, the ancestors of the Chinese originate from the Huang He River basin of NORTHERN China. It's the reason why they display cold-adapted features like light-colored skin and narrow eyes, while us Southeast Asians do not. Notice the physical differences between the interviewer in this video (ethnic Chinese) and the people he is interviewing (pure Austronesians). They do not look alike.
Below are the urheimat (homelands) of the major Southeast Asian ethnolinguistic groups:
* Hmong-Mien: Upper Yangtze basin (central China) - Hmong, Hmu, Miao, Yao, etc.
* Pre-Austronesian: Lower Yangtze/Yangtze delta - extinct. Possible Sinitic and pre-Austronesian admixture preserved among the Fujianese/Hokkien people.
* Austronesians (proper): Taiwan and the Min River Basin (modern Fujian) - Aboriginal Taiwanese, Islander Southeast Asians, Chams, Pacific Islanders, Malagasy
* Kra-Dai: Pearl River delta (possibly originally a Para-Austronesian group) - Thai, Kra, Hlai, Kam-Sui, Be, etc.
* Austroasiatic: Mekong River/Red River basin/delta. - Kinh Viet, Khmer, Mon, Munda, Nicobarese, Andamanese, Palaung, Asli, Khasi, etc.
* Tibeto-Burmese: west central China/Tibetan plateau (cousins to the Sinitic peoples, as Sino-Tibetans) - Tibetans, Burmese, Tani, Karen, Naga, Kachin, etc.
The Sinitic peoples didn't spread to central China until around 2000 BC, then southwards to southern China by around 200 AD, displacing the peoples who formerly lived there (the Hmong-Mien, Pre-Austronesians, and the Kra-Dai). Even briefly colonizing northern Vietnam (Austroasiatic) until around 1000 AD. This is even supported in archaeology by the indication of widespread warfare during that period. Fortifications and moats started to appear in Hmong-Mien and Pre-Austronesian settlements during this period (they didn't in the past).
The Chinese didn't reach Taiwan until 1600 AD. During the COLONIAL period. When the Qing Dynasty colonized it. Then it was taken by Japan, and then back to China again, before it was settled by millions of Chinese during the mass exodus of the Kuomintang after the Chinese Civil War. It's the reason why MODERN Taiwan is majority Han Chinese. The same reason why USA and Australia are majority European: colonialism.
The INDIGENOUS people of Taiwan have never been Chinese. Culturally, they are very similar to the Cordilleran peoples of the Northern Philippines.
10
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@goukhanakul The ma'alo and mahalo one is interesting. But also coincidental.
"Mahalo" is from Proto-Eastern-Polynesian *masalo, which is derived from Proto-Western-Malayo-Polynesian *sedep ("pleasant", "delicious").
The closest cognates of "mahalo" is actually only in ISEAn languages, including Ivatan "asdep" ("delicious"), Tagalog "masarap" ("delicious", "pleasurable"), Malay "sedap" ("pleasant", "nice", "tasty"), Javanese "sedep" ("pleasurable to senses", "tasty", "fragrant", "beautiful"), Balinese "sedep" ("good"), etc.
2
-
@goukhanakul Oh yes. Numbers are highly conserved among Austronesians languages. The most famous is "lima", which means 5 in almost all Austronesian languages ("`e-lima" in Hawaiian).
Basic vocabulary are also usually highly conserved, because they are the least likely to change meanings, like names of body parts, plants, animals, the environment, etc.
The word for "head" for example, PAn *qulu: Tagalog "ulo", Cebuano "ulu", Chamorro "ulu", Fijian "ulu", Tongan "`ulu, Samoan "ulu", Maori "uru" (though not in Hawaiian).
Other examples:
"Sky" PAn *laŋiC: Tagalog "langit", Malay "langit", Chamorro "langet", Fijian "langi", Samoan "langi", Maori "rangi", Hawaiian "lani"
"Eye" PAn *maCa: Tagalog "mata", Malay "mata", Chamorro "mata", Fijian "mata", Samoan "mata", Maori "mata", Hawaiian "maka" (remember Samoan t becomes k in Hawaiian)
"Yam" PAn *qubi: Tagalog "ube", Malay "ubi", Fijian "uvi", Samoan "ufi", Maori "uhi", Hawaiian "uhi"
etc.
2
-
@goukhanakul More so than that. You see echoes of the actual material culture. From our boat designs (outriggers and multhulls are unique Austronesian inventions), sails, leaf weaving, tattooing; even our common cultivated plants and animals like coconuts, yams, taro, ti plants, Polynesian arrowroot, breadfruit, bananas, sugarcane, paper mulberry, etc.
Some technologies were lost during the transfer to Oceania like pottery (because small islands don't have much firewood for kilns) and rice (because small islands are sandy and don't have enough freshwater sources for rice cultivation).
But their traces live on. Austronesian pottery designs from the Lapita people, for example, survive in tattoo, barkcloth, and weaving patterns in Polynesia. Paddy fields survive in Micronesia and Hawaii using hardier plants like taro.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@moonknight4053 On average (not individually), yes. Polynesians average at 70% Austronesian, 30% Papuan. They descend directly from the Lapita.
Western Indonesians/Malaysians average at around 50% Austronesian, 50% Austroasiatic.
Filipinos average at around 80% to 90% Austronesian, 10% to 20% Aeta.
Eastern Indonesians vary. But places like most of Sulawesi and the highlands of Borneo is similar to the Philippines. While places like Timor and Maluku has slightly higher Papuan admixture. Others like Halmahera or Western Papua have higher Papuan admixture, obviously.
Similarly, Island Melanesia (Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, etc.) have higher Papuan admixture than Polynesia. Around 40% to 70%. They too descend from the Lapita, but being closer to New Guinea, they received more Papuan admixture in recent centuries. These include people from places like the Duff Islands who are actually back-migrations of Polynesians.
Micronesia also varies. The Marianas (including Guam) are almost 100% Austronesian, with modern mixing with Filipinos during the Spanish period. I think it's the same with Palau. Eastern and southern Micronesia (including Yap, Kosrae, Chuuk, Kiribati, etc.) mixed back with Melanesians and Polynesians in later periods, so their percentages contain some Papuan to varying degrees.
Indigenous Taiwanese are 100% Austronesian, except an increasing number are mixed heavily with Sinitic, due to the island's recent history.
All of these groups are predominantly culturally Austronesian, regardless of the percentages. These exclude more recent mixes, like yours.
2
-
That is incorrect. The similarity is purely coincidental.
The cognate of "tatala" (also "tatara") is "tataya" in the Ivatan languages of Batanes, which also means a small traditional boat. It has nothing to do with stars.
The word for "star" in Yami (Tao) language is "mata no angit" (sometimes shortened as "mataen"), which literally translates to "the eyes of the sky". Which in Tagalog would be "mata ng langit".
The word "tala" in Tagalog is from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *talaq, meaning "Venus" (the morning star). It has no cognates in Proto-Austronesian and thus does not exist in Taiwanese Austronesian languages. It is borrowed from Malayic, and is ultimately borrowed from Sanskrit "tārā". Thus the root of the word "tala" is Indo-European, it is not originally Austronesian.
The older word for star in Austronesian languages is *bituqen, represented in Taiwanese Austroensian languages by words like "vituhen" in Puyuma, "bintuhan" in Bunun, "vitjuqan" in Paiwan, "bintun" in Pazeh, and "bintoe'an" in Saisiyat. In the Philippines, the cognates include "vitoen" in Ivatan, "bituin" in Tagalog, and "bituon" in Cebuano.
2
-
@daengzool6023 You're a biologist but you believe in the flood of Noah? 🤣I TOO have a degree in biology. Except I don't mix religion and nationalism with it.
Almost all East and Southeast Asians have "Australo-Melanesian" ancestry, they were part of the Basal Asian lineage, and they are the oldest human migrations to leave Africa, following a coastal route through India and into Sundaland, then hopping to New Guinea, and finally Australia. Not to mention modern admixtures, when Austronesians started arriving and colonizing the islands of Southeast Asia, coastal New Guinea, and Island Melanesia around 5000 to 3000 years ago that had preexisting populations of "Australo-Melanesians" (Negritos, Orang Asli, and Papuans) since at least 50,000 years ago.
But Australo-Melanesians are NOT Austronesians. Genetically they are completely different. I mean, it's obvious even from phenotypical features alone. They have curly hair and dark skin, with high incidence of blondism and light-colored eyes.
Negritos and Orang Asli are Australo-Melanesians. The Orang Asli, like the closely-related Nicobarese and Andamanese people, don't even speak Austronesian languages. They speak AustroASIATIC languages, which they adopted from the neighboring Austroasiatic peoples (Vietnamese, Cambodians, etc.), long before Austronesians arrived.
Papuans and Aboriginal Australians speak even more diverse languages that are so ANCIENT they don't even belong to the same language families, but they are also not Austronesian.
The only Australo-Melanesians that speak Austronesian languages are Negritos of the Philippines, who acquired the Austronesian languages through admixture (all modern Negrito groups in the Philippines are 20% to 50% partially Austronesian). As well as some coastal Papuan and Solomon Islander groups that admixed with the early waves of the Austronesian Lapita peoples who passed through northern New Guinea on their way to Polynesia.
2
-
@daengzool6023 No I do not need a second opinion. Not all views are valid in science. There's something called a scientific consensus which is what gives hypotheses their proper due weight. The bulk of research HEAVILY favors the Out of Taiwan migration model. ESPECIALLY genetics, which not only includes studies on human genetics among Austronesians (which clearly differentiates Austronesians from Negritos/Orang Asli), but also includes domesticate genomics - the study of the genetics of domesticated plants and animals of Austronesians like coconuts, bananas, sugarcane, rice, millet, yam, taro, chickens, areca palm, ginger, turmeric, etc.; as well as the genetics of commensals and parasites including gut bacteria, lice, and rats).
It's also corroborated by other fields, notably linguistics, archeology, and anthropology.
Which you SHOULD know given you're a teacher. But apparently you don't. Which makes me think your education system failed you.
You didn't even answer my question.
So what if you have Orang Asli genes? That just means you have MIXED ancestry. I repeat: Orang Asli don't even SPEAK Austronesian languages. They are NOT Austronesians.
2
-
@daengzool6023 I just told you I graduated biology, and your response is to ask me basic questions that has nothing to do with our discussion? Are you trying to prove you were a bad teacher? Because it's working.
ANSWER my question. Why do OTHER Austronesians not have the same genetic admixtures as western Indonesians and Malaysians, if you were supposedly the ancestors.
You have Asli admixture. Why do Polynesians NOT have Asli admixture? Why do Filipinos and Micronesians not have Asli admixture. Why do Aboriginal Taiwanese not have Asli admixture?
Why is the spatial frequency distribution of Haplogroup B4a1a, the genetic marker EXCLUSIVELY associated with Austronesian-speakers, highest among Aboriginal Taiwanese and Filipinos, with a molecular clock date of only around 6,300 years ago? Why not Indonesians/Malaysians?
How is it that you do not understand that Austronesians did not exist BEFORE that period? There were no Austronesians 14,000 years ago. In the same way that there were no Indo-Europeans 14,000 years ago. Both of these ethnolinguistic groups only diverged within the last 6000 years or so.
If you can't even respond to questions like these, then no, we do not have the same education levels. Despite your claims. I don't care what your life story is. Just answer the questions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Do2mifasol-nh3lq The end of the last ice age was around 12,000 years ago (about 10,000 BCE). The Sundaland peninsula was ABOVE water before that, because the water levels where lower.
Humans (the Australo-Melanesians, ancestors of Papuans, Negritos, Orang Asli, and Indigenous Australians) crossed this body of land around 50,000 to 40,000 years ago, from mainland Southeast Asia. Some of them crossed to Sulawesi, New Guinea and Australia, with short hops between islands using basic rafts and dugout canoes.
This was followed by more migrations by Austroasiatic peoples, the distant cousins of the modern Vietnamese and Khmer people from around 14,000 years ago. They too settled Sundaland. Some of them crossing short distances of water into Mindanao in the Philippines.
The climate started warming around 12,000 years ago, ending the last ice age. The polar caps and glaciers melted, making the sea levels rise. The vast lowlands of Sundaland was covered in water, turning it into the modern islands of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra.
Then around 4,000 to 3,000 years ago, another wave of humans from Taiwan and the Philippines entered the region, not by land like previous migrations, but by boat. These people are the Austronesians. They intermarried with the preexisting Australo-Melanesians and Austroasiatic peoples.
ALL of these details are reflected in both archaeology and genetics.
Australo-Melanesians, Austroasiatic people, and Austronesians are THREE different people. They all have very different genetic profiles, reflected by appearances.
They entered Southeast Asia through THREE different routes. Two by land, one by sea.
The fact that you don't have Papuan DNA is exactly my point. LOL. The DNA from the study about humans in Sundaland before 12,000 years ago is Papuan DNA. They were the first humans to arrive in Southeast Asia.
You are obviously not Papuan. So why are you claiming to be their descendant?
Austronesians only arrived 10,000 years AFTER Sundaland was already covered in water.
Try again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@goukhanakul That's just coincidence, actually.
The word "kanaka" is derived from Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *tau-mata, which is an affixed form of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *tau ("person, human being"), though linguists are still unsure what the "-mata" suffix meant.
The only surviving cognate in WMP in the Philippines and Eastern Indonesia is Sangirese "taumata", which became Fijian "tamata", then becoming "tangata" in almost all Polynesian languages (Samoan, Tongan, Tuvaluan, Rennellese, Rarotongan, Maori, etc.). It became "kanaka" in Hawai'i (Samoan t and ng become k and n in Hawaiian).
The root of *tau-mata is Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *tau, which is from, Proto-Austronesian *Cau ("person, human being"). This is the more widespread term for "person"/"human being" in Taiwan, ISEA, and Micronesia, with the most common cognates being "tau" or "tao" (e.g. Tagalog "tá'o", Cebuano "tawu", Chamorro "taotao", Komodo "tou", Motu "tau", etc.)
An exception is Malay-influenced Western ISEA where the term "orang" replaced it, a late loanword from Malay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moonknight4053 As for the Lapita, yes. Material culture, especially pottery, aligns closest with the Nagsabaran pottery in northern Luzon in the Philippines. You can compare it yourself. Particular motifs like the cross inside a circle or the dentate (tooth-like) designs demonstrate that easily. So the origin, per consensus, is somewhere in the Philippines. Probably either Luzon or any of the eastern islands of the Philippines.
The route the ancestors of the Lapita took to reach Melanesia is a different matter. Some anthropologists believe they voyaged by way of Micronesia. From Luzon/eastern Philippines to Guam (the first ocean crossing), then downwards to Palau, Yap, and finally the Bismarcks and northern New Guinea. This is also based on pottery evidence (the Guam pottery also resemble Luzon pottery the closest).
Others propose a route through the eastern islands of the Philippines, through the Moluccas in Eastern Indonesia, and from there into northern New Guinea and the Bismarcks.
Or it could be both routes were taken, and the branches re-merged to form the core Lapita group in Melanesia. In any case, these migrations were rapid, often with just a century or two in between island settlements. Both these migrations began from the Philippines at around 4,500 years ago. Luzon itself was settled from Taiwan around 5,500 years ago (or even earlier).
A branch of the Lapita back-migrated to the eastern Borneo/Sulawesi region. The rest moved steadily eastward, settling the coastal regions of New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, etc. Once they reached Tonga and Samoa, they stayed in place for the next 1,000 years or so.
During this time, pottery technology in Tonga, Fiji, and Samoa slowly lost their complexity before completely disappearing. Probably because they were running out of clay deposits in small islands, and trees were becoming too expensive to waste as fuel for pottery kilns. Pottery was replaced by carved wooden bowls.
By around 1,300 years ago, Tonga and Samoa had drifted enough from other Lapita descendants to become recognizably Polynesian. They embarked on new long-distance voyages, rapidly settling Polynesia from Tonga and Samoa, with some also sailing eastward, back-migrating into Island Melanesia and eastern Micronesia.
The Lapita who stayed closer to New Guinea gradually mixed with more incoming Papuans (who had acquired boat technology from Austronesians), and vice versa. Hence why they have a higher Papuan percentage than Polynesians. A clear difference you can see when comparing neighboring Fiji from Tonga/Samoa. This branch of the Lapita became the Islander Melanesians.
And yes, I'm Asian Austronesian.
1
-
@daengzool6023 And since you claim to have "taught" genetics, let me ask you a simple genetic question:
Western ISEA Austronesians (Malaysians, western Indonesians, Cham) have a vcry high percentage of AustroASIATIC genes (Mon-Khmer, e.g. Cambodians, Vietnamese, etc.). Averaging at 40% to 50% in most people.
Now explain to me, how Aboriginal Taiwanese, most Filipinos (except some groups in Mindanao Island like the Sama-Bajau and the Manobo), most Eastern Indonesians (especially ones who live in island interiors, Maluku, Lesser Sunda Islands, and West Papua), Islander Melanesians, Malagasy, Micronesians, and Polynesians have ZERO Austroasiatic ancestry.
They're all Austronesians, but they don't share your genetic mixture.
This is impossible in genetics. If they are supposed to be YOUR descendants, why don't they share your specific genetic profile?
The answer is simple: because they are NOT your descendants. Unlike you, they never came into close contact with the Austroasiatic (Mon-Khmer) people. Because they didn't pass through mainland Southeast Asia or the Greater Sunda Islands AT ALL.
They are your ancestors. YOU are the descendants.
Western Malaysians/Western Indonesians/Chams:
40% Austronesian
40% Austroasiatic
10% Negrito/Orang Asli
Aboriginal Taiwanese/Filipinos/Micronesians/Eastern Indonesians:
70-100% Austronesian
0-30% Negrito
Islander Melanesians (Fijians, Vanuatuans, Tuvaluans, etc.):
30% to 50% Austronesian
50% to 70% Papuan
Polynesians (Hawaiians, Samoans, Maori, etc.):
70% Austronesian
30% Papuan
Malagasy (Madagasar):
50% Austronesian
50% East African (Bantu)
1
-
1
-
1