Two layer hypothesis

Last updated

The 'Two Layer' Hypothesis, or immigration hypothesis, is an archaeological hypothese that suggests the human occupation of mainland Southeast Asia occurred over two distinct periods by two separate racial groups, hence the term 'layer'. [1] According to the Two Layer Hypothesis, early indigenous Australo-Melanesian peoples comprised the first population of Southeast Asia before their genetic integration with a second wave of inhabitants from East Asia, including Southern China, during the agricultural expansion of the Neolithic. [2] [3] The majority of evidence for the Two Layer Hypothesis consists of dental and morphometric analyses from archaeological sites throughout Southeast Asia, most prominently Thailand and Vietnam.

Contents

Recent genetic and archeologic evidence found that both Australo-Melanesian and East Asian-related populations migrated along a southern route, with the Australo-Melanesians using a coastal route along the coast of the Indian peninsula into Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania, while East Asian-related groups used a route south or through the Himalayan mountain range into Mainland Southeast Asia, from where Basal-East Asians than expanded northwards and southwards respectively at 50,000BC. East Asian-related ancestry was far more widespread in Insular Southeast Asia than previously suggested, long predating the Austroasiatic and Austronesian expansions.

Early hypotheses

The first fossilized skeletal remains and indication of early 'Proto-Australian' Southeast Asian inhabitants surfaced in 1920 during an excavation by Dubois on the island of Java. [4] Despite this, a formal connection to mainland Southeast Asia and the suggestion of an initial population of Australomelanesoids was not suggested until 1952 by Koenigswald in his response to Hooijer, [5] who sharply criticized the attribution of 'big toothed' dental remains to early Australo-Melanesians. [6] The immigration hypothesis proposed by Koenigswald was formally termed the 'Two Layer' model by Jacob Teuku. In 1967, Teuku analyzed the cranial and dental proportions of 152 adult skeletal samples recovered from prehistoric sites in Malaysia and Indonesia, the majority displaying robust jaws and teeth, prominent glabellae, and slender, elongated limbs. Teuku argued these characteristics correspond to the Australo-Melanesian population proposed by Koenigswald that predated the East Asian immigrants of the Neolithic; also suggesting the initial inhabitants were likely forced south of Southeast Asia's mainland by the second wave of migrants, due to resource competition or conflict. [3] [7]

Modern debates and controversies

The main controversy concerning the 'Two Layer' hypothesis is whether or not the evolutionary process truly involved the Australo-Melanesians. Archaeologists such as Matsumura suggest Southern Chinese people comprised the initial population of Southeast Asia, rather than Australo-Melanesians [2] while researchers such as Turner argue that prehistoric Southeast Asians did not mix with either racial group. [8] Though the early prehistoric Vietnamese and Malaysians both resembled the Australo-Melanesian samples the most, the Mán Bạc people had a greater resemblance to the Đông Sơn samples dating back to the Iron Age. Analyzing cranial and dental remains, Matsumura concluded based on chronological differences that the Mán Bạc people were immigrants affiliated with peoples near the Yangtze River region in Southern China. [2] Molecular anthropologists[ who? ] have used classical genetic markers and mtDNA to analyze the similarities between early Chinese and Southeast Asians. Such genetic markers[ which? ] suggest the genetic layout of Southern Chinese peoples is quite similar to that of Southeast Asians.[ citation needed ]

Other controversies completely reject the 'Two Layer' hypothesis. Using dental evidence, Turner’s Sundadont/Sinodont hypothesis suggests the “Sundadont” trait seen in present-day Southeast Asians is a result of long-standing continuity. Turner created a cluster analysis of MMD values in order to test existing hypotheses of origins, [8] concluding that all Southeast Asians, Micronesians, Polynesians, and Jomonese form their own branch and descend from a common ancestor. The Australians and Melanesians, however, are scattered over the African and European branch along with a side branch of Tasmanians and Solomon Islanders. Howell analyzed crania of major racial branches worldwide, and linked Australian and Melanesian cranial morphology most closely with African cranials. Howell discovered, however, that the size and features of present-day Asian cranial morphology differed significantly from that of Australians, Melanesians, and Africans. [8]

Several studies in 2021 concluded that East Asian-related ancestry originated and expanded from Mainland Southeast Asia at about 50,000BC. East Asian-related ancestry was far more widespreaded in Southeast Asia than previously suggested. Ancient remains of hunter-gatherers in Maritime Southeast Asia, such as one Holocene hunter-gatherer from South Sulawesi, had ancestry from both the Papuan-related and East Asian-related branches of the Eastern non-African lineage. The hunter-gatherer individual had approximately ~50% "Basal-East Asian" ancestry, and was positioned in between modern East Asians and Papuans of Oceania. The authors concluded that East Asian-related ancestry expanded from Mainland Southeast Asia into Maritime Southeast Asia much earlier than previously suggested, as early as 25,000BC, long before the expansion of Austroasiatic and Austronesian groups.

[9]

Distinctive Basal-East Asian (East-Eurasian) ancestry was recently found to have originated in Mainland Southeast Asia at ~50,000BC, and expanded through multiple migration waves southwards and northwards respectively. Geneflow of East-Eurasian ancestry into Maritime Southeast Asia and Oceania could be estimated to ~25,000BC (possibly also earlier since 50,000BC). The pre-Neolithic Papuan-related populations of Maritime Southeast Asia were largely replaced by the expansion of various East Asian-related populations, beginning about 25,000BC from Mainland Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia was dominated by East Asian-related ancestry already in 15,000BC, predating the expansion of Austroasiatic and Austronesian peoples. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Austroasiatic languages</span> Language family of continental Southeast Asia

The Austroasiatic languagesOSS-troh-ay-zee-AT-ik, AWSS-, are a large language family in Mainland Southeast Asia, South Asia and East Asia. These languages are scattered throughout parts of Thailand, Laos, India, Myanmar, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Nepal, and southern China. Austroasiatic constitute the majority languages of Vietnam and Cambodia. There are around 117 million speakers of Austroasiatic languages, of which more than two-thirds are Vietnamese speakers. Of these languages, only Vietnamese, Khmer, and Mon have a long-established recorded history. Only two have official status as modern national languages: Vietnamese in Vietnam and Khmer in Cambodia. The Mon language is a recognized indigenous language in Myanmar and Thailand. In Myanmar, the Wa language is the de facto official language of Wa State. Santali is one of the 22 scheduled languages of India. The rest of the languages are spoken by minority groups and have no official status.

Australo-Melanesians is an outdated historical grouping of various people indigenous to Melanesia and Australia. Controversially, groups from Southeast Asia and South Asia were also sometimes included.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negrito</span> Set of ethnic groups in Austronesia

The term Negrito refers to several diverse ethnic groups who inhabit isolated parts of Southeast Asia and the Andaman Islands. Populations often described as Negrito include: the Andamanese peoples of the Andaman Islands, the Semang peoples of Peninsular Malaysia, the Maniq people of Southern Thailand, as well as the Aeta of Luzon, the Ati and Tumandok of Panay, the Mamanwa of Mindanao, and about 30 other officially recognized ethnic groups in the Philippines.

Polynesians form an ethnolinguistic group of closely related people who are native to Polynesia, an expansive region of Oceania in the Pacific Ocean. They trace their early prehistoric origins to Island Southeast Asia and form part of the larger Austronesian ethnolinguistic group with an Urheimat in Taiwan. They speak the Polynesian languages, a branch of the Oceanic subfamily of the Austronesian language family. The Indigenous Māori people constitute the largest Polynesian population, followed by Samoans, Native Hawaiians, Tahitians, Tongans and Cook Islands Māori

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neolithic Europe</span> Era of pre-history

The European Neolithic is the period when Neolithic technology was present in Europe, roughly between 7000 BC and c. 2000–1700 BC. The Neolithic overlaps the Mesolithic and Bronze Age periods in Europe as cultural changes moved from the southeast to northwest at about 1 km/year – this is called the Neolithic Expansion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Melanesians</span> Indigenous inhabitants of Melanesia

Melanesians are the predominant and indigenous inhabitants of Melanesia, in a wide area from New Guinea to the Fiji Islands. Most speak either one of the many languages of the Austronesian language family, especially ones in the Oceanic branch, or from one of the many unrelated families of Papuan languages. Other languages are the several creoles of the region, such as Tok Pisin, Hiri Motu, Solomon Islands Pijin, Bislama, and Papuan Malay.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dawenkou culture</span>

The Dawenkou culture was a Chinese Neolithic culture primarily located in the eastern province of Shandong, but also appearing in Anhui, Henan and Jiangsu. The culture existed from 4300 to 2600 BC, and co-existed with the Yangshao culture. Turquoise, jade and ivory artefacts are commonly found at Dawenkou sites. The earliest examples of alligator drums appear at Dawenkou sites. Neolithic signs, perhaps related to subsequent scripts, such as those of the Shang dynasty, have been found on Dawenkou pottery.

Jōmon people is the generic name of the hunter-gatherer population that lived in the Japanese archipelago during the Jōmon period. The Jōmon people constituted a coherent population but displayed geographically defined regional subgroups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oceanian art</span> Artistic traditions of Oceania

Oceanic art or Oceanian art comprises the creative works made by the native people of the Pacific Islands and Australia, including areas as far apart as Hawaii and Easter Island. Specifically it comprises the works of the two groups of people who settled the area, though during two different periods. They would in time however, come to interact and together reach even more remote islands. The area is often broken down into four separate regions: Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia and Australia. Australia, along with interior Melanesia (Papua), are populated by descendants of the first waves of human migrations into the region by Australo-Melanesians. Micronesia, Island Melanesia, and Polynesia, on the other hand, are descendants of later Austronesian voyagers who intermixed with native Australo-Melanesians; mostly via the Neolithic Lapita culture. All of the regions in later times would be greatly affected by western influence and colonization. In more recent times, the people of Oceania have found a greater appreciation of their region's artistic heritage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Austronesian peoples</span> Speakers of Austronesian languages

The Austronesian peoples, sometimes referred to as Austronesian-speaking peoples, are a large group of peoples in Taiwan, Maritime Southeast Asia, Micronesia, coastal New Guinea, Island Melanesia, Polynesia, and Madagascar that speak Austronesian languages. They also include indigenous ethnic minorities in Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, Hainan, the Comoros, and the Torres Strait Islands. The nations and territories predominantly populated by Austronesian-speaking peoples are sometimes known collectively as Austronesia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prehistory of Taiwan</span>

Most information about Taiwan before the arrival of the Dutch East India Company in 1624 comes from archaeological finds throughout the island. The earliest evidence of human habitation dates back 20,000 to 30,000 years, when lower sea levels exposed the Taiwan Strait as a land bridge. Around 5,000 years ago, farmers from the southeast Chinese coast settled on the island. These people are believed to have been speakers of Austronesian languages, which dispersed from Taiwan across the islands of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The current Taiwanese aborigines are believed to be their descendants.

In the course of the peopling of the World by Homo sapiens, East Asia was reached about 50,000 years ago. The "recent African origin" lineage of 70 kya diverged into identifiable East Asian and West Eurasian lineages by about 50 kya. This early East Asian lineage diverged further during the Last Glacial Maximum, contributing outgoing from Mainland Southeast Asia significantly to the peopling of the Americas via Beringia about 25 kya. After the last ice age China became cut off from neighboring island groups. The modern Mongoloid phenotype is estimated to have developed fully about 35,000 years ago, somewhere in Central China. The previous Paleo-Mongoloid phenotypes of early East Asians became either replaced or prevailed among more geographically distant groups.

In the context of the recent African origin of modern humans, the Southern Dispersal scenario refers to the early migration along the southern coast of Asia, from the Arabian Peninsula via Persia and India to Southeast Asia and Oceania. Alternative names include the "southern coastal route" or "rapid coastal settlement", with later descendants of those migrations eventually colonizing the rest of Eurasia, the remainder of Oceania, and the Americas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Models of migration to the Philippines</span>

Since H. Otley Beyer first proposed his wave migration theory, numerous scholars have approached the question of how, when and why humans first came to the Philippines. The current scientific consensus favors the "Out of Taiwan" model, which broadly match linguistic, genetic, archaeological, and cultural evidence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prehistoric Indonesia</span>

Prehistoric Indonesia is a prehistoric period in the Indonesian archipelago that spanned from the Pleistocene period to about the 4th century CE when the Kutai people produced the earliest known stone inscriptions in Indonesia. Unlike the clear distinction between prehistoric and historical periods in Europe and the Middle East, the division is muddled in Indonesia. This is mostly because Indonesia's geographical conditions as a vast archipelago caused some parts — especially the interiors of distant islands — to be virtually isolated from the rest of the world. West Java and coastal Eastern Borneo, for example, began their historical periods in the early 4th century, but megalithic culture still flourished and script was unknown in the rest of Indonesia, including in Nias, Batak, and Toraja. The Papuans on the Indonesian part of New Guinea island lived virtually in the Stone Age until their first contacts with modern world in the early 20th century. Even today living megalithic traditions still can be found on the island of Sumba and Nias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peopling of India</span> Immigration patterns of different races of people of India

The peopling of India refers to the migration of Homo sapiens into the Indian subcontinent. Anatomically modern humans settled India in multiple waves of early migrations, over tens of millennia. The first migrants came with the Coastal Migration/Southern Dispersal 65,000 years ago, whereafter complex migrations within south and southeast Asia took place. West-Asian (Iranian) hunter-gatherers migrated to South Asia after the Last Glacial Period but before the onset of farming. Together with ancient South Asian hunter-gatherers they formed the population of the Indus Valley civilisation (IVC).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jōmon period</span> Japanese prehistorical period

In Japanese history, the Jōmon period is the time between c. 14,000 and 300 BC, during which Japan was inhabited by a diverse hunter-gatherer and early agriculturalist population united through a common Jōmon culture, which reached a considerable degree of sedentism and cultural complexity. The name "cord-marked" was first applied by the American zoologist and orientalist Edward S. Morse, who discovered sherds of pottery in 1877 and subsequently translated it into Japanese as Jōmon. The pottery style characteristic of the first phases of Jōmon culture was decorated by impressing cords into the surface of wet clay and is generally accepted to be among the oldest in the world.

Various genetic studies on Filipinos have been performed, to analyze the population genetics of the various ethnic groups in the Philippines.

Southeast Asia was first reached by anatomically modern humans possibly before 70,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans are suggested to have reached Southeast Asia twice in the course of the Southern Dispersal migrations during and after the formation of a distinct East Asian clade from 70,000 to 50,000 years ago.

The farming/language dispersal hypothesis proposes that many of the largest language families in the world dispersed along with the expansion of agriculture. This hypothesis was proposed by archaeologists Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew. It has been widely debated and archaeologists, linguists, and geneticists often disagree with all or part of the hypothesis.

References

  1. Reich, D., Patterson, N., Kircher, M., Delfin, F., Nandineni, M.R., Pugach, I.,... Stoneking, M. (2011). Denisova admixture and the first modern human dispersals into Southeast Asia and Oceania. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 89(4), 516-528.
  2. 1 2 3 Matsumura, H., Oxenham, M.F., Dodo, Y., Domett, K. Thuy, N.K., Cuong, N.L.,... Yamagata, M. (2008). Morphometric affinity of the late Neolithic human remains from Man Bac, Ninh Binh Province, Vietnam: key skeletons with which to debate the 'two layer' hypothesis. Anthropological Science, 116(2), 135-148
  3. 1 2 Matsumura, H., Hudson, M.J. (2005). Dental perspectives on the population history of Southeast Asia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 127(2), 182-209.
  4. Dubois, E. (1921). The proto-Australian fossil man of Wadjak, Java. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Weteschappen Proceedings Series B Physical Sciences, 23, 1013-1051.
  5. Koenigswald, G.H.R. (1952). Evidence of a prehistoric Australomelanesoid population in Malaya and Indonesia. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 8(1), 92-96.
  6. Hooijer, D.A. (1950). Fossil Evidence of Austromelanesian Migrations in Malaysia? Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 6(4), 416-422.
  7. Jacob, T. (1967). Some problems pertaining to the racial history of the Indonesian region: a study of human skeletal and dental remains from several prehistoric sites in Indonesia and Malaysia. Drukkerij Neerlandia.
  8. 1 2 3 Turner, C. (1992). The Dental Bridge between Australia and Asia: Following Macintosh into the East Asian Hearth of Humanity. Archaeology in Oceania, 27(3), 143-152.
  9. Carlhoff, Selina; Duli, Akin; Nägele, Kathrin; Nur, Muhammad; Skov, Laurits; Sumantri, Iwan; Oktaviana, Adhi Agus; Hakim, Budianto; Burhan, Basran; Syahdar, Fardi Ali; McGahan, David P. (August 2021). "Genome of a middle Holocene hunter-gatherer from Wallacea". Nature. 596 (7873): 543–547. Bibcode:2021Natur.596..543C. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03823-6. hdl: 10072/407535 . ISSN   1476-4687. PMC   8387238 . PMID   34433944. The qpGraph analysis confirmed this branching pattern, with the Leang Panninge individual branching off from the Near Oceanian clade after the Denisovan gene flow, although with the most supported topology indicating around 50% of a basal East Asian component contributing to the Leang Panninge genome (Fig. 3c, Supplementary Figs. 7–11).
  10. Larena, Maximilian; Sanchez-Quinto, Federico; Sjödin, Per; McKenna, James; Ebeo, Carlo; Reyes, Rebecca; Casel, Ophelia; Huang, Jin-Yuan; Hagada, Kim Pullupul; Guilay, Dennis; Reyes, Jennelyn (2021-03-30). "Multiple migrations to the Philippines during the last 50,000 years". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 118 (13): e2026132118. Bibcode:2021PNAS..11826132L. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2026132118 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   8020671 . PMID   33753512.

Further reading