Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / Archaeology / March 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Pig study forces rethink of Pacific colonisation

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jack Linthicum - 13 Mar 2007 23:38 GMT
Mitochondrial DNA suggests Pacific pigs started from Vietnam and had
stops at New Guinea before reaching Tahiti and Hawaii.

Academic quote of the year: "Pigs are good swimmers, but not good
enough to reach Hawaii. Given the distances between islands, pigs must
have been transported and are thus excellent proxies of human
movement. In this case, they have helped us open a new window into the
history of human colonization of the Pacific.

Public release date: 12-Mar-2007

Contact: Durham University Media Relations
pr.office@durham.ac.uk
44-019-133-46075
Durham University
Pig study forces rethink of Pacific colonisation

A survey of wild and domestic pigs has caused archaeologists to
reconsider both the origins of the first Pacific colonists and the
migration routes humans travelled to reach the remote Pacific.

Scientists from Durham University and the University of Oxford,
studying DNA and tooth shape in modern and ancient pigs, have revealed
that, in direct contradiction to longstanding ideas, ancient human
colonists may have originated in Vietnam and travelled between
numerous islands before first reaching New Guinea, and later landing
on Hawaii and French Polynesia.

Using mitochondrial DNA obtained from modern and ancient pigs across
East Asia and the Pacific, the researchers demonstrated that a single
genetic heritage is shared by modern Vietnamese wild boar, modern
feral pigs on the islands of Sumatra, Java, and New Guinea, ancient
Lapita pigs in Near Oceania, and modern and ancient domestic pigs on
several Pacific Islands.

The study results, published today in the prestigious academic journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, contradict
established models of human migration which assert that the ancestors
of Pacific islanders originated in Taiwan or Island Southeast Asia,
and travelled along routes that pass through the Philippines as they
dispersed into the remote Pacific.

The research was funded by funded by the Wellcome Trust, the
Leverhulme Trust, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Fyssen
Foundation.

Research project director, Dr Keith Dobney, a Wellcome Trust senior
research fellow with the Department of Archaeology at Durham
University, said: "Many archaeologists have assumed that the combined
package of domestic animals and cultural artefacts associated with the
first Pacific colonizers originated in the same place and was then
transported with people as a single unit.

"Our study shows that this assumption may be too simplistic, and that
different elements of the package, including pigs, probably took
different routes through Island South East Asia, before being
transported into the Pacific.'

Archaeological evidence suggests that early farmers moved from
mainland East Asia through Island Southeast Asia and on into Oceania,
bringing their domestic plants, animals and specific pottery styles
with them. Other sources of evidence, including human genetic and
linguistic data, appear to support the traditional model that Pacific
colonists first began their journey in Taiwan.

Greger Larson, lead author of the paper, performed the genetic work
while at the University of Oxford. He is now due to join Durham
University in August as a Research Councils UK Research Fellow.

He said: "Pigs are good swimmers, but not good enough to reach Hawaii.
Given the distances between islands, pigs must have been transported
and are thus excellent proxies of human movement. In this case, they
have helped us open a new window into the history of human
colonization of the Pacific.

"We are confident that this research will inspire geneticists and
archaeologists to consider both alternative colonization routes, and
more complex, and perhaps more accurate, theories about the nature of
human colonization and the animals they carried with them."

The specimens used in these analyses came from the jaw bones or teeth
of museum and archaeological specimens and the hair from more recent
specimens.
Matt Giwer - 14 Mar 2007 04:52 GMT
> Mitochondrial DNA suggests Pacific pigs started from Vietnam and had
> stops at New Guinea before reaching Tahiti and Hawaii.

> Academic quote of the year: "Pigs are good swimmers, but not good
> enough to reach Hawaii. Given the distances between islands, pigs must
> have been transported and are thus excellent proxies of human
> movement. In this case, they have helped us open a new window into the
> history of human colonization of the Pacific.

    Of course Hawaii and Tahiti have to be by sea but one has to come up with
decent dates for the New Guinea part and look at the sea level at that time
during the ice age. The actual land separations were so small that a decent
cyclone and clinging to a tree would be enough to cross the water.

    So I would only take the Hawaii and Tahiti arrivals seriously for attempting to
date things. Australia and all the western Pacific Islands were either hills
above dry land or separated by short distances of water.

    Again science writer syndrome. Expressing things in terms of depth of knowledge
of a journalism major whereas everyone really researching Pacific migration
knows where the dry land was during the first human migrations.

...
Signature

How is sending 22,000 troops to Iraq a better plan than sending 130,000
troops to Iraq?
    -- The Iron Webmaster, 3746
 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
 Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11

benlizro@ihug.co.nz - 14 Mar 2007 05:25 GMT
> > Mitochondrial DNA suggests Pacific pigs started from Vietnam and had
> > stops at New Guinea before reaching Tahiti and Hawaii.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> of a journalism major whereas everyone really researching Pacific migration
> knows where the dry land was during the first human migrations.

You could be a little more careful yourself. At no time was there less
than a 50 km sea gap to cross to get from Asia to Australia/New
Guinea. I'm not sure how good pigs are at "clinging" to anything, but
getting a primal pig couple (or even a pregnant sow) across that kind
of gap without human assistance seems like a very outside chance.
I'm not sure what you mean by "western Pacific Islands", but to get to
the Solomons (your next stop) you have another gap of maybe 100 km,
followed by _much_ longer crossings to get to Vanuatu, Fiji, Samoa,
etc. All of this is at minimum sea level during the last ice age.

Ross Clark
Matt Giwer - 15 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
>>> Mitochondrial DNA suggests Pacific pigs started from Vietnam and had
>>> stops at New Guinea before reaching Tahiti and Hawaii.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> followed by _much_ longer crossings to get to Vanuatu, Fiji, Samoa,
> etc. All of this is at minimum sea level during the last ice age.

http://www.giwersworld.org/images/scs.jpg is one area. While 50 km may be a
reasonable measure the question is between how large a land mass. The big patch
of aqua/turquoise was dry land as were all the little dots of that color. There
appear to have been two chains of dots that could be described as like the
Florida keys running almost all the way from the main dry land to Australia.

    As for the clinging part I mean swimming towards something floating and trying
to climb on as part of a typhoon storm surge receding as the eye gets far
inland. I don't know just how fast such a wave would be but back in the 1920s
(30s?) a hurricane eye went over Lake Okeechobee in Florida. When the eye left
from the west side the water sloshed back east and drowned something like a
thousan people. That was back before A/C when it was malaria heaven.

    As for getting enough to breed easier than imagined. All one has to do is get a
female of bearing age or younger on the land mass as a male of any age and noses
and musk will do the rest. So there are years after one fortuitous arrival for a
second fortuitous arrival to occur and several million years for these chance
events to occur.

    As we are pushing back human arrival in Oz to around 60,000 years BP the entire
debate is more of academic interest than anything else. The issue of arriving
separately, which came first is not of much interest unless we have
domestication of pigs long enough before humans started crossing the water that
bringing pigs with them was an option. So then we have the complication of did
humans bring the first pigs or did they bring domesticated pigs to mix with the
wild population? If the latter and if domestication was no earlier than in the
middle east then certainly they brought domesticated pigs by sea. Whether or not
there were wild pigs already of if they were hunted to extinction and a few
other questions arise.

    Which brings me back to my original point. Don't hang your hat on pigs save for
places like Tahiti and Hawaii where they had to have been brought by humans.
When talking the western Pacific islands it is to easy to cloud the picture with
questions than can likely never be answered.

Signature

Hodie pridie Idus Martias MMVII est
     -- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
 Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

benlizro@ihug.co.nz - 15 Mar 2007 04:55 GMT
> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >>> Mitochondrial DNA suggests Pacific pigs started from Vietnam and had
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> appear to have been two chains of dots that could be described as like the
> Florida keys running almost all the way from the main dry land to Australia.

"Almost" is the key. This map is not much use for our present
purposes, since 50km hardly shows up, but for a pig it's a long way.

>         As for the clinging part I mean swimming towards something floating and trying
> to climb on as part of a typhoon storm surge receding as the eye gets far
> inland. I don't know just how fast such a wave would be but back in the 1920s
> (30s?) a hurricane eye went over Lake Okeechobee in Florida. When the eye left
> from the west side the water sloshed back east and drowned something like a
> thousan people. That was back before A/C when it was malaria heaven.

Sounds spectacular, but I'm not sure how applicable it is to the pig
situation. Anyway I don't believe they have cyclones in the area we're
interested in.

>         As for getting enough to breed easier than imagined. All one has to do is get a
> female of bearing age or younger on the land mass as a male of any age and noses
> and musk will do the rest. So there are years after one fortuitous arrival for a
> second fortuitous arrival to occur and several million years for these chance
> events to occur.

You also have to get them there within the same time/space frame for
them to be able to breed. You were just emphasizing how big the land
masses are. I still think you're working the outer limits of
probability.

>         As we are pushing back human arrival in Oz to around 60,000 years BP the entire
> debate is more of academic interest than anything else. The issue of arriving
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> there were wild pigs already of if they were hunted to extinction and a few
> other questions arise.

The first inhabitants of Australia/New Guinea certainly did not bring
pigs. AFAIK there are no wild pigs in Australia and never have been.
(OK there might be feral ones in some areas now, but as in NZ they
will be 100% Euro-pig.) Pig domestication in SE Asia is of the same
era as in the Mideast, Dates for earliest archaeological pig in New
Guinea are in keeping with this time frame -- long after first
settlement.

An interesting thing that happens in Austronesian languages is that
west of New Guinea there are typically distinct words for "wild pig"
and "domestic pig". East of NG the wild word drops out and the
domestic one becomes generic.

>         Which brings me back to my original point. Don't hang your hat on pigs save for
> places like Tahiti and Hawaii where they had to have been brought by humans.
> When talking the western Pacific islands it is to easy to cloud the picture with
> questions than can likely never be answered.

You've bypassed the part where I pointed out that things get harder,
not easier, when you move east of Aus/NG. You might just be able to
pig-populate that land mass without humans (though I think it's very
unlikely and there seems to be no evidence for it). But Fiji? No way.

Ross Clark
Matt Giwer - 16 Mar 2007 04:42 GMT
>> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>>>> Mitochondrial DNA suggests Pacific pigs started from Vietnam and had
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>> appear to have been two chains of dots that could be described as like the
>> Florida keys running almost all the way from the main dry land to Australia.

> "Almost" is the key. This map is not much use for our present
> purposes, since 50km hardly shows up, but for a pig it's a long way.

    The first thing the map does is take hundreds of miles off of the distance by
sea. At the least this puts a much different perspective on the sea travel
issue. It also puts a different perspective on human development of sea
traveling technology as the sea level rose over a thousand or so years people
went from wading through swamps to rafts to boats slowly development as the
distance increased. As to the pigs we would have a normal population on all that
turquoise land giving those hundreds of thousands of years of opportunity for
accidental migration.

>>         As for the clinging part I mean swimming towards something floating and trying
>> to climb on as part of a typhoon storm surge receding as the eye gets far
>> inland. I don't know just how fast such a wave would be but back in the 1920s
>> (30s?) a hurricane eye went over Lake Okeechobee in Florida. When the eye left
>> from the west side the water sloshed back east and drowned something like a
>> thousan people. That was back before A/C when it was malaria heaven.

> Sounds spectacular, but I'm not sure how applicable it is to the pig
> situation. Anyway I don't believe they have cyclones in the area we're
> interested in.

    The region of the maps is quite close to or into the tropics and hurricanes hit
the US quite far north of that. There certainly would have been several cyclones
(typhoons) in the region each year. Anyone making it far enough west would come
ashore. The low pressure in the center draws up the water and carries it ashore.
Things get swept up in it and get carried out to see when it retreats.

    From there everything is dependent upon storm driven currents. The issue is if
it is possible there were hundreds of thousands of years with several chances
each year for it to happen. And then it only has to happen over those small
passages not the huge expanse between islands today. How long was that ice age
when pigs had evolved into today's pigs? Off the top of my head there were
several of them over ten million years lasting about 100,000 years with
10-20,000 year breaks between them. And beyond chance close enough to an island
and a hungry pig maybe means swimming for it so there is more than just chance
involved.

>>         As for getting enough to breed easier than imagined. All one has to do is get a
>> female of bearing age or younger on the land mass as a male of any age and noses
>> and musk will do the rest. So there are years after one fortuitous arrival for a
>> second fortuitous arrival to occur and several million years for these chance
>> events to occur.

> You also have to get them there within the same time/space frame for
> them to be able to breed. You were just emphasizing how big the land
> masses are. I still think you're working the outer limits of
> probability.

    You have to get them there within roughly the life span of pigs which is
something like 8-12 years although likely shorter in the wild. With hundreds of
thousands of chances per ice age for say 50 miles of coast for each chance
eventually it happens. Again the point is we are not looking at today's map
where it is clearly highly unlikely if not impossible but to time when the
distances were much shorter. Shorter on the order of a few percent of today's
distances.

    What I am saying is to consider the possibility in context of the land mass at
the time not in terms of today. Look at humans reaching Australia about the same
time they reached SE Asia. Of course they did as SE Asia was dry land to a
couple small straights between it and Australia. We don't have to have sea-going
humans 60,000 years ago just good swimmers or minimal raft building. There were
probably places where a decent log and the tides would make the trip happen.

>>         As we are pushing back human arrival in Oz to around 60,000 years BP the entire
>> debate is more of academic interest than anything else. The issue of arriving
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> there were wild pigs already of if they were hunted to extinction and a few
>> other questions arise.

> The first inhabitants of Australia/New Guinea certainly did not bring
> pigs. AFAIK there are no wild pigs in Australia and never have been.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Guinea are in keeping with this time frame -- long after first
> settlement.

    As I read it that was the point of the article, trying to date the pig.

> An interesting thing that happens in Austronesian languages is that
> west of New Guinea there are typically distinct words for "wild pig"
> and "domestic pig". East of NG the wild word drops out and the
> domestic one becomes generic.

>>         Which brings me back to my original point. Don't hang your hat on pigs save for
>> places like Tahiti and Hawaii where they had to have been brought by humans.
>> When talking the western Pacific islands it is to easy to cloud the picture with
>> questions than can likely never be answered.

> You've bypassed the part where I pointed out that things get harder,
> not easier, when you move east of Aus/NG. You might just be able to
> pig-populate that land mass without humans (though I think it's very
> unlikely and there seems to be no evidence for it). But Fiji? No way.

    I was not disagreeing. As I said there is no point to getting involved in the
chronology until we get to where you are talking about. Do not take expansion as
disagreement.

Signature

The failure option in Iraq was exercised in March 2003.
    -- The Iron Webmaster, 3744
 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
 http://www.giwersworld.org

elizabeth.pascal@gmail.com - 16 Mar 2007 12:05 GMT
> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
> the US quite far north of that. There certainly would have been several cyclones
> (typhoons) in the region each year.

Actually the region of closest proximity of the two land masses is
right around the equator. "Tropical cyclones rarely form or move
within 5 degrees of the equator" (Wikipedia, hope I got that right).
Not an area with regular typhoons.

Anyone making it far enough west would come
> ashore. The low pressure in the center draws up the water and carries it ashore.
> Things get swept up in it and get carried out to see when it retreats.

The Florida event you described resulted in drowning a lot of people,
not moving livestock from one county to the next.

>         From there everything is dependent upon storm driven currents. The issue is if
> it is possible there were hundreds of thousands of years with several chances
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> distances were much shorter. Shorter on the order of a few percent of today's
> distances.

Actually, even today's distances are not that great in the area of
eastern Indonesia-New Guinea. It's just that there are more gaps than
there would have benn 10,000 years ago.

>         What I am saying is to consider the possibility in context of the land mass at
> the time not in terms of today. Look at humans reaching Australia about the same
> time they reached SE Asia. Of course they did as SE Asia was dry land to a
> couple small straights between it and Australia. We don't have to have sea-going
> humans 60,000 years ago just good swimmers or minimal raft building. There were
> probably places where a decent log and the tides would make the trip happen.

I'd say forget swimming -- not the whole way anyway. They had to have
some way of getting about on the water. Accidental crossings make for
the same problem as the pig -- low chance of reproducibility. So
whether it was rafts or boats, they saw the land across the way and
decided to go there.

> >>         As we are pushing back human arrival in Oz to around 60,000 years BP the entire
> >> debate is more of academic interest than anything else. The issue of arriving
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>         As I read it that was the point of the article, trying to date the pig.

The article is a genetics article, connecting the bush pigs of Vietnam
with those way out in the Pacific. My point is that there is no
evidence in the ground of pigs being in Australia-New Guinea or
further east before a few thousand years ago. This is at a time when
we have many other reasons for thinking that a people with
domesticated animals, agriculture and good boats were spreading
eastwards in this area.

Ross Clark

> > An interesting thing that happens in Austronesian languages is that
> > west of New Guinea there are typically distinct words for "wild pig"
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Matt Giwer - 23 Mar 2007 06:01 GMT
>> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>>> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> within 5 degrees of the equator" (Wikipedia, hope I got that right).
> Not an area with regular typhoons.

    Sorry about the delay. Please do not hang your hat on Wikipedia rather use it
as a guide to more authoritative material.

    Actually the region that would have had the narrow passages and be subject to
these storms I hypothesize runs around 10 to 20 south latitude so they are not
improbable. Granted they are closer to the equator than I was thinking but still
there are a hundred thousand years worth of tropical storm seasons.

>>  Anyone making it far enough west would come
>> ashore. The low pressure in the center draws up the water and carries it ashore.
>> Things get swept up in it and get carried out to see when it retreats.

> The Florida event you described resulted in drowning a lot of people,
> not moving livestock from one county to the next.

    I was simply illustrating the storm surge and how it moves. These straits are
narrower than the lake is wide. I agree I need to find a better map than the one
I linked. I used to have one but losing it is in MS disk crash was one of the
reasons that lead me to switch to linux. I haven't found the one I had back then
since then. It was a NOAA map based on what the Navy mapped regarding sea mounts
so subs could run underwater safely. They do it blind if you didn't know.

>>         From there everything is dependent upon storm driven currents. The issue is if
>> it is possible there were hundreds of thousands of years with several chances
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>> distances were much shorter. Shorter on the order of a few percent of today's
>> distances.

> Actually, even today's distances are not that great in the area of
> eastern Indonesia-New Guinea. It's just that there are more gaps than
> there would have benn 10,000 years ago.

    Again there is a lot not known. The rule of thumb where we say the ice age
ended 10 or 12 thousand years ago is really not that precise. How quickly it
broke where and the absolute ocean rise is sort of hand-waved over several
thousand years including the two between 10 and 12. I've been looking for
detailed data for western Asia/Eastern Europe for years and can't find a thing.
Yet that is the most interesting for human spread north into Europe where most
of the researchers are from and are interested in.

>>         What I am saying is to consider the possibility in context of the land mass at
>> the time not in terms of today. Look at humans reaching Australia about the same
>> time they reached SE Asia. Of course they did as SE Asia was dry land to a
>> couple small straights between it and Australia. We don't have to have sea-going
>> humans 60,000 years ago just good swimmers or minimal raft building. There were
>> probably places where a decent log and the tides would make the trip happen.

> I'd say forget swimming -- not the whole way anyway. They had to have
> some way of getting about on the water. Accidental crossings make for
> the same problem as the pig -- low chance of reproducibility. So
> whether it was rafts or boats, they saw the land across the way and
> decided to go there.

    I have agreed to the low probability but I have put that against 100,000 years
of opportunity while positing a mechanism for it. One in a thousand chance  per
year and it happens 100 times.

>>>>         As we are pushing back human arrival in Oz to around 60,000 years BP the entire
>>>> debate is more of academic interest than anything else. The issue of arriving
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>> settlement.
>>         As I read it that was the point of the article, trying to date the pig.

> The article is a genetics article, connecting the bush pigs of Vietnam
> with those way out in the Pacific. My point is that there is no
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> domesticated animals, agriculture and good boats were spreading
> eastwards in this area.

    If the evidence is that recent, presuming few means 3 or 4 then pushing human
in Oz back much further than that is not reasonable. The entire Polynesian
culture relies on them as a primary food source.

Signature

The failure option in Iraq was exercised in March 2003.
    -- The Iron Webmaster, 3744
 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
 Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

benlizross - 24 Mar 2007 21:35 GMT
> > Actually the region of closest proximity of the two land masses is
> > right around the equator. "Tropical cyclones rarely form or move
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>         Sorry about the delay. Please do not hang your hat on Wikipedia rather use it
> as a guide to more authoritative material.

It was the handiest thing to confirm my recollection, which came from
Malcolm Ross's study of Proto-Oceanic weather terminology, which I'm
sure is based on even more authoritative material, if I could be
bothered looking it up.

>         Actually the region that would have had the narrow passages and be subject to
> these storms I hypothesize runs around 10 to 20 south latitude so they are not
> improbable. Granted they are closer to the equator than I was thinking but still
> there are a hundred thousand years worth of tropical storm seasons.

You seem to be hanging your hat on a lot of these hopeful catastrophes.

> >>  Anyone making it far enough west would come
> >> ashore. The low pressure in the center draws up the water and carries it ashore.
[quoted text clipped - 96 lines]
> in Oz back much further than that is not reasonable. The entire Polynesian
> culture relies on them as a primary food source.

Huh? Am I arguing with somebody who's a bit vague on the distinction
between Australia and Polynesia? We know people were in Australia and
New Guinea 10s of 1000s of years ago. We have the bones. Polynesia is
much more recent. But the pigs are not part of the primary evidence for
any of this. Australians never had pigs. Polynesians mostly did, but not
everywhere, and were quite capable of surviving without them.

Ross Clark
Matt Giwer - 26 Mar 2007 03:18 GMT
>>> Actually the region of closest proximity of the two land masses is
>>> right around the equator. "Tropical cyclones rarely form or move
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> You seem to be hanging your hat on a lot of these hopeful catastrophes.

    Back up. I started this saying NOT to hang one's hat on pig spread as a marker
for human spread in the regions near what was dry land way back when. The sea
distances at that time did not require human intervention due to that dry land.
If the map back then were as today human intervention was absolutely required
beyond all but the most remote catastrophe.

    Simply limit pig/human spread correlations to places where water distances were
great during the last ice age.

Signature

How is sending 22,000 troops to Iraq a better plan than sending 130,000
troops to Iraq?
    -- The Iron Webmaster, 3746
 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
 Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

benlizro@ihug.co.nz - 27 Mar 2007 00:41 GMT
> >>> Actually the region of closest proximity of the two land masses is
> >>> right around the equator. "Tropical cyclones rarely form or move
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>         Simply limit pig/human spread correlations to places where water distances were
> great during the last ice age.

As I pointed out earlier, that area starts immediately east of New
Guinea.

Anyhow, I finally got a copy of the original paper (www.pnas.org/cgi/
doi/10.1073/pnas.0607753104).
The big picture: Genus Sus probably evolved in the Sundaland region.
Sus scrofa (which eventually became the common domesticate) spread
throughout the Eurasian continent. Its earliest remains turn up in
Spain and China 800-900 kya. A distinctive branch of S.scrofa can be
recognized in (what is now) mainland SE Asia. Within that there is a
further highly distinctive branch which has been called the "Pacific
clade", since all pigs east of Java and Sulawesi belong to it (except
for Micronesia, see below).

So to quote the latter part of the abstract, from their 781 Asian-
Pacific Sus specimens...

'...we provide evidence for an early human-mediated translocation of
the Sulawesi warty pig (Sus celebensis) to Flores and Timor and two
later separate human-mediated dispersals of domestic pig (Sus scrofa)
throughout island Southeast Asia into Oceania. Of the later dispersal
routes, one is unequivocally associated with the Neolithic (Lapita)
and later Polynesian migrations, and links modern and archaeological
Javan, Sumatran Wallacean, and Oceanic pigs with mainland Southeast
Asian S.scrofa. Archaeological and genetic evidence shows these pigs
were certainly introduced to islands east of the Wallace Line,
including New Guinea, and that so-called "wild" pigs within this
region are most likely feral descendants of domestic pigs introduced
by early agriculturalists.  The other later pig dispersal links
mainland East Asian  pigs to western Micronesia, Taiwan and the
Philippines."

So the question on which this paper provides evidence is not whether
humans moved the pigs (for the eastern regions at least,
archaeological evidence is clear that they did), but exactly where
those pigs came from. The point of major relevance to current
arguments about Austronesian migrations is that the "Pacific clade"
pig that they eventually ended up with in Polynesia is not found in
Taiwan or the Philippines. It would follow that if the Austronesians
did originate in Taiwan, they left without pigs, or at least they
replaced their stock of pigs somewhere in Indonesia.

Ross Clark
Lrawnsle@tvnz.co.nz - 31 Mar 2007 07:26 GMT
On Mar 27, 11:41 am, benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:

> > >>> Actually the region of closest proximity of the two land masses is
> > >>> right around the equator. "Tropical cyclones rarely form or move
[quoted text clipped - 69 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

The important point re: the relevance of the pig to the origin of the
first settlers of the eastern Polynesian region is only meaningful if
it can be shown that the first settlers of that region brought the pig
with them. However archaeological evidence shows that the first
settlers preceded the arrival of the pig by several centuries.
Therefore one cannot dismiss the possibility that the first settlers
of eastern Polynesian didn't come from the west at all but rather only
acquired the pig after journeying to the western regions where the pig
was already present. Having a predetermined destination they could
then achieve the difficult task of returning to the eastern Polynesian
region with the pig and chicken. and displacing the Lapita settlements.
benlizross - 31 Mar 2007 23:27 GMT
> On Mar 27, 11:41 am, benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
> it can be shown that the first settlers of that region brought the pig
> with them.

Like any other archaeologically-detectable item which these first
settlers might have brought with them from some putative place of
origin. The presence would be strong evidence, the absence is not
particularly so. There's nothing special about the pig.

However archaeological evidence shows that the first
> settlers preceded the arrival of the pig by several centuries.

Really? Update me on the archaeological evidence. Seems to me this was
not true last time we discussed this, a couple of years ago. Is it true
now?

> Therefore one cannot dismiss the possibility that the first settlers
> of eastern Polynesian didn't come from the west at all but rather only
> acquired the pig after journeying to the western regions where the pig
> was already present. Having a predetermined destination they could
> then achieve the difficult task of returning to the eastern Polynesian
> region with the pig and chicken. and displacing the Lapita settlements.

For a moment I thought you had found "Lapita settlements" in east
Polynesia. But I think what you're saying is that some of them took the
pigs & chooks back east, and some stayed on to exterminate the Lapitans
and take over their settlements. When do you suppose this happened? And
what evidence of this "displacement" do you see in the archaeological
record?

Ross Clark
Hayabusa - 16 Mar 2007 22:12 GMT
>    As for the clinging part I mean swimming towards something floating and trying
>to climb on as part of a typhoon storm surge receding as the eye gets far
>inland. I don't know just how fast such a wave would be but back in the 1920s
>(30s?) a hurricane eye went over Lake Okeechobee in Florida. When the eye left
>from the west side the water sloshed back east and drowned something like a
>thousan people. That was back before A/C when it was malaria heaven.

You cannot swim in fast-running water. You will drown within a minute
unless you find something to hang on to. Humans may do that, we are
used to having hands, pigs don't. Think of the 2005 Christmas tsunami
- some people found themselves drifting in the ocean, but only if they
had found something that carried them right in the moment the water
came. Otherwise, our specific weight is too low to help us against the
strength of turbulent flow. It pulls you down instantly. (Believe me,
I do know enough about turbulent flow. I would not jump into a river
that flows faster than a meter per second.)

Also, pigs don't hang on to things, it is not their world. They use
their feet, or they drown. A couple years ago we got a call from a
neighbor because there were two wild boars in his swimming pool.
Apparently a young boar had fallen into the water, the mother had
jumped after it, and neither could get out alone. She always tried to
lift her kid up above the rim with her snout, but failed. After much
trying we managed to catch the kid boar, pulled it out and let it go.
The sow was much more of a problem because she avoided wooden boards
and other help we tried to provide. We had to wait for nearly an hour
until she was tired, and after all she had seen that her kid had
escaped, and slowly she understood that the thick rope we threw after
her was not a threat, but a help. But she instantly let go when we
started to pull. We tried many times until she understood that she
must hang on to the rope. Once she got her feet on the rim she was
out, and like a black lightning off into the night. Under less
artificial conditions the sow would have drowned within 10 minutes
because of despair, animals don't live long under stress.

Hayabusa
Matt Giwer - 23 Mar 2007 06:12 GMT
>>     As for the clinging part I mean swimming towards something floating and trying
>> to climb on as part of a typhoon storm surge receding as the eye gets far
>> inland. I don't know just how fast such a wave would be but back in the 1920s
>> (30s?) a hurricane eye went over Lake Okeechobee in Florida. When the eye left
>>from the west side the water sloshed back east and drowned something like a
>> thousan people. That was back before A/C when it was malaria heaven.

> You cannot swim in fast-running water. You will drown within a minute
> unless you find something to hang on to. Humans may do that, we are
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I do know enough about turbulent flow. I would not jump into a river
> that flows faster than a meter per second.)

    Lets not make that big a deal of this as I am presenting a venue for travel
based upon the real land separations during the last ice age rather than as they
are today.

    However any species that can swim is also capable of climbing out of the water.
And if a tree is getting out of the water climbing onto it is not out of the
question. Again 100,000 years worth of chances for a very improbable event to
occur.

> Also, pigs don't hang on to things, it is not their world. They use
> their feet, or they drown. A couple years ago we got a call from a
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> artificial conditions the sow would have drowned within 10 minutes
> because of despair, animals don't live long under stress.

    Yes but a swimming pool is far from a floating tree, purely vertical sides. And
here you have given me the mechanism for it all to happen. In the surge receding
into the sea the sow does get the kid onto the log because you have shown they
do try to get the young out of the water. Thank you.

Signature

Tony Blair says the war on the Taliban will take decades. That is the same
as saying the war on Southern Baptists will take decades. Or perhaps in the
British sense, the war on Roman Catholics will take decades.
    -- The Iron Webmaster, 3728
 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
 Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.