Pig study forces rethink of Pacific colonisation
|
|
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
|
|
|