"john croft" <
jdcrof-@...> wrote:
original article:
http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/?start=1535
> Glen
>
> You will be pleased to note that your disagreement about the proximity
> of Sino-Tibetan and AN is entirely confirmed by genetics :-)
>
> John
>
OK, But which AN people ? Melanesia, polynesia ?
I have other interesting sources :
Petrushewsky (paper presented at the Conference on
Asia-mainland/Asutronesian Connection, 1992), Pacific-asian
relationships : a physical anthropological perspective notes that
skulls of Atayals (a tribe in northern Taiwan) are remarkably similar
to Anyang chinese (that is, bronze age chinese), in opposition to thai
and austroasiatic people.
Independently, Turner (a friend of Greenberg) is surprised to note that
Atayal teeth are sinodonts (i.e. northern Asian) and not sundadont like
southern austronesian and asutrosiatic people. (American journal of
physical anthropology, 1987), also : scientif american, 1989, february.
He attributes this to mixture with Chinese invaders. However, the
assimilation does not go that way : the Atayal that maintained their
standard living habits (like head-hunting) would not be approched by
chinese or japanese who would despise them.
Don't forget that southern austronesian are mixed with negritos and
papuan and they are gnenetically less representative of
proto-austronesian than are Taiwanese. Chinese invaded Taiwan only in
the 18th century, and austronesian are far from assimilated.
I think the role of Taiwan has been underestimated by ANesianists
(because they don't know chinese, I guess....)
Guillaume