Guillaume wrote in reply to my point:
> > >I too was under the impression that Austronesian, Mon Khymer and
> > >possibly the Daic family show more connections with each other than
> > >with Sino Tibetan.
>
> Dai and Austroasiatic - that is normal. The majority of thai speakings
> are ancient Austroasiatic speakers. Half of the population of thailand
> spoke khmer four centuries ago. So genetics can demonstrate that
> siamese and mon-khmer people are close, but it is an artefact.
Understood, but equally the genetics shows that on the basis of Han
surnames and genetic affiliations for the 28 provinces of China,
closest Austronesian connections for the people in the area frp,
Fujian, Taiwan, Guandong, Guanxi and Hainan, said to be inhabited
historically by the Yueh people (connected with Vietnam). There is
also a southern Chinese group spread throughout the southern interior
provinces (Yunnan, Sichuan, Hubei, Jangsi, Hunan, Guizhou) which show
much stonger Austroasiatic connections) gebetically than they show to
those people living in the Northern provinces. The three coastal
provinces Zhejaing, Shanghai and Anhui appear intermediate between the
southerners and northerners. It is interesting that this is the area
inhabited in early historic times by the Min people, and it appears
that this was the area in which millet farming from the north first
encountered rice farming from the south, creating neolithic hybrid
cultures.
John