Hi John,

You wrote:

> Q.2. I think the evidence is that there are two zones. Whether they
> are independent or not is still to be determined. Previous to the
> newer research it was thought that the Papua New Guinean zone was
> dependent upon the South East Asian zone (associated with the
> introduction of pigs, dogs and chickens, 5,000 BP, from South East
> Asia).

Do you think, it was the advent of Austronesian-speaking people who became
in Melanesia the superstratum over the local Papua-related population who
were already taro-based farmers?
If I'm not mistaken the pottery appears in PNG in the same period.

> At the moment the evidence seems to be suggesting two
> separate zones, (for example the evidence from Spirit Cave in
> Thailand), but with the horizon for PNG pushed out to 25,000 BCE, and
> the evidence of maritime voyages (from PNG to New Britain, New
> Ireland, Bougainville and the Solomons), and evidence of linguistics
> and genetics of movements from PNG back into Indonesia (Timor and
> Halmahera), perhaps the south east Asian zone is secondary and
> dependent upon the PNG zone.

Alexander