173
were hard to evaluate and not fully supported by established evidence (Donohue and
Denham 2011) The key point of difference is the ultimate source of protoAustronesian genes and/or languages; i.e. Taiwan or ISEA as the original ancestral
source of their roughly 387 million descendants today (Norhalifah et al. 2016a;
Donohue and Denham 2011). In the “Out of Taiwan” model, Malaysia holds just
one of the descendant Austronesian populations, first received well within the last
3000–4000 YBP. The Southern (Zhejiang, Fujian or Guangdong province) or eastern coast of China (Shandong province) are the most probable potential homelands
of Pre-Austronesian speakers before this language differentiated into the Formosan
and Malayo-Polynesian sub-groups in Taiwan and ISEA, respectively (Andaya
2002; Bellwood 1997). The former is exclusively spoken by the aboriginals of
Taiwan, while the latter is by the descendants of Austronesian populations in
Polynesia and ISEA, including Malaysia (Blundell 2011). This view of the pattern
of Austronesian language spread has been supported by dating languages across the
Pacific and Indian Oceans (Gray et al. 2011). However, the inferences of migration
events that took place several millennia ago solely based on a single evidence (linguistic study in this case) seem vulnerable. Any chronology of human settlement
should be integrated with those appearing from multidisciplinary studies – e.g. see
Donohue and Denham (2011) for different ideas about the origins of language and
genes in ISEA. In this context, the classification of Orang Asli based on their current
language affinities (Austroasiatic or Austronesian) only ignores their other features
(genetics and physical characteristics) that are unique only to either Semang, Senoi
or Proto-Malays.
The Genetic Trail in Malaysia
The preceding sections provide an account of the ancestral original origins of the
three major Orang Asli groups. This raises expectations about their genetic affinities
with one another and with other populations. In this sub-chapter, the literature is
surveyed to present an analysis of these expectations. For the first time, we integrated our own data from autosomal loci of medical significance (transfusion and
transplant genes) into the wider account. The emergent picture suggests that haplotype distributions from sex-limited markers are equivocal in their ability to resolve
the “Out of Taiwan vs. Out of ISEA” debate (Chambers and Edinur 2015) In particular, we point to the difficulties that may arise if one puts too much faith in
molecular clock estimates of divergence dates, which are often in conflict with
archaeological chronology and linguistic relationships.
Our understanding of population history in ISEA, including Peninsular Malaysia,
is informed by the composite picture revealed by earlier and widespread analyses of
mtDNA and Y-chromosome markers, which leads to the introduction of several
models of population expansion to the Asia-Pacific region. These sex-limited data
suggest Pleistocene colonisation of ISEA by Anatomically Modern Humans, who
later spread north and south, including to Taiwan and remote Oceania (Soares et al.
2016; Donohue and Denham 2011). Supporters of this single wave colonisation of
A Multidisciplinary Account of the Orang Asli in Peninsular Malaysia
were hard to evaluate and not fully supported by established evidence (Donohue and
Denham 2011) The key point of difference is the ultimate source of protoAustronesian genes and/or languages; i.e. Taiwan or ISEA as the original ancestral
source of their roughly 387 million descendants today (Norhalifah et al. 2016a;
Donohue and Denham 2011). In the “Out of Taiwan” model, Malaysia holds just
one of the descendant Austronesian populations, first received well within the last
3000–4000 YBP. The Southern (Zhejiang, Fujian or Guangdong province) or eastern coast of China (Shandong province) are the most probable potential homelands
of Pre-Austronesian speakers before this language differentiated into the Formosan
and Malayo-Polynesian sub-groups in Taiwan and ISEA, respectively (Andaya
2002; Bellwood 1997). The former is exclusively spoken by the aboriginals of
Taiwan, while the latter is by the descendants of Austronesian populations in
Polynesia and ISEA, including Malaysia (Blundell 2011). This view of the pattern
of Austronesian language spread has been supported by dating languages across the
Pacific and Indian Oceans (Gray et al. 2011). However, the inferences of migration
events that took place several millennia ago solely based on a single evidence (linguistic study in this case) seem vulnerable. Any chronology of human settlement
should be integrated with those appearing from multidisciplinary studies – e.g. see
Donohue and Denham (2011) for different ideas about the origins of language and
genes in ISEA. In this context, the classification of Orang Asli based on their current
language affinities (Austroasiatic or Austronesian) only ignores their other features
(genetics and physical characteristics) that are unique only to either Semang, Senoi
or Proto-Malays.
The Genetic Trail in Malaysia
The preceding sections provide an account of the ancestral original origins of the
three major Orang Asli groups. This raises expectations about their genetic affinities
with one another and with other populations. In this sub-chapter, the literature is
surveyed to present an analysis of these expectations. For the first time, we integrated our own data from autosomal loci of medical significance (transfusion and
transplant genes) into the wider account. The emergent picture suggests that haplotype distributions from sex-limited markers are equivocal in their ability to resolve
the “Out of Taiwan vs. Out of ISEA” debate (Chambers and Edinur 2015) In particular, we point to the difficulties that may arise if one puts too much faith in
molecular clock estimates of divergence dates, which are often in conflict with
archaeological chronology and linguistic relationships.
Our understanding of population history in ISEA, including Peninsular Malaysia,
is informed by the composite picture revealed by earlier and widespread analyses of
mtDNA and Y-chromosome markers, which leads to the introduction of several
models of population expansion to the Asia-Pacific region. These sex-limited data
suggest Pleistocene colonisation of ISEA by Anatomically Modern Humans, who
later spread north and south, including to Taiwan and remote Oceania (Soares et al.
2016; Donohue and Denham 2011). Supporters of this single wave colonisation of
A Multidisciplinary Account of the Orang Asli in Peninsular Malaysia