Lum J Koji, Jorde Lynn B, Schiefenhovel Wulf
Department of International Affairs and Tropical Medicine, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Japan.
Hum Biol. 2002 Jun;74(3):413-30. doi: 10.1353/hub.2002.0031.
The human colonization of Remote Oceania, the vast Pacific region including Micronesia, Polynesia, and Melanesia beyond the northern Solomon Islands, ranks as one of the greatest achievements of prehistory. Many aspects of human diversity have been examined in an effort to reconstruct this late Holocene expansion. Archaeolinguistic analyses describe a rapid expansion of Austronesian-speaking "Lapita people" from Taiwan out into the Pacific. Analyses of biological markers, however, indicate genetic contributions from Pleistocene-settled Near Oceania into Micronesia and Polynesia, and genetic continuity across Melanesia. Thus, conflicts between archaeolinguistic and biological patterns suggest either linguistic diffusion or gene flow across linguistic barriers throughout Melanesia. To evaluate these hypotheses and the general utility of linguistic patterns for conceptualizing Pacific prehistory, we analyzed 14 neutral, biparental genetic (short tandem repeat) loci from 965 individuals representing 27 island Southeast Asian, Melanesian, Micronesian, and Polynesian populations. Population bottlenecks during the colonization of Remote Oceania are indicated by a statistically significant regression of loss of heterozygosity on migration distance from island Southeast Asia (r = 0.78, p < 0.001). Genetic and geographic distances were consistently correlated (r > 0.35, p < 0.006), indicating extensive gene flow primarily focused among neighboring populations. Significant correlations between linguistic and geographic patterns and between genetic and linguistic patterns depended upon the inclusion of Papuan speakers in the analyses. These results are consistent with an expansion of Austronesian-speaking populations out of island Southeast Asia and into Remote Oceania, followed by substantial gene flow from Near Oceanic populations. Although linguistic and genetic distinctions correspond at times, particularly between Western and Central-Eastern Micronesia, gene flow has reduced the utility of linguistic data within Melanesia. Overall, geographic proximity is a better predictor of biparental genetic relationships than linguistic affinities.
人类对偏远大洋洲的殖民，即包括密克罗尼西亚、波利尼西亚以及所罗门群岛以北的美拉尼西亚在内的广阔太平洋地区，堪称史前时期最伟大的成就之一。为了重建这一全新世晚期的扩张过程，人们对人类多样性的诸多方面进行了研究。考古语言学分析描述了说南岛语的“拉皮塔人”从台湾迅速扩张至太平洋地区的过程。然而，对生物标记的分析表明，更新世时期就已定居在近大洋洲的人群对密克罗尼西亚和波利尼西亚有基因贡献，且美拉尼西亚各地存在基因连续性。因此，考古语言学和生物学模式之间的冲突表明，在整个美拉尼西亚地区存在语言扩散或跨越语言障碍的基因流动。为了评估这些假设以及语言模式在构建太平洋史前史概念方面的总体效用，我们分析了来自代表27个东南亚岛屿、美拉尼西亚、密克罗尼西亚和波利尼西亚人群的965个人的14个中性双亲遗传（短串联重复）位点。偏远大洋洲殖民过程中的种群瓶颈表现为杂合性丧失与距东南亚岛屿迁移距离之间具有统计学意义的回归关系（r = 0.78，p < 0.001）。遗传距离和地理距离始终呈正相关（r > 0.35，p < 0.006），表明广泛的基因流动主要集中在相邻种群之间。语言模式与地理模式之间以及遗传模式与语言模式之间的显著相关性取决于分析中是否纳入了说巴布亚语的人群。这些结果与说南岛语的人群从东南亚岛屿扩张至偏远大洋洲，随后近大洋洲人群大量基因流入的情况相符。尽管语言和遗传差异有时会对应，特别是在西密克罗尼西亚和中东部密克罗尼西亚之间，但基因流动降低了美拉尼西亚地区语言数据的效用。总体而言，地理 proximity 比语言亲缘关系更能预测双亲遗传关系。 （注：原文中“proximity”未翻译完整，推测可能是“接近度”之类的意思，这里保留原文以便你确认。）
