DNA reveals Lapita ancestors of Pacific Islanders came from Asia

The earliest seafaring ancestors of people living in South Pacific islands such as Vanuatu and Tonga arrived from Asia, an analysis of ancient DNA from four skeletons reveals.

Key points

• Earliest people to arrive in Vanuatu and Tonga are associated with the Lapita culture
• Analysis of ancient DNA of skeletons from Vanuatu and Tonga shows these people were Asian
• All South Pacific Islanders are a mix of this group from Asia and a second wave from New Guinea-Solomon Islands.

A wealth of archaeological evidence, including intricate pottery, indicates people associated with the Lapita culture were the first to colonise the remote islands in the Pacific in the last major dispersal of people to unpopulated lands 3,000 years ago.

But until this analysis we did not know who these people were, the study's co-author Professor Matthew Spriggs of the Australian National University said.

"Now that we've got the DNA of the ancient Lapita people, the big shock is that they are really like [Aboriginal] people from Taiwan," Professor Spriggs said.

Today, all south Pacific Islanders have a heritage that includes DNA from both a Papuan and an East Asian population to varying degrees.

The relationship between the Lapita people and Papuan people, which dominated the region for 50,000 years, has been long debated.

Linguistically and culturally the Lapita were similar to Asian groups.

But many archaeologists thought the Lapita mixed with the Papuan population as they travelled down through New Guinea and the Solomon Islands before setting out towards the remote islands 3,000 years ago.

Analysis of skeletons shows first Lapita did not mix

DNA was extracted from this 3,000 year old skull and mandible from Vanuatu

Supplied: Frederique Valentin

To uncover the origins of the Lapita people, Professor Spriggs and his colleague Dr Stuart Bedford worked closely with the Vanuatu Cultural Centre to excavate and extract DNA from skeletons from the Teouma burial ground in Vanuatu.

"This is in fact the fourth attempt to extract ancient DNA over the last decade," Professor Spriggs said.

Finally, a genetic analysis by a team led by Dr David Reich at Harvard University revealed three skeletons aged between 3,100 years and 2,700 years contained no traces of Papuan DNA.

A fourth Lapita skeleton aged between 2,700 and 2,300 years that was excavated in Tonga by a second team, led by Dr Geoffrey Clark of the Australian National University, and analysed at a different lab in Germany, also contained no Papuan DNA.

An additional analysis of DNA volunteered by 778 present day people from East Asia and Oceania shows all four skeletons contain unique DNA that no longer exists, but is similar to that found in Aboriginal groups from Taiwan and some northern Philippine populations.

"The first people who got to Vanuatu were not these people who'd been in the region for 50,000 years ... they were these Asian populations," Professor Spriggs said.

The analysis also showed that the Asian genes in today's Pacific people came from these first remote Oceanians.

"What we've been able to say is that Asian inheritance comes from Lapita," Professor Spriggs said.

He said the finding, reported in the journal Nature, challenged the use of labels such as Melanesian and Polynesian to describe peoples from different parts of the Pacific.

"I'd like to call them Pasifika people because I think these old categories we inherited from the 19th century don't make much sense biologically or culturally," he said.

"The variation is simply the percentage of the genetic inheritance from the first people who got out to these islands 3,000 years ago."

Second wave of Papuan men mixed with Lapita

A loop motif displayed on a shard of Lapita pottery recovered from Nukuleka in Tonga

Supplied: David Burley

Not only did the genetic data show the Asian ancestry in today's South Pacific Islanders comes from the Lapita, but that it was more likely to come from women than men.

This indicated the first wave of Lapita seafarers was soon followed by a second wave of Papuan people — mainly men.

"The men tend to be moving down from the New Guinea-Solomons area and they're marrying the Asian women, and that's the mixture that's occurring," Professor Spriggs said.

Just when the two lineages came across each other on the islands spread across the Pacific is unclear.

"We think for Vanuatu it is in late Lapita times 2,800 to 2,700 years ago when populations were small," Professor Spriggs said.

But he said it may have happened much later for places such as Fiji and Polynesia.

"For Fiji we just don't know. But for Polynesia we have an absolute date by which it must have occurred which is 1,000 years ago."

At that time, the population started moving out from Tonga and Samoa to the eastern Pacific Islands of Hawaii and Tahiti, then 700 years ago travelled south to become the Maori population in New Zealand.

"When they leave 1,000 years ago that mixture has already happened."

But more work with ancient DNA from skeletons of different ages would be needed to clarify exactly when the mixes happened in various locations, Professor Spriggs said.

A 3,000 year old burial site in Vanuatu with bones arranged in a triangular pattern.

Supplied: Frederique Valentin

Clues and questions about Pacific ancestry

Commenting on the study, director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA Professor Alan Cooper said the paper provided a lot more information about the Pacific and Polynesian origins "that was just conjecture before".

"It clarifies this whole issue of how you get two groups of people together to form another one that does the most amazing voyages," Professor Cooper said.

He said the study also raised questions about when the Papuan mix happened in Tonga and subsequently in Polynesia, whose people today have 26 per cent Papuan DNA.

"The Tongan individual carried little or no Papuan ancestry providing confirmation the ancestral population of Polynesians was not yet fully formed or widespread by the end of the Lapita," he said.

"So how long before [the Papuans] catch up? That's a long way out in the Pacific.

"You figure that the genetic mix that generated the Polynesians happened before they went out voyaging to the islands."

He said it also raised questions about the identity of the ancient Papuan people, who had a mix of Australian Aboriginal and Papuan DNA.

"I'm intrigued by who that Australian-Papuan group was — where do they come from?

"I'm going to guess off the top of my head Torres Strait Islands or some coastal group, possibly trading with the Lapita group."

Want more science from across the ABC?

• Subscribe to our weekly email newsletter
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

AMUNGME MANUSIA UTAMA

 Manusia Amungme

(Manusia Utama dari Nemangkawi Pegunungan Cartenz)
“Di puncak gunung yang lain nampak puncak salju yang putih,
disebelah utaranya asap api di ladang berkepul naik”
Dalam kehidupan orang Amungme, mereka selalu bertutur kata menggunakan
kiasan, menggubah berbagai jenis lagu dan nyanyian yang ada sebagai
hiburan dikala duka maupun senang.

Kalau mereka berjalan kaki dan
sampai di atas bukit dan dari sana tampak di kejauhan puncak-puncak
gunung yang hijau dengan dilatarbelakangi langit biru yang bersih,
dengan sedikit awas “Cirrus”, sementara di lereng lain terlihat asap api
yang mengepul lurus ke angkasa;
“Apalagi kalau mereka melihat
puncak gunung Nemangkawi yang putih bersih, mereka akan mengeluarkan
siulan khas pegunungan tengan dengan cara melipat lidah dan
menghembuskan nafas. Ketika seorang mengeluarkan bunyi tanda kegembiraan
itu, teman-teman seperjalanannya yang lain langsung menyambut dengan
bunyi-bunyian yang sama.
Di lain waktu, ada yang sejenak berdiri
atau duduk dengan rileks di suatu tempat sambil memandang panorama yang
indah, mereka lantas menyanyikan sebuah lagu Tem, untuk mengenang suatu
tempat di mana ia pernah berburu dan membawa pulang hasil untuk dimasak
oleh ibunya dan disantap bersama. Nyanyian tersebut berbunyi demikian:
“Kele Wawunia kele, ae, oa, haa
Niare Wawnia niare, ae, ao, haa”
Kadang-kadang dinyanyikan pula lagu purba Amungme, yang artinya pun
tidak begitu dipahami oleh orang Amungme generasi sekarang, apalagi kita
yang tidak mengenal dan mengerti falsafa hidup mereka. Lagu tersebut
berbunyi begini:
“Angaye – angaye
No emki untaye
Angaye hao, aa, hao
Angaye – angaye wagana nikavo
Morae hanago, hao, aa, hao
Antok anu ae ango, hao, hao
Jilki untae hawano, hao, hao
Inti dari lagu ini adalah ungkapan orang-orang purba yang mengisahkan
gunung, lembah, hutan dan rimbah mereka hidup dan mengembara.
Kurang lebih arti dari lagu purba Amungme ini adalah:
“Kukasih gunung-gunung
Yang agung mulia
Dan Aman yang melayang
keliling puncaknya”
“Kukasih hutan rimba
Pelindung tanahku
Kusuka mengembara
Di bawah naunganmu”
Oh, betapa hebanya sastrawan purba suku Manusia Utama ini! Ia
mengisahkan keindahan alam mereka yang tetap dipelihara kelestarian itu.
Apakah generasi masa kini yang maju dan modern dan sementara mengolah
gunung serta hutan rimbah akan tetap melestarikan keindahan alam itu
bagi generasi akan datang?
(Arnold Mampioper; AMUNGME Manusia Utama dari Nemangkawi Pegunungan Cartenz, 2000)
Mari kitorang merenung, dan maratap, dan MELAWAN; nasib tanah dan
negeri Papua yang semakin tercabik-cabik oleh keegoisan diri sendiri,
yang dengan mudah menjual harga diri dan menggadaikan hak kesulungan
bangsa kita, dengan sebungkus “mie selera pedas”, demi sebuah kursi dan
nama baik.
by. AR, Depok, 2 Oktober 2014.

Comments

DANI DAMAL

Elasto Fraser Kungkia positif , bersama Fery Elas dan 20 lainnya di KPM_PP SULUT.
"AKSI +REAKSI=SOLUSI"
Setiap Suku Bangsa tentu mempunyai Budaya,adat istiadat,dan pasangan dan kebiasaan (Habitat) lainya.
Untuk saling membantu dan melengkapi satu sama lain.
Pada hari ini,kamis 14 april 2016.pukul 18:15 wita.di Markas Komunitas Pelajar dan Mahasiswa Puncak Papua (KPM-PP) SULUT.sambil menunggu kopi.kita duduk dan bercerita tentang makna kebersamaan dalam kehidupan"SUKU".
Kabupaten Puncak Ilaga-Prov Papua.ada dua suku besar yang tidak pernah pisahkan.mereka di anggap sebagai kaka beradik.saling membantu dan melengkapi sebagai makhluk sosial.mereka adalah "DANI DAMAL.
kebisaan ini pun sudah melekat pada generasi yang ada.
Kelebihan "DANI DAMAL" ketika Suku Damal kenah musiba atau masalah yang mempertarukan nyawa atau menjadi korban persembahan adalah suku DANI dan juga sebaliknya.
DANI DAMAL adalah dua suku besar yang berasal dari kabupaten Puncak Papua.
Mungkin di setiap daerah pasti ada dua atau lebih yang hidup bersama.namun pasti ada kata penghubungnya,untuk menghubungkan antara suku satu dengan yang lain.tapi di Kabupaten Puncak tidak seperti itu.
Kita bisa baku marah hari ini,tapi tidak dendam,kita baku pukul tapi tidak dendam,kita baku bunuh tapi tidak dendam.itulah kelebihan kita"DANI DAMAL".‪#‎Togother‬ as one#

KPM_PP SULUT
5 bintang
Bisnis Lokal

Vanuatu’s PM breaks silence over West Papua and MSG move on Jakarta

11:44 July 7, 2015 0 comments

A solidarity rally in Port Vila in support of West Papuan self-determination. Image: Ben Bohane/Waka

Pacific Scoop:
Report – By Jonas Cullwick in Port Vila
Vanuatu’s Prime Minister, Sato Kilman, has spoken for the first time since being voted back into office three weeks ago and the vote by the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) Leaders Summit on the West Papuan application for membership at their meeting in Honiara, Solomon Islands, nearly two weeks ago.
Kilman broke his silence on the subject while addressing church leaders at the National Bible Week Prayer Breakfast for Leaders on Saturday morning at the Palms Resort in Port Vila.
He applauded the decision of the meeting in accepting West Papua into MSG as an observer and elevating Indonesia to associate member status.
The prime minister did not attend the MSG Leaders’ Summit in Honiara that made those decisions. Hard-pressed by political developments at home, emanating from the court challenge lodged by the Opposition following the new Speaker of Parliament, Marcelino Pipite’s decision to throw out the motion of no confidence in the Prime Minster that came in one week after his election and then closing the Parliament session.
Kilman sent an envoy instead to convey his message to the leaders’ summit.
Since then, the Vanuatu prime minister has not spoken in public to explain his government’s position on the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) application for full MSG membership for West Papua. Even though, the majority of the people of country, including the churches, were fully behind full MSG membership for West Papua.
He did not even make time to meet a representative of ULMWP when he came to Port Vila a week before the Honiara meeting to present the Vanuatu Prime Minister with the signatures of 150,000 people of West Papua seeking his support for the application by ULMWP.
Ironic choice
It was also ironic that the Vanuatu prime minister should choose to make his first public comment on West Papua’s membership issue to a church function. He has been fully aware that many church leaders as well as members have been the main backbone of the Vanuatu people’s support for West Papua independence movement.
The VCC, with the backing of the Pacific Council of Churches and sponsorship from the previous government of Joe Natuman, were behind the meeting of indigenous leaders of West Papua in early December 2014 during which the ULMWP was formed.
After its formation, the ULMWP drafted and lodged a new application for West Papua membership of MSG after the first application to the 2013 Summit in New Caledonia got knocked back with the reason that it was unrepresentative of all the independence groups in West Papua.
In expressing his agreement for the decisions of the MSG Honiara Leaders’ Summit, Kilman cautioned that Indonesia’s sovereignty must be respected when dealing with matters to do with West Papua.
“Our freedom as independent nations and people must also mean we accommodate Indonesia.
“MSG has a responsibility and it must ensure there is peace among its members,” he cautioned in his reference to the freedom enjoyed by Vanuatu and her people, the subject of the theme for this year’s Bible Week was “The Unchanging Word of God on Freedom”.
The Prime Minister began his message saying: “Today July 4, 239 years ago in 1776, the United States of America signed the Declaration of Independence – the Declaration of Freedom that in part states: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’”
Freedom struggle
“Thank God that today we also are enjoying this same freedom under our Constitution that states: ‘We the people of Vanuatu, proud of our struggle for freedom, determined to safeguard the achievements of this struggle, cherishing our ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity, mindful at the same time of our common destiny, hereby proclaim the establishment of the united and free Republic of Vanuatu founded on traditional Melanesian values, faith in God, and Christian principles.”
He pointed to this year’s theme of the National Bible Week based on freedom and said it can be summed up by the verse in the Bible John 8:32: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”
Lamenting daily challenges to his government, the Prime Minister voiced his concern that in his job today in the government he faced challenges every day “that emphasised the two words – truth and freedom. He accepted that constant changing of allegiances by MPs in Parliament is having a disastrous impact on the country.
“I was elected three weeks ago based on each MPs freedom to believe that I will be the best person to rule the country. But I humbly caution that this Parliamentary freedom resulting in the constant movement by MPs is an abuse of the freedom that is having a negative effect on development,” he added.
Jonas Cullwick, a former general manager of the Vanuatu Broadcasting and Television Corporation (VBTC) is now a senior journalist with the Daily Post.
Source: Vanuatu Daily Post/Pacific Media Watch 9337

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE EVENTS OF 9 MAY 1996 IN WESTERN PAPUA, ENTRUSTED BY THE ICRC TO AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT

1. MANDATE

Following the broadcast of Blood on the Cross, by Mark Davis, on
Australia's ABC network and the Swiss French-language network TSR, the
International Committee of the Red Cross announced publicly that it would
appoint an individual outside the organization to draw up a report as to
the veracity of the allegations made in the documentary and any
responsibility on the part of the delegates involved in its activities in
Western Papua. The ICRC appointed Mr Piotr Obuchowicz, who is very
familiar with the organization and the way it works.

Mark Davis largely based his documentary on the findings of the report
drawn up by Irian Jaya's Institute for Policy and Human Rights Advocacy
("ELSHAM") and published in August 1999. The report asked the ICRC to look
into the events that occurred in Western Papua in May 1996.

Mr Obuchowicz began his investigation on 25 October 1999. It required
travel to a number of places (including Jakarta and Western Papua itself)
and led him to meet directly and on the spot the various individuals
concerned and to analyse the allegations made against the ICRC.

Mr Obuchowicz spoke with many people ? including ICRC delegates ? who were
present in Indonesia in 1996, former hostages of Kelly Kwalik, armed forces
personnel, staff of the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Indonesian
human rights activists, ELSHAM representatives in Jayapura, representatives
of the Papuan Amungme et N'duga tribes, and both British and Netherlands
diplomats. The vast majority of the individuals approached co-operated with
the investigation. However, the Indonesian, British and Netherlands
authorities declined to take an official position on the matter. Nor was it
possible to meet Kelly Kwalik, General Prabowo Subianto, who had been
responsible for security operations in Western Papua at the time, or Mr
Ivor Helberg, the British military attaché who was present in Western Papua
during the hostage crisis.

2. IS THERE ANY TRUTH TO THE ALLEGATIONS ?

The investigation made it possible to look into the facts of the case and
to assess the accounts gathered regarding the accusations levelled in the
ELSHAM report and the Davis documentary.

a) Did ICRC delegate Sylviane Bonadei take part in the military operation
of 9 May 1996 ?

A detailed investigation into Ms Bonadei's whereabouts on 9 May shows it to
be impossible that she could have been in Kenyam when the military
operation began. Moreover, the majority of witnesses and others involved in
the affair (including the makers of the documentary) who were questioned
stated that they had never believed that she had been present during the
operation. On the other hand, no one seemed to have difficulty in believing
that there had been a ruse, with a European posing as Ms Bonadei, to create
the illusion that an ICRC operation was underway.

b) Was the white helicopter the one previously used by the ICRC, or
another?

The investigation revealed that when the military operation took place, at
least three white helicopters were operational in the region (one with
yellow markings, one with green and one with blue). It was not possible to
establish whether one of these had been used, especially as it is a simple
matter to quickly paint a military helicopter white. What is certain,
however, is that a white helicopter was employed for the military
operation.

c) Did the helicopter used for the military operation bear the Red Cross
emblem?

Accounts differ as to whether the emblem was used. What is certain,
however, is that a white helicopter appeared in Ngesselema on the afternoon
in question and that it could have been perceived by the local population
only as an ICRC helicopter, whether displaying the red cross emblem or not.
Deceiving the local population in this manner could have had only one
effect in military terms: total surprise.

d) Who were the armed Westerners on board the white helicopter?

Only a serious and transparent investigation by the relevant government
authorities would enable a reliable reply to be made to this question.
There are three possibilities: members of the British special forces (who
some accounts indicate were present in the area); mercenaries from
Executive Outcomes or Sandline; or Indonesian personnel of European
extraction. It is nevertheless certain that Western advisers, including Mr
Ivor Helberg, helped the Indonesian armed forces prepare the operation.

e) Why did the ICRC announce that it was terminating its involvement? Was
this fact conveyed to the hostage-takers?

The role played by the ICRC during the hostage crisis was in complete
accordance with the organization's policy in such situations. There were
two major aspects to that role:

1. material and moral support;
2. serving as a neutral intermediary.

The ICRC fulfilled both aspects of its role as long as it could, abandoning
the second on the morning of 9 May, though it indicated that it was
prepared to continue providing material and moral support. Thus, the ICRC
never took the decision to withdraw completely. However, owing to
insufficient communication within the ICRC team, but above all as a result
of security concerns (i.e. the hostage-takers' pronounced aggressiveness
towards the ICRC on the morning of 9 May), it was not possible for the
organization to explain to the hostage-takers in sufficient detail that it
was withdrawing certain services but not others. It should be noted that
the accounts of the hostages themselves and those of the delegates present
in Ngesselema on 9 May agree that the hostage-takers were by then expecting
imminent action by the Indonesian armed forces.

f) How did the ICRC respond to the allegations and how did it handle public
information in their wake?

From the moment the first accusations were voiced following the military
intervention, the ICRC kept a low profile and declined to respond to the
accusations (issuing neither confirmation nor denial). This was done in
order not to jeopardize the organization's other activities in the area.
Apart from a report on the events drawn up by the head of delegation and
received in Geneva two months after they had occurred, no detailed analysis
or thorough investigation was carried out. The approach taken by the ICRC's
Department of Operations is also open to question as it was limited to
asking the head of delegation to make informal inquiries of the Indonesian
authorities as to whether the allegations had any basis in reality. No
reply was received to those inquiries and no additional steps were
considered. Finally, the ICRC failed to defend staff members who were
publicly accused of collusion with the Indonesian armed forces.
Unfortunately, it was only after the publication of the ELSHAM report and
the broadcast of Mark Davis's documentary that the ICRC approached the
Indonesian authorities formally and in writing. No reply has thus far been
received.

3. CONCLUSIONS

a) The information gathered in the course of Mr Obuchowicz's investigation
enabled the ICRC to state categorically that Sylviane Bonadei did not take
part in the military operation carried out in Ngesselema on 9 May 1996 to
liberate the hostages held by the Free Papua Movement. For three years the
ICRC failed to unequivocally deny Ms Bonadei's involvement. The
organization owes it to her to take a clear position on the matter.

b) The ICRC withdrew from its role as a neutral intermediary in accordance
with its established policy in such matters. Although the dangerous
circumstances in which it was taken are sufficient to explain this abrupt
decision, the head of delegation's handling of the situation failed to
ensure adequate internal communication and lacked consistency with regard
to its consequences.

c) There can be no doubt that the military forces that took action on 9 May
1996 in Ngesselema made perfidious use of the ICRC's role in the affair
(i.e. the white helicopter). They may also have misused the emblem, though
this has not been definitely proved.

d) The ICRC was tardy in approaching the Indonesian authorities and made no
attempt to approach the Papuan representatives with a view to verifying the
allegations. Steps must be taken to restore dialogue with the Papuans.

e) The ICRC was not sufficiently assiduous in following up the affair, in
dealing with its staff and, in particular, in handling its relationship
with the media.

**************************************************

REFERENCE : Paul Barber

TAPOL, the Indonesia Human Rights Campaign,

25 Plovers Way, Alton Hampshire GU34 2JJ

Tel/Fax: 1420 80153

Email: plovers@gn.apc.org

Internet: www.gn.apc.org/tapol

Defending victims of oppression in Indonesia,

East Timor, West Papua and Aceh, 1973-1999

**************************************************