I came upon this image, which depicts the many ethnic groups as well as their genetic connections. Do you believe that Philippine Others make up the majority of the population of the Philippines? It also demonstrates their genetic ties to East and Southeast Asians.
Some Philippine ethnic groups are overrepresented. 15 ethnic groups are majority of the Philippine population but the sampling process gives them equal weight to minority ethnic groups.
I came upon this image, which depicts the many ethnic groups as well as their genetic connections. Do you believe that Philippine Others make up the majority of the population of the Philippines? It also demonstrates their genetic ties to East and Southeast Asians.
I think Selurong answered it best. But this "Philippine Others" genetic component (in graph B) is a very general component encompassing several distinct genetic components. The authors of the study were obviously trying point out the distinction of the Cordilleran genetic component from that of the other major genetic components of Asia. Most Filipinos today are of Cordilleran (Austronesian) stock, or to be more accurate Cordilleran ancestry makes up the majority of most Filipino ancestry today (by most Filipinos I mean probably 98-99% of Filipinos).
This study is a great study. I wish they elaborated more on the Mangyans which they do briefly point out as having a genetic component (colored purple) of their own as represented at the K7 admixture analysis. I have a feeling the researchers are saving the Mangyans and perhaps other Filipino groups for a later study.
Going back to the Philippine Others genetic component. As mentioned it is a general component encompassing several distinct genetic components such as the Mangyans, Manobos, and Sama (Austro-Asiatic), but also perhaps other genetic components that have yet to be elucidated. What's really interesting as you mention is that this Philippine Others component connects the Cordilleran component with that East Asian and Southeast Asian component. At first it may seem strange that the Cordilleran component is furthest away from the East Asian and Southeast Asian component, and moreover that it arrived later to Southeast Asia than the components that actually make up the Philippine Other component (which I mentioned earlier were Mangyan, Manobo, Austro-Asiatic/Sama, and etc.), but it all begins to make sense when you look at the geography of the Far East. The Cordillerans (Austronesians) are thought to have originated in present day Southeast China and along the coast of China. One would think that the Cordillerans would be the first to migrate into Southeast Asia (especially Island Southeast Asia) given how close Southeast China is to both Mainland and Island Southeast Asia. Ironically it's these more inland Asian groups such as the Manobo, the Austro-Asiatics (Sama), and possibly the Mangyans that would first arrive into Mainland and Island Southeast Asia, and that's because they took a land route, and this land route had much more land (where the islands of Island Southeast Asia were more connected and many were even connected to Mainland Southeast Asia due to the lower oceanic levels back then) as we go back further in time towards the Last Glacial Maximum. Humans (at least on a grand migratory scale) could not migrate to Island Southeast Asia from Mainland Southeast China by boat, because the boating, sailing, and navigating technology and science wasn't advanced enough back then. Therefore, it favored groups that traveled by land especially along rivers or along the coasts. The Cordillerans (Austronesians) of Mainland Southeast China were probably also too content or complacent to migrate into Mainland and definitely into Island Southeast Asia, whereas the more inland Asian groups (Mangyans, Manobos, Austro-Asiatics / Sama, and etc.) were attracted to the resources available in the rivers and coasts of Mainland and Island Southeast Asia, and of course all they had to do was simply migrate down a river or a coastline. These more inland Asian groups (Mangyan, Manobo, Austo-Asiatics / Sama) being more inland were therefore genetically more related to other East Asians and Southeast Asians. From my understanding, most East Asians and many Southeast Asians are connected to inland China, in particular, to Tibet or nearby. Cordillerans (Austronesian) being cornered to Southeast China and along the coasts perhaps developed separately from the others for a very long time.
The Mangyans (and north Philippine Negritos aka Aetas, Agtas, Ati, and etc.) likely checked the northern progress of the Manobos in the Philippines prior to the arrival of the Cordillerans (Austronesians). The opposite is also true. The Manobos (along with the south Philippine Negritos aka Mamanwa) checked the southern progress of the Mangyans in the Philippines. The Mangyans having entered the Philippines from northern Borneo through Palawan, and the Manobos having entered the Philippines from northern Borneo through the Sulu Archipelago. Oddly enough, the same thing occurred earlier with the northern Negritos and southern Negritos respectively, and each checking each other's southward or northward progress respectively in the Philippines. At least that's my theory. All these groups would check the final macro-linguistic group in its attempt to enter the Philippines from northern Borneo (either via Palawan or the Sulu Archipelago), and that final group was the Austro-Asiatic speakers such as the Sama. But when the Cordillerans (Austronesians) arrived in the Philippines, they arrived at the northern part of the Philippines specifically Luzon. The Mangyans (and north Philippine Negritos) may have initially been a barrier to them, but the Cordilleran style of migration was different as they were seafaring, focused on settling the coasts, and were generally more advanced at that later point in history. The Cordillerans were not competing for the exact same resources with the Mangyans and Manobos (as well as the northern and southern Philippine Negritos), therefore the Cordillerans could survive and thrive with them. Furthermore, at that later point in history, the Cordillerans were probably more advanced, whereas the Mangyan and Manobo civilizations had not progressed as fast and perhaps their populations were not growing as fast as the Cordillerans also.
Hopefully the authors of these studies can publish a new one soon. I can't wait to learn anything new about our history.
Hopefully they can also include samples in Romblon Province. As you all know, Romblon is composed of several islands and three distinct language groups: Romblomanon, Asi (Bantoanon), and Onhan.
1) I would like to know if these three languages do in fact represent different groups of people, or was it matter of language shift. Most likely there was some language shift at the very least, but I'm thinking that these languages do represent different groups of people. The Onhan language is a West Bisayan language, so one would assume that the speakers are closely related to other West Bisayan speaker such as Aklanons and Karay-as, but I'm guessing Aklanons due to their geographical closeness. Romblomanon is a Central Bisayan language, but there are many Central Bisayan languages. Are they closest to Masbateños? For the Asi language speakers, please see the next two sections.
2) I would like to see samples on the smaller islands of Romblon such as Banton, Corcuera, and Concepcion. Are the people of these three islands genetically close to one another in the first place even though they all speak Asi (Bantoanon)? If they do form a genetic component of their own, how closely related are they to the Asi speaking people of Tablas Island, in particular the Municipality of Ondiongan which is the Asi speaking community on Tablas Island?
3) Asi (Bantoanon) is a Visayan language, and is one of the 5 main language subdivisions of Visayan languages with the other 4 being Cebuan, Central Bisayan, West Bisayan, and South Bisayan. Who are the Asi speakers most closely related to among the Visayans or any other language speakers? I've read before that the Asi language is more closely related to Cebuan, but how true is that with the speakers genetically speaking?
4) Do the people of Romblon province show any Mangyan or Manobo admixture? Of particular interest are the Asi speakers living in the small islands of Banton, Corcuera, and Concepcion. Often small islands are refuges for older (more ancient) groups (such as the Mangyans and Manobos) who often adopt the languages of an incoming group (i.e. through the process of language shift). But I wouldn't be surprised that the relatively larger islands of Tablas, Romblon, and Sibuyan would show Mangyan or Manobo ancestry also.
5) This is more of a comment than a question, but my guess is that the Visayan Sea and the Sibuyan Sea were the natural borders between the Mangyan and Manobo world. But since Romblon province is wholly within the Sibuyan Sea, then the Romblon islands could have been a meeting place between these two groups. Perhaps there was some mixing between the two, but more likely the northern (and more smaller islands) of Romblon province would show more Mangyan ancestry, and the more southern islands (San Jose aka Carabao Island, Tablas, Romblon, Sibuyan, and etc.) more Manobo ancestry. Of course there were Negrito groups there as well, in particular the Ati and/or Aetas. It's also easier to get to the southern Romblon islands from Panay than from Mindoro, and this likely means that Manobos would have had an easier time migrating to the southern Romblon islands.
